Anth_ass4

Charles Kiplagat

21A.100

Charles Kiplagat 21A.100 Fall 2008 Reality, Nature and Implications of Cannibalism Introduction Cannibalism can be defined as: the practice of eating the flesh of one's fellow-creatures. fig. bloodthirsty barbarity (Oxford Web Dictionary). Historically, some of the so called primitive tribes are known to have practiced cannibalism as a ritual in honor of their gods. Cannibalism has been studied as early as mid-sixteen century by several anthropologists. Their studies were mostly based on the various primitive tribes ranging from the Aztec of the South West America to the Wari of the Amazon forest. The results and conclusion of their studies has provoked a series of heated debates and more anthropological ethnographies. Some ethnographies from Melanesia and the South Pacific highlighted how cannibalism, as practice or idea, was linked to cultural ideas about ethnicity and gender, the uses of flesh and food to define spheres of morality and exchange, and human reproduction and the circulation of vital energies or substances contained in the body. Among the main issues that created inspired works of the various anthropologists like Marvin Harris and Wilkiam Ariens was the question of whether cannibalism is real or just a myth. In this paper, I will look into the nature, reality and implication of cannibalism. Nature Aztecs, for example, made human sacrifices in honor of their god Sun. According to Marvin Harris, the Aztec “held fixed festivals during each of the eighteen months of their solar calendar; these where interspersed with movable feast time to a 260-days circle. The central’s rites of each festival were sacrifices to one or more or the hundreds of gods.” Even before the main ritual, there were other sub-rituals that were done in preparation of the “main ritual”. This would range

Charles Kiplagat

21A.100

from peculiar and brutal rituals like bleeding themselves to subtle ones such preparing and eating “delicacies”. All in all, each sort of ritual required an “appropriate costume or costumes, often of costly imported materials”. In fact besides human sacrifice, there were many offerings of “quail and other animals”. The entire sacrificial process among the Aztec began with the “union of the victim and the sacrifier”. Sacrifier would be a warrior, a businessman or a noble- the owner of the victim which could a slave, a maid or an inmate. The victim is then passed through several rites of consecration which were essentially meant to bring him successively “closer to the god”. Finally they went through their final fate: death. They were killed usually on the pyramid, their “hearts held up to the sun and their blood smeared about the god’s sanctuary”. The remaining parts of the human body were feasted on by the Aztec people.

Reality The possibility of existence of cannibalism has been an object of thought and imagination in virtually every society. The idea of consuming human body substance as food or for symbolic purposes invokes emotionally charged cultural and psychological concerns. This provokes a possibility of existence of a cultural gap between the victims and perpetrators of cannibalism. As such, cannibalism does totally change the meanings of food and ingestion, and the limits of a moral community. The quest for the reality of cannibalism is thus deeply complex since there are no such practices in the modern world. It is, therefore, natural for people to brush aside the idea of cannibalism as void and myth. This is mainly because the notion of a human feasting on another human’s body substance is rather stupendous and remotely illogical. Due to intricacy and

Charles Kiplagat

21A.100

logic of cannibalism, I will argue both in favor and against existence of cannibalism. Before I prolong, it is worth mentioning the fact that reality of cannibalism spins largely, if not wholly, around the aspect of “profitability” (what good it brings to the society), logical analysis and apparent credibility of existing records, written or verbal, on the subject matter. (Marshall 1978: 1) Possibility of cannibalism can be proofed by the need for cannibalism itself- the good that it brings to the society. Marvin Harris postulated a theory that explains how cultures evolve or even develop. Harris’s theory, the theory of profitability entails “that the customs of mankind (including cannibalism) come and go according to their profitability”. This theory defends cannibalism and, consequently, the cannibals by describing the comparative advantages that people can get from cannibalism. This goes further to state the Protein Theory which stipulates that Aztecs consumed human flesh as a source of “diet protein”. According to Marvin Harris in deed “the victim’s heart was offered to the Sun, but the Indians often made a feast of the arms and legs...” (Marshall 1978: 1-3).This suggests existence of cannibalism among the Aztec as an alternative source of protein during famines and “food droughts”. This also has a “sound scientific basis” (Marshall 1978: 2). Human sacrifice as a cultural or spiritual need also supports reality of cannibalism. Harris’s theory holds here in that the people (Aztec) benefited spiritually from human sacrifices. In Aztec practices, people consecrated the victim as if he were god. In the victims “were greeted with incense by the priests, in a way gods are greeted” This explains why the “victim in turn passed through several rites of consecration which brought it closer to the god”. Since their gods were equated to “enemies” hence “the widespread ritual value of enemies (and of the appropriation of their heads and bodies)” (Marshall 1978: 4). According to the Aztec, the victim takes on the

Charles Kiplagat

21A.100

nature of a god when offered as “food to the god”. Thus when consumed by man, “the offering transmits this divine power to the man”. This is therefore that spiritual advantage that results from human sacrifice among the Aztec (Marshall 1978: 3). Human sacrifice also had the aspects of cosmological necessity in the Aztec scheme, a “condition of the continuation of the world”. Reproductive sacrifice, for example, was regarded as transformation of “death into life”. The main relations of the Aztec universe were renewed “by the blood of the human captives”. The Hummingbird, the symbol of their Sun god, was thought restore fertility to the land when “nourished by the blood of the captives”. The metaphor of warrior being taken as “mothers” carried with it the notion of warriors bring him more life to their homeland by bringing more captives to be sacrificed. In other instances, sacrifice of children of the nobles appeases the “rain god” and their tears exemplify “rain drops” (Marshall 1978: 5) The nature of sacrifices and other cultural aspects of ancient tribes like Aztec also support the reality of cannibalism. Some rituals like “bleeding oneself” are characteristic of one who would practice human sacrifice. As such, the importance that the tribes like the Aztec attached to sacrifices made to their gods implies that they could go to such extent as killing another human. They “gave all to the captives” and even wore “appropriate costume or costumes, often of costly imported materials” (Marshalls 1978: 3-5). We may also argue for existence of cannibalism based on the intellectual abilities of the ancient tribes like Aztec. Hans Staden recalls that “the savages have not the art of counting beyond five” (W. Arens 1979: 23). This shows that such people had the potential of practicing such degrading sacrifices.

Charles Kiplagat

21A.100

There are also archaeological evidences of cannibalism. Some evidences seemed “overwhelming: piles of butchered human bones, some of which were apparently roasted or boiled”. Such physical bones provide almost direct evidences to existence of cannibalism among the people who live around the excavated sites. In some instance, “ancient human feces even seem to contain traces of digested human tissue” suggesting that they consumed human flesh (A. Witze 2001: 1). There are also several instances that postulate that cannibalism is a myth. With “less credible examples of cannibal tales available”, we can’t argue fully in favor of cannibalism. Wilkiam Arens admits that “available literature contains no first hand description of neither Aztec cannibalism nor any native admission to having practiced the deed” (W. Arens 1979: 2, Beth 1979: 21). Such stories of seamen like Hans Staden could take a form of a “staple of racist stereotypes, game of political propaganda and accuse of one enemy” (Beth Conklin 1979: 3). Supply of human flesh as source of protein had little economic cogency. The sum total of expenses that were incurred in preparation and actual sacrifices were ridiculously enormous yet there were other already available sources of dietary protein. Apart from agriculture, “the Aztec probably had the greatest natural protein resources: the lakes of the valley of Mexico, teeming with animalitos and algae” (Marshall 1978: 6).