CANNIBALISM - Essay Example

CANNIBALISM Few concepts strike fear into the human heart like the idea of cannibalism. Yet the historical record is quite clear: a number of cultural and ethnic groups practiced cannibalism at different times. The types of evidence that prove this fact are various. In two fascinating articles on the subject, Billman, et al, and Dongoske, et al, explore these questions. In Billman's article, the archaeologists explored a site in Colorado, dating from about one thousand years ago. The authors describe the sites in detail and provide maps.

A number of items were uncovered including tools. But the main discoveries are a number of disarticulated human bones consistent with the practice of cannibalization. A human coprolite also suggested that the people at the site had been consuming human flesh. The authors are careful to distinguish between different types of cannibalism. They carefully describe both: [I]n situ floor deposit sites and secondary deposit sites, might represent victim and perpetrator communities. At victim sites, villagers were killed, processed, and probably at least partially consumed.

At perpetrator sites, captives and body parts would have been brought back, consumed, and then disposed of in a manner similar to routine food refuse. If in situ deposit sites and secondary deposit sites do represent victim and perpetrator sites, then high ratio of victim to perpetrator sites (8 to 1) in the Mesa Verde region suggests that cannibalism never became a multigenerational and institutionalized practice (Billman, et al, 2000). They suggest that outbreaks of cannibalistic violence were rare but very intense.

It is difficult to tell from the record which kind occurred at the pueblo. There is also evidence that shows a change in the patterns of behaviour that were closely associated with the breakdown of political order and a growing drought. This indicates that cannibalism for these people was not a cultural or normal practice but only came to be done in lean years, perhaps out of desperation. This helps indicate that with the exception of a few tribes around the world, cannibalism is almost universally taboo.

The authors present a number of images of their findings. As with all such work, much of the substance of the conclusions is theoretical and hypothetical. It is possible the bones are the remains of victims of an attack. The authors' research, however, is outstanding. Dongoske and his co-authors take a different view of the cannibalism issue at Cowboy Wash. They believe that it is fallacious to argue that disarticulated bones with marks indicating rendering are always associated with cannibalism.

They believe that this evidence is by no means conclusive and that there are other methods and explanations that may bring us closer to the truth. They argue that accusations of cannibalism may come from improper motives: [C]annibalism is gaining force as a symbol associated with the tools of oppression used by a guilty imperial past and fears about the present. Much of the anthropological literature on cannibalism is a meta-myth used as a means of boundary definition in the construction of Western identity.

Historically, the conceptualization of cannibalism has been used both as a foil for emerging Western identity and as a legitimization of cultural appropriation (Dongoske, et al, 2000). The authors are suggesting that Billman, et al, may have other reasons for pushing the cannibal theory. Indeed, it may be border-line racist to suggest Native Americans were ever cannibals. This would be an example of seeing them as barbarians or others, outside of the civilizing light of the Western world. Dongoske, et al, also take exception to the methodology of much of the Billman research, criticizing how bones were categorized, and how bones that did not match the hypothesis were not included and explained.

They also take issue with the notion that the coprolite discovered at the site actually provided evidence that humans ate other humans. Dongoske, et al, provide a healthy dose of skepticism about the Billman claims, but their criticism appears to be more politically motivated (as judged from the passage quoted above) than based on reason. Billman and his co-authors may indeed be wrong, but they are not suggesting that their work is absolutely definitive. All archaeology is, to some extent, guesswork.

No one knows what truly happened in those pueblos one thousand years ago, and perhaps no one ever will. What archaeology shows us is what might have happened. These sorts of debates are very useful as they show the strengths and weaknesses of each hypothesis. It is true that politics may motivate some research, but the kind of accusations levelled by Dongoske seem a little silly. Overall, I would say that Billman provides the more sensible hypotheses. Work consulted Billman, B., P. Lambert, and B.

Leonard 2000 Cannibalism, Warfare, and Drought in the Mesa Verde Region during the Twelfth Century A.D. American Antiquity 65:145-178. Dongoske, K., D. Martin, and T.J. Ferguson 2000 Critique of the Claim of Cannibalism at Cowboy Wash. American Antiquity 65:179-190.