Cannibal Context: An Imaginative Cross-Cultural Encounter

By

Jill RycerzDecember 2015/January 2016

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for theMasters of Arts in History

Dual-Degree Program in History and Archives ManagementSimmons College

Boston, Massachusetts

The author grants Simmons College permission to include this thesis in its Library and to make it available to the academic community for scholarly purposes.

Submitted by:

___________________

Jill Rycerz

Approved by:

____________________________ ____________________________Professor Stephen Ortega Professor Katherine WisserAssociate Professor, Department Chair, History Assistant Professor, SLIS, School of

Library and Information Science

© 2011, Simmons College

2

Introduction

In the purest form a cannibal can be defined as a person who consumes the body of

another. However, this simple definition does not fully illustrate the stigmas associated with this

word. Since the creation of this word, European explorers have made gains by referring to people

of other cultures as “cannibals.” The contemporary usage has evolved and the potential for a

neutral description of man-eating was lost when a European explorer descried it as

“cannibalism” for the first time. When accusations of cannibalism are read from historical

documents such as travel narratives or ship logs, the limitations of the European author’s world

view are shared. Thus, the original man-eating experience was transformed into a new context.

European explorers were faced a variety of anxieties including dangers associated with travel,

pressures from financial sponsors, and a dependency on natural resources. Projection and

displacement of these anxieties onto the indigenous people could have been coping mechanisms

that created the cannibal context. By shifting the subject of inquiry from those being accused to

those who have made the accusation of cannibalism, it becomes clear that the explorers were in

fact projecting and displacement their own fears of man-eating onto others.

Comparisons of the “known” to the “unknown” are a fundamental way in which humans

learn. In an introductory explanation of the psychoanalytic theory of motivation, Walter Toman,

an associate professor at Brandeis University in the 1960s, explains the use of comparisons on

the most basic level, and then extrapolates to more complex systems. Toman describes the Ego

as a “system which has undertaken to organize the primitive desires and to attune them to each

other as well as to specific conditions of reality so that they can be satisfied in reality.”1 The

basis of this theory is built upon the foundation constructed by Sigmund Freud, most notable

being the discussion of “Id,” “Ego,” and “Super Ego.”2 In addition, Saul Scheidlinger’s theories

on group psychology can also be utilized on top of the Freudian foundation to strengthen it.

Scheidlinger proposes that “differentiation occurs with the maturation of the nervous system and

the gradual awareness of [an individual’s] own self, as distinct from impressions of the physical

environment, and people in that environment.”3

In simple terms, the combination of these two theories hypothesizes that all humans start

learning by comparing external stimuli to mental associations. Toman points out that the main

receiver for stimuli with infants is the mouth. This is an extremely basic or primitive origin point

and the allusion to consumption was made by Toman as early as page four of his book:

Eating up somebody beloved would be such a desire [this being an Id desire which is characterized as ‘primitive, unorganized and unspecific desires’]. Usually we cannot and do not do that. However, we may hear a lady say of a little boy: ‘He is so cute, I

1 Toman, Walter, An Introduction to Psychoanalytic Theory of Motivation (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), 4-50.2 Working from Toman’s definitions the Id is “The Id is the system of primitive, unorganized and unspecific desires. They cannot usually be satisfied in reality” Toman, Walter, An Introduction to Psychoanalytic Theory of Motivation (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), 4.

The Ego is, “The Ego is that system which has undertaken to organize the primitive desires and to attune them to each other as well as to specific conditions of reality so that they can be satisfied in reality” Toman, Walter, An Introduction to Psychoanalytic Theory of Motivation (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), 4-5.

The Super Ego is, “The Superego, finally, is the system of desires that have been taken over from other people or, more indirectly, from the social system in which the person lives” Toman, Walter, An Introduction to Psychoanalytic Theory of Motivation (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), 5.3 Scheidlinger, Saul, Psychoanalysis and Group Behavior: A Study in Freudian Group Psychology (New York: Greenwood Press, 1971), 41.

4

could eat him up.’ Which indicates that there is such a desire, although in the subjunctive.4

Scholars, like Toman and Scheidlinger, agree that humans first learn by comparing “likes and

dislikes” via the mouth.

An extrapolation of the theory is its application to a community and their collective

comparisons; there are “two concepts - 'group-identity' and 'ego-identity.' The former refers to a

factor; it is subject to influence by the given groups’ geographic and historical perspectives, the

'collective ego-space-time.’”5 The knowledge gained through comparisons on a larger scale can

be saved in stories, such as oral traditions, or they can be saved with more institutional

knowledge, like in the written form. The basic learning point of the mouth still stands but its role

in a culture, group, or society changes into something else. For some cultures this role becomes

more important than others, thus expressing important cultural practices of consumption.

The act of man-eating in a particular culture can be so integrated into local practice that

they themselves do not believe it to be “cannibalism.” The act of man-eating is only seen as

“cannibalism” when observed by a member outside of the group. There is great power in

naming. In fact, the term “cannibal” did not exist until the cross-cultural encounter of

Christopher Columbus with the Carib people. The Caribs were described as “man-eaters” and

Columbus mistook the name Carib as “Cannibals.” This unfortunate miscommunication has a

lasting legacy via our present definition of the word. This cross-cultural encounter represented

4 Toman, Walter, An Introduction to Psychoanalytic Theory of Motivation (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), 4.5 Scheidlinger, Saul, Psychoanalysis and Group Behavior: A Study in Freudian Group Psychology (New York: Greenwood Press, 1971) paraphrasing of Erikson on page 41.

the shift between the idea of a man-eating monster of fantasy, described in myths and travel

narratives, to the idea of the cannibalistic “Other” that was a direct product of an encounter

between Europeans and the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

The comparison of the classical expectations for what constitutes a “man-eater” to the

new “cannibal” requires a brief survey of the popular published descriptions from before the

Columbian encounter. This survey and discussion is the basis for the section of this work is titled

“Pre-Columbian Man-Eating.” Pulling from sources like the travels of Marco Polo, and the epic

poem, The Odyssey, by Homer will be used to frame Columbus’s encounters in the Americas.

Additionally the placement of this act in relation to traits with negative connotations, like

deformities or savageness, is a convention seen in many time periods and to present day. The

power given to the word “cannibal” is used negatively in many works of scholarship, for

example works by James Axtell.6 Axtell writes that “[t]he English were initially surprised when

these renegades were returned unharmed during interludes of peace, grateful at least that their

neighbors were ‘no Canyballs.’”7 This is an example of a trope that scholars unfamiliar with the

study of cannibalism often fall into.

Tropes like these have been identified by Amy E. Den Ouden, who has taken issue with

experts like Axtell’s description. Den Ouden’s argues that Axtell uses the word as a way of

convening moral judgment, instead of in an unbiased scholarly context. “[H]e offers up the

6 Axtell, James, Natives and Newcomers: The Cultural Origins of North America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).7 Axtell, James, Natives and Newcomers: The Cultural Origins of North America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 242.

6

quintessential ‘cannibal scene’ (see Hulme 1998) [sic].”8 Den Ouden later follows this point up

by stating, “Axtell’s reference to cannibalism is certainly formulaic, neatly offering readers the

three key fears of savagery, which serves simultaneously as the moral justification for conquest.

Implying that cannibalism was the condition of unspecified “native populations” of New

England, Axtell places it both nowhere and anywhere.”9

The level of linguistic-based semantics in this field of study is not seen in most works and

adds a much-needed layer of understanding and objectivity. Another common trope is the

cannibal as murderer. The most sensationalized type of man-eating is exo-cannibalism. Thomas

S. Abler, an expert in the field of exo-cannibalism, defines this permutation of man-eating as the

“consumption of individuals foreign to one’s group.”10 A permutation like this has the ability to

be easily sensationalized because of the fear factor and assumption that the eaten will be

murdered. The perpetual use of the “cannibal-as-murderer trope” is difficult to avoid.

Using the proposed methods and theoretical applications previously outlined, a case study

of Christopher Columbus and the native peoples of the Caribbean’s cross-cultural encounter will

demonstrate that Columbus’ anxiety in encountering “others” led to accusations of

8 Den Ouden, Amy E., “Locating the Cannibals: Conquest, North American Ethnohistory, and the Threat of Objectivity,” History and Anthropology 18, no. 2 (2007): 106.

Please note that the Axtell work she was criticizing was: Axtell, James, “Invading America: Puritans and Jesuits,“ Journal of Interdisciplinary History 14, no. 3 (1984): 634-646.

Please also note that the Hulme work she was citing was: Hulme, Peter, “Introduction: the cannibal scene,” introduction to Barker, Francis, Peter Hulme, and Margaret Iversen. Cannibalism and The Colonial World. Vol. 5. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1- 38.9 Den Ouden, Amy E., “Locating the Cannibals: Conquest, North American Ethnohistory, and the Threat of Objectivity,” History and Anthropology 18, no. 2 (2007): 110.10 Abler, Thomas S., “The Florescence and demise of Iroquoian Cannibalism: Human Sacrifice and Malinowski’s’ Hypotheses,” Man in the Northeast, no. 35 (1988), 3.

“cannibalism.” Primary sources can offer a linguistic foundation for assertions of projection and

displacement. Columbus’s introduction to man-eating was not in the year 1492, but rather before,

in Europe. He was a practicing Catholic and an educated man. Both the religious and scholastic

traditions would have exposed him to man-eating well before his exploration into the “New

World.” It is this exposure to the European cannibal or “man-eater” that limits Columbus’s

perceptions. The use of letters and journals created by Columbus allows a glimpse into his ID,

Ego and Supergo and his mental associations. This offers a unique perspective on his personal

context for acceptable cannibalism. Comparisons and stereotypes are a common theme in travel

narratives found in logs, journals, or letters which were created with the explicit expectation that

they would be published or widely passed around. The result of this application to this case study

is that cannibals are only the result of an outside observer reporting back on a culture accused of

cannibalism.

A similar approach is also applied to the case study of Cotton Mather interacting with

other Puritans, most notably Edward Taylor. Both men were published, but it is the perceptions

created by Mather that is the subject of the section entitled “Mather and The Puritan Taylor.”

The concept of the observer is further explored in relationship to the two different types of

Puritanical thought over cannibalism. Fear is often the focus of the European written accounts of

cannibalism from the past. This is seen in a recorded account of exo-cannibalism by Cotton

Mather:

But no, the Indians in the East, probably Disheartened by the Forts Erecting that were like to prove a sore Annoyance to them…part of those Terrible Cannibals to the Wastward, whereof ’tis affirmed by

8

theses who have published the Stories of their Travels among them, That they have destroy’d no less than Two Million Savages of other Nations about them… [Sic].11

Mather used two powerful words in this account, “Cannibals” and “Savages.” The stress placed

on the accomplishments of the English in spite of these “Terrible” fears is very obvious. Links

between fear and the accusation of cannibalism are strong and have the ability to make for

powerful discussions about possible motivations. Fear of being eaten and fear of losing one’s

culture or identity are shared emotions on all sides of this accusation. This could be more aptly

said about Taylor because of his close proximity in religious beliefs to Mather. This approach,

like the previous case study, offers evidence that the term “cannibal” is a construction of a

monster and the product of projections and displacement brought on by the anxiety of being an

observer.

The concept of emotional eating is not foreign to many readers. It is natural that emotions

may be linked to consumption and therefore man-eating as well. Fear is closely related to all

forms of man-eating, but mostly with exo-cannibalism. Compassion or grief, however, is most

closely associated with endo-cannibalism.12 Borrowing from the language used by Alber, the

definition of endo-cannibalism is “consumption of individuals [native] to one’s group.”13

11 Mather, Cotton, “Decennium Luctuosum: Article XIX,” in Narratives of the Indian Wars 1675 - 1699: Original Narratives of Early American History, ed. Charles H. Lincoln, Ph.D. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), 248-249.12 Please see this article for more information regarding the many emotions that are present in endo-cannibalism: Conklin, Beth A, “‘Thus Are Our Bodies, Thus Was Our Custom’: Mortuary Cannibalism in Amazonian Society,” American Ethnologist 22. no. 1 (1995): 75-101.13 Abler, Thomas S., “The Florescence and demise of Iroquoian Cannibalism: Human Sacrifice and Malinowski’s’ Hypotheses,” Man in the Northeast, no. 35 (1988).

Because there are so many permutations of this phenomenon, generalizations are un-helpful

when one is discussing a case study. Cannibalism is often about the exchange of power, but on

what plane this struggle takes place is situational and requires a granular approach. The

classification of endo-cannibalism and exo-cannibalism are reliant on the ever-changing

definitions.

This thesis is an amalgamation of many theories that scholars have set forth in the past 30

to 40 years. It can be said the word “cannibal” was the product of a cross-cultural encounter but

the same be said of cannibals themselves. The act of man-eating often goes unnoticed to the

participants, it is merely part of their culture. The outside observer is the only one to classify this

act as “cannibalism.” The observer (such as Columbus or Mather) is able to make this distinction

only because of they have a point of comparison; their own definition or application of man-

eating and have found it to be in contrast to the one they are observing. In the act of observing

“the Other” the European creates a new context. It is in this new context that cannibalism exists,

without this context, the cannibal is only seen as a member of their societal group.This can and

will be shown by studying the primary source materials left behind by those who have created

this new cannibal context.

It is with this permutation that most cognitive dissonance is seen: “And that ethnographic fantasy known as ‘endo-cannibalism’ is a normative impossibility because, if carried to its logical conclusion, it would result in the depopulation of one’s own group. I find it hard to believe that human beings cannot recognize this obvious fact.” It is only after the death of a loved one that a member of the community is typically consumed and thus classified as endo-cannibalism. “Mortuary cannibalism systems present the greatest potential challenge to interpretations of cannibalism as an antisocial act of aggression and domination, and the few ethnographic studies of mortuary cannibalism have tended to highlight its socially integrative dimensions.” It is within context like these that sustainable endo-cannibalism does exist.

Gananath Obeyesekere, Cannibal Talk: The Man-Eating Myth and Human Sacrifice in the South Seas (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).

10

However, this nuanced and critical approach to the subject of cannibal scholarship has

not always been the case. In the section below a summarized evolution of this scholarship is

explained. The change in the approach also correlates with the change in academically accepted

publications on the subject.

Historiography

A common misperception of cannibalism is that it is a phenomenon only seen in cultures

that lack a strong moral system opposite that of the author: “The anthropophagus [cannibal] was

an unyielding creature that brought to light the law of a harsh and profound nature.”14 This

perception of the “Other’s” moral system is both false and condescending. Men like Christopher

Columbus and Cotton Mather included the term “cannibal” in their works aimed at an “Old

World” audience, and used it as evidence of their perceived superiority to the native people of

the Americas. This stigma is seen in both historical and published works. The more “modern”

approach to cannibal condemnation is less of an attack against a specific group. Instead there is

an effort to generalize cannibalism without context.

Journalist Garry Hogg in his 1966 book Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice states that

“No book covering the subject generally exists in the English language. Inquiries from the Royal

Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland elicited the reply: ‘We know of no

comprehensive work on cannibalism.’”15 The definition of cannibalism is not culturally

universal; concepts and terms related to cannibalism must be identified on a case by case basis.

14 Avramescu, Catalin, An Intellectual History of Cannibalism, trans. Alistair Ian Blyth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 3.15 Hogg, Garry, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice (New York: Citadel Press, 1958), vii.

In addition, cannibalism must also be defined on a cultural and personal level, and

generalizations do not allow for a complete discussion. Hogg focuses on its sensational nature,

rather than using it as a historical access point for a deeper understanding of the past. This is

evident in his recounting of a possible tradition of endo-cannibalism16: “[t]he child of an

Australian tribesman might be encouraged to eat some part of his father’s flesh, so that when he

grew up he would resemble his father in his courage, or skills as a tracker, or powers of

leadership.”17 The numerous claims of cannibalism made by explorers or in ancient texts was the

standard approach Hogg used for his case studies in cannibalism. Routinely he painted

cannibalism as morally wrong. An example of judgment without support can be seen in his

description of cannibalism among the “Nigerian Tribesmen”: “An even more self-sacrificing (if

the term may be permitted in such a context!) practice existed among the Zumperi. They handed

over the captured heads for the fathers of their tribe to eat, contenting themselves with licking off

their spear-heads and clubs the congealed blood of their enemies, and swallowing it.”18

Authors from any time period often include their feelings on the morality of cannibalism.

Personally held beliefs, such as religious ones, distract from more stimulating discussions and

restrict scholars to a limited moral argument of “right” and “wrong.” By indulging in this type of

moral argument, authors open themselves up to two types of mistakes. The first is thinking that

morality and religion are interchangeable, by extension of this thought process:

16 Endo-cannibalism is the act of a human eating other humans that are perceived to be in the same social group.17 Hogg, Garry, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice (New York: Citadel Press, 1958), 19; Endo-cannibalism has been commonly described as the practice of humans consuming members of their social group.18 Hogg, Garry, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice (New York: Citadel Press, 1958), 86.

12

[A.P.] Elkin [a professor of Anthropology in the University of Sydney] goes on to remark that he has heard a missionary speak with loathing of this rite of blood-drinking…if, he says, we ourselves cannot tolerate blood drinking, then we might at least appreciate the symbolism, and recommend the substation of some such liquid as wine - which, after all, is our own practice.19

If the group being observed is not of the same faith as the observer, then they are by default

immoral. Morality and religion should be limited to the beliefs of those being observed. The

mistake is made when the discourse is filtered by the observer’s own morality, allowing for only

an all-or-nothing approach. The need for a definitive response to the many questions that

cannibalism propagates in religion is due to the popular use of it in their rituals. Religious

authorities purport to offer the “right” way to incorporate cannibalism in the culture, whether it is

by allegory or physical substitution.

The historical European use of the label “cannibal” when describing dominated peoples

was done as a distraction from their own immoral acts committed in the process of colonization.

The reading public needed, and were given, an excuse to dismiss the murder and barbarism they

were funding when they read the word “cannibal.” This point was famously identified by Franz

Fanon when he said “The colonial world is a compartmentalized world.”20

Many reports from authors like Marco Polo spoke of cannibalism and were subsequently

read by large numbers of people. A prime example of the influence these travel narratives had on

others is that Marco Polo’s account of his time in the East was in the personal library of

19 Hogg, Garry, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice (New York: Citadel Press, 1958), 169.20 Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of The Earth, trans. Richard Philcox (New York: Grove Press, 2004), 3.

Christopher Columbus - a prime example of the influence these travel narratives had on one

other. Both men made a point to identify the man-eaters in their midst. In Columbus’ log from

his first encounter with modern day Cuba he alludes to the description of the people he thought

he was encountering from Polo’s travels, calling them “Indians.” “Sunday, 4 November 1492: At

dawn I took the small boat and went ashore to hunt some of the birds that I had seen the day

before…I also understand that, a long distance from here, there are men with one eye and others

with dogs’ snouts who eat men. On taking a man they behead him and drink his blood and cut off

his genitals.”21 While not outright calling the “Indian” a cannibal, Columbus does equate this act

of man-eating with dog-like traits, allowing the European public and ruling classes were able to

feel morally superior. Fanon can be added here when he states, “[c]olonized society is not merely

portrayed as a society without values…The native is declared impervious to ethics, representing

not only the absence of values but also the negation of values.”22 It is easy to allow atrocities to

befall a group of people if the reading public is lead to believe the “savages” or “cannibals” are

unredeemable or worse, not human at all.

Eli Sagan, writing in the 1970’s, highlighted shocking accounts of cannibalism similar to

Garry Hogg’s accounts of moral superiority and religious righteousness. Sagan’s book title,

Cannibalism: Human Aggression and Cultural Form, insinuates that cannibalism is the product

of cultural anger.23 This type of scholarship is culturally biased, as seen by Sagan’s assertion, “…

cannibalism is a more primitive (both psychologically and culturally) way of satisfying

21 Columbus, Christopher, The Log of Christopher Columbus, ed. and trans. by Robert H. Fusion (Camden, Main; International Marine Publishing Company, 1987), 102.22 Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of The Earth, trans. Richard Philcox (New York: Grove Press, 2004), 6.23 Sagan, Eli, Cannibalism: Human Aggression and Cultural Form (New York: Harper Torchbooks,1974).

14

aggressive needs than head-hunting.”24 In his assertion Sagan describes all forms of cannibalism

as “primitive” and relating to “aggression.” This generalization ignores the fact that many of

what he would have considered as “non-primitive” societies, the English and French, have in the

past practiced “corpse medicine” that was not seen as cannibalism by its practitioners.25 Sagan

also ignores the types of cannibalism that do not require acts of violence such as “mortuary or

compassionate” cannibalism.26 Both Hogg and Sagan take advantage of the understanding that

cannibalism is coded as a non-Western practice.

Statements like the one above, lead the reader to believe that there is a single cause for all

acts of cannibalism. Sagan’s research was also limited by his use of Freudian psychology:

“Freud asserts in Totem and Taboo that all acts of taboo are the result of an attempt to deal with

an inherent ambivalence…”27 Sagan was able to fit Freudian thought into his discussion with no

way to validate the conclusions asserted. Historical researchers must be vigilant when attempting

to diagnose people or groups of people from the past without being able to personally interview

or observe them. Otherwise, they risk misrepresenting their subjects. Sagan inserted the theories

created by Freud into his selected examples and thus potently misrepresented the past.

It is reasonable to say that cannibalism is the ultimate form of sadism because it is the original form, psychologically considered. What is the worst punishment that one could inflict on someone one wished to hurt in the most radical way? Eat him, of course.

24 Sagan, Eli, Cannibalism: Human Aggression and Cultural Form (New York: Harper Torchbooks,1974), 41.25 Corpse medicine also called medicinal cannibalism is the practice of using human flesh in “medical” remedies.26 Mortuary cannibalism is primarily the act of endo-cannibalism after the death of a family member. Compassionate cannibalism is a similar custom however it does not require a familiar relation.27 Sagan, Eli, Cannibalism: Human Aggression and Cultural Form (New York: Harper Torchbooks,1974), 14.

Please note that the Freud work being described is a book titled Totem and Taboo.

The cannibal performs institutionalized acts of sadism, prescribed by the society as normal, pleasurable acts that are taught to the young as a path to adulthood.28

Sagan’s use of generalizations as evidence suggests cannibalism may be a universal

phenomenon that has a single cause or definition. This misuse of Freud’s foundation as

appropriated by Sagan has been called into question by Peggy Sandy. “I begin by considering the

hypotheses in Sagan’s study of cannibalism that can be examined within a cross-cultural

framework” says Sandy. “These are not the only dimension to Sagan’s argument? For example,

he builds a good case for the role of emotional ambivalence in cannibal practices…although

Sagan’s contribution is important and useful; it is limited by his particular reading of Freud.”29 A

psychological approach to the topic does have merits if it is applied only on a case-by-case basis

with caution and caveats, something not seen in his work.

Sagan uses a single case study as representative of all examples of cannibalism. For

example, “If we think about the occasions for head-hunting, they appear to be identical to those

for cannibalism - war, revenge, sadism, and proof of masculinity.”30 Even if this was not his

intent, his argument is lost when he continues to vaguely allude to only one case study as

evidence for all his assertions.

Trends set by Hogg and Sagan in cannibal scholarship were first identified and called into

question by anthropologist William Arens who said that, “[t]hese armchair theorizers' apparent

28 Sagan, Eli, Cannibalism: Human Aggression and Cultural Form (New York: Harper Torchbooks,1974), 9.29 Sanday, Peggy Reeves, Divine Hunger: Cannibalism as a Cultural System (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986): 10.30 Sagan, Eli, Cannibalism: Human Aggression and Cultural Form (New York: Harper Torchbooks,1974), 37.

16

lack of reliable data pointed to the need for first-hand experience with other cultures. Instead of

offering an easy solution, a stint of actual fieldwork as a method of data collection vividly

demonstrated the nature of the problem.”31

In his ground-breaking work, The Man-Eating Myth, Arens applies much-needed critical

thinking to the field of cannibalism. By demanding a stronger argument from previous authors

(like Hogg and Sagan) who had assumed their sources could be taken at face value, Arens stated

that, “…I am dubious about the actual existence of this act as an accepted practice for any time

or place.”32 The thesis of his work states that because the “Western World” requires proof in

forms that can be documented and later replicated there is no certainty that historical accounts of

cannibalism can be offered as such because they were documented when the methods of

gathering the information was subjective. The assertions are based on individual accounts that

cannot be replicated and re-studied. Arens would also be critical of contemporary accounts of

cannibalism because there are very few cultures on this earth that have not already been

subjected to this type of observation.

By re-examining the historical claims of cannibalism, starting with the most elemental

points, Arens was able to develop an important basic foundation. The lack of multiple

perspectives present in past scholarly works is often overlooked, but has a major impact on

current historical research. Historians are dependent on a recorded account of the past and

therefore have an inherent bias against cultures lacking these traditional types of records.

31 Arens, William, The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 6.32 Arens, William, The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 9.

Arens, being an anthropologist and accustomed to oral histories and field work, was

painfully aware of this bias. Even with the approaches provided by social historians, such as oral

history and linguistic analysis, not all cultures accused of cannibalism were “archived” by these

methods. In many cases only the European perspective of cannibalism survives.

Unwilling to break away from the trend of using Freudian psychology, Arens has

demonstrated how this approach can be used in a historical context. His most influential theory

was European projection. Projection requires at least two players: the observer and the observed.

In the case of cannibalism, these two players commonly are “the European” and “the Other.”33

However, sometimes neither party is European, is rather two distinct “Other” groups. For

example, the Taino “spoke” of the Caribs as “man-eaters” upon meeting Columbus.34 Both Hogg

and Sagan used the sources to focus almost exclusively on the cannibal as other. In making these

points, Arens proposed a question: in what context did cannibalism exist in a given culture?

Arens spoke of cannibalism as a myth rather than an act, despite the many “eye-witness”

accounts.

The burden of proof was now placed on the claim that cannibalism has been practiced in

history. The scholars who wish to debate Arens on his thesis have to start at this basic point.

Scholars first needed to prove that the case study of cannibalism was true and not an accusation

33 The “Other” is a term used to describe non-European cultures. I acknowledge that this term reinforcing the European bias, but I believe my application of the term should be seen as sarcastic and ironic. 34 Some context for this statement: “The Taino were the Arawakan-speaking Amerindians of the northern Greater Antilles who greeted Columbus when he reached Hispaniola in 1492;”

Smith, Frederick H. “European Impressions of the Island Carib’s Use of Alcohol in the Early Colonial Period,” Ethnohistory 53, no. 3 (2006): 543.

18

to foist “savage” traits on an outsider group. Otherwise, they need to address this point and

accept that they are studying those who apply the label of “cannibal” (the European) and not the

cannibals themselves (“the Others”). Facts and evidence are what drive the arguments around

cannibalism today.

Arens’s thesis, a skeptical approach to historical claims of cannibalism, can be compared

to the contributions from historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam. The theoretical framework that

Subrahmanyam proposes in his book, Three Ways to be Alien, begins with an act called “exo-

labeling,” or the assignment of an identity to anyone besides the observer or if done on a larger

scale, this is called “collective self-fashioning.” Both Arens and Subrahmanyam are skeptical of

the confidence traditional scholarship places on the observations of “Others.” The observer

affects what they are observing by describing it.35 To the skeptical historian like Subrahmanyam,

traditional fields like Ethnography traffic in “stereotypical representations of groups based on

some empirical foundation.”36 The observations are translated by the use of comparisons or

stereotypes, and remove the subject of the observation from the original context. It is within this

new context created by a cross-cultural encounter that the label “cannibal” exists.

Subrahmanyam, in his discussion of the observer effect, touches upon the psychological

practice of projection: “When one culture reflects upon another and tries to ‘stereotype’ them the

limitation of their perceptions are reflected back onto them, thus causing an ‘observer effect.”37

35 Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, Three Ways to Be Alien: Travels and Encounter in the Early Modern World (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2011).36 Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, Three Ways to Be Alien: Travels and Encounter in the Early Modern World (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2011), 14.37 Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, Three Ways to Be Alien: Travels and Encounter in the Early Modern World (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2011), 15.

When humans or communities face something difficult to classify, like a new form of

cannibalism, they resort to comparisons. If there is not a clean fit for the new knowledge, then

ambivalence builds. The possible cohesion of this new knowledge with the old is lost and

possibly ending with the task of acceptance done by the individual.38

Gananath Obeyesekere's work, Cannibal Talk: The Man-Eating Myth and Human

Sacrifice in the South Seas, also addresses the work of Arens: "[a]lthough I share Arens's view

that cannibalism must be seen as a European projection of the Other, I also believe that

anthropophagy [cannibalism] existed in several human societies, for the most part as kind of

sacrament associated with human sacrifice.”39 From the foundation that Arens has provided,

Obeyesekere pushes the thesis further: that cannibalism is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, but

the accusation requires demonstrable proof.

In addition, when focusing on the European projection, Obeyesekere does not overlook

the current anthropological data gathered about native people. He states that he is not speaking

for them but advocating. Being labeled as a cannibal has already caused native people to be

“Othered,” and Obeysekere’s intention is to not propagate this victimization. This new approach

to Aren’s original concept of projection is unique and his most notable contribution to

cannibalism scholarship.

38 The “acceptance,” if not done on the community level, is then left for the individual to settle this, thus the personal definition of cannibalism is born. This is more of a contemporary perspective of cannibalism. The focus of the individual’s interpretation of cannibalism often leads the discussion to serial killers who practice this act and therefore is not in the scope of this historical inquiry.39 Obeyesekere, Gananath, Cannibal Talk: The Man-Eating Myth and Human Sacrifice in the South Seas (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 2.

20

A second point of Obeyesekere’s is the defense for a localized definition of cannibalism.

He contends that cannibalism "must be seen in its own historical and socioeconomic context…"40

While Obeyeskere does not explicitly confess to using the Marxist approach to history, it can be

inferred when reading passages from his book: “It is not surprising that those who deal with the

Maori [the native people of New Zealand who’s first encounter with Europeans was with Captain

Cook in the 1700’s] from the so-called native's point of view tend to ignore a whole class of

native men and women in a subaltern status.”41 Obeyesekere is not distracted by the grotesque

qualities of cannibalism, and identifies points that had been thus far overlooked. Gender, class,

and age, all factors in understanding a culture, are factors that determine the classification of

cannibalism. Both Obeyesekere and Arens make a strong case for cannibal discourse within a

historical investigation.

Once there is an understanding that the subject of an inquiry into a historical accusation

of ‘cannibalism’ is the one making the claim of cannibalism, there is a possibility of a more

representative view of the past. While examining a primary document containing an accusation

of cannibalism written by a European explorer, the reader assumes the role of observer. The

limitation of working with primary documents is that multiple perspectives were not expressed.

Context helps to ascertain the possible motivations for such a claim, as demonstrated by

Obeyesekere when he deliberately places the claims of cannibalism by observers within

anthropological facts.

40 Obeyesekere, Gananath, Cannibal Talk: The Man-Eating Myth and Human Sacrifice in the South Seas (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 134.41 Obeyesekere, Gananath, Cannibal Talk: The Man-Eating Myth and Human Sacrifice in the South Seas (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 80.

It is a reasonable hypothesis that cannibalism, if only understood as it is described in the

accusations made by European explorers, does not exist. The very act of a European observing

“the Other” distorts the original context and cannot be repaired. Therefore only “the observer,” in

this case the European, can be studied from primary documents.42 Both “the observer” and “the

observed” have their own context for the eating of humans, but it is only within the context of a

cross-cultural encounter that cannibals exist.

Pre-Columbian Man-eating

Due to the universal nature of the cannibal phenomena there are many different ways in

which an accepting community can practice man-eating. These “…interpretations of the logic

and meaning of cannibalism” are quintessential when trying to explore the cultural context.43

Many individuals still believe “[t]he most common images of the cannibal are those of

degradation and deviation: the desperate individual reduced to the level of beast by starvation:

the lunatic, the insane, the diseased, the sexually perverted, even too, the ‘savage’ whose

ritualization of the inhuman act relegates them to the realm of the ‘uncivilized.’”44 Man-eating is

a shared past of all humanity, evident in forensic based findings from prehistoric human bones.45

42 A strong case can be made if the inquiry is supplemented with oral histories and field work used by anthropologists. But the problem of the observer having an effect on the culture they are trying to preserver is still a factor.43 Conklin, Beth A, “‘Thus Are Our Bodies,Thus Was Our Custom’: Mortuary Cannibalism in Amazonian

Society,” American Ethnologist 22. no. 1 (1995): 75-101.44 Himmelman, P. Kenneth, “The Medicinal Body: An Analysis of Medicinal Cannibalism in Europe, 1300-1700,” Dialectical Anthropology, no. 22 (1997): 183.45 Walker, Phillip L., “A Bioarcheaological Perspective on The History of Violence,” Annual Review of Anthropology, no. 30 (2001): 573-596.

22

The act of humans eating humans is much older than the word ‘cannibalism’. The earliest

evidence in Europe dates from 800,000 years ago.46

The power of the word “cannibal” will innately strike fear, as something unknown,

regardless of its ancient history. Peter Hulme has identified this granular, but significant, use of

the term “cannibal” in writing: “Even the most fervent believer in cannibal rites would have to

acknowledge that cannibalism is now primarily a linguistic phenomenon, a trope of exceptional

power.”47 Much like Arens, Hulme comments on the term and not the act of man-eating. Readers

today are influenced by this term when perusing classical epics or mythologies; the translator

and/or reader summarizes man-eaters as “cannibals” despite the fact that this is a linguistic

anachronism.

The earliest Western accounts of man-eating in literature can be seen in Herodotus’

Histories.48 “In describing the behavior of the Androphagoi (translated as man-eaters), Herodotus

tells us that this tribe dwelling north of the Black Sea are 'the most savage (agriótata)' of all those

in the region since they possess no laws.”49 The same word was used to describe man-eaters in

the works of the Athenian, Philostratus and the Roman, Pliny the Elder. The correlation between

these two works is obscured due to translation. For example in Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius

46 Walker, Phillip L., “A Bioarcheaological Perspective on The History of Violence,” Annual Review of Anthropology, no. 30 (2001): 586.

Please note the in text citation refers to this article: Fernandez-Jalvo Y, Diez JC, Caceres I, Rosell J. “Human Cannibalism in The Early Pleistocene of Europe (Gran Dolina, Serra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain)” Journal of Human Evolution, no. 37 (1999): 591-622.47 Barker, Francis, Peter Hulme, and Margaret Iversen. Cannibalism and The Colonial World. Vol. 5. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 4.48 Herodotus, Robert B. Strassler, and Andrea L. Purvis, The landmark Herodotus : the histories, (New York: Pantheon Books, 2007).49 Murphy, E. M., and J. P. Mallory, ”Herodotus and the Cannibals,” Antiquity 74, no. 284 (2000): 388-394.

translated by F.C. Conybeare in 1912 the name Androphagoi are is simply translated as “man-

eaters”:

And the Nasamones and the man-eaters and the pigmies [sic] and the shadow-footed people are also tribes of Ethiopia, and they extend as far as the Ethiopian ocean, which no mariners ever enter except castaways who do so against their will.50

Notice the placement of the man-eating action alongside physical deformities of other groups

such as “pigmies” or “shadow-footed people.”51 The placement of this term in relation to

deformities subconsciously plays into a cannibal trope.

Though not explained in detail the trope could be interpreted by a contemporary reader

ast the Greek and Romans perceiving man-eating as a remnant of primitive human development.

This sort of placement is a common theme in classical works. Pliny the Elder, in his work

Natural Histories, also describes a cannibal scene alongside deformities:

But then he telleth fabulous Tales: as that westward there are People called Nigroe, whose King hath but one Eye, and that in the midst of his Forehead : also, there are the Agriophagi, who live chiefly on the Flesh of Panthers and Lions ; the Pomphagi, who Eat all things; the Anthrophphagi, that Feed on Man’s Flesh ; the Cynamolgi, who have Heads like Dogs ; the Artabatite, who wander about like Four- footed Savaged Beasts.52

Here is the placement of the man-eater alongside people who eat only wild animals (compared to

the eating of domesticated animals this might be seen as primitive) and others who act like wild

50 Philostratus, the Athenian, F. C. Conybeare, and of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea Eusebius, The life of Apollonius of Tyana : The Epistles of Apollonius and the Treatise of Eusebius (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1960).51 This term “shadow-footed” describes a human like monster that only has one leg and foot. 52Pliny, Natural History, trans. Dr. Phileman Holand, ed., The Wernerian Club (London: George Barclay, 1847), https://archive.org/stream/plinysnaturalhis00plinrich; Page 161.

24

animals themselves, literally. This subversive comparison is a convention see most often in

works that describe “the Other.” Authors of classical works might have used the monsters that

they are describing to better frame their placement in the world. Significance is placed on

describing not only the eating habits but also on the progression from primitive to complex. This

is seen in the progression of primitiveness of a single physical trait in relation to the expected

double physical trait. This is most notable in the focus on a single leg or the “shadow-footed”

and on the single eye, or a Cyclops.

In this passage, cannibalism is tangentially related to disfigurements, most notably a

single eyeball in the middle of the face. This Cyclops-like figure, stemming from ancient Greek

mythology, was also associated with the consumption of human flesh as seen in the epic Odyssey

by Homer.53

‘Look here, Cyclops,' said I, you have been eating a great deal of man's flesh, so take this and drink some wine, that you may see what kind of liquor we had on board my ship...You ought to be ashamed of yourself; how can you expect people to come see you any more if you treat them in this way?’54

Polyphemus, the Cyclops from the quote above, is not a human but a monster. He is human-like

but also son of the god, Poseidon.

53 Homer, Edward McCrorie, and Richard P. Martin. The Odyssey (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004).54 Homer, Edward McCrorie, and Richard P. Martin. The Odyssey (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004).

Additionally a related race of giants, the Laestrygonians, was also described as man-eaters. “They threw vast rocks at us from the cliffs as though they had been mere stones, and I heard the horrid sound of the ships crunching up against one another, and the death cries of my men, as the Laestrygonians speared them like fishes and took them home to eat them.“ The king of this group was identified as Anthiphates, he was not a monster but a man.

The use of a cannibalistic character in the Greek and Roman mythology is not an isolated

incident. In the myth of Zeus’ birth he and his siblings were born of “Cronus, he whom as we

have seen the Romans called Saturn, was lord of the universe, with his sister-queen, Rhea (Ops

in Latin).”55 In this story the destiny of Zeus, to take the place of his father, was known to Cronus

and his motivation for eating all his children after their birth. However, Rhea tricked Cronus into

eating a large stone that he mistook for the baby Zeus who, once all grown, would lead a war

against his father and become the new ruler of the universe. Though not explicit, there is the

allusion to primitiveness; this was the creation story for the king of the gods, and as such there is

a relation to man-eating. Additionally there is the logistical factor that all creation stories have to

contend with: incest. The combination of both topics being placed in the same myth creates a

complex narrative.

In this myth the internalizing of what one is most scared of is described in the literal

sense. The eating of the young, described in this myth as the fear a father has over the loss of

power due to the rise of his son. Cronus’ fear was later shared by Zeus who also committed

“cannibalism.” “Metis (prudence), warned Zeus that if she bore him child it would be greater

than he. Zeus then swallowed [Metis] and later Athena sprang from his head.”56 Metis is

understood within the Greek mythology as a cousin of Zeus, thus again the combination of incest

and man-eating.

Both the fear of the young overpowering the old and the association to primitive traits

like incest, the act of cannibalism was a tool to describe fear. The cannibal character can be a

55 Hamilton, Edith. Mythology (New York: Little Brown and Company, 2012), 80.56 Hamilton, Edith. Mythology (New York: Little Brown and Company, 2012), 468.

26

god, a monster, or king of distant lands. But, despite the metaphorical space between the reader

and the cannibal, the fear is real because of the associations the tales make to our prehistoric

roots.

The type of man-eating seen in the descriptions of other cultures require a story or

context to illustrate this act and separate it from the myths of the Greek or Roman world. For

example Herodotus was describing a group of people not from his land, while making sure to

couch the act of man-eating with “savageness.” In pre-modern travel narratives this type of

qualifier is also seen and is required because there is no single term to encapsulate the sigma of a

“savage” man-eater.

The few examples of what was described by Marco Polo in his 13th century published

travel narrative as cannibalism were routinely couched in depictions of “barbaric” or “savage”

cultural practices. “They [persons of Tebeth and Kesmir] are addicted, moreover, to this beastly

and horrible practice, that when any culprit is condemned to death, they carry off the body, dress

it on the fire, and devour it; but of persons who die a natural death they do not eat the bodies.”57

57 Polo, Marco, The Travels of Marco Polo the Venetian (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1914), 148.

For context, Polo is in the process of describing two classes from the “Batta people of Sumatra.” However, in an editor’s note the validity of this claim is questioned, “The agreement between the account here given of this barbarous practice, and what is known of the Batta people of Sumatra, who devour the bodies of condemned criminals, is so striking, that a doubt can scarcely be entertained of a transposition having taken place in the order of our author s notes, by which a remark upon the peculiar manners of the latter, amongst whom he resided several months, has been detached from its proper place, and introduced into this chapter, where savages of a different description, and to whom cannibalism has not been imputed by any traveler since his time, are the subject.”

Polo, Marco, The Travels of Marco Polo the Venetian (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1914), 148.

To have been published originally in 1908, this bit of skepticism, despite not being free of cannibal tropes, is still ahead of their time. This sensitivity to claims of cannibalism was identified in the academic world by Aren in the 1970’s.

When reading this with the filter previously described there are many cursory judgments one

would like to make that are influenced by the language employed, however, the act of translation

blocks a linguistic analysis.

This “addiction” speaks to the primitive and savage-like qualities authors in the land of

“the Other” feel the need to express. This could be seen as a way of separating this new

encounter with man-eating with their culturally accepted use of it. Polo uses the addiction to man

flesh to create a context for the permutation of cannibalism he is confronted with in China as

well.

The people in this part of the country are addicted to eating human flesh, esteeming it more delicate than any other, provided the death of the person has not been occasion by disease. When they advance to combat they throw loose their hair about their ears, and they paint their faces of a bright blue colour. They arm themselves with lances and swords, and all march on foot excepting their chief, who rides on horseback. They are a most savage race of men, insomuch that when they slay their enemies in battle, they are anxious to drink their blood, and afterwards they devour tier flesh.58

Not only has the act been placed in a context that leads the reader in a moral direction but also

there are now associations made to this act, associations with savageness and murder. The

organization of the military force and the technology were something that Polo made sure to note

but not the focus of the passage.

58 Polo, Marco, William Marsden, and John Masefield, The travels of Marco Polo, the Venetian (London, J. M. Dent & co., 1907.), 314.

28

Polo also describes this, much like the classical accounts of deformities associated with

with races of people known to eat the flesh of others described by Pliny the Elder, in his travel

narrative.

In this island of Zipangu and the others in its vicinity, their idols are fashioned in a variety of shapes, some of them having the heads of oxen, some of swine, of dogs, goats, and many other animals…The reader should, however, be informed that the idolatrous inhabitants of these islands, when they seize the person of an enemy who has not the means of effecting his ransom for money, invite to their house all their relation and friends, and putting their prisoner to death, dress and eat the body, in a convivial manner, asserting that human flesh surpasses every other in the excellence of its flavor.59

Despite Polo not describing the humans who are consuming the flesh of others as those with

deformities it is an interesting combination. This section follows the trope of presenting

cannibalism as a primitive addiction. This is also seen in the summary of the account by the

publisher, which reads, “Of the nature of the idols worshipped in Zipangu, and of the people

being addicted to eating human flesh.”60 There are only two areas of this culture described in

this chapter, the monstrous gods with deformities and the practice of eating human flesh

obtained in an immoral fashion.

The delineation between “us” and “them” is made when the storyteller introduces the

cannibalistic character. Cannibalism is a shared past; a primitive unifier. This delineation of who

59 Polo, Marco, William Marsden, and John Masefield. 1907. The travels of Marco Polo, the Venetian (London, J. M. Dent & co., 1907.), 328.60 Polo, Marco, William Marsden, and John Masefield. 1907. The travels of Marco Polo, the Venetian (London, J. M. Dent & co., 1907.), 328.

is part of one group and not another is in itself a cultural system, but one must keep in mind that

this system can have, as Subrahmanyam points out, 'fluid boundaries.’ Each culture needs to find

its spot with each other; often in relation to each other and rarely in isolation. There is an

evolutionary reason why early humans needed to exclude people from their proven trustworthy

groups, and this survival tool has not been lost on the more contemporary humans. The repetition

of a particular use of a cannibalistic character or scene illustrates how the Greeks or Romans and

later the pre-modern European felt in relation to the “Other.” The obvious influence of the Greek

on the Romans is well established; however, it is interesting to see that after the passage of time

the use of the moral judgment to facilitate the separation from the classical world and the

“Other.”

The deliberate use of “anthropophagy” can be utilized in arguments to contextualize the

reference to man-eating in a pre-Columbian context. “Cannibals” were a product of the

encounter between Columbus and the indigenous people of the Caribbean in the year 1492.

Much like the shared ancient myths and epic poems, Columbus never witnessed the accused

people eating the flesh of a human, “Thus, as I have already said, I saw no cannibals, nor did I

hear of any, except from Espanola on the side towards India, where dwell a people who are

considered by the neighboring islander as most ferocious; and these feed upon human flesh.”61

61 The Trustees of the Boston Public Library, “The First Letter of Christopher Columbus to the Nobel Lord Raphael Sanchez Announcing the Discovery of America” (Reproduced in facsimile from the copy of the Latin version of 1493, Boston, 1891), 398.

An interesting translation note: The Lenox Library in New York translates this excerpt differently, “Thus I have not found, nor had any information of monsters, except of an island which is here the second in the approach to the Indies, which is inhabited by a people whom, in all the islands, they reared as ferocious, who eat human flesh.” Wisconsin Historical Society Digital Library and Archives, “Letter from Columbus to Luis de Santangel” American Journey’s Collection, Wisconsin, 2003), 70. There is a slight difference in the application of the term “cannibal” between the two translations, but it is interesting that the term “monster” appeared to be interchangeable with

30

The power of the word “cannibal” did not require a direct observation of man-eating in order to

strike fear into the minds of the Europeans as Columbus would soon learn on his travels.

Columbus and the Carib

Before discovering a “New World” Columbus understood what would constitute

unacceptable cannibalism. Columbus discussed having read descriptions of cannibalism by

published authors.62 A rationalization is applied for why one form of cannibalism is acceptable

and others are not. An effort has to be made to decontextualize the unfamiliar act of eating

humans then add them to one’s catalog of what is known. The factors that influence this process

for an explorer like Columbus could be personal beliefs or external forces. Both factors could

influence his decisions and evident in his writings.

For Columbus, proving the success of his voyage to the benefactors of his exploration,

including the royal family of Spain, was his prime area of stress. The financial risks taken on

Columbus would have to be proven beneficial before his return voyage in order to gain sustained

support. The difficulty in making this case is evidenced by Columbus’s letters back to Spain. His

first letter was addressed to Luis de Santangel “who had deeply interested himself in the project

“cannibal.”

Please also note that in the introduction of this Wisconsin Historical Society Digital Library and Archives informs the novice reader of Columbus letters that, “Columbus sent a duplicate of this letter with some slight changes to Gabriel Sanxis (Spanish form, Sanchez), the treasurer of Aragon…” This duplication process may account for the differences in to whom the letters are addressed.

62 Reay Tannahil, Flesh and Blood: A History of the Cannibal Complex (New York: Stein and Day, 1975), 24.

of Columbus and had advanced money to enable Queen Isabella to meet the expense of the

voyage.”63

In this letter Columbus referenced the cannibals of Marco Polo. “I did not find, as some

of us had expected, any cannibals amongst them, but on the contrary men of great deference and

kindness.”64 Clearly Columbus did expect cannibals and he identifies the likelihood that they

existed. In the scholarly work of Valerie Flint, Columbus’s annotations in a work of Pierre

d’Ailly are described.

Extremes of climate tend to produce deformities he [Pierre d’Ailly] says: Columbus adds promptly that the tendency to eat human flesh may well be among these deformities. This interest in cannibalism pervades the admiral’s [Columbus] writing, and here seemingly invades his observations from the very first…Columbus makes solemn notes upon all this information in the margins and underlines sections of it [persons who kill their parents and eat their flesh] in the text…65

63 Letter from Columbus to Luis de Santanged: Reproduced in digital facsimile by the Wisconsin Historical Society Digital Library and Archives from the Spanish version of the 1493. Now in the New York Public Library (Document No. AJ-063: American Journey Collection, Wisconsin Historical Society Digital Library and Archives, 2003).64 The First Letter of Christopher Columbus to the Noble Lord Raphael Sanchez Announcing the Discovery of America: Reproduced in facsimile from the copy of the Latin version of 1493. Now in the Boston Public Library (Boston: The Trustees of The Boston Public Library. 1891), 393.65 Flint, Valerie Irene Jane, The Imaginative Landscape of Christopher Columbus (New Jersey: Princeton University, 1992), 54.

Please also note that: “According to Vignaud the Colombina copy of the Imago Mundi belonged to Bartholomew Columbus and did not come into the hands of Christopher Columbus until after Bartholomew joined his brother in Espafiola in I494. Subsequent to that date Christopher Columbus formed his cosmographical theory about the great extension of Asia to the east and the 56 2/3 mile measure of a terrestrial degree. This theory served Columbus to explain what he had done. It had not served as a theoretical basis on which the first voyage had been planned.”

Nunn, George E., “The Imago Mundi and Columbus,” The American Historical Review 40, No. 4 (1935), 646-661.

32

This is in keeping with the precedent set by classical and pre-modern writers of integrating

physicality with man-eating. This informs the reader that this type of man-eating is not shared

between Europeans and the “Other.”

Despite his firsthand lack of knowledge of cannibalism within the “New World,” his

internal dialogue regarding the very existence of cannibals was still important to support finding

the land described by Marco Polo. It is only by second hand and translated rumor that he is able

to offer circumstantial proof that he was successful in his travels to benefactors in the Old World.

The success of an exploration is reliant on the control over resources such as people,

natural commodities, and information about the lay of the land. The health of the crew and the

ability to replenish supplies and make repairs was dependent on the natural resources available.

Because the “New World” was an environment that Columbus could not have planned for

properly he had the additional task of information-gathering so that he could push forward in his

exploration or return home. Communication is also pivotal in order to gather all resources, but

again there was no way of preparing the crew with an effective translator. These problems can be

seen in Columbus’s first communication back to the “Old World”:

But I saw neither towns nor cities lying on the seaboard, only some villages and country farms, with whose inhabitants I could not get speech, because they fled as soon as they beheld us…Meanwhile I had learned from some Indians, whom I had seized at they place, that this country was really an island.66

66 The First Letter of Christopher Columbus to the Noble Lord Raphael Sanchez Announcing the Discovery of America: Reproduced in facsimile from the copy of the Latin version of 1493 Now in the Boston Public Library (Boston: The Trustees of The Boston Public Library. 1891), 6-7.

Explorers became, in effect, dependent on the lands they discovered; the country backing the

voyage in turn also became dependent on the new resources to feed their economy. While still in

the midst of first contact Columbus was very much concerned with how he and his countrymen

could use the new environment and resources to their benefit: “The island called Johana [Cuba],

as well as the other in its neighborhood, is exceedingly fertile. It has numerous harbors on all

sides, very safe and wide, above comparison with any I have ever seen.”67 Further on in the same

letter he describes what is now known as the island of Haiti and Dominican Republic: “In the

island, which I have said before was called Hispana, there are very lofty and beautiful mountains,

great farms, groves and fields, most fertile both for cultivation and for pasturage, and well

adapted for constructing buildings.”68 Columbus makes sure to convey to his benefactors the

abundant ways in which the subsequent European-like peoples would be able to take full

advantage of this new environment.

With his attempts to communicate with the people of this new area, Columbus's language

had reduced to what Obeyesekere describes as something akin to childlike mimicking and

gestures to convey intentions between the two groups. In addition to this unsophisticated way of

communication Columbus also had the upper hand with his ability to capture natives without

their consent. This interaction would probably have been very undignified and stressful, and thus

a cause for anxiety.

67 The First Letter of Christopher Columbus to the Noble Lord Raphael Sanchez Announcing the Discovery of America: Reproduced in facsimile from the copy of the Latin version of 1493. Now in the Boston Public Library (Boston: The Trustees of The Boston Public Library. 1891), 7.68 The First Letter of Christopher Columbus to the Noble Lord Raphael Sanchez Announcing the Discovery of America: Reproduced in facsimile from the copy of the Latin version of 1493. Now in the Boston Public Library (Boston: The Trustees of The Boston Public Library. 1891), 8.

34

Columbus’s ambivalence about where to place his anxiety can be seen with his allusion

to cannibals in his letters and log. The application of the model started by Arens and

Obeyesekere of projection is linked to the creation of the cannibal as a scapegoat in this

encounter. The only evidence that Columbus was able to report back to the “Old World” was

speculative. In a letter to the Town Council of Seville by Dr. Chanca (the ship's surgeon), during

Columbus’ second voyage, describes the only cannibalistic evidence.

As soon as we neared the island the Admiral ordered a light caravel to run along the coast to search for a harbor…he then went into the houses and there found various household articles that had been left unremoved, from which he took two parrots, very large and quite different from any we had before seen; he found a great quantity of cotton, both spun and prepared for spinning, and articles of food, of all of which he brought away a portion; besides these, he also brought away four or five bones of human arms and legs. On seeing these we suspected that we were among the Caribbee island, whose inhabitants eat human flesh.69

A possible reason for one to believe this claim is because of who wrote this, Dr. Chanca’s

position on the second voyage. Additionally the circumstances of them finding these bones,

mixed with food and domestic materials, allowed for a convenient conclusion that what was

being practiced was cannibalism. The weight of a doctor’s claim that the bones were indeed from

a human, coupled with this detailed scene, bolsters this conclusion. However, later on in the

same letter there is a second description of human bones kept in homes but with fewer stigmas.

We remained eight days in this port in consequence of the loss of the aforesaid captain, and went many times on shore, passing

69 Olson, Julius Emil, and Edward Gaylord Bourne, The Northmen, Columbus and Cabot, 985-1503 (New York: Scribner, 1925), 286-287.

among the dwelling and villages which were on the coast; we found a vast number of human bones and skulls hung up about the houses, like vessels intended for hold various things.70

Without the author leading the reader on a conclusion could be that the bones were collected

over years in relation to war and trophy collecting.71 Also interesting is that the Europeans,

believing that they were among man-eaters, decided to stay. Columbus made the decision to

ignore the threat of the cannibals in order to support their exploration.

Columbus might have been the first to create the term “cannibal” from the Carib or

“Caribbees" during his first voyage, but it was echoed in the writings of Dr. Chanca. “As soon as

they [captives] learned that we abhorred such people [the Caribbees], on account of their evil

practice of eating human flesh, they were much delighted; and after that. if they brought forward

any woman or man of the Caribbes, they informed us (but secretly) that there were such…”72

Later in this letter the difference between the Caribbees and the non-man-eaters was observed by

their dress. “We were enabled to distinguish which of the women were Caribbees, and which

were not, by the Caribbees wearing on each legs two bands of woven cotton…”73 Again,

Columbus was frank with his expectations of seeing cannibals. Though not directly observing

cannibals, he still alludes to their primitive nature by stating how cannibalistic islanders dress:

70 Olson, Julius Emil, and Edward Gaylord Bourne, The Northmen, Columbus and Cabot, 985-1503 (New York: Scribner, 1925), 288-289.71 This is not the truth behind this observation, but simply an alternative to the assumption of cannibalism.72 Olson, Julius Emil, and Edward Gaylord Bourne, The Northmen, Columbus and Cabot, 985-1503 (New York: Scribner, 1925), 289.73 Olson, Julius Emil, and Edward Gaylord Bourne, The Northmen, Columbus and Cabot, 985-1503 (New York: Scribner, 1925), 289.

36

The inhabitants of both sexes of this and of all other islands I have seen, or of which I have any knowledge, always go as naked as they came into the world, except that some of the women cover their private parts with leaves or branch, or a veil of cotton, which they prepared themselves for this purpose.74

The lack of clothing is not only a direct allusion to primitive cannibalism but to the origins of

sin. In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were without sin and would walk naked in the

Garden of Eden, it is this image that a contemporary reader if this passage could compare this to.

Within the same description of all islanders Columbus does make a stronger comparison:

They are all, as I said before, unprovided with any sort of iron, and they are destitute of arms, which are entirely unknown to them, and for which they are not adapted; not on account of any bodily deformity, for they are well made, but because they are timid and full of terror.75

The use of deformity is linked to the term “cannibal” as previously seen in the quoted

annotations by Columbus in his Pierre d’Ailly copy. Here he does not make the connection

directly; the need to seem superior was important for him to connect with his audience.

Columbus’s expectations for Eastern similarities extended to hopes of finding a city or

king with whom he could converse with and was a driving force for further exploration, much

like what was described by Marco Polo.”…Whose inhabitants I was unable to communicate

74 The First Letter of Christopher Columbus to the Noble Lord Raphael Sanchez Announcing the Discovery of America: Reproduced in facsimile from the copy of the Latin version of 1493 Now in the Boston Public Library (Boston: The Trustees of The Boston Public Library. 1891), 8.75 The First Letter of Christopher Columbus to the Noble Lord Raphael Sanchez Announcing the Discovery of America: Reproduced in facsimile from the copy of the Latin version of 1493. Now in the Boston Public Library (Boston: The Trustees of The Boston Public Library. 1891), 8.

[with], because they fled as soon as they saw us, I went further on, thinking that in my progress I

should certainly find some city or village.”76 Both segments demonstrate that the leader was

unable to comprehend the new encounter. Not only did Columbus cling to the cannibal despite

no physical evidence or eyewitness accounts, he also could not let go of the idea that he was not

in India. To him to be in the “East” meant there were man-eaters. This was due to the reports that

have been passed down over hundreds of years of trade as described by Marco Polo. The

confusion is evident in the names of locations that Columbus refers to from the Polo’s writings

his Log, including: Japan, Colba, Bohio, the City of Quisay and repeated references from the

Grand Khan.77

By admitting that the people found in the new land were not as Polo described, Columbus

might have had to grapple with two sets of independent emotions, the anxiety stemming from his

placement in the social structure in the “Old World,” and applying his world view to the “New

World.” According to Scheidlinger and Toman, when anxiety is placed on an individual and they

project a praxis (creating a cannibal) onto others who they see as “below” them, it is classified as

displacement. This distinction helps to differentiate between projection and displacement.

Additionally, previous scholars who have proposed the incorporation of psychological terms into

cannibal discourse have only relied on the single classification of projection. Among the areas of

possible anxieties stemming from the “Old World,” material support from authorities must have

been paramount. However, there was one unifying authority for all “Old World” Christians, God.

76 The First Letter of Christopher Columbus to the Noble Lord Raphael Sanchez Announcing the Discovery of America: Reproduced in facsimile from the copy of the Latin version of 1493. Now in the Boston Public Library (Boston: The Trustees of The Boston Public Library. 1891), 393.77 Columbus, Christopher, The Log of Christopher Columbus, ed. and trans. by Robert H. Fusion (Camden, Main: International Marine Publishing Company, 1987), 90.

38

Christopher Columbus was a Catholic in the 15th century and his worldview was framed

by this perspective. His religion is one area where his culturally accepted views of man-eating

can be identified. The Catholic tradition states that participation in the High Mass has the ability

to remove sin from an individual. “The view of the Host [given at High Mass] was supposed to

inspire in sixteenth-century congregations such a strong desire for absolution and sense of its

immanence as to make parishioners turn and forgive one another’s past offenses.”78 As

Hoffmann describes it would be absurd to assume that cannibalism were to play a role in this

ritual. However, the High Mass consists of “…the priest sacrifices a God to himself and

distributes the flesh to be eaten by his worshipers.”79 Because there is a belief that Jesus, who is

the subject of the Holy Communion, was at least in part human, this ritual therefore incorporates

cannibalism. Not only has this in the past been seen as cannibalism but also in theophagy.80

There are many interpretations of this ritualistic cannibalism and theophagy, but the focus

on the Catholic interpretation is most important when introducing it in the interpretation

practiced by Columbus in the 15th Century. A defining factor for a Catholic Mass is the

78 Hoffmann, George, “Anatomy of the Mass: Montaigne’s ‘Cannibals,’” Modern Language Association 117, no. 2 (2002): 214.79 Smith, Preserved, “Christian Theophagy: An Historical Sketch,” The Monist 28, no. 2 (1918): 2.80 When a believer eats the theoretical or implied body of a god or God this is called theophagy. Theophagy is not a direct form of “cannibalism,” but seen in the root of the word there are Latin correlations. To extrapolate, a relation and a relationship with God is very important in the Catholic doctrine as demonstrated in the weekly communing with their god via consuming his “flesh” and by the Bible passage “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

“Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages” biblos.com, accessed September 2015, http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-27.htm.

In addition to being created “in His own image” God also had a son born of a human. The communion Host is not often described as God but rather as the body of Jesus. Therefore, in more than one why the High Mass can be viewed as a ritual where the human consumption of human flesh is the vehicle employed by the religion.

employment of transubstantiation. In 12th century doctrine it is stated that “the change by which

the substance (though not the appearance) of the bread and wine in the Eucharist becomes

Christ’s Real Presence—that is, his body and blood.”81 Columbus might have felt that his rules

for religious and ritualistic theophagy were not related to cannibalism given how it appeared to

remove it was from its origins of human sacrifice and cannibalism.82 Columbus is vague in

describing when he describes the first encounter with “Indians” and Christians but he does not

feel that he and his kind are not the same as the “cannibals” described.

Friday, 23 November 1492

The Indians aboard called this Bohio and say it is very large and has people there with one eye in the forehead, as well as others they call cannibals, of whom they show great fear. When they saw I was taking that course, they were too afraid to talk. They say that cannibals eat people and are well armed…The Indians we have encountered believed the same thing at first about us Christians.83

Recalling the Theory of Motivation as proposed by Toman, the substitution for a human

in this ritual would be considered to be an example of a “substitution continuum,” but not the

typical example. Toman describes the substitution continuum as a:

81 The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, “Transubstantiation,” Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. last updated February 6, 2015, http://www.britannica.com/topic/transubstantiation.82 This pointed description is hard to avoid, however this is the principal teaching of the Catholic faith, this being that a human sacrifice had to be made so that humans could overcome original sin and that individual sin can be absolved through the eating of the sacrificial flesh, “By acknowledging that this sadistic murder was a gift of divine mercy, people could earn eternal life.”

Pinker, Steven, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, (New York: Penguin Books, 2011), 14.83 Columbus, Christopher, The Log of Christopher Columbus, ed. and trans. Robert H. Fusion (Camden, Main: International Marine Publishing Company, 1987), 115.

40

drive system from which a desire has dropped out can regain its equilibrium, i.e. establish counter-cathexis or defenses, no matter whether on a lower level than before or on the same level…Only when new substitutes desires are recited or, more precisely, only when the newly rerouted desires are powerful and/or numerous enough to make up for the deficit, can the substitution continuum be resorted to its state before decimation.84

This application of a tool in this theory requires a motivation to be identified if it is to be used.

Toman describes motivations based off the Id, Ego, and Superego. When applying the

substitution continuum to a group or a sub-group this is a different approach, but the basics still

apply. Many modern followers of the Catholic faith do not perceive themselves in a metaphor for

cannibalism, but the Eucharist is described as the body of Christ. Perhaps Columbus felt the

same way as modern believers of the same faith, as seen in the quote from his November entry in

his log.

Of those who have studied the context of theophagy, the earliest being Preserved Smith,

some have inadvertently identified possible motivations for a substitution continuum,85 including

the religious need to have a relationship with the Divine:

The ‘god’ must be either eaten, or united with his worshipers in sexual intercourse. Both ideas have colored the language and thought of all religions, including Christianity. The eating of the sacred animal, or later the god in the form an animal, is the one with which we are presently concerned.86

84 Toman, Walter, An Introduction to Psychoanalytic Theory of Motivation (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), 23.85 Please see “Anatomy of the Mass: Montaigne’s ‘Cannibals’” by George Hoffmann and “Christian Theophagy: An Historical Sketch” by Preserved Smith.86 Smith, Preserved, “Christian Theophagy: An Historical Sketch,” The Monist 28, no. 2 (1918): 163-164.

To add to this assertion:

The creation myth was the essential bond that held the tribe together. It provide its believers with a unique identity, commanded their fidelity, strengthened order, vouchsafed law, encourage valor and sacrifice, and offered meaning to the cycles of life and death…The creation myth is a Darwinian device for survival.87

Connection to the primal urge to learn and experience with the mouth, as demonstrated by

Toman, and this motivation to experience a connection with the Divine, through cannibalism is

natural. Only partially actualized cannibalism, implied cannibalism is apparent via the

substitution continuum. Because cannibal origins are older than Christianity, Christianity cannot

be the root of a European understanding of cannibalism.

The Log provides a solid foundation upon which we may reconstruct the religious framework that guided the Admiral. That he was a devout Christian there can be no doubt. His devotion and faith are no better demonstrated than on February 14, 1492, when vowed to fulfill two different pilgrimages if delivered from the terrible storm surround his ship. While saying that his faith should relieve him of fear, he admitted weakness and anxiety, two very human emotions.88

Rather that it is a form of accepted cannibalism in the Old World informed by classical

cannibalism and unconscious individual and group motivations.

87 Willson, E.O., The Social Conquest of Earth (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation: 2012), 8.88 Columbus, Christopher, The Log of Christopher Columbus, ed. and trans. Robert H. Fusion (Camden, Main: International Marine Publishing Company, 1987), 19.

42

The perspective of Columbus in this new land relates to the hierarchy-based concerns he

grappled with. At the top of the list of authorities to appease, Columbus first had to answer to his

God. Man was created in the image of God, and generations of man described in the Bible

explained diversity in humanity: “Europeans were ill prepared, however, to learn of a new people

racially distinct from the three known groups (African, Asian, and European) descended from

Noah’s three sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth…it appeared improbable to some that Amerindians

could be descended from Adam and Eve.”89 Not only were they unexpected but this new group

of people by default did not fit into his world view. It is in isolation or out of context of his “Old

World” that “cannibals” become monsters with deformities and blood drinking rituals.90 To a

man like Columbus, a cannibal was not something described by Herodotus and Pliny, but

something more insidious despite his ideas about cannibals lacking direct evidence.

The term “cannibal” stems from this encounter between Columbus and the Caribs. The

Carib word for “bold,” something they would call themselves, was bastardized by Columbus or

his men when it became associated with their supposed “man-eating.” This claim of man-eating

was never supported by an eyewitness account. Thus, this cross-cultural encounter not only was

the genesis of the modern idea of a cannibal, but also the most apt example of it only being a

product of a fictionalized encounter. In pre-Columbian context to describe the eating of other

humans a story or context was required. Some authors did use this phenomenon as a defining

descriptor for community much like the Androphagoi in the accounts told by Herodotus.

However the translation, man-eater, allows for the application beyond the story’s context to be

89 Hoffmann, George, “Anatomy of the Mass: Montaigne’s ‘Cannibals,’” Journal of the Modern Language Association of America 117, no. 2 (2002): 211.90 Please see the quote from The Log of Christopher Columbus from the date Friday, 23 November 1492.

associated with savagery or with rituals. There is no inherent stigma with the term androphagoi.

“Cannibal,” lacking a direct and simple translation, is associated with a stigma. The negative

associations are not the same for all applications, but the deliberate use of this word drives the

reader to bias. Because there is a single term to describe a form of unacceptable man-eating,

there is no longer context needed for an accusation. This new tool for domination and projection

is something shared in much of the history of the “New World.

Mather and the Puritan Taylor

Historically the term “cannibal” was a label applied to someone who was perceived to be

irreparably different from the accuser.  In reality it might have been the similarities that

threatened the accuser and motivated them to create distance between what they saw as “us” and

“Other.’” Identity is created by illustrating the differences between one’s self (and group) from

another. In the case of comparing one’s cultural appropriation of man-eating to “the Other’s”

cannibalism, the negative delineation is the product of projection. This has been established by

scholars such as Amy E. Den Ouden who says, “…European colonizers’ accusations of and

obsession with cannibalism must be understood as ‘a projection-and, by this means, a

legitimation —of European’s own predatory intentions.’”91 Despite the fact that in some cultures

like the Europeans in early New England may have not directly practice the act of man-eating,

there was a space created for the mythical monster. This is seen in the consistent use of the word

“cannibal” when a distance between “us” and “them” was needed.

91 Den Ouden, Amy E., “Locating the Cannibals: Conquest, North American Ethnohistory, and the Threat of Objectivity,” History and Anthropology 18, no.2 (2007): 110.

44

For the Europeans, primarily the English, the principle of autonomy (self-government)

was supreme in the New World. It became their need for control, and anything infringing on this

control had to be suppressed. Incorporating elements that originated from the “inferior Indians,”

such as winter survival endo-cannibalism, highlights the Europeans as not a superior example of

humankind, but as people who would also slip into the same “depravity.”92

Even more insulting to a European than cannibalizing their own kind would be if the

cannibalizing were a result of one owns gluttony and sloth, two major sins for Catholics and

Puritans. To the active Puritans and the European men who were the product of the Age of

Enlightenment living in New England, this lack of forethought and logic was condemnable:

“Both English and Spanish records of meals in indigenous homes emphasized what their authors

saw as filth, gluttony, and waste….the idea formed in these encounters, that native peoples were

gluttonous and wasteful ‘regardless of the morrow,’ would mark difference in the centuries to

come.”93 They might also have seen this as a form of divine punishment for not being prepared

and thus not being able to overcome the natural elements. The European view of man versus

nature was that man had to dominant over nature before man could be seen as “civilized.” This

domination was a way of showing physical control over a cause of anxiety, such as being

overcome by the dangers found in nature. This was a vital way of creating a new identity far

92 The element of control is pivotal to understanding the act of cannibalism and the ways in which it was used. Endo-cannibalism in a survival scenario is a classical form of cannibalism and has been used by many cultures to overcome harsh times. It has also has been used to set boundaries for what a culture may believe to be the right or wrong way to incorporate this tool. When looking at some accounts of endo-cannibalism performed by Native Americans, recorded by the Europeans, there is a glaring amount of disapproval for how the Native Americans seemingly casually accepted their fate to be a winter cannibal.93 Thrush, Coll, “Vancouver the Cannibal: Cuisine, Encounter, and the Dilemma of Difference on the Northwest Coast, 1774-1808.” Ethnohistory 58, no. 1 (2011): 10.

away from the land that was known to them. While trying to survive in New England the early

Europeans had to construct a new identity and by doing so constructed many new cannibals.

Through religion, rules for cannibalism are integrated into a culture that do not see their

own actions as cannibalism. It is not considered cannibalism until an observer outside the group

labels it as such. The Puritans of early New England created a social structure that relied on

critical observation of others, thus a distorted view point was created. To say there was one

universal doctrine that all Puritans followed is inaccurate. Perhaps the most famous Puritan, and

also the most judgmental, was Cotton Mather. His prolific published works were used to not only

illustrate his beliefs but also to educate others. His observations of cannibalism range from

practices of other Puritans to the rituals by Native Americans.

Generally, early Europeans living in New England were suffering from an identity crisis,

meaning they were no longer pure Europeans, but they were not as native to this new land as

much as the indigenous people “. Applying European thought to this new land in relation to

one’s self could have been very difficult. To help this process along, binary sets were a common

praxis among the Puritans: “Underlying these policies and practices was a European belief that

human beings were divided into ‘civilized’ and ‘savage’ peoples. European Christians were

‘civilized’ by virtue of their religious, political and cultural institutions and practices, and stood

in sharp contrast to Native Americans and other ‘savages’…”94 It is with this set of rules that

European in the “New World” created monsters like cannibals in their encounters with “Others.”

94 Rowlandson, Mary, introduction to The Sovereignty and Goodness of God, ed. Neal Salisbury (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s: 1997): 3.

46

In 1860, scholar J.G. Kohl saw this particular synthesis as a product of human nature: “It

is very natural that in a country which really produces isolated instance of such horrors

[cannibalism]…wonderful stories of windigos should be produced, as among us, in the middle

ages, the belief in witches produced witches…”95 This comparison demonstrates two points. The

first is that we humans produce “monsters” to mask our less desirable behaviors, including

cannibalism. The second point is that the Europeans shifted a primary fear from the witch, said to

have eaten the children of others, to the windigo, who eats its own children. There was a growing

incorporation of “the Others” such as the Cree Nation. Projecting this idea on to the Native

Americans, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was something that many had done.96

Cotton Mather was a prolific writer of the late 1600’s to the middle 1700’s with a larger

readership. His comments and actions taken during the witch trials in Salem Village are well

known to scholars in this area and do have a tangential relationship to cannibalism.97 However,

his critiques and public discourse of other Puritan congregations are blunter. A Puritan of note

that Mather observed was Edward Taylor; a poet, minister, and doctor. He believed that the death

of Christ endowed the human body with healing abilities: “Christ’s human body was not holy,

that it was a normal human body, is to say (indirectly) that Christ’s body was microcosm. His

95 Sanday, Peggy Reeves, Divine Hunger: Cannibalism as a Cultural System (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986),102.96 An example of this type of project as done by Cotton Mather: “…there is not a Corner of the Whole World but what supplies a Stone towards the Infliction of such a Death upon the Blasphemy as justly belongs to it: and it has also this condemning of it, that Men would soon become Cannibals to one another by embracing it…”

Mather, Cotton, Cotton Mather: Sections, ed. Kenneth B. Murdock (New York: Hafner Pub. Co., 1926), 350.97 “The close parallel between a witch’s brew and a medicinal recipe underlines the shady border that supposedly divides them. Accusations of witchcraft unquestionable provided a mechanism for social control of women…”

Himmelman, P. Kenneth, “The Medicinal Body: An Analysis of Medicinal Cannibalism in Europe, 1300-1700,” Dialectical Anthropology 22, no. 2 (1997): 193.

Christographia…expresses this idea directly, when he says that Christ’s human body contains all

forms of life…”98 For Taylor, a substitution for Christ’s physical body is the human body.

Similar to the Catholic belief of transubstantiation, the flesh of the dead could save the living.

Cannibalism in the field of healing was so widely used by Europeans that it is classified today as

“medicinal cannibalism” or “corpse medicine.” This religious justification for integrating human

remains into the act of healing is what Mather writes on. Not only was this a strong allusion to

the Eucharist (something not done by Puritans) but it was also observed to be cannibalism by

Mather.

As a follower of Paracelsus, Taylor's’ justification of rite ingestion of human flesh and blood (of which he also approved) must besought in Paracelsus medical theory. This theory indicates that for Protestant Paracelsians of the period, medical cannibalism fulfilled a substitute function to that of the transubstantiated flesh and blood in the Sacrament.99

As with Columbus, the assertion of projections of constructed cannibalism in the Puritan

world was complicated. Taylor, unlike Columbus, was an observer and of European decent,

despite being observed by Mather. It is the observations of Taylor through Mather that best

illustrate the flexibility of this approach to cannibalism. In this case, endo-cannibalism and exo-

cannibalism are apt access points for looking at a person’s or cultures’ attitudes in regard to a

particular practice.

98 Gordon-Grube, Karen, “Evidence of Medicinal Cannibalism in Puritan New England. ‘Mummy’ and Related Remedies in Edward Taylor’s Dispensatory,” Early American Literature 28 (1993): 202.99 Gordon-Grube, Karen, “Evidence of Medicinal Cannibalism in Puritan New England. ‘Mummy’ and Related Remedies in Edward Taylor’s Dispensatory,” Early American Literature 28 (199): 185.

48

Cannibalism in the field of healing has been documented today as “corpse medicine” or

“medicinal cannibalism.” This style of healing has origins dating back from before Taylor, and

this lineage is evident in his personal library which included authors like John Woodall, John

Webster and Johann Schroeder.100 Much like the many other precursors to modern medicine, the

thought behind corpse medicine was strongly influenced by religion and pseudoscience. For a

Puritan like Taylor, the world view revolved around his faith. It was an interpretation of his faith

that leads him to conclude:

‘there is in him all sorts of Kinds of Life. From the life of a ‘Sweete little Herb, to the Life of an high and Holy Angell’: Christ has within Himeself all the elements of the macrocosm. i.e. mineral, plant and animal life, of for these are ‘essentially constitutive of Humane Nature.’101

To help clarify the logic behind this statement we have to revisit the statements made by Jesus in

the Last Supper. The same logic applies in transubstantiation:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.102

100 Gordon-Grube, Karen, “Evidence of Medicinal Cannibalism in Puritan New England. ‘Mummy’ and Related Remedies in Edward Taylor’s Dispensatory,” Early American Literature 28 (1993): 190.

101 Gordon-Grube, Karen, “Evidence of Medicinal Cannibalism in Puritan New England. ‘Mummy’ and Related Remedies in Edward Taylor’s Dispensatory,” Early American Literature 28 (1993): 202.

102 “Matthew 26:20-29”, KJV http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/Bible-Study-Tools/VerseLists/verse422.html.

This quote demonstrates how these concepts can be extrapolated from their religious texts.

Taylor was very much reliant on the idea of Christ’s duality in relation to physical form and

divinity. His puritan beliefs underscored a binary system built on a contradiction. Taylor’s

focus on the nature of Christ’s body is found even in his non-medical texts: “[Jesus] is as well

man as God, the Word was made Flesh…God was manifested in the Flesh…”103 How Taylor

views the physical makeup of the body of Christ is very important given this is his basis for

incorporating human parts into his healing remedies. Additionally Taylor is very explicit in his

understanding of the Host: “As he Saith: as the Living Father hath sent me, and I live by the

Father: So he that eaten my Flesh Shall live by mee i.e. shall live an Holy and Spiritual

Life…”104 Taylor is not the observer, but his own hyper focus on this matter was motivated by

the same fear felt by Mather.

The nature of the body of Christ is needed to place this cannibal practice into context.

From the contemporary perspective a Puritan would not be the stereotypical cannibal archetype.

Taylor was practicing an unorthodox form of Puritan doctrine and was once removed from

theologically and philosophically inspired healing. For Taylor the human body in relation to

other factors had different healing abilities;” medical attention to the body is necessitated by its “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26:17-30

103 Taylor, Edward, and Norman S Grabo, Christographia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), 46.

104 Taylor, Edward, and Norman S Grabo, Christographia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), 186.

50

physical deterioration; medical use of the body is made possible by its spiritual, occult

properties.”105 He would use the body to cure the body. Attribution "Examples of this belief in

healing with human flesh can be found in Taylor’s ‘Dispensatory’: ‘Mans brains and their Spirit

is called Gold on water, Aqua Aurea. Its an excellent water for falling sickness….Mans Heart,

dried and took cures the epilepsy…’”106 The terms used in Taylor’s works and of many others do

not employ the term cannibal, nor would he. The power that is derived from his practice was not

seen as cannibalism.107 When a European practiced the implied (removed or substitution) they

were not initially perceived as cannibals. This could be due to their in-group status and lack of

critical observers. Until they were observed, the social practice of eating human flesh was not

cannibalism, it was medicine.108

How do these ideas relate to projection? Taylor being a European does not, by default,

make him the observer. In the general case of the New World and more specifically New

105 Himmelman, P. Kenneth, “The Medicinal Body: An Analysis of Medicinal Cannibalism in Europe, 1300-1700,” Dialectical Anthropology 22, no. 2 (1997):185.106 Gordon-Grube quoting Taylor from Taylor, Edward. Dispensatory.

Gordon-Grube, Karen, “Evidence of Medicinal Cannibalism in Puritan New England. ‘Mummy’ and Related Remedies in Edward Taylor’s Dispensatory,” Early American Literature 28 (1993): 194.

Taylor, Edward, “Taylor, Edward. Dispensatory,” Ms. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, New Haven: 337-78.

107 Please see the previous section regarding Christopher Columbus.

108 To complicate matters Taylor could be seen as an observer projecting as well if he were placed alongside the healing practices seen to be done by “witches”: Mather could have also not approved of this type of belief because of its relation to witchcraft, “The close parallel between a witch’s brew and a medicinal recipe underlines the shady border that supposedly divides them.”

Himmelman, P. Kenneth, “The Medicinal Body: An Analysis of Medicinal Cannibalism in Europe, 1300-1700,” Dialectical Anthropology 22, no. 2 (1997): 193.

England, Taylor, was not a mainstream individual and was subjected to observation. This fractal

world view started on the grand scale of us versus them and was broken down all the way to self-

introspection on a destructive level. Cotton Mather not only followed this system, he preached it,

and did not realize that he too had a use for cannibalism, argued by scholar Karen Gordon-Grub.

In Gordon-Grub’s work she states that Mather dismissed this type of healing as the work

of the Devil, “Mather makes this comment [a quote from Mather’s Angel of Bethesda] in the

context of a discussion of medical remedies which elicit the aid of the devil…”109 By attributing

this to the devil, Mather is still placing the ability of its curative powers in the realm of

possibilities. He is not discrediting it by stating it is impotent but rather that it is not the proper

way in which to cure, “I declare, I abominate it. For I take Mans’ Skull to be not only meer dry

Bone, void of all Vertue [sic], but also a nasty, mortified, putrid, cartoonish piece of our own

species; and to take in Inwardly, seems an Execrable Fact that even the Anthropophagi would

shiver at….”110 There was ambivalence about this use of man-eating in this society. The power of

the words associated with the oral ingestion of man flesh or bone is evident in his “abomination”

declaration.

Being a Puritan, Mather also did not like the allusion to the Catholic doctrine of

transubstantiation. Mather said: “It is Folly akin to the Idolatry and the Superstition of the

109 Gordon-Grube, Karen, “Evidence of Medicinal Cannibalism in Puritan New England. ‘Mummy’ and Related Remedies in Edward Taylor’s Dispensatory,” Early American Literature 28 (1993): 189.110 Gordon-Grube quoting Mather from Angels of Bethesda.

Gordon-Grube, Karen, “Evidence of Medicinal Cannibalism in Puritan New England. ‘Mummy’ and Related Remedies in Edward Taylor’s Dispensatory,” Early American Literature 28 (1993): 199.

Mather, Cotton. The Angel of Bethesda. Ed. and intro. Gordon W. Jones. (Barre, Mass.: American Antiquarian Society and Barre Publications: 1972), 145.

52

Roman-Catholics, in looking to Saints for their Influences on our Several Diseases.”111 When

they managed to isolate themselves from the most obvious of “Others,” they began to judge

those within their group and make comparisons. Finally, when the teachings were so

overbearing and totalitarian in nature, individuals would begin to examine their own charter to

the point of severe mental anguish. Some, like Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, have argued

that the famous witch trials and the religious revivals were the community’s praxis for stress

placed on the individual via religion:

The parallel is underscored if we turn a full 180 degrees [from the symptoms of witchcraft] and examine, from the perspective of 1692, the first mass outbreak of religious anxiety which actually was interpreted as a revival: the so called ‘Little Awakening’…Here, as in Salem Village, a group of people in the town began, unexpectedly and simultaneously, to experience conditions of extreme anxiety. They underwent ‘great terrors’ and ‘distresses’ which threw them into ‘a kind of struggle and tumult’ and finally brought them to ‘the borders of dispair[sic].’112

Cannibalism for a Puritan was not just metaphorical. While engaging in the second level

of the fractal group, Cotton, being a dominant Puritan leader, used his position against Taylor’s

cannibalism to prop himself up. He would then use imagery of cannibalism to strike fear into

those he was teaching. The effectiveness of this scare tactic was compounded the more he was

111 Gordon-Grube quoting Mather from Angel of Bethesda.

Gordon-Grube, Karen, “Evidence of Medicinal Cannibalism in Puritan New England. ‘Mummy’ and Related Remedies in Edward Taylor’s Dispensatory,” Early American Literature 28 (1993): 189.

Mather, Cotton. The Angel of Bethesda. Ed. and intro. Gordon W. Jones. (Barre, Massachusetts: American Antiquarian Society and Barre Publications, 1972), 301.112 Boyer, Paul, and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974), 27.

able to identify it and condemn it in others. However, there was an ambivalent space for

cannibalism previously created in the Christian faith found in the Old Testament. In the 1599

Geneva Bible, used by Mather, there was room for divinely-inspired forced auto-cannibalism in

the book of Isaiah 49:25-26:

25 But thus saith the Lord, [a]Even the captivity of the mighty shall be taken away: and the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children,

26 And will feed them that spoil thee, with [b]their own flesh, and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine; and all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy Savior and thy Redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob.113

If there was an unspoken understanding on the part the Europeans that cannibalism was only

acceptable on their terms, then it was sacrilegious to consume the “gift from God” (the human

body). Cotton could be seen as having projected his personal fears of not being a good follower

of the Puritan teachings, onto his followers. The projection may not have been malicious;

however, Cotton’s motivation is unknown.

Placement in a social structure was also paramount in the eyes of a Puritan. Where one

stood in relation to God’s grace and how this compared to “the Other’s” standing, was crucial.

This relationship is again on the surface seen as binary, but upon comparison becomes more

113 “Isaiah 49:25-26” Tolle Lege Press, accessed November 3, 2015, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+49%3A25-26&version=GNV.

54

complex. When two opposing points are in a vacuum they appear to have a superficial

relationship, but once they are removed from this vacuum and placed into context they are now

required to maintain this relationship despite their new environment. The stress and pressure of

this new contextual space leads people to realize that not only are they observing but they are

also being observed. The omnipresent observer to a Puritan like Mather would be God. Leading

Puritan scholars, who are able to comment on many “observations,” may feel the strain of their

position in the physical context of the New World and feel the need to release this internal

tension.

Displacement is a term used to describe the redirection of praxis from an authority onto a

subjugated subject. Mather suffering from his placement in his community, despite being a

leader, felt the pressures of staying there and the responsibility for the congregation’s survival.

The use of the binary “us vs. them” is paramount in Mather’s works created by the readers of his

works. The term “cannibal” is never used by Mather, but rather he describes the congregation’s

relationship to God using cannibalistic imagery.114 Cannibals are something only reserved to

those identified as “Other” but there are varying degrees of the “Other.”

The winter months on the northeastern coast of the “New World” were not any less harsh

to the European colonists than they were to the Native Americans. The chilling elements acted as

an equalizer; if a group was ill prepared then the winter would bring them the most primitive

survival methods. The lack of control over one’s fate in times of desperation must have been be

truly terrifying and in this situation resorting to cannibalism is a way of regaining a form of

114 Please see the section where this imagery is described in the previous section.

control. Scientific proof has come to light that portions of a girl, of about fourteen years old, was

consumed by nameless members of the Jamestown settlement, but written evidence concerning

her death is absent. However, a letter from one George Percy “describes how, as president of the

colony, he tortured and burned alive a man who had confessed to killing, salting and eating his

pregnant wife.”115

There is no current explanation for this punishment, but possibly over the many years the

English suffered from starvation in Jamestown, they began to build their own unspoken customs

for dealing with the “Starving Time,” a possible custom being cannibalism. The perennial fear of

starvation in winter was something also known to the northern settlements as well, as seen in the

first winter of Europeans in New England, the Pilgrims.

Akin to this lack of control over one’s sovereignty due to the natural conditions is the

Puritan practice of Thanksgiving and Fasting. For the Puritans, “official fasts were declared

whenever it was felt that God had visited some us usually threatening or dangerous ‘judgment’

on his people.”116 Through the cannibalistic lens, this is interpreted as the sinner offering a

portion of their self to God through fasting. But the body still requires nutrients and it will pull

them from fat and muscles if the fasting is prolonged. The Puritans did not see the act of fasting

as a form of auto-cannibalism, but this was the end result. Traditionally cannibalism was seen as

an action; whereas auto-cannibalism in the form of fasting was seen as passive. If a Puritan

115 Neely, Paula, “Jamestown Colonists Resorted to Cannibalism: A gruesome discover in a trash deposit at Jamestown points to cannibalism” National Geographic News, last modified May 03, 2013, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130501-jamestown-cannibalism-archeology-science/.

116 Baker, James W. Thanksgiving: the biography of an American holiday. (Durham, New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire Press, 2009), 19.

56

wished to atone for their sins they had to assume the passive role in hopes of redemption. Passive

auto-cannibalism was a punishment, but the form of forced active auto-cannibalism as described

by Mather is a very different type of punishment. Not only is the instruction for this self-

destruction from an external force, but it is also an action.

There is a distinction made by the English between fasting and starving. In Joseph

Robson’s quote from the previous case study describing the struggling “Indians” as those with

the “power of fasting” but still succumbing to starvation corroborates this conclusion. By doing

this Robson has framed them as humans without control. Akin to suicide, this level of physical,

mental, and religious torture is unparalleled. Pulling from a traditional Western symbol of the

ouroboros, a serpent consuming its own tail, can also be seen as a symbol of implied auto-

cannibalism that represents a system of creation from destruction: “cannibalism represents a

symbol of life-giving power and destructive human desire…”117 A Puritan like Mather might

have been familiar with this popular medieval symbol and looked at this style of torture as a

perversion on this principal of a universal constant, such as time.

Conclusion

The definition of “group” is critical when trying to identify the motivations for the

accusations of cannibalism, because the definitions of cannibalism are dependent on this type of

identification. In the case study of Christopher Columbus the division of groups appear to be

very dramatic with one side being the explorers and the other the natives. However,

117 Sanday, Peggy Reeves, Divine Hunger: Cannibalism as a Cultural System (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986): 121.

identification with a group is fluid depending on the circumstances. A person, such as Columbus,

might vary his perceptions based on which group he is trying to relate to at any given time.

Using the communication method of comparisons he was able to report back on the

people that he encountered, however it was the influences and possible expectations placed on

Columbus by his identifying groups that could have motivated him to assert that there were

cannibals in a land that of which he had personally found no evidence. This case study

demonstrates not only the origins of the term “cannibal” but also the prime example of the theory

that the notion of cannibals was the product of cross cultural encounters. There was no way for

signifying cannibals in the Caribbean until Columbus reported that they existed.

Antithetically this thesis does not require the absence of man-eaters to still stand true.

This was proven in the case study of Cotton Mather and his observations of Edward Taylor. Both

men were Puritans in early New England, but they differed in their approach to their religion and

the role of cannibalism. Mather, being a man who would write to his congregation, often found

Taylor’s approach to faith inspired healing via human flesh to be an abomination of their faith.

Found in his own writings Taylor did practice what is called medicinal cannibalism, thus there

was in-fact a real man-eater in this case study. However, Taylor labeling himself as an observer

did not perceive what he was practicing as cannibalism but rather something more transcendent.

Mather was the observer in this case and documented Taylor’s actions as cannibalism.

Both case studies do demonstrate this thesis, but they have larger implications for their

application beyond this point. If each case study is expanded or if this application is applied to

58

other case studies the access point of cannibalism will prove to be a very powerful catalyst for

the creation of context. Over the course of time the definition of cannibalism has changed from

the classical sense, to the Early Modern usage, to the New World, and Early New England.

However, in more modern times the definition of cannibalism is now less reliant on the group

and more on the individual. For example the discussion was previously relocated to the larger

group and applied to a second group, such as Columbus to the Carib, but later it was seen on a

much smaller scale such as Mather to Taylor. It was Mather’s personal understanding of what

constitutes a cannibal that could be used against Taylor. Further inquiry into this could be done

with additional case studies or could by looking at historical figures like Edward Taylor who do

not approve of cannibalism seen in the practices of the “Other,” but he himself in fact does make

use of human flesh in daily life. It is this cognitive dissonance that could be more closely

examined. The benefits of this inquiry are the many data points that the term “cannibal”

connotes. Groups identity, religion, phycology, are some but not all areas that one would need to

investigate in order to build context around a historical claim of cannibalism.

It is the objective truth that when looking back into the past only a small portion of the

context is observable to the contemporary researcher. The modern researcher can be lead unfairly

to believe that they have an omniscient perspective compared to those they are observing in the

past. This is the case for past cannibal a scholar like Hogg and Sagan, but it is within the limits of

hindsight that a historical inquiry can start. As previously stated by Sanjay Subrahmanyam,

“when one culture reflects upon another and tries to ‘stereotype’ them the lamination of their

perceptions are reflected back onto them, thus causing an ‘observer effect.” The limitations on

the modern historical inquire become more and more compounded with every intervention into

the past. However, with the help from scholars like Subrahmanyam, Arens, and Obeyesekere this

sophisticated theory can be applied to cannibal scholarship. Given the many areas that are

needed to create a cannibal context it is very obvious why cannibals are given so much power in

the past and in modern day discussion. As Himmelman has stated, “The body in any era always

negotiates the problematic space between its mental self and the physical Other.” When

discussing cannibals all members of the conversation are required to do a level of introspection.

Bibliography

Secondary Sources Cited

Abler, Thomas S. “The Florescence and demise of Iroquoian Cannibalism: Human Sacrifice and Malinowski’s’ Hypotheses,” Man in the Northeast, no. 35 (1988).

60

Arens, William. The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979).

Avramescu, Catalin. An Intellectual History of Cannibalism. trans. Alistair Ian Blyth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).

Axtell, James. Natives and Newcomers: The Cultural Origins of North America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

Barker, Francis. Peter Hulme, and Margaret Iversen. Cannibalism and The Colonial World. Vol. 5. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Baker, James W. Thanksgiving: the biography of an American holiday. (Durham, N.H.: University of New Hampshire Press, 2009).

Boyer, Paul, and Stephen Nissenbaum. Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974).

Conklin, Beth A. “‘Thus Are Our Bodies, Thus Was Our Custom’: Mortuary Cannibalism in Amazonian Society.” American Ethnologist 22. no. 1 (1995): 75-101.

Den Ouden, Amy E.. “Locating the Cannibals: Conquest, North American Ethnohistory, and the Threat of Objectivity,” History and Anthropology 18, no. 2 (2007): 101-133.

Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of The Earth, trans. Richard Philcox (New York: Grove Press, 2004).

Flint, Valerie Irene Jane. The Imaginative Landscape of Christopher Columbus (New Jersey: Princeton University, 1992).

Gananath Obeyesekere. Cannibal Talk: The Man-Eating Myth and Human Sacrifice in the South Seas (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).

“Google Expanded Definition: Cannibal,” Accessed on October 12, 2015, https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cannibal%20definition.

“Google Expanded Definition: Anthropophagus,” Accessed on October 12, 2015, https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=anthropophagus+definition.

“Google Expanded Definition: Anthropophagy,” Accessed on October 12, 2015, https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Anthropophagy+definition.

Gordon-Grube, Karen. “Evidence of Medicinal Cannibalism in Puritan New England. ‘Mummy’ and Related Remedies in Edward Taylor’s Dispensatory,” Early

American Literature 28 (1993): 185-221.

Hamilton, Edith. Mythology (New York: Little Brown and Company, 2012).

Himmelman, P. Kenneth. “The Medicinal Body: An Analysis of Medicinal Cannibalism in Europe, 1300-1700,” Dialectical Anthropology, no. 22 (1997): 275-285.

Yukawa, Hideki. Creativity and Intuition: a physicist looks at East and West (New York: Kodansha International, 1973).

62

Hoffmannn, George. “Anatomy of the Mass: Montaigne’s ‘Cannibals,’” Modern Language Association 117, no. 2 (2002): 207-221.

Hogg, Garry. Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice (New York: Citadel Press, 1958).

Murphy, E. M., and J. P. Mallory. ”Herodotus and the Cannibals,” Antiquity 74, no. 284 (2000): 388-394.

Murphy, Patrick J., and Ray W. Coye. Mutiny and Its Bounty: Leadership Lessons from the Age of Discovery, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013).

Neely, Paula. “Jamestown Colonists Resorted to Cannibalism: A gruesome discover in a trash deposit at Jamestown points to cannibalism” National Geographic News, last modified May 03, 2013, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130501-jamestown-cannibalism-archeology-science/.

Nunn, George E.. “The Imago Mundi and Columbus,” The American Historical Review 40, No. 4 (1935), 646-661.

Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (New York: Penguin Books, 2011).

Reay Tannahil. Flesh and Blood: A History of the Cannibal Complex (New York: Stein and Day, 1975).

Richter, Daniel K.. The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization (Williamsburg: Institute of Early American History and

Culture, 1992).

Sagan, Eli. Cannibalism: Human Aggression and Cultural Form (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1974).

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. Divine Hunger: Cannibalism as a Cultural System (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

Scheidlinger, Saul. Psychoanalysis and Group Behavior: A Study in Freudian Group Psychology (New York: Greenwood Press, 1971).

Shailor, Barbara A. The Medieval Book, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991).

Smith, Frederick H. “European Impressions of the Island Carib’s Use of Alcohol in the Early Colonial Period,” Ethnohistory 53, no. 3 (2006).

Smith, Preserved. “Christian Theophagy: An Historical Sketch,” The Monist 28, no. 2 (1918): 161-208.

Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. Three Ways to Be Alien: Travels and Encounter in the Early Modern World (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2011).

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. “Transubstantiation,” Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. last updated February 6, 2015,

http://www.britannica.com/topic/transubstantiation.

64

Thrush, Coll. “Vancouver the Cannibal: Cuisine, Encounter, and the Dilemma of Difference on the Northwest Coast, 1774-1808.” Ethnohistory 58, no. 1 (2011):

1-35.

Toman, Walter. An Introduction to Psychoanalytic Theory of Motivation (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960).

Walker, Phillip L.. “A Bioarcheaological Perspective on The History of Violence,” Annual Review of Anthropology, no. 30 (2001).

Willson, E.O.. The Social Conquest of Earth (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation: 2012).

Primary Sources

“Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages.” biblos.com, accessed September 2015, http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-27.htm.

Fuson, Robert H.. trans., The Log of Christopher Columbus (Camden: International Marine Publishing Company, 1987).

Herodotus, Robert B. Strassler, and Andrea L. Purvis, The Landmark Herodotus: the histories, (New York: Pantheon Books, 2007).

Homer, Edward McCrorie, and Richard P. Martin. The Odyssey (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004).

“Isaiah 49:25-26.” Tolle Lege Press, accessed November 3, 2015, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+49%3A25-26&version=GNV.

Letter from Columbus to Luis de Santanged: Reproduced in digital facsimile by the Wisconsin Historical Society Digital Library and Archives from the Spanish

version of the 1493. Now in the New York Public Library (Document No. AJ-063: American Journey Collection, Wisconsin Historical Society Digital Library and Archives, 2003).

Mather, Cotton. “Decennium Luctuosum: Article XIX,” in Narratives of The Indian Wars 1675 - 1699: Original Narratives of Early American History. ed. Charles H.

Lincoln, Ph.D. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913).

Mather, Cotton, Cotton Mather: Sections. ed. Kenneth B. Murdock (New York: Hafner Pub. Co., 1926).

Mather, Cotton. The Angel of Bethesda. Ed. and intro. Gordon W. Jones. (Barre, Massachusetts: American Antiquarian Society and Barre Publications, 1972).

“Matthew 26:20-29.” King James Version. http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/Bible-Study-Tools/VerseLists/verse422.html.

66

Olson, Julius Emil, and Edward Gaylord Bourne. The Northmen, Columbus and Cabot, 985-1503 (New York: Scribner, 1925).

Philostratus, the Athenian, F. C. Conybeare, and of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea Eusebius. 1960. The life of Apollonius of Tyana: The Epistles of Apollonius and the Treatise

of Eusebius (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1960).

Polo, Marco. The Travels of Marco Polo the Venetian, (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1914).

Rowlandson, Mary. The Sovereignty and Goodness of God. ed. Neal Salisbury (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997).

Taylor, Edward, and Norman S Grabo. Christographia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962).

Taylor, Edward, “Taylor, Edward. Dispensatory,” Ms. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, (New HavenYale University).

The First Letter of Christopher Columbus to the Noble Lord Raphael Sanchez Announcing the Discovery of America: Reproduced in facsimile from the copy of the Latin version of 1493. Now in the Boston Public Library (Boston: The Trustees of The Boston

Public Library. 1891).

Wisconsin Historical Society Digital Library and Archives, “Letter from Columbus to Luis de Santangel” American Journey’s Collection, (Wisconsin, 2003).