Replies

Back in the 1980’s, a respected anthropologist wrote a book refuting the vast majority of “recorded” cannibalism.

Outside of the contemptuous eating of an enemy’s heart after a battle, most accounts are unverified accusations from one tribe against another, doubled by the other tribe asserting cannibalism from the first, though both deny doing it themselves. Therefore, two cannibal tribes, without any real evidence.

There are some exceptions, such as starvation cannibalism, typically on isolated islands with few or no animals and poor fishing. But this was not cannibalism out of preference.

Of the known cases of cannibalism, such as in New Guinea, they often result in a prion disease called “Kuru”, an incurable degenerative neurological disorder endemic to tribal regions. From eating human brains and bone marrow.

(Prions are extremely hard to destroy, requiring both very harsh chemicals and extended autoclaving.)

Elsewhere, *ritualistic* cannibalism does not involve the consumption of flesh, but of ashes after cremation of an honored leader, added to some drink.

So, the bottom line is that this was likely either intermittent cannibalism, carried out in times of starvation; or ritualistic cannibalism, in which the meat was removed from the bones as part of a death ritual.