Why does human sacrifice reappear so often in prehistory? The incas, the Aztecs, the Europeans, various middle eastern cultures, Polynesians... The list goes on. Why did it seem like a logical move to so many peoples? Meanwhile, supposedly 'obvious' concepts like monotheism are more rare. What's the deal?
Most people value their lives and the lives of their loved ones more than anything.
What do you give to the gods except that which is most valuable?
>>896695
I fail to see how monotheism is obvious or "obvious".
>>896695
Equivalent exchange m8
You cannot obtain without an offering
Human life is the most precious
And monotheism is only "obvious" to you because you were born into it
Most people believed in myriad powers in the universe
Where ever you see human sacrifice practiced en mass in an agricultural society, it generally coincides with a spike in population density, a massive failure of crop rotation, and the inevitable salt build up that follows. It's more common in the ancient world, as those are when the first such civilizations rose to prominence that were in no way in possession of enough agricultural know-how, or simply opportunities, to support those suddenly booming numbers. This is especially true of the Aztec and the Incas, which is why they both, first and foremost, sacrificed competing tribes of farmers. Human sacrifice wasn't a misunderstanding about morality, or ethics, or the will of the gods - it was a tragic and extreme solution brought about by tragic and extreme circumstance. In some ways, it was more respectful and kinder to make it a form of worship, rather than simply coldly and calculatingly culling the required number of people.
It is akin to looking at settlers, stranded and starving in the wilderness, and saying "How could you be so stupid? Don't you know cannibalism is wrong!?", while living in your calm and comfy modern metropolis that literally throws food away to maintain its profitability.
As for monotheism, I don't see anything obvious about it. Indeed, if you're going to believe in a divinely made universe, even a passive glance at the state of the world suggests a place that was built by committees of conflicting interests (which, from a non-religious perspective, in some ways, it was). That's before you get into all the contradiction the brand of monotheism you are likely referring to entails, that defies all logical analysis, as opposed to some of the more nuanced pantheistic brands. Future generations may look back upon monotheism as some sort of painfully primitive mistake, and be unable to imagine how anyone could have bought into it, save out of laziness. The only real thing that monotheism has going for it over polytheism, is convenience.
Funniest thing about OP image is that it's the m1911 model from Fallout New Vegas
>>896695
>Why does human sacrifice reappear so often in prehistory?
It actually doesn't, but it's advertised as if it is because human sacrifice is more sensational than worshipping a tree or whatever people did. Some archaeologists find a mass grave anywhere and it's immediately reported as evidence of human sacrifice, when it could just as easily be a pit of victims or famine or disease or some shit.
Also I don't see how monotheism and human sacrifice are necessarily mutually exclusive.
>>896695
>the Europeans
If I remember correct Celtic religions had a belief in reincarnation making human sacrifices acceptable
>>896845
Execution of heretics or heathens in Abrahamic faiths is essentially human sacrifice.
>>896865
Human sacrifice, in the way OP wants to talk about it, is basically understood through an Orientalist manner, wherein non-European and 'pre-Civilization' societies have whatever practice and the hypocrisy of Western societies is betrayed by the condemnation of such practice combined with the consumption of that practice's aesthetics. For example, with the Aztecs - their practice of human sacrifice was used as an excuse to destroy their cities and annihilate their entire civilization, and this sensational idea of the practice of human sacrifices was 'enjoyed' by Europeans who saw it as a sure sign of the Aztec's Otherness, and because it was other, it's ok to find it exotic and exciting even as you say how bad it is. Like, even now when we think of the Aztecs the idea of holding someone's heart up to the sun and blood trailing down the pyramid is part of the iconography. If you think I'm defending human sacrifice you're missing the point.
