Cannibalism!

Definition! “A person or animal that eats any type of tissue of another individual of its own kind.”

Controversial but heated topic of debate!

  • Is it a behavioral norm in human history or an occasional anomaly?
  • Current view is the evidence points to cannibalism being a common practice for our ancestors
  • Distinct cut marks have been found on hominin bones on different continents from different time periods.
  • Stringer, “the fossil record is only a tiny sample of the people who lived in the past. If we are picking up butchery in this very sparse sample of humans and human behavior in the past, then it cannot have been a very rare event.”
  • Now the question becomes what type of cannibalism was practiced
  • Nutritional necessity (survival cannibalism)
  • Psychological imbalance
  • Aggression (hunting enemies and eating them)
  • Affection (consuming friends or relatives)
  • Spiritual (funeral practice)
  • Gastronomic or dietary
  • Medicinal
  • Applicable for inter-group (exocannibalism) or intra-group (endocannibalism)
  • The evidence found for cannibalism in different geographic locations and different time periods implies it is unlikely to be instances of isolated psychopathic or survival cannibalism

Genes!

  • Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)
  • Prion disease

Rare neurological diseases including kuru (from Papua New Guinea) and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), fatal familial insomnia (FFI), and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)

Caused by an malformation in a protein called a prion, which leads to the malformation of other prions, leading to an accumulation and clustering of these malformed prions in the brain causing small cavities in the brain.

Can occur sporadically, as a hereditary disease, or through transmission from an infected individual.

Humans can carry a homozygotic pair of the prion protein, leading to higher susceptibility. Heterozygotic individuals appear to be protected as the heterozygosity “(inhibits) homologous protein-protein contact)

A sequenced and genotyped sample of over 2000 individuals presenting a worldwide genetic assortment showed that one of the two possible polymorphisms were present in all populations studied.

Suggests prehistoric TSEs were a definitely part of hominin life.

Seems likely this polymorphic changes were due to an increase in contact with infected prions as hominins became more carnivorous, specifically cannibalistic acts as few prion diseases have crossed the species barrier

Lead to a “natural selective advantage” in ancient populations

Nature!

  • Cannibalism has been observed in over 1,300 species of animal in the wild from protozoan to apes.
  • Two extremes

Base levels (like in spawning fish such as guppies) where an indefinitely large number of young are produced so consuming some of the young will not affect the species all that much

Cannibalism if “higher” forms of animals: Where there is high investment in caring for a small number of offspring and a higher level of social cooperation involving more complex issues of the group dynamic.

This is more similar to our own reproductive style, and therefore the form on which we will focus

  • Primatologist have observed a complex picture of primate behavior. The chimpanzees of the Gombe National Park in Tansania have the most infamously human-like behaviors.
  • Two groups, Kasakela and Kahama

In the Kahama group the “notorious duo” of Passion and Pom displayed habitual cannibalistic infanticide.

Directly reported at least three infants and there is some evidence for at least seven more within their own community.

Potentially a form of sexual selection – mothers who lose their infants return to fertility sooner.

Seem to be the result of male-male aggression, instead of the infant being the focus of attack.

This specific form of infanticide has been observed in langurs as well.

Cannibalism has also been reported among red-tailed monkeys, Japanese monkeys, chamba baboons and Mountain Gorillas.

Motivation, however, is not to be the primary focus, only the fact that cannibalism is relatively common in non-human species

This means the fact that cannibalism is evident in our evolutionary past should not be surprising nor disturbing as it is natural.

Cannibalism!?

  • Signatures of cannibalism
  • Lack of cranial base on otherwise whole skeletons
  • The virtual absence of vertebrae (due to processing involved in extracting the marrow)
  • Cut and chop marks (Deep, wide V-shape scars from sharp stone tools)
  • Specific arrangement of cut marks
  • Long bone breakage for marrow extraction
  • Anvil abrasions where a bone rested on a stone anvil while being crushed with a hammer stone
  • Comparable butchering techniques found in human and animal remains. These should be directly comparable, with allowances for anatomical differences
  • Post processing discard: Are the human and animal bones treated the same after processing?
  • Evidence of cooking in the form of burnt bone
  • Peeling: A roughened bone surface with parallel grooves or a fibrous texture from fresh bones being fractured or peeled apart
  • Percussion pits: The point of impact where a stone tool struck the bone
  • Scraping marks from muscle removal
  • No one single signature is necessarily indicative of a site of cannibalism, but rather an amalgamation of signatures is required.
  • Can be possible to determine the type of cannibalism found at each site.
  • For example, the difference between ritual and nutritional cannibalism would lie largely with the comparison between the treatment of animal and human remains in the same archeological context.
  • Marrow extraction and a discard pattern similar to animal remains would indicate gastronomic cannibalism
  • Defleshing without marrow extraction could be indicative of ritual cannibalism.

However, this must be concluded cautiously as the butchery practices will be similar regardless of intent.

Similarity in butchery only implies an intent to dismember a hominin body

Discard patterns would have to be closely compared

  • Also, ritual may be established if certain parts of the body are singled out for different treatment.

For example, if the skull is treated differently than the postcranial skeleton

Could imply that held deeper meaning for the hominins involved while the rest of the body was food.

  • A brief stop for the idea of excarnation!
  • “Inarchaeologyandanthropology, the termexcarnation(also known asdefleshing) refers to the burial practice of removing the flesh and organs ofthe dead, leaving only the bones. Excarnation may be precipitated through natural means, involving leaving a body exposed for animals to scavenge, or it may be purposefully undertaken by butchering the corpse by hand.”
  • Clearly this practice makes detecting cannibalism a bit tricky
  • Krapina site

Some controversy. How do you decide?

Compare cutmarks on the Neaderthal remains to a reindeer butchery site and a secondary burial/excarnation site

Secondary burial tends to have more cut marks on the bone, as removing the flesh completely was the goal.

Butchery tends to lend itself to fewer cut marks on the bone, as the butcher would want to strike the hard surface of the bone as little as possible in order to prevent the blade from becoming dull.

Krapina bones showed cutmarks more in line with secondary burial.

Additionally, a large number of fragile skeletal elements like scapulae and juvenile claviculae were preserved, suggesting they were buried instead of left on the surface of the floor.

However, recent studies claim that Krapina was a cannibalism site. Seems to be a perfect example of the cannibalism debate.

  • Also, secondary burial tends to imply just that: burial. Excarnated remains are usually treated in an entirely different manner than animal remains, where as cannibalized remains can expect no such differentiation (except in the case of ritual cannibalism).
  • Also, as noted earlier, the position and type of cutmark can change randically between the two practices

Cannibalism

Cutmarks will be placed/concentrated more on the muscle/ligament attachments with minimal marks found between the two extremities of the bone

Excarnation

Likely to have cuts and scrapes along the entire length of the bone with no apparent concentration zones

Bones are less likely to be broken open for marrow extraction

Sites!

  • Bodo
  • A cranium found in an outcrop of Middle Pleistocene sediments in Ethiopia.
  • One of the earliest examples of intentional defleshing of a hominin
  • Cannibalism cannot be established

Cranial base is missing, therefore brain removal cannot be established.

Illustrates that if the majority of signatures cannot be satisfied, cannibalism cannot be inferred

  • Atapuerca, Spain
  • Six individuals from the species Homo antecessor

Two adults, two adolescents, and two infants

Found with stone tools and non-hominin animal remains

Both animal and hominin remains show evidence of modification

Butchery techniques were very similar

Post processing discard was very similar

  • No ritual treatment was evident
  • Nutritional cannibalism is evident

But which kind? Survival or dietary?

Survival is for short term or incidental cannibalism, such as in the Andes event

Dietary is associated with long periods where hominins are eating other hominins as a part of their regular diet

Environment was temperate with a large species diversity

Animal remains indicate a plentiful food supply

Indicates a dietary or gastronomic form of cannibalism

  • HertoBouri
  • Middle Awash area of Ethiopia’s Afar Depression
  • Two adults and one infant from Homo sapiens idaltu
  • The crania display clear evidence of post-mortem modification

Cut and scrape marks, presumably to remove skin, muscles, blood vessels and nerves

  • Like the Bodo cranium, the evidence is not strong enough to infer cannibalism
  • However, the infant skull seems to have been treated differently, with smooth polished areas not caused by erosion
  • MoulaGuercy
  • Southeastern France on the west bank of the Rhone River
  • Neanderthal remains of two adults, two adolescents, and two infants
  • Only one Cervus specimen showed carnivore modification while none of the hominin remains did
  • However, both hominin and deer remains showed post-mortem modifications
  • In some instances, the cut and percussion marks indicate successive strokes of the same instrument and similar post-discard polish indicates that the cave may have remained occupied after the butchery occurred.
  • The discard patterns were the same for hominin and animal remains
  • There is a direct comparison of cut marks and fracture patterns on the remains
  • An inference of cannibalism is reasonable
  • The species diversity found in the same layer as the hominin remains and a lack of ritual processing for the hominin remains indicates gastronomic form of cannibalism
  • Gough’s Cave
  • Cheddar Gorge, Somerset England
  • Two adults, two adolescents, and one infant
  • Found with an abundance of animal remains and stone tools
  • Butchering techniques on human and nonhuman skeletons were similar
  • Discard pattern was also similar with one significant difference: Treatment of the skulls

Though the skulls have a higher intensity of cut marks than the animal remains, two of the skulls are nearly complete

At many sites, the deliberate damage to skulls has been extensive, possibly in an attempt to get to the brain matter

The two complete skulls at this site is an exception to the general patterning of remains found in Gough’s Cave.

Interpreted as a potential “ritual skull treatment”

Two apparent phases of occupation of Gough’s Cave

  • Almost exclusively animal remains from 12,940 BP to 12,300 BP
  • Almost exclusively human remains from 12,300 BP to 11,480 BP
  • Can possibly be interpreted as a hunting phase for the animal period turning into a ritual phase for the human bone modification. However, there is a large range for the accuracy of the radiocarbon dates, so this must be considered a loose interpretation.
  • Considered to be gastronomic cannibalism with a possible ritual with human skulls
  • Fontbregoua
  • Southeastern France
  • Three adults, two children and one individual of indeterminate age
  • Found with pottery, stone tools, domestic and wild animal remains
  • Similar processing and discard for human and animal remains
  • Fracturing of long bones to get to marrow is clear in human remains, indicating nutritional cannibalism
  • Human crania show a larger amount of defleshing marks and are relatively intact

Possible ritual or trophy procurement

The special treatment of the skull appears to be consistent with an interpretation of exocannibalism

Patterns!

  • The motivational and social patterns are varied and complex, integrated within ideals and notions
  • They are never constant not synonymous
  • Therefore any testable explanation of motivational and social patterns cannot be established through the archeological record
  • The age range of the individuals found in the sites discussed indicates a lack of discrimination based on age
  • Could be assumed that older individuals hold higher social status
  • Therefore anyone of any age (certainly) or social status (possibly) could be consumed
  • Nutritional cannibalism seems to be the dominant form
  • Ritual cannibalism could have been introduced with the advent of H. sapiens
  • Other sites not related to H. sapiens show no discrimination between hominin and animal remains
  • In the Homo sapiens sites, the rest of the human skeleton is intermixed with the animal remains with the exception of the skulls.
  • Not a Homo sapiens universal, as shown in the Klasies site
  • Neanderthals may also have had ritual, as the evidence of defleshing and secondary burial could imply
  • The Herto site may have also shown some conceptual awareness in pre-behavioral Homo sapiens with the infant skull that looks as though it had been fondled repeatedly
  • Possibly ritual, possibly something personal

Impossible to prove either way

  • Special treatment of the skull could be because the face is the center of an individual’s humanness and that person’s emotive state.
  • The skull may have been the physical representation of the face

Conclusion!

  • Dietary cannibalism has definitely been a part of Homo’s heritage
  • It is a part of the natural world, of which humans are very much a part.
  • Cannibalism should be categorized by type using certain signatures
  • Ritualistic cannibalism should be analyzed further
  • Can definitely test whether age played a role in selection of those eaten.

Questions!

1)Describe four forms of cannibalism and give examples of each.

2)Describe six signatures of a cannibalism site.

3)What is excarnation or defleshing and what way can archeologists differentiate this from cannibalism?

4)Describe, in detail, one of the cannibalism sites discussed (excluding Bodo and HertoBouri).

5)What leads the author to infer ritual at some of the sites? What species does this ritual involve? What does the author think the motivation was for this particular form of possible ritual?