DrDeth I don’t often say this, but agree entirely with everything you just posted.
And that’s precisely why I used the Jewish attitude towards beef as the example. I doubt anyone would dispute that Jews utilise cattle as a very mundane culinary source of protein not as a ritual feast, nonetheless they do have spiritual rituals and thought processes surrounding that culinary option.
As far as anyone can tell pre-agricultural people have very much the same attitude towards eating people. People were first and foremost a source of food, which does not mean that there weren’t rituals associated with that food source. What it does mean is that there is no evidence that people were treated any diferently to any other food animal. So to the extent that these people enegaged in culinary utilisation of pigs or deer they also engaged in culinary utilisation of people. Not ritual use, but mundane everyday culinary use with what were at best minor religious rites associated.
Do you think they had human herds or did they simply drew the short straw to find out who was everybody’s diner?
Oh wait, maybe them hunter-gatherers figured they had to feed them people so they could grow and be fleshy when it was time to eat them…hmm, do you think they could have decided to keep them alive instead, so that they could bring more food to the community. Well, I personally think so.
Which brings me to a more serious reasoning : there’s no reason cannibalism would be something of ordinary needless occurrence, at least not until class systems would develop (which I assume didn’t until agricultural societies appeared).
Therefore, cannibalism would have reasonably occurred in those circumstances :
starvation
a form of religious ritual
after slaying an enemy
the later is what I feel would be closest to the “culinary cannibalism” you’ve mentioned, although hardly fitting the idea of a “mundane everyday use”
You haven’t atucally presented any reasoning at all, this is a non-sequitur. Can you explain this? Why would eating pig flesh be a matter of ordinary needless occurrence in HG societies, yet human flesh be somehow difefrent?
Once again this seems like a total non-sequitur. What is your reasoning? Why would people only be able to eat people if starving, undertaking a form of religious ritual or after slaying an enemy, but able to eat a pig any time they could catch one?
I dunno, Blake. I think, without evidence, that there would be a difference in nature of slaughtering a human vs a pig.
If a member of the tribe there would be some sort of issue with it. Other tribesman might object to uncle Ernie heading for the pot. This could lead to some significant inter-tribal arguments.
No pig on Earth has ever made the argument ‘Fellas, c’mon now, stop clowning around and put the forks down’. In short, a pig can make no appeal to empathy or conditioning compared to the kind that a fellow human can.
If cannibalism is an ordinary event but NOT of fellow tribesmen then that would require a roving herd of captured and controlled humans with the social status ‘lunch’. I would argue that maintaining a creative bunch like humans in such a status would lead to large scale revolts, escapes, vengeance attacks, romeo-and-juliets, and so forth.
From 3, above, I would reason that, since maintaining herds is unlikely, cannibalism would be ‘meat of opportunity’ and would be one of those ‘This-guy-fell-into-our-power-and-has-no-champions-inside-the-group. Let’s-serve-him-up!’ things. I would surmise that this would be a rare event instead of an everyday event.
No, I saw it just fine. The “fact” that Blake claimed was backed up by written, first-hand accounts was that “(p)rior to the invention of agriculture it seems that every group ate people as a source of protein”, and I don’t think written accounts can do that.
And a series of anecdotes won’t prove it either - he said “every”. OK, let’s see the evidence that ancient Jews, for instance, practiced culinary cannibalism as a matter of course.
This is just silly. Of course nobody practised culinary cannibalism of their own family members. That simply isn’t sustainable much less rational.
I can only assume then that your position is that humans have never done terrible things to other humans.
If that is your position then you need to read some history books.
If that isn’t your position then how precisely does an ability to speak make it impossible for humans to cannibalise one another?
Why would consumption of humans flesh require a roving herd of captured and controlled humans, when consumption of pig flesh does not require a roving herd of captured and controlled pigs?
Honestly, this is a masive non sequittur. It comes from nowhere, it leads nowhere, you have presented no basis or logic to the claim. We have indisputable proof in form of first hand written accounts that humans practiced culinary cannibalism. Your position seems to be that it never happened.
If that is your position then come out clearly and say so.
If that isn’t your position then why precisely are you trying to argue that it is impossible for it to have happened?
Leaving aside the fact that nobody but you has made such a claim in this thread.
Can you please explain how being kept as a slave to be eaten is different, WRT to your position, to the millions of humans who have been kept as slaves to kill one another for sport, be raped, mutilated, used as human incubators or sacrificed to gods? Or do you perhaps dispute that millions of humans have been kept slaves to be sacrificed to gods, raped, mutilated, used as human incubators or forced to kill one another for sport?
We know for a fact that the Maori and some South American Indians did indeed keep humans as a food source. If you have any evidence at all that this resulted in large scale revolts, escapes, vengeance attacks, romeo-and-juliets, and so forth then please share. If you don’t then you seem to be arguing that something that we know did happen couldn’t have happened simply because you lack the ability to understand it.
Some of that happoened, but there is little evidence of it. The norm was simply that people treated huamsn exactly as they treated pig or deer or any other food source. It wasn’t an especially rare event in Maori or New Guinean culture and there is no reaosn to suppose to was any rarer in other cultures than availability and difficulty dictated.
I really am having ahard time understanding your position, but let me summarise how I understand it from what you have written, and correct me where I am wrong.
Humans are empathic and have the ability to speak, therefore humans couldn’t possibly do terrible things to each other such as engaging in cannibalism. Humans who are empathic and can speak can engage in terible acts such as rape, mutiliation, murder or forcing peope to kill one another for thier amusement, but for some reason an ability to speak precludes cannibalism.
HGs are unable to harvest human populations without containing them. HGs are perfectly capable of harvesting wild animals of every species, from elephants to bison to kangaroos to pigs without making any attemp to domsticate or control them, but for some reason thay cannot do the same for humans.
Humans have proven themsleves perfectly capable of confining other humans and raping them, mutilating them, sacrifcing them to gods, using them as human incubators and forcing them to kill one another for amusement amongst other things. This has been done to tens of millions if not billions of humans throughout history without large scale revolts, escapes, vengeance attacks, romeo-and-juliets and do forth ever proving to be a significnat enough problem to warrant ending the practices. But for some reason if humans wanted to confine other humans in order to kill them painlessely and eat them it would be impossible because of large scale revolts, escapes, vengeance attacks, romeo-and-juliets and do forth.
So is this what you are trying to say Jonathan Chance? And if so can you please provide some evidence or reasoning behind the claim that somehow cannibalsim presents these special difficulties.
As soon as you provide evidence that any group that has ever been called “ancient Jews” were pre-agricultural then maybe you won’t be beating on a a straw man. You just quoted the phrase “Prior to the invention of agriculture”.
I really don’t know why people appear to have such a strong wish to deny the ubiquity of cannibalism. It’s not like it’s a refletcion on them personally. Our ancestors ate one another as a food source on a regular basis. As far as we can tell that means all of all our ancestors, regardles of race colour or creed.
Could you explain why other mammals do not regularly kill and eat members of their own species (with the exception of chimps) as I asked much earlier in the thread?
Lions and wolves have been routinely documented eating cubs that they kill. Baboons also appear to routinely eat any young fomr rival troupes they can find. Hyaenas will always eat any rivals they kill if they are hungry. Bears will kill and eat any other bear cubs they can find regardless of species.
Once we move beyond mammals I would go so far as to say that a majority of vertebrate predators and a large minority of invertebrate predators will kill and eat members of their own species whenever that is possible. I can’t think of a single predatory fish, amphibian or reptile that won’t enegage in cannibalism whenever possible. Amongst predatory birds cannibalism of eggs or nestling young is well documented.
Mammals won’t routinely prey on anything that poses a serious risk, which rules out cannibalism of adults. Humans are different in that we use weapons. That means that if I can isolate and succesfully stalk a human I can kill him with minimal risk to myself. When other mammals attack rivals neither contender wants to fight to the death since doing so wil inevitably reuslt in fatal injuries to the victor, so territorial conflicts end whan one animal retreats. The use of weapons means that humans are different: territorial conflicts are usually fatal to one party. Those factors combined mean that adult on adult cannibalism becomes an option for humans that its isn’t for other species.
If you are engaged in skirmishes and killing your fellow humans anyway then not engagoing in canibalism is just wasteful. By engaging in cannibalsim you are combining food acquisition with competition reduction at absolutely no additional risk. The same is not true of other species.
Define “regularly”, then define “adult”.
Let’s define adult as “independent, post -weaning”.
The thing about predators is that while they are capable of hunting they are presumably capable of fighting, and when they are no longer capable of hunting they are dead. In additon to that sick or injured predators will hole up somehwre and hide until they either recover or die. So in reality the chances of ever encountering a sick injured or old predator in order to be able to cannibalise it would be pretty remote. That’s not say that it doesn’t happen, but I would think it to be incredibly unlikely that anybody observed it.
The other point here is that chimps don’t seem to be any more prone to cannibalism than most other mammal species. Cannibalism is going to be hard to observe in most species and the fact that so many people spend so much time in intimate contact with chimps increases the chance of observing it. Once people start observing bears or seals or weasels the same way they start seeing the same rates of cannibalism. With one incidence of cannibalism each month observed amongst polar bears and one in every thousand brown and black bears having eaten another bear in the past few days it would be hard to call cannibalism in these species anything but routine. Or to put it another way, if a survey showed that one in every thousand people in New York had eaten a human in the last week, would you conclude that cannibalism in New York was common?
A rate of one individual/thousand having eaten a human in the past week averages to about 1/20th of the population engaging in cannibalism each year. For communal feeders that would mean 1 person shared amongst a tribe of twenty on an annual basis. We can’t know precisely what the cannibalism rates for human populations were, and they certainly varied over space and time, but a rate of one human shared between a tribe of twenty each year would keep humans within the range of published rates for cannibalism in other species. In some places the rate seems to have been much higher, with perhaps one person/month eaten, but to me that still doesn’t push the rate of human cannibalism into a totally different category to other species.
Blake, I hope you are not lowering yourself to asking what the definition of is is. The fact remains that many animals such as gorillas and lions and tigers and most other mammalian predators have been observed for many years. While extraordinary instances of intrapspecies predation have been observed (extreme hunger among polar bear populations) it is not the case, as far as I am aware that any mammal regularly or frequently preys on members of its own species. I don’t know why you are advocating that cannibalism is common in human history, but the few instances you have cited do not support your theory. If anything, the exception seems to prove the rule that intraspecies cannibalism is not common.
ETA: intraspecies cannabalism is poor terminology, please forgive me.
You have already said that chimps regularly engage in cannibalism so the first thing you need to do is provide some evidence that cannibalsim is more common amongst chimps than amongts bears or seals.
Secondly, define regularly. 1 in 1000 bears has engaged in cannibalism in the past week with no suggestion of extremity. By what standard is that not regular? Is your position that if one in 1000 New York families had eaten a human in the past week then you would consider cannibalism to be rare in New York?
Because as far as we can tell it was.
Well perhaps it is time for you to provide some evidence and reasoning for this position.
First define what you would consider to be a level for “common”, bearing in mind that whatever falls below that level you will be arguing is uncommon. For example you seem to be attempting to argue that 1/1000/week is uncommon, so by this standard things like body piercing, violent crime or college attendance are uncommon in the US since they fall below this threshold.
Then tell us which predatory species enege in cannibalism at lower levels than that, and what that is based on.
It is no secret that most mamalian predtors engage in cannibalism, it is accepted that it is something that will be difficult to observe.
In those cases where we do have data on frequency rates it seems to be very common indeed, to the extent that at any point in time some individuals will be digetsing a cannibal meal.
If you have evidence to the contrary then by all means prresent it.
Really, you need to stop tiptoeing around the position and state it clearly. To me common in a population is anything that at least one individual is engaging in in any given time period. So cannibalism is common in a population if, in any given time period at least one inividual is digesting a cannibal meal. If you tell me your standard we might have some sort of basis for discussion. Better yet would be some actual evidence to support your position.
Well then, if that is the definition of “common” a whole lot of things are “common” that I thought were …not common.
Sure some people have eaten other people, so what. It has never been the norm. While I admit that by your definition of “common” it is “common”. But then then again, by your definition, fucking sheep is common.
Well give us your definition of common as I requested so we can discuss this. Why keep ducking the question
Once again I repeat, as far as we can tell it has been the norm insofar as every single person was likely to have at least one human meal each year.
How are you defining “norm” if it doesn’t apply to abehaviou engaged in by everyone?
Cite! Seriously. Let’s use New York as our populaton, Show me the evidence that at least one individual in New York is fucking a sheep in any given week. If you can’t do that then your are just posting nonsense, and if you can do that then fucking sheep is indeed common, though nowhere near as common as cannibalism was in many societies.
Universal? Well, no. No one claims that. No food was eaten “universally”, everyone had food taboos: the Jews did not eat pork, for example, and so forth. And sure, “people” would be one of the most common taboo foods. Unless you’re really hungry. And that’s where the whole sticking point gets: many anthropologists claim that few societies ate human except for ritual or “survival needs”. But in a stone-age tribe, nearly all the time is “survival needs” time. Food is nearly always short. If you have a skirmish with the “tribe over the hill” about a salt lick or a source of flint, and you killed one of them, the chances are rather good you *would *be very hungry and have “a survival need”. Maybe the liver can only be eaten by the Chief and the Shaman has to perform a ceremony before you can eat Fred Flintstone- but the chances are pretty well 100% that there are also traditions or rituals concerning bear… or deer, or whatever.
I am just now reading an article in the Oct Outside. The author travels to Hanoi to eat dog. Turns out there are quite a few traditions, and taboos about eating dog: Never eat it during the 1st half of the lunar month. Eating it before the Lunar New Year can clear up bad luck. And so forth. I have little doubt that in any society that did eat people, there were similar traditons, rituals or taboos, maybe (like Blakes excellent example) the Jewish traditions concerning how beef is slaughtered.
So sure, there were almost certainly rituals- but those rituals were likely not a lot different than any other hard to hunt animal. Sure, some tribes had “human” on the taboo list- but others had pig, or whatever. And sure, human was likely not a very common thing to eat as human is very dangerous to hunt; more dangerous than any other prey. Early man tended to stay away from dangerous prey, as a nasty wound was fairly likely to be your death. But when you are starving, you hunt anything as starvation is 100% fatal.
But we have two pre-Columbian societies where human seemed to be pretty commonly on the menu: Aztec and the Honne cave people. And more where meat was hard to find.
I’ll see what I can dig up. In the meantime an alternative might be for people denying this to try to name a pre-agricultural group that didn’t practice cannibalism.
For example we’ve had a claim in this thread, based on a commercial website selling Inuit art, the Inuit never praticed cannibalism. From somewhat more reliable sources we find:
And
Of course we can never know definitively that all HGs praticed culinary cannibalism because for many grous we have very little evidence of their condition before contact with agriculturlaists, but as far as we can tell it was universal and there is simply no reason to doubt that given the amount of evidence we have for the geographic, temporal and cultural spread of the groups that we know did.