Cannibalism-why did it become a taboo?

[Machiavelli25]

I got to thinking about cannibalism, and a few questions popped into my head.

We know that examples of cannibalism among very early humans exist, and this probably continued over time. Now, why did cannibalism survive in some isolated parts of the world, yet disappear elsewhere? Why did it become a taboo in most cases, yet actually become a religious symbol in others?

If anyone can give a somewhat coherent answer to this, I'd be grateful.

[hellheaven1987]

Because human meat is not delicious.

[MrMofo]

In part i'd say because tribal peoples who believe in cannibalism often do so to obtain something from the flesh they eat, either their wisdom, their strength, and so on. This is a very animistic point of view theologically, that a thing is special in itself, contains a certain spirit which can be passed on.

But as a population grows, there's a tendency to move into a polytheistic or monotheistic religious view. In this case, there's still a special quality about a life, but it does not reside in the body itself. It is separate from the body (the soul), cannot be created or destroyed, and is associated with an outside entity.

That's one reason. Also tribal groups rarely undergo warfare so they can wipe out another group. It's more like border skirmishes which happen infrequently. Again, as populations grow, the reason for warfare becomes the actual annexation of land and resources, and there's an emphasis on killing as many people as possible. You don't just kill the one rare person and consume his heart for his strength.

A couple of thoughts anyway, off the top of my head.

[Machiavelli25]

In part i'd say because tribal peoples who believe in cannibalism often do so to obtain something from the flesh they eat, either their wisdom, their strength, and so on. This is a very animistic point of view theologically, that a thing is special in itself, contains a certain spirit which can be passed on.

But as a population grows, there's a tendency to move into a polytheistic or monotheistic religious view. In this case, there's still a special quality about a life, but it does not reside in the body itself. It is separate from the body (the soul), cannot be created or destroyed, and is associated with an outside entity.

That's one reason. Also tribal groups rarely undergo warfare so they can wipe out another group. It's more like border skirmishes which happen infrequently. Again, as populations grow, the reason for warfare becomes the actual annexation of land and resources, and there's an emphasis on killing as many people as possible. You don't just kill the one rare person and consume his heart for his strength.

A couple of thoughts anyway, off the top of my head.

Surely cannibalism has excisted within polytheistic cultures? Why did it exist in certain african tribes, why did it not exist (to my knowledge) among native american tribes?

[Blarni]

Surely cannibalism has excisted within polytheistic cultures? Why did it exist in certain african tribes, why did it not exist (to my knowledge) among native american tribes?

It did to a limited extent - the Kwakiutl in British Columbia, Canada, were reputed Cannibals, and so were the Caribs who migrated to the Carribean from the Amazon and gave the sea its name. There is strong evidence of the ancient Anasazi indians of New Mexico being cannibals too - even the Mexica (Aztecs) supposedly would eat a little of prominent sacrifice victims for ritual purposes - and even give the nobodies to their poor to eat (the issue is that in North America suggestions of cannibalism are such a PC no-no these things get studiously ignored).

In reality all of us, no matter what our ethnic background, have cannibal ancestors.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Because people woke up and realized "hey this is gross and immoral."

[boofhead]

Not to mention deadly diseases the practice can cause, like kuru

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29

[Barbarian Nobility]

Because people don't want to be eaten?

[Xerrop]

We know that examples of cannibalism among very early humans exist, and this probably continued over time. Now, why did cannibalism survive in some isolated parts of the world, yet disappear elsewhere? Why did it become a taboo in most cases, yet actually become a religious symbol in others?

An interesting question, but who says that cannibalism existed everywhere?
Maybe it was not common among all the early humans, instead only in some areas (like today)?

[Blarni]

And perhaps to get back to the thread question with a little more coherence on my part - I know of one example - the Maoris of New Zealand, who were prolific cannibals up until the 1860s for a variety of reasons from ritual to convenience on the war path - who in a few recorded cases pretended to have given it up when visited by foreigners because they knew it offended - they kept doing it but admitted they were embarassed about it, it's as if deep down we're genetically programed not to do it (probably to avoid the disease mentioned above), and will swiftly abandon it (or in this case pretend to) if we are exposed to a taboo against it, even if it's a foreign taboo.

As for 'gross and immoral', gross to us yes, but immoral is purely a cultural opinion. From a practical point of view it's a good source of protein and actually makes war a less wasteful exercise.

[jo the greek]

Basically human meat must be deilicious cause must have some simalarity with Pigs meat but this is irrelavant

[jankren]

Tribal people who eat human flesh dont do so because they like eating people. For example in West Papua they eat the bodies of their enemies because they believe it will prevent their spirit from haunting them.

[Blarni]

Not true in all cases, some have eaten it because they like it. That's what some 19th century Maori claimed when asked - btw the fleshy part of the hand beneath the thumb is the tastiest part of the body according to NZ folklore.

[MrMofo]

Not true in all cases, some have eaten it because they like it. That's what some 19th century Maori claimed when asked - btw the fleshy part of the hand beneath the thumb is the tastiest part of the body according to NZ folklore.

id say this belief was fostered because the person can no longer hold a weapon. Or, at least, that was the hand the weapon was held in, and can no longer be held against them, it's a victorious sort of thing.

[Blarni]

id say this belief was fostered because the person can no longer hold a weapon. Or, at least, that was the hand the weapon was held in, and can no longer be held against them, it's a victorious sort of thing.

Possibly, but there is a tendency amongst westerners to try to push the 'ritual' aspect of cannibalism, because
that, in our world view, puts it in some kind of context we can begin to understand and even sanitizes it a little. But cultures have eaten human flesh simply because it's convenient and they like it, though I agree the majority have probably done it for more ritual purposes - and 'battle rage' is considered to have been one of the leading reasons in New Zealand (like other cultures, such as the Sioux at Little Big Horn, ritually mutilating the US cavalry bodies). But definitely with the Maori, cannibalizing enemies was a more convenient way for war parties on the move in hostile territory to get precious protein than hunting or fishing (apart from dogs they had no domestic animals).

[Gustav21]

The Iroquois Indians had a "mourning" ritual where they chose one captive to be sacrificed. The chosen man was treated as a hero, given feasts and addressed as a family member, until the selected day of execution. Then he was tied to a stake and burnt feet up with red hot irons by all members of the tribe. When he was finally dispatched, the victims flesh was stripped from the bone, put into giant kettles and feasted on by the whole village.

[Machiavelli25]

The Iroquois Indians had a "mourning" ritual where they chose one captive to be sacrificed. The chosen man was treated as a hero, given feasts and addressed as a family member, until the selected day of execution. Then he was tied to a stake and burnt feet up with red hot irons by all members of the tribe. When he was finally dispatched, the victims flesh was stripped from the bone, put into giant kettles and feasted on by the whole village.

Seriously? Do you have a source for this, I've studied the Iroquois and didn't know that.

[Claudius Gothicus]

From a purely economical point of view it's counter-productive.

Developed societies need huge populations to sustain themselves, you can have large populations that provide commodities/technology if you go around eating each other.

[Machiavelli25]

From a purely economical point of view it's counter-productive.

Developed societies need huge populations to sustain themselves, you can have large populations that provide commodities/technology if you go around eating each other.

But cannibalism was usually employed only on dead enemies, or friends who have died naturally. Its not like these people were a bunch of serial killers who went round murdering and eating each other. It may actually be economically beneficial, since you get extra food.

[KingCrr]

But cannibalism was usually employed only on dead enemies, or friends who have died naturally. Its not like these people were a bunch of serial killers who went round murdering and eating each other. It may actually be economically beneficial, since you get extra food.

It would still be counter productive eating the body of a dead friend or whatever. How would that make the dead friends family feel knowing his body was consumed by his friend and they couldn't give the person proper burial and funeral. It would lead to nothing good.