[89] Cranz, History of Greenland, i. 178.
[90] Pasquarelli, quoted by Hartland, op. cit. ii. 246.
[91] Ratzel, History of Mankind, ii. 212.
Human flesh or blood is not only believed to impart certain qualities or beneficial magic energy to him who partakes of it, but also serves as a means of transferring conditional curses from one person to another. This I take to be the explanation of cannibalism as a covenant rite; in a previous chapter I have tried to show that the main principle underlying the blood-covenant is the idea that the transference of blood conveys to the person who drinks it, or is inoculated with it, a conditional curse which will injure or destroy him should he break his promise.[92] The drinking of human blood, or of wine mixed with such blood, has been a form of covenant among various ancient and mediæval peoples, as well as among certain savages.[93] In some South Slavonic districts compacts between different clans are even now made by their representatives sucking blood from each other’s right hands and swearing fidelity till the grave.[94] In certain parts of Africa, again, the partaking of human flesh, generally prepared in a kind of paste mixed with condiments and kept in a quaintly-carved wooden box and eaten with round spoons of human bone, constitutes a bond of union between strangers who are suspicious of one another or between former enemies, or accompanies the making of a solemn declaration or the taking of an oath.[95] Among the Bambala, a Bantu tribe in the Kasai, south of the River Congo, cannibalism accompanies the ceremony by which a kind of alliance is established between chiefs of the same region. The most powerful chief will invite the other chiefs of the neighbourhood to a meeting held on his territory, in order to make a compact against bloodshed. “A slave is fattened for the occasion and killed by the host, and the invited chiefs and their followers partake of the flesh. Participation in this banquet is taken as a pledge to prevent murder. Supposing that a chief, after attending an assembly of this kind, kills a slave, every village which took part in the bond has the right to claim compensation, and the murderer is sure to be completely ruined.”[96]
[93] Strack, op. cit. p. 9 sqq. Rühs, Handbuch der Geschichte des Mittelalters, p. 323. Supra, [ii. 207 sqq.]
[94] Krauss, ‘Sühnung der Blutrache im Herzögischen,’ in Am Ur-Quell, N.F. i. 196.
[95] Johnston, in Fortnightly Review, N.S. xlv. 28.
[96] Torday and Joyce, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxxv. 404, 409.
For the practice of eating relatives or friends, finally, some special reasons are given besides those already mentioned. It is represented as a mark of affection or respect for the dead,[97] as an act which benefits not only the person who eats but also him who is eaten. The reason which the Australian Dieyerie assign for their endo-anthropophagy is, that should they not eat their relatives they would be perpetually crying and become a nuisance to the camp.[98] The natives of the Boulia district, Queensland, among whom children that die suddenly are partly eaten by the parents and their blood brothers and sisters, say that “putting them along hole” would make them think too much about their beloved little ones.[99] In the Turrbal tribe in Southern Queensland a man who happened to be killed in one of the ceremonial combats which followed the initiation rites was eaten by those members of the tribe who were present; and the motive stated is that they ate him because “they knew him and were fond of him, and they now knew where he was, and his flesh would not stink.”[100] The Bataks of Sumatra declared that they frequently ate their own relatives when aged and infirm, “not so much to gratify their appetite, as to perform a pious ceremony.”[101] Among the Samoyedes old and decrepit persons who were no longer able to work let their children kill and eat them in the hope that they thereby might fare better after death.[102] The Indian of Hayti “would think he was wanting to the memory of a relation, if he had not thrown into his drink a small portion of the body of the deceased, after having dried it … and reduced it to powder.”[103] Among the Botocudos old men who were unable to keep up in the march were at their own request eaten up by their sons so that their enemies should be prevented from digging up and injuring their bodies;[104] whilst mothers not infrequently consumed their dead children out of love.[105] The Mayorunas considered it more desirable for the departed to be eaten by relatives than by worms;[106] and the Cocomas, a tribe of the Marañon and Lower Huallaga, said it was better to be inside a friend than to be swallowed up by the cold earth.[107] It is impossible to decide how far these statements represent original motives for the custom of eating dead relatives. They may be later interpretations of a habit which in the first place sprang from selfishness rather than love.