The topic of cannibalism in anthropology seems to encompass an unprecedented controversy, owing to the diverse perspectives of different anthropologists. It has remained as one of the ancient taboos across cultures although it is surrounded by mystery, speculation, myth, fear and symbolism.
Historically, the practice of cannibalism is believed to have survived across cultures over centuries to the modern times and, its significance in different cultures varies significantly. Some cultures considered cannibalism as a revered and sacred custom but, in other cultures, it was considered as a sacrilegious and an atrocious practice. It is worth noting that cannibalism seems to have existed among communities, although William Aren’s book "The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology & Anthropophagy" portrayed the seemingly old-age practice as a myth. This literature sparked an unprecedented criticism from a number of anthropologists such as Beth A. Conklin and Lindenbaum who gave contradictory perspectives.
Therefore, this essay will give a comprehensive discussion of the different perspectives from Aren, Conklin and Lindenbaum over the issue of cannibalism.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Perspectives on Cannibalism: Aren, Harner, and Critics
3. Re-evaluating Cannibalism as a Cultural Phenomenon
4. Perspectives of Conklin and Lindenbaum
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the varying anthropological perspectives held by William Arens, Beth A. Conklin, and Shirley Lindenbaum regarding the existence and cultural significance of cannibalism. The research seeks to address the tension between the view of cannibalism as a historical myth versus it being an empirically documented cultural practice.
- The controversy surrounding Arens' "man-eating myth" thesis.
- Michael Harner’s materialist interpretation of Aztec cannibalism.
- Categorization of cannibalism into ritual, survival, dietary, and symbolic forms.
- Case studies of mortuary cannibalism among the Wari and the Fore people.
- The role of bias, colonial history, and stigma in Western perceptions of cannibalism.
Excerpt from the Book
In contrast to Aren’s perspective on cannibalism, an array of anthropologists has investigated the issue extensively to validate the existence of cannibalism as one of the most significant cultural systems.
Cannibalism has been re-evaluated comprehensively from diverse perspectives as a cultural phenomenon, owing to Aren’s sediments in his book. It appears true that cannibalism existed as a ritual practice in some cultures, although myths were popular in some communities, in which cannibalism never existed at all. As a result, cannibalism has been defined differently depending with the contextual implication of the issue among different cultures. For instance, there was ritual cannibalism, in which human sacrifices were offered for atonement and other ritual purposes such as religious customs among different communities (Blick, n.d., p. 2). Other forms of cannibalism include warfare, survival, dietary and symbolic cannibalism. In survival cannibalism, humans were known to consume human flesh for survival, especially at times of ravaging famine. Hunger and starvation have been believed to be the most significant contributory factor, which prompted people to eat human flesh. However, it is worth noting that some life situations such as shipwreck and siege caused starvation owing to the lack of food supply (Lee, 2008, p. 8).
On the other hand, dietary cannibalism, as highlighted by Michael Harner, was as a result of nutritional deficiency, gluttony, dietetic or preferential purposes, in which people consumed human flesh to supplement their nutritional requirements. Historically, dietary cannibalism was one of the principal factors, which led to the emergence of cannibalism among the Aztecs as documented by Harner. In regard to symbolic cannibalism, cannibalism was viewed to as a cultural construction of personhood or a mythical approach to reproduce social order.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the ongoing academic controversy regarding cannibalism, highlighting it as a misunderstood and stigmatized ancient taboo across various cultures.
2. Perspectives on Cannibalism: Aren, Harner, and Critics: This section examines Michael Harner's ecological argument for Aztec cannibalism and the subsequent debate sparked by William Arens, who challenged these accounts as largely mythical propaganda.
3. Re-evaluating Cannibalism as a Cultural Phenomenon: This chapter categorizes cannibalism into distinct types—such as ritual, survival, and dietary—to provide a more nuanced framework for understanding its diverse cultural contexts.
4. Perspectives of Conklin and Lindenbaum: This part details the empirical research conducted by Conklin and Lindenbaum, focusing on the Wari and Fore communities to provide evidence-based arguments for the reality of mortuary cannibalism.
5. Conclusion: The concluding chapter synthesizes the arguments, suggesting that Arens' myth-based perspective lacks sufficient evidence compared to the extensive anthropological findings provided by researchers like Conklin and Lindenbaum.
Keywords
Cannibalism, Anthropology, William Arens, Beth A. Conklin, Shirley Lindenbaum, Michael Harner, Aztec Sacrifice, Wari, Fore, Mortuary Cannibalism, Cultural Taboo, Ritual, Survival, Dietary Cannibalism, Ethnocentrism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research?
This research examines the debate between anthropologists regarding whether cannibalism is a historical reality or a cultural myth, specifically analyzing the conflicting theories of Arens, Conklin, and Lindenbaum.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The key themes include the validity of cannibalism claims, the ecological versus symbolic interpretations of human sacrifice, the influence of colonial propaganda, and the ethnographic study of specific groups like the Wari.
What is the main objective of the author?
The author aims to evaluate the competing anthropological perspectives to determine which, if any, effectively explains the existence and practice of cannibalism in different cultures.
Which scientific approach does the text employ?
The text employs a comparative literature review and an analytical synthesis of anthropological, historical, and ethnographic accounts to weigh evidence from different experts in the field.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the "Aztec controversy," the evolution of the definition of cannibalism, the specific case studies of the Wari and the Fore, and the critical reception of Arens' book.
How would you characterize this work based on its keywords?
This work is characterized by critical anthropological inquiry into taboo practices, focusing on the intersection of cultural identity, historical documentation, and academic bias.
Why does the author argue that Arens' perspective is controversial?
Arens' perspective is seen as controversial because he claimed that cannibalism was largely a myth created by colonial propaganda, a stance that many other anthropologists reject as being unsupported by ethnographic evidence.
What did Beth Conklin discover about the Wari people?
Conklin found that the Wari practiced mortuary cannibalism as a way to honor deceased loved ones and maintain a link between the living and the dead, rather than as an act of barbarism.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Patrick Kimuyu (Autor:in), 2016, Perspectives on Cannibalism. A Comparison of William Aren, Beth Conklin and Lindenbaum, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/381150
