{"title":"The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism","authors":"Silvia M. Bello","doi":"10.1007/s10816-024-09676-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Taphonomic studies of osteoarchaeological human assemblages have mainly focused on establishing recognisable markers that allow us to discriminate between humanly induced modifications from natural causes, or how to differentiate cannibalism from secondary burial. Less attention has been dedicated to recognise specific taphonomic patterns associated with the different motivations for cannibalism. In this paper, I present a review of archaeological human assemblages whose induced modifications have been interpreted either as survival or ritualistic cannibalism, based on their association with historic and ethnographic evidence. The broad range of different butchery and modification patterns observed for these assemblages suggests that the osteological evidence and the frequency of taphonomic traits alone cannot be used to unequivocally identify different forms of cannibalism. However, the environmental, historical and archaeological contexts can offer indications on the type of cannibalism practiced. In particular, the strongest arguments for cannibalism as a survival event are found within the environmental context and the opportunistic behaviour associated with the cannibalistic act. On the other hand, evidence for ritualistic cannibalism comes from its recurrent appearance within a historical context, as a widespread activity over time and as an established customary behaviour for the group involved.</p>","PeriodicalId":47725,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-024-09676-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Taphonomic studies of osteoarchaeological human assemblages have mainly focused on establishing recognisable markers that allow us to discriminate between humanly induced modifications from natural causes, or how to differentiate cannibalism from secondary burial. Less attention has been dedicated to recognise specific taphonomic patterns associated with the different motivations for cannibalism. In this paper, I present a review of archaeological human assemblages whose induced modifications have been interpreted either as survival or ritualistic cannibalism, based on their association with historic and ethnographic evidence. The broad range of different butchery and modification patterns observed for these assemblages suggests that the osteological evidence and the frequency of taphonomic traits alone cannot be used to unequivocally identify different forms of cannibalism. However, the environmental, historical and archaeological contexts can offer indications on the type of cannibalism practiced. In particular, the strongest arguments for cannibalism as a survival event are found within the environmental context and the opportunistic behaviour associated with the cannibalistic act. On the other hand, evidence for ritualistic cannibalism comes from its recurrent appearance within a historical context, as a widespread activity over time and as an established customary behaviour for the group involved.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, the leading journal in its field, presents original articles that address method- or theory-focused issues of current archaeological interest and represent significant explorations on the cutting edge of the discipline. The journal also welcomes topical syntheses that critically assess and integrate research on a specific subject in archaeological method or theory, as well as examinations of the history of archaeology. Written by experts, the articles benefit an international audience of archaeologists, students of archaeology, and practitioners of closely related disciplines. Specific topics covered in recent issues include: the use of nitche construction theory in archaeology, new developments in the use of soil chemistry in archaeological interpretation, and a model for the prehistoric development of clothing. The Journal''s distinguished Editorial Board includes archaeologists with worldwide archaeological knowledge (the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, and Africa), and expertise in a wide range of methodological and theoretical issues. Rated ''A'' in the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory is rated ''A'' in the ERIH, a new reference index that aims to help evenly access the scientific quality of Humanities research output. For more information visit: http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/activities/research-infrastructures.html Rated ''A'' in the Australian Research Council Humanities and Creative Arts Journal List. For more information, visit: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list_dev.htm