I love the site listing all the cultures to have visited NZ ages ago:
Tamil, Phoenician, Ashoka, Greeks, Chinese, Portuguese, Spanish, Celts, Easter Islanders and apparently Vikings.
Getting to the point where it might save time to list the cultures that didnt make it there.
Otara
What chance that we’ll hear from Geørg again?
Why do those with the most interesting theses never seem to follow up on their posts?
Wait, don’t tell me: Gavin Menzieshas a new book out?
I hear he has a book due out in 2014 describing the Aztec’s moon visits.
We’ve done this to death in numerous other threads.
Anthropologists do and always have considered subsistence cannibalism to be well verified. It has never been the case that many anthropologists are skeptical that ceremonial cannibalism never occurred. That is a view expressed by just one person, and even he has been forced to recant.
There was a single bookpublished in the 70s that made the ridiculous claim that cannibalism was never routinely practiced anyway. The book itself was promptly torn to shreds within academia through at least 10 counter volumes and literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers that showed that it was based upon sloppy research, bad translations, cherry picking of resources, deliberate misrepresentation of sources and, in several parts, outright lies. Unfortunately since it appealed to a certain Noble Savage type sentiment popular at the time, it became extremely popular and widely quoted outside academia and also within a tiny subsection of some college anthropology courses… and the effects remain with us to this day.
The reality is that the vast majority of anthropologists have never had been any doubt that cannibalism was ubiquitous throughput human history.
Any doubt that various human groups have practiced culinary cannibalism relies entirely upon demanding a standard of evidence that can never possibly be met. It is based, literally, upon producing evidence of what people in the past were thinking without using the words that they spoke. That is not an exaggeration.
See, the problem is that we have have the testimony of the cannibals themselves that they ate people because they felt like eating meat. Nothing ritual about it. These people expressed in direct words that they felt like some meat, so they went out and killed other human beings. At least some of these cannibals were still alive in New Guinea into the 1990s, so it’s not like the anthropologists recording their words were unaware of how to practice anthropology. When an elderly cannibal said “Those people were my refrigerator. When we felt hungry, we would go and kill and eat some of them. When they felt hungry they would try to kill and eat us, but they could never catch us.” it is kind of hard to argue that they were not practicing culinary cannibalism.
Yet there are handful of people, mostly non-anthropologists, who argue that we can not believe the mountain of testimony of this sort because it is just boasting. But at that stage it literally becomes impossible to ever prove culinary cannibalism. We have piles of butchered bones, faecal samples full of human tissue, eyewitness accounts of both the cannibals and the families of their victims.
Jared Diamond said it best: we have more evidence for the practice of humans eating humans for food than we have for humans eating moas for food. Yet for some reason nobody disputes that humans ate moas for food, but the same evidence*** in addition***** to eyewitness testimony won’t convince some people that humans ate humans for food.
There is literally no evidence that could be collected of human culinary cannibalism that has not been collected. To that extent, the issue is settled.
I will ask you personally: what evidence would you need to see to accept that humans have practiced culinary cannibalism, in which human flesh is considered no different to the flesh of any other edible animal?
A cite, to start with.
Is an article by Professor Jared Diamond published Natureacceptable to you? 
Sure, but I don’t see anything in it that contradicts what I was saying. As I noted, it seems quite legitimate to infer that a number of human societies have practiced cannibalism under various circumstances. But that doesn’t automatically imply that they’ve routinely practiced subsistence cannibalism in the sense that “human flesh is considered no different from the flesh of any other edible animal”.
And Diamond doesn’t address that issue in the article you linked, either. He’s arguing merely that many human societies have not considered cannibalism actually abhorrent, and have not restricted the practice of cannibalism solely to horrific emergency survival situations. Fine by me: I never claimed otherwise. But that doesn’t count as an argument that even those societies really saw no difference between eating other humans and eating, say, chickens or goats.
Or moas, for that matter. The argument that humans eating humans is better documented than humans eating moas is kind of silly in this context: after all, we have ample evidence through all phases of human history of routine subsistence carnivory involving non-human prey, and it’s no stretch at all to fit moa-eating into that pattern.
First of, ø is pronounced ou hence the beer øl I do listen to TrollfesT.
Second I met a Maori in Australia who told me that the moa oris were infact the Vikings. He claims that the Maori people ate them. I got a feeling not all were eaten and some interbreed with the Maoris and some of those went back to Europe. I got a white friend blonde blue eyes, but he has maori shaped eyes. All this could mean a big difference imagine all of a suden the Maoris being told they couldn’t have any of their land back as it wasn’t theirs in the first place
Thank you for your timely reply. Why do you think a Maori in Australia, or any Maori for that matter, would have any idea what their ancestors were up to 200 years ago?
I happen to be blonde with blue eyes and also have some Maori ancestors. It is true that I am part Viking, but my Viking descendants got to NZ well after the Maori did.
Lets be honest, the earlier settlers were probably eaten by the Maoris.
In a land with little protein, humans were used as slaves and dinner.
I lived in the Fore’ valley for a year in the '60s. They had a subsistence diet. They subsisted on sweet potatoes.
If I had to subsist on sweet potatoes, I think I’d engage in “ritualistic, symbolic” cannibalism too.
I met an Australian in North Carolina who thought that there were no non-venomous snakes in Australia.
She was wrong. People often are.
Also in North Carolina are a lot of people who think they know what happened to the Lost Colony, including the blue-eyed native-people theories.
No, the moa were birds, probably made extinct due to overhunting by the Maori. Not sure what the “oris” were, but they weren’t Vikings.
Why would a Maori who could possibly get his land back which stolen from his tribes admit to it? He basically said that none of the land actually belongs to the Maoris.
I noticed you disregarded the fact the Vikings went to New Zealand. But guess what they did and discovered Australia but choose not to go onto the land as it had black people (aboriginal’s) living on it. I shall post up a website making claims about the Celts.
Because he’s stupid?
No, I didn’t because there is no such “fact”.
Well, if you put it on the internet it must be true!
Have you always been a stubborn cunt?
Can’t face the fact that the English weren’t the first whites to discover Australia and New Zealand and were not the first whites to have landed in New Zealand?
Reported.
Also, you’ve shown nothing to support anything beyond some dude who fed you baloney in a bar.
Yes. 