[snowybeagle]

Okay, to clarify, there's 3 aspects about the subject of human sacrifice in Chinese history I am interested.

My interest in the subject at this moment does not include voluntary/involuntary burial companions such as that exemplified by the funeral of Lord Mu of Qin.

As at the moment, I am also not asking about human sacrifices made prior to warfare. (In the novel Romance of the Three Kingdom, Zhou Yü used the heads of two spies, sent by Cao Cao to feign defection to the Wu camp, as sacrificial items in a pre-battle ritual.).

The first aspect was the religious significance of human sacrifice for the harvest or for the new year.

Some other cultures believed that the earth (soil) must be "fertilised" by human sacrifice (the blood or something), something to the idea of making payment in advance for the crop which the earth would provide.

Other cultures thought the sacrifice was made to some deities of agriculture rather than to the earth.

I wanted to first confirm if human sacrifice in ancient China (especially of the Xia/Shang/Zhou if any) were related to similar notions or some other notions related to agriculture.


The next aspect is the kidnapping of Qiang (or other people) for the purpose of the sacrifice, which I believe took place during the Shang Dynasty. If it did happen, I wonder how later generations of Chinese would see it - as something barbaric? But then again, the Shang was supposedly founded by a virtuous king named Tang, even if the dynasty later lost its mandate.

That would probably mean such practice (of human sacrifice and kidnapping outsiders as victims) would have been around even during the reign of the "virtuous" Tang.



The third aspect is when did human sacrifice (and hence the kidnapping of victims) stop. wang yun mentioned that the Rites of Zhou (周礼) did not make any mention of human sacrifice, and concluded that the practice ceased after the overthrowing of Shang by the Zhou.
Is there any other collaborative support?

This post has been edited by snowybeagle: 26 March 2006 - 09:18 PM

[snowybeagle]

wang yun, on Mar 27 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

Why can't "population raiding" be conducted/ condoned by virtuous and civilised leaders? I would say the Europeans who enslaved the African populations were fairly civilised and humane in most other respects. Discrimination by race/ class/ caste/ sex only became considered barbaric in last century or so.

The issue here is not the relativism of whether population raiding was considered acceptable conduct by civilized society then during the pre-Zhou era, but the fact that scholars of later dynasties never quite seemed to address the issues when "extolling the virtues of the ancient sages".

If I had been a student during the Han dynasty or later, how do you think my teacher would respond to me if I asked that "our culture/civilization" had barbaric origins/practices instead of the idealised picture traditionally espoused?

The irony of course during those later dynasties, enslaving other human beings were considered acceptable but probably not kidnapping and human sacrifices to facilitate some agricultural superstitions or to make offerings to the ancestors, at least, not in the same manner.

The reason I am probing this is because the Chinese has a curious distinction of extolling the past in promoting ideals or justifying practices rather than say they were pioneering a new philosophical outlook.

[snowybeagle]

wang yun, on Mar 27 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

I know you meant this as a rhetorical question, but the answer is that it would depend on which teacher you had. If you got someone as open-minded as Sima Qian (司馬遷), you would have gotten a much fairer answer than from someone like Dong Zhongshu (董仲抒). Of course, Sima Qian had to pass on his magnum opus, Shi Ji (史記) secretly to his son-in-law because he knew it raised too many embarassing questions.

Actually, I did not mean the question as rhetorical. I really would like to know.
Your answer that it depended on the teacher is a good one.
What kind of answer would Dong Zhongshu have given?
And how would Sima Qian have answered?

wang yun, on Mar 27 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

So if some Chinese are proud of their history (if only for the simple fact that "they're still here"), it doesn't mean that they are blind or in denial about all the things that went wrong. Point out any barbaric part of their history and the Chinese will readily join you in lamentation. I mean, calling the Greek/ Roman/ Han/ Tang empire "golden ages" is not the same as saying that they were by any means "perfect".

This is rather digressing (no complaints since I started it) but I am not certain if such introspective evaluation of the past is a historical thing rather than a relatively recent phenomena (recent meaning the last couple of centuries).

To return to the thread, from what I gather, there seems to be nothing conclusive about human sacrifices in ancient China with respect to regular religious rites performed by the monarchs.

On another note, your mentioning that "So it's not a case of humans being MORE valuable (i.e. meaningful) in sacrifice, but a case of "slave/ captives" being LESS valuable (i.e. cheaper)." does not seem correct given that special raiding parties had to be commissioned.

If human slaves/captives were seen as no more special than animals as sacrificial objects, it should have been easier to sacrifice animals rather than people who might very well object vigorously.

[snowybeagle]

allat, on Apr 5 2006, 10:14 AM, said:

You know something. DOn't assume that with civilization - and advancement of tech- human sacrifices stopped.

I don't think we do.
It'd be like assuming crimes such as robbery and rape cease with progress.

But the significant difference would be human sacrifices ceased to be a state-sanctioned or part of official state ceremonies.