 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!
 “In archaeology and anthropology, the term excarnation (also known
as defleshing) refers to the burial practice of removing the flesh and organs of the
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
 Herto Bouri
 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
Moula Guercy
 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 Herto
Bouri).
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?