No evidence of cannibalism...ever?

The subject of cannibalism in contemporary and archaeological populations can be difficult to discuss without passing negative judgment on the barbarity of individuals eating their neighbors. Yet with ample evidence of ritualistic cannibalism occurring around the world for a myriad of relatively logical reasons (ritualistic, nutritional stress, survival, warfare, inter-group violence…), it is hard to deny that cannibalism happens. However, William Arens, an anthropologist at the University of New York at Stony Brooks, claims that any evidence of cannibalism throughout human history is simply a myth.

Discussed in the article, “Anthropologists Suggest Cannibalism Is a Myth” by G. Kolata (based upon Arens’ book “The Man-Eating Myth”), Arens perspective appears to be well thought out. For example, potential evidence for archaeological cannibalism cannot conclusively be deemed as cases of anthropophagic behavior for two reasons. First, there are no credible witnesses that have seen cannibalism practiced first-hand since these populations exist only in the archaeology record. Secondly, ritual defleshing (or excarnation) could potentially explain archaeological evidence such as cut marks on leg and arm bones, most likely to remove the muscles post-mortem, without precluding that cannibalism (or anthropophagi) must have occurred.

In terms of contemporary cases of cannibalism, Arens claims once again that no anthropologists have seen cannibalism first-hand, and therefore cannibalism is a myth. Yet Arens appears to be either unaware or unwilling to believe the witness accounts of cannibalism that do exist. For example, during the Conquest by the Spaniards of the Aztec population in Mexico, there have been many recovered texts of “outsiders” (the conquerors) who saw violent warfare leading to the ritual killing and eating of human prisoners by the victorious warriors in the 1960s (Harner 1977). In Arens opinion, texts such as these are “highly suspect”. He points to the case of Hans Staden, a 16^th century seaman who claims to have witnessed cannibalism occur among the Tupinamba Indians of South America. Arens believes that despite the details Staden offers, Staden is not a credible source because the account has several inconsistencies (e.g., Staden recounts a conversational exchange between two local peoples upon his arrival, despite the fact that he would not have been able to speak the local language initially).

While it is true that Staden’s text may lack consistency, this in itself cannot be construed as proof that cannibalism never occurred. In the same vein, lack of first-hand evidence cannot definitely prove that an event did not occur. Just because we did not have anthropologists scrupulously recording the dietary habits of australopithecines 3 million years ago, for example, does not mean that australopithecines did not eat. From archaeological clues such as tooth size, jaw muscle strength and position, remains of animal bones, charring or cutting on bones, and hunting tools, we can get a general idea of what likely constituted an Australopithecus Africanus’ diet. Therefore, when evaluating cases of potential cannibalism, it is important to cautiously analyze witness reports and data available while being careful to not systematically dismiss all signs of cannibalism based on one dubious account, as Arens does.

Aside from witness accounts of cannibalism, Arens finds fault in archaeological evidence of cannibalism as well. Of course as Arens rightly points out, there is an archaeological difficulty in differentiating between anthropophagi and excarnation; however there are clues which would suggest cannibalism was more likely to have occurred than excarnation. For example, when human leg bones are cracked open, this is more likely to be a case of humans trying to access and eat the nutritious bone marrow, and therefore an example of anthropophagi rather than a case of ritual defleshing, where there would be no reason to crush the bones and extract the marrow (see Turner and Turner 1992).

I feel that Arens general argument is weak. While acknowledging that survival cannibalism occurs, he flatly denounces all accounts of ritual cannibalism based only on his personal assessment on the validity of others’ accounts and the possibility of re-framing archaeological evidence. As well, Arens argues that individual populations will never proclaim themselves as cannibals and it is only their enemies or conquerors with hidden agendas who claim that cannibalism occurs (Kolata 1986). This point, however, is false. The Fore tribe of New Guinea has been recorded as self-proclaimed cannibals (see Stewart and Strathern 1999).

However, I do acknowledge that Arens perspective is necessary to generate debate and revisit archaeological accounts of potential cannibalism in order to authoritatively affirm or deny the presence of cannibalism in a case by case basis. As a direct result of the publication of Arens’ “The Man-Eating Myth”, Tim White (anthropologist and professor at University of California at Berkeley) decided to travel around the world and assess all hominid fossils with potential marks of cannibalism (Kolata 1986).

In addition, Arens’ perspective does serve to offer counter-hypotheses for common assumptions related to cannibalism. For example, the Fore tribe in New Guinea was assumed to not only practice cannibalism, but it is said that the Fore contracted Kuru disease as a direct result of anthropophagi. Kuru disease, a version of the modern “mad cow” disease, is a virus that affects the mucous membranes of the Fore and leads to death. Since there is documented proof that kuru did exist and had a huge impact on Fore demographics, Arens accepts the presence of the kuru epidemic but not the cannibalistic cause. Instead, Arens proposes that kuru is “a variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease…which was almost certainly introduced by the Europeans” (Kolata 1986). This point challenges a taken-for-granted proof of cannibalism; however, even if Arens’ assertion is true in this case, cannibalism may still have occurred. In the end, just as Arens demands that we should take caution when reading reports of cannibalism, I believe that we should also take caution when reading Arens’ counter-perspective.

Works Cited

Arens, W. 1979. The Man-Eating Myth. Oxford University Press, New York.

Harner, M. 1977. The Ecological Basis for Aztec Sacrifice, American Ethnologist 4(1): 117-135.

Kolata, G. 1986. Anthropologists Suggest Cannibalism is a Myth. Science, New Series 232(4757): 1497-1500.

Stewart, P. J. and A. Strathern. 1999. Feasting on My Enemy: Images of Violence and Change in the New Guinea Highlands. Ethnohistory 46(4): 645-669.

Turner, C. G. and J. A. Turner. 1992. The First Claim for Cannibalism in the Southwest: Walter Hough’s 1901 Discovery at Canyon Butte Ruin 3, Northeastern Arizona. American Antiquity 57(4): 661-682.