Well, it seems you have come round to my stance re cannibalism in palaeo times.
Actually, this current thread is completely in step with my earlier one (
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/off-topic/were-neanderthals-more-spiritual-than-cannibalistic/msg15861/#msg15861). In looking back at the earlier thread, I think I see what may have caused you to misunderstood both me and Dr. Mary Doria Russell--possibly one or more of misunderstanding of Russell's opinions and assuming that I agreed with all of them, confusing William's opinons with mine, misunderstanding the point I was making re: demonization, and/or my poor choice of words in the thread title.
Russell didn't claim that there was no cannibalism by Neanderthals or anyone else. She has actually acknowledged the existence of cannibalism and she and other scientists that share her view, like Paleoanthropologist and archaeologist Jörg Orschiedt whose findings at the Krapina, Croatia Neanderthal site matched Russell's, have admitted that there could have been cannibalism by Neanderthals elsewhere, but mainly so far disagreed with other scientists about the frequency and reasons:
"We've documented starvation cannibalism (as with the Donner party) or symbolic cannibalism (a bit of heart ingested to gain a slain enemy's power). We've even seen instances of "gourmet" cannibalism, but very rarely." (God, Baseball, and Science: An Interview with Mary Doria Russell
By Mary Doria Russell, Jill Neimark
http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/8507/Default.aspx)
"That does not mean Neandertals never ate their own, however. Neandertal remains from other sites bear signs that they snacked on one another. But Orschiedt says some of those fossils, too, should be re-examined in light of his observations at Krapina." (Neandertal cannibalism? Maybe not,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=neandertal-cannibalism-maybe-not-2009-04-02)
Nor did I even say that I agree with Russell and Orschiedt, which I don't fully and never completely did. I just found her research intriguing and different from the usual stuff. Just because I posted it and asked a question about it doesn't mean I agree with it all. I think what may have happened is that William interjected his normally extreme opinons and perhaps you confused his opinions with those of Russell and myself? As usual, William seemed to make out archaic humans to be perfect and implied that none of them were cannibals and that neolithic peoples (of which he is one) were and are complete degenerates and threw in mention of more of his pet anti-science woo from Velikovsky and McCanney, all of which I found too ridiculous for anyone to take seriously or to bother replying to. Could it be that you assumed that my lack of response to his nonsense was silent assent to his opinions? As I have stated many times before, I realized long ago at the Paleofood forum that most of Williams posts were too bizarre to bother with. Plus, replying to his strangest posts only encouraged him. He was impervious to reason and arguing with him only hardened his opinions. It's foolish to argue with him on his crazy pet theories.
If you look at all of what I wrote, you'll see that I have never denied that Neanderthals practiced some cannibalism. I put the thread title in the form of a question: "Were NeanderThals More Spiritual Than Cannibalistic?" rather than a statement. It also doesn't even ask "Did NeanderThals Never Practice Cannibalism? which I consider an ignorant question. The answer to that one would obviously be that they DID practice cannibalism. The questions that scientists are actually currently debating are why and how often. I suspected then and I suspect now that there were multiple reasons why, though I'm not certain about it or anything else, for that matter. I don't have much idea on how often, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was somewhere in-between the extreme early high estimates (the high early estimates were part of what was used to categorize Neanderthals as non-human) and the lowest estimates. As usual, I am open minded on the subject and to whatever future evidence reveals.
I was attempting to summarize Russell's view with the thread title, but in retrospect I see that the word choice was poor, because spiritual/ritualistic cannibalism is still cannibalism and ritualistic burial doesn't mean that some or all of the flesh couldn't still have been consumed, as some cannibalistic tribes have been documented doing. I wonder if that title also contributed to your confusion. It's the reasons for cannibalism that are debated by scientists, much more so than the fact of cannibalistic practices.
If you check out these quotes by me in that thread, you'll see that I acknowledged that Neanderthals (and Maori) practiced cannibalism and that the demonization comment was not a denial of cannibalism:
[Russell] hasn't settled the issue completely and the controversy rages on, but she has forced scientists and the wider public to re-examine their assumptions, which is generally a good thing.
Her view seems to be that most--not all--of [Neanderthal fossil bone evidence] was misinterpreted and she produced a scientific method for assessing the evidence that is increasingly becoming the standard. Still, the debate rages on and I'm sure that the other camp will come up with some counterpoints of their own. [I don't mean to boast, but I was rather prophetic with this one, although the latest dig evidence wasn't specifically regarding Neanderthals and so don't directly address her claims, but they do indirectly suggest that she may be underestimating the incidence of cannibalism for food and other nonspiritual purposes by Neanderthals.]
Our ancestors were not perfect, and neither are we.
Yes, our ancestors made some big mistakes....
[The Maori] are one of the few people amongst whom some openly and unashamedly talk about past cannibalism.
I don't know who's more correct [Russell or those she disagreed with], and I'm keeping an open mind on the subject.
Yes, I agree that cannibalism has been used for multiple purposes. So you see, I acknowledged the existence of cannibalism among Neanderthals and more recent traditional peoples. Any assumptions you made to the contrary could have been based on misunderstanding or other reasons unrelated to my actual views.
Previously, you went on and on about "demonisation of the other" and such.
That single comment (I didn't "go on about" it) wasn't a denial of any cannibalism by Neanderthals or even archaic H. sapiens sapiens, it was a response to this quote re: Maoris:
the Maori were simply brutal cannibals, and that...is...that
And even with this I didn't disagree that the Maori were cannibals, just with the over-the-top unscientific language describing them as "brutal" and saying "that...is...that" with emphasis, as if brutality and cannibalism were their totality or essence or something. I don't believe it was bad enough to consider a really big deal or debate it if you disagree, though, as it could have been inspired by William's own over-the-top language and thereby would be somewhat understandable. I was tempted to respond intemperately to William at times in the past myself. My main point was that the comment did fit well with Dr. Russell's point that scientists and the public tend to make exageratedly negative assumptions about Neanderthals and other archaic/"primitive" peoples, likely unconsciously, starting with the early portrayals of them as dumb, savage, apelike, sub-human brutes that engaged in extremely extensive cannibalism solely for food. In the USA Neanderthal is still a synonym for dumb, brute, savage, backwards, archaic, subhuman, etc. A quick check of an online dictionary reveals that:
"an unenlightened or ignorant person; barbarian.
a reactionary; a person with very old-fashioned ideas."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neanderthal "2. a crude, primitive, reactionary, etc. person"
http://www.yourdictionary.com/neanderthal There was more to the Maori than brutal cannibalism. I don't want to overstate the point, however, as most moderners are unaware that cannibalism does not automatically equate with brutality (as you pointed out, early Jews and Christians even regarded human sacrifice as the ultimate sacred rite rather than brutal) and the quote was somewhat understandable, given that it was in response to the usual extreme and bizarre rhetoric of William and maybe I should have cut some more slack given that William could frustrate people.
I was wrong about one thing and am happy to admit wherever and whenever I err. When I wrote that "They [the Maori] are also, AFAIK, the only near-hunter-gatherer-culture that has regained dominance in any nation in the world" I was actually thinking of the Fijiians. I was reminded of that when I recently read some articles on Fiji that a friend pointed me to.
I noticed one thing I didn't before. You wrote that "the evidence of cannibalism is endemic throughout all the hominid species
right up to homo erectus." Russell studied
Neanderthals, not earlier species like H. erectus and prior hominids. So your quote was irrelevant to my thread topic on Neanderthals and
you even agreed completely with Russell when you later wrote: "The problem seems to be that her notion of secondary burial requires some sort of religious belief. That would certainly apply to the Neanderthals given clear burial rites etc." That was precisely her point, that Neanderthals had "some sort of religious belief" and practiced multi-part burial, so you apparently mistakenly perceived a disagreement with both her and myself. From what I can tell in that thread, we were in almost full agreement. So it looks like it was much ado over nothing.
Topic: "First Cannibals Ate Each Other for Extra Nutrition" (Read 12048 times)