The Urantia Book

Settings

Reading
Theme
Text size
Line spacing

Typeface

Width
Alignment
Show
Listening

Kept in this browser only.

Read through

cannibalism

17 paragraphs · about 4 minutes

Every paragraph the index cites under cannibalism, once, in the order of the book. Beside each stand the entries that cite it.

68:6.10Even in the twen­ti­eth cen­tury there per­sist rem­nants of these prim­i­tive pop­u­la­tion con­trols. There is a tribe in Aus­tralia whose moth­ers refuse to rear more than two or three chil­dren. Not long since, one can­ni­bal­is­tic tribe ate ev­ery fifth child born. In Mada­gas­car some tribes still de­stroy all chil­dren born on cer­tain un­lucky days, re­sult­ing in the death of about twenty-five per cent of all ba­bies.

89:5.1Mod­ern ideas of early can­ni­bal­ism are en­tirely wrong; it was a part of the mores of early so­ci­ety. While can­ni­bal­ism is tra­di­tion­ally hor­ri­ble to mod­ern civ­i­liza­tion, it was a part of the so­cial and re­li­gious struc­ture of prim­i­tive so­ci­ety. Group in­ter­ests dic­tated the prac­tice of can­ni­bal­ism. It grew up through the urge of ne­ces­sity and per­sisted be­cause of the slav­ery of su­per­sti­tion and ig­no­rance. It was a so­cial, eco­nomic, re­li­gious, and mil­i­tary cus­tom.

89:5.2Early man was a can­ni­bal; he en­joyed hu­man flesh, and there­fore he of­fered it as a food gift to the spir­its and his prim­i­tive gods. Since ghost spir­its were merely mod­i­fied men, and since food was man’s great­est need, then food must like­wise be a spirit’s great­est need.

89:5.3Can­ni­bal­ism was once well-nigh uni­ver­sal among the evolv­ing races. The San­giks were all can­ni­bal­is­tic, but orig­i­nally the An­don­ites were not, nor were the Nod­ites and Adamites; nei­ther were the And­ites un­til af­ter they had be­come grossly ad­mixed with the evo­lu­tion­ary races.

89:5.4The taste for hu­man flesh grows. Hav­ing been started through hunger, friend­ship, re­venge, or re­li­gious rit­ual, the eat­ing of hu­man flesh goes on to ha­bit­ual can­ni­bal­ism. Man-eat­ing has arisen through food scarcity, though this has sel­dom been the un­der­ly­ing rea­son. The Es­ki­mos and early An­don­ites, how­ever, sel­dom were can­ni­bal­is­tic ex­cept in times of famine. The red men, es­pe­cially in Cen­tral Amer­ica, were can­ni­bals. It was once a gen­eral prac­tice for prim­i­tive moth­ers to kill and eat their own chil­dren in or­der to re­new the strength lost in child­bear­ing, and in Queens­land the first child is still fre­quently thus killed and de­voured. In re­cent times can­ni­bal­ism has been de­lib­er­ately re­sorted to by many African tribes as a war mea­sure, a sort of fright­ful­ness with which to ter­ror­ize their neigh­bors.

89:5.5Some can­ni­bal­ism re­sulted from the de­gen­er­a­tion of once su­pe­rior stocks, but it was mostly preva­lent among the evo­lu­tion­ary races. Man-eat­ing came on at a time when men ex­pe­ri­enced in­tense and bit­ter emo­tions re­gard­ing their en­e­mies. Eat­ing hu­man flesh be­came part of a solemn cer­e­mony of re­venge; it was be­lieved that an en­emy’s ghost could, in this way, be de­stroyed or fused with that of the eater. It was once a wide­spread be­lief that wiz­ards at­tained their pow­ers by eat­ing hu­man flesh.

89:5.6Cer­tain groups of man-eaters would con­sume only mem­bers of their own tribes, a pseu­dospir­i­tual in­breed­ing which was sup­posed to ac­cen­tu­ate tribal sol­i­dar­ity. But they also ate en­e­mies for re­venge with the idea of ap­pro­pri­at­ing their strength. It was con­sid­ered an honor to the soul of a friend or fel­low tribesman if his body were eaten, while it was no more than just pun­ish­ment to an en­emy thus to de­vour him. The sav­age mind made no pre­ten­sions to be­ing con­sis­tent.

89:5.7Among some tribes aged par­ents would seek to be eaten by their chil­dren; among oth­ers it was cus­tom­ary to re­frain from eat­ing near re­la­tions; their bod­ies were sold or ex­changed for those of strangers. There was con­sid­er­able com­merce in women and chil­dren who had been fat­tened for slaugh­ter. When dis­ease or war failed to con­trol pop­u­la­tion, the sur­plus was un­cer­e­mo­ni­ously eaten.

89:5.8Can­ni­bal­ism has been grad­u­ally dis­ap­pear­ing be­cause of the fol­low­ing in­flu­ences:

89:5.91. It some­times be­came a com­mu­nal cer­e­mony, the as­sump­tion of col­lec­tive re­spon­si­bil­ity for in­flict­ing the death penalty upon a fel­low tribesman. The blood guilt ceases to be a crime when par­tic­i­pated in by all, by so­ci­ety. The last of can­ni­bal­ism in Asia was this eat­ing of ex­e­cuted crim­i­nals.

89:5.102. It very early be­came a re­li­gious rit­ual, but the growth of ghost fear did not al­ways op­er­ate to re­duce man-eat­ing.

89:5.113. Even­tu­ally it pro­gressed to the point where only cer­tain parts or or­gans of the body were eaten, those parts sup­posed to con­tain the soul or por­tions of the spirit. Blood drink­ing be­came com­mon, and it was cus­tom­ary to mix the “ed­i­ble” parts of the body with medicines.

89:5.124. It be­came lim­ited to men; women were for­bid­den to eat hu­man flesh.

89:5.135. It was next lim­ited to the chiefs, priests, and shamans.

89:5.146. Then it be­came taboo among the higher tribes. The taboo on man-eat­ing orig­i­nated in Dala­ma­tia and slowly spread over the world. The Nod­ites en­cour­aged cre­ma­tion as a means of com­bat­ing can­ni­bal­ism since it was once a com­mon prac­tice to dig up buried bod­ies and eat them.

89:5.157. Hu­man sac­ri­fice sounded the death knell of can­ni­bal­ism. Hu­man flesh hav­ing be­come the food of su­pe­rior men, the chiefs, it was even­tu­ally re­served for the still more su­pe­rior spir­its; and thus the of­fer­ing of hu­man sac­ri­fices ef­fec­tively put a stop to can­ni­bal­ism, ex­cept among the low­est tribes. When hu­man sac­ri­fice was fully es­tab­lished, man-eat­ing be­came taboo; hu­man flesh was food only for the gods; man could eat only a small cer­e­mo­nial bit, a sacra­ment.

89:5.16Fi­nally an­i­mal sub­sti­tutes came into gen­eral use for sac­ri­fi­cial pur­poses, and even among the more back­ward tribes dog-eat­ing greatly re­duced man-eat­ing. The dog was the first do­mes­ti­cated an­i­mal and was held in high es­teem both as such and as food.

Onward

Cited alongside: Andonites, Nodites, revenge, sacrifice