The Bigger Picture

Concerning Ethics, Evidence, and Global Extension

            We have discussed several issues thus far in our posts concerning cannibalism in the Southwest. We know that it extremely difficult to confirm without a shadow of a doubt that cannibalism actually occurred in the American Southwest yet we also know there are some researchers, for example Christy Turner, that would like to think they have found sufficient proof. I encourage you all to explore this interactive website that shows video clips that showcase what conditions researchers have found Anasazi artifacts and bones in that suggest cannibalism. Additionally, we know that the entire topic is a huge ethical debate. The descendant clan, the Hopi Native Americans, are particularly offended by the claim that their Anasazi ancestors practiced cannibalism, but how about other cultures that have also been suspected of this gruesome act?

The Grand Scheme

            The Anasazi are certainly not the only ancient group (or modern culture at that!) to have been suspected/confirmed of indulging in cannibalism. For example, there have been cases in Polynesia, New Guinea, Sumatra, Africa and Europe. The unique focus and controversy surrounding the Anasazi cannibalism perhaps stems from the fact that they were known as an advanced and peaceful society- one not likely to partake in cannibalistic rituals or actions. By claiming that the Anasazi engaged in cannibalism should not pre-maturely mark them as primitive savages, nor should it make them appear to be vicious. Take for example the medicinal use of cannibalism in post-Renaissance Europe. In an article by Karen Gordon-Grube, she sites how “cannibalism, involving human flesh, blood, heart, skull, bone marrow, and other body parts, was not limited to fringe groups of society, but was practiced in the most respectable circles” (Gordon-Grube 1988:405). Prominent physicians, Harvard graduates and the like were known to use the human body in various medicines that were intended to be ingested by humans suffering from mental and physical sicknesses- a practice that certainly constitutes as cannibalism but is not viewed as negatively by society in general (Gordon-Grube 1988:405). The Anasazi might have ingested human flesh, yes, but the real question that remains is to what purpose? If it is indeed true that parts of human remains were butchered and served in the same fashion as game flesh, could this not have been for medicinal or ritual purposes as well? It is unfair to mark an entire group of people as being cannibals and henceforth relating them to the status of heathens- it is essential to look towards the “grand scheme” or bigger picture as to why the consumption took place.

Back to Ethics

     Recently, our blogging group was able to watch an interesting PBS broadcast on Anasazi Cannibalism. Fortunately, so can you by clicking on the video provided at the bottom of this post. This video was informative and provided visual perspective on what the American Southwest looks like, what the artifacts discovered look like, and perhaps most importantly who the prominent researchers like Christy Turner are and how they present themselves via public media. The video certainly makes it clear that Turner was and is still met with serious opposition from Native American clans who protest his insistence that cannibalism in fact did exist among the Anasazi people.  Much strife has occurred not only with the Hopi tribe but also among several Native American tribes concerning the excavation of their ancestors and the distributing of their treasured artifacts. A website worth noting is http://www8.nau.edu/~hcpo-p/arpa.pdf which boasts a copy of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 which states that “archaeological resources on public lands and Indian lands are an accessible and irreplaceable part of the Nation’s heritage”. Other agencies such as the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act seek to prevent the exploitation of Native American burial grounds by archaeologists. There have been major movements in the past 30 years that seeks to honor the rituals and customs of existing Native American groups because they have felt that their dead have been improperly examined and disrupted- even to the point where there has been concern for the afterlives of their ancestors due to improper burials and re-burials. Getting passed the various loopholes the NAGPRA fails to correct proves to be exceedingly difficult though for Native American tribes to overcome. This topic continues to be a sensitive and highly debated subject with little end in sight- but the promise of progress and compromise still remains.
         The take away message is as follows: even if the Anasazi people allegedly did practice cannibalism, it should be known that they were not the only ones to do so throughout the course of history. It is unfair and unjust to declare them primitive, savages, or excessively violent people, when other cultures who engaged in similar practices are not marked as such. Great efforts must be made to investigate the true motives behind cannibalistic practices if we are to gain further insight into this fascinating ancient tribe. 

We’d love to hear your thoughts!

-AAC

Gordon-Grube, Karen. “Anthropology in Post-Renaissance Europe: The Tradition of             Medicinal Cannibalism” American Anthropologist, Vo. 90 No. 2 1988

Federal Historic Preservation Laws “Archaeological Resources and Protection Act of             1979”; http://www8.nau.edu/~hcpo-p/arpa.pdf
PBS Secrets of the Dead "Cannibals of the Canyon" http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/html/index.html

Images:
http://api.ning.com/files/t0MxoZ9fjT82gTelYpBP9n4aQpMm85a76oKL6XaSzo9aQHcP0ZNP3m-YjcJe56ybiNVQFaaWRrIjfV1Th94CU8c7zGv9qGd1/article13891420C2CF41400000578229_634x504.jpg
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/cannibalism-7.jpg

Ethical Issues

Now we’ve established the criteria for cannibalism in the archaeological record. But what are the moral implications of interpreting finds as cannibalism? The word “cannibal” has many connotations behind it, and its use has a history that should be considered when evaluating archaeological evidence. Cannibalism has not always been an accusation based directly on evidence for people consuming others’ flesh, but as a symbol that they are barbaric, primitive or distant from the accusing group. By accusing a people of the ultimate social taboo, colonizers were able to make a justification for their colonization—whether or not these people were actually practicing cannibalism. These accusations draw a sharp boundary between “us” and “them”, portraying the accused as “uncivilized” (Goldman:2012). When archaeologists claim that Anasazi people practiced cannibalism, it can be seen as just another instance in this continuing history of colonialism.

Responses in the Archaeological Community

Not all archaeologists find arguments for cannibalism in the Southwest convincing. In their response to a paper claiming archaeological evidence for cannibalism, Dongoske et al. point out some of the guess-work involved in these cases. The human bones that were found resembled animal bones used for food, which lead researchers to argue the human bones were from individuals who had been consumed as well. In the response, Dongoske et al. explain that there are multiple possible explanations for the breakage pattern of the bones (2000:180). While the evidence may support the argument, it does not necessarily confirm it. It is possible to claim that the historical context of accusations of cannibalism is still at play, influencing the conclusions to which archaeologists jump.

Views of Descendent Communities

Another ethical concern is the views of descendent communities, particularly the Hopi. In her book Anti-Indianism in Modern America, Elizabeth Cook-Lynn explains why the claim that Anasazi people practiced cannibalism is so offensive. Cook-Lynn argues that Turner’s thesis is a way to explain what happened to the Anasazi; they disappeared because they ate each other. The Hopi, among many others, believe the Anasazi were their ancestors; they did not disappear but became the Hopi (2001:105-106). Cook-Lynn expresses her skepticism that archaeologists could know better than the people whose ancestors they are studying.

Cook-Lynn also questions scientists’ authority to interpret Indian history, as well as scientific knowledge itself: “The problem with this kind of scholarship," is that it is "based mostly on supposition and even on what they call scientific principle of Occam’s razor, i.e., the simplest explanation fitting the facts is the right one…” (2001:108). She sees scientific inquiry concerning native peoples as a direct challenge to the authority of oral traditions. Science seems to diminish “native knowledge” as untrue attempts to answer questions of origin (2001:109). Cook-Lynn implies that these issues are not scientists’ concerns and that these are matters with which the people should be concerned.

These ethical issues are important to consider as archaeology is conducted and interpretations are made. The historical context of “cannibals” is important to understand before one uses that term. For descendents of the Anasazi, these bones are not just artifacts to be studied: they are the bones of their ancestors. The “knowledge” archaeologists may gain needs to be weighed against the consequences it may have in affected communities. While it may seem acceptable to be open to many possibilities, archaeologists need to consider the ethical implications of their actions.

Bibliography:
Cook-Lynn, Elizabeth. Anti-Indianism in Modern America: A Voice from Tatekeya's Earth. University of Illinois Press, 2001.

Dongoske, Kurt E., Debra L. Martin, T.J. Ferguson. "Critique of the Claim of Cannibalism at Cowboy Wash". American Antiquity, Vol. 65 No. 2, April 2000.

Goldman, Laurence R. "Cannibalism". Encyclopedia of Death and Dying. http://www.deathreference.com/Bl-Ce/Cannibalism.html. 2012.

Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cannibals.23232.jpg

Evidence: How it is Determined and its Credibility

        The first step to questioning cannibalism within a society is finding the evidence to support the theory. Falling into the category of archaeology, archeologists must carefully look for evidence and proof of their speculations. Supporting evidence for cannibalism is not as easy as just finding bones or artifacts though; the evidence is hard to find and just as hard to deem reliable.

What is considered evidence?

        There are certain items or signs that archeologists look for when searching for cannibalism of human remains.  Two main evidences searched for are human coprolite and bone remains. Human feces with tissue, bones, or additional human body remains suggest human cannibalism. Human coprolite is especially valuable as evidence. Myoglobin, exclusively from human muscle, when found in a speciemen is a solid foundation to theories of cannibalism. When looking at bone remains though, there are certain skeletal clues that suggest cannibalism.  Such criteria for bone evidence are noted below and found directly from Mike Pearson’s The Archaeology of Death and Burial.

• Brain exposure
• Facial mutilation
• Burnt bone
•  Dismemberment
• A pattern of missing elements
• Greenstick-splintering of longbone shafts exposing marrow cavities
• Cut marks
• Bone breakage
• Anvil or hammerstone abrasions
• Many missing vertebrae
• Fragment end-polishing

(Pearson 2008:53)

        Also note that tools or cooking ware with blood residue or other human remains in a cooking artifact are also used in suggesting cannibalism.

Why is some of this evidence not credible?

        Finding proof is not as easy as finding a bone with cut marks. There are many different situations and instances in which the bones can be altered. Bite marks or cut marks, as well as bone breakage or missing parts can be due to damage caused to the body by the elements or animals even years after actual death. Similar situations could be seen as conflicts of evidence for burnt bone or end-polishing; bones were unburied and then burnt in a fire pit or washed down a stream. Cut marks and burn marks are sometimes misconstrued as human cannibalism because the marks are similar to animal dismemberment and cooking, but in reality could just be part of the society’s mortuary practices. No single criterion is adequate enough to argue as a strong assumption of human cannibalism.  For each human bone proof, there is an adequate suggested proposition of an alternate theory.

Is there an unproblematic way to deem human cannibalism?

        As of this moment in time, there is no easy way to reason any specific society of having human cannibalism past or present. Not only is the science difficult to study, there are underlying ethical issues as well. The studying of bones creates the problem of not knowing specific situations; it is hard to say what caused damages to the skeletal remains from years past. Though archaeologists and osteologists can speculate what cause certain marks and abrasions, it is hard to determine them as evidence to cannibalism.

So is credible evidence the only problem of deeming societies past or present human cannibal?

        The regarding of any specific society to have or have had human cannibals is more than just a problem of strong evidence. It is also in part to the current day societies. It has been speculated that any current knowledge within a community of past or present human cannibalism would be hidden from outsiders at any cost. This is due the large amount of ethics and judgment placed by outsiders. No society wants to feel ‘primitive’, which is a notion currently assumed when human cannibalism is mentioned. Ethics also plays a factor. Once a community is deemed to be or have been human cannibals, it starts to hinder on ethical issues. This is perhaps the most difficult element of the cannibalism discussion.  Visit our blog again on the March 15^th 2012 as we continue our venture and dive deeper into the ethics of cannibalism, and just how they have affected the American Southwest and their suspected cannibalism past.

Please Note

        As a side, even if the bones could be reasoned as a characteristic of human cannibalism, there would still be a missing part of the story. Human remains could be manipulated and/or ingested for a variety of reasons such as funeral practices, pure violence, lack of other nutrition, religion, and the list continues. Though some societies such as New Guinea and Aztec nobles are probable candidates for human cannibalism, there is still more to uncover than just what they did (Pearson 2008:52). It is important we find out why.

As always, feel free to add your own input!

 -Thanks,

AAC

Biography and Other Pertaining Sources

Pearson, Mike. “The Archaeology of Death and Burial”. Texas A&M University Press, 2008. pp 52-54, 154-156. Print.

Gore, Toni. "Cannibalism in the American Southwest". Popular Archaeology. Vol. 3, No. June 2011. http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/june-2011/article/cannibalism-in-the-american-southwest (accessed).

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Study Provides Direct Evidence of Cannibalism In The Southwest”. ScienceDaily. 13 Sep. 2000. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/00091-3204822.htm  (accessed).