Section: Cannibalism for Medicinal Reasons or Out of Revenge

While the consumption of human flesh for culinary reasons was likely rejected by most, its usage for medicinal purposes seems to have been more widely accepted. The Bencao Shiyi, an influential collection of medical knowledge written in the early eight century, recommends it as a proven remedy against various severe diseases.58 A monk who lived in Chang’an, then the capital of the Tang dynasty,59 writes that the emperor Wuzong (814–846, ruled from 840) who had fallen seriously ill, “issued an edict ordering the provinces to submit the hearts and livers of fifteen-year-old boys and girls.”60 This medicine, however, did not save the emperor, who died half a year later.

Several centuries later, in the early thirteen century, a man was arrested in the Guangxi province in the south and charged with the murder of numerous boys and girls. According to an official report on the case written in 1218, the man, Lin Ts’ien-tche, suffered from an “incurable disease.” He sought the advice of a Taoist monk who “taught him that by utilizing the flesh of a young boy or a little girl, the flesh and bones of men were strengthened.” Accordingly, he hired several soldiers who “captured boys and girls between the ages of twelve and thirteen” and delivered them to his kitchen where their flesh was dried for consumption. As most of his victims were girls of low status (“young maidservants and concubines”), it seems that his deeds went unnoticed for quite a while. Ultimately, however, the many disappearances attracted the attention of the authorities; he had to flee and was subsequently arrested. Though several soldiers confessed to having kidnapped children for Lin’s benefit, the latter ultimately got off with “a light sentence.” The report listed complaints about that and urged the emperor to revise the verdict (with what outcome is not known).61

While cases of murder for medicine were certainly exceptional, the belief that eating human flesh was good for one’s health also created a unique Chinese form of largely nondeadly cannibalism that persisted for more than a millennium. Driven by filial piety—the Confucian ideal that daughters and sons ought to do whatever they can to ensure the well-being of their parents and parents-in-law—young people more or less voluntarily maimed themselves, cutting a piece out of their body in order to feed it to an older relative who had fallen seriously ill. The earliest mention of this practice in the dynastic histories refers to the late seventh century:

When his mother fell ill and a doctor said that consumption of human flesh would cure her disease, Youzhen cut a piece of flesh from his own thigh and presented it to her. His mother quickly recovered. An imperial edict said that a banner should be used to mark his door. . . . At the time he was considered a true gentleman.62

Bengt Pettersson’s detailed work contains all descriptions of piety-related cannibalism from the official histories—more than 110 cases, spanning the whole period from the late seventh to the early twentieth century.63 Newspaper reports indicate that the practice still occasionally occurred in the 1970s.64 For a long time, the authorities approved of such acts as long as the donor voluntarily gave up a part of their body. Several accounts mention that the donor was rewarded; in one case, he was even invited to an audience with the emperor.65

In later centuries, the preferred body part changed. Instead of offering their thigh, donors now often cut into their abdomen and removed a part of their liver to be cooked for the recipient. This must have been a very painful procedure, and the donor did not always survive it. In 1728, a man died after removing parts of his liver to heal his mother. The emperor reacted by withdrawing his approval of the practice—it was not forbidden but should no longer be rewarded.66 Though by then doctors had started to advise against such acts,67 the practice nevertheless persisted.

The earliest reports refer to men who gave up a part of their body to heal their mother or father. The earliest case mentioning a female donor is from 1130—a woman cut a piece of flesh out of her arm and fed it to her sick mother-in-law who promptly recovered. From then on, cases involving female donors are as frequent as those involving male ones. But while men usually gave their flesh to help their own parents, women generally did so to heal their mothers-in-law or other relatives of their husbands.68 This highlights the patriarchal nature of Chinese society. While filial piety was very important, a woman had to be loyal first and foremost to her husband’s family, her own relatives took second place.

Some of the donors were very young—from the nineteenth century, several cases involving boys and girls between seven and twelve years old are documented.69 Several accounts state that the self-sacrifice was in vain, and the ill person died nevertheless.70

While cases of self-mutilation were motivated by love and respect for one’s elders—though certainly in combination with a considerable amount of social pressure—cannibalism could also be motivated by hatred and a desire for revenge. In the first millennium, official authorities sometimes ordered the killing and consumption of traitors or rebels in order to punish them. In 319, the general and warlord Shi Jilong (who would later take the name Shi Hu and become an emperor, as mentioned above) captured another general, Xu Kan, who had turned against him. Xu Kan was executed, then “cut . . . to pieces” and consumed by the “wives and children” of those who had fallen victim to his attack. In 403, ten supposed traitors “were cut to pieces alive and eaten by a group of officials.”71

The earliest known account of China from the Arab world, assembled in 851/52 based on the reports of various travelers, notes that, when a local ruler had displeased the emperor, “they slay him and eat him. The Chinese eat the flesh of all who are killed by the sword.” Abu Zayd al-Sirafi, writing a few decades later, confirms this, adding that whenever a criminal had been executed, “he is given over to those who will eat him.”72 Such practices were not always welcomed by the authorities: sometime during the Tang dynasty (618–907) a law was enacted that forbade the sale and consumption of the flesh of criminals—indicating that, until then at least, such acts had indeed occurred.73

Authorities often adopted a permissive stance when private persons took the law into their own hands, killing and mutilating those who had wronged their families. In 627, a young man killed an older man who twenty years earlier had murdered his father and escaped unpunished. After killing the killer, the young man “slit his stomach, grabbed his heart and liver and ate them on the spot.” He was sentenced to death for murder, but when the emperor heard that he had acted to revenge his father’s death, he was granted a full pardon.74

Several similar incidents are described in the dynastic histories. In all these cases, a man killed another who had wronged his father and subsequently ate some body parts (heart, ears, nose, or eyes) to complete the revenge. Usually, the attacker was pardoned since he acted out of revenge and filial piety.75 Altogether, the official histories list about seventy cases of vengeance-related cannibalism committed either by officials or by private persons.76 A majority of these cases occurred between 317 and 960, while a smaller number (about a quarter of the total) took place between 960 and 1911.77

In his discussion of the general treatment of cannibalism in the official histories, Pettersson observes that the descriptions of such acts do not serve the purpose of marking people as savage or barbarian—in clear contrast to European perceptions, where cannibalism and savagery are inevitably linked. While cases of famine cannibalism are seen as a lamentable necessity, a majority of the descriptions of the practice under other circumstances are even positive. Self-mutilations for medicinal cannibalism are described as laudable instances of filial piety; most descriptions of vengeance-related cannibalism consider the act as heroic, only a handful of accounts are of a derogatory nature.78

Nevertheless, cannibalism was never widespread—except possibly during certain famines and in times of war—due to a lack of victims. The corpses of those who had died of natural reasons were not eaten, except by desperate people during famines. In certain periods, the flesh of executed criminals or war victims seems to have been a salable commodity, but such supplies were clearly limited in peaceful times. In the first millennium, it seems that a few wealthy men ordered women or children (whom they might have purchased as concubines or servants) to be slaughtered for feasts, but such acts were certainly rare—they might have led to a murder investigation if those committing them had not been particularly influential or well connected. Only during bad times, when a region was ravaged by famine or warfare, could cannibal acts become more than rare exceptions. Soldiers and fighters, being used to death and caring little or nothing for those considered enemies, also seem to have been able and sometimes willing to commit atrocities against civilians, in particular under Mongol rule.

(end of this chapter, more to come)