SC - lack of proof of cannibalism OT OOP-ish (GROSS-OUT Warning...)
lilinah at earthlink.net
lilinah at earthlink.net
Wed Mar 14 12:49:35 PST 2001
There is surprising little documentation of *actual* cannibalism in
the historic and anthropological record. I was recently reading an
anthropology book that analyses reports of cannibalism - from
centuries' past accounts laden with ethnocentric prejudice through
modern anthropological reports.
Unfortunately, my daughter has it at her college, so i can't find it.
I think it is: _The Anthropology of Cannibalism_ by La R. Goldman.
Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. : 1999, but i'm not absolutely
positive. When she comes back from her Spring Break vacation, i'll
get the definite title from her.
It's a comparatively slim book. It documents how, while cannibalism
may figure in some cultures' myths, no one seems to have actually
seen a documentable act of cannibalism. And it pointed out how eager
we seem to be to find that *someone else* is or has been a cannibal -
usually as proof of the barbarism of other "less civilized" groups or
our "brutish" ancestors.
In fact, modern anthropologists have reported stories told them by
their informants - to the effect that "We aren't cannibals and never
have been, but "evil tribe over there" (ETOT) are!" - as if they are
proof that ETOT are in fact cannibals, yet with no definitive
evidence.
If the anthropologist bothers to go to ETOT, as only happens
occasionally, and asks them, members of ETOT invariably deny
practicing cannibalism. It is one of those great cultural tabus.
Sometimes ETOT will tell the anthropologist that the "first tribe
back there" (FTBT) that s/he visited were cannibals. But since the
anthropologist lived with FTBT, s/he knows that isn't true. So the
anthropologist persists in their questioning, along the lines of "but
FTBT said you were". There is continued denial by ETOT, and continued
persistance on the part of the anthropologist, until finally ETOT
says, "well, maybe, long ago, but we haven't done it for many
generations."
Variations on this scenario have been repeated for around 100 years.
No one has actually found hard evidence of cannibalism - that is, no
person who is not a member of the group in question has been on the
spot to witness...
"people,
people who eat people..."
but there are frequent stories that "the other group over there" did
it, or "well, you Christians or you college educated guys said we did
it, but it hasn't happened in my lifetime or my parents lifetime, but
maybe we did do it, many generations ago" and this gets reported as
"group X admits to cannibalism".
The archaeological reports are also questioned - not because the
author of the book is squeamish, but because the "evidence" is often
similar to this report from Britain - a broken human bone with the
marrow removed. All too often the bones do not represent a cache -
like a midden - but, rather, a unique individual which can hardly
prove a persistent complex. Is this evidence of a regular system of
cannibalism, of humans eating human flesh on a regular or ritualized
basis? an individual case of cannibalism because of impending
starvation? or just the predations of a passing animal?
The only well documented cases of true cannibalism are those that
have taken place in situations of extreme duress, such as The Donner
Party (Donner party of 5, errr, Donner party of 4...), those soccer
players who crashed in the Andes, etc., usually where there is
nothing else to eat. ...And a few wackos, such as Jeffrey Dahmer...
So i await more conclusive evidence, since we'll never have absolute
proof (dang, this Time Machine isn't working...). But what is
reported in this article is certainly insufficient evidence.
Anahita al-skepticiyya
More information about the Sca-cooks
mailing list