cannibal11

Introduction
   In recent issues of the Skeptic there has been some debate about the existence of Aboriginal cannibalism. Richard Buchhorn (1994) had raised the issue of the argument �against� and has subsequently born the brunt of opposition claims �for� (Towsey 1994; Lewis 1994; Snowden 1994). Towsey (1994:69) asked "Are there any anthropologists among our Skeptics who have any real evidence one way or the other."
   I now belatedly enter this debate (my apologies to Richard Buchhorn). In all humility I probably rate as knowledgeable on this matter (eg Pickering 1985; 1989; 1992; Howie-Willis 1994: 178-179; Bahn 1991: 31). In 1984 I carried out an exhaustive study into the issue of Aboriginal cannibalism (Pickering 1985). I provide a summary of my findings here. I do not expect readers to take the summary at face value. A copy of my thesis, submitted to the library of the Skeptics, accompanies this article and I invite use and comment.
   This study initially aimed at examining the cultural significance of Aboriginal cannibalism, an area which had largely been ignored by serious documenters and researchers. Before I could examine the social significance of the act I had first to be sure, firstly, that the act really existed and secondly, that I had adequately descriptive materials upon which to base the analyses.
   Through examining the available and copious published data I was stuck by the lack of evidence, in the form of objective descriptions, for cannibalism. While other institutions were described in detail usable information about cannibalism was scarce. Readers were expected to take the accusation at face value. In effect I had nothing to work with.
   There emerged a clear conflict between the popularity of the belief that Aborigines were cannibals and the objective evidence. The focus of research changed to the question of whether there was, in fact, any real evidence for the existence of institutionalised Aboriginal cannibalism at all.
   My research examined published and unpublished documentary descriptions of �cannibal acts�. Four hundred and forty accounts were obtained from 298 sources. These accounts were classed according to the origin of the account and the level of description provided. Few of the accounts stood up to close scrutiny. Most were either unsubstantiated or second-hand accounts of unsubstantiated descriptions. For those few that accounts that provide substantiating evidence there are usually grounds to suggest that those claims that provided some substantiating evidence were either unreliable (even though graphic), were the result of misinterpreting other activities for cannibalism, or were reporting crisis stimulated events rather than conventional institutionalised practices..
The origin of the species
   The belief that Aboriginal cannibalism existed as a social institution owes more to popular 19th century social attitudes than it does to reliable evidence of the practice by Aborigines.
   Social evolutionary theory argued for a social, technological and moral hierarchy, ranging from �primitive� peoples on the bottom to particular European peoples at the top. Cannibalism was seen as one of the institutions characteristic of a primitive society. Colonists came off the boats and headed into the bush armed with Bibles, rifles, and the preconception that Aborigines were, amongst other things, cannibals. Not surprisingly they found it every where they looked. By far the majority of reports came from untrained reporters untrained in ethnographic methods and usually not favourably disposed to alien cultures occupying lands over which they had territorial ambitions (e.g. pastoralists, police, tourists, missionaries, clergy, journalists).
But.....
   At this stage someone usually jumps in with a �But what about X�s writings?� They then usually quote some popular text. Even those people more favourably disposed towards Aboriginal culture were not immune to prevailing social values and similarly expected to find evidence of Aboriginal cannibalism.
   Early anthropologists and ethnographers, armed with contemporary social theory derived largely from the combination of a colonial ethos and social Darwinism, similarly misinterpreted certain acts and statements as evidence of cannibalism. The overall result was that the significance of other social phenomena was ignored through such phenomena being misinterpreted as cannibalism. Many authors, academic and popularist alike, readily accepted the concept of an Aboriginal institution of cannibalism; a relic of the intellectual baggage of their teachers.
   Thus it is not surprising that quite eminent academics wrote about cannibalism. However, few of these authors based their discussions on first hand research, or for that matter, on the first-hand research of skilled ethnographers. Instead they unquestioningly accepted �historical sources�, documents that often achieve their prestige on the basis of their age more than on the quality of their scholarship. It is when we examine these sources that it becomes apparent that there is much to be questioned.
   For example, Charles Sturt, soldier and explorer, recounted a description by a stockman who told him " That fellow, sir...who is sitting down, killed his infant child last night by knocking its head against a stone, after which he threw it on the fire and then devoured it." Sturt then "... went up to the man and questioned him as to the fact, as well as I could. He did not attempt to deny it, but slunk away in evident consciousness". Sturt admitted he did not see the act but concluded "...he very mention of such a thing among these people goes to prove they are capable of such an enormity (Sturt 1833:22-223). This is a second hand account. Sturt tacitly admits to communication difficulties. Self consciousness (embarrassment at the disgusting insinuations of an alien?) is seen as an admission. Sturt obviously had a preconception that Aborigines were cannibals.
   Later authors misquoted Sturt. Mackenzie, a clergyman, changed this account into "Captain Sturt ... witnessed (my emphasis) a black fellow kill his infant child by knocking its head against a stone, after which he threw it on the fire an devoured it (Mackenzie 1852:117). Strachan reported that Sturt "...witnessed a black fellow kill his infant, by dashing its head against a stone, after which he threw it on the fire, and then greedily (my emphasis) devoured it (Strachan 1870:116). Over forty years the second-hand account becomes first-hand. The alleged consumption becomes greedy.
   Mackenzie (1852:127) recounts �A respectable gentleman named Morrice...came lately on a party of fifty or sixty blacks in the very act of roasting pieces of human flesh...the body of a female." Andrews (1920:33) then recounts Mackenzie�s "...having seen 50 or 60 ... engaged in eating a man." The second-hand account becomes first-hand. The female becomes male.
   Daisy Bates was a journalist. The majority of her reports of cannibalism appear in newspapers and when she was approaching 70. I have counted 49 accounts of cannibalism in 19 of Bates books and articles. Most of these accounts were repetitions of four specific examples; the first was an anecdote provided by an old woman recounting a single episode in her childhood where a reference was made to suggest to her that a piece of meat was human.
   The second was based on a group of migrant Aborigines arriving at Ooldea with some bloodstained bags, utensils and no children. This was sufficient to suggest to Bates that the owners of the gear and the children had been eaten. The third was when a missionary pointed out a woman who was supposed to have eaten her child. The fourth was when a pregnant woman at Ooldea disappeared into the bush to give birth and came back without the child. Bates considered the child had been eaten. She described the motive as"...custom...coupled with an overwhelming desire for the soft flesh and fat of the little baby" (Bates 1921). Bates later recovered the bones which she sent to the South Australian Museum. The Professor of Pathology at the University of Adelaide, J. B. Cleland identified the remains as cat.