Arens is (or at least was, at the time of writing this book)
Associate professor of Anthropology, State University of New York at
Stony Brook.

In this book, Arens attempts to track down and examine the evidence
for cannibalism as a feature of any society. That is, he excludes the
acts of rare lunatics such as Dahmer, and occasional desperate
survival acts such as the Donner Party or the "Alive" events. He's
interested in whether any society, ever, has accepted cannibalism.
He seems to have examined just about every society accused of
cannibalism - Africa, New Guinea, North America, the Aztecs,
prehistoric man, and so on. He tries to find credible witnesses to
the act and (in a process that will be familiar to anyone who's tried
to find the source of an urban legend) generally manages only to find
that the so-called witnesses are only recounting what they've been
told.

He points out that many explorers' descriptions of cannibalism are
inherently unreliable, because the Spanish royal proclamation of 1503
specifically permitted the use of cannibals - and only cannibals -
for slaves.

The expected scramble for the profit to be made in human bondage
followed immediately. Islands once thought to be inhabited by Arawak
upon closer examination turned out in reality to be overrun with
hostile cannibals. Slowly but surely great areas were recognized as
Carib and their enslavement legalized (Newson 1976:72). Thus the
operational definition of cannibalism in the sixteenth century was
resistance to foreign invasion followed by being sold into slavery,
which was held to be a higher status than freedom under aboriginal
conditions.

He finds a handful of documents that purport to be by direct
witnesses of cannibalism. In each case he throws doubt on either the
credibility of the witness (pointing out, for example, that Hans
Staden, a seaman who claimed to have observed cannibalism by the
Tupinamamba Indians in the 16th century, claimed also to have
understood conversations by the Tupinamamba in detail on the first
day of his capture as they discussed where and how to eat him; not to
mention that common sailors in the 16th century were not known for
their literacy and ability to write books about their experiences),
or on the accuracy of their observation (Dole in 1962 described an
apparent cannibalism ritual, but Arens notes that her description of
the bones changes on occasion, suggesting that either she has left
out steps of the ritual preparation or failed to observe them -
allowing for substitution).

With regard to the Dole's description, Arens says:

The reader who thinks this sort of careful combing of the text is
uncalled-for should remember that this is the one and only
description by an anthropologist who explicitly claims to have
witnessed cannibalism. If the custom of eating the dead was well
documented and confirmed independently by others then such an
approach as the one guiding this study would be unnecessarily
tedious.

In various chapters, Arens considers and dismisses as second-hand
such sources as various explorers, who generally seem to have entered
an area *just* after the tribe (or, more often, the neighbouring
tribe) has given up cannibalism; Jesuit missionaries in North
America, who turn out never to have actually been eyewitnesses to the
event (Arens cites "the collected documents of the Jesuit
missionaries (Thwaites 1969) for this); and Carleton Gajdusek, who
initially popularized the idea that kuru was spread among the Fore in
New Guinea by cannibalism. Oddly, the Fore had given up cannibalism
*just* before Gajdusek arrived there. (Arens adds, "While this book
was in press, Gajdusek began to treat the cannibal notion more
cautiously, since he is now quoted as saying that 'there has been so
far no convincing evidence that the infections can be acquired by
eating or drinking affected material or by any means other than
direct invasion of the bloodstream' (Schmeck 1978:16)."

I'm not able to fully judge Arens' case. Perhaps he's ignored some
documents that are more convincing than the ones he discusses;
perhaps he's misrepresented the contents of some he does mention. But
the book is clearly not aiming at notoriety, and if his descriptions
are remotely accurate then - at the very least - societies that
accept cannibalism are and always have been extremely rare.

Personally, I find it very convincing, and I think that the burden of
proof is now on those who disagree with Arens to show convincingly
why he's wrong.


http://tafkac.org/books/man-eating_myth.html

Read Also:

Cannibalism Paradigm:

Assessing Contact Period Ethnohistorical Discourse.

©2004 James Q. Jacobs

In my experience it is commonplace in academic discourse, in educational media, and in popular media to assert that human sacrifice and cannibalism were practiced on a large scale in prehispanic America. At the same time, I have not been able to find a satisfactory eyewitness report of either activity in the numerous ethnohistorical writings from the Contact era. I employ the term "cannibalism paradigm" to describe this gap between the admissible evidence and the hearsay that informs modern beliefs about practices of consuming human flesh.

Paradigms are the biases, preconceptions and assumptions, both conscious and unconscious, that inform thought and views of reality. Kuhn (1996) described the paradigm concept and analyzed the role of paradigms in scientific thought. More recently, Clark (1993) discussed paradigms in archaeology. With evidence of cannibalism in archaeological contexts , assumptions underlie any statement that cannibalism was practiced. Even with the best possible bioarchaeological evidence of a signature of cannibalism (see Turner and Turner 1999:53), there is only a well-supported inference that flesh was eaten. Typically, there is no certain way to demonstrate that human flesh actually was eaten. In the case of anthropology, an assumption relevant to cannibalism and human sacrifice is the acceptance of ethnohistorical reports as true. In other instances, cannibalism claims not supported by physical evidence have found popular acceptance. Almost all instances of assertions that cannibalism has existed, from the most scientific approaches to fanciful popular literature, fall within the cannibalism paradigm concept.

Given the degree of reliance in purported cases of cannibalism and sacrifice on reports of explorers, conquerors, and missionaries, it is important to examine and analyze the context of the sources, their particular historical and cultural settings, the paradigms, prejudices, and biases that inform their statements, the political, social, and religious context of their experience, and the motivations underlying their activities and viewpoints. It is also important to examine the history of the documentation containing the hearsay evidence so critical to contemporary paradigms. Such a critical analysis is essential before relying on ethnohistorical data when inferring anthropophagic practices in archaeological contexts.

To Read the Whole Article, Please Visit:

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/cannibalism.html

...  Meiwes admitted to killing the victim and said there was "hundreds,
thousands" of people who wanted to eat humans or be eaten.

He cut off part of the victim's body before the pair ate it
together. Meiwes then cut up the victim, storing his body in a
freezer and eating it over the following months.

"With every piece of flesh I ate I remembered him," Meiwes told the
judge. "It was like taking communion."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/03/germany.cannibal.trial/

Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler), AKA Prince Dracula
Dates: 1431-1476

"Dracul": Prince of the Order of the Dragon (Dracul=Dragon,
also "Devil")

Founded 1387 by Holy Roman Emperor
Wore black cape and dragon insignia medallion
Place: Transylvania

Ruled in Romania near Black Sea
For some astonishing images of "Draculand, plus a fascinating travel
diary, consult the "Dracula Home Page" maintained by Professor
Elizabeth Miller of Newfoundland, Canada. Here is a sample (images
are being called from her site, so be patient. They are worth the
wait)
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emiller/
...
Reputation for Cruelty

May have killed tens or even 100,000 people, especially by impaling
and torture.
Killed "unchaste" women, "bad" wives
Killed entire families and villages suspected of disloyalty
Killed off poor workers, blind, crippled, sick,vagabonds, beggars,
etc. by burning them to death at a banquet
Nailed hats to heads of certain religious visitors
Allegedly liked to watch victims suffer and die; allegedly practiced
cannibalism or drank blood
Became known as vampire from words = "blood-monster" or "blood-
drinker"

http://www.uh.edu/~cfreelan/vampires/tepes.html

. . . After wandering about a number of days bewildered in the
snow, their provisions gave out, and long hunger made it necessary to resort to that horrid recourse casting lots to see who should give up life, that their bodies might be used for food for the remainder. But at this time the weaker began to die which rendered it unnecessary to take life, and as they died the company went into camp and made meat of the dead bodies of their companions. After travelling thirty days, 7 out of the 16 arrived within 15 miles of Capt. Johnson's, the first house of the California settlements; and most singular to relate, all the females that started, 5 women came in safe, and but two of the men, and one of them was brought in on the back of an Indian.

Nine of the men died and seven of them were eaten by their companions—The first person that died was Mr. C.S. Stanton, the young man who so generously returned to the company with Capt. Sutter's two Indian vaqueros and provisions; his body was left on the snow. The last two that died was Capt. Sutter's two Indian vaqueros and their bodies were used as food by the seven that came in. The company left behind, numbers sixty odd souls; ten men, the balance women and children. They are in camp about 100 miles from Johnson's, the first house after leaving the mountains, or 150 from fort Sacramento. Those who have come in say that Capt. Sutter's seven mules were stolen by the Indians a few days after they reached the company, and that when they had left, the company had provisions sufficient to last them until the middle of February.
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist6/donner.html

 

PBS.org and the Donner Party
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/donner/