>While Conklin takes the Wari' stories of "the old days when the
>others ate the body" at their face value, i.e., as reliable evidence
>of former practice voluntarily provided by native informants, I think
>that it is very likely that the stories of ritual cannibalism are a
>mix of:
>(A) a symbolic way of saying that what existed before "three out of
>every five" Wari' died of infectious diseases brought by soldiers,
>missionaries, civil servants, & (very likely) anthropologists was
>better than what they have now;
>and (B) a performance that the Wari' -- now dependent upon "aid
>provided by Protestant missionaries, employees of the government
>Indian agency, and Catholic priests," as well as upon a never-ending
>stream of anthropologists who come with grant monies to study them --
>(consciously or unconsciously) put on, exchanging stories of ritual
>cannibalism for means of survival, basically giving outsiders what
>they want.
What makes you suspect the Wari' are BSing the author?
Todd