Discussion and conclusions

Due to the continuing disagreement regarding the veracity of its existence, the
portrayal of cannibalism exists between myth and reality. Since the term "cannibal"
came from colonial conquest in South America, reports of ritualistic cannibalism have
tended to increase in places where colonialism and conquest have also been dominant.
The etymology of cannibalism has historical relevance and highlights how unique
cannibalism is, as a type of otherness that has a close historical connection to colonial
expansion.

According to certain researchers, including Arens, the idea that cannibalism exists is a
myth without any proven record because it is only known through hearsay rather than
first-hand observation (Arens, 1979). Other researchers have hypothesized that
cannibalism is a type of perimortem terrorism linked to sociopolitical control, as
shown by osteological evidence (Kantner, 1999). An expert on cannibalism, Christy
Turner, has stated that "that which we know little or nothing about is generally
disbelieved, and sometimes considered a dangerous and taboo subject" (Travis &
Turner, 2008).

The denial of cannibalism and its existence as a barbaric and uncivilized act derives
from a Western colonial way of thinking. The notion of cannibalism in some
researchers’ opinion, is that the phenomenon itself could not exist, not because they
have proof to support that, but because it is something too bad/evil (like Kuru
disease in New Guinea) to be able to exist and be practiced, and if it did, it should be
stopped. That view also commits to subjective interpretation and stems from
Western biases. At the same time, abolishes the context of whether cannibalism
existed and deals with it, in a way that cannot be helpful and productive neither for
the general opinion about cannibalism nor for the research conducted on this matter.

Archaeological material can be more efficient in directing the research toward a more
precise outcome of results, even if the characteristics of the evidence are not clear,
about whether they are indicating cannibalism practice or not. However, there is no
solid proof of the distinction between cannibalism (either mortuary or nutritious)
and the other types of perimortem or post-mortem death cases, like secondary
burials. The evidence available does not allow us to appoint with certainty one or
another. From all we know, it would not be out of the question the possibility of
both the above-mentioned cases co-existing. We cannot have a solid image out of
the currently available evidence to form a more solid interpretation of the examined
cases and examples.

Since there is no clear indication of cannibalism so far, it may be tested further by

more extensive and thorough research, potentially with more enlightening evidence
or sources, that can point out in a better way the existence or absence of
cannibalism, a matter that can be searched furthermore by the anthropological and
archaeological scientific community.