Cannibalism: fact or fantasy?

[lexico]

The word "cannibal" conjures up gory images of savages feasting on a fellow human being. Human history has records of brief swings of cannibalistic consumption during times of extreme famine. Some early reports of the renowned Pekin Man fossil remains showed marks on the bones that certain mutilations were applied to the body of the deceased; it was quickly induced from this 'obvious, scientific fact' that Pekin Men were cannibalistic.

A later re-examianation of the fossil remains told quite a different story. The streaks on the bones turned out to have been caused by a predator dragging the deceased over rocky terrain. The head severed from the torso may have been the result of a mortuary ritual for reasons yet unclear to us. Hence no positive evidence for any cannibalsm in Pekin Man.

Hence the debate whether anthropological cultures were longe-term cannibalistic as a social norm in their history seems to be unsettled. What is you view on long-term cannibalism?

note on definition of terms:
I define long-term cannibalism as the practice of consuming human flesh, brain, spine, or marrow on a regular basis.
Regular can be all year round, seasonal, ritual, or war-related.
But regular must have the common factor of 'as a norm culturally accepted within the community.'

*To acommodate Glenn's legitimate complaint, let's not get too technical on this last point of 'communal norm.'
It is only meant to exclude instances of abberant 'cannibalistic' behavior from within a society that is normally non-cannibalistic.
I only said this so that we are talking on the same wavelentgh.
But let's not quote tabloid cannibalism articles, since they are isolated oddities.*
However, Famine-induced cannibalism would not qualify for long-term cannibalism.

This poll is an offshoot of a short debate in Please don't hunt the whales which began with a misinterpretation of member Mycernius' mentioning "chimpanzees hunt monkeys." Please offer your opinions, and any relevant sources if you can. Thanks for participating.

EDIT: I had meant to make the poll public, which I forgot to do. I hope an admin or moderator can help me fix this erorr. Thanks.

EDIT2: I found a type-o in poll option no. 5.
All peoples at some point practices long-term cannibalism.
should read
All peoples at some point practiced long-term cannibalism.
Can you please correct that for me?Thank you!

EDIT3: For those of you looking for some juicy pictures to loosen up the taste buds, sorry. I had to be objective!

EDIT4: Because I have noticed that some of you have misread or ignored some key points of definition of long-term cannibalism as a regular and ehtnocentrically normal mode of behavior, I used font manipuation to re-emphasize where appropriate. I've also added one paragraph within two asteriks to reflect Glenn's remark.

Of course, if you were meaning to deliberately ignore the proposed definition and did so with a purpose, I understand that. But at least tell us how you wish to differ, and why if you can. I'm not to quick to grasp fine points of sarcasm, if indeed that was what you intended. But what did you intend?

[lexico]

non-cannibalism is favored by kin-selection.

[miu]

I'd say that cannibalism is linked to rituals more than every day meals... ^^; I don't know much about tribes/people(s) that have practised cannibalism, though, so I don't know if their cultures or living conditions have similar features.

[bossel]

Originally Posted by lexico

non-cannibalism is favored by kin-selection.

Should probably read non-kin-cannibalism is favoured by selection, if I understand the article correctly.

Quote:
"This discriminatory cannibalism appears to have evolved via kin selection. Field experiments reveal that the discriminating behavior of cannibalistic tadpoles satisfies the requirement of Hamilton’s inequality, implying that not eating siblings is favored by kin selection"

conjures up gory images of savages feasting on a fellow human being

Not necessarily, that depends upon the culture you live in & your personality/education.

early reports of the renowned Pekin Man fossil

Peking Man was Homo Erectus. Maybe we should focus on Homo Sapiens, else it may get too complicated. The farther back you go, the scarcer the palaeontological record gets.

The head severed from the torso may have been the result of a mortuary ritual for reasons yet unclear to us

Just like prehistoric cannibalism in general. Although cracking bones to get the bone marrow is IMO an indication of cannibalism as a feeding habit.

whether anthropological cultures were longe-term cannibalistic as a social norm in their history seems to be unsettled

Don't think so. The open question is how many societies practiced cannibalism & how long they did so, not so much whether cannibalism actually occurred in some culture over a length of time.
BTW, since human coprolites with residue of human flesh have been found at some of the places where also bones with cutting marks appeared, human cannibalism as such can be seen as an established fact.

regular must have the common factor of 'as a norm culturally accepted within the community.'

There you have a problem. This can be pretty hard to establish from a few bones.

[Brooker]

I'd eat myself if I got hungry enough. And there's gotta be something satifying about conquering your enemy on the battlefield and then serving him up at the post-battle feast. I'm sure a lot of cultures have dabbled in cannibalism in their past.

[Sally_Hawn]

I voted, "Many have."
In ancient China, there were times people had exchanged their children to eat during famines.
I'd heard some tribes in South-east Asia and Africa still practise cannibalism.

[smoke]

well, it all depends how you define "human cultures".
is it a culture to want to eat someone? or to be eaten.
there was that case in germany i believe where 2 people met over the internet (probably in a message board just like this ) and one wanted to eat someone and one wanted to be eaten and eat himself.
so like i said, define culture.

Peace

[lexico]

Originally Posted by smoke

well, it all depends how you define "human cultures".
is it a culture to want to eat someone? or to be eaten.
there was that case in germany i believe where 2 people met over the internet (probably in a message board just like this ) and one wanted to eat someone and one wanted to be eaten and eat himself.
so like i said, define culture.

Peace

Not having read the int'resting case report in Germany, I would assume that the two consummated their individual passions, and became one being, true?

I define culture as it is done in a microbiology lab i.e. bacterial culture or a culture of fungi. The anthropological equivalent could be stated as 'a number of individuals within a species, or subspecies, that share the local time, geography, mode of tool-making, reproduction, and subsistence. This kind of culture is a little different from 'education, upbringing, cultivation, trend, fashion, or individual preferences as in sub-culture' in the modern usage of the word.

But yes, such isolated instances may have been the norm sometime in the past; we just need some solid evidence to establish that as a hisotrical / archeological fact.

Originally Posted by smoke

2 people met over the internet (probably in a message board just like this ) and one wanted to eat someone and one wanted to be eaten and eat himself.

I hope that does not happen in this thread, on JFORUM, or any forum ever again. I for one do not endorse that kind of behavior. I have never eaten human flesh, other than my fingernails, or maybe my hair without noticing. I am not interested in eating human flesh, and I prefer not to be eaten either. Let's live and let live, eh?

[lexico]

Originally Posted by Sally_Hawn

I voted, "Many have."
In ancient China, there were times people had exchanged their children to eat during famines.
I'd heard some tribes in South-east Asia and Africa still practise cannibalism.

Since you seem to have included 'famine-induced' cannibalism in your response to the poll, we might want to discuss that as a sperate topic for discussion. Although I do not intend to go into it in this thread, I myself have come across a number of records in ancient Korean history and ancient Chinese history that the common people just ate each other out of simple, and unbearable hunger. 民間相食. Shall we begin a new poll/thread in that line? After you?

[lexico]

Originally Posted by Brooker

I'd eat myself if I got hungry enough.

That surely crossed my mind too, Brooker. I've heard interesting stories about the Siberian variety of the Russian roulette where camp inmates would cast a lottery for one bite off the thigh or triceps of the loser. Of course the loser dies of extensive bleeding and loss of body parts-functions.

Originally Posted by Brooker

And there's gotta be something satifying about conquering your enemy on the battlefield and then serving him up at the post-battle feast. I'm sure a lot of cultures have dabbled in cannibalism in their past.

Why not in the recent past, or even the present ? But the question is more of the idea of cannibalism becoming a regular mode of thought within the local culture of human beings. Our English expressions of extremities such as,

"to eat one's heart out"

"to eat someone alive"

"to tear out someone's heart out and eat it"

may very well be an echo of the English speaking group's distant ethnic past behavior of cannibalism. The questions still remain, was it regular? Was it part of the culture? What evidence do we have of it?

[Sally_Hawn]

Originally Posted by lexico

Although I do not intend to go into it in this thread, I myself have come across a number of records in ancient Korean history and ancient Chinese history that the common people just ate each other out of simple, and unbearable hunger. 民間相食. Shall we begin a new poll/thread in that line? After you?

Erm... it is all up to you because I am not very familiar with this subject.

For long-term cannibalism, there're some Chinese herbal doctors use fetuses or some other parts of human body to make medicine or sometimes beauty products for rejuvenating purposes.

Last year there was this horror movie in Hong Kong based on cannibalizing
unborned babies (aborted them and use their bodies to make dumplings).
http://www.goldenscenemovieclub.com/...pumplings.html

Of course, the story is fictional because nobody will eat that in China. Maybe just a few perverts.

[lexico]

Originally Posted by bossel

Should probably read non-kin-cannibalism is favoured by selection, if I understand the article correctly.

Quote:
"This discriminatory cannibalism appears to have evolved via kin selection. Field experiments reveal that the discriminating behavior of cannibalistic tadpoles satisfies the requirement of Hamilton’s inequality, implying that not eating siblings is favored by kin selection"

Your reading is again accurate. Since the article does not concern human cannibalism per se, but only the interesting behavior of the normally cannibalistic animal species avoiding the consumption of siblings and next of kin, I found that phenomenon as supporting argument for mine;

"When even cannibalistic animals avoid eating their kin, wouldn't the more advanced humans have gone further to avoid cannibalism altogether?"

Of course mine is not rigorous logic, but the article does give us food for thought. The microevolutionary selection appears to be against spreading cannibalistic behavior as a dominant gene in animal species, whether beast or human.

Originally Posted by bossel

Not necessarily, that depends upon the culture you live in & your personality/education.

The fascination of a subset of the general public for 'savage cannibals' is an interesting subject in its own right. At the same time, this pop cult is a source of undue fantasizing on 'cannibalistic' ideas. They are fascinated by it, but is protected from the uncomfortable feelings by partitioning the human species into the civilized and the savage.

Such ideas were actively employed during the colonization of the Americas, Australia, Africa, and Asia. In their mode of thought, these savages deserved to be colonized and become civilized because they were in the dark, eating human flesh as common beasts.

This unscientific misunderstanding seems to have perpetuated itself through tabloid literature and C-movies (often staged at the request of the film producer for exchange of material goods. Often with exlaborate props of colorful plastic material and flashy makeup like that used in Hollywood film and Broadway theatre to draw a wider audience.) which seem to attract the ignorant mass for cheap excitement. Sorry, nothing personal.

Originally Posted by bossel

Peking Man was Homo Erectus. Maybe we should focus on Homo Sapiens, else it may get too complicated. The farther back you go, the scarcer the palaeontological record gets.

There is ample evidence that Pekin Man was NOT cannibalistic. Why do you try to slight this positive evidence?

Originally Posted by bossel

Just like prehistoric cannibalism in general. Although cracking bones to get the bone marrow is IMO an indication of cannibalism as a feeding habit.

Those cracked bones were examined to reveal conclusions to the contrary.

Originally Posted by bossel

Don't think so. The open question is how many societies practiced cannibalism & how long they did so, not so much whether cannibalism actually occurred in some culture over a length of time.

Do we have a list of cannibalistic societies? Do we have any statistics?

Originally Posted by bossel

BTW, since human coprolites with residue of human flesh have been found at some of the places where also bones with cutting marks appeared, human cannibalism as such can be seen as an established fact.

Can you please give me a source to that specific coprolite study?

Originally Posted by bossel

There you have a problem. This can be pretty hard to establish from a few bones.

I understand that my strict definition is a bit unfair; as it goes either way. I've added necessary commentary in post no. 1 to reflect your criticism. Thanks for the comment.

[Reiku]

Hmm, hard to say...

...I know cannibalism has been practiced in evry human culture at one time or another--but whether this was long term or just a passing fad I'm not sure.

Personally, I've never met a human I thought I could stomach--and there's plenty of tastier animals around.

[lexico]

Originally Posted by Reiku

I know cannibalism has been practiced in evry human culture at one time or another--but whether this was long term or just a passing fad I'm not sure.

Personally, I've never met a human I thought I could stomach--and there's plenty of tastier animals around.

Thanks for your input, Reiku, and welcome back. The logical distinction you made is actually quite crucial for a more factual understanding of the whole idea regarding cannibalism.

I am glad that you have alternative choices which is quite comforting for me. Even more so considering the formidable martial aspect of your person. I do hope it stays that way...but you never know...tastes change over time.

[Shooter452]

Anthopology is not my field of study, however I seem to recall during university studies when someone said that cannibalisim is a common denominator of all cultures at one time or another.

As far as "none," you can pretty much rule that out. I know of at least one case where cannibalism was practiced by a very sophisticated culture. In many/most/all aboriginal cultures, ritual cannibalisim is/was practiced. It usually occurred when a hated or feared, or maybe even respected enemy was killed in combat. His liver was eaten by the victor in an attempt to gain the strength/prowess of the fallen enemy (the liver was accepted by many cultures as being the center of the circulatory system). Examples include many of the native North American tribal cultures of the Eighteenth and Nineteen Century (and I assume before that). There seem to be recorded examples of European aboriginal cultures who did likewise and I would assume some/most/all others.

The one advanced culture that practiced cannibalism--both the ritural type described above and one that seems to be dietetic--was the Aztecs. Azteca culture is horribly maligned because of early reports by the Spanish conqestidores, but even the Aztec records (carved into their own monuments) confirm that the Aztec people themselves regularly snacked on each other.

In an article published in COMMAND magazine (issue#20, Jan-Feb 1993) by David W. Tschanz, the author established that the Aztec clergy performed the regular ritual sacrifice of human beings--in numbers of tens of thousands in a single year. While the primary reason was to offer the blood of the victims to their sanguinary dieties, a secondary benefit of each sacrifice was their internal organs (the hearts and livers) for the priests, and the limbs for the congregation. The torso and head was not eaten. The sheer numbers of sacrifced victims eaten eclipses any reasonable ritual purpose alone, and the author suggests that it was a primary source of protein that caused the consumption of human flesh.

Tschanz points out also that central Mexico of that period lacked any signifficant source of animal protein before the introduction of European cattle and swine. While fish were abundant at the coasts, a culture that never developed the wheel and that used human beings for portage would be unable to transport sufficient amounts of dried fish up to the high plateau where the population centers such as Tenochtitlan were located. Excepting local game--sparce at best and insufficient to provide sustenance to the millions of persons to be found there--there were no other sources of protein except each other. When numbers of enemy captives were not sufficient to fill up the family larders, it is reported that volunteers were accepted from the local populace--it was said to be an honor.

I caution the acceptance of too much of the Spanish description of Aztec sacrifice at face value. These accounts were taken from persons who had nearly become sacrificed themselves during the conquest of Mexico. Cortez lost many of his men in this fashion (he almost ended up on the menu himself!). Still, much of what they said has been verified by the Aztecs themselves.

Caro putridas es!

[bossel]

Originally Posted by lexico

"When even cannibalistic animals avoid eating their kin, wouldn't the more advanced humans have gone further to avoid cannibalism altogether?"

Overly simplifying extrapolation, I'd say. I would keep it to the level of one species, since even closely related species can have very different habits. Compare Gorillas - Humans - Chimpanzees - Bonobos - Orang Utans.

Such ideas were actively employed during the colonization of the Americas, Australia, Africa, and Asia. In their mode of thought, these savages deserved to be colonized and become civilized because they were in the dark, eating human flesh as common beasts.

True, many or most of the accounts were probably mere propaganda. But to discard every such account without investigation is just as bad as believing every one of them.

There is ample evidence that Pekin Man was NOT cannibalistic. Why do you try to slight this positive evidence?

Well, if you insist: The most recent research (Boaz, Ciochon, Xu & Liu in Journal of Human Evolution #46,2004) actually indicates cannibalism of Peking men. The finds at Zhoukoudian indicate that the caves were carnivore dens (giant cave hyena), & that Homo erectus there lived as a kind of scavenger, probably indiscriminately feeding on everything the hyenas left over, whether hominid or not. The new research supports the findings of Binford & Ho in 1985.

Anyway, as I said before, we should focus on Homo sapiens. It's hard enough to get conclusive evidence for our species.

Those cracked bones were examined to reveal conclusions to the contrary.

Not really. Maybe in some locations (as in case of the above mentioned hyena cave) this is true, but not in all cases. Could you be a bit more specific?

Do we have a list of cannibalistic societies? Do we have any statistics?

Not that I know of.

Can you please give me a source to that specific coprolite study?

Well, I remember it from an article in the German version of "Scientific American," but I suppose the following link will do:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...289/5485/1663a

To conclude: Even if there were absolutely no evidence for human cannibalism (which is not the case) an old idiom would apply:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Since there is evidence, which is simply not accepted by the PC faction, let me quote paleoanthropologist White of the University of California, Berkeley:
"To say they didn't eat them is the archaeological equivalent of saying Clinton lit up and didn't inhale."

[lexico]

Originally Posted by bossel

Overly simplifying extrapolation, I'd say. I would keep it to the level of one species, since even closely related species can have very different habits. Compare Gorillas - Humans - Chimpanzees - Bonobos - Orang Utans.

I accept your criticism. It was only my vain stab at it by slight of hand to influence, mislead, and to manipulate your (plural) cannibalistic ideas (=fantasies).

Originally Posted by bossel

True, many or most of the accounts were probably mere propaganda. But to discard every such account without investigation is just as bad as believing every one of them.

My rough projection is that at least 95% of the old information that we got from school teachers, professors, archeologists, anthropologists, hisotrians, travellogues, documentaries, horror films, and other "legendary literature" have no factual bases at all except the originators' desire to shock or to entertain the audience's imagination. Of the remaining 5%, let's see how many of it can withstand true scientific strutiny. With famine-induced, non-ritual, irregular, or pathological cannibalism excluded, how many case studies remain on our list of true, long-term cannibalism ?

Originally Posted by Bossel

Well, if you insist: The most recent research (Boaz, Ciochon, Xu & Liu in Journal of Human Evolution #46,2004) actually indicates cannibalism of Peking men. The finds at Zhoukoudian indicate that the caves were carnivore dens (giant cave hyena), & that Homo erectus there lived as a kind of scavenger, probably indiscriminately feeding on everything the hyenas left over, whether hominid or not. The new research supports the findings of Binford & Ho in 1985.

Originally Posted by Bossel

Anyway, as I said before, we should focus on Homo sapiens. It's hard enough to get conclusive evidence for our species.

Originally Posted by Bossel

Not really. Maybe in some locations (as in case of the above mentioned hyena cave) this is true, but not in all cases. Could you be a bit more specific?

Please give me some time to locate the sources on Pekin Man cannibalism debate. I have not kept track of my readings in this field.

Originally Posted by Bossel

Not that I know of.

Establishing an objective statistical model seems to be no problem. Why not write up a list of instances of true cannibalism in a "(JFORUM) True, Long-term Cannibalistic Socities Cadidates List," and work out our statistical model to examine whether cannibalism does indeed constitute a common core of humanity's historical or prhistorical past. What cut-off figure would serve our purpose right ? 60%, 40%, 20%, 10%, or 5 % ?

Originally Posted by Bossel

Well, I remember it from an article in the German version of "Scientific American," but I suppose the following link will do:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...289/5485/1663a

Do I need a subscription to see this coprolite article ?

Originally Posted by Bossel

To conclude: Even if there were absolutely no evidence for human cannibalism (which is not the case) an old idiom would apply:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Smart quote ! I love these syntactic puns ! But it doesn't prove anything, either.

Originally Posted by Bossel

Since there is evidence, which is simply not accepted by the PC faction, let me quote paleoanthropologist White of the University of California, Berkeley:
"To say they didn't eat them is the archaeological equivalent of saying Clinton lit up and didn't inhale."

Anthropologist Tim D. White's Scientific American article, Once Were Cannibals (August 2001, updated May 2003) is an interesting read. Let me just note that his survey includes famine-induced cannibalism, and whether some of the case studies he quotes can be proved non-famine induced, long-term cannibalism has to be seen.

Originally Posted by American Renaissence, Nov. 1997, p. 7

Paleoanthropologist Tim White of Berkeley scoffs at the “mortuary ritual” argument: “Some (although not all) of the Anasazi and Neandertals processed their colleagues. They skinned them, roasted them, cut their muscles off, severed their joints, broke their long bones on anvils with hammerstones, crushed their spongy bones, and put the pieces into pots.” He adds: “To say they didn’t eat them is the archaeological equivalent of saying Clinton lit up and didn’t inhale.” [Gibbons, A. (1997). Archaeologists rediscover cannibals. Science, vol. 277 (1 August 1997), pp. 635- 637.]

The main issue here is not whether humans practiced cannibalsim or not. The question is whether did they do it out of hunger, or as a regular diet, or for ritual purposes only. Also whether all individuals joined in the feeding on human carcasses whould be a significant factor when discussing regular, long-term cannibalism.

For more opinions Scientific American cannibalism article abstacts

[Shooter452]

Originally Posted by lexico

The main issue here is not whether humans practiced cannibalsim or not. The question is whether did they do it out of hunger, or as a regular diet, or for ritual purposes only. Also whether all individuals joined in the feeding on human carcasses whould be a significant factor when discussing regular, long-term cannibalism.

In the case of the Aztecs, I think that I answered most of that question.

As far as long-term, I must ask if you think three hundred years of eating human flesh qualifies. That is how long the Aztecs had so indulged their practice, according to everything I have been able to dig up.

Interstingly, most sects of Christianity engage in ritual cannibalism, at least symbolically. I wonder if they think of the host that way.

[lexico]

Originally Posted by Shooter452

In the case of the Aztecs, I think that I answered most of that question.

As far as long-term, I must ask if you think three hundred years of eating human flesh qualifies. That is how long the Aztecs had so indulged their practice, according to everything I have been able to dig up.

cannibalisim is a common denominator of all cultures at one time or another.

The case of the Aztecs being regular, long-term cannibalistic does appear to be an established fact from what you say. But even if the Aztecs during the period examined in the study qualifies for genuine long-term cannibalism, one cannibalistic society hardly proves for all.

As for the nutiritional origin of the Aztec practices, the Bitler article linked below also sites an interesting theory by Ernandes, Cedrini, Giammanco, La Guardia, and Milazzo Aztec cannibalism and maize consumption: The serotonin deficiency link. Mankind Quarterly. 43(1), 3-40.(2002) which says

Originally Posted by Bitler

A contention made by Ortiz (1978) was that cannibalism among the Aztecs served as a form of thanksgiving for a bountiful harvest. He supported this notion by demonstrating that the yearly cycle of sacrifice coincided with the maize harvest, rather than likely times of famine. An intriguing response to this observation was offered by Ernandes, Cedrini, Giammanco, La Guardia and Milazzo (2002), who proposed that Aztec cannibalism might have been directly linked to high levels of maize consumption, which has been found to result in a deficiency of the important neurotransmitter serotonin. These researchers discovered that cannibalism among the Aztecs did, indeed, occur mainly during the months of greatest maize availability. Serotonin deficiencies can cause some of the behaviors characteristic of Aztec society, including an increase in aggressive behavior (observed in rats), intraspecific competition (including homicide rates among humans), and an increase in magical thought and religious fervor (Ernandes, et al., 2002). The addition of human flesh to the maize-intensive diet could have actually served to mitigate the serotonin deficiency.

According to this interesting study, eventhough the Aztecs practiced regular cannibalism during the 15th-16th centuries, its origin may have been a case of famine-induced survival cannibalism or pathological/medical cannibalism due to the long-term nurotransmitter serotonin deficiency resulting from their maize diet.

Originally Posted by Shooter452

Interstingly, most sects of Christianity engage in ritual cannibalism, at least symbolically. I wonder if they think of the host that way.

True. Does the host refer to the Christ? I believe Catholic catechism emphasizes that Christ is both human and divine. So there is some leeway in that Catholics eat of the divine as well as the human, which is different from eating of the human flesh alone. Furthermore Christ himself made it a point that the followers do this in rembrance of him. That this rite is prompted by divine command and that the partaker is required to confess prior to the eucharist is another aspect that characterizes the Catholic sacrament of the eucharist.

Incidentally I was just reading that passage on Catholic Christians being ritual cannibals in the 2004 article, p. 2, Mystery, Madness, and Murder--Cannibalism and Human Nature: From the Stone Age to the Information Age by Doris A. Bitler, who quotes Wallace's comment on Bill Clinton's participating in the Holy Communion in Africa.

[bossel]

Originally Posted by lexico

to manipulate your (plural) cannibalistic ideas (=fantasies).

Since I don't have cannibalistic fantasies, they can't be manipulated. I find eating human flesh pretty disgusting, simply for the reason of the connected risk of contracting a disease (not to mention the living habits of many humans, which could contaminate the meat). I don't have much of a moral issue, though. In case of an emergency I would eat the stuff, although I probably wouldn't kill to get it.

My rough projection is that at least 95% of the old information that we got from school teachers, professors, archeologists, anthropologists, hisotrians, travellogues, documentaries, horror films, and other "legendary literature" have no factual bases at all except the originators' desire to shock or to entertain the audience's imagination.

Oh well, if you include archaeologists & historians as writing legendary literature, I suppose it doesn't make sense to discuss the issue at all.

With famine-induced, non-ritual, irregular, or pathological cannibalism excluded, how many case studies remain on our list of true, long-term cannibalism ?

How would you be able to exclude that by looking at the palaeontological/archaeological record? It's quite some luck if we find any bones at all. We are luckier yet, if we can find anything that relates to the living conditions of the individuals the bones belonged to.

Establishing an objective statistical model seems to be no problem. Why not write up a list of instances of true cannibalism in a "(JFORUM) True, Long-term Cannibalistic Socities Cadidates List," and work out our statistical model

I said it before, I can't see how you want to establish whether there was "true, long-term cannibalism."
The necessary arch./pal. record is too small to build a credible statistical model. We're dealing mainly with small pre-"civilised" tribal communities (hunter/gatherers mainly) here, the Aztecs being one of the view exceptions.

to examine whether cannibalism does indeed constitute a common core of humanity's historical or prhistorical past.

Cannibalism as a common core? You're putting the threshold ever higher.
How can cannibalism be at the core of any early human society. There were simply not enough humans around to make them a staple food. I only have a rather old source for this, but population density was around 0.03/skm in the Lower Paleolithic & reached a peak of 0.10 in the Upper Paleolithic.

Do I need a subscription to see this coprolite article ?

Not that I know of. I have no problems loading it (perhaps because I live in a student's dorm & go online via the university net).

whether some of the case studies he quotes can be proved non-famine induced, long-term cannibalism has to be seen.
[...]
The main issue here is not whether humans practiced cannibalsim or not. The question is whether did they do it out of hunger, or as a regular diet, or for ritual purposes only.

Sorry, if you insist on this, I really can't see the use in discussing the subject. There is simply not enough evidence for most of human evolution. We can find the occasional bone with evidence for a human being used as a food source, but why this particular human was consumed can't be verified (in most of the cases).

[lexico]

Originally Posted by bossel

I don't have much of a moral issue, though. In case of an emergency I would eat the stuff, although I probably wouldn't kill to get it.

Not being able to prejudge on my future actions, I'm not so sure either if I could abstain. But hunger can make people do things hardly imaginable. But, yes, each to his own.

Originally Posted by bossel

Oh well, if you include archaeologists & historians as writing legendary literature, I suppose it doesn't make sense to discuss the issue at all.

Let me strike out the "other" in my statement, and "legendary literature" will not apply to what comes before it in the sentence, including archeologists and historians.

What I find disturbing is the readiness of the secondary handlers of scholarly information to be swayed by time-dependent trends. Once it was thought that cannibalism was widespread among the pre-civilized societies. With the publication of William Aren's The Man-Eating Myth (1979) and Lewis Binford's Bones: Ancient men and modern myths (1981), disparaging claims of cannisbalism became the new trend.

But then Tim White came along with the Manacos, Colorado study, backed by other archeological studies by other archeologists on: Atapuerca, Spain (Homo antecessor, 780,000BP), Moula-Guercy, France (6 Neanderthals), Krapina & Vindija, Croatia (Neanderthals), Canyon Butte, Arizona (Homo sapeins sapiens), Pueblo Bonito, New Mexico (Homo sapiens sapiens), Polacca Wash, Arizona (30 individuals), Cowboy Wash, Colorado (human myoglobin), and the Aztecs, and as a result of these studies, at least half the informed population (please see poll result above) rush back to the old idea that cannibalism as regular cannibalism (that was the question of the poll) was more popular than not.

Such evidence should speak only for themselves that cannibalism occured at those sites. What they do not prove in themselves is the qualtiy of the specific cannibalistic act (I will not be nitpicking about this in a destructive way, yet my interest lies in regular cannibalism, not survival cannibalism.) and the degree to which cannibalism was wide spread.

Before rushing back to the old concept of general cannibalism, or even 50/50 occurence among early societies, it seems only logical to present the factual ratio of cases proved to be cannibalistic divided by all candidate human remains examined for cannibalism. With the evidence mounting, we should be able to get a clearer figure of relative frequency of cannibalism, allowing for some gray area due to the strict archeological methods employed by Tim White and others.

Now compare that with an estimate of the relative frequency of famine (difficult to define, but not impossible) and we should be able to see whether there were unusually many occurences of cannibalism than would be expected from projected famine occurences.

Originally Posted by bossel

How would you be able to exclude that by looking at the palaeontological/archaeological record? It's quite some luck if we find any bones at all. We are luckier yet, if we can find anything that relates to the living conditions of the individuals the bones belonged to.

If you see Tim White's Scientific Article, he bundles together all kinds of cannibalism. Just proving its existence is, as the paper says, not the issue. They paper says archeologists are interested in the why. I would like to add the question of how much. That is why I am suggesting statistics; simple ratio could give us a way to make a better assessment of the prevalence of cannibalism in general. When possible, we might be able to make further reasoning, but true, it won't be easy.

Another factor is the identity of the predator. If Cromgnon-type man and Neanderthal-type man were different species, and the Neanderthal-type human remains recovered had cannibalistic food processing marks, then the next question we should ask is whther the predator(s) were of the same species. If they were the Cromagnon-type, then it might not be cannibalism but simply Neanderthal hunting. This is assuming that they were two different species, which has yet to be established.

Originally Posted by bossel

I said it before, I can't see how you want to establish whether there was "true, long-term cannibalism."
The necessary arch./pal. record is too small to build a credible statistical model. We're dealing mainly with small pre-"civilised" tribal communities (hunter/gatherers mainly) here, the Aztecs being one of the view exceptions.

What is the figure of archeological sites that produced human fossils ? Are they not in the thousands by now ? Of course those human remains that have been altered most-mortem or post-exhumation would have to be excluded, but some cannibalistic conclusions were derived from re-examining rather old and post-processed human fossils, too, just to illustrate my point.

Originally Posted by bossel

Cannibalism as a common core? You're putting the threshold ever higher.
How can cannibalism be at the core of any early human society. There were simply not enough humans around to make them a staple food. I only have a rather old source for this, but population density was around 0.03/skm in the Lower Paleolithic & reached a peak of 0.10 in the Upper Paleolithic.

Sorry to bring that in to my response to your post. I am more addressing the members who voted for 50% or higher occurence of regular cannibalism. And under the assumption of at least 1 out of 2 human cultures, I would not hesitate to call the consumption of human cadaver a common core element of consuming sustenance even after taking the low human population density into consideration. Once or twice per yr as a seasonal or ritual feast can still be considered regular if indeed that was the case.

Originally Posted by Bossel

Not that I know of. I have no problems loading it (perhaps because I live in a student's dorm & go online via the university net).

I see. I'll try other ways of getting that piece of human coprolite info.

Originally Posted by bossel

Sorry, if you insist on this, I really can't see the use in discussing the subject. There is simply not enough evidence for most of human evolution. We can find the occasional bone with evidence for a human being used as a food source, but why this particular human was consumed can't be verified (in most of the cases).

True, it's difficult with a small number of verified evidence just being published. I'm not demanding that all reported cases of cannibalism must be explained as to the reason why, nor to I intend to make the task nearly impossible, thereby destroying the results of the new findings. But these questions will be asked sooner or later. Anyway, thanks for responding.

[Shooter452]

I admit that not a single example does a trend make, lex. However, our choices did include the catagory "none" and as I said initially, this is not my field of study.

I find it interesting that there are few sources I have found that refer to the 16th Century Aztecs when cannibalism is being discussed. IMHO, it must be the most famous example and perhaps the only example of an advanced society that follows such a practice (although there may be other cultures in the Americas that did likewise, such as the Maya and Inca...I dunno).

The host is the transubstantiated bread in the Eucharist. That is how Roman Catholics are taught to refer to the Communion wafer. Under the doctrine, the wafer of unleven bread is transformed into the Body of Christ, and the wine into His Blood. This is supposed to be a replaying of the Last Supper, when the Christ bade his disciples "...to do this, in remembrance of Me."

It is a form of ritual cannibalism, if you take the ritual at face value.

[bossel]

Originally Posted by lexico

What I find disturbing is the readiness of the secondary handlers of scholarly information to be swayed by time-dependent trends. Once it was thought that cannibalism was widespread among the pre-civilized societies. With the publication of William Aren's The Man-Eating Myth (1979) and Lewis Binford's Bones: Ancient men and modern myths (1981), disparaging claims of cannisbalism became the new trend.

I think, Arens' ideas that cannibalism "never existed as a societally sanctioned practice" can be counted as debunked by now.
I'm not so much concerned about the perception of cannibalism in the general public, even in the "educated" part thereof, but about the fact that even the scientific community lets itself be influenced by fads. But, then again, scientists are only human, too.

If they were the Cromagnon-type, then it might not be cannibalism but simply Neanderthal hunting. This is assuming that they were two different species, which has yet to be established.

AFAIK, Neanderthals are considered part of the human species, as a sub-species (although, I admit, there is still some dispute going on about this). They are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, while Cro-Magnon is Homo sapiens sapiens.

What is the figure of archeological sites that produced human fossils ? Are they not in the thousands by now ?

Should be. I know that more than 300 places with Neanderthal bones have been found. But I'm not aware of any total number for Homo sapiens sapiens or hominids in general.

I'll try other ways of getting that piece of human coprolite info.

Well, I could PM you the text, if you want. But I think, it's the same Anasazi event, also mentioned in the article you linked.

[Warlock]

our homoerectus ancestors ate all the other ape ancenstorial species..which makes us all capable of cannibalism..when the time comes that is..

theres one news before about three plane survivours..two male adults and one male boy..the two men ate the boy...well humans always show their true nature behind close doors.. all humans cannot be trusted...

male younglings are more prone to be murdered..female young springs are mostly to be left alive to be mated by older males or stronger...

the rule of the world never changes..its unfair..and unjust..

[Nebiki]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, didn't the Aztecs often resort to cannibalism as a source of food?
I believe I read somewhere that they often feasted on the bodies of the dead after a great battle yet they never eat any of their own, only of the enemy.
Edit wait I see it an source now
But it still raises an interesting question why did they only the enemy?
Some kind of cultural value I suppose.