>I'm pretty sure eating enemies was common in New Guinea
> > until pretty recently.
> >
>
>It still is, specifically alleged witches.
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/tribe/tribes/kombai
But the story says "Some are *said* to kill and eat male witches they call khakhua."
I think the bulk of evidence presented as proof of cannibalism, no matter where or when, has been circumstantial. It is at least a matter of great and ongoing debate, as shown in these concluding remarks from a book review:
[...]
In conclusion, from this reviewer's perspective as an anthropological archaeologist weaned on ecological theory and cultural materialism, who has also had training in paleopathology, there tend to be several major positions at the present time in this ongoing debate: A) supporters of the warfare and cannibalism postulate; B) supporters of the witchcraft and ritual execution or interment proposition; C) detractors of B who support A; and D) detractors of A who support B. Likewise there are those who are E) detractors of both A and B; and F) those who are "neutral" because they have not yet been swayed by the evidence mustered by either A or B. You reviewer remains in the neutral camp.
The book's title from the Nahuatl word tlacatlaolli, a "sacred meal of sacrificed human meat, cooked with corn," is, to my thinking, an unfortunate choice. Although the term conveys Late Postclassic Aztec-Mexica-Nahuatl connections, the vast majority of the instances of cannibalism cited date to the Early Postclassic Toltec era where the evidence for cannibalism is controversial and is not documented in the archaeological literature...
[...]
full at:
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=3512