cannibal10

Endosocial cannibalism
   At this point, a related question is often raised: "But they did eat one another, didn�t they?" Rather than answer that fully, let me try to summarise Pickering�s findings.
   Indigenous Australians were deemed to be cannibals before colonisation. That preconception, together with fear and fertile imaginations, coloured observations (often partial) of complex burial rituals. They led to exaggeration, distortion and fabrication of evidence. They turned suspicions and allegations into assertions; second- and third-hand accounts were presented as first-hand ones.
   The critical preference option would be for the strength of the evidence for incorrect and extravagant accusations by the colonisers, over the weakness of the evidence for cannibalism among Aboriginal people.
The persistence of the myth
   As part of my research, I succeeded in contacting over a dozen writers of published books, articles, letters etc who had endorsed this cannibalism myth.
   Some ignored me; a few were surprised and willing to re-assess their positions; others became agitated and abusive - how dare I challenge accepted knowledge and push the �noble savage� image! But none came up with any evidence.
   A well-publicised book on the Chinese in Australia (1992) included sweeping statements about Aboriginal people in North Queensland: "They all ate human flesh as sustenance, not as ritual, which made them dangerous to visitors... Game was short, hence the widespread cannibalism of the Aborigines... Inevitably some Chinese were eaten by Aborigines." When, through his publisher, I questioned the basis for the author�s statements, and asked for references, he replied, "It (cannibalism) happened as I said and that�s that. The people who are trying to deny it are the same sort as the German right-wingers who are now denying that any Jews were murdered... People who try to bend history to suit themselves exasperate me. Buchhorn is not worth replying to directly..."
   Having done the hard work, I rather naively thought that it would be possible to get the subject debated and to be able to challenge repetitions of the myth. On some occasions, my letters to editors of papers repeating the story were not published. When they were, two or three correspondents emerged from the woodwork to attest to the cannibalism of Aboriginal people and with considerable feeling. Often they were given the last word; replies to their assertions were not printed.
   Skeptics interested in my Kafkaesque experiences with regulatory bodies, supposedly responsible for the correction of harmful inaccurate material - the Australian Press Council ,and the Judicial Committee of the Australian Journalists Association - might read David Bowman�s articles in Australian Society for April 1990 and September 1991, and for an even more frustrating tussle with QTQ9 and the old Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, in the ABC�s 24 Hours for May, 1993.
The role of the myth
The debate should now focus on the origins, growth, role and persistence of such myths.
   In the era of colonisation, "They are cannibals" could be loosely translated, "We want their land". The perception of indigenous peoples as primitive, savage and inferior helped justify both the process and its brutality.
   The myth still functions to impede the process of owning our history in this land. The allegation is not made about Aboriginal people living today, but the myth enables �us� to take pride in the success of our effort to civilise/Christianise �them�, liberating them from barbarous practices. Stories like those of Lumholtz and Holthouse lurk in the dark recesses of many minds, ready to leap out whenever the negative perceptions and latent hostility are threatened.
It also serves to dissociate Aboriginal people of today from those who supposedly indulged in the practice, undermining claims to continuing sovereignty and land rights. Indeed, Hugh Morgan of Western Mining has argued that to recognise Aboriginal cultural affiliation with land would be to legitimise cannibalism.
The wider debate
   Along the way I discovered a book, The Man-eating Myth, by W Arens (OUP, 1979), an anthropologist at the State University of New York. His journey has, in some ways, parallelled mine. The book is quite short and readable and is recommended to anyone interested in the subject.
   Arens points out that just about every group in history has, at some time or other, been accused of being cannibals - including the Picts, Scots, Irish and Catholics: unknown people from just beyond the geographical or social limits of the world of the accuser. He notes that anthropologists have never allowed lack of reliable observation of the practice deter them from asserting that it used to happen until just before they arrived to study the exotic strangers; that unlike other customs, it has ceased immediately at the urging of the coloniser or missionary. He suggests that it is doubtful that cannibalism has ever been an accepted practice for any society.
   While not touching on Australian versions of the myth, Arens focuses on the same processes, preconceptions and purposes evident in this country. Indeed, if he revises the book, he will probably cite Michael Pickering�s work.
But the fascination of the topic persists. In Divine Hunger: Cannibalism as a Cultural System (CUP, 1986), another American anthropologist, Peggy Reeves Sanday, acknowledges, and dismisses Arens� hypothesis. She then makes a quantum leap to compare 109 societies on which she deemed the information sufficient to judge whether cannibalism could be classified as present - in 37 of them - or absent - in 72.
   What do these societies have in common, how do they differ? Sanday found that, in heterogeneous societies - ie societies like ours, with at least one jural level above the local community - there emerged "a significant association between the length of postpartum sexual taboo and cannibalism".
   It is possible that this amazing discovery is an example of the computer adage "garbage in, garbage out�. Or it might be every bit as relevant as other findings: M Albertus Bain�s statement (Ancient Landmarks, Uni of WA, 1975) that "all circumcised tribes practised cannibalism"; Levi-Strauss� (1966) suggestion that cannibals generally eat their own boiled and others roasted; and Lumholtz�s warning of a hundred years ago, that it was "a mistake to suppose that cannibals have an uglier look than other savages", that indeed they, "may look very quiet and approachable".
   But if weight is to be given to such discoveries, they have the potential to intrude on social niceties. If, for example, an Aboriginal couple, or indeed any couple from a different ethnic or religious background, invites you to dinner, be careful. Don�t be deceived by appearances. Ask how they intend cooking the meat; check the man�s wedding tackle and find out how long they left it unused after the birth of their last baby. We do, after all, live in dangerous times.