On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:56:08 -0400, Todd Moody
<[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Brad Cooley wrote:
>
>> 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.
>

I would only disagree with the statement that "ritual animal slaughter
descends from...hunting society."  There are rituals associated with
thanking the animal for his life, preparation of the food, and
honoring the
spirits which are generally associated with animals, but it is not
similar
to animal sacrifice in pastoral society.  In pastoral societies, the
humans
control the animals, and in turn the god(s) control the people, so
animal
and/or human sacrifice is reflective of this relationship.

>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.
>

Again, I would question this statement with respect to sacrifice to
higher
beings.  To many HGs, animals were magical creatures.  HG society was
totemistic; each individual had an animal totem that imparted some
significance to him/herself.  If the individual's totem was an eagle,
he
may wear eagle feathers and be prohibited from eating eagle meat.
Sacrifice referred to here may have been offerings to the spirits of
the
dead in a totemistic sense, but I cannot imagine that it is animal
sacrifice to a higher being.

Based on the above references, I will concede that sacrifice may have
been
part of some HG society somewhere, but I am not aware of one, nor can
I
imagine its significance.

>> 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".
>
Hence the native American
>hunter-gatherer conception of the "happy hunting ground," for
>example.
>

Not all native americans had a conception of the "happy hunting
ground" nor
were all native americans hunter-gatherers, but I get your point.

>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.

Not all HG tribes practice polygamy and "free sex".  HG tribes have
varying
degrees of belief in gods, spirits, and the afterlife.  I should not
have
implied that *all* tribes shared these attributes, but egalitarian HG
tribes do in general.

Many HG societies practice(d) polygamy.  It was not unusual for a male
hunter to have as many wives as he could provide for, although the
number
seems to have rarely exceeded three.  I used the term "free sex" to
indicate that many HG societies did not have taboos regarding sex with
female members of the tribe other than a hunter's own wife or wives.
In a
sense, it was a free for all.

I was using the terms "hell", "sin", "God", and the "Devil" in the
christian sense.  Certainly, many HG societies had concepts of gods
and
evil spirits, but I can think of no egalitarian HG society that
believed
that these entities had an effect on one's life to the extent that the
christians do.  In many tribes, HGs were concerned with following
tribal
"law" to avoid banishment; they were not concerned whether their
actions
would dictate that they go to "heaven" or "hell".  There are many
cases
where HG tribes have accepted, to an extent, monotheistic religions
such as
the Iroqois or Navaho, but these tribes were largely sedentary, were
practicing agriculture, and had a society and religion that was
similar to
that of Europeans.

Brad