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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
…
Can you please provide some evidence that survival cannibalism has been considered socially acceptable on numerous occasions in Europe?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. "
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?
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.
Some evidence that anthropologists and participants alike are wrong when they describe survival cannibalism as ubiquitous, common and socially acceptable in Polynesian cultures.
Some evidence that survival cannibalism is rarer amongst non-European cultures.
Some evidence survival cannibalism results in a greater degree of ostracism or punishment outside European cultures.
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.
Marlar, R. A. et al. 2000 “Biochemical evidence of cannibalism at a prehistoric Puebloan site in southwestern Colorado” Nature 407
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?
[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]
Some evidence that anthropologists and participants alike are wrong when they describe survival cannibalism as ubiquitous, common and socially acceptable in Polynesian cultures.
Some evidence that survival cannibalism is rarer amongst non-European cultures.
Some evidence survival cannibalism results in a greater degree of ostracism or punishment outside European cultures.
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
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.
All referring to Maori survival cannibalism
Flannery, T. “The Future Eaters” reed New Holland 1994
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
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.
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.
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.
Yes, it has. Once again you have shown a notable lack of knowledge of the subject.
And those are just two examples of cannibalism reported from famine stricken areas of Africa.
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.
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.
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?
Yes, I just gave you references which state that survival cannibalism was practice by the Maori, Egyptians and Anasazi.
None of my links discuss cannibalism in ancient Egypt. One of them discusses cannibalism in 13th century Egypt.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
Your link contains the following two references to cannibalism:
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.
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.
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