Celts And 'human Sacrifice'? (bog Bodies)

[docoflove1974]

I realize this isn't the Celtic board, but I'm gonna try for this anyway.

 

Last night I was watching a NOVA special on PBS on the recent discovery of 2 more 'bog bodies' found in central Ireland. Because both bodies were horrifically mutated--one with just the torso and arms, the other with the head and torso and arms down to the elbow--and they were found at the edge of clan territories, there was a suggestion by a couple of the experts, as well as serious overtones by the narrator, that this could have been the result of human sacrifice.

 

Now, I know that several Roman authors wrote about the Celts performing human sacrifice on their own people (as opposed to the Aztec ritual of sacrificing the warriors of the tribes they just conquered), but that it was largely fabricated...or was it? The little I've read about the Celts, it doesn't seem to me that they would have practiced such a ritual, at least not on themselves. And it was reckoned that both of these bog bodies in the show were Celts, higher-classed ones no less.

 

Any thoughts on this?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Any thoughts on this?

 

Looks to me like an ordinary execution. Why favor something as elaborate as human sacrifice?

[Princeps]

For me, the "mold cape" is fairly / semi- convincing evidence of bronze-age sacrifice (especially when considered alongside bog bodies). I'm not sure if it is "Celtic", but it's not armour, and would be uncomfortable to wear (notice how it would resrtict your arms at the shoulders), it is clearly a ritualistic / ceremonial piece, and it has been theorised that is was used on sacraficial victims. It seems to fit. This, along with other evidence, convinces me.

 

 

Re-constructed pics are also available, pic search "Mold cape"

[M. Porcius Cato]

The cape is ritualistic, but so are the fasces and many other symbols of government power. Again, isn't the evidence equally consistent with the idea of execution?

[sullafelix]

Any thoughts on this?

 

Looks to me like an ordinary execution. Why favor something as elaborate as human sacrifice?

 

 

I am delving way back into the depths of my memory here but didn't some of the bog bodies have evidence of mistletoe and other ritual meal type ingredients in their stomachs?

[Princeps]

The cape is ritualistic, but so are the fasces and many other symbols of government power. Again, isn't the evidence equally consistent with the idea of execution?

 

I don't think it is really, this is pretty much the greatest iron age relic ever found in Britain, some say in Europe. Why invest so much into a bit of execution parafenalia(sp)? They would have had to be regularly indulging in some rather high profile executions.

 

EDIT / Bronze age

Edited February 20, 2006 by Princeps

[M. Porcius Cato]

Who had the highest status in this society? Kings or priests? Or were they the same class?

[Ursus]

The one problem I have with the theory is this:

 

Sacrifice means "to make sacred." You are taking something valuable and ritually consecrating it to divinity. Food is valuable because it is scarce (especially in pre-Industrial societies), and thus makes a fitting offering. Gold and silver and other precious metals are valuable, and thus make suitable offerings.

 

But as far as human sacrifice, what kind of humans would be sacrificed? Criminals? Criminals are like the trash of society, and not very "valuable" things to offer. Prisoners of war? I suppose if they were exceptional warriors they might be considered valuable, but then there is a question of why would you mutilate a precious offering to a deity?

 

I'm not saying human sacrifice never happened. Obviously it's been recorded in Roman and other cultures. But I do think when a body if found mutilated in a bog, it's just a case of some poor slob or criminal who was disposed of by the powers that be.

[Princeps]

Not sure really, I'd guess (given my knowledge of other ancient cultures) that it would be Kings.

[sullafelix]

Who had the highest status in this society? Kings or priests? Or were they the same class?

 

As I remember rightly from undergraduate courses (lost in the mists of time!) I seem to remember society being certainly divided into a warrior nobility and then the grunts. I would imagine that their priests came from the nobility in general but there is also the possibility of the mentally unstable or physically deformed also being mystics and or priests. There is a burial at Vix usually listed as the Vix Princess but it is more likely that she was a priestess and she showed some physical abnormalities as well.

 

I think the problem here is that there is not just a lack of unbiased source material on them but also that the archaeology is difficult becuase it has been mainly obscured by Roman occupation in the earliest part. I ahve just had a quick flick through Caesar and tacitus and I can't really find anything useful to answer this question

 

Sulla Felix

[Primus Pilus]

Who had the highest status in this society? Kings or priests? Or were they the same class?

 

Hmm, really an interesting question. Caesar and Strabo both make it quite clear that the Druids were the top of the social and cultural ladder, and there are suggestions of royal deference to druidic law. However, I suppose like anything else, circumstances would come into play for which party was truly preeminent. Perhaps druidic mandates were necessary in such things as declaring war, but it would seem likely that a powerful king could manipulate 'court druids' to do his bidding.

 

 

Adding Strabo's text from book IV chapter IV

 

Among all the Gallic peoples, generally speaking, there are three sets of men who are held in exceptional honour; the Bards, the Vates and the Druids. The Bards are singers and poets; the Vates, diviners and natural philosophers; while the Druids, in addition to natural philosophy, study also moral philosophy. The Druids are considered the most just of men, and on this account they are entrusted with the decision, not only of the private disputes, but of the public disputes as well; so that, in former times, they even arbitrated cases of war and made the opponents stop when they were about to line up for battle, and the murder cases, in particular, had been turned over to them for decision. Further, when there is a big yield from these cases, there is forthcoming a big yield from the land too, as they think. However, not only the Druids, but others as well,say that men's souls, and also the universe, are indestructible, although both fire and water will at some time or other prevail over them.

 

In addition to their trait of simplicity and high-spiritedness, that of witlessness and boastfulness is much in evidence, and also that of fondness for ornaments; for they not only wear golden ornaments

[M. Porcius Cato]

So from the Strabo text it seems possible that a Druid, dressed in his finery, had a couple of murderers torn to bits--not as a sacrifice, but as a gristly execution.

[Pertinax]

PPs post and quote is the scene seting for the "Whicker Man" (as in the film of that name) which is a sacrifice of the living to ensure fertility of the land , the moot point here is the status of the victims-defeated enemies? criminals? chosen and honoured community members?

As ive mentioned elsewhere the Gallic Auxilliary cavalry (as illustrated on Trajans column) still head hunted to show military prowess within the tradition of their forefathers.The head hunting seems a clear cut activity-you lose ,they take your head.

It is interesting to note that the Romans might have enjoyed the spectacle of the arena as a reinforcement of "brand loyalty" but they are contemptuous of the Celtic "sacrifices" as a barbaric spectacle.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Mutilation with sacrifice does not seem so strange to me. The Aztec and Inca did it. If one is going as far as to sacrifice a human, I don't imagine cutting off parts in some religiously important form is that removed from the equation. The bog bodies have also been found with weapons and jewelry. If these were common criminals surely they would not have these?

 

I recall also the Celtic method of sacrifice: digging a long deep hole and leaving someone in it to die...forgot the name exactly.

 

Using a criminal for a sacrifice is hardly grounds for calling it a death penalty for criminals. The sacrifice of a human is what is important, the sacrifice of a human essence. I'm not so sure the ancients viewed the sacrifice so much as in our modern view of the worshipper giving up something to the gods as imparting an essence or power of land and life around them directly to the gods. Everyone knows that eating empowers oneself, or that water grows a plant. Perhaps a god needs sacrifice to be strong as well, or even just the act of worship? Not just a matter of keeping the gods off your back, but also of empowering them to keep the fabric of reality going, lest life

[docoflove1974]

Well, I think that an important note is that not all bog bodies were considered to be 'criminals'. Certainly those who were hung (the rope still around their necks) or mutillated could possibly be considered to be criminals--although that is just one possibility. But others that they briefly showed on this program where whole bodies (mostly women) who had nary a mark on them, or perhaps just a broken limb. This is true, according to the program, of bog bodies regardless of where they were found.

 

It was the mutilation of these two in particular, and the seemingly constant insistence, that these were 'victims' of human sacrifice, that got to me. In particular, the implication that they were killing one of their own in order to apease the gods.

 

EDIT TO ADD: Incidently, these two bodies were dated to ~300BCE, so early Iron Age. No trinkets or artifacts were found with either, save that one had an arm band (and I don't remember the materials used, sorry), and the other had resin and other additions to his hair and hairstyle to suggest that he was a member of the upper/ruling class.

Edited February 21, 2006 by docoflove1974