Upon reading some of my fellow student's blog entries, I realized a strong trend in the mention of cannibalism. Last semester, I wrote a paper for Research and Methodology which analyzed two papers with differing opinions regarding the same archaeological evidence from an archaeological site in the American South West. The Puebloan site in question was named 5MT10010, and is located in southwestern Colorado. The opposing views were presented by Dongoske, et al. (2000), with the opinion of NO cannibalism, and Billman, et al. (2000), with the opinion of YES for cannibalism having occurred at the site. As this was an emotionally heavy issue that had the potential for affecting the descendants of those buried in the archaeological sites, the interpretation of the bones had to be sensitive and well argued. For the purposes of this blog post, I will summarize the opposing opinions and some of the archaeological evidence, and then provide my opinion on the issue and its place within the archaeological of death.
Billman, et al. (2000) focussed on archaeological data to support their opinion of cannibalism having occurred in at least one instance at site 5MT10010. For this team of researchers, too many anomalies were present in the osteological data to ignore. The evidence included: burnt and boiled human remains (patterned burning), human blood residue on tools, human bones which had been disarticulated and processed, and a human coprolite which tested positive for human myoglobin (evidence of ingesting human protein). The seven individuals remains found at the site all showed signs of perimortem breakage and processing, typical of butchering practices. Furthermore, many bones showed signs of burning or boiling, typical of being cooked for consumption. The authors argued that this "patterned burning" is not apparent in bush fires, but rather in slowly cooked remains. Finally, the human coprolite discovered at the site was tested for human myoglobin which can be found in muscle tissue. This molecule is only present in a coprolite upon ingesting muscle tissue. Though it paints a rather horrific picture, it seems evident that cannibalism took place at the Puebloan site of 5MT10010.
Dogoske, et al. (2000) take an interesting approach to this issue. Whereas Billman, et al. (2000) place their findings in logic, Dongoske (2000) uses wild "what-if" scenarios to argue that, due to a lack of the knowledge of the site's taphonomy, WHO KNOWS what happened! I hope it is evident by my diction and capitalization that I do not agree with this tactic, or Dongoske et al.'s views at all. The main points of argument used include: lack of taphonomic history, lack of comparison for bone breakage, lack of cultural knowledge, and lack of secondary tests on the human coprolite. All in all, the paper was rather useless and incredibly personally written for an academic paper.
The seven individuals recovered from 5MT10010 showed signs of being processed, disarticulated, broken for marrow, boiled and burned, and then haphazardly thrown onto the floor of a residential site with the tools used to dismember them. The authors for both sides of the arguments provided theories as to why this would occur in the first place. Billman et al. (2000) suggested that a combination of starvation due to drought, sociopolitical upheaval, and terrorizing neighbouring communities with violence all lead to this occurrence of cannibalism; due either to starvation, terrorizing your enemies, or both. Billman, et al. (2000) argue that these are the most likely reasons not only because of the evidence of cannibalism, but also because of the lack of care of the burial of the bones and associated tools. Dongoske et al. (2000) offered an interesting counter-point regarding the burial of these remains: they proposed that it could be just as likely that the funerary practices of the Puebloan people in that area consisted of processing the remains, and then having a secondary burial. It raises many questions within the archaeological context of this site...
How are we to truly know what happened at an archaeological site? Cannibalism is such a taboo subject that quite often, the option is left in the dust, simply to avoid controversy. Though it is important to respect that descendants of the prehistoric Puebloan people, the archaeological truth of that time and place is just as knowledgable to Puebloan descendants today. Knowledge of a site's taphonomy can provide vital information regarding a culture's practices in their funerary rites. How would the burial sites of a culture that DID dismember, process and secondarily bury their dead look different in an archaeological context than one which came of violence and cannibalism? Is there a difference aside from reason and intention? Though I cannot answer these questions, I like to think that because I was forced to read these papers, I will have an open mind to different possibilities and not be so quick to assume a past culture's rites while I'm digging.
Billman, Lambert & Leonard. (2000). Cannibalism, Warfare, and Drought in the Mesa Verde Region during the Twelfth Century AD. American Antiquity: 179-187.
Dongoske, Matin & Ferguson. (2000). Critique of the Claim of Cannibalism at Cowboy Walsh. American Antiquity: 145-146.
(First photo: site of 5MT10010)
(Second photo: Puebloan ruins in Southwestern Colorado)
No comments:
Post a Comment