The development level of a society has nothing to do with whether or not it practices human sacrifice.
History is rife with many examples, and in fact, a more "developed" society may be even more likely to engage in human sacrifice than a less developed one.
It all depends on the morals of your society, not its development.
It all boils down to how much your society values the individual vs. how much it values the group.
A prime example is Nazi Germany. They did very brutal things, but they did so not from a lack of civilization, but from arguably too much civilization. Fascism at its core makes the State the sacro-sanct authority in society, and the State is arguably the face of "how civilized" your society is.
Individuals must confirm to the group, and as such, an individual becomes less valuable than group ideals. This is the core of Fascism: The individual must be brought in line with the group(i.e. The State), with zero deviation, often through violent means. This is what it looks like when a society becomes "overcivilized." There is no dissent, there is no discussion, The State knows all and provides all, and thus The State is above all. The State is Mother, the State is Father, and for a harmonious society, you must obey the State.
Fascism's closely related authoritarian brother Communism is the same. Individuals are less important than the collective. The society values sacrifice of the individual for the group, and individual rights either don't exist or are extremely curtailed in the face of The State. It doesn't matter how many people must die to build that dam, to put out the fire, to clean up the nuclear reactor. This is our shared burden, we sacrifice ourselves for each other and for the glory of the Motherland.
So at the end of the day, any society that places little value on an individual will have no problem sacrificing them. Whether it is for appeasing the Sun God and a newbountiful harvest, or for a Great Leap Forward to bring society into a prosperous new industrial age, it's all the same, namely that one can be sacrificed so long as it is for the "greater good."
On the other hand, if your society values the individual's irreplaceable uniqueness (there is no smaller minority than the individual), then the idea of a human sacrifice becomes anathema. In that case, you're damaging the collective by removing a part of it that cannot be replicated by any other individual. Such societies would naturally gravitate away from the ideas of sacrifice for the group, as it is considered detrimental to the group in the first place.
These are the two extremes of authoritarianism (from which Fascism and Communism derive), and liberty (from which Libertarianism derives). Ultimately it boils down to who is considered to be the the entity best suited to addressing the problems of the people. In authoritarianism it is the State, with a top-down approach. In Libertarianism, it is the individual, with a bottom-up approach.
You can of course have a middle ground, in which individuals voluntarily sacrifice themselves for what they personally deem to be a higher cause (no man has greater love than he who lays down his life for his brother), but this has nothing to do with the level of "development" or how "civilized" your society is, thus even in a 100% Libertarian society, you might still have human self-sacrifice.