On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Brad Cooley wrote:

> Actually, hunter/gatherers do not have a priesthood other than a single
> shaman (maybe two).

If they, or anyone else, were involved in sacrifices then it was
a priesthood.

> Furthermore, animal sacrifice did not exist until the
> advent of animal husbandry.

This conflicts with what I have read on the subject.  Although
the practice was by no means universal, I believe there is
evidence that hunting societies did it.  See, for example,
http://www.southwestern.edu/academic/classical.languages/myth/oreshtml.html

        1. Ritual animal slaughter descends from time when
        society was largely a hunting society. Hunters would
        prepare themselves, separate from the larger society,
        kill animals, often collect bones or skulls as offerings,
        and then return to society with food.

Or the following, from Britannica:

     Sacrifices (i.e., the presentation of offerings to higher
     beings or to the dead) appear as early as the Middle
     Paleolithic Period. Pits with some animal bones have been
     found in the vicinity of burial sites; thus, it is a likely
     possibility that they represent offerings to the dead.

> Pastoral cultures sacrificed animals to a god
> or gods as a form of bribery/bartering for favors.

There's no question about that, but I think there is pretty good
evidence that the practice antedates even pastoralism.  And it
makes sense that it would.

> Agricultural societies
> had bread and cereal offerings.  Sacrifice was not a significant part of
> any society until animal husbandry and agriculture permitted more
> "civilized" societies to arise.

It's difficult to know how significant a part of society the
animal sacrifices were, but I think we can say with some
confidence that they were *some* part of paleolithic society.

> As ardeith says, modern religions are a result of "totalitarian
> agriculture".  Their mantra is "everyone must follow our way of life",
> "convert the heathen HGs to christianity [or whatever] and make them grow
> food and herd animals".

To a large extent, every aspect of modern life is a result of
agriculture, or is at least heavily influenced by it.  There is
no reason to single out religion.  Religions incorporate the
elements of the society in which they function.  In a hunting
society the religion will have reference to hunting, since this
is a matter of primary importance.  Hence the native American
hunter-gatherer conception of the "happy hunting ground," for
example.

The other part of the claim above is just silly.  While it is
certainly true that Christianity acquired the totalitarian
aspects that you have described, much of this is the result of
its becoming enmeshed in *political* structures as a state
religion.  You don't see that sort of thing in the history of
Judaism or Buddhism, for example.

> The religion then reinforces to the "have-nots"
> that they should do what the "haves" want.  "Don't commit adultery"
> although polygamy and "free sex" is a typical HG practice, "do not steal"
> although possessions are essentially meaningless in HG society, "do what We
> want because you will burn in hell if you don't" although HGs never had any
> concept of hell, sin, God, or the Devil before.

I don't even know where to begin.  First, where do you get the
idea that polygamy and free sex are typical HG practices, or that
HGs had "no concept" of hell, sin, God, or the devil before?
After all, we do find such concepts, with the possible exception
of hell, in the religions of hunter-gatherer societies that have
survived.  Gods, demons (devils), angels, taboos and
transgressions (sin) -- they can all be found.  There's nothing
to suggest that agriculturalists invented these things, though
they certainly appropriated them.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]