A Perfectly Natural History
By Bill Schutt
When you were a kid, did you ever feel as though you belonged to a completely different species than everyone around you? As though you were totally alien, a tiny island of strangeness in a vast sea of normality? That there was no one like you, no one who would ever understand why you liked the things that you liked, dressed the way the you did, wanted the things you wanted?
I did. When I was a kid, I was pretty sure that I was the weirdest person on the planet, humanity’s outlier, doomed never to do the right things and never to have companions in my own, odd interests.
I was wrong, though. There are other weirdos like me, and I can tell because otherwise there would be no market for books like ‘Cannibalism: A Perfectly Natural History‘.
Some books are about exactly what you think they’re about. ‘Cannibalism: A Perfectly Natural History‘ is both a history, and a natural history, of cannibalism. It describes the circumstances in the animal kingdom in which cannibalism reliably occurs (in what species, in what conditions). What animals eat their own young, and why? What animals eat other peoples’ young, and why? What animals eat other adults, and why?
And it’s a history of human cannibalism. Schutt, on principle, doesn’t spend time on so-called Cannibal Killers, like Jeffrey Dahmer, aberrant individuals who happened to eat other people. Instead, he is interested in institutions of cannibalism in human society, either rituals in which humans construct meaning around the eating of other humans, or circumstances in which humans semi-reliably eat other humans (like mass starvations).
He does spend a chapter on the Donner Party, the incident of human cannibalism with which most of his readership will be familiar. But he also devotes a chapter to, for example, the practice of placenta-eating, which he describes (defensibly) as cannibalism.
I can see already that I am going to have difficulty describing how happy it makes me that this book exists. ‘Cannibalism‘ isn’t literature, for sure, and it probably won’t go down as one of the all-time most beautifully written scientific texts. But it’s an entire book about cannibalism! It’s 300 pages of well-articulated information about the myths and facts of cannibalism – I really can’t offer praise much higher than that.
I think that there are two essential relationships that people can have to the grotesque. Some people have a basic disinclination to the weird and the gross. They find it aversive, or boring. They have no interest in learning, say, which insects can lay eggs under your skin, or how to get a lightbulb out of a human rectum (or why someone would even put a lightbulb in a human rectum, for that matter), or what an infection of flesh-eating bacteria looks like, or any of the other creepy information lurking at the corners of the human world.
And then there are people like me. It’s not that we like learning about serial killers, or bloodworms, or disturbing sexual perversions, not exactly. It’s that, as soon as we learned that the knowledge existed, we needed to have it. We were drawn to it. The gruesome has an irresistible fascination for us; say to us, “Don’t look at that – it’s disgusting, or wrong, or forbidden”, and you have only assured that we will look.
If you are the sort of person who is not attracted to the strange, then ‘Cannibalism: A Perfectly Natural History‘ is not for you, and it will help not at all if I tell you that, for example, there is an entire chapter on sexual cannibalism in the animal kingdom (though, of course, that was an immense selling point for me). It’s called ‘Sexual Cannibalism, or Size Matters’.
Which chapter heading also usefully describes the writing style of ‘Cannibalism’. Although Schutt is a professor of biology, ‘Cannibalism’ is meant for a popular audience, and is written in a jokey, approachable style.
I don’t mean that entirely as a compliment. Popular science is difficult to write. You never make everyone happy: you’re either too dense for the layman, or too dumb for the scientist. Schutt isn’t quite able to make up his mind on which way he’d like to err, so he sort of tries to disguise a lot of the actual science by surrounding it with dramatic description and dad-jokes:
“Insects undergoing pupation, the quiescent stage of metamorphosis associated with the production of a chrysalis or cocoon, are also vulnerable to attack from younger conspecifics. The ravenous larva of the elephant mosquito (Toxorhynchites) not only consumes conspecific pupae, but also embarks on a killing frenzy, slaying but not eating anything unlucky enough to cross its path.” (p. 23)
“All caecilians do share one characteristic unique to the amphibians: internal fertilization, and during this process, sperm is deposited into the female’s cloaca with the aid of a penis-like structure called a phallodeum…But as interesting as the concept of legless caecilians wielding their penises underground might be (admittedly, it disturbed some of my older Italian relatives until I explained the spelling differences)…” (p. 80)
But there is a lot of science, and that I do mean that as a compliment. I learned a lot about cannibalism, both in humans and in animals (I think my all-time favorite fun fact (soon to be deployed at parties, I can tell), is from the chapter on Christopher Columbus and the alleged cannibals he encountered in the New World:
“But whether or not these strange savages had tails (and even if they were supported by trained fish and Amazonian girlfriends), plans were soon being formulated to pacify the Caribs, who were now being referred to as Canibs. According to scholars, the transition from Carib to Canib apparently resulted from a mispronunciation, although in light of stories describing locals as having canine faces, I agree with Yale professor Claude Rawson that “Canib” may also be a degenerate form of canis, Latin for “dog”. Eventually, canib became the root of “cannibal,” which replaced anthropophagi, the ancient Greek mouthful previously used to describe people-eaters.” (p. 102)).
And Schutt deals properly and respectfully with the problem that many of the “facts” of human cannibalism, the famous stories from Papua New Guinea and of the Aztecs, among others, are probably exaggerated or fabricated. Even the so-called eye-witness reports were often racially biased, and accusing a tribe or a people of cannibalism was often just the easiest moral justification for enslaving them and confiscating their property.
I also want to put a small plug in for the illustrations, which are weird and charming and chosen without rationale that I can understand. Some are deeply helpful and clearly scientifically apropos, but some are bizarre and seem to be there just to amuse, which they do.
For example, the first is a useful one from the chapter on the Donner Party, which shows their trail. Next is one of dubious, but potential, utility, from the chapter on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, of the structure of a ‘hypothetical prion’. The third is stranger still, an illustration of ‘skull moss’, which is, as you might have expected, moss grown on a human skull (preferably that of a hanged man), and which was used to treat bleeding. And, perhaps most confusingly, and also from the chapter on Mad Cow Disease, is a drawing of a hamburger, in case you didn’t know what one looked like.
As, I said, charming, about as charming as a book on cannibalism could possibly be. And, if you are anything like me, that’s pretty charming.