Human cannibalism
Gastronomic and functionalist explanations

The term gastronomic cannibalism has been suggested for cases where human flesh is eaten to "provide a supplement to the regular diet" – thus essentially for its nutritional value – or, in an alternative definition, for cases where it is "eaten without ceremony (other than culinary), in the same manner as the flesh of any other animal". While the term has been criticized as being too vague to clearly identify a specific type of cannibalism, various records indicate that nutritional or culinary concerns could indeed play a role in such acts even outside of periods of starvation. Referring to the Congo Basin, where many of the eaten were butchered slaves rather than enemies killed in war, the anthropologist Emil Torday notes that "the most common was simply gastronomic: the natives loved 'the flesh that speaks' and paid for it". The historian Key Ray Chong observes that, throughout Chinese history, "learned cannibalism was often practiced... for culinary appreciation".

In his popular book Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond suggests that "protein starvation is probably also the ultimate reason why cannibalism was widespread in traditional New Guinea highland societies", and both in New Zealand and Fiji, cannibals explained their acts as due to a lack of animal meat. In Liberia, a former cannibal argued that it would have been wasteful to let the flesh of killed enemies spoil, and eaters of human flesh in New Guinea and the neighbouring Bismarck Archipelago expressed the same sentiment.

In many cases, human flesh was also described as particularly delicious, especially when it came from women, children, or both. Such statements are on record for various regions and peoples, including the Aztecs, today's Liberia and Nigeria, the Fang people in west-central Africa, the Congo Basin, China up to the 14th century, Sumatra, Borneo, Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, Vanuatu, and Fiji. Some Europeans and Americans who ate human flesh accidentally, out of curiosity, or to comply with local customs likewise tended to describe it as very good.

There is a debate among anthropologists on how important functionalist reasons are for the understanding of institutionalized cannibalism. Diamond is not alone in suggesting "that the consumption of human flesh was of nutritional benefit for some populations in New Guinea" and the same case has been made for other "tropical peoples... exploiting a diverse range of animal foods", including human flesh. The materialist anthropologist Marvin Harris argued that a "shortage of animal protein" was also the underlying reason for Aztec cannibalism. The cultural anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, on the other hand, rejected such explanations as overly simplistic, stressing that cannibal customs must be regarded as "complex phenomen" with "myriad attributes" which can only be understood if one considers "symbolism, ritual, and cosmology" in addition to their "practical function".

In pre-modern medicine, an explanation given by the now-discredited theory of humorism for cannibalism was that it was caused by a black acrimonious humor, which, being lodged in the linings of the ventricles of the heart, produced a voracity for human flesh. On the other hand, the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne understood war cannibalism as a way of expressing vengeance and hatred towards one's enemies and celebrating one's victory over them, thus giving an interpretation that is close to modern explanations. He also pointed out that some acts of Europeans in his own time could be considered as equally barbarous, making his essay " Of Cannibals " (c. 1580) a precursor to later ideas of cultural relativism.
detectable_content:postscript, oulipo:avoid_letter[t], punctuation:no_comma