Talk:Tsavo Man-Eaters

Patterson's rifle

Killed by rifle. No record of which model. He had several. -Ken Keisel

need information if Patterson killed lions with rifle or shotgun. and which model. -FX_Shadowmaster

Confirmed number of kills?

Most records state around 140, but they should be viewed with suspicion. There was a lot of boasting and exaggeration in those days. Patterson had every reason to exaggerate the totals. If the lions were killing for food alone then these numbers are probably four times the real total. -Ken Keisel

Following the first external link, I found a figure of a mere 28. However, the second one put it at 128. Most web search results gave figures between 130 and 140, so the latter seems to be correct. Does anyone know better? --Anshelm '77 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't these lions keep the heads of the men they killed in their cave? --69.67.229.90 05:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ken, why does that total sound high to you? A 400 pound male lion in the wild likes to eat 5 to 10 per cent of his body weight a day. Plus, not everybody killed was eaten. Look at all the carnage those escaped circus lions did down in South America (3 males, 5 females). Over 700 llamas in only 2 months. It's all about opportunity and easy prey. These Tsavo maneaters were bad, hyper-aggressive lions. They were actually raised man-eaters by their pride but didn't have an opportunity like this until someone tried to push a railroad through their territory. If you want something to turn your stomach look at the carnage that insued when a different railroad was pushed through black rhino country. The above total was about ten per cent of that slaughter and not a soul was eaten. BigDon (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Uhm no the lions did not keep the heads of the men they killed in their cave that is just absurd you are an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.149.105 (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been recent isotope testing done on the lions, it can be confirmed that these two lions killed at minimum a total of 35 people in the last three months of life. That number goes up based on many factors that are very difficult to test for. First, the isotope testing would indicate a lower number if the people the lions are consuming were themselves vegetarians (which is very possible since they were Indians). Plus that number could easily reach 140 killed from the very common predator behavior of surplus killing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing) which happens when more prey than usual becomes available, say when thousands of workers crowd into the area to build a railway and bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.138.23 (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The isotope test merely confirms the number of humans they killed AND ate. As the article states, they cannot test for the number of humans they killed but did not eat. While Col. Patterson may have exaggerated (we may even say probably exaggerated) the total number of workers killed, his stated upper total of all people killed, about 140, cannot be definitely excluded. 184.145.137.130 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Repatriation

Relax, lions aren't going anywhere, Field says

September 12, 2007
BY ANDREW HERRMANN Staff Reporter / aherrmann@suntimes.com

Field Museum officials Tuesday denied overseas news reports that Kenya is seeking the return of the Chicago institution's famed "Maneaters of Tsavo" -- a pair of now-preserved lions that killed about 140 railroad workers in Africa in the 1890s.

Citing separate sources, the BBC and the AFP news agency said the National Museums of Kenya want the stuffed creatures back.

The Field has owned the lions for more than 70 years.

Efforts to reach Kenya officials Tuesday were unsuccessful. But the BBC quoted National Museums of Kenya spokeswoman Connie Maina vowing to "use international protocols to repatriate them.

Also, Kenya Tourism Board spokeswoman Rose Kwena told the Agence France-Presse in Nairobi: "We will follow the right channels to get the remains of our maneaters back to us. They are part of our heritage and history and it is good to have them back.

The lions were shot and killed in 1898 by the Kenya railroad project's chief engineer, Lt. Col. John Henry Patterson. He sold the lion skins and skulls to the Field for $5,000 in 1924.

Following the reports, Field spokesman Greg Borzo said Field officials phoned Idle Omar Farah, director general of the state-owned National Museums of Kenya, and "he tells us it's not accurate and he ought to know .. . this is not their position.

Last year, Kenya museum officials reportedly met with Sen. Barack Obama about repatriation of hundreds of Kenyan artifacts in the United States. At the time, Kenya museum official Kibunja Mzalendo said the Tsavo lions were high on the government's list but said the Field had made "a legitimate deal, certainly" with the hunter in 1924.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/552998,CST-NWS-lion12.article

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Andrew Miller (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

They only killed from 4-79 people not the 140 you say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.149.105 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Species

I had a couple of questions if anyone minded answereing...

1) What kind of lions were they?

2) If they were males, why were they maneless?

1.They were african lions

1. African lions

2. Maneless males are a common genetic fault in the lions of the Tsavo. And much like the tuskless Asian elephant it's a condition associated with higher aggression levels as both manes and tusks are sexual indicators and provide suitability for breeding signs to the females. Males afflicted with this condition wouldn't be able to pass on this trait if they weren't more aggressive than normal. (Passive males with no manes or tusks just don't breed.)

They were not shaved. BigDon (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

1. They were Tsavo Lions, a subspecies of the East African Lion.

2. Tsavo Lions are mostly mane-less, with a few having a scant residual mane at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsavo_lion

And while a maneless lion within a normally maned lion population would find mates more difficult to acquire, this is not true in any way or form for Tsavo lions (or really any maneless lion populations). Tsavo lions could be maneless as an evolutionary adaptation to the environment they live, or a hormonal change due to their much higher levels of testosterone. Tsavo lions are also much larger than other African lions and much more aggressive too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.138.23 (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible Causes of "maneating" behavior

Undid "causes" modifications by 201.1.66.112 of 04 March 2008, as this has been previously refined and corrected. See the history of edits on this article in December, 2007 and in particular Christobol2004's edits of February 8, 2008. The restored information is excerpted from a formal study, and well-cited. - Thaimoss (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Graphic image

I've removed this black-and-white photo of an anonymous, half-eaten corpse, as I don't believe it to be usefully illustrative. Although "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links where they are relevant to the content", I don't see how this adds anything to the understanding of the fact that "man-eating" lions violently killed a few dozen workers, beyond shock value. Other comments would be welcome. --McGeddon (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Alternative explanation"

I have removed this section due to verifiability and neutrality concerns:

Most modern anthropologists working in the Tsavo region attribute the story of man-eating lions to a fabrication propagated by certain elements within the British colonial administration. Nineteenth-century Britain was conflicted about their ever-expanding empire, wars they were fighting in India and South Africa, and substantial investments abroad whilst the economy on the island was suffering. The engineers and railroad workers installing the rail line through the heart of Kenya in the late nineteenth century saw their mission as noble and were financially invested in completing the work.

Hostile interactions between the newcomers and indigenous Waata and Orma people are well documented in diaries. The aberrant behavior of the supposed man-eaters, which includes previously and subsequently undocumented phenomena such as kidnapping and dragging prey for many kilometers and the storage of bones (especially skulls) within caves, is troubling to reckon with the popular narrative. However, Taita and other indigenous peoples of the Tsavo region are known to inter decapitated skulls in rock shelters. Further, those people would have had a strong incentive to resist the intrusion of a railroad across their homelands. Although the Ghost and the Darkness movie and Field Museum researchers have gone to great lengths to perpetuate the story-as-reality of the Man-eaters of Tsavo, actual documentation of this event is sparse, biased and a careful and critical reading of the documents leaves more questions than answers.

Given the apprehension of the British colonial government in London and British population in general to engage in another open conflict, the lion-story likely provided a convenient and non-controversial excuse to send more troops to the area. The killing of the two lions on display in the Field Museum supported Patterson and the engineers' claim that lions were responsible for the 135 deaths, however it is likely the presence of more soldiers adjacent to the construction site that quelled a simmering conflict with the local population. Incidents of sabotage are recorded along the railroad through the mid-twentieth century, although these are largely recorded in diaries of colonial administrators and known to only a few scholars.

 Skomorokh  15:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Two?

Should it not be pointed out, citing the work in reference #2, that there is actually very little reason to believe that the fatal lion attacks (however many there really were) were solely or even primarily due to the pair that Patterson shot? After all, if it's well documented that fatal lion attacks occurred there before the railroad began, and that lions had been scavenging human corpses there for generations, and that lion attacks were common there long after (right through WWI), what's the significance of these two? - StevoDog21 (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

These two man-eaters were a very unusual case and their unlion-like behavior could only have been them. STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC))