Cannibalism question

[Lumpy]

Is there really such a thing as cannibalism? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_054.html)

Cecil did point out the distinction of "survival" cannibalism as opposed to other kinds. But I thought it was pretty well established that many peoples (such as the New Guinea natives mentioned) practiced "funerary" cannibalism: disposing of the bodies of relatives and loved ones by eating them. The "contact with corpses during funeral preparations" sounds weasley to me.

[CookingWithGas]

And what about that guy who appeared on the Mike Douglas show years ago claiming to have witnessed cannibilism, and even tried it himself? He shocked the audience especially when he said it tasted like pork. Apparently someone made a movie (http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/k/keep-the-river-on-your-right.shtml) about this guy.

[Crandolph]

If you're willing to wade through a lengthy side-debate on HIV/AIDS and such I earlier had to say a couple of things I know about the questioning of kuru &/or cannibaism in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=314326) a year ago.

[Dr. Drake]

To expand a bit on the Great One's prose, there seem to be three types of genuine cannibalism:

1) Survival cannibalism (in exceptional circumstances, people will eat people to avoid starvation).
2) Ritual token cannibalism, eating the flesh of a relative or enemy captured in battle. In the comparatively few documented instances, it's a token amount and / or a specific body part. Among the Iroquois, if I recall correctly, an enemy's little finger or some such. Nobody in this category ever had a barbeque serving up filet of grandma, f'r instance.
3) Insanity cannibalism, the product of a specific psychological pathology. Jeffrey Dahmer or that guy in Germany.

The would-be number four, where human beings are a normal food item, is the one that doesn't actually exist, despite zillions of stories to the contrary. A lot of cannibal folklore contains the idea that once you do eat human flesh, you can't get enough of it. And the idea that humans taste like pork is common, and probably not that far-fetched: humans and pigs have similar diets, so "pork" is a more likely analogy than "beef" or "chicken."

[Colibri]

The would-be number four, where human beings are a normal food item, is the one that doesn't actually exist, despite zillions of stories to the contrary.

Sure it does, or did. There is ample historical evidence for routine cannibalism in the Pacific, including New Zealand and Fiji, as well as among the Aztec.

[Dr. Drake]

Sure it does, or did. There is ample historical evidence for routine cannibalism in the Pacific, including New Zealand and Fiji, as well as among the Aztec.

All the evidence I have seen for Polynesia indicates ritual cannibalism rather than eating people just like any other meat. The fact that Fijians had special utensils for eating people suggests this, but I'm not enough of an expert here to insist.

I certainly stand corrected on the Aztecs. I checked Edgerton's Sick Societies, and though he implies a ritual origin, the situation he describes is pretty routine. They ate only prisoners of war, but there was a pretty constant flow and they were consumed in quantity by the upper classes.

Thanks for the correction.

[Lumpy]

All the evidence I have seen for Polynesia indicates ritual cannibalism rather than eating people just like any other meat. The fact that Fijians had special utensils for eating people suggests this, but I'm not enough of an expert here to insist.

I certainly stand corrected on the Aztecs. I checked Edgerton's Sick Societies, and though he implies a ritual origin, the situation he describes is pretty routine. They ate only prisoners of war, but there was a pretty constant flow and they were consumed in quantity by the upper classes.

Thanks for the correction.The allegations of polynesian, Aztek and Congo basin cannibalism all fit another category I've read references to: what might be termed "protein shortage" cannibalism. That is, the peoples in question had access to plentiful starchy foods but desperately little protein. Anything to this?

[Chronos]

The fact that Fijians had special utensils for eating people suggests this, but I'm not enough of an expert here to insist.Not necessarily... Non-cannibals have been known to have special utensils for a variety of foods (oyster forks, crab-crackers, etc). Now, if the special utensils have some obvious ceremonial significance, rather than just a functional difference of form, that might signify something.

[2nd Law]

2) Ritual token cannibalism, eating the flesh of a relative or enemy captured in battle. In the comparatively few documented instances, it's a token amount and / or a specific body part. Among the Iroquois, if I recall correctly, an enemy's little finger or some such. Nobody in this category ever had a barbeque serving up filet of grandma, f'r instance.

One group I studied while getting my Anthroplogy degree was the Yanomamo (http://indian-cultures.com/Cultures/yanomamo.html), who engage in funerary cannibalism. They cremate their dead, then mix the ashes into a liquid (I can't recall if it is their version of beer or soup), and eat the result.

[Blake]

All the evidence I have seen for Polynesia indicates ritual cannibalism rather than eating people just like any other meat. The fact that Fijians had special utensils for eating people suggests this, but I'm not enough of an expert here to insist.

If you're interested we tossed this idea around a bit in this thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=258796&highlight=cannibalism) There doesn't seem to be any real doubt that nutritional cannibalism was widely practices in New Zealand and New Guinea. I don't have enough knowledge to comment on Fiji, but canibalism in the two former cases was in no way ritualistic. It was simply practiced as a way of obtaining food. Even the people involved were quite open about that.

The practice was taken to the extreme in New Zeland where people were actually kept as food animals.

[xkoolkacix]

To expand a bit on the Great One's prose, there seem to be three types of genuine cannibalism:

1) Survival cannibalism (in exceptional circumstances, people will eat people to avoid starvation).
2) Ritual token cannibalism, eating the flesh of a relative or enemy captured in battle. In the comparatively few documented instances, it's a token amount and / or a specific body part. Among the Iroquois, if I recall correctly, an enemy's little finger or some such. Nobody in this category ever had a barbeque serving up filet of grandma, f'r instance.
3) Insanity cannibalism, the product of a specific psychological pathology. Jeffrey Dahmer or that guy in Germany.

The would-be number four, where human beings are a normal food item, is the one that doesn't actually exist, despite zillions of stories to the contrary. A lot of cannibal folklore contains the idea that once you do eat human flesh, you can't get enough of it. And the idea that humans taste like pork is common, and probably not that far-fetched: humans and pigs have similar diets, so "pork" is a more likely analogy than "beef" or "chicken."
i think that society should learn to accept canabilism. i mean weve gone as far to kill almost every animal for food today. even though in america we find it horrible to eat cats, and dogs it still happens. In the animal kingdom we see everday animlas eating their own kind, and it is perfectly acceptable. we have evolved to the point that we are denying our natural animalistic instinct to survive. this is something that i think if we dont learn to embrace and accept, will ultimately be our kinds downfall.

[Lumpy]

i think that society should learn to accept canabilism. i mean weve gone as far to kill almost every animal for food today. even though in america we find it horrible to eat cats, and dogs it still happens. In the animal kingdom we see everday animlas eating their own kind, and it is perfectly acceptable. we have evolved to the point that we are denying our natural animalistic instinct to survive. this is something that i think if we dont learn to embrace and accept, will ultimately be our kinds downfall.Nah, never mind the moral problems, it would be asking for all sorts of prion-based trouble. If eating cows that have eaten rendered cow are a problem, imagine how much worse giving diseases a direct route back into humans would be.

[Blake]

we have evolved to the point that we are denying our natural animalistic instinct to survive.


The problem is that your argument hinges on needing to resort to cannibalism in order to survive. This isn't the case in most places. As such any argument that non-cannibals are "denying [their] natural animalistic instinct to survive" is fatally flawed.

Cannibals in most modern societies wouldnltbe doing it in response to a will to survive. They would simply be doing it because it is pleasurable.

[xkoolkacix]

Cannibals in most modern societies wouldnltbe doing it in response to a will to survive. They would simply be doing it because it is pleasurable.

exactly! almost everything we do, we do it with an intent of pleasure, and survival in one way or another. why do we sleep? because it makes us feel good, and if we dont we will die. why do we eat? because it taste good, and if not we will die. the will to survive is directly connected to pleasure in one way or another. mans most primitive desire is that of living.
society today has evolved to the point that the will to survive is almost frowned upon. Why on earth are people killing themselves? they are denying their instinct to survive, because society has turned us into metro slobs.

my point is not that we desperatly need to resort to cannibilism to survive, but that we should. we should return to our primitive ways, and accept it.

[Blake]

the will to survive is directly connected to pleasure in one way or another.

No, it isn't. That is why people so often find things that would allow them to survive unpleasant. That applies whether we are discussing cannibalism or killing a burglar or undergoing heart surgery or quitting smoking. All those things are necessary for survival sometimes, yet all of them are unpleasant for most people.

Your claim that the will to survive is directly connected to pleasure in one way or another is clearly untrue.


mans most primitive desire is that of living.

That's a meaningless and unprovable bit of nonsense.


society today has evolved to the point that the will to survive is almost frowned upon.

Bollocks.

Why on earth are people killing themselves? they are denying their instinct to survive, because society has turned us into metro slobs.

Can you provide any evidence that the suicide rate is or ever has been lower amongst any other societies?

If you can't of course then this is yet more baseless nonsense

my point is not that we desperatly need to resort to cannibilism to survive, but that we should. we should return to our primitive ways, and accept it.


Which nicely rounds out thepost by being baselss nonsense derived from falsehoods and baseless nonsense.

[Operation Ripper]

The practice was taken to the extreme in New Zeland where people were actually kept as food animals.

Very interesting, can you recommend some literature detailing this practice?

[Crandolph]

Very interesting, can you recommend some literature detailing this practice?

There's the film Soylent Kiwi. I won't give away the shocking conclusion... :p

[RiverRunner]

This whole thread reminds me of something I had wondered but never researched, free time being a rare commodity these days.

When people talk of the Crusades, one topic that is frequently brought up is how the Crusaders ate the corpses of Muslim babies. This has always struck me as the sort of story that a soldier might have told for the purpose of either striking fear into the enemy or giving the folks back home some sort of bizarre ghoulish thrill. Is there any evidence that this tale was factual? If so, would that count as ritual cannibalism?

(Please, please, please don't let this lead to the thread's becoming Pit-worthy.)


RR

[Chronos]

The will to survive leads to a desire to eat. And lo and behold, people, even in our modern society, do eat. If there is nothing else available to eat, then the desire to eat will lead to cannibalism. And lo and behold, in times and places of great famine, people do indeed eat other people.

But in what way would the survival drive lead to people eating other people even when there are other food sources around? If anything, the drive for survival should, under ordinary conditions, lead to people doing everything they can to discourage cannibalism, because nobody who wants to survive wants to be butchered for someone else's plate. And lo and behold, people do actually do all they can to discourage cannibalism.

[strider1974]

I just went to a course on the subject. https://www.weasydney.nsw.edu.au/default2.htm
The main things I learned that are relevant to the issue are

1/ Funerary cannibalism was reasonably widespread. We were shown examples from South America, the Caribbean and the South Pacific.
2/ Recent genetic studies have shown that Funerary cannibalism may have been very widespread in the past re http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s938896.htm
3/ Survival Cannibalism is only practiced by Western Cultures. eg Have you ever heard of cannibalism in Africa during the famines of the last 30 years?
In fact a lot of primitive cultures are convinced that the western cultures are the cannibals. Kirk Hoffman our tutor for the session gave a great example. Recently Americans have been adopting babies from Guatemala and one particular Indian group made the startling claim that the American couples were taking the babies to eat. It turns out that several hundred years ago a Spanish expedition broke down in the area and the Spanish thinking themselves alone and without hope resorted to Survival Cannibalism to live. Of course they weren't alone, the local Indians were watching and they were horrified at what occurred. In fact the story became part of their oral tradition and so when 'whites' started turning up wanting their babies, they could think of only one reason why - we eat people. In another example we were shown pictures from the Volga in 1921 where due to famine and a particularly cold winter 5 million people died and Survival Cannibalism was very common (We were shown pictures of ice boxes full of human body parts.)
4/ In the West we have used Cannibalism in medicine. Mummy was a medieval medicine originally made from crushed Egyptian Mummies (this is where the word comes from) and when these became too expensive morgues starting drying and selling corpses for this use, Also people would go to executions to get fresh blood etc for cures. Gordon-Grube wrote. "It was the prerogative of executioners to sell the blood of decapitated criminals." Warm blood was thought especially helpful for epilepsy... http://whyfiles.org/164cannibal/5.html

So I have to disagree with this column.
Funerary cannibalism was reasonably common. It is true that revenge cannibalism was at lot rarer than reported and so few westerners were ever eaten - at least by the tribesmen!
It seems that if want to find a cannibal look to the western cultures.

[Blake]

3/ Survival Cannibalism is only practiced by Western Cultures.

Since you have done a lot of research you will be able to provide a reference for this claim. The world's anthropologists seem to believe that survival Cannibalism was widespread amongst Polynesian cultures and amongst American Indians in Northern Mexico and the South West US.

Can you provide your evidence that they are wrong?

eg Have you ever heard of cannibalism in Africa during the famines of the last 30 years?

Yes.

4/ In the West we have used Cannibalism in medicine.

Indeed, as have most of the world's cultures. The difference is that in 'The West" cannibalism medicinal cannibalism was restricted to corpses.

In contrast in southern and central Africa (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1991406.stm) there remains to this day a thriving trade slaughtering people in order to obtain body parts for medicine.

It's all very good to point out that 'medicinal' cannibalism wasn't unknown in the western world, but you seem to be implying that isn't common anywhere else. The fact is that it is and always has been far more common in Africa. It is also normally associated with actual murder in Africa (apparently the magic works better if the child is still alive when the organ is harvested). I have never heard of any western culture permitting murder to obtain human body parts for medicine, much less removal of organs from living children.

[RyJae]

Nothing interesting to add other than I watched a show on Discovery or NG that was already discussed (about the laughing sickness) and found this whole topic highly facinating with all the great information you all are showing us, fighting my ignorance quite well.

[strider1974]

Since you have done a lot of research you will be able to provide a reference for this claim. The world's anthropologists seem to believe that survival Cannibalism was widespread amongst Polynesian cultures and amongst American Indians in Northern Mexico and the South West US.

Can you provide your evidence that they are wrong?



Yes.



Indeed, as have most of the world's cultures. The difference is that in 'The West" cannibalism medicinal cannibalism was restricted to corpses.

In contrast in southern and central Africa (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1991406.stm) there remains to this day a thriving trade slaughtering people in order to obtain body parts for medicine.

It's all very good to point out that 'medicinal' cannibalism wasn't unknown in the western world, but you seem to be implying that isn't common anywhere else. The fact is that it is and always has been far more common in Africa. It is also normally associated with actual murder in Africa (apparently the magic works better if the child is still alive when the organ is harvested). I have never heard of any western culture permitting murder to obtain human body parts for medicine, much less removal of organs from living children.


There is no evidence that survival cannibalism was socially acceptable amongst the American Indians or the Polynesians. Therefore while there may have been isolated incidents it was never common practice, unlike in western cultures where survival cannibalism has occurred numerous times and is considered socially acceptable. In fact Catholic Mass is a form of Symbolic Cannibalism (especially if you believe in the Miracle Of Transubstantiation) and more than more surviver who resorted to survival cannibalism has reported that their belief in Mass made it easier to deal with.

If you wish to claim that Africans have practiced survival cannibalism provide proof. If it was socially acceptable then you would expect to see widespread use during famines just like happened in the Volga region of Russia in 1921.

Medicinal Cannibalism in Europe during the middle ages was at a time that white Europeans were using cannibalism as an excuse to enslave the Caribbean Indians. I was not implying that it unknown elsewhere, African Medicinal/Magical Cannibalism is horrific and unfortunately still occurs but this is well known, unlike the use of Mummy in the middle ages.

[Chronos]

There is no evidence that survival cannibalism was socially acceptable amongst the American Indians or the Polynesians.Of course it wasn't and isn't socially acceptable among Native Americans nor Polynesians. It isn't and wasn't socially acceptable among Westerners, either. This in no way implies that it didn't happen among all of those groups.

Incidentally, your phrasing "Mummy was a medieval medicine originally made from crushed Egyptian Mummies (this is where the word comes from)" suggests that there's still some medicine called "mummy", or at least that there was at one time such a medicine which was eventually not made from dessicated Egyptians. I've never heard of such a medicine; what is it?

[BobLibDem]

So what are the "choice cuts" of a human? The rump? Ribs? Drumstick?

[Blake]

There is no evidence that survival cannibalism was socially acceptable amongst the American Indians or the Polynesians.

Yes, there is.

If you bother to follow the link I posted above you will see a lot of evidence that make sit quite clear that survival cannibalism was socially acceptable amongst the Maori, who are of course Polynesian.

Amongst American Indians we know that humans were butchered in a very laborious way and cooked using large communal hearths. That strongly suggests that the entire community was involved.

Now are you provide some evidence that it wasn't socially acceptable amongst these groups since your claim runs counter to the claims of actual anthropologists?


Therefore while there may have been isolated incidents it was never common practice....

Wrong once again. Survival cannibalism was common practice across the whole of New Zealand for over 500 years. It was in no way isolated. Similarly Anasazi cannibalism was sustained for at least 150 years over an areas in excess of 10, 000 square kilometres. Hardly isolated.

Now are you provide some evidence that it was never a common practice since your claim runs counter to the claims of actual anthropologists


.. unlike in western cultures where survival cannibalism has occurred numerous times and is considered socially acceptable.

Can you please provide some evidence that survival cannibalism has been considered socially acceptable on numerous occasions in Europe?


In fact Catholic Mass is a form of Symbolic Cannibalism

Oh come off the grass. Catholic Mass is in no way comparable to cannibalism no matter how you may define it symbolically. There is a world of difference between slaughtering, butchering and eating a living person and eating grass seeds that are 'magically' transformed into the flesh of a living demi-god who fells no pain at the transformation.

If it was socially acceptable then you would expect to see widespread use during famines just like happened in the Volga region of Russia in 1921.

I never made any such claim.

The problem is strider1974 that you have made a lot of claims that conflict with accepted anthropological fact. Claims about survival cannibalism never being practised by non-Western cultures, and about it not being socially acceptable amongst Polynesians. Yet we haven't seen any evidence for your claims.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Because at the moment you aren't sounding well informed enough to give much credence to your claims without some strong supporting evidence.

[Odesio]

Is there really such a thing as cannibalism? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_054.html)

Cecil did point out the distinction of "survival" cannibalism as opposed to other kinds. But I thought it was pretty well established that many peoples (such as the New Guinea natives mentioned) practiced "funerary" cannibalism: disposing of the bodies of relatives and loved ones by eating them. The "contact with corpses during funeral preparations" sounds weasley to me.

So far as I understand it they don't generally dispose of the whole corpose by eating it. The groups that practice endo-cannibalism tend to eat the ashes of the dead as opposed to just cooking up a nice rump roast and digging in. Though I suppose that could vary depending on the person, uh, the group.

Marc

[CalMeacham]

The anthropologist Michael Harner proposed that cannibalism wasn't merely practiced, but was essential to the way of life of groups like the Aztecs. Marvin Harris took up the cause as well, writing it up in his popular books on anthropology, Cannibals and Kings, Good to Eat, and others.

He has defended the viewe that cannibalism actually was practiced among many groups, and wasn'ty merely a slander propagated by those peoples' enemies (and wasn't all ritual funerary cannibalism, or emergency situation cannibalism). His chapter on anthropophagy in Good to Eat/The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig (He changed the name after the first edition, he says, because too many people thought it was a cook book) bristles with references and footnotes, to which I'll direct you. I don't have a copy here. None of the internet sites I've looked over just now give much space to Harris, and there are a lot of errors.

[strider1974]

Blake I believe that you confusing my meaning. Cannibalism in known and practiced by all cultures - in one form or another.
My point is that the Western culture is one of the few that treats cannibalism for survival as socially acceptable. In Africian, Polynesian and other culltures you would be orastrasized or even punished if caught ie it happens but is not considered socially acceptable and so is rare even in severe survival situations whereas in the West you have incidents such the Volga in 1921 or the Columbian rugby players in the Andes.
I would be interested if you have a link that shows otherwise.

Chronos Check out this link http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/Mummy.htm
Here is a quote for now.
" Any dessicated human body was fair game; as late as the 19th century, for instance, corpses found in the deserts of Persian Khorasan were gathered and their flesh sold for medicinal uses under the name of mummy. "

[Blake]

Blake My point is that the Western culture is one of the few that treats cannibalism for survival as socially acceptable. In Africian, Polynesian and other culltures you would be orastrasized or even punished if caught ie it happens but is not considered socially acceptable and so is rare even in severe survival situations….


And my point is that this is all nonsense with no evidential support whatsoever.

There have been numerous references posted in this thread alone that show that survival cannibalism was ubiquitous, common and socially acceptable in Polynesian cultures and I will happily provide references showing that communal cooking of humans was practiced by Indian cultures and that no punishment ensued.

Why do you believe that all the anthropologists are wrong on this point? Hell in the case of the Maori you are stating that the people involved in this ubiquitous, common and socially acceptable cannibalism were wrong when they described it as ubiquitous, common and socially acceptable.

Can we please see your evidence to this effect?

..whereas in the West you have incidents such the Volga in 1921 or the Columbian rugby players in the Andes.

And how exactly do you figure that those things were “socially acceptable”? What is your standard of “social acceptance”? The best you could say is that the people involved weren’t charged with any crimes. There actions were in no wise socially acceptable, indeed they provoked widespread outrage and disgust.


I think that if you want to be taken seriously you need at this point to start providing some evidence for your claims.

1) Some evidence that anthropologists and participants alike are wrong when they describe survival cannibalism as ubiquitous, common and socially acceptable in Polynesian cultures.

2) Some evidence that survival cannibalism is rarer amongst non-European cultures.

2) Some evidence survival cannibalism results in a greater degree of ostracism or punishment outside European cultures.

3) Some evidence for your claim that survival cannibalism is never practiced outside European cultures.

You’ve made some outrageous claims in this thread, now is the time for you to present your extraordinary evidence.

[Blake]

consumption of human flesh did occur as demonstrated in preserved human waste containing identifiable human tissue remains from a site with osteological evidence of cannibalism
Marlar, R. A. et al. 2000 “Biochemical evidence of cannibalism at a prehistoric Puebloan site in southwestern Colorado” Nature 407


Incontrovertible evidence of cannibalism has been found at a 900-year-old site in the southwestern United States. Why do horrified critics deny that many societies have found cannibalism acceptable?
Diamond J.M., 2000 “Talk of cannibalism” Nature Volume 407

One of the world's most esteemed anthropologists has claimed in the world's premier science journal that many societies have found cannibalism acceptable, including Indian societies in the SW of the USA.

I look forward to seeing your evidence that contradicts Profssor Diamond's claims and shows that it was not acceptable in this society or in Maori society.

I also look forard to your response to Prof Diamonds question: why do you deny that many societies have found cannibalism acceptable?

[strider1974]

[QUOTE=Blake]There have been numerous references posted in this thread alone that show that survival cannibalism was ubiquitous, common and socially acceptable in Polynesian cultures and I will happily provide references showing that communal cooking of humans was practiced by Indian cultures and that no punishment ensued. [QUOTE]

Blake you have not provided any references that dispute my claim that "Survival Cannibalism" - specifically - is not practiced in other cultures. The only links provided show that these cultures practice funerary, revenge or magical cannibalism. Isolated incidents must and do occur in any group as the survival instinct is very strong but in the Indian and Polynesian cultures you refer to did NOT practice or condone "survival cannibalism" like we do in the West. The fact that they practiced other types of cannibalism is not in dispute.

[QUOTE=Blake]And how exactly do you figure that those things were “socially acceptable”? What is your standard of “social acceptance”?[QUOTE]

Social acceptance is that the society you live in would find your actions acceptable. So when the surviving Columbian Rugby players returned home they knew that their peers would condone their actions as being acceptable in the situation. Try asking around - Would you eat the flesh of an already deceased human in an extreme survival situation? I would and so would all the people I have questioned on this topic. (Please note the key words deceased and survival) Other cultures do not feel this way about "Survival Cannibalism" and they would be far less likely to use it to survive as they would know that their society would not condone/forgive this act even though the same society may practice other forms of cannibalism.

[QUOTE]1) Some evidence that anthropologists and participants alike are wrong when they describe survival cannibalism as ubiquitous, common and socially acceptable in Polynesian cultures.

2) Some evidence that survival cannibalism is rarer amongst non-European cultures.

2) Some evidence survival cannibalism results in a greater degree of ostracism or punishment outside European cultures.

3) Some evidence for your claim that survival cannibalism is never practiced outside European cultures.[QUOTE]


I obtained my information at a lecture on cannibalism hosted by Kirk Huffman -

"Kirk pursued studies in anthropology, prehistoric archaeology and ethnology at the universities of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Oxford and Cambridge in the UK. He has had fieldwork experience in various areas of north Africa and the northern Sahara, parts of South America and the western Mediterranean, but particularly in Vanuatu where he was Curator (National Museum) of the Vanuatu Cultural Centre 1977-1989 and in which country he spent 17 years as an anthropologist from 1973. He is Honorary Curator of the Vanuatu Cultural Centre (since 1991) and a Research Associate of the Australian Museum (since 1976). He has published widely in academic and other journals, has been involved in the production of numerous cultural radio programmes and documentary films and has lectured worldwide. " www.weasydney.com.au


In support of my argument I presented the fact that survival cannibalism has not been reported from famine stricken areas of Africa etc whereas in a similar situation in the Volga the practice of survival cannibalism was widespread and I have provided several links

The only link you have supplied ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1991406.stm) has nothing to do with survival cannibalism and you have failed to provide any evidence to support your arguments, yet you claim that I am the one who is incorrect

[Blake]

The only links provided show that these cultures practice funerary, revenge or magical cannibalism.

Did you even read the references I provided? One of them is a firsthand account by a cannibalistic Maori and the book contains numerous references to cannibalism and there is never any suggestion that the practice was ritualistic or performed for any reason aside from food.

But hell, if you want more evidence it’s not in short supply.

Another more fundamental function [of the pa] was to protect people themselves form predation by other hungry humans….

The retrieval of the victim’s bodies… further suggests that by 1642 cannibalism was already occurring. Certainly by the late eighteenth century the bodies of those killed in war were a prized source of food.

…Human bodies were certainly the principle food source during these long voyages.

All referring to Maori survival cannibalism
Flannery, T. “The Future Eaters” reed New Holland 1994

says WashingtonStateUniversity researcher Lipe. “Occasional incidents of ‘starvation cannibalism’ have probably occurred at some time in history in all cultures.” (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2003/july/anasazi.php?page=4)

Archaeologists think that cannibalism among people in the American Southwest... [occurred] when the community was faced with starvation. (http://people.ucsc.edu/~gbryant/cannibalism.txt)

And so on and so forth. I could go on for pages with quotes from eminent archaeologists, palaeontologists, historians and anthropologists stating quite explicitly that Polynesians and Indians of the SW USA practiced survival cannibalism.

In contrast you have absolutely no evidence to support your claims that only European cultures practiced survival cannibalism


the Indian and Polynesian cultures you refer to did NOT practice or condone "survival cannibalism" like we do in the West.

Please present evidence for this claim. I have provided statements form eminent archaeologists, palaeontologists, historians and anthropologists stating quite explicitly that Polynesians and Indians of the SW USA practiced and condoned survival cannibalism. Hell I even provided a reference from a Maori cannibal who never denied he practiced survival cannibalism.

Other cultures do not feel this way about "Survival Cannibalism" and they would be far less likely to use it to survive as they would know that their society would not condone/forgive this act even though the same society may practice other forms of cannibalism.

Please provide some evidence for this claim in light of the fact that eminent archaeologists, palaeontologists, historians and anthropologists have stated quite explicitly that it is untrue.

I obtained my information at a lecture on cannibalism hosted by Kirk Huffman –

You need to be able provide some actual material we can all evaluate, this is simply anecdote. I say “I also attended that lecture and Huffman never said any such thing.” Now what? This is why such a claim is worthless as a reference.

It sounds like you have taken some sort of community college class and received a garbled message and now think you know the absolute truth on this matter. The actual published works of real archaeologists, palaeontologists, historians and anthropologists make it quite clear that what you believe is incorrect.

Until you can produce some actual evidence for your claims I will disregard them pro tem.


In support of my argument I presented the fact that survival cannibalism has not been reported from famine stricken areas of Africa etc.
Yes, it has. Once again you have shown a notable lack of knowledge of the subject.

Cannibalism has been documented multiple times in the history of Egypt. ( http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/egypt.html)
Cannibalism has been widespread dint he Congo region during the numerous famines in the last 30 years. (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3764)

And those are just two examples of cannibalism reported from famine stricken areas of Africa.

The only link you have supplied...

Oh FFS that is just one of 4 links I have provided in this thread, and one of those links is to another thread with another half dozen references.

Your problem remains strider1974. Notable archaeologists, palaeontologists, historians and anthropologists including Tim Flannery and Jared Diamond have stated quite clearly that survival cannibalism was widespread and socially acceptable amongst non-European cultures. Historians and journalists have stated quite clearly that cannibalism has occurred numerous times during famines in Africa. The facts simply contradict every claim that you have made, and you are unable to provide any facts in support. I will take the word of professionals prepared to put their name to their claims and back it up with research and references over some anonymous person on a message board who can provide no evidence to counter those claims.

Or put simply, I will trust Jared Diamond, Tim Flannery and Cecil Adams because what they say gels with the known facts. I won’t trust strider1974 because what he claims is not only unsupported by any facts but is at odds with the facts presented.

[strider1974]

Blake in western cultures survival cannibalism is common in survival situations. There are many documented examples of this.
Outside the western culture I can find very few incidents that suggest survival cannibalism was used, and none at all where it has been documented.
Do you have any links specifically relating to survival cannibalism that show otherwise.

Your links
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2003/july/anasazi.php?page=4
This discusses survival cannibalism in ancient Egypt. Our practice of socially acceptable survival cannibalism must have come from somewhere.

http://people.ucsc.edu/~gbryant/cannibalism.txt
Scientists find proof of cannibalism and speculate that it was for survival
"......probably occurring when the community was faced with starvation"

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2003/july/anasazi.php?page=4
"Kuckelman cannot say whether the Castle Rock cannibalism was in response to starvation, but she says it was clearly related to warfare"
“Occasional incidents of ‘starvation cannibalism’ have probably occurred at some time in history in all cultures.”
I do not debate this second quote, I have stated that the survival instinct is very strong so it is inevitable that it will occur occassionally but upon investigation it is obvious that it occurrs far more frequently in the western culture. Since you don't believe my statements why do you think this is so. Why haven't the Africians engaged in wholesale survival cannibalism even though they have starved to death by the hundreds of thousands.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3764
This link does not reference survival cannibalism at all and it is well known that the natives of the Congo region practice other forms of cannibalism such as revenge and magical/medicinal cannibalism

Did you read these links before posting them? Do you have that are relevant?

[Blake]

Blake in western cultures survival cannibalism is common in survival situations.

No, it's not, it's extremely rare.

Outside the western culture I can find very few incidents that suggest survival cannibalism was used, and none at all where it has been documented.
Do you have any links specifically relating to survival cannibalism that show otherwise.

Yes, I just gave you references which state that survival cannibalism was practice by the Maori, Egyptians and Anasazi.

This discusses survival cannibalism in ancient Egypt. Our practice of socially acceptable survival cannibalism must have come from somewhere.

1) None of my links discuss cannibalism in ancient Egypt. One of them discusses cannibalism in 13th century Egypt.

2) What exactly is your point here? Do you wish to dispute that survival cannibalism occurred in Egypt? Or are you trying to argue that Egypt isn't in Africa?

Scientists find proof of cannibalism and speculate that it was for survival

What point are you actually trying to make here? Are you suggesting that a society which accepts cooking large numbers of people on a communal hearth and eating them in times of plenty will have sort of severe restrictions against survival cannibalism of the exact same people?

Seriously, is that your point? Because if not I'm having hard time imagining what evidence would be acceptable that survival cannibalism was taking place. During a famine thousands of people are killed, cooked and eaten. What evidence would be required for you to acknowledge that as survival cannibalism.

It seems to me you are indulging in what Diamond is so critical of. Because so-called ritual slaughter and cannibalism has been unknown in Europe we can say that when people eat bodies in famine it must be for survival, which is a fair enough conclusion. Yet when people like you see the same practice in other cultures where we have no evidence for or against ritual slaughter an cannibalism you immediately ascribe it to ritual.

You've set up an unfalsifiable hypothesis based on an argument form ignorance. No evidence at all would ever convince you that such societies ever engaged in survival cannibalism. Of course if you can tell me what evidence we could practically collect to convince you that the Anasazi or Congolese engaged in survival cannibalism in famine that;s OK. But if you can't tell me that then all you have is a fairy story, not facts.

“Occasional incidents of ‘starvation cannibalism’ have probably occurred at some time in history in all cultures.” I do not debate this second quote

Yeah, you did. You stated that cultures outside Europe never engaged in starvation cannibalism. To quote: "Survival Cannibalism is only practiced by Western Cultures." Are you now conceding that that statement is incorrect and was made without factual basis?

.. upon investigation it is obvious that it occurrs far more frequently in the western culture.

Well that's a step at least from your claim that it doesn't occur at all outside European cultures.

Now can we see some evidence as to how frequent it is within western culture and how frequent it is outside western culture? You must have such figures available of course, otherwise you couldn't possibly make such a claim.

Why haven't the Africians engaged in wholesale survival cannibalism even though they have starved to death by the hundreds of thousands.

Africans have engaged in wholesale survival cannibalism. I provided references above to such events in the Egyptian and Congo regions of Africa.

Do you dispute the claims of widespread cannibalism in those references? Or perhaps you deny that those places are in Africa?


This link does not reference survival cannibalism at all and it is well known that the natives of the Congo region practice other forms of cannibalism such as revenge and magical/medicinal cannibalism


Yep, you are. You're using exactly the illogical double standard that Diamond decries.

Simple question. Given that we accept that the natives of the Congo region practice other forms of cannibalism, what evidence could we practically collect that would lead you to concede that what we se there is survival cannibalism? Clearly simply cooking and eating thousands of people in times of mass starvation isn't sufficient evidence for you. And someone admitting that they ate people for food in times of famine with no ritual or magical component isn't good enough for you. So what evidence would be sufficient?

If you can't tell us what evidence can be practically collected to enable us to differentiate survival cannibalism in these cases then you have nothing.
Look dude I have provided references from a Maori cannibal who never denies that he killed and ate people for food in order to survive. i have provided references indicating that Indians ate other Indians in times of famine. I have provided references showing that Egyptians ate Egyptians in times of famine. I've provided references from historians and anthropologists stating that survival cannibalism was widespread and socially acceptable

At what point are you going to give it up and either walk away or concede that survival cannibalism wasn't restricted to Europe?

[strider1974]

At what point are you going to give it up and either walk away or concede that survival cannibalism wasn't restricted to Europe?


You have not at any point provided direct evidence that refutes my argument. The links you provided are not relevant. If there is evidence of widespread survival cannibalism in Africia in the last 30 years where is it? There is plenty of evidence of famine yet you cannot provide even one link that documents Africians practicing survival cannibalism in the last 30 years. If the Africans felt the same about the issue of survival cannibalism as did the Russians in the Volga where is the evidence like there is for Russia and that was over 80 years ago. The Egyptians by the 13th century were mostly Christian and so this would easily account for a similiar belief system to the west. Maoris definately practiced cannibalism but Maori/NZ scholars do not believe that it was for survival. Of course there will be isolated cases as the survival instinct is very strong but it was not belived to be widespread practice - in fact only one Maori tribe was known to practice revenge/magical cannibalism on a regular basis. Question why would a tribe that openly admits to other forms of cannibalism be shocked at the idea of survival cannibalism. Kirk Huffman advised us that he has personally spoken to numerous tribes who feel this way.
I am not an expert and admit my arguments may have been flawed but I first heard this point of view from Kirk Huffman and discussed the issue with him in person. Perhaps you might like to speak to an actual anthropologist yourself to discuss the issue with an expert.

At this point I will walk away, as Blake you seem to take this personally.

[Operation Ripper]

At this point I will walk away

Point, set and match to Blake!


Worst Aussie defeat since Gelibolu. Come on! Who the hell is this Huffman?

[Quercus]

OK Blake, since you seem to be alone on the field of battle (for the moment), can I ask for a cite on keeping humans as food animals?

It doesn't seem to make much sense for anything other than very short term. I mean, it's not like keeping chickens and cows, who can eat grass and other things you can't. If you're so short of food, how are you going to feed the captive humans?

[Sailboat]

Uh...

Look, I'm not going to claim anything at all about cannibalism, nor am I going to support strider1974's argument.

But Blake, um, about your links.

I was most interested in the link showing cannibalism in Africa in the last 30 years, as that is very modern and I'm surprised to have heard pretty much nothing about it in the American press.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3764

Your link contains the following two references to cannibalism:

With accounts of cannibalism, child soldiers and butchery abounding, the United Nations (UN) Security Council voted late last month to deploy forces to the town of Bunia, the epicenter of the killings in the past weeks.
THE RECENT killings in Bunia--about 700 by some estimates--are unremarkable in a war that has claimed millions of lives in a few years. What’s different are the accounts of horrific mutilations and cannibalism--and the fact that these killings took place within a few hundred yards of a UN "peacekeeper" compound. There were about 700 UN soldiers in Bunia in late May, who sat in their compound and ‘observed’ the killings.

Those aren't studies by governments or scientists. Those aren't firsthand accounts of cannibalism. They're not even accounts of cannibalism. They're just reports of accounts of cannibalism.

Znet, whatever it is, describes itself as "committed to scoial change". Good for them; I don't want to cast aspersion on their efforts.

But it turns out that your cite for something as shocking as claims of cannibalism in modern Africa seems to be pretty much a blogger describing unattributed reports of other peoples' accounts of "horrific mutilations and cannibalism".

The accusation that UN soldiers were within a few hundred yards of killings in May isn't clealry about cannibalism, although I'll admit it seems more amenable to fact-checking.

All in all, it sounds more like the reports of looters shooting at helicopters we received from New Orleans than any kind of sober evidence...and we all know how well those reports hed up.

Stirred to curiousity by the poor quality of this cite, I opened another one.

http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/egypt.html

Firstly I was struck by the political appearance of the site itself. Without even reading the article, I explored the heretical.com site itself.

Um, dude, not to sound judgmental, but it's got Holocaust denial quotes on the main page.

It's also full of fairly aggressively titled articles on various fringe political topics.

I have't explored your other links. I do not agree with your opponent. You have a good reputation here as far as I can see. But in rebutting this fellow, surely you can do better than one political dissident's claim of reports of accounts of horrific mutilations and cannibalism, and a Holocaust denial crank site.

I mean, those are just lousy citations.

Respectfully,

Sailboat

[Operation Ripper]

Stirred to curiousity by the poor quality of this cite, I opened another one.

http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/egypt.html

Firstly I was struck by the political appearance of the site itself. Without even reading the article, I explored the heretical.com site itself.

Um, dude, not to sound judgmental, but it's got Holocaust denial quotes on the main page.

Heh, when I pull this one up on my Mozilla Firefox browser, in the address line right before the actual address itself a little blue and orange swastika icon appears

[Talon Karrde]

So what are the "choice cuts" of a human? The rump? Ribs? Drumstick?
I don't know anything about butchery and very little about anatomy, but I imagine it would be the calves. Those are nice and thick.

[Blake]

Quercus,
I'll see if I can dig up a reference for Maori's keeping slaves as food. It's not exactly controverisal, but it's hard to find via Google because the search terms all seem to be swamped by Christian websites saying how Christianity can take the credit foir ending tehpractice. Neither of us would accept that as a reference. I'll see what I can find next trip to the library.

These slaves weren't kept long term, but they were kept for several years. A point to remember is that meat was a special dish in Maori culture and a requirement for various festivals. As such it was worth preserving humans as food simply because it was easier than going out and declaring war to get freshmeat for a holiday or important visitor.

Basically the Maori treated human captives the way we might treat veal or caviar. It's never going to be energetically efficient but it's a food delicacy so the cost is worth it.

Sailboat,

Yep those are crappy refernces. I didn't even look at where they came from because the relevant material they contain is so uncontroverisal. I simply put [canniblism egypt] and [cannibalism congo] into Google and selected the first sites returned precisely because the information is so widley reported by reputable sources.

You can readily find reputable refernces for yourself with the same search terms.

eg

http://classweb.gmu.edu/dbitler/SS-Cannibalism.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/apocalypse/transcript.shtml
http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=7882&Cr=DR&Cr1=Congo
http://www.monuc.org/News.aspx?newsID=432
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2661365.stm

[MrDibble]

Quercus,
I'll see if I can dig up a reference for Maori's keeping slaves as food.

That heretical.com site has some references here (http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/nzealand.html) . While I think the site owner is a little dodgy, there are actual book/page references given, so if someone wants to follow it up, they're welcome to, otherwise the references should stand. Anything else would be kinda ad hominem, no?

Also, I think, Maori slavekeeping is often referenced with respect to their (European-assisted) invasion of the Chatham Islands and virtual wiping-out of the Moriori inhabitants. This Site (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel041103.asp) , while it has its own agenda to push, also gives its references. I think this quote would be apropos:
"Morioris were taken prisoners, the women and children were bound, and many of these, together with the men, were killed and eaten, so that the corpses lay scattered in the woods and over the plains. Those who were spared from death were herded like swine, and even killed from year to year."
[My Bolding]

Blake, I may have been chapping your ass in the "evidence for mankind" thread, but here, you've been spot-on, and in the face of some provocation, too. Kudos.

[Blake]

OK Blake, since you seem to be alone on the field of battle (for the moment), can I ask for a cite on keeping humans as food animals?


Vayda, A.P., 1961. "Maori prisoners and slaves in the nineteenth century" Ethnohistory 8:2

"They [Maori slaves] were individually owned, mainly by the leading chiefs, and their masters ahd the power of life and death over them. The slaves were liable to be killed in order to serve as human sacrifice or as the relish in a feast."



Vayda, A.P., 1960. "Maori women and Maori cannibalism" Man 60

"...John White has noted a distinction between the flesh of enemies killed in battle and the flesh of a slave killed outside of war. Women, according to white, could eat the latter but not the former."