{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Cannibalism - Article 11

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Article 11 mfiflfi:HEW-:5i‘4fifiwm‘éfi'fififiéfiifihfifiifl’kafififiiflfiflfifiL33rmfflfiw‘3fiflfl‘fiflemfl1 Archaeologists Rediscover Cannibals At digs around the world, researchers have unearthed strong new evidence that people ate their own kind from the early days of human evolution through recent prehistory. ANN GIBBONS hen Arizona State University bioarchaeologist ‘ ’s I Christy G. Tumer 11 first looked at the jumbled heap of bones from 30 humans in Arizona in 1967, he was convinced that he was looking at the remains of a feast. The bones of these ancient American Indians had cut marks and burns, just like animal bones that had been roasted and stripped of their flesh. “It just struck me that here was a pile of food refuse," says Tumer, who proposed in American Antiquity in 1970 that these people from Polacca Wash, Arizona, had been the victims of cannibalism. But his paper was met with "total disbelief," says Turner. “In the 19605, the new paradigm about Indians was that they were all peaceful and happy. So, to find something like this was the antithesis of the new way we were supposed to be think- ing about Indians"—particularly the Anasazi, thought to be the ancestors of living Pueblo Indians. Not only did Tumer’s pro- posal fly in the face of conventional wisdom about the Anasazi culture, but it was also at odds with an emerging consensus that earlier claims of cannibalism in the fossil record rested on shaky evidence. Where earlier generations of archaeologists had seen the remains of cannibalistic feasts, current researchers saw bones scarred by ancient burial practices, war, weathering, or scavenging animals. To Tumer, however, the bones from Polacca Wash told a more disturbing tale, and so he set about studying every prehis- toric skeleton he could find in the Southwest and Mexico to see if it was an isolated event. Now, 30 years and 15,000 skeletons later, Turner is putting the final touches on a 1500-page book to be published next year by the University of Utah press in which he says, "Cannibalism was practiced intensively for almost four Centuries" in the Four Comers region. The evidence is so strong that Turner says “I would bet a year of my salary on it." He isn't the only one now betting on cannibalism in pre- history. In the past decade, Tumer and other bioarchaeologists have put together a set of clearocut criteria for distinguishing the marks of cannibalism from other kinds of scars. “The analytical 51 rigor has increased across the board,” says paleoanthropologist Tim D. White of the University of California, Berkeley. Armed with the new criteria, archaeologists are finding what they say are strong signs of cannibalism throughout the fossil record. This summer, archaeologists are excavating several sites in Europe where the practice may have occuned among our ances- tors. perhaps as early as 800,000 years ago. More recently, our brawny cousins, the Neandertals, may have eaten each other. And this behavior wasn‘t limited to the distant past—strong new evidence suggests that in addition to the Anasazi, the Aztecs of Mexico and the people of Fiji also ate their own kind in the past 2500 years. These claims imply a disturbing new view of human history. say Tbmer and others. Although cannibalism is still relatively rare in the fossil record, it is frequent enough to imply that extreme hunger was not the only driving force. Instead of being an aber- ration, practiced only by a few prehistoric Donner Parties, kill- ing people for food may have been standard human behavior—a means of social control, Tumer suspects, or a mob response to stress, or a form of infanticide to thin the ranks of neighboring populations. Not surprisingly, some find these claims hard to stomach: “These people haven't explored all the alternatives,” says archaeologist Paul Bahn, author of the Cambridge Encyclopedia entry on cannibalism. “There’s no question, for example, that all kinds of weird stuff is done to human remains in mortuary prac- tice"—and in warfare. But even the most prominent skeptic of earlier claims of cannibalism, cultural anthropologist William Arens of the State University of New York, Stony Brook. now admits the case is stronger: “I think the procedures are sounder, and there is more evidence for cannibalism than before." White learned how weak most earlier scholarship on canni- balism was in 198], when he first came across what he thought might be a relic of the practice—a massive skull of an early human ancestor from a site called Bodo in Ethiopia. When he got his first look at this 600.000-year-old skull on a museum ANNUAL EDITIONS Photos By: C. Tumor/Arizona State University Cannibals house? The Peasco Blanco great house at Chaco Canyon. New Mexico. where some bones bear out marks (upper left): others were smashed, perhaps to extract marrow. table, White noticed that it had a series of fine, deep cut marks on its cheekbone and inside its eye socket, as if it had been defleshed. To confirm his suspicions, White wanted to compare the marks with a “type collection" for cannibalism—a carefully studied assemblage of bones showing how the signature of can- nibalism differs from damage by animal gnawing, trampling, or excavation. “We were naive at the time." says White, who was work- ing with archaeologist Nicholas Toth of Indiana University in Bloomington. They learned that although the anthropological literature was full of fantastic tales of cannibalistic feasts among early humans at Zhoukoudian in China, Krapina cave in Croatia, and elsewhere, the evidence was weak—or lost. Indeed. the weakness of the evidence had already opened the way to a backlash. which was led by Arens. He had decon- structed the fossil and historical record for cannibalism in a book called The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthro- pophagy (Oxford, 1979). Except for extremely rare cases of starvation or insanity, Arens said, none of the accounts of can- nibalism stood up to scrutiny—not even claims that it took place among living tribes in Papua New Guinea (including the Fore, where cannibalism is thought to explain the spread of the degen- erative brain disease kuru). There were no reliable eye witnesses for claims of cannibalism, and the archaeological evidence was circumstantial. “I didn’t deny the existence of cannibalism," he now says, “but [ found that there was no good evidence for it. It was bad science." Physical anthropologists contributed to the backlash when they raised doubts about what little archaeological evidence there was (Science, 20 June 1986, p. 1479). Mary Russell. then at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, argued, for example, that cut marks on the bones of 20 Neandertals at 52 T. D. White/Berkeley Unkind cuts. A Neandertal bone from Vindiia Cave. Croatia. Krapina Cave could have been left by Neandertal morticians who were cleaning the bones for secondary burial. and the bones would have been smashed when the roof caved in. for example. In his 1992 review in the Cambridge Encyclopedia, Bahn concluded that cannibalism’s “very existence in prehis- tory is hard to swallow." Rising from the Ashes But even as some anthropologists gave the ax to Krapina and other notorious cases. a new. more rigorous case for cannibalism in prehistory was emerging. starting in the American Southwest. Turner and his late wife, Jacqueline 'Ilumer, had been systemati- cally studying tray after tray of prehistoric bones in museums and private collections in the United States and Mexico. They had identified a pattern of bone processing in several hundred specimens that showed little respect for the dead. “There’s no known mortuary practice in the Southwest where the body is dismembered, the head is roasted and dumped into a pit uncer- emoniously, and other pieces get left all over the floor," says Turner, describing part of the pattern. White. meanwhile. was identifying other telltale signs. To fill the gap he discovered when he looked for specimens to compare with the Bodo skull. he decided to study in depth one of the bone assemblages the Turners and others had cited. He chose Mancos. a small Anasazi pueblo on the Colorado Plateau from AD. 1150. where archaeologists had recovered the scat- tered and broken remains of at least 29 individuals. The proj- ect evolved into a landmark book, Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos (Princeton, 1992). While White still doesn't know why the Bodo skull was defleshed—“it’s a black box." he says—he extended the blueprint for identifying cannibalism. In his book, White describes how he painstakingly sifted through 2106 bone fragments. often using an electron micro- scope to identify cut marks, burn traces, percussion and anvil damage, disarticulations. and breakages. He reviewed how to distinguish marks left by butchering from those left by animal gnawing, trampling. or other wear and tear. He also proposed a M4 new category of bone damage. which he called “pot polish”— shiny abrasions on bone tips that come from being stirred in pots (an idea he tested by stirring deer bones in a replica of an Anasazi pot). And he outlined how to compare the remains of suspected victims with those of ordinary game animals at other sites to see if they were processed the same way. When he applied these criteria to the Mancos remains, he con- cluded that they Were the leavings of a feast in which 17 adults and 12 children had their heads cut off, roasted. and broken open on rock anvils. Their long bones were broken—he believes for marrow—and their vertebral bodies were missing, perhaps crushed and boiled for oil. Finally, their bones were dumped, like animal bones. In their forthcoming book, the Turners describe a remark- ably similar pattern of bone processing in 300 individuals from 40 different bone assemblages in the Four Comers area of the Southwest, dating from AD. 900 to AD. 1700. The strongest case, he says, comes from bones unearthed at the Pefiasco Blanco great house at Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, which was the highest center of the Anasazi culture and, he argues, the home of cannibals who terrorized victims within 100 miles of Chaco Canyon, where most of the traumatized bones have been excavated. "Whatever drove the Anasazi to eat people, it hap- pened at Chaco," says Turner. The case for cannibalism among the Anasazi that 'Ihmer and White have put together hasn’t swayed all the critics. “These folks have a nice package, but I don't think it proves cannibal- ism," says Museum of New Mexico archaeologist Peter Bullock. “It's still just a theory." But even critics like Bullock acknowledge that Tumer and White's studies, along with work by the University of Colorado, Boulder’s, PaoloVilla and colleagues at another recent site, Font- bregoua Cave in southeastern France (Science, 25 July 1986, p. 43l), have raised the standards for how to investigate a case of cannibalism. In fact, White’s book has become the unofficial guidebook for the field, says physical anthropologist Carmen Pijoan at the Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City, who has done a systematic review of sites in Mexico where human bones were defleshed. In a forthcoming book chapter, she sin- gles out three sites where she applied diagnostic criteria out- lined by 'I\1rner, White, and Villa to bones from Aztec and other early cultures and concludes that all “three sites, spread over 2000 years of Mexican prehistory, show a pattern of violence, cannibalism, and sacrifice through time.” White‘s book “is my bible," agrees paleontologist Yolanda Fernandez-Jalvo of the Museum of Natural History in Madrid, who is analyzing bones that may be the oldest example of canni- balism in the fossil record—the remains of at least six individu- als who died 800,000 years ago in an ancient cave at Atapuerca in northern Spain. Age-Old Practices The Spanish fossils have caused considerable excitement because they may represent a new species of human ancestor (Science, 30 May, pp. [331 and 1392). But they also show L,-_--__ -___ Article 11. Archaeologists Rediscover Cannibals a pattern familiar from the more recent sites: The bones are highly fragmented and are scored with cut marks, which Femandez-Jalvo thinks were made when the bodies were decapitated and the bones defleshed. A large femur was also smashed open, perhaps for marrow, says Femandez-Jalvo, and the whole assemblage had been dumped, like garbage. The treatment was no different from that accorded animal bones at the site. The pattern, says Peter Andrews, a paleo- anthropologist at The Natural History Museum, London, is “pretty strong evidence for cannibalism, as opposed to ritual defleshing.” He and others note, however, that the small num- ber of individuals at the site and the absence of other sites of similar antiquity to which the bones could be compared leave room for doubt. A stronger case is emerging at Neandertal sites in Europe, 45,000 to more than 130,000 years old. The new criteria for recognizing cannibalism have not completely vindicated the earlier claims about Krapina Cave, partly because few animal bones are left from the excavation of the site in 1899 to compare with the Neandertal remains. But nearby Vindija Cave, exca- vated in the 19705, did yield both animal and human remains. When White and Toth examined the bones recently, they found that both sets showed cut marks, breakage, and disarticulation, and had been dumped on the cave floor. It’s the same pattern seen at Krapina, and remarkably similar to that at Mancos, says White, who will publish his conclusions in a forthcoming book with Toth. Marseilles prehistorian Alban DeFleur is find- ing that Neandertals may also have feasted on their kind in the Moula-Guercy Cave in the Ardeche region of France, where animal and Neandertal bones show similar processing. Taken together, says White, “the evidence from Krapina, Vindija, and Moula is strong.” Not everyone is convinced, however. “White does terrific analysis, but he hasn’t proved this is cannibalism,” says Bahn. “Frankly, I don’t see how he can unless you find a piece of human gut [with human bone or tissue in it]." No matter how close the resemblance to butchered animals, he says, the cut marks and other bone processing could still be the result of mortuary practices. Bullock adds that warfare, not cannibalism, could explain the damage to the bones. White, however, says such criticism resembles President Clinton’s famous claim about marijuana: “Some [although not all] of the Anasazi and Neandertals processed their colleagues. They skinned them, roasted them, cut their muscles off, sev- ered their joints, broke their long bones on anvils with ham- rherstones, crushed their spongy bones, and put the pieces into pots." Borrowing a line from a review of his book, White says: "To say they didn't eat them is the archaeological equivalent of saying Clinton lit up and didn't inhale." White's graduate student David DeGusta adds that he has compared human bones at burial sites in Fiji and at a nearby trash midden from the last 2000 years. The intentionally buried bones were less fragmentary and had no bite marks, burns, percussion pits, or other signs of food processing. The human bones in the trash midden, however, were processed like those of pigs. “This site really challenges the claim that ANNUAL EDITIONS these assemblages of bones are the result of mortuary ritual," says DeGusta. After 30 years of research, Turner says it is a modem bias to insist that cannibalism isn’t part of human nature. Many other species eat their own. and our ancestors may have had their own “good" reasons—whether to terrorize subject peoples, limit their neighbors' offspring, or for religious or medicinal purposes. “Today. the only people who eat other people outside of starving are the crazies.‘ ‘says Tbmer. “We' re dealing with a world view that says this Is bad and always has been bad” .'But In the past, that view wasn ’t necessarily the group view Cannibalism could have been an adaptive strategy. It has to be entertained." mamas-raw;m1knew;Mum‘muvlflq-rrfi-Mum wmi-gwxgrnwgaflmw-MF- .9 ram flarlm‘vl- ware-S534:-‘w1nh.-WWmnpmmueéhhamntrawwumw:n-Imu-nw4-.4hat-chm. I s In From Science. vol. 277 August I. 1997. pp 635—637. Copyright 9 1997 by American Association for the Advancement of Science Reproduced with permission from AAAS. www. scienecmagorg ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern