Why Do Cannibals Eat Their Deceased Family - Essay Example

WHY DO CANNIBALS EAT THEIR DECEASED FAMILY Introduction. Virtually everyone knows that cannibalism is the practice of eating the flesh or other partsof the human body. The exact origin of cannibalism is a mystery and will most likely remain so. Some anthropologists believe that cannibalism began in earliest human history and proliferated with man's increasing attempt to appease the gods, survive famine, or exact revenge on or control his enemies. To date, archeological evidence suggests that cannibalism was practiced as far back as the Neolithic Period and Bronze Age in what is now Europe and the Americas. The motivations behind the practice of cannibalism vary cross-culturally and cannot be easily categorized. There were two types of cannibalism: exocannibalism (eating members of an enemy group), and endocannibalism (eating members of one's own group). Endocannibalism symbolized very different things: reverence for the dead, an incorporation of the spirit of the dead into living descendants, or a means of insuring the separation of the soul from the body. Endocannibalism is often associated with ritual burial ceremonies and has been controversially referred to on occasion as "compassionate cannibalism." Mortuary cannibalism has been considered to be the most widely practiced form of endocannibalism, often excluding murder and focusing on already deceased corpses (Arens 18-35). Cannibals would eat their deceased family members to acquire qualities, show respect and gain virtue of the deceased. There have been reports of such cases in Latin America, Australia, India, China, Papua New Guinea. Latin America. The Wari' (tribe on the territory of Brazil), prior to about 1960, ate as much of the corpse of a dead person as they could. If a corpse was too decayed to eat, most of it was cremated, which was believed to be superior to burial. For the Wari', allowing a loved one to be put in cold, wet ground was as horrifying a notion as cannibalism is to us. In various myths, Wari' are told that humans are eaten as a step in a cycle in which humans also eat animals. At the moment when a body is dismembered, it was believed that its spirit was reawakened by ancestral spirits in the underworld (Conklin 210-234). A Mayoruna man once expressed a wish to remain in his village and be eaten by his children after his death rather than be consumed by worms in the white man's cemetery. In recent times the Panoan, Yanomamo, and other lowland groups have consumed the ground-up bones and ashes of cremated kinsmen in an act of mourning. This still is classified as endocannibalism, although, strictly speaking, "flesh" is not eaten. The Yanomam mix the bones and ashes with plantain soup before consuming the mixture. The Cashibos eat their aged parents, but perhaps more from religious sentiment than from cruelty. Before their conversion, it was the practice of the Cocomas of the Hualaga to eat their dead relations, and to swallow the ground-up bones in fermented drinks, on the plea that it was better to be inside a warm friend than buried in the cold earth. Theories that a lack of protein in the South American tropical forest environment stimulated cannibalism have not received support from recent studies showing that tropical forest tribes have a more-than-adequate protein intake and are successful hunters despite environmental limitations (Metraux 383-409). Australia. In Australia, cannibalism was mostly practiced to gain the powers of the particular person who was being eaten. Some tribes ate their enemies only, some their own people, and some both. When tribes ate their enemies, they only ate certain body parts, such as the brain, heart, legs, or tongue. The brain was eaten for knowledge, the heart for courage and power, the legs were only eaten in the case of swift runners, for speed, and the sweat and tongue were consumed for bravery. When tribes ate their own people, family members would eat small portions of fat from their dead relative as a sign of respect. Only people of worth were eaten. People who died of disease or were very elderly were not eaten in some tribes. In some cases, infants were killed and eaten because of food shortages. A family with two children might kill the younger and feed its muscles to the elder to make him stronger. The baby was killed ritually, by striking its head against the shoulder of its elder brother or sister. The reason for nearly all of the cannibalism was similar to this: if a man ate another man, he would gain the virtues which the dead man had had; in particular, those thought to originate in the part eaten. Human flesh-eating among many tribes was a sign of respect for the dead. Relatives received, in strict order of precedence, small portions of the body-fat to eat. The principle was something like: 'We eat him because we knew him and were fond of him.' (Sanday 57-72) Other parts of the world. Binderwurs of central India ate their sick and aged in the belief that the act was pleasing to their goddess, Kali. Cannibalism may also have been common among followers of the Shaktism cults in India. Dutiful sons and daughters in China made their amputated organs and sliced tissues (mainly the liver) available to their sick parents (practices known as Ko Ku and Ko Kan). Such donation were considered remedial. Princess Miao Chuang who surrendered her severed hands to her ailing father was henceforth deified. There have also been reports of tribes in Papua New Guinea, known to have practiced endo- and exo-cannibalism up until the 1960s for ritualistic purposes. Some of the tribes partook of cannibalism for purposes other than ritual reasons, such as for the taste. However, a majority of the tribes were known to mostly consume their dead relatives' tissues and brains in a ceremonial and traditional display of respect (Hogg 58, 146). Thus, for many Westerners, "cannibalism" is the ultimate act which defines "savagery." People may either avoid talking about this subject, because they find it too upsetting or because they do not wish to seem to be racist or ethnocentric. Alternatively, people may cite such practices as evidence for the backwardness of others. Neither approach is very helpful in getting to the truth about cannibalism. In fact, the classic cartoon image of primitives with bones in their noses boiling missionaries or explorers in a pot has little relevance to anything which was actually customary among any group. Cannibalism occurred and maybe still occurs in various parts of the world as part of very specific customary practices, which may seem absolutely unacceptable to us to the same extent as our practices seem "savage" to them. Works cited. 1.Arens, William. The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology & Anthropophagy. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. 2.Conklin, Beth A. "Thus are our Bodies, Thus Was Our Custom": Mortuary Cannibalism in an Amazonian Society," in Ritual and Belief. 2nd. ed. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1999. 210-234. 3.Hogg, Garry. Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice. New York. Citadel, 1966. 4.Metraux, Alfred. "Warfare, Cannibalism, and Human Trophies." Handbook of South American Indians, 5. New York: Citadel, 1949. 383-409 5.Sanday, Peggy. Divine Hunger. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Read More