CANNIBALISM
Cannibalism.--Origin in food supply.--Cannibalism not
abominable.--In-group cannibalism.--Population policy.--
Judicial cannibalism.--Judicial cannibalism in ethnography.--
Out-group cannibalism.--Cannibalism to cure disease.--
Reversions to cannibalism.--Cannibalism in famine.--Cannibalism
and ghost fear.--Cannibalism in sorcery and human sacrifice.--
Cult and cannibalism.--Superstitions about cannibalism.--Food
taboos in ethnography.--Expiation for taking life.--Philosophy
of cannibalism.
+338. Cannibalism.+ Cannibalism is one of the primordial mores. It dates
from the earliest known existence of man on earth. It may reasonably be
believed to be a custom which all peoples have practiced.[1039] Only on
the pastoral stage has it ceased, where the flesh of beasts was common
and abundant.[1040] It is indeed noticeable that the pygmies of Africa
and the Kubus of Sumatra, two of the lowest outcast races, do not
practice cannibalism,[1041] although their superior neighbors do. Our
intense abomination for cannibalism is a food taboo (secs. 353-354), and
is perhaps the strongest taboo which we have inherited.
+339. Origin in food supply.+ It is the best opinion that cannibalism
originated in the defects of the food supply, more specifically in the
lack of meat food. The often repeated objection that New Zealanders and
others have practiced cannibalism when they had an abundant supply of
meat food is not to the point. The passion for meat food, especially
among people who have to live on heavy starch food, is very strong.
Hence they eat worms, insects, and offal. It is also asserted that the
appetite for human flesh, when eating it has become habitual, becomes a
passion. When salt is not to be had the passion for meat reaches its
highest intensity. "When tribes [of Australians] assembled to eat the
fruit of the bunya-bunya they were not permitted to kill any game [in
the district where the trees grow], and at length the craving for flesh
was so intense that they were impelled to kill one of their number, in
order that their appetites might be satisfied."[1042] It follows that
when this custom has become traditional the present food supply may have
little effect on it. There are cases at the present time in which the
practice of using human flesh for food is customary on a large and
systematic scale. On the island of New Britain human flesh is sold in
shops as butcher's meat is sold amongst us.[1043] In at least some of
the Solomon Islands human victims (preferably women) are fattened for a
feast, like pigs.[1044] Lloyd[1045] describes the cannibalism of the
Bangwa as an everyday affair, although they eat chiefly enemies, and
rarely a woman. The women share the feast, sitting by themselves. He
says that it is, no doubt, "a depraved appetite." They are not at all
ashamed of it. Physically the men are very fine. "The cannibalism of the
Monbutto is unsurpassed by any nation in the world."[1046] Amongst them
human flesh is sold as if it were a staple article of food. They are "a
noble race." They have national pride, intellectual power, and good
judgment. They are orderly, friendly, and have a stable national
life.[1047] Ward[1048] describes the cannibalism on the great bend of
the Congo as due to a relish for the kind of food. "Originating,
apparently, from stress of adverse circumstances, it has become an
acquired taste, the indulgence of which has created a peculiar form of
mental disorder, with lack of feeling, love of fighting, cruelty, and
general human degeneracy, as prominent attributes." An organized traffic
in human beings for food exists on the upper waters of the Congo. It is
thought that the pygmy tribe of the Wambutti are not cannibals because
they are too "low," and because they do not file the lower incisors. The
latter custom goes with cannibalism in the Congo region, and is also
characteristic of the more gifted, beautiful, and alert tribes.[1049]
None of the coast tribes of West Africa eat human flesh, but the
interior tribes eat any corpse regardless of the cause of death.
Families hesitate to eat their own dead, but they sell or exchange them
for the dead of other families.[1050] In the whole Congo region the
custom exists, especially amongst the warlike tribes, who eat not only
war captives but slaves.[1051]
It is noteworthy that a fork[1052] was invented in Polynesia for this
kind of food, long before the fork was used for any other.
+340. Cannibalism not abominable.+ Spix and Martius[1053] asked a chief
of the Miranhas why his people practiced cannibalism. The chief showed
that it was entirely a new fact to him that some people thought it an
abominable custom. "You whites," said he, "will not eat crocodiles or
apes, although they taste well. If you did not have so many pigs and
crabs you would eat crocodiles and apes, for hunger hurts. It is all a
matter of habit. When I have killed an enemy it is better to eat him
than to let him go to waste. Big game is rare because it does not lay
eggs like turtles. The bad thing is not being eaten, but death, if I am
slain, whether our tribal enemy eats me or not. I know of no game which
tastes better than men. You whites are really too dainty."
+341. In-group cannibalism.+ Cannibalism was so primordial in the
mores that it has two forms, one for the in-group, the other for
the out-group. It had a theory of affection in the former case
and of enmity in the latter. In the in-group it was so far from
being an act of hostility, or veiled impropriety, that it was
applied to the closest kin. Mothers ate their babies, if the
latter died, in order to get back the strength which they had
lost in bearing them. Herodotus says that the Massagetæ
sacrificed the old of their tribe, boiling the flesh of the men
with that of cattle and eating the whole. Those who died of
disease before attaining old age were buried, but that they
thought a less happy fate. He says that the Padeans, men in the
far east of India, put a sick man of their tribe to death and ate
him, lest his flesh should be wasted by disease. The women did
the same by a sick woman. If any reach old age without falling
victims to this custom, they too are then killed and eaten. He
mentions also the Issidones, in southeastern Russia, who cut up
their dead fathers, mingle the flesh with that of sacrificed
animals, and make a feast of the whole. The skull is cleaned,
gilded, and kept as an emblem, to which they make annual
sacrifices. They are accounted a righteous people. Amongst them
women are esteemed equal with men.[1054] Strabo[1055] says that
the Irish thought it praiseworthy to eat their deceased parents.
The Birhors of Hazaribag, Hindostan, formerly ate their parents,
but "they repudiate the suggestion that they ate any but their
own relations" [i.e. each one ate his own relatives and no
others?][1056]. Reclus[1057] says that in that tribe "the parents
beg that their corpses may find a refuge in the stomachs of their
children rather than be left on the road or in the forest." The
Tibetans, in ancient times, ate their parents, "out of piety, in
order to give them no other sepulcher than their own bowels."
This custom ceased before 1250 A.D., but the cups made of the
skulls of relatives were used as memorials. Tartars and some "bad
Christians" killed their fathers when old, burned the corpses,
and mingled the ashes with their daily food.[1058] In the gulf
country of Australia only near relatives partake of the dead,
unless the corpse is that of an enemy. A very small bit only is
eaten by each. In the case of an enemy the purpose is to win his
strength. In the case of a relative the motive is that the
survivors may not, by lamentations, become a nuisance in the
camp.[1059] The Dieyerie have the father family. The father may
not eat his own child, but the mother and female relatives must
do so, in order to have the dead in their liver, the seat of
feeling.[1060] The Tuaré of Brazil (2 S. 67 W.) burn their dead.
They preserve the ashes in reeds and mix them with their daily
meals.[1061] The Jumanas, on the head waters of the Amazon,
regard the bones as the seat of the soul. They burn the bones of
their dead, grind them to powder, mix the powder with
intoxicating liquor, and drink it, "that the dead may live again
in them."[1062] All branches of the Tupis are cannibals. They
brought the custom from the interior.[1063] The Kobena drink in
their _cachiri_ the powdered bones of their dead relatives.[1064]
The Chavantes, on the Uruguay, eat their dead children to get
back the souls. Especially young mothers do this, as they are
thought to have given a part of their own souls to their children
too soon.[1065] In West Victoria "the bodies of relatives who
have lost their lives by violence are alone partaken of." Each
eats only a bit, and it is eaten "with no desire to gratify or
appease the appetite, but only as a symbol of respect and regret
for the dead."[1066] In Australian cannibalism the eating of
relatives has behind it the idea of saving the strength which
would be lost, or of acquiring the dexterity or wisdom, etc., of
the dead. Enemies are eaten to win their strength, dexterity,
etc. Only a bit is eaten. There are no great feasts. The fat and
soft parts are eaten because they are the residence of the soul.
In eating enemies there appears to be ritual significance.[1067]
It may be the ritual purpose to get rid of the soul of the slain
man for fear that it might seek revenge for his death.
+342.+ Some inhabitants of West Australia explained cannibalism
(they ate every tenth child born) as "necessary to keep the tribe
from increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the
territory."[1068] Infanticide is a part of population policy.
Cannibalism may be added to it either for food supply or
goblinism. When children were sacrificed in Mexico their hearts
were cooked and eaten, for sorcery.[1069]
+343. Judicial cannibalism.+ Another use of cannibalism in the in-group
is to annihilate one who has broken an important taboo. The notion is
frequently met with, amongst nature peoples, that a ghost can be got rid
of by utterly annihilating the corpse, e.g. by fire. Judicial
cannibalism destroys it, and the members of the group by this act
participate in a ritual, or sacramental ceremony, by which a criminal is
completely annihilated. Perhaps there may also be the idea of collective
responsibility for his annihilation. To take the life of a tribe comrade
was for a long time an act which needed high motive and authority and
required expiation. The ritual of execution was like the ritual of
sacrifice. In the Hebrew law some culprits were to be stoned by the
whole congregation. Every one must take a share in the great act. The
blood guilt, if there was any, must be incurred by all.[1070] Primitive
taboos are put on acts which offend the ghosts and may, therefore, bring
woe on the whole group. Any one who breaks a taboo commits a sin and a
crime, and excites the wrath of the superior powers. Therefore he draws
on himself the fear and horror of his comrades. They must extrude him by
banishment or death. They want to dissociate themselves from him. They
sacrifice him to the powers which he has offended. When his comrades eat
his corpse they perform a duty. They annihilate him and his soul
completely.
+344. Judicial cannibalism in ethnography.+ "A man found in the
harem of Muato-jamvos was cut in pieces and given, raw and warm,
to the people to be eaten."[1071] The Bataks employ judicial
cannibalism as a regulated system. They have no other
cannibalism. Adulterers, persons guilty of incest, men who have
had sex intercourse with the widow of a younger brother,
traitors, spies, and war captives taken with arms in their hands
are killed and eaten. The last-mentioned are cut in pieces alive
and eaten bit by bit in order to annihilate them in the most
shameful manner.[1072] The Tibetans and Chinese formerly ate all
who were executed by civil authority. An Arab traveler of the
ninth century mentions a Chinese governor who rebelled, and who
was killed and eaten. Modern cases of cannibalism are reported
from China. Pith balls stained with the blood of decapitated
criminals are used as medicine for consumption. Cases are also
mentioned of Tartar rulers who ordered the flesh of traitors to
be mixed with the rulers' own food and that of their barons.
Tartar women begged for the possession of a culprit, boiled him
alive, cut the corpse into mince-meat, and distributed it to the
whole army to be eaten.[1073]
+345. Out-group cannibalism.+ Against members of an out-group,
e.g. amongst the Maori, cannibalism "was due to a desire for
revenge; cooking and eating being the greatest of insults."[1074]
On Tanna (New Hebrides) to eat an enemy was the greatest
indignity to him, worse than giving up his corpse to dogs or
swine, or mutilating it. It was believed that strength was
obtained by eating a corpse.[1075] A negro chief in Yabunda,
French Congo, told Brunache[1076] that "it was a very fine thing
to enjoy the flesh of a man whom one hates and whom one has
killed in a battle or a duel." Martius attributes the cannibalism
of the Miranhas to the enjoyment of a "rare, dainty meal, which
will satisfy their rude vanity, in some cases also, blood revenge
and superstition."[1077] Cannibalism is one in the chain of
causes which keeps this people more savage than their neighbors,
most of whom have now abandoned it. "It is one of the most
beastly of all the beastlike traits in the moral physiognomy of
man." It is asserted that cannibalism has been recently
introduced in some places, e.g. Florida (Solomon Islands). It is
also said that on those islands the coast people give it up [they
have fish], but those inland retain it. The notion probably
prevails amongst all that population that, by this kind of food,
_mana_ is obtained, _mana_ being the name for all power, talent,
and capacity by which success is won.[1078] The Melanesians took
advantage of a crime, or alleged crime, to offer the culprit to a
spirit, and so get fighting _mana_ for the warriors.[1079] The
Chames of Cochin China think that the gall of slain enemies,
mixed with brandy, is an excellent means to produce war courage
and skill.[1080] The Chinese believe that the liver is the seat
of life and courage. The gall is the manifestation of the soul.
Soldiers drink the gall of slain enemies to increase their own
vigor and courage.[1081] The mountain tribes of Natal make a
paste from powder formed from parts of the body, which the
priests administer to the youth.[1082] Some South African tribes
make a broth of the same kind of powder, which must be swallowed
only in the prescribed manner. It "must be lapped up with the
hand and thrown into the mouth ... to give the soldiers courage,
perseverance, fortitude, strategy, patience, and wisdom."[1083]
+346. Cannibalism to cure disease.+ Notions that the parts of the human
body will cure different diseases are only variants of the notion of
getting courage and skill by eating the same. Cases are recorded in
which a man gave parts of his body to be eaten by the sick out of love
and devotion.[1084]
+347. Reversions to cannibalism.+ When savage and brutal emotions are
stirred, in higher civilization, by war and quarrels, the cannibalistic
disposition is developed again. Achilles told Hector that he wished he
could eat him. Hekuba expressed a wish that she could devour the liver
of Achilles.[1085] In 1564 the Turks executed Vishnevitzky, a brave
Polish soldier who had made them much trouble. They ate his heart.[1086]
Dozy[1087] mentions a case at Elvira, in 890, in which women cast
themselves on the corpse of a chief who had caused the death of their
relatives, cut it in pieces, and ate it. The same author relates[1088]
that Hind, the mother of Moavia, made for herself a necklace and
bracelets of the noses and ears of Moslems killed at Ohod, and also that
she cut open the corpse of an uncle of Mohammed, tore out the liver, and
ate a piece of it. It is related of an Irish chief, of the twelfth
century, that when his soldiers brought to him the head of a man whom he
hated "he tore the nostrils and lips with his teeth, in a most savage
and inhuman manner."[1089]
+348. In famine.+ Reversion to cannibalism under a total lack of other
food ought not to be noted. We have some historical cases, however, in
which during famine people became so familiarized with cannibalism that
their horror of it was overcome. Abdallatif[1090] mentions a great
famine in Egypt in the year 1200, due to a failure of the inundation of
the Nile. Resort was had to cannibalism to escape death. At first the
civil authorities burned alive those who were detected, being moved by
astonishment and horror. Later, those sentiments were not aroused. "Men
were seen to make ordinary meals of human flesh, to use it as a dainty,
and to lay up provision of it.... The usage, having been introduced,
spread to all the provinces. Then it ceased to cause surprise.... People
talked of it as an ordinary and indifferent thing. This indifference was
due to habit and familiarity." This case shows that the horror of
cannibalism is due to tradition in the mores. Diodorus says that the
ancient Egyptians, during a famine, ate each other rather than any
animal which they considered sacred.[1091]
+349. Cannibalism and ghost fear.+ Human sacrifice and cannibalism are
not necessarily conjoined. Often it seems as if they once were so, but
have been separated.[1092] Whatever men want ghosts want. If the former
are cannibals, the latter will be the same. Often the notion is that the
gods eat the souls. In this view, the men eat the flesh of sacrificed
beasts and sacrifice the blood, in which is the life or soul, to the
gods. This the Jews did. They also burned the kidneys, the fat of the
kidneys, and the liver, which they thought to be the seat of life. These
they might not eat.[1093] When men change, the gods do not. Hence the
rites of human sacrifice and cannibalism continue in religion long after
they disappear from the mores, in spite of loathing. Loathing is a part
of the sacrifice.[1094] The self-control and self-subjugation enter into
the sacrament. All who participate, in religion, in an act which gravely
affects the imagination as horrible and revolting enter into a
communion with each other. Every one who desires to participate in the
good to be obtained must share in the act. As we have seen above, all
must participate that none may be in a position to reproach the rest.
Under this view, the cannibal food is reduced to a crumb, or to a drop
of blood, which may be mixed with other food. Still later, the cannibal
food is only represented, e.g. by cakes in the human form, etc. In the
Middle Ages the popular imagination saw a human body in the host, and
conjured up operations on the host which were attributed to sorcerers
and Jews, which would only be applicable to a human body. Then the New
Testament language about the body and blood of Christ took on a
realistic sense which was cannibalistic.
+350. Cannibalism, sorcery, and human sacrifice.+ Among the West
African tribes sacrificial and ceremonial cannibalism in fetich
affairs is almost universal.[1095] Serpa Pinto[1096] mentions a
frequent feast of the chiefs of the Bihe, for which a man and
four women of specified occupations are required. The corpses are
both washed and boiled with the flesh of an ox. Everything at the
feast must be marked with human blood. Cannibalism, in connection
with religious festivals and human sacrifice, was extravagantly
developed in Mexico, Central America, and British Columbia. The
rites show that the human sacrifice was sacramental and
vicarious. In one case the prayer of the person who owned the
sacrifice is given. It is a prayer for success and prosperity.
Flesh was also bitten from the arm of a living person and eaten.
A religious idea was cultivated into a mania and the taste for
human flesh was developed.[1097] Here also we find the usage that
shamans ate the flesh of corpses, in connection with fasting and
solitude, as means of professional stimulation.[1098] Preuss
emphasizes the large element of sorcery in the eating of parts of
a human sacrifice, as practiced in Mexico.[1099] The combination
of sorcery, religious ritual, and cannibalism deserves very
careful attention. The rites of the festival were cases of
dramatic sorcery. At the annual festival of the god of war an
image of the god was made of grain, seeds, and vegetables,
kneaded with the blood of boys sacrificed for the purpose. This
image was broken into crumbs and eaten by males only, "after the
manner of our communion."[1100] The Peruvians ate sacrificial
cakes kneaded with the blood of human victims, "as a mark of
alliance with the Inca."[1101] In Guatemala organs of a slain
war captive were given to an old prophetess to be eaten. She was
then asked to pray to the idol which she served to give them many
captives.[1102] Human sacrifices and sacramental cannibalism
exist amongst the Bella-coola Indians in northwestern British
America. Children of the poor are bought from their parents to be
made sacrifices. The blood is drunk and the flesh is eaten raw.
The souls of the sacrificed go to live in the sun and become
birds. When the English government tried to stop these sacrifices
the priests dug up corpses and ate them. Several were thus
poisoned.[1103]
+351. Cult and cannibalism.+ The cases which have been cited show how
cult kept up cannibalism, if no beast was substituted. Also, a great
number of uses of blood and superstitions about blood appear to be
survivals of cannibalism or deductions from it. The same may be said of
holiday cakes of special shapes, made by peasants, which have long lost
all known sense. In one part of France the last of the harvest which is
brought in is made into a loaf in human shape, supposed to represent the
spirit of corn or of fertility. It is broken up and distributed amongst
all the villagers, who eat it.[1104]
A Mongolian lama reported of a tribe, the Lhopa of Sikkim or Bhutan,
that they kill and eat the bride's mother at a wedding, if they can
catch no wild man.[1105]
+352.+ A burglar in West Prussia, in 1865, killed a maid-servant and cut
flesh from her body out of which to make a candle for use in later acts
of theft. He was caught while committing another burglary. He confessed
that he ate a part of the corpse of his first-mentioned victim "in order
to appease his conscience."[1106]
+353. Food taboos.+ It is most probable that dislike to eat the human
body was a product of custom, and grew in the mores after other foods
became available in abundance. Unusual foods now cost us an effort.
Frogs' legs, for instance, repel most people at first. We eat what we
learned from our parents to eat, and other foods are adopted by
"acquired taste." Light is thrown on the degree to which all food
preferences and taboos are a part of the mores by a comparison of some
cases of food taboos. Porphyrius, a Christian of Tyre, who lived in the
second half of the second century of the Christian era, says that a
Phoenician or an Egyptian would sooner eat man's flesh than cow's
flesh.[1107] A Jew would not eat swine's flesh. A Zoroastrian could not
conceive it possible that any one could eat dog's flesh. We do not eat
dog's flesh, probably for the same reason that we do not eat cat's or
horse's, because the flesh is tough or insipid and we can get better,
but some North American Indians thought dog's flesh the very best food.
The Banziris, in the French Congo, reserved dog's flesh for men, and
they surround meals of it with a solemn ritual. A man must not touch his
wife with his finger for a day after such a feast.[1108] The inhabitants
of Ponape will eat no eels, which "they hold in the greatest horror."
The word used by them for eel means "the dreadful one."[1109] Dyaks eat
snakes, but reject eels.[1110] Some Melanesians will not eat eels
because they think that there are ghosts in them.[1111] South African
Bantus abominate fish.[1112] Some Canary Islanders ate no fish.[1113]
Tasmanians would rather starve than eat fish.[1114] The Somali will eat
no fish, considering it disgraceful to do so.[1115] They also reject
game and birds.[1116] These people who reject eels and fish renounce a
food supply which is abundant in their habitat.
+354. Food taboos in ethnography.+ Some Micronesians eat no
fowl.[1117] Wild Veddahs reject fowl.[1118] Tuaregs eat no fish,
birds, or eggs.[1119] In eastern Africa many tribes loathe eggs
and fowl as food. They are as much disgusted to see a white man
eat eggs as a white man is to see savages eat offal.[1120] Some
Australians will not eat pork.[1121] Nagas and their neighbors
think roast dog a great delicacy. They will eat anything, even an
elephant which has been three days buried, but they abominate
milk, and find the smell of tinned lobster too strong.[1122]
Negroes in the French Congo "have a perfect horror of the idea of
drinking milk."[1123]
+355. Expiation for taking life.+ The most primitive notion we
can find as to taking life is that it is wrong to kill any living
thing except as a sacrifice to some superior power. This dread of
destroying life, as if it was the assumption of a divine
prerogative to do so, gives a background for all the usages with
regard to sacrifice and food. "In old Israel all slaughter was
sacrifice, and a man could never eat beef or mutton except as a
religious act." Amongst the Arabs, "even in modern times, when a
sheep or camel is slain in honor of a guest, the good old custom
is that the host keeps open house for all his neighbors."[1124]
In modern Hindostan food which is ordinarily tabooed may be eaten
if it has been killed in offering to a god. Therefore an image of
the god is set up in the butcher's shop. All the animals are
slaughtered nominally as an offering to it. This raises the
taboo, and the meat is bought and eaten without scruple.[1125]
Thus it is that the taboo on cannibalism may be raised by
religion, or that cannibalism may be made a duty by religion.
Amongst the ancient Semites some animals were under a food taboo
for a reason which has two aspects at the same time: they were
both offensive (ritually unclean) and sacred. What is holy and
what is loathsome are in like manner set aside. The Jews said
that the Holy Scriptures rendered him who handled them unclean.
Holy and unclean have a common element opposed to profane. In the
case of both there is devotion or consecration to a higher power.
If it is a good power, the thing is holy; if a bad power, it is
unclean. He who touches either falls under a taboo, and needs
purification.[1126] The tabooed things could only be eaten
sacrificially and sacramentally, i.e. as disgusting and unusual
they had greater sacrificial force.[1127] This idea is to be
traced in all ascetic usages, and in many mediæval developments
of religious usages which introduced repulsive elements, to
heighten the self-discipline of conformity. In the Caroline
Islands turtles are sacred to the gods and are eaten only in
illness or as sacrifices.[1128]
+356. Philosophy of cannibalism.+ If cannibalism began in the interest
of the food supply, especially of meat, the wide ramifications of its
relations are easily understood. While men were unable to cope with the
great beasts cannibalism was a leading feature of social life, around
which a great cluster of interests centered. Ideas were cultivated by
it, and it became regulative and directive as to what ought to be done.
The sentiments of kinship made it seem right and true that the nearest
relatives should be eaten. Further deductions followed, of which the
cases given are illustrations. As to enemies, the contrary sentiments
found place in connection with it. It combined directly with ghost fear.
The sacramental notion seems born of it. When the chase was sufficiently
developed to give better food the taboo on human flesh seemed no more
irrational than the other food taboos above mentioned. Swans and
peacocks were regarded as great dainties in the Middle Ages. We no
longer eat them. Snakes are said to be good eating, but most of us would
find it hard to eat them. Yet why should they be more loathsome than
frogs or eels? Shipwrecked people, or besieged and famine-stricken
people, have overcome the loathing for human flesh rather than die.
Others have died because they could not overcome it, and have thus
rendered the strongest testimony to the power of the mores. In general,
the cases show that if men are hungry enough, or angry enough, they may
return to cannibalism now. Our horror of cannibalism is due to a long
and broad tradition, broken only by hearsay of some far-distant and
extremely savage people who now practice it. Probably the popular
opinion about it is that it is wicked. It is not forbidden by the rules
of any religion, because it had been thrown out of the mores before any
"religion" was founded.
[1039] See Andrée, _Anthropophagie_; Steinmetz, _Endokannibalism,
Mitt. Anthrop. Ges. in Wien_, XXVI; Schaffhausen in _Archiv für
Anthrop._, IV, 245. Steinmetz gives in tabular form known cases
of cannibalism with the motives for it, p. 25.
[1040] Lippert, _Kulturgesch._, II, 275.
[1041] Globus, XXVI, 45; Stuhlmann, _Mit Emin Pascha_, 457; JAI,
XXVIII, 39.
[1042] Smyth, _Victoria_, I, xxxviii.
[1043] _Aust. Ass. Adv. Sci._, 1892, 618.
[1044] JAI, XVII, 99.
[1045] _Dwarf-land_, 345.
[1046] Schweinfurth, _Heart of Africa_, II, 94.
[1047] Keane, _Ethnology_, 265.
[1048] JAI, XXIV, 298.
[1049] _Globus_, LXXXV, 229.
[1050] Nassau, _Fetishism in West Africa_, 11.
[1051] _Globus_, LXXII, 120; LXXXVII, 237.
[1052] Specimen in the Dresden Museum.
[1053] _Brasilien_, 1249.
[1054] Herod., I, 216; III, 99; IV, 26.
[1055] IV, 5, 298.
[1056] JASB, II, 571.
[1057] _Prim. Folk_, 249.
[1058] Rubruck, _Eastern Parts_, 81, 151.
[1059] JAI, XXIV, 171.
[1060] JAI, XVII, 186.
[1061] _Globus_, LXXXIII, 137.
[1062] Martius, _Ethnog. Bras._, 485.
[1063] Southey, _Brazil_, I, 233.
[1064] _Ztsft. f. Ethnol._, XXXVI, 293.
[1065] Andree, _Anthropophagie_, 50.
[1066] Dawson, _West Victoria_, 67.
[1067] Smyth, _Victoria_, I, 245.
[1068] Whitmarsh, _The World's Rough Hand_, 178.
[1069] _Globus_, LXXXVI, 112.
[1070] W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 284.
[1071] Oliveira Martins, _Raças Humanas_, II, 67.
[1072] Wilken, _Volkenkunde_, 23, 27.
[1073] Marco Polo, I, 266 and Yule's note, 275.
[1074] JAI, XIX, 108.
[1075] _Austral. Ass. Adv. Sci._, 1892, 649-663.
[1076] _Cent. Afr._, 108.
[1077] _Ethnog. Bras._, 538.
[1078] JAI, X, 305.
[1079] Codrington, _Melanesians_, 134.
[1080] _Bijdragen tot. T. L. en V.-kunde_, 1895, 342.
[1081] _Globus_, LXXXI, 96.
[1082] JAI, XX, 116.
[1083] JAI, XXII, 111; cf. Isaiah lxv. 4.
[1084] _Intern. Arch. f. Ethnol._, IX, _Supplem._ 37.
[1085] _Iliad_, XXII, 346; XXIV, 212.
[1086] Evarnitzky, _Zaporoge Kossacks_ (_russ._), I, 209.
[1087] _Mussulm. d'Espagne_, II, 226.
[1088] _Ibid._, I, 47.
[1089] Gomme, _Ethnol. in Folklore_, 149.
[1090] _Relation de l'Egypte_, 360.
[1091] Diodorus, I, 84.
[1092] Ratzel, _Völkerkunde_, II, 124; Martius, _Ethnog. Bras._,
129; _Globus_, LXXV, 260.
[1093] W. R. Smith, _Relig. of the Semites_, 379.
[1094] Lippert, _Kulturgesch._, II, 292.
[1095] Kingsley, _Travels in W. Afr._, 287.
[1096] _Como Eu Atravassei Afr._, I, 148.
[1097] Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific Coast_, I, 170
(III, 150); II, 176, 395, 689, 708; III, 413.
[1098] _Ibid._, III, 152.
[1099] _Globus_, LXXXVI, 109, 112.
[1100] _Bur. Ethnol._, IX, 523.
[1101] _Ibid._, 527.
[1102] Brinton, _Nagualism_, 34.
[1103] _Mitt. Berl. Mus._, 1885, 184.
[1104] PSM, XLVIII, 411.
[1105] Rockhill, _Mongolia and Thibet_, 144.
[1106] PSM, LIV, 217.
[1107] _De Abstinentia_, II, 11.
[1108] Brunache, _Cent. Afr._, 69.
[1109] Christian, _Caroline Isl._, 73.
[1110] Perelaer, _Dyaks_, 27.
[1111] Codrington, _Melanesians_, 177.
[1112] Fritsch, _Eingeb. Südafr._, 107.
[1113] _N. S. Amer. Anthrop._, II, 454.
[1114] Ling Roth, _Tasmanians_, 101.
[1115] Paulitschke, _Ethnog. N.O. Afr._, I, 155.
[1116] _Ibid._, II, 27.
[1117] Finsch, _Ethnol. Erfahr._, III, 53.
[1118] _N. S. Ethnol. Soc._, II, 304.
[1119] Duveyrier, _Touaregs du Nord_, 401.
[1120] Volkens, _Kilimandscharo_, 244.
[1121] Smyth, _Victoria_, I, 237.
[1122] JAI, XI, 63; XXII, 245.
[1123] Kingsley, _West Afr. Studies_, 451.
[1124] W. R. Smith, _Relig. of Semites_, 142, 283.
[1125] Wilkins, _Mod. Hinduism_, 168.
[1126] Bousset, _Relig. des Judenthums_, 124.
[1127] W. R. Smith, _Relig. of Semites_, 290; Isaiah lxv. 4;
lxvi. 3, 17; swine, dog, and mouse.
[1128] Kubary, _Karolinen Archipel_, 168.