Did virginal sacrifice EVER happen?

[Mark6]

Did any culture ever sacifice women who specifically had to be virgins? AFAIK, most cultures which practiced human sacrifice used slaves and war captives, sometimes criminals -- mostly males, and their virginity status was completely unimportant. Phoenicians used to sacrifice children, but important criterion was that they were children, not that they were virgins. "Iliad" involves sacrifice of Agamemnon's daughter Iphigenia, but the context makes it clear it is an extreme and very unusual occurrence (and Artemis rescued Iphigenia at the last moment).

I suspect "pagans sacrificing a virgin" is a 19th-Century fiction intended to demonize natives in Europeans' eyes, while simutaneously titillating said Europeans.

[Piscivore]

Good question.

[Moss]

Good question.

Seconded. Couldn't answer it. But I imagine someone has done some research on it.

[Aepervius]

Human sacrifice wiki don't say much but this :
"Prisoners of war and Vestal virgins were buried alive as offerings to Manes and Di Inferi (gods of the underworld)."

Otherwise not much.

Also I got the feeling/bet with you that just before sacrificied the priesthood made sure they were not virgin anymore. Who would remark that "little" detail once burry them alive or whatever.

[Pure Argent]

I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[hgc]

Human sacrifice wiki don't say much but this :
"Prisoners of war and Vestal virgins were buried alive as offerings to Manes and Di Inferi (gods of the underworld)."


I'm not sure, but I think that bit about sacrificing Vestal virgins is incorrect. They were highly priveleged.

[Marduk]

Did any culture ever sacifice women who specifically had to be virgins? AFAIK, most cultures which practiced human sacrifice used slaves and war captives, sometimes criminals -- mostly males, and their virginity status was completely unimportant. Phoenicians used to sacrifice children, but important criterion was that they were children, not that they were virgins. "Iliad" involves sacrifice of Agamemnon's daughter Iphigenia, but the context makes it clear it is an extreme and very unusual occurrence (and Artemis rescued Iphigenia at the last moment).

I suspect "pagans sacrificing a virgin" is a 19th-Century fiction intended to demonize natives in Europeans' eyes, while simutaneously titillating said Europeans.

In the ancient world, to be a virgin you also had to be a pretty immature child
so these qualify, children in this case were regarded as pure and worthy of sacrifice precisely because they hadn't ever copulated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures

A lot of the claims you are probably referring to were not made by the cultures themselves but by those who opposed them, it started a lot earlier than the 19th century
the phonecians for instance did not sacrifice children as claimed by the Greeks
http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html

then theres Bog bodies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yde_girl

the problem with ancient accounts is that they are usually completely anecdotal and unreliable.

Vestal Virgins were buried alive, it was the listed punishment for breaking their vow of chastity, so they arent qualified on a technicality
:p

[theprestige]

I'm not sure, but I think that bit about sacrificing Vestal virgins is incorrect. They were highly priveleged.
Highly privileged because highly valuable.

The women in the Sultan's harem are also highly privileged, but it doesn't follow from that fact that they are free to decide for themselves what to do with their highly-valued bodies.

[hgc]

Highly privileged because highly valuable.

The women in the Sultan's harem are also highly privileged, but it doesn't follow from that fact that they are free to decide for themselves what to do with their highly-valued bodies.


Do you have anything to say about whether Vestal virgins were used as ritual sacrifice? That is what I was addressing.

[TX50]

I'm not sure, but I think that bit about sacrificing Vestal virgins is incorrect. They were highly priveleged.

It is incorrect. If they broke their vows of chastity Vestals were to be stoned
to death (according to the laws of Numa) and, after the time of Tarquinius
Superbus, they were to be buried alive (the partner - if found - was to be
flogged to death in the forum too).

There are a couple of reported instances of this happening (in Livy and
Pliny). In both cases they were executed for breaking the vow of chastity,
but at a time when "bad omens" and misfortunes were being blamed on
impiety and neglect of the religious laws. Opinion was divided at the time
whether the one described by Pliny was actually guilty of anything, or if it
was just Domitian being typically sadistic again.

[Leif Roar]

Do you have anything to say about whether Vestal virgins were used as ritual sacrifice?

No, they weren't. The Romans were actually adamantly opposed to human sacrifice -- it was one of the few indigenous religious practices they did not allow at all in conquered provinces.

[ponderingturtle]

Did any culture ever sacifice women who specifically had to be virgins? AFAIK, most cultures which practiced human sacrifice used slaves and war captives, sometimes criminals -- mostly males, and their virginity status was completely unimportant. Phoenicians used to sacrifice children, but important criterion was that they were children, not that they were virgins. "Iliad" involves sacrifice of Agamemnon's daughter Iphigenia, but the context makes it clear it is an extreme and very unusual occurrence (and Artemis rescued Iphigenia at the last moment).

I suspect "pagans sacrificing a virgin" is a 19th-Century fiction intended to demonize natives in Europeans' eyes, while simutaneously titillating said Europeans.

Well I believe if a Vestal Virgin was found to be having sexual relations she was executed.

[ponderingturtle]

Do you have anything to say about whether Vestal virgins were used as ritual sacrifice? That is what I was addressing.

They were sacrificed if they were found to be having sexual relations, before their 20 year term of service was up. This was to atone for their behavior.

But they were not generally sacrificed in anything I have heard of.

[ponderingturtle]

No, they weren't. The Romans were actually adamantly opposed to human sacrifice -- it was one of the few indigenous religious practices they did not allow at all in conquered provinces.

And yet they were all for it in the games, that started as religious sacrifices of slaves at funerals.

[Chaos]

No, they weren't. The Romans were actually adamantly opposed to human sacrifice -- it was one of the few indigenous religious practices they did not allow at all in conquered provinces.

Apparently they did conduct human sacrifice a few times, in extremely dire circumstances... I seem to recall one instance in which a small number of people were sacrificed in Rome, during the Second Punic War, with Hannibal practically on Rome´s doorstep and the legions having been shattered again and again.

Well I believe if a Vestal Virgin was found to be having sexual relations she was executed.

Yet that would not technically be a human sacrifice, but punishment for breaking the rules of her order - harsh punishment, to be sure, but punishment, not sacrifice.

[ponderingturtle]

Yet that would not technically be a human sacrifice, but punishment for breaking the rules of her order - harsh punishment, to be sure, but punishment, not sacrifice.

This gets into when exactly is human sacrifice human sacrifice? Is killing POW's human sacrifice, then the roman games were human sacrifice if not then was the Aztec sacrifice of prisoners human sacrifice?

It seems often those sacrificed are transgressors in some fashion rather like the Vestal Virgins in this case.

[TX50]

And yet they were all for it in the games, that started as religious sacrifices of slaves at funerals.

Human sacrifice was formally outlawed senatus consulto in 97 BCE.
There are a few reports of it happening before that (outwith the context of
funereal games). The most famous example is after the battle of Cannae (216
BCE) when two women and two men (Greeks and Gauls) were sacrificed in
the city of Rome in propitiation. Many of the traditional Roman festivals
included rites that appear to hark back to an earlier time at which humans
may have been offered up (in later times being replaced by symbolic straw
dolls, for example).

[ponderingturtle]

Human sacrifice was formally outlawed senatus consulto in 97 BCE.
There are a few reports of it happening before that (outwith the context of
funereal games). The most famous example is after the battle of Cannae (216
BCE) when two women and two men (Greeks and Gauls) were sacrificed in
the city of Rome in propitiation. Many of the traditional Roman festivals
included rites that appear to hark back to an earlier time at which humans
may have been offered up (in later times being replaced by symbolic straw
dolls, for example).

But the issue is, was this a false dichotomy about to justify acceptable human sacrifice, as in the games vs unacceptable human sacrifice?

[Chaos]

This gets into when exactly is human sacrifice human sacrifice? Is killing POW's human sacrifice, then the roman games were human sacrifice if not then was the Aztec sacrifice of prisoners human sacrifice?

It seems often those sacrificed are transgressors in some fashion rather like the Vestal Virgins in this case.

I think you´re defining human sacrifice way too loosely.

Vestal Virgins that were executed were executed for breaking a law: that Vestal Virgins had to stay virgins. Even if you consider that law arbitrary, it is no more human sacrifice than honor killings or burning witches.

[ponderingturtle]

I think you´re defining human sacrifice way too loosely.

Vestal Virgins that were executed were executed for breaking a law: that Vestal Virgins had to stay virgins. Even if you consider that law arbitrary, it is no more human sacrifice than honor killings or burning witches.

I am questioning what is human sacrifice. I am looking for definitions. And I am putting the games much more as human sacrifice rather like I view bull fights as animal sacrifice.

[Leif Roar]

I am questioning what is human sacrifice.

Basically, when a human is killed as an offering to a deity or other supernatural entity. It is the "giving" of the human's life to something that makes it a sacrifice -- gladiators were killed but they weren't killed as a direct gift to the gods.

[ponderingturtle]

Basically, when a human is killed as an offering to a deity or other supernatural entity. It is the "giving" of the human's life to something that makes it a sacrifice -- gladiators were killed but they weren't killed as a direct gift to the gods.

Yes they were gifts initially to the deceased. So killing people at funerals is not human sacrifice then.

[Piscivore]

I am questioning what is human sacrifice. I am looking for definitions. And I am putting the games much more as human sacrifice rather like I view bull fights as animal sacrifice.

It is a human (or other animal) sacrifice when the death is primarily motivated by and dedicated to pleasing, appeasing, or worshipping some god. "The law", "entertainment/sport", and "disposal of prisoners" are not gods in this context.

[Leif Roar]

Yes they were gifts initially to the deceased. So killing people at funerals is not human sacrifice then.

Huh?

[kedo1981]

Read a web article recently that asserted that the notorious child sacrifice of the Carthaginians was way over stated if true at all, Roman propaganda.
Which leads me to wonder if alot more of the tales of mass human sacrifice is BS.
How about the martyrdom of the early Christians, how much is propaganda?

[ponderingturtle]

Read a web article recently that asserted that the notorious child sacrifice of the Carthaginians was way over stated if true at all, Roman propaganda.
Which leads me to wonder if alot more of the tales of mass human sacrifice is BS.
How about the martyrdom of the early Christians, how much is propaganda?

Well admittedly those Christians were criminals.

[kedo1981]

Well look at it this way, many of the stories of Christian martyrdom include some form of supernatural aspect, talking lions, arrows that bounce of skin, flames that would not burn, heavenly hosts, these are bald-faced lies. If a major, aspect of a story is BS, how much can you trust

[JoeTheJuggler]

The New World sacrifices were probably virgins--they were young girls.

The famous "Mummy Juanita" was 12-14 years old, and was sacrificed c. 1440-1450 C.E., so I guess she doesn't really count as an "ancient" sacrifice, but the thread title asks if it EVER happened, so the answer is certainly yes.

[Piscivore]

Well look at it this way, many of the stories of Christian martyrdom include some form of supernatural aspect, talking lions, arrows that bounce of skin, flames that would not burn, heavenly hosts, these are bald-faced lies. If a major, aspect of a story is BS, how much can you trust

That's a point, but George Washington didn't become purely mythical because he didn't chop down a cherry tree or throw a dollar accross the Potomac.

[ponderingturtle]

Huh?

The roman games started as part of funeral rituals, they went from part of religious ritual to just being a fun way to spend an afternoon watching people die. Of course when the ruler is a god, it makes all kinds of things human sacrifices as well.

[Leif Roar]

The roman games started as part of funeral rituals, they went from part of religious ritual to just being a fun way to spend an afternoon watching people die. Of course when the ruler is a god, it makes all kinds of things human sacrifices as well.

The critical point is that the gladiators -- or the people thrown to the lions -- at the roman games were not killed as a direct gift to the gods, or to the Emperor. Their deaths were incidental to the (varying) religious significance of the games, not central to it. Thus they were not human sacrifices.

[Moss]

The games of Rome are an interesting case of religious festivals turning into mass entertainment. The reason why shifted from propitiation of the gods (of the underworld?) to excitement and bloodshed for the masses.
But what exactly has that to do with virginal sacrifice if I may ask?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Again, there's very strong evidence of child sacrifice in the pre-Columbian New World.

There's historical and archeological evidence. The evidence points to the fact that these were sacrifices to placate the gods, and that they were virgins.

[Springfork]

At Cahokia, in Mound 72, 272 burials were excavated beginning in '67. Among these was a high status burial of a male. With him were 53 females, aged 16-30, and 4 males. All 57 were sacrificed. The males were missing their heads and hands. The burials dated to 1000 A.D..

[justcharlie09]

I'll put it this way: I'm not inclined to doubt it.

Nor do I doubt child sacrifice, cannibalism (and not just push-comes-to-shove, Donner Party style cannibalism, either), etc.

When it comes to what people will do in reaction to false beliefs or just plain institutionalized cruelty... I wouldn't count anything as out of the question.

People are creative.

Didn't the Vikings toss virgins on the funeral boats?

[Piscivore]

Again, there's very strong evidence of child sacrifice in the pre-Columbian New World.

There's historical and archeological evidence. The evidence points to the fact that these were sacrifices to placate the gods, and that they were virgins.

Yes, but were they child sacrifices that happened to be virgins, or were they children sacrificed because they were virgins?

[jiggeryqua]

Again, there's very strong evidence of child sacrifice in the pre-Columbian New World.

There's historical and archeological evidence. The evidence points to the fact that these were sacrifices to placate the gods, and that they were virgins.

Do you have a reference for that? Particularly the 'evidence' that those sacrificed were virgins? Age, in this context, is not evidence. There's a distinction between child sacrifice (and I'm with Ilych on the myth of 'children') and virgin sacrifice, which was the OP question.

[jiggeryqua]

I'm betting the notion of virgin sacrifices was started by ancient adolescent males, taking their girlfriends out to Lovers Green Lane in their father's chariot..."but if we do, they won't be able to sacrifice you".

[ponderingturtle]

The critical point is that the gladiators -- or the people thrown to the lions -- at the roman games were not killed as a direct gift to the gods, or to the Emperor. Their deaths were incidental to the (varying) religious significance of the games, not central to it. Thus they were not human sacrifices.

So when did they stop being human sacrifices?

[Piscivore]

I'm betting the notion of virgin sacrifices was started by ancient adolescent males, taking their girlfriends out to Lovers Green Lane in their father's chariot..."but if we do, they won't be able to sacrifice you".

Win.

This strategy always seemed to me to render the whole concept moot.

[Piscivore]

So when did they stop being human sacrifices?

When the spectators began enjoying it more than the gods did. :)

[RobRoy]

The Bible, solid source for accurate facts that it is, does mention some virgin sacrifices. Like Isaac was a virgin when God called upon Abraham to sacrifice his son. I’m sure any Bible-thumper will defend Isaac’s virginity if you desire it. If course, Isaac wasn’t sacrificed, but one of the Judges from the Book of Judges does sacrifice his virgin daughter. He made a deal with God that if he won some battle, he would sacrifice the first person who greeted him when he came home. This seems a silly thing to promise, since children predominantly run out to greet their parents (based on anecdotal evidence alone), so why he was surprised he had to kill his daughter, I’m not certain.

[Piscivore]

The Bible, solid source for accurate facts that it is, does mention some virgin sacrifices. Like Isaac was a virgin when God called upon Abraham to sacrifice his son. I’m sure any Bible-thumper will defend Isaac’s virginity if you desire it. If course, Isaac wasn’t sacrificed, but one of the Judges from the Book of Judges does sacrifice his virgin daughter. He made a deal with God that if he won some battle, he would sacrifice the first person who greeted him when he came home. This seems a silly thing to promise, since children predominantly run out to greet their parents (based on anecdotal evidence alone), so why he was surprised he had to kill his daughter, I’m not certain.

Even fictional, in neither of those stories is the sacrifice's virginity anything better than coincidence.

What we're after is sacrifices primarily chosen for the "honour" because they hadn't previously been sexually active.

[mhaze]

Yes, but were they child sacrifices that happened to be virgins, or were they children sacrificed because they were virgins?Wrongly parsed.

The modern, urban concept of "children" did not exist in such cultures.

It didn't even exist in the western world until 100-200 years ago.

[Piscivore]

Wrongly parsed.

The modern, urban concept of "children" did not exist in such cultures.

It didn't even exist in the western world until 100-200 years ago.

Are you trying to say that 200+ years ago the only characteristic that defined children from adults was sexual experience?

[RobRoy]

Even fictional, in neither of those stories is the sacrifice's virginity anything better than coincidence.

What we're after is sacrifices primarily chosen for the "honour" because they hadn't previously been sexually active.

Depends on how you view it, but your point is taken.

[Chaos]

So when did they stop being human sacrifices?

When they stopped being for religious reasons, and started being for reason of entertainment.

[TX50]

So when did they stop being human sacrifices?



The only unequivocal literary evidence connecting the gladiatorial sport with
human sacrifice in any way comes from Tertullian (de spectaculis) who
said that the gladiatorial shows evolved from ancient human sacrificial rites
practised by pre-Roman cultures. He says at first that "the ancients" used to
kill prisoners and worthless slaves at funerals (cf. the description of Patroklos'
funeral in book XXIII of the Iliad - scenes depicting this were in fact popular
in Etruscan art), then dreamt up a slightly less gruesome variant by training
fighters to perform.

It was in this form that the Romans first adopted the practice (the first
reported Roman gladiatorial show was in 264 BCE, at a funeral, but scholars
doubt that that was really the first ever such presentation). The images of
pairs of armed men fighting each other in Etruscan, Osco-Samnite and early
Roman contexts are usually interpreted in the light of Tertullian's notion
of "assuaging death with killing" (ita mortem homicidiis consolabantur).


However, it's very apparent that the Romans totally changed the nature of
gladiatorial shows during the course of the republican era, and in historical
times nothing at all remains of the early association with funeral rites or blood
sacrifices. Writers such as Seneca and Cicero wrote about contemporary
attitudes to the fighters in the arena and "sacrifice" is never mentioned.
Gladiatorial shows by the late republic and empire had become properly organised
(and tightly controlled) mass-entertainment sporting events (forget all about
Russell "Maximus" Crowe and his silly fantasy "Gladiator" antics).

Those "thrown to the beasts" were criminals suffering capital punishment. All
the usual sociological reasons for performing executions in public apply in the
Roman case too. They were emphatically not "sacrifices". Quite the opposite
in fact as their bodies were regarded as unclean, and special rites and
precautions had to be adopted in their disposal.

[Leif Roar]

So when did they stop being human sacrifices?

As far as I'm aware they never were.

[rain]

Even fictional, in neither of those stories is the sacrifice's virginity anything better than coincidence.

What we're after is sacrifices primarily chosen for the "honour" because they hadn't previously been sexually active.

How do you know that the virginity was just a coincidence? In the story of Jephthah, one could just as well interpret that the virginity was of utmost importance to God.

I don't think Jephthah is actually surprised in the story just because he says "Alas, my daughter!" Being that his daughter was an only child, and the story doesn't mention a mother, for all we know she may have been the only one living at the house. And therefore, the whole "whatsoever cometh forth of the doors" might just be a dramatic, poetic way of saying his daughter. It could be a way of concealing this fact from the reader so that it's all the more shocking when we explicitly find out who he means later.

The fact that the story goes on an on about her virginity could also be seen to support this:

"And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man."
-Judges 11:37-39 KJV

If it didn't matter to God whether or not she was a virgin, why didn't she just get laid during those two months instead of crying about it?

[rain]

As far as the OP goes, I would guess that virgin human sacrifice was probably pretty common in the ancient world. This probably mattered mainly for women sacrifices though, as they were often seen as brides to deities. Therefore virgins would have been more valuable.

[rain]

Okay, I found a good example for you guys. It's from an essay by Whalen Lai called "Looking for Mr. Ho Po: Unmasking the River God of Ancient China" from the May 1990 of an academic journal called History of Religions.

"In an entry under the topic 'Things Ridiculous' appended to Ssu-ma Chi'en's Historical Record, we read the story often referred to as "Ho Po taking a bride," also known as "Hsi-men Pao throwing the female shamans (into the river) ... The above story celebrates an enlightened official's deed that put an end to a cult of sacrificing human life to appease the River God ... it is true that all gifts to gods should be blemish-free and all brides should be virgins or at least appear (dressed) snow white."

[kedo1981]

The whole children weren’t treated like “children” (as in, seen as special, protected,) is hog wash, human beings are bio hardwired to protect children and treat them differently. They may have had to work their arses off to survive just like Mums and Da, but offspring have never been just disposable meat.

[ponderingturtle]

When they stopped being for religious reasons, and started being for reason of entertainment.

How can you be sure when that is?

[Leif Roar]

How can you be sure when that is?

By the way they are described by contemporary sources.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do you have a reference for that? Particularly the 'evidence' that those sacrificed were virgins? Age, in this context, is not evidence. There's a distinction between child sacrifice (and I'm with Ilych on the myth of 'children') and virgin sacrifice, which was the OP question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy_Juanita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures

I gather the point of sacrificing children is equal to the point of sacrificing virgins. (Innocence or purity or whatever.)

The physical evidence of the "Mummy Juanita" indicates that she was sacrificed at the age of 12-14, and that she was selected at birth and raised in special pampered circumstances for the purpose of being a sacrifice to the gods.

How is this not a "virgin sacrifice"?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wrongly parsed.

The modern, urban concept of "children" did not exist in such cultures.

It didn't even exist in the western world until 100-200 years ago.

Well said.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you trying to say that 200+ years ago the only characteristic that defined children from adults was sexual experience?

I'm saying the difference among the ideas "maiden", "virgin" and "child" is a recent distinction. These child sacrifices were virgin sacrifices.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The whole children weren’t treated like “children” (as in, seen as special, protected,) is hog wash, human beings are bio hardwired to protect children and treat them differently. They may have had to work their arses off to survive just like Mums and Da, but offspring have never been just disposable meat.

Are you claiming, in the face of an abundance of physical evidence to the contrary, that there were never any instances of child sacrifice?

Or are you making some other point that I'm missing?

(Also, aren't you contradicting yourself if you say children have always been protected, even if they were often worked like slaves?)

[zooterkin]

Well I believe if a Vestal Virgin was found to be having sexual relations she was executed.

And as Marduk pointed out, she'd no longer be a virgin at that point.

[Piscivore]

I'm saying the difference among the ideas "maiden", "virgin" and "child" is a recent distinction. These child sacrifices were virgin sacrifices.

So that's a "yes" then? The key distinction between children and adults was seen to be their lack of sexual experience?

[Lucian]

Are you claiming, in the face of an abundance of physical evidence to the contrary, that there were never any instances of child sacrifice?

Or are you making some other point that I'm missing?

(Also, aren't you contradicting yourself if you say children have always been protected, even if they were often worked like slaves?)

I think what Kedo1981 is saying is that the often-repeated idea that the concept of childhood didn't exist until recently is no longer accepted without question. I believe that Philippe Ariès originated the idea in an influential and popular book, but that argument has been heavily criticized, with evidence presented that does not support Ariès' arguments.

I haven't read Ariès' work on childhood, but I have read his work on death, and he does have a tendency to make sweeping generalizations based on flimsy evidence.

[rain]

End of childhood for a girl was probably pubescence. End of childhood for a boy was probably when he was deemed physically capable of working. I agree with the 100-200 years ago estimate for when this definition changed. After all, Edgar Allan Poe married his 13 year old cousin when he was himself 27 back in the mid 1800s. Even if this may have been a tad unusual to some people, nobody arrested him or, as far as I know, even called him out on it.

[ponderingturtle]

And as Marduk pointed out, she'd no longer be a virgin at that point.

Depends on how you view it. She would still have the title of Vestal Virgin

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think what Kedo1981 is saying is that the often-repeated idea that the concept of childhood didn't exist until recently is no longer accepted without question. I believe that Philippe Ariès originated the idea in an influential and popular book, but that argument has been heavily criticized, with evidence presented that does not support Ariès' arguments.

I haven't read Ariès' work on childhood, but I have read his work on death, and he does have a tendency to make sweeping generalizations based on flimsy evidence.

OK, but what I was focusing on in particular was that last sentence: "They may have had to work their arses off to survive just like Mums and Da, but offspring have never been just disposable meat."

The "Mummy Juanita" is strong example of one case where the person was selected (probably at birth) to be raised strictly for the purpose of being a sacrifice to the gods. So the "never" in this statement has certainly been disproven.

I'm sure such cases are extremely exceptional, but they certainly did happen.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So that's a "yes" then? The key distinction between children and adults was seen to be their lack of sexual experience?

I'm not sure what point you're driving at. There have been virgins sacrificed to the gods. I've cited substantial evidence of them. As we don't have written records (from the people who performed them), I have no idea if they used a word that would map more accurately to our word "child" or our word "virgin"--but they were virgins, and it wasn't by coincidence.

[Piscivore]

I'm not sure what point you're driving at. There have been virgins sacrificed to the gods. I've cited substantial evidence of them.
No, you've cited child sacrifices and equivocated the word "virgin":
As we don't have written records (from the people who performed them), I have no idea if they used a word that would map more accurately to our word "child" or our word "virgin"
Regardless of what word maps to the concept, or if they even had a word for it, the word has a specific meaning to us, and you have not established that the concept we refer to with the word "virgin" is the primary quality that motivated the sacrifice of these children- whatever word the sacrificers used for it.

...they were virgins, and it wasn't by coincidence.

Children have more attributes than just "not sexually active".

They are small and weak.

They are easily controlled.

They use resources that they are unable to replenish.

They may represent a competing tribe, family, or individual's bloodline.

And lots more. Any one of these could be a more signifigant factor in their selection as a sacrifice. "Virgin" may yes, actually be a coincidence.

And are you really telling me that it is not possible a sacrificed child had a nasty uncle that fiddled around with it when it was five years old?

[Piscivore]

End of childhood for a girl was probably pubescence. End of childhood for a boy was probably when he was deemed physically capable of working. I agree with the 100-200 years ago estimate for when this definition changed. After all, Edgar Allan Poe married his 13 year old cousin when he was himself 27 back in the mid 1800s. Even if this may have been a tad unusual to some people, nobody arrested him or, as far as I know, even called him out on it.

Jews are mitzvaed (is that even correct?) at thirteen. Sex is not, as far as I am aware, involved at all.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And are you really telling me that it is not possible a sacrificed child had a nasty uncle that fiddled around with it when it was five years old?
Yes, I am telling you exactly that.

There is very strong evidence, as I've said, that child sacrifices (again, I'm talking about in the pre-Colombian New World) were selected just after birth and raised in a protected and pampered situation for the sole purpose of being sacrificed.

[Piscivore]

Yes, I am telling you exactly that.

There is very strong evidence, as I've said, that child sacrifices (again, I'm talking about in the pre-Colombian New World) were selected just after birth and raised in a protected and pampered situation for the sole purpose of being sacrificed.

And there is clear and compelling evidence that the primary reason these children were so raised is to keep them from any sexual contact?

Or is it possible it was to keep the intended offering to the gods from getting sick, injured, maimed or killed?

[JoeTheJuggler]

And there is clear and compelling evidence that the primary reason these children were so raised is to keep them from any sexual contact?
No. Does that change the fact that they were virginal sacrifices? I thought the vestal virgins were rejected because they weren't actually virgins sexually. These child sacrifices were sexually virgins, but now you reject them because there's no evidence that their lack of sexual experience was a prime reason for their sacrifice. That doesn't make much sense.

The question is did virginal sacrifices EVER happen, and the answer is yes, they did.

The Inca practice of child sacrifice is called capacocha, and it continued into historical times.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/caterms/qt/capacocha.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071003-inca-sacrifice_2.html

http://www.dawnontheamazon.com/blog/2008/12/22/juanita-the-ice-maiden-inca-mummy/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/peru/worlds/sacrifice1.html

[JoeTheJuggler]

Or is it possible it was to keep the intended offering to the gods from getting sick, injured, maimed or killed?

I simply don't understand the logic here. Are you asking whether the children (who were in perfectly good health) were sacrificed to the gods to prevent the them (the children sacrificed) from getting sick, injured, maimed or killed?

If so, the answer is no. There's ample evidence that these were children chosen for sacrifice from birth and were pampered and in perfect health.

Or are you saying they don't count as virgin sacrifices because the intention of the sacrifice was to appease the gods and prevent the community at large from getting sick, injured, maimed or killed?

If so, that intention doesn't change the fact that they were virginal sacrifices.

If someone asked if any culture ever sacrificed goats to their gods, and someone showed evidence that goats were indeed sacrificed to the gods by one or more group of people, pointing out that the goats were sacrificed to appease the gods (bring a better harvest, avoid famine, or whatever) would not alter the fact that goats were indeed sacrificed to the gods.

[Piscivore]

No. Does that change the fact that they were virginal sacrifices? I thought the vestal virgins were rejected because they weren't actually virgins sexually. These child sacrifices were sexually virgins, but now you reject them because there's no evidence that their lack of sexual experience was a prime reason for their sacrifice.

The OP so specified: "Did any culture ever sacifice women who specifically had to be virgins?"

[Piscivore]

I simply don't understand the logic here. Are you asking whether the children (who were in perfectly good health) were sacrificed to the gods to prevent the them (the children sacrificed) from getting sick, injured, maimed or killed?

Or are you saying they don't count as virgin sacrifices because the intention of the sacrifice was to appease the gods and prevent the community at large from getting sick, injured, maimed or killed?


Neither, as it happens. I am asking whether it is possible the children to be sacrificed were sheltered and pampered to keep them free of sickness, injury, deformity, or premature death (in order to not blemish the offering to the gods), or if the reason they were sheltered was to keep them sexually pure?

A concept you tell me their culture didn't even have a word for.

They may have been "virginal sacrifices", but unless that was the reason they were kept virgins, it is a trivial fact and does not address the OP.

[Moss]

I keep on wondering the whole time if the "sacrifice the virgins" shtick is basically a projection of religion of the Book values regarding virginity (with all the unspoiled goods/purity constructs) on human sacrifices by other cultures.
(Ok, Hinduism and Sikhism also think virginity is somehow linked with purity).
So the emphasis on "virginity" may not have been an element of the religious framework of the nonchristians but was later added by missionaries.
Could be a total brainfart though.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Neither, as it happens. I am asking whether it is possible the children to be sacrificed were sheltered and pampered to keep them free of sickness, injury, deformity, or premature death (in order to not blemish the offering to the gods), or if the reason they were sheltered was to keep them sexually pure?
Ah--and that would somehow make them not virgin sacrifices?




They may have been "virginal sacrifices", but unless that was the reason they were kept virgins, it is a trivial fact and does not address the OP.
How is it a trivial fact? The OP asked if virgin sacrifices ever happened, and I showed that they did.

Again, if someone asked whether goats were sacrificed, and I provided evidence that goats were sacrificed, the fact that they sacrificed whatever animal was at hand (and not just goats in particular) wouldn't change my answer.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The OP so specified: "Did any culture ever sacifice women who specifically had to be virgins?"

In some of the capacocha ceremonies, the Incas sacrificed a young boy and a young girl in a mock marriage. Yes, we can safely assume the point was to sacrifice virgins.

It wasn't the only point. The children were selected for being perfect and healthy. Often their heads were deformed (elongated and made pointy like the mountains).

[BenBurch]

Wrongly parsed.

The modern, urban concept of "children" did not exist in such cultures.

It didn't even exist in the western world until 100-200 years ago.

For once, I concur.

[Piscivore]

Ah--and that would somehow make them not virgin sacrifices?

How is it a trivial fact? The OP asked if virgin sacrifices ever happened, and I showed that they did.

Again, if someone asked whether goats were sacrificed, and I provided evidence that goats were sacrificed, the fact that they sacrificed whatever animal was at hand (and not just goats in particular) wouldn't change my answer.

Read the OP again.

[Leif Roar]

How is it a trivial fact? The OP asked if virgin sacrifices ever happened, and I showed that they did.

You're using the term "virgin sacrifice" differently than everybody else in this thread, including the OP. He is not asking if people who were virgins were ever sacrificed, but if there were ever instances of sacrifice where the victim's virginity was a necessary and central condition for their selection for sacrifice.

[Toke]

I'll put it this way: I'm not inclined to doubt it.

Nor do I doubt child sacrifice, cannibalism (and not just push-comes-to-shove, Donner Party style cannibalism, either), etc.

When it comes to what people will do in reaction to false beliefs or just plain institutionalized cruelty... I wouldn't count anything as out of the question.

People are creative.

Didn't the Vikings toss virgins on the funeral boats?

The only account I have read involve a teenage girl (Træl/slave) where friends of the deceased make sure she is "banged up" / not a virgin before she is strangled, stabbed and placed on the funeral pyre.

I have heard of those polynesians doing virginity sacrifices for some kind of spring/fertility rite, but that is something else.

[gumboot]

The games of Rome are an interesting case of religious festivals turning into mass entertainment. The reason why shifted from propitiation of the gods (of the underworld?) to excitement and bloodshed for the masses.
But what exactly has that to do with virginal sacrifice if I may ask?


Gladiatorial combat is mostly myth anyway. It was never as popular as Hollywood would have you think. A quick purvey of seating capacity in Roman entertainment venues makes it abundantly clear that chariot racing and theatre far exceeded gladiatorial combat for popularity.

Even in the instance of the Colosseum, it was the theatrical performances staged there (such as reenacting ancient battles) that were most popular. When Gladiatorial combat was popular (i.e. well attended) under Emperors like Commodus (who fought as a Gladiator himself and actually did quite well, to the shame of the populace), it wasn't the opportunity of seeing blood sport that brought Romans to the arena in droves - they came because at the games Commodus gave out free bread - a pretty attractive offer when you're starving.

The blood-thirsty, immoral, wanton gluttonous Roman is a myth constructed by Christian Europe and propagated by Hollywood.

ETA. Also worth mentioning, while early Gladiatorial combat was usually to the death, by the late republic combat to the death was rare enough that it was especially advertised as sine missione, and Augustus officially banned sine missione combat during his rule (although some later Imperators would ignore it).

[Lucian]

The only account I have read involve a teenage girl (Træl/slave) where friends of the deceased make sure she is "banged up" / not a virgin before she is strangled, stabbed and placed on the funeral pyre.

I have heard of those polynesians doing virginity sacrifices for some kind of spring/fertility rite, but that is something else.

I assume you're talking about Ibn Fadlan's account of a Viking, specifically Rus, funeral, complete with gang bang and human sacrifice. Michael Crichton expanded the story and merged it with a retelling of Beowulf in Eaters of the Dead, renamed The Thirteenth Warrior after the release of the film. The Viking Answer Lady (http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ibn_fdln.shtml) gives Ibn Fadlan's account.

There are other accounts of servants "volunteering" to join their master/mistress in death in some mythological and heroic works. I believe Brynhild encouraged some servants to go along with her and Sigurd. Although these works are fictional, they may reflect actual practice.

There were two skeletons (both female) found in the Oseberg ship burial. I know some have suggested one may have been a servant, but I'm not sure how widely accepted this idea is anymore.

No suggestion, though, that any of these servants were virgins. I think they continued to serve in the afterlife. I suspect Vikings thought of better things to do with virgins than toss them in a volcano or something.

[Toke]

Yes that is the one, and yes the emphasis was that she were not virgin.

[gumboot]

Wrongly parsed.

The modern, urban concept of "children" did not exist in such cultures.

It didn't even exist in the western world until 100-200 years ago.


The "modern urban concept of children"? WTF does that even mean? How does an urban concept of children differ from a rural concept of children?

:eye-poppi

[gumboot]

You would think Muslims would be heavily into virgin sacrifice. Otherwise there would be a desperate virgin shortage in heaven and the shahids wouldn't get their allotted number.

[Toke]

You would think Muslims would be heavily into virgin sacrifice. Otherwise there would be a desperate virgin shortage in heaven and the shahids wouldn't get their allotted number.

Where is it specified that they get female virgins?
Why can't a heavenly household be 73 male martyrs?
(it would reduce the logistic problems significantly)

[RobRoy]

Where is it specified that they get female virgins?
Why can't a heavenly household be 73 male martyrs?
(it would reduce the logistic problems significantly)

And, I would think, the general desire to become a martyr.

[Toke]

And, I would think, the general desire to become a martyr.
Not my problem if they don't like men.:D

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're using the term "virgin sacrifice" differently than everybody else in this thread, including the OP. He is not asking if people who were virgins were ever sacrificed, but if there were ever instances of sacrifice where the victim's virginity was a necessary and central condition for their selection for sacrifice.

I disagree.

The status of the sacrifice's virginity was guaranteed and was the point (though not the only point) of sacrificing them in the capacocha ceremonies as I have amply described.

They were chosen shortly after birth, raised in a pampered and sheltered condition and sometimes the ceremony was done as a mock wedding with a young girl and boy. They were virgin sacrifices by any definition.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The "modern urban concept of children"? WTF does that even mean? How does an urban concept of children differ from a rural concept of children?

:eye-poppi

At least as it pertains to the topic here, the distinction among the concepts of "maiden" and "virgin" and "child" are modern. That is, these distinctions weren't always made in the past in all cultures. The category was one.

[gumboot]

Where is it specified that they get female virgins?
Why can't a heavenly household be 73 male martyrs?
(it would reduce the logistic problems significantly)


Where did I specify that Muslims should be in to female virgin sacrifice? It's basic mathematics that if each martyr gets 72 virgins, and many of said martyrs are not virgins (which they aren't) there will be a virgin shortage. The only logical way to increase the virgin count in Heaven to ensure adequate numbers is to sacrifice virgins - male or female - for that specific purpose.

Having said all that, it's worth pointing out that the original passage in "Sunan" from which the "72 virgins" concept derives actually states 72 houris, which are specifically beautiful female virgins of comparable age to their husband.

[gumboot]

At least as it pertains to the topic here, the distinction among the concepts of "maiden" and "virgin" and "child" are modern. That is, these distinctions weren't always made in the past in all cultures. The category was one.


True, they weren't always made in the past. But the distinction is not uniquely modern. Some cultures made these distinctions in our past. The distinction between "virgin" and "maiden" are indeed more recent as in the past a "virgin" was always female - it was only in the early 14th Century that is was applied to men as well. However I would argue that most cultures in our past made very clear distinctions between children and virgins or maidens.

In fact, in most cultures you could make a pretty strong argument that a virgin was specifically a woman who had not had sex, not a girl, thus by definition a virgin or maiden was not a child. Laws and customs such as minimum ages of marriage and "coming of age" ceremonies were clear indicators that the culture saw a clear demarcation between childhood and adulthood, and these are common in nearly every culture.

[Slayhamlet]

It's pretty clear from the Qur'an and Hadiths that the houris are heavenly beings, not humans who have died and gone to paradise.

[zooterkin]

It's pretty clear from the Qur'an and Hadiths that the houris are heavenly beings, not humans who have died and gone to paradise.

Not that clear, actually. There is a suggestion from a German scholar that it is 72 white grapes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5), or raisins, not virgins
Luxenberg tries to show that many obscurities of the Koran disappear if we read certain words as being Syriac and not Arabic. We cannot go into the technical details of his methodology but it allows Luxenberg, to the probable horror of all Muslim males dreaming of sexual bliss in the Muslim hereafter, to conjure away the wide-eyed houris promised to the faithful in suras XLIV.54; LII.20, LV.72, and LVI.22. Luxenberg 's new analysis, leaning on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, yields "white raisins" of "crystal clarity" rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing virgins - the houris. Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offerred, and not unsullied maidens or houris. .

It is also not in the Koran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5), but the Hadiths (to which you do allude) that the number 72 is specified.Two points need to be noted. First, there is no mention anywhere in the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just martyrs. It is in the Islamic Traditions that we find the 72 virgins in heaven specified: in a Hadith (Islamic Tradition) collected by Al-Tirmidhi (died 892 CE [common era*]) in the Book of Sunan (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise, (Hadith 2687). The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman (55), verse 72: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."

[RobRoy]

It's pretty clear from the Qur'an and Hadiths that the houris are heavenly beings, not humans who have died and gone to paradise.

So they could be either gender?

[Pedro De Mello]

I believe Virginity is a recent concept so I don't think it happened.

But I'm not an expert of any kind. I just think that when sacrifices were made the concept of Virginity had no meaning, like it still doesn't in some tribes of the Amazons, for instance.

[Simon39759]

I believe Virginity is a recent concept so I don't think it happened.

But I'm not an expert of any kind. I just think that when sacrifices were made the concept of Virginity had no meaning, like it still doesn't in some tribes of the Amazons, for instance.

I don't know, if you read the Old Testament, virginity is an important part, in fact, they are quite obsessed with it, presumably because it help insuring that the son you are raising and to who is inheriting all your possessions is yours not the postman's...
That the reason why have this commandment to execute women which are not virgin at the time of the wedding night; why there is different sentence for raping a virgin (you just have to pay a fine to her father and marry her) or the reason of this scene in number where all male and married women but the girl children (unmarried) are kept...

[Marduk]

So they could be either gender?

yup, either or neither or both
:p

[Pedro De Mello]

I don't know, if you read the Old Testament, virginity is an important part, in fact, they are quite obsessed with it, presumably because it help insuring that the son you are raising and to who is inheriting all your possessions is yours not the postman's...
That the reason why have this commandment to execute women which are not virgin at the time of the wedding night; why there is different sentence for raping a virgin (you just have to pay a fine to her father and marry her) or the reason of this scene in number where all male and married women but the girl children (unmarried) are kept...

Yes, you are right. It is, in fact, a big theme in the Bible.

But the Bible never states that a woman should be sacrificed as a virgin and / or because she is a virgin. Only if she commits the sin of being raped, in wisch case she's not a virgin anymore. Or if she's marrying post-virgin (I always preferred the term "post" to "non", "non" makes it sound like something's missing, when in reality it is just the opposite (unless you're a girl, of course)). :eek:

Humm.. virginal sacrifice, as I'm aware, is not mentioned in the Bible, is it? I'm not really an expert, if there is I'd be DELIGHTED to know. :cool:

[Pedro De Mello]

Found this on the Web:

JUDGES 11:29

29Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.

30And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

31Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

32So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.

33And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

34And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

35And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.

36And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

37And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.

38And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

39And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,

40That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

She WAS a virgin but then her "companions" took her to the mountains. I think this is the closest thing you'll get to a virgin sacrifice in the Bible.

Like, maybe there were weird rituals (Satanic rituals if they are like in the movies) or something like that that involved the killing of children who were, by default, virgin. But, like the OP has said, that doesn't necessarily mean they were killed BECAUSE they were virgins. Maybe only because they were children. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8441813.stm )

As to your point of the concept not being so recent, I looked up for the word's etymology sources: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=virgin

virgin (n.) Look up virgin at Dictionary.com
c.1200, "unmarried or chaste woman noted for religious piety and having a position of reverence in the Church," from O.Fr. virgine, from L. virginem (nom. virgo) "maiden, unwedded girl or woman," also an adj., "fresh, unused," probably related to virga "young shoot." For sense evolution, cf. Gk. talis "a marriageable girl," cognate with L. talea "rod, stick, bar." Meaning "young woman in a state of inviolate chastity" is recorded from c.1300. Also applied since early 14c. to a chaste man. Meaning "naive or inexperienced person" is attested from 1953. The adj. is recorded from 1550s in the literal sense; figurative sense of "pure, untainted" is attested from c.1300.

Distraught pretty girl: "I've lost my virginity!"
Benny Hill: "Do you still have the box it came in?"

It is quite recent. I'm not really into the "almah" meaning virgin or young maiden debate, but I believe it would shine some lights around here.

[gumboot]

It's pretty clear from the Qur'an and Hadiths that the houris are heavenly beings, not humans who have died and gone to paradise.

No it isn't. In fact it specifically states that even "ancient crones" will be remade as beautiful young houris in heaven, making it pretty clear that houris are precisely "humans who have died and gone to paradise".

[gumboot]

As to your point of the concept not being so recent, I looked up for the word's etymology sources: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=virgin

virgin (n.) Look up virgin at Dictionary.com
c.1200, "unmarried or chaste woman noted for religious piety and having a position of reverence in the Church," from O.Fr. virgine, from L. virginem (nom. virgo) "maiden, unwedded girl or woman," also an adj., "fresh, unused," probably related to virga "young shoot." For sense evolution, cf. Gk. talis "a marriageable girl," cognate with L. talea "rod, stick, bar." Meaning "young woman in a state of inviolate chastity" is recorded from c.1300. Also applied since early 14c. to a chaste man. Meaning "naive or inexperienced person" is attested from 1953. The adj. is recorded from 1550s in the literal sense; figurative sense of "pure, untainted" is attested from c.1300.
[I]




With all due respect, that doesn't say what you think it does. The concept of virgin was well established in the Old Testament, as you yourself agree, and was certainly a fundamentally important aspect of both Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman society (as reflected by its Etymology). That means the notion of virginity has had an important role in western civilisation for at least a good 25 centuries or so.

If you want to go back further, the laws and mythology of Ancient Mesopotamia - humanity's first civilisation - likewise had specific laws and mythology relating to virgins.

It's most certainly not a recent concept.

[Slayhamlet]

No it isn't. In fact it specifically states that even "ancient crones" will be remade as beautiful young houris in heaven, making it pretty clear that houris are precisely "humans who have died and gone to paradise".

Where? Citation.

[Pedro De Mello]

I was watching THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj9E1xrnRJY&feature=related) documentary on Youtube by Allain De Botton about Epicurus and Rage.

At 4:43, when talking about Nero the Emperor, he says something interesting, altough he doesn't get into much details.

However, I don't think he would just say those things without knowing them to be true.

What do you guys think?

[zooterkin]

At 4:43, when talking about Nero the Emperor, he says something interesting, altough he doesn't get into much details.

However, I don't think he would just say those things without knowing them to be true.

What do you guys think?

I think it would be helpful if you told us what he said.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I believe Virginity is a recent concept so I don't think it happened.

Everywhere and always?

Again, I cite the Incan child sacrifices, in particular the ones that were done as mock weddings (with a boy and a girl). I think you'd have to try really hard to twist things around to say that at least part of the point of sacrificing those particular kids was their virginity. (Also their physical purity and perfection.)

[Skeptic]

I'm not sure, but I think that bit about sacrificing Vestal virgins is incorrect. They were highly priveleged.

Yes, but while I don't think these virgins were sacrifices, it was quite possible in the ancient world to be privileged precisely because you were intended as a special sacrifice for the gods.

[wellwhatif]

well. I know there was a queen who would kill her maids, or aquire the virgins of her town, kill them for their blood. she thought fresh virgin or whatever pure blood would help her fight age, and help her complexion. She would soak in their blood. Sick. She was jailed and died..Eventually. Many maidens died.

[I Ratant]

I'll put it this way: I'm not inclined to doubt it.

Nor do I doubt child sacrifice, cannibalism (and not just push-comes-to-shove, Donner Party style cannibalism, either), etc.

When it comes to what people will do in reaction to false beliefs or just plain institutionalized cruelty... I wouldn't count anything as out of the question.

People are creative.

Didn't the Vikings toss virgins on the funeral boats?
.
The unusual practice of decimation is Roman.

[I Ratant]

Where is it specified that they get female virgins?
Why can't a heavenly household be 73 male martyrs?
(it would reduce the logistic problems significantly)
.
And there's the 3500 servants needed to run the palace up there.
Whereat would they come from?

[TSR]

Absolutely -- I sacrificed my virginity on the altar of love.

[zooterkin]

well. I know there was a queen who would kill her maids, or aquire the virgins of her town, kill them for their blood. she thought fresh virgin or whatever pure blood would help her fight age, and help her complexion. She would soak in their blood. Sick. She was jailed and died..Eventually. Many maidens died.

You know this how? And how would a queen end up in jail?

[Ausmerican]

Well I believe if a Vestal Virgin was found to be having sexual relations she was executed.

Without reading the whole thread this kinda leapt out. If they were having sexual relations then it wasn't a Vestal Virgin being executed/sacrificed was it?

On the whole I think they were only sacrificed metaphorically, and still are. Part of them is sacrificed, there is some blood, some umm 'stabbing', sometimes a scream.
Okay that is as far as I am taking that corny metaphor.

[Ausmerican]

well. I know there was a queen who would kill her maids, or aquire the virgins of her town, kill them for their blood. she thought fresh virgin or whatever pure blood would help her fight age, and help her complexion. She would soak in their blood. Sick. She was jailed and died..Eventually. Many maidens died.

You are thinking of Erzsébet (Elizabeth) Bathory, the Blood Countess. Hungarian nobility, late 1500's. Not a queen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory

[Piscivore]

You are thinking of Erzsébet (Elizabeth) Bathory, the Blood Countess. Hungarian nobility, late 1500's. Not a queen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory

And there's some question of if the accusations were actually true or not.

[wellwhatif]

You know this how? And how would a queen end up in jail?

My Bad.
She was a countess.
Named Elizabeth Báthory
Scary What happened. They found her too late.

[RobRoy]

My Bad.
She was a countess.
Named Elizabeth Báthory
Scary What happened. They found her too late.

Do make certain you know all the facts, or at least what facts there are, about such historical events, before you draw your conclusions.

While there certainly may be some truth to the Bathory incidents, there is also a great deal of speculation, and at least a few historians feel that the Countess was the target of political conspiracy and machinations. Not the least of which might have stemmed from the fact that King Matthias, who ordered the investigation, owed Bathory quite a substantial sum; a sum that was negotiated away by the Countess’ sons-in-law in exchange for her life. Matthias seemed adamant that Bathory be put on trial and put to death, actions which would have resulted in the throne being able to seize her quite substantial treasury and lands. It appears that the very man he put in charge of the investigation stymied those attempts at trial and execution, though the reasons for such are unclear. Further, Bathory at the time would have belonged or been associated with a religious/political group that would have opposed certain major powers who were trying to assert more direct control of Hungary at the time, and to which Matthias was most likely

Also, the myth about Bathory killing virgins and bathing in their blood to maintain her own youth seems to be pure fiction built up over time, or perhaps via propaganda as a result of the conspiracy. This is somewhat similar to the manner in which Vlad Tepes, the historical basis for Count Dracula, was demonized via propaganda pamphlets circulated by German and Russian sources far removed from the actual facts. While there were “witnesses” who claimed all manner of atrocities, including physical and sexual abuse, torture, mutilation, cannibalism, and of course death, there is no mention (as far as I’m aware) in the witness accounts of blood bathing. Obviously, with such witness accounts and the number of supposed victims (anywhere from 50 to over 600) it’s no great leap to come up with the blood bath concept, and that is certainly one of the myths that could rise to the top, being repeated as a titillating story far surpassing the more mundane acts that were reported. The virginal state, or lack thereof, of Bathory's victims, was also never brought up by the witnesses. I'm sure it was supposed that the young girls were all pure in spirit, which would further the myth and legend, but does not appear to be part of the original testimony against Bathory and her supposed accomplices.

All in all, it's a fascinating look at how myths and legends can grow from a historic case in which the main player was never put on trial, and from whom we have very little actual evidence one way or the other.

[TragicMonkey]

Maybe it's the other way around--there weren't a lot of single ladies floating around in the bad old days. Women were expected to be virgins until they got married off at a young age. Since sacrificing someone's wife and mother would be more economically burdensome than sacrificing someone's unmarried daughter, the unmarried girl would get the chop. She wouldn't be sacrificed because she's a virgin, she'd be a virgin because that would be a characteristic of the sort of person suitable for sacrifice--in other words, both the virginity and the candidacy for sacrifice would be effects of the single girl's place in society.

[BenBurch]

Read a web article recently that asserted that the notorious child sacrifice of the Carthaginians was way over stated if true at all, Roman propaganda.
Which leads me to wonder if alot more of the tales of mass human sacrifice is BS.
How about the martyrdom of the early Christians, how much is propaganda?

Carthago delenda est.

[RobRoy]

Maybe it's the other way around--there weren't a lot of single ladies floating around in the bad old days. Women were expected to be virgins until they got married off at a young age. Since sacrificing someone's wife and mother would be more economically burdensome than sacrificing someone's unmarried daughter, the unmarried girl would get the chop. She wouldn't be sacrificed because she's a virgin, she'd be a virgin because that would be a characteristic of the sort of person suitable for sacrifice--in other words, both the virginity and the candidacy for sacrifice would be effects of the single girl's place in society.

Agreed. Virginity was most likely a side-product, not the sought after commodity. They weren't running a background check on the sacrifices sexual history. They were just taking the most viable candidates. Similar to the Bathory discussion above, the girls might have been virgins because of their social status and/or age, but this wasn't the reason, if the accounts are to be believed, that they were targeted. Adding the virginity concept to the myth, like adding the bathing in blood part, lends a little more spice to the legend's stew.

[gumboot]

.
The unusual practice of decimation is Roman.

Quite a smart (and effective) practice if you think about it. And it's somewhat ironic that "decimated" has come to mean something akin to "destroyed" as the entire point of decimation was that it wouldn't seriously impact a unit's fighting capability, as they were expected to be able to fight perfectly fine with 10% casualties.

[RobRoy]

Quite a smart (and effective) practice if you think about it. And it's somewhat ironic that "decimated" has come to mean something akin to "destroyed" as the entire point of decimation was that it wouldn't seriously impact a unit's fighting capability, as they were expected to be able to fight perfectly fine with 10% casualties.

Not too much of a stretch though, since you would reference those troops who were slain as having been subject to decimation.

Bob, the Roman: Hey, what happened to George?
Jim, the Roman: Oh, he drew the short straw.
Bob, the Roman: Decimated, huh?
Jim, the Roman: Yep.

[gumboot]

Not too much of a stretch though, since you would reference those troops who were slain as having been subject to decimation.

Bob, the Roman: Hey, what happened to George?
Jim, the Roman: Oh, he drew the short straw.
Bob, the Roman: Decimated, huh?
Jim, the Roman: Yep.


Not really... decimation was what happened to the unit, not the unlucky individuals.

[RobRoy]

Not really... decimation was what happened to the unit, not the unlucky individuals.

Perhaps I'm using the wrong military terms, but my understanding was that a . . . whatever-the-term-for-the-group-in-the-Roman-legion-is who failed to perform, follow orders, or showed cowardice (or whatever the infraction) was then subjected to decimation. The process of decimation, as I understand it, was that the aforementioned group would then form into groups of ten and determine, usually by a process of chance (lots or short straws, etc.) which one of the ten would be killed by the remaining nine. Further, as I understand it, the term "decimation" is roughly taken from the Latin meaning to remove one-tenth.

If any of the above is incorrect, please kindly show me where my error lies.

[Mark6]

Quite a smart (and effective) practice if you think about it. And it's somewhat ironic that "decimated" has come to mean something akin to "destroyed" as the entire point of decimation was that it wouldn't seriously impact a unit's fighting capability, as they were expected to be able to fight perfectly fine with 10% casualties.
From what I know, Mongols under Ghengis Khan had the opposite practice -- if one soldier ran from battle, the entire ten (their army was organized into tens, hundreds, and thousands) were executed.

Of course in practice it meant that a soldier who ran, got nine arrows in the back. Which is always more or less the intent of collective punishment.

[Jack by the hedge]

It is incorrect. If they broke their vows of chastity Vestals were to be stoned
to death (according to the laws of Numa) and, after the time of Tarquinius
Superbus, they were to be buried alive (the partner - if found - was to be
flogged to death in the forum too).

Does this mean Amanda Knox was a Vestal virgin?

[mrgrouch]

the word sacrifice comes from the latin meaning "sacred obligation" (or something like that), so it seems to me that a death must be part of a sacred ritual to be considered "sacrifice". What does the etymology has to do with it? well latin was the language of the romans, if they considered gladiatorial combat to be a sacrifice, they would have called it that way.

i don't know the origin of the concept of virginity, but the majority of the precolumbian cultures of the americas did not share that concept. many even adopted the spanish word virgen because in their own languages didn't even had a word for it. so did virgin women were sacrificed? sure, as many as women with dental cavities; was it an important factor? not likely.

and the concept of "children" was well defined in many of these cultures, usually there was a rite of passage for a child to become man or woman, things like the first hunt alone for a boy or the first menstruation for a girl.

the thing about a lot of these cultures is that the europeans that first documented their cultures did so applieing their own preconceived notions instead of trying to understand them.

cheers

[gumboot]

Perhaps I'm using the wrong military terms, but my understanding was that a . . . whatever-the-term-for-the-group-in-the-Roman-legion-is who failed to perform, follow orders, or showed cowardice (or whatever the infraction) was then subjected to decimation. The process of decimation, as I understand it, was that the aforementioned group would then form into groups of ten and determine, usually by a process of chance (lots or short straws, etc.) which one of the ten would be killed by the remaining nine. Further, as I understand it, the term "decimation" is roughly taken from the Latin meaning to remove one-tenth.

If any of the above is incorrect, please kindly show me where my error lies.


This is correct, more or less. There's very few records of the specifics of how it was carried out, and it stopped being used (except on maybe one or two occasions) from the Imperial era, so records are scant. In some instances it seems the 1 in 10 soldiers would be executed by others, not by members of their own unit. In 18 AD (I believe the last documented case of decimation) Lucius Apronius ordered the decimation of an entire cohort of the 3rd Legion after they retreated into their besieged fort and left their commander to face the enemy alone. In this instance the 50 men were flogged to death by other soldiers, while their comrades were forced to watch.

I believe in another instance a commander had a cowardly unit line up on the side of a bridge, then rode along and pushed every tenth man off the edge.

[RobRoy]

This is correct, more or less. [snip]

Ok, then I fail to see what your argument was.

[gumboot]

Ok, then I fail to see what your argument was.

Well the word means, in Latin "to remove one tenth". Thus no Latin-speaking person is going to refer to a person as having been "decimated" as that would mean one tenth of the person was removed, which obviously doesn't make sense. Rather, they would refer to the unit as having been decimated, because 1/10 of the unit was removed. This is particularly true of Latin which is a very precise language.

Incidentally, the path by which it came to mean "destroyed" or "great loss" is actually much later. The word, in English, was originally used to describe the tithe to the Church, which was 1/10, thus retaining the original meaning, and it was after this was well established in English that the second meaning arose, thus it appears to connect more with the greed of the Church and the poverty peasantry suffered as a result than to the severity of Roman discipline.

[RobRoy]

Well the word means, in Latin "to remove one tenth". Thus no Latin-speaking person is going to refer to a person as having been "decimated" as that would mean one tenth of the person was removed, which obviously doesn't make sense. Rather, they would refer to the unit as having been decimated, because 1/10 of the unit was removed. This is particularly true of Latin which is a very precise language.

Was the operation to remove your sense of humor costly, or covered by your insurance.

The point was that it wasn't a big stretch for the term to go from meaning "remove one-tenth" as applied to killing off one-in-ten Roman soldiers, to meaning destruction in general. It's hardly a stretch. So once more, I fail to see exactly what you're argument was against both my understanding and my little silliness with Bob and Jim.

[Meadmaker]

Does anyone know when the literary motif of "sacrificing a virgin" became popular?

It's kind of a stock image in today's bad fantasy literature, but when did it start?

[gumboot]

Was the operation to remove your sense of humor costly, or covered by your insurance.

The point was that it wasn't a big stretch for the term to go from meaning "remove one-tenth" as applied to killing off one-in-ten Roman soldiers, to meaning destruction in general. It's hardly a stretch. So once more, I fail to see exactly what you're argument was against both my understanding and my little silliness with Bob and Jim.

*Sigh*

Nevermind. I really don't care.

[gumboot]

Does anyone know when the literary motif of "sacrificing a virgin" became popular?

It's kind of a stock image in today's bad fantasy literature, but when did it start?

Apparently it was very popular in Classical literature, and then experienced a resurgence in the western world when the Spanish brought back tantalising tales about the Aztecs.

[RobRoy]

*Sigh*

Nevermind. I really don't care.

As you wish.

[Yithmas]

Oh yes, virgin sacrifice is still around and is actively being practised regularly in...

WAIT FOR IT...

WAIT FOR IT...


TIBET

I have a very reliable Christian pamphlet at home, stating that the Dalai Lama regularly presides over virgin sacrifices in Tibet.
(Yes, I am aware he has not been in Tibet in decades and the pamphlet is from 2003 or something...)
Don't you just love reliable sources?

[NoZed Avenger]

Did virginal sacrifice EVER happen?

Maybe not.





But why take chances, Baby?

[C_Felix]

A joke/insult I tell:

When people say, "We always used to do that!" (ex: a changing a policy at work) I say, "We used to throw virgins into volacanoes, and I don't want to see you die in such a nasty manner"

[RobRoy]

A joke/insult I tell:

When people say, "We always used to do that!" (ex: a changing a policy at work) I say, "We used to throw virgins into volacanoes, and I don't want to see you die in such a nasty manner"

So that's, what, your third trip to HR?