From the above, it can be observed that mortuary cannibalism should not always be associated with hostility and aggression. For the Wari, as well for other
5
non- western societies mentioned above, it is not an anti-social act, but an act defined by ideas about the human body, social perception of identity, psychological stability, and by their worldview. Since mortuary cannibalism is such a complex procedure which includes many different stages and attitudes, how easy is it to recognize its signature on the bones of an individual from the past? Most of the archaeologists that claim to have found evidence of cannibalism are mostly arguing about survival or nutritional cannibalism (see White 1992) rather than mortuary cannibalism. A brief …show more content…
Archaeological Examples of Possible Cannibalism White (1992) has proposed a taphonomic signature of cannibalism which consists of minimum 6 criteria. These include perimortem breakage, cut marks, burning, anvil abrasions, under-representation of vertebrae, and pot polish. These modifications have to be quantified and then they have to be compared with related faunal remains found in the same context, such as middens and discarding pits. If the modifications are similar and other taphonomic processes that can mimic the same results can be excluded, then the practice of cannibalism can be inferred (White 1992). An example of possible cannibalism has been proposed for the Anasazi culture (AD 400- 1350) in the American Southwest (Turner and Turner 1999). The six criteria were present on the individuals found on kivas or habitation room floors, and there was a close resemblance to faunal remains from trash middens. This is a case of possible dietary or survival cannibalism. Another example comes from the upper Paleolithic Magdalenian site at Gough’s cave in Somerset, UK (Bello et al. 2015). There, the human bones were found in …show more content…
Mortuary practices in general consist of many different stages that often do not leave traces behind. The bones can be processed in many different ways (pulverised, burned, ground etc.). Some ways will leave traces behind (e.g., burned bone) and others will leave nothing (e.g., ground bone incorporated in food). Hence in order to understand mortuary practices and specifically cannibalism we need to use multiple lines of evidence. These can include ethnographical accounts, oral histories, mythology, osteology, archaeology, and even psychology. As archaeologists, we should not leave our biases to influence what we see and what we do not see in the archaeological record. Cannibalism has been used as an excuse for terrible exploitation of indigenous people in the past, and this can possibly explain why many archaeologists do not want to rush into conclusions about this practice and often they even completely reject the practice as a whole. However, cannibalism could have been used for many purposes and mortuary cannibalism specifically, was the cultural norm for many societies outside the western world. Only when we stop considering cannibalism as an antisocial, barbaric act, and only when we start investigating the mortuary practices that accompany it , only then the archaeological record will be able to show us a more accurate picture of past peoples’ behavior and practices, which can also
5
non- western societies mentioned above, it is not an anti-social act, but an act defined by ideas about the human body, social perception of identity, psychological stability, and by their worldview. Since mortuary cannibalism is such a complex procedure which includes many different stages and attitudes, how easy is it to recognize its signature on the bones of an individual from the past? Most of the archaeologists that claim to have found evidence of cannibalism are mostly arguing about survival or nutritional cannibalism (see White 1992) rather than mortuary cannibalism. A brief …show more content…
Archaeological Examples of Possible Cannibalism White (1992) has proposed a taphonomic signature of cannibalism which consists of minimum 6 criteria. These include perimortem breakage, cut marks, burning, anvil abrasions, under-representation of vertebrae, and pot polish. These modifications have to be quantified and then they have to be compared with related faunal remains found in the same context, such as middens and discarding pits. If the modifications are similar and other taphonomic processes that can mimic the same results can be excluded, then the practice of cannibalism can be inferred (White 1992). An example of possible cannibalism has been proposed for the Anasazi culture (AD 400- 1350) in the American Southwest (Turner and Turner 1999). The six criteria were present on the individuals found on kivas or habitation room floors, and there was a close resemblance to faunal remains from trash middens. This is a case of possible dietary or survival cannibalism. Another example comes from the upper Paleolithic Magdalenian site at Gough’s cave in Somerset, UK (Bello et al. 2015). There, the human bones were found in …show more content…
Mortuary practices in general consist of many different stages that often do not leave traces behind. The bones can be processed in many different ways (pulverised, burned, ground etc.). Some ways will leave traces behind (e.g., burned bone) and others will leave nothing (e.g., ground bone incorporated in food). Hence in order to understand mortuary practices and specifically cannibalism we need to use multiple lines of evidence. These can include ethnographical accounts, oral histories, mythology, osteology, archaeology, and even psychology. As archaeologists, we should not leave our biases to influence what we see and what we do not see in the archaeological record. Cannibalism has been used as an excuse for terrible exploitation of indigenous people in the past, and this can possibly explain why many archaeologists do not want to rush into conclusions about this practice and often they even completely reject the practice as a whole. However, cannibalism could have been used for many purposes and mortuary cannibalism specifically, was the cultural norm for many societies outside the western world. Only when we stop considering cannibalism as an antisocial, barbaric act, and only when we start investigating the mortuary practices that accompany it , only then the archaeological record will be able to show us a more accurate picture of past peoples’ behavior and practices, which can also