Archaology & Canibalism

[Kitsune]

I was watching a show on the history channel about canibalism. They found in an cave in England bodies of infants who were butchers, apparently to eat them and the evidence seems compelling.

My problem is that they were making all sorts of cultural conclusions. How can that be considered and not the possibility that they found the remains of the activities of a 5000 year old crazy / seriel killer?

If Jeffry Daulmer's cook pot was found by some Archaeologist in a far flung future, would they label our whole culture as canibalistic?

[Bounty]

My problem is that they were making all sorts of cultural conclusions. How can that be considered and not the possibility that they found the remains of the activities of a 5000 year old crazy / seriel killer?

That's a risk you'll always have with archaeology. It's the hole-as-a-house problem: when you find four holes in the ground with traces of wood in them, can you confidently say it's a structure? Obviously not with 100% certainty, but it's still the most likely conclusion.

The only thing archaeology can say for certain is that the child had x marks on it's body following Y pattern. That they are cutmarks is the first interpretation, that they are signs of cannibalism the second. It's part of the field to not have conclusive evidence, that's why prehistoric archaeology often relies on analogies in present-day cultures to interpret evidence.

The remains can be the result of an isolated incident that does not reflect on the culture as a whole, but until that can be proven, we assume it is indicative of that culture's normal modus operandi. Otherwise, we'd have nothing.

[Broomstick]

Archaeological claims of cannibalism usually rest on more than just one isolated fact.

For instance, cut marks on bones may be indicative of a violent murder or accident and not cannabalism. On the other hand, thanks to forensic science we know that the marks left by violence and accidents tend to have different character and distribution patterns than those left by butchering. A further step would be comparing the possible butcher-marks on human bones with those on animal bones for a comparison of techniques.

Fire damage to bones can indicate cooking, as can delibrate splitting of the bones (to get at the marrow)

In some instances, human remains have been found in cooking pots or ovens - the "Jeffrey Dahmer" effect you might call it.

At some sites human remains have been located in two very different locations - formal burial sites... and kitchen middens, mixed in with all the other kitchen garbage.

And finally, there has been some work done with analysing the DNA found in preserved human shit. The idea is to find out the origin of the animal protein consumed by the extruder of said waste. The tools to do this are still developing, but apparently we can determine species-of-origin for bits of shit. And in some cases that appears to be human meat. However, this can be confounded by cases of intestinal bleeding and such where some of the body's own substance can get mixed in with the other stuff being processed so take that with a very heavy grain of salt.

And finally, there have been a very few written accounts of institutionalized cannabalism. Cortes and his men, for example, witnessing Aztec cannabalism. Needless to say, their personal horror at the practice colored some of their testimony but their accounts are generally believed to be accurate in stating that post-cardiac removal many, if not most, Aztec sacrifices were butchered and eaten. More recently, some anthropologists have documented cannabalistic practices among peoples who practiced this within living memory.

[brianeyci]

I don't know about cannibalism. Just yesterday our professor was lecturing about early Canadian explorers and their field notes and published works and how the explorers stuck to one of two stereotypes, the uncivilized savage or the noble savage. And how they thought natives were cannibals. It was one of their ways of saying they were better than the natives, Europeans justifying exploitation. She read a passage from the final published journal and a bit from the field notes... the field note was dull and two sentences, but the published journal talked about an execution and natives hovering over the wrenching body of an 18 year old girl. In other words it was all made up. And you could always be witnessing dire straits, cannibalism only as a last resort. Imagine archaeologists centuries from now finding preserved arctic explorers and concluding our entire society was cannibalistic.

I would take written accounts as bullshit in general. However one of the shocking things I read in an evolution textbook was that if death meant higher reproduction, that the trait would propagate, like black widows. I am just wondering whether cannibalism is an evolutionary dead end, or whether cannibalism is biological at all or just cultural.

[Kitsune]

In the History Channel program, they talked about only a single cave where they found this. I would hope that if they found evidence in other places within England that they would mention these.

[Trytostaydead]

I was watching a show on the history channel about canibalism. They found in an cave in England bodies of infants who were butchers, apparently to eat them and the evidence seems compelling.

My problem is that they were making all sorts of cultural conclusions. How can that be considered and not the possibility that they found the remains of the activities of a 5000 year old crazy / seriel killer?

If Jeffry Daulmer's cook pot was found by some Archaeologist in a far flung future, would they label our whole culture as canibalistic?

Makes you wonder what future civilizations will think of us if they find some 16 year old girl's binder.

[Lord of the Abyss]

And finally, there have been a very few written accounts of institutionalized cannabalism.

Such as the accusations of cannibalism against "class enemies" by Chinese Communists during the Cultural Revolution, mentioned in this book, and in various news stories years ago. I recall one of those news stories also mentioned that some Crusaders cooked and ate Muslims; no cite for that one.

[Broomstick]

Written accounts need to be corroborated, just as physical evidence needs more than just one indication of cannabalism.

In the case of the Aztecs, there were other pieces of supporting evidence to confirm the eyewitness accounts. For other cases....not so easy to eliminate the possibility of bias.

There is also a difference between survival cannabalism and ritual cannabalism.

[Elheru Aran]

In the History Channel program, they talked about only a single cave where they found this. I would hope that if they found evidence in other places within England that they would mention these.

Was this tied in with Sawney Bean and his band of inbred bandits? It can be argued they were cannibalistic simply because they were too fucking stupid to grab food when they could...

[Dartzap]

In the History Channel program, they talked about only a single cave where they found this. I would hope that if they found evidence in other places within England that they would mention these.

Don't suppose you remember the location of the cave? Sounds like something that'd have appeared on Time Team by now...

[Kitsune]

Don't suppose you remember the location of the cave? Sounds like something that'd have appeared on Time Team by now...

I am sorry, I cannot remember