Dedicated to  Dawn, and the players, the audience, the sacrifices, sacrifier, and the victims of the Mesoamerican ball game.

Dawn proffered a question in an affiliated forum regarding the sacrifice in a "Mesoamerican ball game":

            1.  "If human sacrifice was considered so important, was the person being sacrificed thought to have honor?  Meaning, would the people who were beaten in the ball game given some sort of redemption by becoming a sacrifice?"

 

            Let me try to field question 1.

 

            You asked if the victim of the ("ball game") sacrifice is honored and/or redeemed.

 

            First, does the person who is sacrificed have honor?   Today all we have is the ruins of the stadiums, which are huge, pictures in hieroglyphic type drawing such as Borgia Codex, and the testimonies of people who were never there when the "game was played". 

               Most scholars agree to disagree on this.  What was the game called?  Nobody seems to know that.  Was a ball used.  No one knows for sure.  (But there's a boy on the street in Matamoros who says his sister knows and for X dolares he will ask her.)

            Most of the testimony is of that caliber, apparently, and like today, what testimony was given in the early Post Columbian times was given in a foreign language to Europeans by people who were not present when the games were played (several generations removed).  One source says a game something like basketball was played.  No balls survived.  There is no agreement among scholars on the size or the construction of the ball, including what it was made of.  (Some sort of rubber is assumed by some).   some rumors say it was a Human skull, but a human skull would not take much punishment. 

               The scholars seem to agree that the hands and feet of the players could not be used to touch the "ball".  The goal was a vertical donut type thing presumably at one time decorated with gold  (no net).   Scoring a goal was apparently bordering on a superhuman fete. 

               Supposedly making one of the "Teams" was quite a distinction.

 

The sacrifice  (the victim):

            Some scholars say that the winning team captain was sacrificed by the losing team captain. and each captain considered it the greatest of honors.  Others contend that it was the winning captain who sacrificed the loser.  One thing all scholars seem to agree on is that game decided who got sacrificed.  And somebody always did.  Was he (apparently there was no lady's league) redeemed by being the sacrifice?  I assumed you mean according to their mythology.  Redeemed from what?  There was nothing I know of in their mythology about there being anything in the afterlife to be redeemed from.  Being free from the rigidity of their obvious class system might have been a reward. 

 

Honored/redeemed

     I have read chapters on the "sacredness of the sacrifice" in general and there is no way I can adequately narrow it down to a short treatise except to say although each sacrifice ritual has certain roles and properties present, each one is different.

      Before discussing it intelligently we would have to come to an understood definition of several terms.  They would include ritual, place, religious instruments religious personages, the sacrifier, the sacrificer, the victim, ad naseum. (Hubert and Maus, chapter two) Here the place was the arena.  The sacrifier was the one for whom the whole thing was put on.   Possibly the King.  He doesn't really do anything but watch.  He may stand up now and then.  It is expected to be a special spiritual experience for him/her.  The sacrificer would be the team captain who does the killing.  He does it with special instruments (whatever they may have been) and according to an exact ritual (unknown today)..  There is a ritual which includes the game.  This has to be at least overseen by a religious official.  The team captain who is killed has distinguished himself by "making the squad".  But is he redeemed?  From what?  I would assume he was considered closer to the "deity" or "the land of the dead."

       After reading volumes about human and other sacrifice, It is my impression that the whole thing was for the person Hubert and Mauss describe as the sacrifier.  Although he/she may or may not take part, the thing is done for his benefit and is designed to speak as some kind of inspiration to him/her.   Like being the observer of a gladiatorial combat.

       But, Therir blood was, according to Borgia Codex, being drunk by the Gods, so by providing energy for the gods they did achieve something, according to the mythology.

 

Hubert & Mauss     Sacrifice, it's Nature and Function  

                                  Essai sur la Nature et la Funtion du Sacrifice

 

Hubert & Mauss     Sacrifice, it's Nature and Function  

                                  Essai sur la Nature et la Funtion du Sacrifice 

 

              Translated from the French, this essay is absolutely required reading.

 

               Hubert & Mauss say they have given themselves "only to the task of attempting to put it (sacrifice)  in its place." (p103)  Its ramifications in sociology, etc. are focused out

               Discounting, if not discarding, most Roman and European sources, although newer, in favor of Biblical and Vedic material, Hubert and Mause say"(page 7)  " The documents are direct, drawn  up by the participants themselves, in their own language, in the very spirit in which they enacted the rights, " even if motives might have been unclear.

Roman and European  For instance:

                Too often the Gaul, the Viking, or the Druid is written about by some Roman, years later, who was certainly no eye witness nor participant.  Probably did not know the language...

               Hubert & Mauss quote another author, Tyler, who they say was inspired by Bastian, Spencer, and Darwin and I do not feel the thread can be improved upon:

                              "Sacrifice, according to this writer, (Tyler, page 1) was originally a gift made by a                primitive to supernatural being with whom he needed to ingratiate himself. Then, when the                gods grew greater and became more removed from man, the necessity of continuing to      pass on this gift to them gave rise to sacrificial rites, intended to ensure that the objects        thus spiritualized reached these spiritual beings." (Introduction page 2) 

               The authors then go on to show Tyler's theories of how, as "gods grew greater and became more removed from man"(2 top) sacrificial rites were born.  After painting this very orderly, concise progression the authors go on to say there may be some "historical basis of truth" (2 middle) in it and move on.

              Then,  "their simplicity, itself may stem from an insufficiency of documents" (6) and if rife with usual implicit falsehoods gained by combinations and labeling."(p2)

               As I say, texts relied upon are Biblical and Vedic.  The authors say Greek and  Roman sources, though newer are just "not of equal value". (p7)

                Hubert & Maus' work with  combining the larger picture gained from both Biblical (Ethical Monotheism) and Vedic (polytheism) into a unity.

               First they look at the sacrificial systems as a whole in their many ramifications and establish what pervades all and render up a definition.  Having done this they look for the "scheme" (page 19).

               The scheme (all important moments included) breaks down into "the entry"(p 19).  "can only be carried out in a religious atmosphere by essentially religious agents..." (p 19 bottom)The cast includes:

·        the sacrifier(p20)

·        the sacrificer(22)

·        the place, the instruments(p25)

·        the victim(p28)  (can be human, animal, agricultural product, water,   )

·        Action

                              "The victim is first consecrated..." (p45)

               The procedure then goes on, and then the exit (p45)  Hubert & Mauss then state "The respective importance of these phases...  ...can vary infinitely according to the circumstances."(p49)  Then they go on to show what these circumstances are.

               They discuss how the "General Functions can vary the scheme." (p50)  This is also true of "special functions".

 

The Sacrifice of the God (p77)

               Hubert & Mauss give a myriad of examples in mythology of the victim being a god.

 

Conclusion, definitions

               "... establishes a means of communication between the sacred and the profane worlds through mediation of a victim, that is something that in the course of the ceremony is destroyed." (p97)     "Moreover we (Hubert & Mauss) have been able to see how many beliefs and social practices not strictly religious  are liked to sacrifice...   ...We have given ourselves only to the task of attempting to put it (sacrifice)  in its place."

 

Notes  

               pages 104 to 154 are notes

 

                                                Again, "must read" for a student of sacrifice

Hubert & Mauss  Sacrifice, it's Nature and Function

                                 Essai sur la Nature et la Funtion du Sacrifice    

                                                                            Bob Hill

 

 

               One of the questions that constantly recycles is when is a death a sacrifice, a murder, a martyrdom, an argument settled, an execution, others.

               Two authors who really pursue this question from different angles are Hyman Maccoby, "The Sacred Executioner" and Miranda Green "Dying for the Gods".

 

               Maccoby ( example on page 100, second paragraph, but runs throughout the book) not only recognizes disagreement, but attempts to point out who disagrees and why.  He definitely takes the approach that most scriptures and other written records of the last few thousand years have been redacted later to speak to the then current readers.  He tries very hard to lead us through the underbrush with the advantages he has as a dedicated scholar so that we can see that there may be material that can be read between the lines.

               Green has the advantage of being "Head of the Research Centre the Study of Culture, Archeology, Religions, and Biogeography at the University of Wales College (Now in 2013 merged with University of South Wales, my note), Newport, where she holds a personal chair in Archeology.  In 2001, when "Dying for the Gods" was published, she had written 12 books, including Exploring the World of the Druids.  (Back Fly Leaf)

               Green makes no bones (there I go again) about how difficult it is to differentiate with ancient remains to determine the nature of an apparent possible sacrifice and opposed to executions, etc.  Her accompanying Illustrations are impressive/informative.

 

               Both authors stress that civilization is a very new phenomena in the millions of years of human life.  Both indicate that Human sacrifices seemed to carry a certain magic quality about them that even animal blood sacrifices do not have, except in the earliest sacrificial days when the animal may more resemble the deity involved.  It was after the Jewish concept of "man made in our own image" gave human sacrifice any special meaning.  Both authors jump into substitute deaths, scape goats...  "Founding sacrifices"...

Three possibly surprising ideas are more or less morphing from the boiling cauldron:

1.      Sacrifices*, human or otherwise, seem to be as universal and natural to prehistoric man as breathing.  This supported by all ancient sources.  (Ugarit, Byblos, China, India, Egypt, The Bible, The Torah, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad, The Odyssey, archeology... ) Sacrifices were  offered to

a.      mark special occasions

b.      bribe the Power(s) that be

c.      bring about a "blessing"**

d.      seek forgiveness (by scape - goating)

e.      to accompany the dead to where ever...

f.       other

2.      The value of the sacrifice served at least a dual purpose

a.      show the power(s) you were serious

b.      show onlookers you were serious

c.      show onlookers your affluence (as in conspicuous consumption)

d.      to check with yourself to make sure you were serious

3.      A human sacrifice did not necessarily increase the value of the sacrifice.

a.      A good milk cow could be more expensive than a slave or member of the household (especially children - about half lived for 5 years or more)

b.      The value of an item was up to barter.

4.      Blood sacrifices were special

a.      a living animal

b.      blood itself (especially your own blood)  For instance, the Huron (Wendat) Indians in what is now Canada:**

               "Even bloodletting had parallels among the Wendats, who believed that bloodletting had supernatural connections.   '...When we wish to have success in hunting...we cut and slash our bodies so that the blood runs down abundantly.'  The Wendats also connected the release of blood with healing.   Like Europeans, Wendats believed that blood had powerful associations with health, and their healers performed procedures to remove blood..." (page 82 bottom, 83)

5.      Sacrificing was such a natural part of the DNA that even universal catastrophe (flood, for instance) would not wipe it out.

                In the myth of Noah, the first thing he is said to have done after coming out on dry land was to offer a sacrifice.  At the sacrifice the "Lord of Heaven" made the promise never to destroy the earth with water.*** (Genesis 8:19 -9:13) (Some may question the existence of Noah and the actuality of the flood, but I have never heard anyone question that the first thing the sole survivor with his family would instinctively do is offer a sacrifice.     

               Many stories that could be mythical have much truth in them regardless if "You have the ear to hear..

              

 

*  Sacrifice:    (as in sacred) a gift, or return of property, to a higher (sacred) power.  Some believe(d) you were just returning what rightfully belonged to the power(s).

**  Seeman, Erick:  The Huron-Wendat Feast of the Dead (pages 82 and 83)

***  The Holy Bible (Genesis 8, 9)

 

Continuing Treasure Hunt

               Have added three books to my material:

Macoby, Hyam;   The Sacred Executioner;  Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt

Aldhouse-Green, Miranda:  Dying for the Gods

Selengut. Charles:  Sacred Fury;  Understanding Religious Violence

 

               Got to get to reading!!!

     Introduced to middle world religions before I could read, I have always been puzzled by the idea of sacrifice, especially human sacrifice.  This course and these books along with a myriad of videos and articles have certainly brought me a long way.  This is a game changing experience.  If this blog is about answers, each answer I find brings with it hundreds of more questions.




Currently reading:  (some mentioned before)

John Day,  "Yaweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan"

Nigel Davies, "Human Sacrifices in History and Today"

Jimmy Lee Shreeve, "Human Sacrifice;  A shocking Expose of Ritual Killing Worldwide"

Dennis D Hughes,  "Human Sacrifice In Ancient Greece"

Geoffrey Samuel,  "The Origins of Yoga and Tantra;  Indic Religions to the 13th century

Seeman, "The Huron Wendat Feast of the Dead"

Lawrence Wright, "The Looming Tower;  Al-Queda and the Road to 9/11"    (mentioned before)

Elizabeth Keck, "Beside the Chebar River: The Glory of Yahweh, Name Theology, and Ezekiel's Understanding of Divine Presence"

David Lewis-Williams, "The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art"

Miranda and Stephen Aldhouse-Green, "The Quest for the Shaman"

Karin Finsterbusch, "Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Numen Book)"

The Bible

The Koran

 

The Tibetan Book of the Dead

 

               Next:   What is the purpose of rituals?  Sacrifice?  Ritual Sacrifice?  Human Ritual Sacrifice?