Consuming Passions: Reviewing the Evidence for Cannibalism Within the Prehistoric Archaeological Record by James Cole
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Consuming Passions: Reviewing the Evidence for Cannibalism within the Prehistoric Archaeological Record by James Cole Abstract The aim of this paper is to review a sample of the evidence for hominin cannibalism within the prehistoric archaeological record. The review aims to ascertain whether testable motivations and social contexts for prehistoric cannibalism can presently be offered through current interpretative techniques. This paper will also attempt to identify any discernable patterns to the act of cannibalism within the prehistoric record, whether these patterns are consistent across time and space, and will discuss the interpretive behavioural implications for any patterns found. This will be achieved through a comparative examination of six possible prehistoric cannibal sites from different temporal and geographical zones and hominin species, examined through a particular categorising system of signatures in order to identify the specific type of cannibalism conducted. An examination of cannibalistic practices within the natural world and the genetic claims for prehistoric cannibalism are also discussed here in order to place hominin cannibalistic practices in the wider contexts of time and nature to allow for a more objective review of the hominin evidence. Keywords: cannibalism, signatures, patterns, genetics, nature Introduction Cannibalism amongst modern humans and their ancestors has always been a taboo topic which modern society finds to be both controversial and uncomfortable. By definition, a cannibal is “a person or animal that eats any type of tissue of another individual of its own kind” (Andrews and Fernandez-Jalvo 2003: 59). References to cannibal practices have been suggested all over the world in both prehistoric and historic periods. Despite the controversy cannibalism invokes, it has always been a topic of morbid interest and heated debate, with many ethnographic and anthropological studies reporting instances of cannibalism (Du Chaillu 1861; Schweinfurth 1873; Sanday 1986; Conklin 1995; Goldman 1999 and Vilaca 2000). Many authors have disputed the existence of cannibalism as a human behavioural norm, the most infamous being Arens’ 1979 publication “The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy ” which claimed that there were no completely satisfactory ethnographic or historical evidence for cannibalism being a consistent part of the human social structure. As a result, this debate has been especially strong in the study of human remains from a wide variety of archaeological sites (Hillson 2000). Many of the early ~ 1 ~ claims for cannibalism at such sites as Krapina ( Croatia c/f 130ka) and Monte Cicero ( Italy c/f 50 ka) have recently been re-examined and cannibalism subsequently rejected (Trinkaus 1985; Russell 1987; White and Toth 1991). Yet, despite the many negative responses and oppositions to the idea of cannibalism in prehistory, the current view of prehistoric cannibalism, when faced with the overwhelming biological, anthropological and archaeological evidence, would be that cannibalism was a common practice amongst our ancestors. Having escaped the antiquarian view that cannibalism was a barbarous act of primitive societies, modern interpretations only extend to identifying the type of cannibalism practiced, without venturing possible hypotheses as to why the act of cannibalism occurred. The fact that cutmarks on hominin bones have been observed on different continents and come from a range of different periods prompted an observation by Stringer that, “the fossil record is only a tiny sample of people who lived in the past. If we are picking up butchery in this very sparse sample of humans and human behaviour in the past, then it cannot have been a very rare event” (Korn et al2001: 34). Thus, in order to try to understand the reasons behind the act of cannibalism it is important to grasp the abstract and physical implications of the word. ‘Cannibalism’ describes a huge range of behaviours and motivations across a number of species. For example, in humans, cannibalism has been related to any number of combinations of the following (after Villa et al 1986; Fernandez-Jalvo et al 1999; Taylor 2002): Nutritional necessity (survival cannibalism) Psychological imbalance (psychotic or criminal cannibalism) Aggression (hunting enemies and eating them) Affection (consuming friends or relatives) Spiritual (eating the dead as a funeral practice) Gastronomic or dietary cannibalism Medicinal cannibalism (health concerns) All of which can be applied to inter-group cannibalism (exocannibalism) and intra-group cannibalism (endocannibalism).Thus, when looking at the possible archaeological evidence for cannibalism, it is important to specify what type of cannibalism is being discussed (by using the system of signatures given below), and not just label the act with the general term of, ‘cannibalism’. It is also important to note at this stage that the evidence for cannibalism within the prehistoric record from different geographic locations and time periods is highly unlikely to represent isolated incidents of psychopathic or survival cannibalism (Taylor 2002). At this point, it may be prudent to look at the actual likelihood of prehistoric cannibalism having occurred. In order to do this, I shall review the evidence for neurodegenerative diseases within antiquity, which I believe provides a completely independent check on the data from osteology and archaeology. In addition, this will be accompanied by a brief synopsis of cannibalism within the natural world ~ 2 ~ Kuru and Genetic evidence for Archaic Cannibalism Recent studies into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) or prion diseases have revealed important results bearing on the behavioural practices of our hominin ancestors. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), TSEs are a group of rare neurodegenerative brain diseases which incorporate kuru and Creutzfeldt- Jakob disease (CJD), fatal familial insomnia (FFI), and Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease (GSS) in humans; scrapie and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) are the most common forms found in animals (Mead et al 2003; Roach 2003; NINDS). Prion diseases are thought to be caused by the malformation of a type of protein called a prion ( proteinaceous infectious particle) which, in turn facilitates the further malformation of normal prions, encouraging accumulation and clustering on the surface of brain tissue, ultimately resulting in the formation of small cavities in the brain (Mead et al 2003; Roach 2003; NINDS). TSEs occur in three ways: “sporadically, as hereditary diseases or through transmission from infected individuals” (NINDS). Humans that carry two identical copies (homozygosity) of the prion protein would appear to be more susceptible to prion diseases, whilst those that carry two unmatched copies of the gene (heterozygosity, M129K or E219K polymorphisms - as exemplified by Mead et al 2003) appear to be protected against the prion diseases as heterozygosity “(inhibits) homologous protein-protein contact” (Mead et al2003: 641). In order to test the distribution and occurrence of heterozygosity in the world’s populations, Mead et al (2003) “sequenced and genotyped” over 2000 chromosomes selected to represent worldwide genetic assortment. The results showed that one of the two polymorphisms (indicating heterozygosity) were present within all the populations investigated (Mead et al 2003: 641). The global patterns of polymorphisms would certainly suggest that prehistoric TSEs were certainly a part of prehistoric hominin life. The cause of these TSEs is harder to determine, one possible explanation could be the spread of a prehistoric animal prion disease that managed to transverse the “transmission barrier to carnivorous humans” (Mead et al 2003: 643). However, given the increasing evidence for cannibalism in prehistory, Mead et al (2003) proposed that a more likely scenario explaining the polymorphic changes would be as a direct response to the reprocessing of prions within human populations through this act. Repeated exposure to the effects of TSEs, as a result of cannibalistic activities, may have necessitated the polymorphisms as a “natural selective advantage” of ancient populations (Mead et al 2003: 643). This research into TSEs and their causes has provided strong genetic evidence for a natural selective advantage occurring as a direct reaction to the common cannibalistic behavioural practices of our hominin ancestors. Cannibalism within Nature Cannibalism is found in many spheres of the natural world where genetically speaking, the promotion of one’s own genes at the expense of others, has tremendous survival benefits which offset the risks of cannibalising your own kith and kin (Taylor 2002). Cannibalism has been observed in over 1, 300 species of animal in the wild, ranging from protozoa (Hyman ~ 3 ~ 1940), snails (Manzi 1970), centipedes (Eason 1964), fish (Larkin 1956, Poulson 1963) birds and 75 species of mammal (Southwick 1955, Yom-Tov 1974, Taylor 2002). These numbers are increasing all the time as zoologists start to take more of a keen interest in observing and recording instances of cannibalism. Along this vein, there would appear to be two extremes in examples of cannibalism from the natural world: Base levels of cannibalism (such as those episodes seen in spawning fish), where an indefinitely large number of young are produced, so the consumption of some of these young would not affect the population