Did the Celts, Carthaginians and Germanic peoples really commit human sacrifice, or is that just Roman propaganda?

Did the Celts, Carthaginians and Germanic peoples really commit human sacrifice, or is that just Roman propaganda?

Probably.

I don't get why the Romans got so hoighty-toighty about it though, they would sacrifice Vestal Virgins that broke their vows to the gods. They just told themselves it wasn't human sacrifice kinda like how they would go on to convert to Christianity and tell themselves they're not polytheists.

Didn't they 'just' bury them alive? hardly human sacrifice, unless you consider the electric chair a wotanic ritual.

Pretty likely. Almost certain in the case of the Carthaginians, Baal is also associated with human sacrifice in the Old Testament and the Romans identified him with Saturn, devourer of his children.

20th-century scholarship on the matter was and is choked with cucks and catladies trying to whitewash ancient practices though. Ancient DNA studies have pretty much killed the "pots not people" narrative of ancient "population shifts", although there's still plenty of room for obscurantist terminology (it wasn't the Aryans...it was the "Yamnaya"!. Look up the Wikipedia article on the "Corded Ware Culture" and see if you can figure out that they were an exterminatory mounted invasion from the east).

However, there's still plenty of room for making tenuous claims that human sacrifice never existed. Sure, every single ancient source says that Baal demanded the sacrifice of children, and pits full of baby skeletons have been found, but it could all have been based on a misunderstanding.

There was also the rex nemorensis. Anyway, the Romans were aware that they had in the past engaged in human sacrifice and ritual murder but ceased (mostly) doing so when they became civilized.

I read recently that the Carthaginian issue is hotly disputed. I was going to read this French Carthage archaeologist's history of Carthage, and I vaguely recall him being anti-human sacrifice theory.

>Corded Ware/Yamnaya
So wait, Proto-Indo-Iranian split off AFTER the Proto-German/Balts were seeded by these invasive horse nomad motherfuckers? Does that mean the PIE diaspora wasn't a single event with branches that extended and "broke" off (into Italy, Greece, Germany, Celts etc) but was probably thousands of years of Aryan steppe horseman shitkickers spreading all over the place?

Are Indo-European origins as fucked up and amorphous just as the recorded history of the Eurasian steppe in Greek/Roman times?

There's nothing wrong with human sacrifice.

>Does that mean the PIE diaspora wasn't a single event with branches that extended and "broke" off

I'm not who you are responding to but have been looking at ancient history stuff for a couple years now, and it's interesting you made that point because I never bought into the above. I've never really expressed that though since even those with alternate takes seem to believe that Indo-Europeans spread out from one place in Ukraine or Anatolia. However, the main reason I don't believe that is because the date is so recent in relation to the flood, and I think there was stuff going on long before that, which is why these dates always get blown out of the water by discoveries like Gobekli Tepe. I also think Egypt is way older than most people say it is. I'm sure Indo-Europeans split off from one place but I don't buy the date and therefore can't buy anything about the general story or pic related. Maybe I'm missing something though. I haven't paid much attention to these subjects lately.

Do you read anything into the theories about Atlantis and a much older Egypt? The whole Sphinx erosion theory?

Did the Romans really eat babies, or was that just jewish propagada?

Did the jews really eat babies, or was that just christian propaganda?

Yeah, I've looked at most of that stuff. Schoct's, or however it's spelled, theory and the rest. There's too much evidence of something to say there wasn't anything imo. But I'm also aware there are not many people who've gone deep down this road. Sounds like you know exactly what I'm talking about though.

Isn't it rather a big deal that the Jewish god didn't demand human sacrifice, or that's what the Jews came to believe? Isn't that what the story of the sacrifice of Isaac is about?

...

(me)
Let me upgrade my statement and be more honest as opposed to faux-diplomatic: I have studied the ancient history stuff in depth and absolutely believe in "Atlantis" (don't think there's any real doubt about it as a real entity, though who knows where it was, what it was called, etc.), and believe the ancient Aryan threads on 8pol are some of the most intellectually enlightening experiences available in modern times and highlight the groundbreaking power of high-IQ white man internet investigative groupthink (meant in a positive way) operations.

It's a story about obedience. God told him to do so, so he must do so. He has shown is loyalty so he doesn't have to go trough with the sacrifice.

Yes but the burial was a ritualized offering to the gods as atonement for the Vestal Virgins breaking their vows. It wasn't merely a method of execution.

If, say, impeached presidents got the electric chair because otherwise George Washington would punish us or some shit and this is how we appease his wrath that would also be human sacrifice.

>Anyway, the Romans were aware that they had in the past engaged in human sacrifice and ritual murder but ceased (mostly) doing so when they became civilized.
"mostly" is the key word. The Romans continued to occasionally practice state-sanctioned ritual murder pretty much until they became Christian, they just didn't consider it human sacrifice.

God was already aware of his loyalty though, so he subjected Abraham to unnecessary suffering

Yeah, and they were self-aware that some of their practices (such as the ritual executions related to the Vestals) had origins in sacrificial rituals.

I couldn't tell you what language developed when. The point I was trying to make though is that these invasions did happen, they involved massive amounts of violence, and they were and are systematically denied by influential archaeologists/paleoanthropologists for literally no other reason than that they don't like thinking about warfare and prefer peaceful explanations, combined with deliberate obscurantism to prevent giving "ammunition" to their ideological enemies when the truth is undeniable. I mean, look at this shit:

>Speakers of Indo-European languages encountered existing populations in Europe that spoke unrelated, non-Indo-European languages when they migrated further into Europe from the Yamna culture's steppe zone at the margin of Europe. He focuses on both the effects on Indo-European languages that resulted from this contact and investigation of the pre-existing languages. Relatively little is known about the Pre-Indo-European linguistic landscape of Europe, except for Basque, as the "Indo-Europeanization" of Europe caused a largely unrecorded, massive linguistic extinction event, most likely through language-shift.

Do you see what this is describing? Bonus points for understanding how this type of muddled thinking about "migration" and "language shifts" affects elite understanding of the world in Europe right now.

Was it really suffering?
God teached his son how much power he has over people, they got a free lamb and God was happy.
In the end, everything turned out great.

>was the psychological torment caused to Abraham and his son by thinking he would have to kill his son and was going to die, respectively, really suffering
Nigga you best be baiting
And God could have just said "hey Abraham, I know you're loyal. Have a goat." no need at all for the sadistic mind games

It wouldn't have been as exemplary that way. And it's not like anything changed permanently, besides the goad dying.

MOTHEFUCKER, THERE IS AN ENTIRE HISTORY BOARD

>God is so weak and stupid he can't figure out a way to make an extremely exemplary event without causing psychological problems torment

>it's not like anything changed permanently
So, if I break into your house and rape you, then rape your mother in front of you, than your dad too, and you eventually get over it, is it fine because nothing changed permanent?

Not the guy you were responding to here, but I'm a geneticist who has done some study on the small amounts of ancient DNA evidence existing for some of the population movements into Europe. Specifically the Neolithic expansion. The evidence there suggests not a big all at once surge, but a slow encroachment, where small groups of males would migrate into an area, murder the men, steal the women and settle. The killed as far as we can tell were Hunter gatherers while the killers were settled. This is only coming to light recently due to the way ancient DNA sequencing has always worked. For years we could only use the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA, which is generally the best preserved in the body over time. Recently we developed the technology to get readable sequence from other genome types. What we found with the old mtDNA seemed to support and gradual cultural exchange as the use of farmig slowly moved into Europe, while new evidence of course supports a more violent alternative. So these methods of transmitting cultural things are somewhat established in the small overlap between genetics and anthropology. Around what date is the period you're looking at? We can as it stands only get useable ancient DNA from samples dating around 4000 years ago,though a bit further back ir they're exceptionally preserved.

Was there permanent damage done?
Your example is wrong, because rape causes actual physical harm.
This case is more like "Fuck I have to hand in a paper tomorrow" and you go there, hand it in and they tell you that you didn't need to do this at all, but it shall be honoured anyway in some shape or form.
Just because something stressful happens, it doesn't mean it's going to cripple you for life.