Human sacrifice and cannibalism

This website contains links to other websites which are not under the control of and are not maintained by Channel 4 Television. Channel 4 Television is not responsible for the content of these sites and does not necessarily endorse the material on them.

Inconclusive evidence
The archaeological evidence for human sacrifice and cannibalism is sparse and inconclusive. So it's not surprising that archaeologists do not agree on the extent to which these practices took place. Three online articles from British Archaeology deal with the subject of human sacrifice and cannibalism in Britain. Needless to say, many archaeologists have different views.

'Human sacrifice in Iron-Age Europe'
www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba38/ba38feat.html#green
Ritual murder was a special event, but not an unusual one, writes Miranda Aldhouse Green

'The edible dead'
www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba59/feat1.shtml
Cannibalism is rarely mentioned in archaeology textbooks. But there is clear evidence for cannibalism in almost every society and every period, writes Timothy Taylor

'Dancing with the dead in a mass grave'
www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba50/ba50feat.html#baxter

Druids and Celts
Barry Cunliffe writes about the druids and human sacrifice on pp 191-193 of The Ancient Celts. He's writing about the Celtic peoples of Europe as a whole, rather than Britain specifically, as part of the chapter on Religious Systems. He says there is 'ample evidence' for human sacrifice by the druids, but then comes close to contradicting himself by saying, 'Convincing evidence of human sacrifice is surprisingly rare in the archaeological record.' His evidence is primarily from classical writers (Roman and Greek).

Classical references
There are three principal references to druidic human sacrifices in classical writings – by Strabo, in his Geography; Julius Caesar, in the Gallic Wars; and Tacitus, in Annals. This is what each of them wrote:

Strabo:
'The Romans put a stop both to these customs and to the ones connected with sacrifice and divination, as they were in conflict with our own ways: for example, they would strike a man who had been consecrated for sacrifice in the back with a sword, and make prophecies based on his death-spasms; and they would not sacrifice without the presence of the Druids. Other kinds of human sacrifices have been reported as well: some men they would shoot dead with arrows and impale in the temples; or they would construct a huge figure of straw and wood, and having thrown cattle and all manner of wild animals and humans into it, they would make a burnt offering of the whole thing.'

Caesar:
'All the people of Gaul are completely devoted to religion, and for this reason those who are greatly affected by diseases and in the dangers of battle either sacrifice human victims or vow to do so using the Druids as administrators to these sacrifices, since it is judged that unless for a man's life a man's life is given back, the will of the immortal gods cannot be placated. In public affairs they have instituted the same kind of sacrifice. Others have effigies of great size interwoven with twigs, the limbs of which are filled up with living people which are set on fire from below, and the people are deprived of life surrounded by flames. It is judged that the punishment of those who participated in theft or brigandage or other crimes are more pleasing to the immortal gods; but when the supplies of this kind fail, they even go so low as to inflict punishment on the innocent.'

Tacitus:
'On the shore stood the opposing army with its dense array of armed warriors, while between the ranks dashed women, in black attire like the Furies, with hair dishevelled, waving brands. All around, the Druids, lifting up their hands to heaven, and pouring forth dreadful imprecations, scared our soldiers by the unfamiliar sight, so that, as if their limbs were paralysed, they stood motionless, and exposed to wounds. Then urged by their general's appeals and mutual encouragements not to quail before a troop of frenzied women, they bore the standards onwards, smote down all resistance, and wrapped the foe in the flames of his own brands. A force was next set over the conquered, and their groves, devoted to inhuman superstitions, were destroyed. They deemed it indeed a duty to cover their altars with the blood of captives and to consult their deities through human entrails.'

Opinions vary on how reliable these sources are, and it is worth bearing in mind that none of them is a first-hand account; all of them have obvious propaganda purposes; some of the details are clearly copied from each other or drawn from the same source (eg the wicker man); and there are known inaccuracies (eg none of the Celtic peoples used bows and arrows at this time). As yet, the archaeological record provides little to support any of these accounts – although as Mick Aston is fond of repeating, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Text only