I COULD JUST EAT YOU UP: THE REIGN OF MEDICAL CANNIBALISM FROM THE ROMAN ERA TO PRESENT DAY

Drinking blood has not always been the sole domain of vampires, however the undead creatures enjoy most of the publicity for this practice. Drinking blood was historically much more common than common sense suggests. The blood of the rich and the brave was considered a commodity in many cultures as it was thought to cure epilepsy (Cartwright). The word cannibalism drifts through our minds as we write off the concept as some rudimentary pseudo-medical practice. The disgust for these behaviours is so natural that it is not an exclusively modern reaction to the subject (Moffet 220). The controversy of practices like drinking blood and eating dead bodies has been at issue in all eras. Corpse handling in many cultures throughout history is regarded as sacred, therefore a negative response to practices such as medical cannibalism (the ingestion of human remains as a medical practice) is expected. However, the sacrality of the human body was one of the main reasonings behind early forms of the practice.

Medical cannibalism seems to go against so many cultural values it's unnerving to think traditional forms of the practice could have lasted and have been supported for so long. The practice was best documented in the cultures of Western Europe and Egypt, making those the most fruitful regions of study in an investigation of the subject. Medical cannibalism, more generally referred to as corpse medicine (the use of human remains in medicine) was not an uncommon practice. Corpse medicine was used by almost all parts of European society, including monarchs, religious leaders, and scientists, some who we still recognize today. For example, Robert Boyle (1627-1691), a renowned scientist and natural philosopher who exemplified modern science, was fascinated by corpse medicine, especially the use of the human skull to cure “Fits” (Sugg 89).

Today, the word mummy conjures images of bandage wrapped bodies from an Abbott and Costello movie. In sixteenth century Europe, the word meant something entirely different. Mummy was a drug: a powdered concoction made from a dried corpse. Traditionally, these corpses were supposedly taken from among the embalmed dead of the Egyptians, hence the modern use of its name. Mummy, and its liquid form mummia were the most common forms of corpse medicine in Early Modern Europe (Johnson 1338). These forms were referenced in both medical texts and pieces of literature at the time including Shakespeare’s Othello(3.4.65) and Macbeth(4.4.23).

Death is the one thing that spans all human culture, everyone dies, it is a human constant. Burial rituals and corpse handling procedures are inviolable ceremonies across the globe. Many cultures hold the belief of a human spirit or essence that must be protected or allowed to pass on. Therefore, the survival of something like corpse medicine, which contradicts many cultural taboos and mores cannot be a sheer fluke within medical history. How could something as controversial as corpse medicine be culturally acceptable enough to endure so long?

Many factors contributed to corpse medicine being a widely used medical practice. The coincidental success of some form of corpse medicine, its social acceptance because of its use by elites, as well as its ability to develop along side scientific ideals, allowed the practice to become ingrained within cultures and its controversial nature to be overlooked.

Successful trials

Corpse medicine was constantly changing and developing. It started in Ancient Egypt when lepers were bathed in blood as an early attempt at a cure (qtd. In Roach 154). In Europe and the Middle East it developed into forms such as powdered dried corpses and skulls (Sugg 15). During the times that corpse medicine was most prolific medicine was not an exact science. The philosophy behind medicine was governed by the idea of the human spirit and the four humours (Emotions and Diseases). Many medical practices were rudimentary at best, and could even worsen symptoms for the patients. Because of this any medicine that showed any sort of promise quickly became widely popular (Sugg 105). Through the development of corpse medicine a few versions of the practice came up that incidentally bore elements of effective treatments, including honey, myrrh and a type of lichen.

In Arabia, the corpses used medicinally were occasionally from voluntary donors. Certain tribes and villages would encourage their elders to start eating and drinking only honey (Shih-Chen). Eventually of course, this practice would kill the participants, at that point the others in the village would put the mellifluous bodies into vats of honey to be preserved for years. The honey soaked corpses would then be removed from the honey and eaten or applied to wounds (Roach 151). The thinking behind this practice at the time seems to be a combination of the ideas that the person’s old age signified a health inside them that could be harvested and preserved, as well as the pure and preservative nature of honey (Pomet 227).

Today, honey is a well known antibacterial. Its healing and preservative properties can be attributed to the hydrogen peroxide created by enzymes within it, as well as its ability to absorb moisture from surrounding tissue and dehydrate the bacteria (Mandal). If applied topically to wounds or rashes, it accelerates the healing process of the wound. However, the healing properties of unadulterated honey were not known by the twelfth century Arabians. They attributed the success of the treatment to the corpse within the honey instead of the honey itself. The success of this form of corpse medicine was spread through the rest of the Middle East and Europe (Roach 150).

Many forms of corpse medicine involved Middle Eastern or Egyptian mummies, either dried and powdered, or liquid rendered from the cooking of embalmed corpses. European apothecaries focused on the spices and preservatives used in the embalming process. The healing power of powdered mummy and liquid mummia was attributed to both the spirit of the corpse being preserved in the body by embalming as well as the bitumen traditionally used in the embalming process. Bitumen is the asphalt and salt from the areas surrounding the dead sea and added to the exotic allure of mummia (Sugg 115). However, in actuality, bitumen was rarely used in Egyptian embalming, the most common ingredients were different resins, most significantly myrrh (Dawson).

Bitumen has no major medical properties, myrrh on the other hand has many medical applications going back through history. It was traditionally used as an antiseptic by Grecians (Nordqvist). Myrrh is a proven antioxidant, which can help prevent diseases, prevent toxic poisoning, protect against cell damage, and reduce oxidative stress (Ware). While mummia and mummy would not be exceptionally beneficial for wounds or such ailments, the addition of myrrh would have decreased the prevalence of disease. While this may not seem very impactful, mummia was not simply used for specific diseases or ailments. It was more of a mild panacea, as widely used as advil today (Sugg 130). Because of how commonly used it was (Sugg 38), myrrh in mummia would have had a wider positive impact on public health. In support of this claim, it was evident that once European corpse trade from Egypt stopped and Egyptian mummies were banned for use for corpse medicine, and corpse medicine started being made from corpses in local cemeteries the use of mummia and mummy almost entirely died out (Browne).

Even after many forms of corpse medicine were abandoned, the one form that prevailed late into the eighteenth century in Europe was the use of the human skull and the moss that grew on the inside of skulls. Francis Bacon, in a recipe involving such a moss, specifies that the skull should be from a man who was hanged or suffered a violent death (Sugg 39). This moss has been documented in many medical texts at the time as being the lichen Usnea popularly known as Old Man's Beard (Bailey 912). The medicine was made by grinding up the part of the skull that had the lichen on it and making an extract from the mixture (Bailey 375). Usnea was used in similar manners as mummia was during its time; it was applied to and prescribed for almost everything.

Recent studies have found that Usnea and similar lichen actually show medical promise. Usnea can be used as a strong antioxidant and sterilizer (Turkez Aydin & Aslan). Similar to myrrh, the antioxidant properties of Usnea would prevent diseases and toxicity. Usnea, however, is a much stronger antioxidant than myrrh. The way it was prepared also increases the potency of its antioxidant effects. If the Usnea and skull mixture was applied topically, it would have killed most bacteria, helping to sterilize the wound. A medicine that could cleanse a wound and accelerate the healing process would be extremely sought after at a time before germ theory (Turkez Aydin & Aslan).

The medical benefits of these types of corpse medicine were almost never attributed to the actual scientific factors that allowed them to work. Instead the success of these techniques was blamed on their common factor, the corpses. While different times and cultures gave different reasons for why the practices worked, the harnessing of the human spirit, the exotic healing techniques of the Egyptians etc, they all necessarily involved the corpse itself. In Early Modern Europe medical techniques were not reliable. When a few accounts of a successful medical practice occur, that practice will have exaggerated importance and be absorbed into common medical use, overstepping cultural barriers.

Social Acceptance

Corpses are the bodies of the dead. They are people that lived and were known. So how could it be socially acceptable to ingest corpses and use them in medicine so commonly? Some of the things that would have hampererd the use of corpse medicine include any large scale religious opposition, or a simple failure of the practice to propagate within the general public. Neither of these occurred, which allowed Corpse medicine to prosper throughout Europe from the middle ages to the late eighteenth centuries.

Status was a strong influence over everything “popular” in Europe during the Middle Ages. Anything that was used by the upper class eventually became desired by the lower classes. Corpse medicine was no exception; it was not just a practice on display in worrisome corner apothecaries but was instead ingrained into the ruling class of Europe. The Monarchs of England, France, and Denmark were involved in corpse medicine (Sugg 6). England’s King Charles I’s corpse was used medicinally after his execution, his blood drank by epileptics looking for a cure, and blood soaked chips of wood from the execution block were sold as talismans (Wedgwood). Charles II made his own corpse medicine, based on a recipe that included a powdered human skull. His creation was then sold as a miracle drug referred to as King’s Drops (Sugg 96).

By the tenth century, the Catholic Church held immense power in Western Europe. If they had opposed corpse medicine, the practice would have been quickly abandoned by the majority of the population (TimeMaps). In fact, many of the original rationales behind early corpse medicine agreed with the beliefs and teachings of the Church. Not only did the Church agree with the idealism behind corpse medicine of the human body being sacred after death, many members participated in the practice (Metcalf). This included Pope Innocent VIII in 1492. Bloodletting at the time was not an uncommon practice, however it was not The Pope whose blood was drained but that of three children who were bled to death by the Pope’s physician. The Pope then drank their blood. While this did not cure him, the ailment being old age and very difficult to cure, it does show how corpse medicine was not opposed by the Church (Sugg 24).

Early fourteenth century European corpse medicine included Mummia, Mummy, and spiced human flesh (Sugg 105). The most popular types of corpse medicine came from, or at least were thought to come from Egyptian mummies. The embalming process was thought by Europeans to preserve the human spirit or essence within the body. This essence was thought to hold some sort of healing power (Noble 3). When the corpses were not embalmed it was thought a sudden or violent death would preserve the spirit and prevent it from decaying. This reasoning is not unique to fourteenth century Europe. It was believed by the Ancient Romans shown in their practice of treating epileptics by the strong, and violently spilt blood of fallen gladiators (Celsus 5.23) It is echoed in the seventeenth century statement by Nicolas Le Fèvre,“This sudden suffocation doth concentrate the spirits in all the parts by reason of the fear and sudden surprisal which seizes on the travellers,” . These reasonings were similar enough to the church’s teachings of the sacrality of the human body as host of the soul to have them support the practices of corpse medicine instead of oppose them (Metcalf).

Part of the long term success of European corpse medicine must be attributed to the popularity of the practice. If early fourteenth century corpse medicine was not as widely accepted within the culture it would not have been able to last as long. Seeing as much of the corpse medicine at the time was made from Egyptian mummies, the Egyptomania phase in France and Europe played a significant part in the popularity of the practices (Mckercher and Fazzini).

The exotic nature of the practices increased their popularity and created the sense that they were more reputable than they otherwise would be (Sugg 111). Similarly, “Chinese herbal medicine” seems to have more allure than “herbal medicine” in the modern day. The marketing label of “Egyptian” was a very powerful tool, with no element more enticing than the mummies, whose fame was eclipsed only by the pyramids from which they were wrested. In fact, the use of Egyptian corpse medicine became so popular that the trade of corpses from Egypt had to be banned, due to the number of tombs raided in search of the mummies (Sugg 4). This quickly created a black market trade of corpses from Egypt, both authentic and fake mummies, which were commonly simply slaves which were driven into the desert (in order to achieve a fast death), and then embalmed in a fast and rudimentary fashion (Sugg 105). Fake mummies became a problem in Europe, as said by Sir Thomas Browne, “There wanted not a set of Artificers who counterfeited mummies so accurately, that it needed great skill to distinguish the false from the true” ( Fragments on Mummies 1). Apothecaries in Europe started to use the corpses of the recently deceased, to the point where many had racks of drying carcases behind the apothecary to harvest ingredients like one would do with a herb garden (Roach 152). However, as the common corpses became more popular corpse medicine from actual Egyptian mummies became less and less available. When this was discovered, use of mummia and flesh was almost entirely abandoned and corpse medicine in Europe was isolated to the refined forms like liquid mummy and powdered bone (Johnson 1338). This shows how heavily the fact that the products were exotic, therefore mysterious and possibly powerful, enabled people to overcome the taboo and controversy.

The fact that corpse medicine was able to overcome the cultural taboos of the corpse speaks to how deeply ingrained it was in all levels of European society. The widespread use also could explain why it took so long for traditional corpse medicine to be entirely abandoned in Europe.

Corpse medicine was able to overcome the social taboo around corpses by popularity and the support for the practice from the church. Corpse medicine gained reliability from the exoticism of its Egyptian ingredients. It was backed up by the spiritual beliefs of the church and therefore gained support from more people, including the ruling class. The practices became more and more popular, which lead to the reasoning that a medicine would have to have some healing benefits to have so much support.

Development Parallel to Science

Corpse medicine changed and developed drastically since the first records of corpses used medically in Ancient Egypt. Corpse medicine developed from it’s origins of drinking blood to powdered embalmed bodies. From there, it developed into liquid forms of the same drug and spiced flesh. When those forms of corpse medicine were abandoned, powdered human skull and bones prevailed as the most common corpse-based medicine (Johnson 1338). All of these practices are labeled as corpse medicine because of their use of human cadavers. The persistence of corpse medicine can also be partially attributed to the development and changes within corpse medicine. Many of these practices seem barbaric to the people of modernity, but it was not uncommon for a society or culture that uses a form of corpse medicine to find previous forms of corpse medicine disgusting (Moffet 264).

One of the first forms of corpse medicine was the Egyptian method of bathing in the blood of women in order to cure an early form of Leprosy. As recorded by Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (Pliny the Younger) of Rome, “Woe to the people, for in the bathing chambers, tubs were prepared, with human blood for the cure of it.”(qtd. In Roach 154). This technique developed into the epileptics in Ancient Rome drinking the blood of gladiators. This practice was thought to be unsanitary and idiotic by Europeans during the Middle Ages; in a book about the keys to living healthier by Thomas Moffet, the blood drinking practice is described as “The seat and nurse of all inhumanity.” (Moffet 264). However, in the same book he also describes a process of using powdered mummia to create a tea like mixture to relieve internal stress.

Corpse medicine has been apparent in one way or another throughout so much of human history that it was able to develop alongside the development of medical and scientific ideology. As the scientific method developed, so did corpse medicine. When Roman epileptics were drinking blood, the main body of medical knowledge derived from the idea of the human spirit preserved within the blood of those who died violently (Cartwright). The drinking of blood was later justified by the idea of the four humors which at the time when the blood of kings was thought to be a miracle substance, governed most of medicine (Wedgwood). The four humors: black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood, were thought to make up the delicate balance of mental and physical health (Emotions and Diseases). In the sixteenth century, the scientific method was first recognized (Anderson 1), originally envisioned by Robert Boyle. At this same time corpse medicine was refined from powdered mummy and flesh to liquid mummy and powdered skulls (Johnson 1338). This simultaneous refinement of corpse medicine and medical science could actually have attributed to corpse medicine’s ability to overcome the taboos against it.

The constant development of corpse medicine allowed those who used it to justify the ingestion of a corpse. The people who used mummia and flesh in the fourteenth century were able to justify it in comparison to the blood drinking practices of Ancient Rome. The corpse medicine at the time was not held to the same cultural standard because it seemed so much more civilized than the practices of the predecessors within the practice. The Romans believed the Egyptian practice of bathing in blood was barbaric, the Grecian philosophers such as Celsus saw the Roman physicians as vile to prescribe their epileptic patients the blood of a gladiator (celsus 5.23). Fourteenth century Europe naturally saw all of these practices, including grecian use of bone marrow (Moffet 220) as insane concepts, and in quick succession fourteenth century mummia was found revolting by sixteenth century European apothecaries whose own prescriptions of liquid mummy was horrific to the late eighteenth century physicians themselves prescribing powdered human skull (Sugg 16). All of these unthinkable practices are not as far from home as one might think.

Today, all of these practices are thought of with piteous disgust even while in the latest survey 42% of Americans would willingly submit their bodies after death to be used in modern forms of corpse medicine.With a simple check mark in a box on the application for a driver's license, 42% of Americans are organ donors after death (Donate Life America). Who would find it bizarre to see through a dead man’s retinas, or to pump blood through someone else’s heart? Organ transplants are, while more scientifically advanced than previous practices, a modern form of corpse medicine. The first organ transplants in fact were based on the same reasoning as traditional corpse medicine. Organs from three month dead corpses were transferred to unlucky patients, the bodies were allowed to rot for so long because it was believed it would give the corpse more time to expel any afflictions the person had suffered in life (Watson). Naturally, these first attempts at organ transplantation were tragically unsuccessful, considering that decaying flesh is not the most sanitary material (Watson).

The current forms of corpse medicine show how easily the practice can seem innocuous, or even enlightened. Societies do not want to allow themselves to be seen as hypocritical, but for all that is known now in some scant centuries humans could look back at our current scientific and medical practices as rudimentary and barbaric. The artificial and lab grown organs being developed today could finally put an end to corpse medicine’s long reign. The closeness one has to the rationalizations of practices already ingrained into their society allows for the controversy around corpse medicine to go overlooked.

Conclusion

The human fascination with death is inevitable, because it is one of the only constants around the world. The practice of corpse medicine has persisted from Ancient Rome to the modern day. Corpse medicine has been ingrained in most of the major civilizations of Western Europe and has a foothold in modern medicine. Originally, corpse medicine gained reputability from almost coincidental medical properties of some of the ingredients, but as corpse medicine developed and changed it started to be more based in science. People today do not generally see such medically advanced practices as blood transfusions and organ transplants as corpse medicine or the implementation of corpses. This shows how easily something can be used in a society without the complete realization of what it is or what it involves.

Corpse medicine has been able to persist for so long in the face of a multitude of cultural taboos because of how ingrained it is within society as a successful medical technique and therefore it goes unquestioned and overlooked. Corpse medicine developed parallel to scientific methodology allowing it to seem constantly superior to the previous forms of the practice, and therefore a justifiable practice.

Citations

Andersen, Hanne. "Scientific Method." Stanford University. Stanford University, 13 Nov. 2015. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

Bailey, N. An Universal Etymological English Dictionary. 21st ed. London: Oxford U, 1726. Print.

Browne, Thomas, Sir. Fragment on Mummies. London: n.p., 1684.University of Chicago. University of Chicago. Web.

Cartwright, Mark. "Roman Medicine." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Ancient History Encyclopedia, 26 Oct. 2013. Web. 07 Oct. 2016.

Celsus. De Medicina. Vol. 5. N.p.: Teubner, 1915. LacusCurtius. 21 Feb. 2006. Web.

Dawson, Warren R. "Mummy as a Drug." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine, Nov. 1927. Web. 08 Oct. 2016.

"Donate Life America Announces 100 Millionth Organ, Eye and Tissue Donor Registered in the U.S. - Donate Life America." Donate Life America. N.p., 10 June 2016. Web. 09 Oct. 2016.

"Emotions and Disease: The Balance of Passions." U.S National Library of Medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2016.

Fèvre, Nicaise Le, and P. D. C. A Compleat Body of Chymistry. London: Printed by Tho. Ratcliffe for Octavian Pulleyn, Junior ..., 1664. Print.

Johnson, Samuel. "Mummy." A Dictionary of the English Language: A Digital Edition of the 1755 Classic by Samuel Johnson. Edited by Brandi Besalke. Last modified: January 5, 2013.

Mckercher, Mary E., and Richard A. Fazzini. "Egyptomania: Sphinxes, Obelisks, and Scarabs." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2016

Metcalf, Peter. "Wine of the Corpse: Endocannibalism and the Great Feast of the Dead in Borneo | Representations." Wine of the Corpse: Endocannibalism and the Great Feast of the Dead in Borneo | Representations. N.p., 1978. Web. 08 Oct. 2016.

Moffet, Thomas. Health's Improvement Or, Rules Comprizing and Discovering the Nature, Method and Manner of Preparing All Sorts of Foods Used in This Nation. Comp. Robert James and William Oldys. Madrid: n.p., 1746. Print.

N/A. "Medieval Europe: Church History." TimeMaps Atlas of World History. TimeMaps, 2016. Web. 17 Nov. 2016

Noble, Louise Christine. Medicinal Cannibalism in Early Modern English Literature and Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Print.

Nordqvist, Joseph. "Myrrh: Uses, Health Benefits, Precautions." Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 3 Dec. 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2016.

Pomet, Pierre, Joseph Pitton De Tournefort, and Nicolas Lémery. A Complete History of Drugs. London: Printed for J. and J. Bonwicke, S. Birt, W. Parker, C. Hitch, and E. Wicksteed, 1748. Print.

Roach, Mary. Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Kenneth Muir. Othello. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1968. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and John Wilders. Macbeth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print.

Shih-Chen, LI. Chinese Materia Medica. N.p.: n.p., 1597. Print.

Sugg, Richard. Mummies, Cannibals, and Vampires: The History of Corpse Medicine from the Renaissance to the Victorians. London: Routledge, 2011. Print.

Türkez, Hasan, Elanur Aydın, and Ali Aslan. "Effects of Lichenic Extracts(Hypogymnia Physodes, Ramalina Polymorpha and Usnea Florida) on Human Blood Cells: Cytogenetic and Biochemical Study." Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research : IJPR. Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, 2012. Web. 08 Oct. 2016.

Ware, Megan. "Antioxidants: Health Benefits and Nutritional Information."Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 11 Nov. 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2016.

Watson, C. J. E., and J. H. Dark. "Organ Transplantation: Historical Perspective and Current Practice." British Journal of Anaesthesia108.Suppl 1 (2011): I29-42. Web.

Wedgwood, C. V. A Coffin for King Charles; the Trial and Execution of Charles I. New York: Macmillan, 1964. Print.