Eat Thy Neighbor: A History of Cannibalism

by Daniel Diehl, Mark P. Donnelly

Cannibalism is unquestionably one of the oldest and deepest-seated taboos. Even in an age when almost nothing is sacred, religious, moral and social prohibitions surround the topic. But even as our minds recoil at the mention of actual acts of cannibalism there is some dark fascination with the subject. Appalling crimes of humans eating other humans are blown into major news stories and gory movies: both Hitchcock's "Psycho" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" were based on the crimes of Ed Gein, who is profiled, along with others, in this book. In "Eat Thy Neighbour," the authors put the subject of cannibalism into its social and historical perspective. They present a lively and informative account of cannibalism, and cannibals, from the earliest known incidents to the present day. They include cases of ritual cannibalism in early and primitive societies such the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea; cases where famine, poverty, disease or war has left no alternative; cases in mythology, legend, literature, and fairytales like "Hansel and Gretel"; and cases of individuals from the Middle Ages to the present - Mrs Lovett and Sweeny Todd, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Armin Meiwes, the recent German cannibal who found his victim via the internet.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, True Crime, Anthropology, Crime, Death, Science

246 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first chapter of this book was brilliant, but afterwards it veres away from history, genuine history, and into a series of one chapter biographies on cannabalistic serial killers. The shift is from anthropology/history into True Crime.

For this reason I only gave the book 3 stars.

What is needed is a good history of cannabalism for our species. That would be interesting. This sort of book is simply more lurid true crime non-fiction with no in-depth analysis of why as it relates to the greater history of the behaviour in our species.

All in all, an indifferent book.

Not Recommended.

[Goran Ovčariček · Rating 2 out of 5]

The authors of the book are two American historians, Daniel Diehl and Mark P. Donnelly. This is the original title of the book published in 2006; however, the one I read was translated to Croatian and published in 2010 under the literally translated title. The book itself is a relatively interesting and easy-to-read reading, which ultimately suffers from a few serious setbacks. The most severe one being the authors’ tendency to resort to cheap theatrical tricks, their lack of effort to produce original analysis and their desire to stamp out “fun” material.

This book could easily be divided into two, unequal parts. The first one deals with culture-anthropological aspects of cannibalism throughout the historical communities, which is supplemented by a rich commentary taken from the authors that delved with this kind of topic substantially deeper. This is due to the topic being thoroughly investigated and thought upon in historiography, anthropology and such sciences.

The second, and larger part of the book, covers the relatively “modern” cannibals, respectively their biographies and morbidly disgusting details of their crimes. However, the deeper analysis present in the first part of the book is sadly lacking in the second part. The authors present no hypotheses, instead satisfying themselves with mere documenting the already documented cases. Thus, with that in mind, whilst reading these morbid details, one cannot help but wonder what the purpose of such a book is. There are no deeper, cultural analyses and the authors limited their conclusions to a critique of modern journalistic sensationalism, whilst at the same time using that same “popish” sensationalism and today’s grotesque culture fascinated with blood and crimes to sell their book. Indeed, the book comes out as a lightweight, shallow and completely devour-able piece of literature that ultimately lacks substance to give the reader a satisfying feeling after reading it. Therefore, it falls under the “evening entertainment” rather than under a “thought provoking” category.

FINAL MARK: 2/5 (it was ok)

[Jane Butane · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was fantastic. I enjoyed how it divided up the various circumstances where cannablism may arise such as during starvation or through religious and cultural beliefs as well as lots of information on numerous famous killers who happen to have eaten either part or all of their victims.

[coty ☆ · Rating 1 out of 5]

this caught my interest because it seemed like a more "academic" version of cannibalism by bill schutt, which is probably one of my favorite nonfiction books to date, though it relies on a lot of dark humor and more anedoctal evidence when exploring the topic. i wanted something that really dug into the history of cannibalism, and for the most part, that IS what eat they neighbour does - at first glance, it seems to be an analytical approach to the subject. i liked the opening, the defining of cannibalism and its "types", the brief exploration of its presence in mythologies - but when the authors begin to explore more specific examples, the book really lost me.

the first section is about historical and cultural cannibalism, discussing various tribes that have partaken in cannibalism and their reasons as to why, and i was pleasantly surprised when the authors acknowledged that some tribes have historically been deemed cannibals without sufficent evidence by white men in order to proclaim them "savage" and essentially ensure that they could then colonize them - so it surprised me when the authors continued to use the same word, alongside barbaric, to describe native americans, africans, and the various other nonwhite cultures explored in this section. there's very little discussion of cultural cannibalism in europe outside a vague mention of worshippers of dionysus and the acknowledgement that historical sites located in spain have shown evidence of cannibalism, which i found odd, and was my first red flag of how this book was going to go. why spend so much time on nonwhite cultures and only mention europe's history in a few sentences?

i wondered if it was because this book was published in '06 and maybe there just wasn't enough information on cultural cannibalism in european cultures but further comments made in later chapters regarding people of color (black people specifically) really show the authors' biases regarding people of color that tainted so much of the work.

it isn't just the hyperfocus on people of color that makes the first section of the book questionable, though; it's the actual content itself. when i did (admittedly, cursory) searches of some of the tribes mentioned, only a few seemed to actually have evidence of having committed cannibalism for whatever reason, while i couldn't find confirmation for others. this is a recurring theme in the book where a lot of information is blatantly wrong; in the second half of the book, for example, where each chapter explores specific individuals who have committed cannibalism, the authors try to posit that sweeney todd was a real person. when looking up the sources cited, most, including the author they say they're "indebted" to (peter haining), are labelled as dubious at best. most historians agree todd was never real, because there is absolutely no evidence of his existence.

the authors also bring up henry lee lucas, infamous for confessing to things he never did because the police pressured him into it; the authors even acknowledge his tendency to lie, so i find it unprofessional to even bothering to include him in this book when almost everything he said he did was false.

another thing they try to claim is that ed gein was a cannibal, and even try to say he was responsible for murders that were ultimately not attributed to him. it'd be one thing to point out how he was suspected of them but they just flat-out say he committed these crimes when he was only convicted of a singular murder, and never seemed to even be accused of cannibalism himself.

most of the specific cases presented in section two are about western cannibals (with some exceptions), and for the most part, are white. they aren't treated with much sympathy (the authors seem to have a contempt for the poor and the mentally ill, to be frank), but they are rarely labelled as "savage" or "barbaric", like the tribes explored in the first part of the book, and i find that pretty odd. the authors also have this tendency to victim-blame, and to be really weird about the victims in general. when exploring gary heidnik and his crimes, there's a lot of ableism, the r-slur is constantly used, and the victims are not really given any "life", and i do suspect that it's because they were women who were black and hispanic.

in the chapter disccusing issei sagawa, the authors try to say that his subsequent 'fame' after his release is because japanese people don't see white people as people, and basically try to claim that cannibalism is a "part" of their culture, revisiting claims that during WWII, japanese soldiers would hunt down enemy combatants to eat them.

what could've been an interesting book is just bogged down by racism and misinformation. and to end it, the authors claim that cannibalism cases are 'on the rise' because of a growing population, "excessive political correctness", and the "breakdown of community, religious and family structures that traditionally helped keep anti-social behavior in check." this book was written in 2006 and is essentially making the claim that "wokeness" causes cannibals. i bet the authors have the stupidest political takes these days

[Chrissie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of the book is very good for describing the World's murky history of cannibalism. The latter half of the book with more modern accounts of cannibalism tends to tip towards sensationalism and media hype. While the descriptions are very thorough and disturbingly detailed I think if the accounts were written more matter of fact like the first half of the book, I would have given a higher rating for this text. A good read if you like crime/crime thriller books with a more real edge.

[iza · Rating 3 out of 5]

it was definitely an interesting read and i can't say i didn't mostly enjoy it but i found myself questioning the contents of the book quite often, and when i would go to find sources and confirmation i would often times just... not find them. because there aren't any, as far as i'm aware??? i only found one article claiming that sweeney todd and margery lovett might have been anything but fictional, but even then, this book is very adamant about them being real people and if i didn't know better and was simply going off this book i would fully believe that sweeney todd was a real person that walked this earth. So maybe some misinformation involved? or maybe not enough clarification?
Of course there's the strange tendentious language that the authors insist on using (repeated usage of terms such as savage, barbaric etc – only used to describe non white people, native tribes) and a lot of "political correctness" talk that made me roll my eyes (did they seriously suggest that wokeness causes cannibalism to be On the rise. What is going on). As i said it's not that i didn't like this book, but it's definitely not an academic source that i'd put too much trust in, which is unfortunate since the authors are historians

[Δημήτριος Καραγιάννης · Rating 4 out of 5]

Exhilarating and stunning, a very precise and accurate research put into paper concerning a taboo topic

[Faris Naufal Rahman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I must say this book is, in it's own way, educative and entertaining. The first one-third of the book elaborated cannibalism from a social and cult/religious point of view. The rest two-third is probably my favorite part which includes thorough biographic stories on cannibalism cases.
Overall, a worth-to-read book.

[not an exit · Rating 1 out of 5]

was in the mood for something a bit more serious with some academic background but instead just kept boiling with rage every time i remembered how they said sweeney todd and margery lovett were real. like guys. cmon now a bit more research and less cheap tricks for shock value couldn’t hurt

[Selkie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was rather disappointed in this book as it dealt more with criminals & cannabalism, rather than the anthropology of cannibalism.

[David Alves · Rating 3 out of 5]

Alguns livros são maus, outros são bons. Este está no meio termo.

Não há muito a dizer. O Livro começa por apresentar um debate compreensivo sobre as origens históricas e humanas do canibalismo, progredindo depois para relatos de vários casos de canibalismo, o que leva à uma breve incursão pela questão "há cada vez mais canibais?". Parece que sim, diz o autor, e o stress que as sociedades sofrem é a principal causa.

Os Primeiros capítulos resultam muito bem. São deveras interessantes, têm exposições explicações muito boas e esclarecedoras. Cobrem as percepções do canibalismo no mundo ocidental, particularmente no anglo-saxónico, estuda os factos arquelógicos que comprovam a prática, a história da prática em todo o mundo e o surgimento de canibalismo em situações extremas. É assim que o livro todo deveria ser. Asseguro que seria muito mais interessante, embora muito mais curto.

O capítulos sobre casos particulares cobrem lendas e acontecimentos durante a história e atualidade. É a partir daqui que o livro descarrila. Verdade seja dita, quando comecei a ler o livro, esperava ler algo do género do que li nos primeiros capítulos, não sobre alguém que queria matar outro para beber o seu sangue, ou comer alguma parte do seu corpo, empurrado pela sua psicose esquizofrénica...umas sete vezes, para depois saber o que estava no relatório da polícia e qual e como foi dada a sentença no tribunal. Julgava que iria ler sobre canibalismo, não sobre psicopatas. E neste sentido sinto que fui enganado pelo livro. O título não faz sentido. É apenas incompleto e enganador. Devia clarificar que MAIS DE METADE é mais sobre psicopatas do que canibalismo propriamente dito. Foi uma desilusão. O que o salva é que consegue não ser completamente aborrecido. Por alguma razão, o conteúdo não é muito interessante, mas também não é aborrecido ao ponto de querer para de ler para fazer alguma outra coisa.

O Capítulo final é sobre a questão de que acima falo. Este deveria ter sido juntada aos três ou quatro capítulos iniciais que são realmente interessantes e contribuem para a qualidade do livro, e ser publicado tal como ficaria, sem ter tanta palha pelo meio. Ou palha alguma, até.

O que me deixou impressionado também é como, sendo um livro preparado por historiadores ( o que se nota de caras, pelo registo académico popular desnecessário, e pelas conclusões que são retiradas) é que ficou a faltar referir episódios. Conhecem-se casos de Canibalismo durante a guerra do Congo ( há até um documentário da Vice sobre o assunto), e a sua negligência é apenas uma demonstração de vários pontos fracos do livro: falta uma análise profunda a um fenómeno recente e coletivo, em vez de várias análises criminais.

O Livro receberia duas estrelas se fossem só os relatos de psicopatas a comer pessoas, mas como tem aquilo que os antecede e lhes sucede, merece três. Se tivesse apenas isso, talvez quatro ou cinco estrelas seria o mais adequado. É óbvio que essa inclusão puxa para baixo a qualidade do livro. Só não puxa para o negativo porque não é completamente chato. Mas acho que a crítica acaba por ser positiva porque me vejo obrigado a simpatizar com o livro. Esperava mesmo ler sobre o Congo, quem sabe outras ocasiões. Mas não. Nem uma vez é referido. Mas isto já é subjetivo, por isso decidi que não deveria ter grande influência na minha opinião.

Deveria alguém ler este livro? Não sei, depende, deve ser interessante para quem queira saber psicopatas. Se o interesse é apenas canibalismo, as primeiras 50 páginas e TALVEZ as últimas 6 sejam úteis (não consigo deixar de acreditar que só 56 páginas é que são realmente sobre o fenómeno e não sobre alguém que tinha desejos canibais), saltando os CATORZE capítulos sobre psicopatas.

[Robert Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

I previously read the same authors’ other book on the history of torture (which I think actually came out after this one, but I read them out of order) and enjoyed it so I was keen to learn about the history of that greatest of all the taboos. I wasn’t sure exactly how they’d handle such a broad topic, but I think they managed a good balance between the cultural and the criminological.

The first part of the book and the shorter part is a sort of cultural anthropological piece that discusses the big picture of cannibalism as a cultural practice throughout history and around the world. It’s fascinating reading and well-researched, but admittedly a bit of a superficial treatment of the subject because it is only fifty pages or so.

Where the book shines more is in the second part, wherein the authors go relatively deep in their descriptions of several true crime cases, many of which I already knew about and several of which I did not. To the extent I knew about many of the cases, I found the authors mostly did a good job of presenting the facts of the cases, with the possible exception that in some cases the full truth isn’t conclusively known and in those cases the authors sometimes didn’t completely cover the range of conflicting interpretations of the evidence available. A minor quibble, though, because the research overall is solid.

Similarly, the tone is I think just right for a book like this. Without being disrespectful to the horrors of their subject matter, the authors manage to tell the stories with a light enough tough and with sufficient humor to render even so unpalatable a topic to be an interesting and, dare I say, even enjoyable read.

If you’re looking for a true “history” of cannibalism, this isn’t really that. The closest it comes is in its first part and it just doesn’t go deep enough to be called a true history. But if you’re looking for a bit of a history along with a collection of infamous case studies from the true crime literature, it’ll be right up your alley.

[Gordan Karlic · Rating 3 out of 5]

This wasn't what I excepted, I expected this book to be more like its chapter 1, scientific and historical, but it ended up more sensualistic and gory.
Pretty much this book is about the goriest mass murderers that were cannibals, without broader reasoning or some sort of conclusion.
Pretty sure I wouldn't took this book had I knew it will be like this because there are some seriously fucked up people.
If you are interested in an aggregate of crazy cannibalistic people this is for you, if not, don't read this.

[Alice · Rating 2 out of 5]

I feel like this book could have benefitted from a more thorough editing process, a more in depth look at historical acts of cannibalism, and without the final chapter. As a historical text it reads just fine, if inherently xenophobic, especially when referring to both nations from the former USSR and Japan. The case studies seem determined to paint cannibalism as some kind of secondary aspect of mental illness, or the fault of inept mothers, despite the authors reminding the reader that "we are neither criminal psychologists nor psychiatrists;" (page 225). There are grammatical errors sprinkled throughout the text, too.

I feel as if, as historians, the authors should have demurred to more expert opinions on the why of cannibalism, but they make their opinions crystal clear in the final chapter:

"If, indeed, there is a rising tide of cannibalism - along with severe forms of anti-social behavior - at work in our world, is it possible that the increasing crush of overpopulation is playing a part in the phenomenon of social degeneration?...In addition to, and in conjunction with, the sheer crush of humanity is the breakdown of community, religious and family structures that traditionally helped keep anti-social behaviour in check. The censure of family, friends, neighbours, and clergy has nearly disappeared in a society where job-related moves, excessive political correctness and mass migration of the economically deprived have permanently altered the make-up of cities and towns everywhere." (pages 226-227)

The authors seem to be implying that an increase in cannibalism is the fault of society turning away from religion, increased rates of mental illness, and an increase in globalization, instead of a myriad of other factors (population growth, war, famine, etc.). The authors also fail to take into account the behavior of our closest animal cousins, who have been known to eat each other when food is scarce.

All in all, the first 4 chapters of this book were the most interesting, 5 through 19 were fine as case studies, but skip chapter 20.

[Ayla Derammelaere · Rating 5 out of 5]

The writers of this book have an incredible way of writing : you start reading and get sucked into it.
The first chapters tell us about the history of cannibalism and about the differences of reasons why people (or complete societies) ate other humans.
The last chapter is dedicated to tell us unique stories of single cannibals.

I had written an entire review with quotes but due to a wrong click, that review dissappeared.

[Kelly Konstantatou · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think for someone who has no previous or vey little knowledge of certain serial killers and the roots of cannibalism , this book is a great start to get more invested in such matters and dark aspects of human history.

[Ross Macartney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Does what it says on the tin. A real insight into the history of the consumption of human flesh. Definitely a rather niche topic, but some very interesting stories. The book consists of 1/3rd history and 2/3rds of case studies.

[Sabot · Rating 3 out of 5]

What starts as an apparent anthropological study turns into a collection of true crime stories, sparing little insalubrious detail. Potentially interesting for fans of the macabre - I was frankly a little relieved to have finished it.

[Dean Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fun read. Not too much new stuff here if you are familiar with the topic. Nonetheless a fun and engaging read. i recommend it to anyone who is interested in this topic.

[Falka · Rating 5 out of 5]

For a book that includes a significant amount of gory details it surely is incredibly entertaining. Authors’ sense of humor makes the best of it.

[manu · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5.
didn’t care much about the serial killers section but still learned a lot. 👍

[Amie Allan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a really cool delve into a very taboo subject. It has a speculative part at the end that is like. More terrifying than anything I've ever read.

[maja Robertshawe]

not good. the authors should be lucky I'm a completionist.

[Jelena Zbukvic · Rating 3 out of 5]

Prvi dio dobar, drugi senzacionalistički i ništa posebno.

[Elitsa Dimitrova · Rating 4 out of 5]

---> Заповядайте в: My books/Моите книги

„История на канибализма“ - Дениъл Дайл, Марк П. Донъли

Моят съпруг ми направи изненадващ подарък, с думите: „нали четеш и гледаш филми с такива гадости :D. Ех, колко добре ме познава… Да, чета и гледам такива неща с криминални мотиви, но не заради кървищата и ужасите, а заради по-дълбоки причини като поведение, психология и т. н.

Канибализмът, известен още с научния термин антропофагия, е практика на ядене на месо от същия вид. Темата е най-спорната и сложна (табу), защото канибализмът засяга социални и етически аспекти, но нека си признаем, че той съществува и в наши дни. Канибализмът „удря“ човешката съвест, както не могат да го направят други табута и предизвиква смесица от ст��ах, презрение и гадене. Но хората, които практикуват това, са неразделна част от нашата история.

Книжката „глътнах“ за няколко вечери и ми беше много интересна. Разделена е на две части – в първата част, авторите пpocлeдявaт „людoeдcтвoтo“ от нaй-paнните извecтни случаи на тази практики до наши дни, като анализират яденето на човешко месо в светлината на културните и антропологични предпоставки. Разбира се, те изграждат своите теории, върху материалите, които са събрали по темата.
Втората част на книгата разглежда съвременни личности, които са практикували мрачните си наклонности.

Темата, предизвиква силни емоции в наши дни и често се свързва със специфични култури, исторически събития и дори съвременни криминални случаи.
В исторически контекст често се свързва с различни социални и културни фактори - традиции, вярвания и ритуали, които могат да подтикнат определени общества към практикуване на антропофагия.

Събитие като гладомора в СССР през 20-те и 30-те години на миналия век отнема живота на милиони хора и принуждава оцелелите да посегнат към канибализма. И не само там – такива практики е имало в Китай, Северна Корея (през 1990 г. по време на режима на Ким Чен Ир) и др. Да не говорим и за множеството племена, които все още практикуват канибализъм.

Модерният канибализъм е по-скоро отражение на психични заболявания. Въпреки че е рядко явление, има регистрирани случаи на консумиране на човешко месо поради обсесивни разстройства или други психически аномалии и описаните случаи на престъпници, които го практикуват, доказват това.

Предупреждавам, че книгата не е за хора със слаби сърца и слаби стомаси!


---> Заповядайте в: My books/Моите книги

[Lauren Redmond · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent enough at the start but near the end I got sick of reading about endless US based white male cannibals... I'd have enjoyed it a lot more if more psychology into those horrific acts were explored, more worldwide instances of cannibalism, more historic cases and possibly more female cannibals mentioned too...

[Chris · Rating 2 out of 5]

While the first quarter of this book explains the concept and historical context of cannabalism very well, the rest of the book was really a let down as it focussed on shock-value stories only. While I accept that they are all true (probably), this book was really more of a "Crime and Investigation Channel for Cannibals" than an intellectual conversation around the taboo itself.

Read it until you get bored. It is worth a look and is very unique in terms of topic, but story after story after story of people eating each other just gets a little boring (for me at least).

[E. Kahn · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unlike seemingly every other reviewer, I -didn't- enjoy the first part of the book; most of it is a collection of unsourced and unlikely atrocity stories. A couple of Google searches convinced me at least some of these were cribbed from weird extremist propaganda publications, or that the authors and these publications (and seemingly nobody else on the planet!) have used the same sources.

The cannibal micro-bios that make up the main body of the book are better, but nothing you won't find on Wikipedia and/or the major True Crime websites.

Overall, a complete waste of paper.

[Roderick Potts · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pretty decent book describing the history of cannibalism throughout humanity. It starts off incredibly strong with a detailed anthropological look at the subject, but then devolved into sensationalistic case studies, which, as you get more and more into the modern world, become less and less interesting and more and more formulaic. Worth taking a look, though, for anyone who's interested in the subject.

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first part: the social history of cannibalism and the different motives of cannibalism is very interesting.
I think some of the case studies aren't that relevant. Sometimes they give the idea of "Oh yeah, he also ate some of the bodies" It could have used more historical case studies.
Also the chapter titles of the case studies are pretty childish "Sushi dreams","From Russia with hate" and so on.