In 1979 William Arens asked what the anthropological literature on cannibalism actually rested on, and found that a great deal of it rested on report rather than observation. The book was attacked hard and much of the attack landed. It is kept here because the argument permanently changed what a careful reader does with a claim of this kind: the question is no longer only whether a people did such a thing, but who says so, to whom, and with what at stake in the answer.
Facts
Disputed
State of the QuestionWilliam Arens's The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy (Oxford University Press, 1979) argued that a great deal of the anthropological literature on cannibalism rested on report rather than direct observation; the book was attacked hard by specialists on individual cases and much of that attack has landed, so the general thesis has not held. What has held is the specific source criticism Arens applied case by case, which permanently changed what a careful reader does with a cannibalism claim, asking not only whether a people did such a thing but who says so, to whom, and with what at stake. 1 Point in DisputeThat anthropology holds no satisfactory first-hand account of socially approved cannibalism anywhere. 1 William Arens proposed in The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy (1979) that no reliable eyewitness or documentary account establishes institutionalised cannibalism as an actual practice in any society anthropology had described as cannibalistic, arguing the reports rest on hearsay, colonial-era testimony from interested parties, and one group's accusations against a rival group. The book was attacked at once by anthropologists and archaeologists working from case-specific evidence Arens had not addressed in the same depth. Arens's narrow source criticism, that a great deal of the specific reporting literature does rest on hearsay and interested testimony, has largely held up. But his general claim, that no society practised institutionalised cannibalism, is rejected by most specialists, and the archaeological evidence from Mesoamerica in particular, skeletal modification patterns consistent with butchery for consumption, is read as standing against it. The method on both sides is source-critical evaluation together with, on the rebuttal side, independent osteological evidence Arens's argument did not rely on. Both halves of that outcome are part of the record and neither cancels the other. Evidence
History of the AccusationThe charge of cannibalism or human sacrifice is characteristically made about a neighbouring people, a subject people, or a people whose land is wanted, and very rarely about oneself. 1 This is the part of the 1979 argument that survived. It is a claim about who makes the accusation and when, not a claim that the practice never occurred, and treating the two as the same thing is what made the book so contentious. Method
InvestigatorsWilliam Arens, proposing; a large body of critics across anthropology and archaeology 1 Learn More
The Challenge of 1979
In 1979 William Arens published a book asking a plain question about the anthropological literature on cannibalism: what does it actually rest on? He went through the standard cases and reported that in case after case the evidence was second-hand. Somebody had been told; a neighbouring group said so; an early traveller reported it; a colonial officer recorded a rumour. Very little of it was observation, and much of what was presented as ethnographic fact came from people with an interest in the answer.
He also noticed the pattern in who gets accused. The charge is characteristically made about a people next door, or a people being conquered, or a people whose land is wanted. It is very rarely made about oneself.
The stronger claim in the book, that socially approved cannibalism has essentially never been observed anywhere, was attacked immediately and did not survive. Archaeologists in particular had physical evidence, and Mesoamerica is among the places where the evidence is not testimonial at all. Specialists in several regions produced cases that Arens had handled too briskly.
Both halves of that outcome matter. The general thesis is rejected. The source criticism largely stands, and it stands hardest exactly where the evidence is thinnest and the accusation loudest.
What Survived the Argument
What the controversy left behind is a habit of reading, and it is the habit this part of the atlas is built on.
Three questions have to be kept apart. Did the thing happen? At what scale? And is the source that says so trustworthy? Collapsing them is how a figure invented by a conqueror becomes a statistic, and also how a well-evidenced practice gets waved away as colonial slander. Both errors are common and they are usually made by opposite parties in the same argument.
Applied across this material the three questions give different answers in each case. Mexica sacrifice happened, is established archaeologically, and the totals in the conquest narratives are unusable. Animal sacrifice in Vodou and in Lucumi happens, is sacramental, and is protected in law; human sacrifice in those traditions is a claim from a single trial with no record and from occupation-era popular writing. Sati happened, is documented in a colonial series that is genuinely hard to interpret, and its frequency before that series is unknown. The jauhar of Padmini is a literary narrative attached to a real siege.
None of that adds up to a single verdict about sacrifice accusations, and it is not supposed to. The point of separating the questions is that it makes it possible to say that a people did something terrible and that the person who reported it was lying about the numbers, at the same time, without either statement cancelling the other.
Cross-Tradition Connections
Associated With
1979, Years The Man-Eating Myth Controversy, a documentary investigation, is dated here from 1979. Whether the ethnographic record contains satisfactory first-hand evidence of socially approved cannibalism, and what accusations of the practice have been used for.
Related To
Bizoton is the type case for the pattern Arens described: a charge of ritual killing made about a subject people, resting on the testimony of interested parties.
The archaeological and nutritional evidence from Mesoamerica is among the material that told against the general thesis of 1979.
Sources
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.