Having read all this, makes me wonder one thing.
How did the animal sacrifice then turned into Human sacrifice as practiced by say, the Aztecs. According to Aztec writings, we know that they did thousands of Human sacrifices each year to appease their gods.
But how did a group of people went from animals to humans? (I’m guessing the whole “lets sacrifice people” started with a group that was sacrificing animals first)
As I understand it, the first human sacrifices were made in order to access their delicious brains.
(Also, welcome to the boards, lucasliso).
The Velikovsky Effect, IIRC, was what happens when someone comes up with total crap disguised as “science”.
Seriously, the planets have been playing pinball in the last few thousand years (but now are inexplicably settled into near-circular orbits), near misses by other planets produced hydrocarbons in our atmosphere that inexplicably became carbohydrates, thus raining as manna (but apparently only in the Sinai, for the wandering Jews???) Need I go on?
Jayne’s work by contrast, to my non-expert mind without reading the book, seems to be legitimate theory. (I see it’s in Kindle store, and for an under-$10 price, instand delivery. Is this a great time to be alive or what?)
Could you please explain what “conscious” means in this context? Surely you’re not suggesting that Hammurabi’s parents and grandparents had the brainpower of animals. 
Zenster’s done explaining things.
Since 2003. He was sacrificed to the gods.
Yeah, thanks, just noticed that.
Okay, well then, how did zombie sacrifices get started? 
Burkert in Homo Necans hypothesized that people identified enough with animals to feel bad about killing them. Ritual sacrifice became a way to lighten the burden of such feelings by implicating supernatural beings in the death of the animals.
One of those things where it seems hard to believe there will ever be enough evidence to know for sure. Burkert is as important as anyone in the study of religion, but he didn’t convince all the other top people of his view.
What’s written about Jaynes above makes his interpretation of Homeric material sound like warmed over Bruno Snell, work that has long been rejected by classicists.