"Cannibalism: Fact or Propaganda?" Topic

With the "politically correct" environment in the US during these last couple of decades, mention of cannibalism in Native Americans (another one of those increasingly necessary "PC" terms) is viewed as propaganda, even when there are is wide-spread physical evidence of the practice (de-fleshing/cut marks on numerous remains and pot polishing of the ends of human long bones), corroborating narrative accounts.

Did it happen? If so, was it as prevalent? Why the resistance to accept the factual evidence?

I'll wait until this gets dragged to CA before I chime in. I wouldn't want to get accused of "bringing politics on the wrong board" and cool my heels in the DH two days in a row.

The short answer is that cannibalism is "not nice", and it is not nice to accuse some people of not being nice.

Yes it did. Many accounts in the French and Indian wars.

"CA" (Consumer Affairs) board?

a book on some scholars' highly controversial claims of this in Southwest: link I've not read the book, but I did read an article on same subject (in same region) published in New Yorker a good while back: "Cannibals of the Canyon" by Douglas Preston (online version via googling title + his name). If I remember correctly, Preston argues that cannibalistic enemies forced the Anasazi literally into a siege mentality.

Legends of cannibalism persist, usually in small out of the way areas relative to the modern industrialized western nations. The main reason for this seems to stem from the fear of cannibalism carried with Europe's explorers and colonizers. True there are some documented instances of cannibalism. These are usually part of religious practices. But, before anyone gets too disgusted, think about the Christian practice of communion where the body and blood of God is consumed. One of the main reasons for reports of cannibalism is likely the result of these early explorers announcing their fear to those they met. Imagine this scene. Europeans have just made contact with a politically savvy, but technologically weaker tribe. The Europeans ask about cannibalism because it is an affront to God (and it scares the heeby jeebies outta them). The tribe therefore tells them and point, "Yes, the so-and-sos over that mountain are cannibals and you should go destroy them." Of course what they don't say is that the so-and-sos are their mortal enemies and it would just be dandy if they didn't exist anymore. So you can see how legends and stories spread.

The current discussion concerning cannibalism in North America likely isn't ceremonial. Most of the evidence is from the Mancos site in Arizona where starvation seems to have been a reason for the event. I won't get too much into that. The evidence is still shaky and I don't want to mislead anyone by presenting evidence out of proper context.

Just my two cents.

~OD

I know that some tribes of New Guinea were still eating the brains of their enemies until quite recently.

All of the northern and western tribes had been ritual cannibals and by the 1750's some tribes still participated in these practices, such as the Abenaki, Shawnee, Ottawa, Ojibwa and Chippewa.
The chance to "drink the broth and eat the meat" of the English enemy drew many warriors to the French cause, and this was tacitly overlooked by the French commanders, though many recorded in their journals their horror and guilt at witnessing these practises. Montcalm in particular knew of their horrific rituals and on at least one occasion placated angry Ottawa by promising them "A little English meat".
All of the tribes practised horrific ritual torture of prisoners, though to greater or lesser degrees. The Indians sadistic delight in the torture of captives was well known to Americans and Canadians but was shocking to the freshly arrived Regulars of both sides. Whilst the English managed to restrain their Indians at the capture of Forts Niagara and Frontenac, much to the Indians disgust, the French were unable or unwilling to prevent their outrages at the capture of Forts Oswego, Bull and William Henry. Indeed many Canadian Metis actively encouraged and participated in their barbarity.
Regular French Officers sometimes participated in these savage rituals as Bonin recorded; "The second day they divided into five bands and set out for the settlements in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Carolina. Before leaving, they held their usual war feast and sang their war song. For this feast they have a dog or a prisoner boiled. Upon this occasion it was a prisoner, who had been bought by promising to give another in return. It must be noted that savages give these feasts only when they are at a great assembly or in large parties. When the meat was cooked, the man in charge cut it in small bits and distributed a piece to each warrior. They sat in a circle on the ground and ate it, as though wishing to do the same with their common enemy. As there were several French spectators, including myself, at this feast, a piece of flesh was given to each of us, and we had to bite into it. I did what the others did, and immediately let the rest of my share fall into the frill of my shirt without anyone seeing. This was because the savages would despise any who did not do as they did on such an occasion, and would consider them cowards."

[I'll wait until this gets dragged to CA before I chime in.]

CA? I don't think anyone is saying that current-day Native Americans are cannibals…

Here's another little tid-bit. I studied under the archaeologist that excavated and is currently analyzing the recovered material from the Donner party's camp. She recovered a piece of bone from the campsite that looked human and had cut-marks. Last I heard, the bone fragment hadn't been tested as all the descendents of the Donner party had yet to be contacted. Just a little gee-whiz info.

~OD

From what I've read, there is good historical and archeological evidence of cannabalism among the tribes living on the Texas coast prior to the arrival of the Spanish. Here again, starvation was the likely motive as these tribes were barely eeking out an existance among the marshes there. Can't be a good life when you have to smear yourself with rancid alligator fat in an effort to keep the mosquitos from sucking you dry…

Later

Brian

Here's a couple of links…

link

seanachaidh.org/sawney.htm

eathufu.com/home.asp

Cyclorama Fan-

Interesting that you posted that link. I know Christy Turner. He's a professor at ASU where I got my degree, though I never actually took a class with him. He does have a taste for the controversial, but then, that's how archaeologists and anthropologists get noticed. These days, I work for a Native American community. Cannibalism is repugnant to them and to their culture, and they consider any suggestion that it was in their history as offensive.

But there's cannibalism, and then there is cannibalism. Are we talking about ritualistic which entails the habitual consuming of human body parts or blood. The Yanomamo blend the ash of human remains into a drink. This is pretty rare. Or, are we talking about the type of cannibalism that occurs when a group is subject to extreme privation,and a one-time concession in order to insure the survival of the group. thee is evidence of this throughout many cultures.

Then too, there is the Jeffrey Dahmer brand of cannibalism, conducted by someone with pretty serious psychological problems.

Archaeological evidence is often unable to discern between the different types. Though there are often cases of criminal cannibalism in our society, it would be wrong to categorize us as cannibals. Nevertheless, we tend to do this with prehistoric cultures. We see evidence of cannibalism, and we immediately think ritual or habitual, when in fact, it could very well be the product of temporary and local privation, or the actions of psycopath.

From what I can recall, cannibalism is ritualistic and not a primary source of food for many of the Indian cultures which practiced cannibalism. For example, the Kwakiutl of the Pacific NW practiced a ritual form of cannibalism. One member of their society would become a Hamatsa, or Cannibal Dancer, and bite, and sometimes even eat, flesh from the arms of people in the village. this is well documented in works such as Feasting With Cannibals (1981), by Stanley Walens.

Didn't Aztecs practice cannibalism combined with their ritual sacrifice (basically, the warrior who had taken a prisoner received certain parts of the body after the priests had sacrificed the poor victim)? I will need to check out my books for details.

Griefbringer

There's also a tribe in South America — I wish I could remember the name — that used cannibalism as part of their funerary practices. The deceased got cooked up, and then passed out among the tribe. There are still members of the tribe who remember taking part in the ritual when they were children.

I recall reading a book about the Comaches a while back. It claimed a tribe of Apache who lived along the Texas coast were ritual cannibals and shunned by the other tribes. They were used as scouts by the Texans. After a battle where a major Comanche raid was routed (because they were laden with loot) the scouts had a cook-out.

I saw a program on this on the Discovery channel. It detailed the investigation of the Choco Canyon settlements and the charges of Cannibilism. The investigators actually tested petrified human waste and found traces of enzymes found only in the human body and the only way they could be in the copperlites is throught the consumption of human flesh. The investigation found many sites where it was obvious that the home of a family had been attacked and burned the waste was then left on the site. They speculated that the cannibals may have been using this as a terror tactic to drive off other tribes or settlers.
Regardless they were still cannibles and this was not merely a result of lack of food. The Native Americans can whine all they want to but they are just trying to ignor their past. This in no way makes them inferrior my own ancestors the celts practiced ritual sacrafice and canniblism so who gives a rats hinder!

The South American tribe was the Wari. They practiced funerary cannibalism where all members of the tribe would eat of the deceased. It was thought that then the deceased would continue on through the bodies of others.

Gustatory cannibalism, ie eating the flesh of humans as a main source of food, has never been proved despite all the claims. Much more common is the practice of ritual cannibalism. However in most TV sound bites that run for a minute or so, this distinction is not made clear. When cannibalism is mentioned many people get the mental picture of rack of man or grilling whole arms and legs over an open fire.

Asia

To quote the Police:

"I likes to eat me friends, make no bones about it…"

Remember the crew of the whaling ship Essex.

Deckahnds – the other white meat.

ARG

In Australia, there was a situation about 8 years ago, when our ultra-right political party (One Nation) made claims about aboriginals in the past being cannibals. The aboriginal groups were outraged and there was a furor in the press.

However there was no evidence given on either side to prove or disprove either claim. I believe One nation are a racsist obnoxious bunch of s, but its could be true. Similarly the aboriginal people could either be embarrassed by what they now deem as barbarous or have lost their history. Until I can review any evidence, I will hold my judgement.

I remember talking to a friend of mine whose background was Maori. She couldn't see what the aboriginals were upset about. Her grandfather had freely admitted to eating the english and had said they tasted quite nice.

Asia Invincible says "Gustatory cannibalism, ie eating the flesh of humans as a main source of food, has never been proved despite all the claims".

What about the Chatham Islanders? As far as I understand, and I remember reading of it in a Jarrod Diamond (a Pulizter prize winner science author) as well as other places, the Maori's after having their flesh eating curtailed by the english, invaded the Chatham Islands and as they had guns and the Chatham Islanders did not, proceeded to farm them.

btw, has anybody seen Cannibal the Musical, by the South Park guys?

I'm surprised that cannibalism was not more widespread in prehistory. I wonder if there is an inherent aversion to cannibalism in most cases? (Maori's, etc. etc. excepted). It just seems that people would be a relatively easy source of protein for prehistoric man. Just bump off people from "foreign" tribes.

People are relatively slow and weak. Smart enough to cause trouble in groups, but just grab one now and again when they are gathering, etc. Pre-agricultural humans had to survive by gathering plants and chasing things that were fast and /or had pointy teeth. One problem of course is that most people would have been much skinnier than our current populace, so the odd mammoth or water-buffalo provided alot more protein for the effort.

What I want to know is where does Mike Tyson fit into all of this?

hrothgar: I'm surprised that cannibalism was not more widespread in prehistory. I wonder if there is an inherent aversion to cannibalism in most cases?

It's a good way to spread disease, especially if you like your long pig rare. That's how Mad Cow disease spreads: feeding ground up cattle to other cattle.

Mmmmmm…rare prions….

I'm sure you're right about the prions OFM, but there are many other little bugglies that live in humans and cause disease. Some can be deactivated by cooking, others can not. Consuming someone's flesh forms a very intimate relationship between two people, and is a good way to pick up your lunch's micro-flora and -fauna.

I would say we have no instinct against cannibalism, because some people do it, have always done it. I would speculate that, like incest, infanticide and promiscuous sex, cannibalism is one of those behaviors that is so fundamentally unhealthy, that cultures that forbid these behaviors with strong taboos prosper better than cultures that allow them.

Sex is for inside the species, eating is for outside it.

From what I understand, cooking does not affect the prions which cause Mad Cow. So, go ahead and eat your long pig rare if you want to.

The human variant of "Mad Cow" is called kuru. Unfortuatley its the women of the New Guinean tribes who suffer most, as traditionally they get the brain, the rest of the flesh appears to be ok.

Back in the old days when I was working on my Biology degree (1970s) Kuru was supposed to be contracted by something called a "slow-virus". Now we believe that the disease is caused by naked bits of infectious proteins called "prions". But even back then it was known that cannibalism was the cause of the disease and that brain matter was the culprit. I believe Kuru is now considered the same as another human spongiform encephalitis called Kreutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
Cannibalism is evident everywhere across the species. It is a good survival mechanism for fast breeding species in times of poor food supply. However, it is a poor survival tactic on species like ourselves who take too long for gestation and child rearing.
Also most cases of ritualized cannibalism took place in parts of the world where there was a local deficiency in certain required amino acids, (which make up proteins). New Guinea is a good example. The Aztecs were, however, an exception.

Ralph

I like the old stereotypes better:

link

Makes for more interesting games!

CC

here are australian links

link

PDF link

Bluewillow,

That is amazing information! I will make sure to save to links. Thanks.

CC
link