The History of Cannibalism

by Karoline Lukaschek, Karoline.Lukaschek@gmx.de

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the MPhil Degree in Biological Anthropology

University of Cambridge, UK
Lucy Cavendish College
2000/2001
 Abstract

This thesis deals with the history of cannibalism. It is divided into two main parts: the historical record,
and prehistoric cannibalism. There seem to be plenty of reasons for cannibalism: nutrition and the
taste of human flesh, religious motives, warfare, burial ceremonies, social pressure or mental disease.
Many reports of cannibalism exist in various cultural areas of the world. What we know about historic
cannibalism comes from the reports of missionaries, adventurers, explorers and seamen. But evidence
for cannibalism does not only come from the historical record; even some archaeological sites reveal
evidence for cannibalism. Several criteria exist that are important in the verification of cannibalism in
an archaeological site. This thesis wants to give a review of the historical and prehistoric cannibalism.

In accordance with regulation 8 of the General Regulations for the MPhil Degree (one-year course), I
declare that this thesis is substantially my own work. Where reference is made to the works of others the
extent to which that work has been used is indicated and duly acknowledged in the text and bibliography.
Contents
1 Introduction 2
1.1 What is cannibalism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Criteria for cannibalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Mythology and Religion 5

3 The historical record 6

3.1 Cannibalism in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Cannibalism in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 Cannibalism in New Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4 Cannibalism on the Fiji Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5 Cannibalism in New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6 Cannibalism in South America and Mesoamerica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.7 Cannibalism in Canada and North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4 Prehistoric Cannibalism 13
4.1 Atapuerca, Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2 Bodo d’Ar, Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3 Krapina, Croatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4 Moula-Guercy, France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5 Mouth of the Klasies river, South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.6 Gough’s Cave, UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.7 Fontbrégoua, France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.8 Cannibalism in the American southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.8.1 Cannibalism at Anasazi site 5MT10010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.8.2 Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.8.2.1 Cannibalism or mortuary ritual? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.8.2.2 Human skeletal remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5 Conclusion 31

List of Tables 32

List of Figures 32

References 33

1
1 Introduction
“Belief.” Odin smiled. “People believe in us. We believe in Lin Kortright; precisely one-tenth as firmly
as all our worshippers believe in us. (. . . ) Oh, in the old days it was different; back a thousand years or
so, he was raking in all the blood and lightly charred human entrails he could use, just from his South
American clients. All it took was a little imagination and a touch of flair to see the possibilities for a
fast-food chain in the Trobriand Islands –”.
“Excuse me?”
“Cannibals”, Odin replied, “Well, business is business, and if the guys are killed anyway, where is the
big deal?”1 This talk between Odin and Carol about Lin Kortright, agent for the gods, who gets ten per
cent of everything his clients get, plays with the shocking element of cannibalism by giving it a rational
view through the cynical Odin: Why not make money with Trobriand-fried people, if they die anyway?
Though one of the last taboos of our society, the act of anthropophagy is still fascinating for many
people. Recently, in the USA, the movie Hannibal grossed $58m in its opening weekend, making it the
third biggest opener ever. At all times, cannibalism has provoked strong feelings. Images of missionaries
in bubbling cauldrons were familiar even to children, and nearly everybody could tell a story about
cannibals or an odd recipe for preparing human flesh. But, serial killers and plane-crash survivors aside,
is there any real evidence that people have ever eaten one another?
Reports of cannibalism are unevenly distributed in various cultural areas of the world. Most come
from North America and the Pacific Islands, with reports from Africa and South America being next in
the order of frequency. What we know about historic cannibalism comes from the reports of missionaries,
adventurers, explorers and seamen. Many eye-witness reports came from Englishmen, simply because
they ruled so many of the countries where it thrived and were invited to some ceremonies. The Spanish
chroniclers in central America also wrote down what they were told by men who had seen rites, but they
themselves never attended them. Many of the horror stories about cannibalism and man-eating people
are prefaced by “I have heard” or “it is said”. Doubtless the travellers who related the stories were apt
to be told simply what people thought they wanted to hear. The truth – if there is any – behind these
stories, is hard to find.

Figure 1: The study of human cannibalism involves Anthropology as well as Archaeology

Comparing stories of cannibalism leads to the result that they were seldom neutral: They were told
to justify slavery, oppression, pursuit and extinction of “undesirable” people. W. Arens was the first
to question the stories and reports about cannibalism in his 1979 study “the man-eating myth”. This
book was heavily discussed2 , and although (or because) many scientists did not agree with Arens, a new
controversy arose about the truth behind cannibalism. Yet, it is not easy to answer the question whether
cannibalism did or did not exist with a simple yes or no. Many travellers, conquistadors, missionaries,
ethnologists and scientists reported cannibalism among the people they had studied or visited. Even
archaeologists have found bones that reveal strong evidence for the theory of cannibalism among our
ancestors. So cannibalism is a subject that involves all three subdisciplines of anthropology: Ethnology
and social anthropology, archaeology, and physical anthropology (figure 1).

1 Holt (2000), 155f.

2 For immediate responses see White (1992), 15ff.

2
 In each subdiscipline, cannibalism is treated and represented differently. Because the early historical
and ethnographic accounts of cannibalism are riddled with doubt and because ethnographic observation
is no longer possible, archaeology is the only remaining tool for investigating the existence and extent of
cannibalism. There seem to be plenty of reasons for cannibalism: nutrition and the taste of human flesh,
religious motives, warfare, burial ceremonies. As there are so many circumstances where cannibalism
might occur, it seems to be reasonable to define what is understood by cannibalism in the following
paper.

1.1 What is cannibalism?

Regarding all the implications of cannibalism, only the origin of the word seems to be certain: The word
“cannibal” is derived from “Carib”, the tribe Columbus learned about from natives on the Northwest
coast of Cuba, the Arawak or Taino, in November 1492. The Caribs, or Canibes, Camballi, Cannibals,
were thought to be man-eaters and the word Cannibal meaning “man-eater” was established in Europe
around the middle of the 16th century. Meanwhile, the word cannibal refers to any organism that eats
the flesh of its own kind. Polis et al.3 found 146 references documenting intraspecific predation in 75
species of mammals distributed among seven orders. In the 15 primate species in which cannibalism has
been observed, it has been attributed to conspecific density factors, nutritional stress, or reproductive
strategies4 .
In the following study, cannibalism means the eating of human bodies or parts of them by other hu-
mans. The definition of cannibalism used here encompasses all motives and functions of the consumption.
The eating of bone-ash, smashed bone fragments, skin particles or bone marrow as well as the devouring
of one eye or the drinking and smearing of blood, are regarded as symbolic acts.
The primary dichotomy is between survival cannibalism and ritual cannibalism. Furthermore, there
is cannibalism performed by single persons such as serial killers which is based on pathological reasons
(table 1). This study will not deal with the latter.

Cannibalism Reason
Nutritional * incidental: survival (periods of food scarcity or due to catastrophes)
* long duration: gastronomic or dietary (humans are part of the diet
of other humans)
Ritual Magic, Funeral rites (in relation to beliefs and religion)
Pathological Mental disease
Political Power, oppression5

Table 1: Possible reasons for cannibalism

Ritual cannibalism is itself divided into exocannibalism (the eating of strangers and enemies), en-
docannibalism (the eating of friends or family) and autocannibalism (the eating of ones own body).
Endocannibalism is thought to have been performed in the hope of achieving communion with the dead.
With exocannibalism and endocannibalism, there was the belief that by eating the dead person, some
of his or her desirable qualities might be conferred upon the eater. In most cases, ritual cannibalism is
thought to have been the final act in the drama of human sacrifice; therefore, it is much more than a
convenient means of disposal.
Furthermore, Sagan6 distinguished between aggressive cannibalism (eating enemies) and affectionate
cannibalism (eating relatives or friends).
As mentioned above, the eating of bone-ash, smashed bone fragments, and skin particles is also
practised cannibalism. This sort of cannibalism was a fashion in Renaissance Europe resulting in an
abuse of mostly Egyptian mummies for mysterious remedies and medicine.7 Unfortunately, this paper
cannot deal with this interesting aspect of European history.

3 Poliset al. (1984).

4 Watts & Mitani (2000).
5 Korn et al. (2001), 99 ff. Corbin (1992).
6 Sagan (1974).
7 Gordon-Grube (1988). Peter-Röcher (1998).

3
1.2 Criteria for cannibalism
Cutmarks made by stone or metal tools may appear on skeletal remains in a cannibalised assemblage.
Humans have fractured long-bone shafts with hammerstones and have pulverised long-bone ends to
extract the nutritious marrow. Percussion pits and anvil scars are usually seen under these conditions.8
Burning of the bone associated with roasting is also thought to be a relevant criterion of cannibalism.
Studies of the patterns of bone destruction through bone assemblage composition and actual physical
traces left on individual bones often make it possible to distinguish between human and nonhuman
damage to the bones. It is even possible to discriminate between impact on green bone or perimortem
bone modification (alteration of fresh bone either just before, at, or immediately after time of death9 )
and postmortem alterations or impact on (sub)fossil bones.
Villa et al.10 proposed four types of evidence important in the verification of cannibalism in an
archaeological context: 1. Similar butchering techniques in human and animal remains; thus frequency,
location and type of verified cut marks and chop marks on animal and human bones must be similar,
taking into account the anatomical differences between animals and humans. 2. Similar patterns of long
bone breakage that might facilitate marrow extraction. 3. Identical patterns of postprocessing discard
of human and animal remains. 4. Evidence of cooking, that could indicate comparable treatment of
human and animal remains. The basis is that faunal remains whose context, element representation, and
damage pattern are in accordance with exploitation for nutritional benefit were interpreted as evidence
of human consumption. Therefore, human remains treated in the same way, with the same patterns of
exploitation, are best interpreted as evidence of conspecific consumption, or cannibalism. I would like to
use a 5th criteria: It is clear that individual remains were treated in different ways if a site shows a clear
dichotomy between primary or intentional burial and widespread, scattered bones. The latter could be
an evidence for cannibalism as discussed below.

1.3 Problems
When human remains from an archaeological site are consistent with a nutritionally motivated break-
down – when patterns of burning, cutmarks, percussion, crushing and other fractures on human remains
match what is seen on faunal remains – the assemblage is usually interpreted as evidence of cannibalism.
However, in many cases such an interpretation is weakened by doubts about whether humans caused the
observed damage and by lack of precise contextual evidence. Several problems must be regarded before
classifying a site as “cannibalistic”:
First, the ritual consumption of small parts of the body or of bone ash is archaeologically invisible.
Therefore, the amount of cannibalism in the past could easily be underestimated. Secondly, specific
cultural rules may affect the exploitation of faunal material in unusual ways that could prove confusing
for an interpretation of bones in an archaeological context.11 Thirdly, the great variety of mortuary
practice with its potential archaeological signatures makes it difficult to draw certain conclusions about
cannibalism. Human mortuary practices may have profound effects on the disposition of a skeleton. For
example, the forcing of the corpse into a small space can cause strong anatomical juxtapositions and even
fractures. In secondary burials, there are often traces of human activity left on the bones: defleshing can
leave cutmarks and scraping marks on the bones, and cremation usually causes charring and transverse
cracking of the bones. Fourthly, the use of fire, and the fact that boiling and roasting of bones facilitate
muscle detachment from the bone, reduces the amount of cutting needed to deflesh a carcass. The softer
texture of both boiled meat and bone means that impact marks are left more easily than on bones that
were not cooked or heated. Fire also helps in dismembering and breaking the bone. Therefore the use of
fire must be regarded when comparing cannibalistic sites. Fifthly, burning of the bone associated with
roasting is often thought to be a relevant criterion of cannibalism. But bone may or may not have been
burned or charred when cooked depending on how the piece was cooked. Bones also may have been
burned by a natural fire. Therefore, charred bones are not decisive evidence of cannibalism. Boiling
would not have resulted in charred bones, but may have resulted in “comminuted bone”12 or small bone
fragments.

8 White & Folkens (2000), chap. 25.

9 Turner & Turner (1999), 10f.
10 Villa et al. (1986a), 431.
11 White (1992), 11.
12 Lyman (1982), 350.

4
2 Mythology and Religion
Stories of cannibalistic gods or acts of cannibalism exist in mythological systems all over the world from
the very beginning. In Egypt, Osiris, king and god, was said to have abolished cannibalism as part of
his role as god of grain and agriculture. Another reason could be to point out that he guided his people
from the very savagery to agriculture and culture. I could not find out what kind of cannibalism was
practised before the reign of Osiris. In ancient Greece, Chronos, father of the gods, ate his children,
but Zeus managed to escape and killed his father. Zeus himself killed and ate his wife Metis to gain
her wisdom. Tantalus slew his son Pelops and served him to the gods to test their omniscience. His
punishment is well known. Tereus’ wife and her sister prepared him a meal of his son’s flesh to punish
him for raping the women. Tydeus sipped his enemy’s brain. The revengeful Atreus prepared his brother
Thyestes’ children for dinner and mixed their blood in Thyestes’ wine. The god Dionysos made Proithos’
daughters mad because they did not want to worship him. In their madness they devoured their babies.
These examples show that Greek mythology knew many motives for anthropophagy: It averts disaster,
but also symbolises cosmic events (Chronos/Zeus). It is thought to destroy the enemy (Tydeus). Apart
from that, cannibalism could be motivated by hate (Tereus), revenge (Atreus) or the desire of making
other people’s capabilities one’s own (Zeus/Metis). Furthermore, punishment by the gods (Proithos’
daughters) or arrogance (hybris) led to cannibalism (Tantalos). In all cases, cannibalism is negative, and
endocannibalism was only possible because the eater did not know what/who she/he ate or was insane.
In Christian religion, there are some hints of cannibalism among the Hebrews in the Old Testament.13
Cannibalism seemed to be known, but only to avert starvation. Furthermore, it is regarded as Lord’s
punishment to his unfaithful people. One of the most important Christian rituals was also interpreted as
an act of cannibalism: The Holy Communion.14 But as everybody knows, the Christian act of consuming
the deity is considered to be a symbolic act, showing the very love between Christ and His people.
The German epic “Nibelungenlied” tells how in 437 AD the Burgundians drank the blood of their
fallen foes after the victory against the Huns, in order to imbibe their valour.
The reports by ancient travellers and writers about monstrous people like dogheads, Cyclopes and
monopodes also include stories about man-eating peoples. For example, Herodotus tells us about the
Andropophagi, who lived beyond the great eastern desert. These people had no law but the most savage
customs and worst, they ate human flesh.15 But after all, ancient reports about cannibals are not very
ample; they refer to unknown people dwelling at the edge of the known world. Cannibalism is one
stereotyped characteristic of the typical Barbarian, whereas details about customs and habits have not
been reported.16

13 The Lord threatens to punish the Hebrews by causing their enemies to besiege them in their towns, forcing the Hebrews

to eat their offspring (Deut. 28, 53–58). After invading Samaria, the Israelites are attacked by the Syrians, so that a famine
occurs and the people are forced to eat their own children: “give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my
son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and ate him.” (2. Kings 6,26–30).
14 John 6, 55: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. For my flesh is food indeed, and my

blood is drink indeed.

15 Herodotus, Histories IV 18, 106.
16 Peter-Röcher (1998), 68ff.

5
3 The historical record
As mentioned above, cannibalism was attached to any people that was inconvenient in some way. Fur-
thermore, injustice, like slavery, and violence was justified as a mission to exterminate cannibals. In the
following, some examples of reported historic cannibalism are studied (table 2). It is notable that almost
all acts of cannibalism were recorded by the conqueror, never by the defeated. Furthermore, no act of
cannibalism was ever actually observed by an eyewitness. All reports are either second or third hand
information or wrong interpretations of scenes observed but misunderstood.

Location Society Source Type of Cannibalism

India Indian Official report Ritual
Africa Leopard society, Official report, Ritual
Congo- and Niger- ethnography
basin tribes
New Guinea Gimi, Fore Ethnography Ritual/mortuary
Fiji Islands Fijians Missionaries, trav- Exocannibalism, related
ellers to warfare
New Zealand Maori “eye witness” Exocannibalism, related
to warfare
South America & Tupinamba, Aztecs Travellers, mission- Ritual, related to warfare
Mesoamerica aries, informants
Canada & North Algonkians, Kwaki- Informants, trav- (ritual) Endocannibalism.
America utl, Iroquois ellers, missionaries, Related to warfare
mythology

Table 2: Cases of cannibalism mentioned in the thesis

3.1 Cannibalism in India

Whilst Indians practised human sacrifice (e.g. the burning of widows), they rarely ate their victims.
Davies mentioned one ceremony in which the victim was killed and offered to the goddess Kali and its
lungs were eaten by such Yogis as were present, and the local royal family ate a small amount of rice
cooked in the victim’s blood.17 In 1832 the British annexed one Rajah’s realms because he had kidnapped
people for this specific ritual.18 It is questionable whether he practised the ritual or not; at least the
“incident” gave the British a good reason to occupy his kingdom.

3.2 Cannibalism in Africa

To many minds, black Africans were people who were in the habit of eating each other for dinner and
on special occasions added a missionary to the menu. Therefore, many gross stories about African tribal
cannibalism exist. According to Davies19 , cannibalism was restricted to specific regions, the Congo and
Niger river basins. In almost every case cannibalism was reported as part of a religious act: Complex
rules prescribed who would partake of human flesh, whether men or women, young or old, who was to
be eaten, and what parts of their body should be kept as relics.
In the Congo-basin, reports mainly derive from missionaries. Most of these reports are horror stories
rather than facts, written by the author to show Africa and its people in the darkest colours. They
totally ignore any religious motivation and draw the picture of the man-eating savage who eats human
flesh simply because he likes it. But some of these reports actually seem to confirm that cannibalism was
not a matter of pure greed but was fundamentally ritual and sacrificial.20 The universal principle behind
man-eating would be to imbibe magic strength by transferring soul-material, particularly identified with
the head, from victim to eater: this could be wisdom, if the younger ate the elder, or vigour, if the elder
ate the young. In Africa, the continued presence of the spirits of the dead among the living was a strong
belief. The souls of one’s forebears were part of the divine order, and the eating of their bodies became a

17 Davies (1981), 75.

18 Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (1951), vol.6, p.850.
19 Davies (1981), 154.
20 Spiel (1974).

6
sacred duty. Therefore, the eating of old relatives was basic to the deep-rooted African cult of ancestor
worship.
On the other hand, Arens stated that cannibalism never existed at all but was simply invented by
native informants to please the people who questioned them. No eyewitness ever examined any ritual
cannibalism. The reports were written by European outsiders who saw European culture superior to
African and Africans as untamed, cruel savages.21 Therefore, the reports are doubtless not neutral.
Furthermore, it seems very unlikely that the natives would tell arrogant strangers details of their cult and
religion, some of which might be secret knowledge. Furthermore, despite the ethnohistorical accounts, the
archaeological evidence of cannibalism in Africa is minimal.22 Arens might therefore be right in completely
denying cannibalism. But still there are some cases where cannibalism seems to be an irrevocable matter
of fact. According to Davies23 in certain parts of Africa enemy hearts were pulverised to make a powerful
potion: In Lesotho, South Africa, a courage-boosting, protective potion called Diretlo or Ditlo was
made out of the carefully prepared flesh of a chosen victim who had to be a stranger or war captive.
Unfortunately, war captives became rare after the days of tribal warfare, so the witch doctor usually
chose a member of the tribe. The most singular rituals for making medicine out of human entrails are
said to be found in the Leopard Societies of Sierra Leone on the west coast of Africa. In 1607 a visitor to
Sierra Leone wrote about fierce man-eating tribes who lived in the interior of the country and dressed as
Leopards. But only in 1891, after Sierra Leone had become a British colony in 1807, did the British first
gain an inkling of what was going on in the jungle. To combat this extraordinary kind of killing a bill
entitled “The Human Leopard Ordonance” was passed in 1895: It made it a crime for anyone to possess
a leopard skin shaped to fit the human form, a three-pronged knife and a special native medicine called
“Borfina” which includes human fat and blood as the chief ingredients, obtained in an elaborate ritual.
Borfima was a potent instrument in the hands of its owner and could help him become rich and powerful.
However detailed the Sierra Leone trials are on the killings of the victims, they tell us little about
the gods – if there were any – in whose honour the acts were performed. A lack of knowledge of African
religion has distorted the picture of human sacrifice and its possible offshoot, ritual cannibalism. Both
are highly religious acts, and can only be understood in the light of the cults that they are designed to
serve. Behaving like a beast of prey, in this case a leopard, has a universal religious meaning: It betokens
that one has ceased to be a mere mortal, that one has become a magic force incarnate, in some sort a
god24 (compare Voodoo, Shamanism). The devouring of the victim’s body, in my opinion fantasy rather
than truth, was therefore an easy-to-believe step accompanying the transformation into a beast, for it is
very likely that people in Sierra Leone were indeed killed and eaten by real leopards.

3.3 Cannibalism in New Guinea

Many of the New Guinean tribes are said to have been cannibals before they were influenced by European
culture and missionaries. The knowledge of their cannibalism is based on rumours, stories and the
reconstruction of the past by modern scientists. Again, there are no eyewitnesses, although ethnologists
worked and work in the regions where cannibals were thought to have lived. In New Guinea, neighbouring
tribes accuse each other of witchcraft and cannibalism, sometimes to justify head-hunting. Sometimes,
cannibalism is part of the mental construct that explains relationships between tribes.25 Furthermore,
ritual cannibalism might be part of a mythological past: the ethnologist Gillian Gillison was told by
male members of the Gimi, that their women dismembered and ate the dead to posses their souls. After
that they were offered pork which they ate corresponding to what part of the body they ate. Gillison
observed how a body was buried in the garden; after that the women stayed in the person’s house until
they were offered pork, formally in exchange for the person’s soul.26 Therefore the ritual remained, the
act of cannibalism did not. That means that the cannibalistic act was not the important part or did not
exist at all. Nevertheless, another New Guinean tribe was linked to cannibalism: The Fore, who lived
in the Highlands. The Fore developed kuru, a degenerative neurological disorder that is related to the
Creutzfeld-Jacob disease. It is caused by a slow virus that inhabits the brain. The Fore were infected
by the virus, it is said, because they ate human brains. Here, again, there is a long tradition of reports
of cannibalism, but this time the reports are by professional anthropologists.27 But, again, none ever

21 Peter-Röcher (1998), 146ff.

22 White (1992), 22.
23 Davies (1981), 135.
24 Davies (1981), 140.
25 Peter-Röcher (1998), 128ff.
26 G. Gillison, Cannibalism among women in the Eastern Highlands of Papua New Guinea. In: Brown & Tuzin (1983),

33-50.
27 Arens (1979), 101-151.

7
eyewitnessed a cannibalistic act. The Fore women in particular were reported to be outrageous cannibals
(table 3).

Kinship relation to de- Body parts of deceased Body parts of de-

ceased male ceased female
Sister Especially the brain No specific part
Mother’s brother’s wife Especially legs and buttocks No specific part
Female matrilateral cousin Arms and legs No specific part
Wife Flesh around pelvic bone
and spine
Son’s wife Lungs, belly, liver Arms and legs
Brother’s wife Legs, hands Buttocks, intestines,
vulva
Sister’s son’s wife Legs, hands No specific part

Table 3: Reported rights of kin to human flesh during mortuary feasts in a South Fore population. Adapted
from Durham (1991) 400.

When Daniel Carleton Gajdusek arrived in New Guinea in 1957 he heard of the Fore’s propensity for
eating human flesh. Upon investigating the disease kuru and finding out that it was caused by an infectious
agent, a slow virus, Gajdusek finally concluded that the kuru virus gets into the mucous membranes of
the Fore when they prepare bodies for their cannibalistic ritual.28 At the beginning of Gajdusek’s study
children of both sexes were affected, whereas female adults were affected more frequently than male. This
fit well with the theory of cannibalism, as only women and children were said to eat the brain. Moreover,
the reports stated that the Fore became cannibals at the turn of the century, which is when kuru first
appeared among them.
But Lyle Staedman29 claimed that there was no cannibalism in New Guinea. He proposed that the
kuru virus was transmitted to Fore women when they handled the bodies of their deceased relatives.
Throughout New Guinea, women engage in mortuary rituals, including exhuming bodies soon after their
burial or suspending bodies in the house while they decay. As part of these rituals, women frequently
handle skulls, sometimes removing the brain from the skulls. The virus could easily penetrate mucous
membranes during such rituals, and women probably infected their children by touching them with
contaminated hands. Therefore cannibalism is not at all necessary for kuru transmission, especially since
the oral transmission of kuru did not work very well in the laboratories30 . Instead, Steadman noted that
the turn of the last century when kuru was first noticed among the Fore was also the time of the first
European contact. Therefore, kuru as a variant of Creutzfeld-Jacob disease could have been brought to
the Fore by Europeans.
On the other hand, it is very well documented that many aboriginal people in New Guinea wore
human skeletal remains on their bodies or displayed them in and around the house. White examined
a series of crania collected in the late 1800s from the south-east tip of Papua New Guinea. He noted
that the damage pattern implied the defleshing of the crania and the striking of the bases to create a
hole that would simplify mounting on a pole31 . Many crania were decorated with paintings and showed
traces of extensive handling and postmortem use of the skull as an ornament. The enlargement of the
foramen magnum therefore has no necessary implication for cannibalism, a point that must be regarded
when searching in the prehistoric archaeological record for evidence of cannibalism.

3.4 Cannibalism on the Fiji Islands

Fiji is the area in which cannibalism is most widely accepted as having been practised at contact. Sahlins32
has used Fiji’s ethnohistorical record to attack Arens’contentions which might be naive indeed. Fairly
ample reports from laymen supplement the lurid accounts of Christian missionaries and inform us about
what went on in Fiji and the beliefs that prompted their acts. Unfortunately, accounts of Fijian beliefs
lack many details. The so-called eyewitness reports of Fijian cannibalism are all of the following quality:

28 Gaidusek (1977).
29 Steadman & Merbs (1982), 617ff.
30 Gibbs et al. (1980).
31 White (1992), 19.
32 Sahlins, M. Raw women, cooked men, and other “great things” of the Fiji Islands. In: Brown & Tuzin (1983), 72–93.

8
Everything from the preparing and boiling of the body to the throwing away of bones was observed, but
never the actual act of eating, although there must have been plenty of occasions. Therefore, it is very
doubtful whether it really happened. It is highly likely that bodies were boiled to clean the bones (e.g.
for burial). Additionally, the archaeological evidence of cannibalism is very limited; there are a few bone
assemblages that were considered to be food remains because of the small size of most of the bones.33
Nevertheless, there seems to be strong evidence for Fijian cannibalism: David DeGusta analysed several
bones collected from a midden on the island of Viti Levu that show marks related to cannibalism. He
concluded that the patterns of breaks, burns, and cut marks matched those found on the bones of various
animals in the midden.34 He therefore concluded cannibalism, following the criteria mentioned above.
By contrast, bones from Fijian burial sites were essentially unmodified. Although this seems to support
the cannibal thesis further studies are necessary to make a final conclusion.
However, according to the American anthropologist A.P.Rice, it was the gods who demanded canni-
balism as a form of offering35 ; parts of the bodies were often given to the war god, and the heads to the
priests. Fijians explained the natural authority of chiefs and their divine nature by reference to a common
origin myth: chiefly lineages were foreign, their forebears intrusive and dangerous immigrants, a nobility
that had arrived from the sea. Legends told how these foreign chiefs had entered a kind of social contract
with the land people: In exchange for marrying the daughters of the land chiefs, the foreign chiefs gave
the indigenous people a divine object and agreed to feed them in the sense of supplying human sacrifices
for the kalou (spirit of the dead leader). During the rite of installation of a chief, he was symbolically
poisoned and then reborn as a living god of the land people, embodying the natural power of the land.
The human sacrifices to the kalou were made to him and the priest. So the necessity of Fijian canni-
balism is obvious: without cannibalism the kalous, spiritual leaders, could not be pleased. Following the
mythology, Fijian culture could not exist without kalous; therefore, cannibalism was essential for Fijian
culture.36

3.5 Cannibalism in New Zealand

Many reports exist about the Maori being fierce cannibals. The Maori were the most warlike Polynesians.
Attacking parties carried on regular siege operations in which cannibalism was said to be an habitual
practice: The flesh of slain enemies was an important part of the spoil after a successful battle; captives,
regardless of age or sex, were usually eaten. The ultimate insult was to cook an enemy and then discard
him as unfit for eating. The relatives of a man who had been eaten were obliged to seek revenge until the
account was squared. It was Captain Cook who first reported cannibalism in New Zealand. According
to him, the Maori only ate the flesh of slain enemies; this custom had been handed down from earliest
times. Therefore, New Zealand cannibalism was inseparable from ritual warfare. The following scene was
said to have taken place on Cooks last visit to New Zealand: One of Cook’s officers, Pickersgill, and some
of his shipmates went to an area of the shoreline, where they found a group of Maori warriors who were
cutting up the body of a man. They explained that they had killed the man in a raid. Pickersgill bartered
for the severed head of the corpse as a souvenir that he took back to the ship. Later, the Maori asked
him urgently for the head. According to Cook’s report, they explained through gestures and signs that
the flesh would taste delicious. After Pickersgill had offered them a piece of the cheek, they seemed to be
pleased and ate it after cooking it. How this incident was provoked and interpreted by the Europeans is
clear. But it is absolutely not clear what the Maori really intended, since no spoken language was used:
Maybe the Maori thought they were dealing with cannibals. Maybe they thought they had to accept the
European hospitality. Maybe they desperately wanted the head back and thought this to be the only
way.
Eyewitness reports exist of Maori cannibalism, but it is very doubtful how seriously they can be taken,
as the following example shows: Touai, a New Zealand chief who was brought to London in 1818 and
resided there for a long time, “confessed (. . . ) that what he most regretted in the country from which
he was absent was the feast of human flesh, the feast of victory. . . The flesh of women and children was
to him and his fellow-countrymen the most delicious, while certain Maori prefer that of man of fifty, and
that of a black rather than that of a white.”37 Comparing this with the claim that white men were too
sour to eat (s. b.) one can either conclude that different skin colours indeed mean different tastes, that
the living and nutrition conditions of the races give them a single taste (like the difference between free

33 White (1992), 21f.

34 Holden (1999).
35 Rice (1910), 80ff.
36 Korn et al. (2001), 63ff.
37 Following F. Maynard & A. Dumas (1937).

9
range chicken or battery chicken) or that the natives were simply kidding the Europeans.
Cannibalism among the Maori is said to have disappeared after 1840 when the treaty of Waitangi was
thrust upon them.38 Again, this is not very likely, because if cannibalism was a deep-rooted custom it
would not vanish after a short period of European dominance and “culture” and a treaty referring to it.
In contrast to the manifold historical and ethnographic evidence for cannibalism among the Maori,
the archaeological evidence of this is more limited.39

3.6 Cannibalism in South America and Mesoamerica

As early as 1503, in Amerigo Vespucci’s letter Mundus Novus, natives of the South American coast were
described as licentious, promiscuous and as cannibals.40 He also believed he had seen dried and smoked
human flesh in the Indians houses.41 Vespucci’s contemporaries questioned his claims about the weather,
the natives’ skin colour and the vegetation, but everybody believed his reports about cannibalism and
lust. The ritual killing of captives, mentioned first by Vespucci, is repeated again and again in later
stories. Doubtless, Vespucci could not have really observed the things he described, because he only
had very short stays ashore and communication with the natives was too difficult. What he might have
observed are the human-like limbs and body parts of apes42 or trophies made of human limbs.
However, everybody who wants to prove that cannibalism exist cannot help but report the following
story: Hans Staden, who visited the South American coast in the mid-sixteenth century as a common
seaman on a Portuguese trading ship, was captured by the Tupinamba Indians of Brazil. According to
Staden, the Tupinamba were cannibals par excellence.43 Miraculously, Staden survived and returned to
Germany where he published his tale. In the first part of his story he reported that the Tupinamba
would eat human flesh on every occasion, war captives as well as killed enemies. But like many others
who reported about cannibalism he obviously only saw the preparing of bodies. In the second part of
his tale, he exclusively described the act of cannibalism in a ritual context, which is similar to other
reports44 : After the bodies were charred and dismembered, everybody got a piece of them and went
home. Therefore, Staden could not know what actually happened to the pieces, whether they were eaten
or not. However, Staden believed that he had survived because he had the superior confession: Staden,
a Protestant, reported that his catholic co-captives were killed and eaten; therefore, their confession was
the weaker one. In a time when Europe was haunted by religious wars, this point of view highlights an
interesting aspect of the story. Furthermore, the “barbarism” of the Tupinamba was described in detail
to emphasise the purity and glory of the hero. Unfortunately, it is not sure what Staden actually observed
and what was his or his co-author’s fantasy. Many writers followed Staden in their description of the
Tupinamba cannibalism. Were they simply plagiarising Staden, as Arens45 suggests? D.W. Forsyth,
an American anthropologist, challenged the claim that such accounts of the Tupinamba are inherently
flawed46 . He has analysed in detail the writings of the Jesuit monks who lived among the Tupinamba
in the sixteenth century, noting that they spent much time in Indian villages, learned the language and
attended to the Indians without charge. One of the Jesuits translated parts of the bible into the Tupi
language; another wrote a grammar of the language which all Jesuits were supposed to acquire. Some
of the brothers had years of experience with the Tupinamba. All this led Forsyth to accept many of
the Jesuits’ accounts of cannibalism, to believe accounts that they confiscated bodies to stop them from
being cannibalised, and that they had intervened successfully to prevent some prisoners from being eaten.
But even Forsyth admitted that there may be distortions because the ultimate goal of these Catholic
missionaries was to convert the Indians.
Another people famous for its elaborate human sacrifices and cannibalism are the Aztecs of ancient
Mexico, although many other Indians were also said to be cannibals, e.g. the Tlaxcalans, the Durangos,
and the Michoacán.47 The perhaps best-known records for Aztec ceremonies were those compiled by Fray
Bernardino de Sahagún48 who arrived in Mexico in 1529 and collected descriptions in words and pictures
from his native informants. Most ceremonies in ancient Mexico were part of the eighteen monthly feasts

38 G. Obeyesekere, in: Barker et al. (1988).

39 White (1992), 20.
40 Kohl (1986), 68f. Monegal (1982), 86.
41 Behringer (1992), 207f.
42 Scurla (1972), 214.
43 Arens (1979), 22ff.
44 Peter-Röcher (1998), 144.
45 Arens (1979), 28ff.
46 Forsyth (1983 & 1985).
47 Turner & Turner (1999), 419.
48 Sahagun (1932).

10
of twenty days of the Aztec calendar. Each feast was marked by ingenious rituals and was devoted to a
leading member of the pantheon, to whom men, women and children were offered in appropriate form.
At the end of some rituals the victim’s heart was offered to the god and the body, as reported by Diaz
del Castillo and Cortés, was eaten by the participants.49 Some of these ceremonies were illustrated in
the Codex Borgia50 , but although often used to prove cannibalism they are rather strong evidence of the
undisputed human sacrifice. Diaz del Castillo mentioned many acts of cannibalism without ever having
seen one. He possibly saw a human sacrifice where the body was dismembered51 , but doubtless he did
not know what happened to the pieces52 . Furthermore, after the siege and surrender of Tenochtitlan its
inhabitants were nearly starved53 ; would they not have eaten those who had already died in order to
survive, if they really had been cannibals?
The conquest of the Aztecs’ realm by Hernán Cortés between 1519 and 1521 was mainly motivated
by the greed for gold and treasures. It was justified by the claim that the Aztecs were cannibals and
sodomists. These rumours were necessary because the Aztecs were superior to the conquistadors in many
things: The Europeans admired their cities, economy, and the political system.
To win the game, the Spaniards used torture, cruelty and deceit. It was therefore important to think
of the Indians as even more perverse and sadistic to justify the deeds: the myth of cannibalism was born.

3.7 Cannibalism in Canada and North America

Many Indian tribes of Canada and North America were said to have practised cannibalism: The Algonkian
Indians of north-eastern North America, the Kwakiutl, the Athapaskans, the Iroquois, the Hurons. Many
reports of cannibalism came from missionaries or European adventurers and are therefore not neutral.54
The Kwakiutl are the best documented of these Indian tribes. Much of the Kwakiutl thought and social
structure is based on the idea of cannibalism. The Kwakiutl envision the world as a place of eaters and
eaten. According to Mencher, man is seen as one of the eaten in his linkage to the supernatural beings55 .
Therefore, a problem would occur if they did not want to imagine themselves as being inferior in the food
chain. The Kwakiutl solution to this issue is to have a religion that controls these relationship.
The Kwakiutl religious structure is applied in many areas of the Kwakiutl’s lifestyle. Some of these
areas include myths, ceremonies, or rituals, and art. In addition, cannibalism is also incorporated in
these categories. The Kwakiutl also control the binary nature of their religion through shamans, hamatsa
dancers, and cannibalistic characters. Because these individuals are both corporeal and supernatural,
they fit into the binary division structure. The cannibal concept is identified by the eaten and the eater,
and introduces a third division. This is a being which can control or mediate the binary division by
having both aspects: Humans who are eaten take part in the act of supernatural power through crossing
over the two worlds and end up eating the supernatural by obtaining the identity of the supernatural
being through a mask. Cannibalism is also seen through some of the Kwakiutl ceremonies and rituals.
The Kwakiutl believe that the act of eating a meal is similar to the way the universe is organised and
maintained. Kwakiutl myths and ritual acts illustrate how oral assimilative metaphors are used to express
the idea of man’s part in the universe. The Kwakiutl feel that the beginning of the world was created by
a single food-related act, and that their rituals should illustrate this act. The idea of ingestion is used
in the Potlach ceremonies of the Kwakiutl culture. This is a series of meals that promote proper eating
etiquette. These ceremonies also use objects that pertain to the idea of being eaten. For example, the
serving platters are in the shapes of animal forms. Other examples include the house the door of which
door is shaped like a mouth, and it is believed that when one enters the house one is eaten. Many acts
which are performed during their rituals are related to the Kwakiutl myths. The Kwakiutl mythology is
that the outer form of an animal is their form and their treasure, but the internal part of every creature
is human. That means that even hunting and eating animals is cannibalistic in nature. Many of these
myths are represented in the hamatsa dance which are demonstrations of the power of the community
to control the cannibal spirit for the sake of internal social survival.56 Many of the Kwakiutl masks have
cannibalistic qualities. One example is the cannibal bird, which is a transformation mask that is worn

49 Diaz del Castillo (1988), 17, 133. H. Cort (1980), 225.

50 Dı́az& Rodgers (1993). For examples see Turner & Turner (1999) 418 Fig. 4.1, 419 Fig. 4.2; Davies (1981) 224, 225.
51 Diaz del Castillo (1988), 412.
52 Meanwhile it is even questionable whether the Aztec really practised human sacrifices, or if this was propaganda by the

conquerors. The sacrifices mentioned in the Codices would therefore be mythical rites. See Peter-Röcher (1998) 167, FN
67.
53 Diaz del Castillo (1988), 432.
54 Davies (1981), 253ff. Harris (1977). Hogg (1990), 66f.
55 Mencher (1999).
56 Sanday (1986), 6.

11
during the dance. Eventually, the dancer is transformed into the cannibalistic bird.57
It is clear that an outsider could not easily understand the complex nature of Kwakiutl mythology.
Therefore, all reports of cannibalism were believed to be real acts of cannibalism instead of symbols and
myths. Due to this misunderstanding, the Hamatsas were transformed into a secret sect, a man-eating
elite with cannibalistic initiation rites.
Again, most reports are from missionaries and settlers. They doubtless wanted the Indians to sound
more cruel so as to justify conversion or killing them for their landed property.

3.8 Conclusion
Ancient travellers like Herodotus were always aware of the strangeness of foreign countries. The same
can be said for the travellers who first discovered America or the Fiji Islands: As the distance from home
grew the expectation of meeting people with strange, barbarian customs grew with it, as well as the readi-
ness uncritically to believe information without proof. Furthermore, the belief in the superiority of the
European “white” culture led to the willing acceptance of everything referring to the “savages” excesses.
On the other hand, white travellers were often thought to be cannibals when meeting other cultures:
Chinese noblemen accused a Portuguese delegation of being cannibals and murderers of children.58 M.
Lewis described how amazed he was when he came to Zambia and everybody greeted him with extreme
caution. Later it was explained to him that white people were thought to be vampires and cannibals, a
rumour that seemed to be confirmed when an unsuspecting European company tried to sell cornedbeef
with the picture of a smiling African baby on the label.59 Furthermore, war parties often accused each
other of cannibalism: The enemy is always more brutal and cruel than oneself and therefore deserves to
die! In World War I German soldiers were thought to have eaten their enemies, especially female breasts.
According to the German magazine “Der Spiegel”, Croatian soldiers were accused baking Serbian babies
in pans and forcing their mothers to eat them.60 Frequently, natives who tried to resist the European
conquerors were said to be fierce cannibals.
The most striking thing about all the reports about cannibalism is the communication problem. It
is very unlikely that Staden, for example, was able to communicate with his captors from the very
beginning! How could he have understood all the insults or descriptions of rituals the Indians gave him?
When ethnologists and scientists went on field studies pidgin English or another simple language was used
or one or more translators had to translate. And sometimes the answer could be far from being serious
and honest: The scientist Carl Philipp Friedrich von Martius reported that the Miranhas, dwelling on
the upper Amazonas river, were scarcely known but extremely feared for their cannibalism. Finally, von
Martius managed to interview a Miranhas leader; he admitted to killing and eating people simply for
the taste of human flesh, but added that he would never eat a white man, because they were too sour.61
In cases where signs and gestures were used to “talk” it is very likely that the symbols had different
meanings to each side or were interpreted in the wrong way due to a lack of knowledge of the other
culture, religion etc.
Working on this thesis it became clear to me that all reports of cannibalism were based on second or
even third hand information. Therefore, the possible truth behind the stories was surely lost on the way
from one teller to the other and more and more cruel details were invented or embroidered, depending
on the person’s fantasy. In my opinion, this is comparable to the witch-hunt and religious wars in
the “civilised” Europe: Nobody knew anything for certain, but rumours about child-eating witches,
Christian-killing Jews and sodomistic Catholics62 were quickly born and finally accepted as being true.
At all times, cannibalism was used to accuse and stigmatise unwanted elements of a society, whether they
were political or religious outsiders, or both.63

57 Mencher (1999).
58 Bitterli(1986), 181.
59 Lewis (1989, 94).
60 Der Spiegel 40, 233, 1991.
61 Peter-Röcher (1998), 118.
62 Peter-Röcher (1998), 87ff.
63 Corbin (1992).

12
4 Prehistoric Cannibalism
Intentional degradation of human fossil bones is the post-mortem manipulation of the body or its different
parts. These manipulations can be performed either with or without tools, and many alter the standard
taphonomic processes. Manipulation may affect all parts of the skeleton. However, intentional damages
or cut marks are most frequently found in certain bones such as long bones and crania. Manipulation
of human bones after death has been claimed by scientists for many archaeological Palaeolithic and
Neolithic sites.64 These manipulations could have been produced by actions resulting from (secondary)
burial practices, conflicts or ritual or dietary cannibalism (table 4). In the following, only sites that are
said to reveal evidence of cannibalism are mentioned (table 5).

Variable Conflict Secondary Burial Cannibalism

Perimortem breakage – – Massive
Cut marks Few Many Many
Cut types Chops, cuts, wounds Scraping, cuts Cuts, chops, Scraping
Cut orientation Variable Patterned Patterned
Postcranial cuts Few Several Several
Anvil abrasions – – Present
Burning – ? Present
Pot-polishing – – Present
Skeleton Mostly complete Partial Incomplete
Skull Scalped, broken Defleshed Scalped, defleshed, broken
Mandible Cutting rare Cutting Cutting occurs
Foramen magnum Not affected Enlarged May be enlarged
Vertebrae – – Destroyed

Table 4: Condition of human bones in three contexts

Site Sample Size Age in Society Evidence

years
Atapuerca 6 individuals 780 000 Homo antecessor Hominid bones showing cut
marks
Bodo d’ár 1 cranium 600 000 Archaic Homo sapiens Cut marks
Krapina 75 individuals 130 000 Homo neanderthalensis Shattered and broken bones
Moula Guercy 6 individuals 120 000– Homo neanderthalensis broken hominid skeletal
100 000 fragments with hominid
induced marks
Klassies River Small 120 000 Homo sapiens Human bones showing cut
and tear marks and percus-
sion impact
Perimortem Small 120 000 Homo sapiens Human bones showing cut
breakage and tear marks and percus-
sion impact
Gough’s Cave 5 individuals 12 000 Homo sapiens skull showing cut marks
Fontbrégoua > 13 individuals 6 000 Homo sapiens Human bone clusters
5MT10010 7 individuals 850 Homo sapiens Human bones and coprolite
Mancos 29 individuals 900 Homo sapiens Shattered human bones
showing human induced
marks

Table 5: Archaeological sites mentioned in this thesis

64 De Lumley, H. et al. (1972), de Lumley, M.A. (1972), Ullrich (1978), Le Mort (1989), Trinkaus (1985), Villa et al

(1986b), Russell (1987a;1987b), Defleur et al. (1993), Fernandez-Jalvo et al. (1996).

13
4.1 Atapuerca, Spain
Sierra de Atapuerca is a Karstic complex located in north central Spain. Many of the cavities inside the
complex were used in different ways during most of the Pleistocene period. Excavations in 1996 at th-e
Gran Dolina cave site at Sierra de Atapuerca revealed human remains and tools from about 780 000 years
ago, the oldest that have been discovered in southern Europe. The human remains were designated by J.
L. Arsuaga et al.65 as a new species, Homo antecessor, who settled in Europe before Homo heidelbergensis
and Homo neanderthalensis. Few researchers accept the antecessor taxon, considering the material Homo
heidelbergensis instead.

Figure 2: Stratigraphy of Gran Dolina

Gran Dolina is a great cave around 20 m deep and of an uncertain width, due to its partial destruction.
The cave formed and opened to the air as part of the north-south oriented diaclasas system that crosses
the Sierra as a result of the tensional movements that shaped the area in prehistoric times. Gran Dolina
(TD) has been divided into 11 sedimentary levels, numbered from bottom to top: from TD1 to the first
half of TD8 all levels belong to the Lower Pleistocene. From the last half of TD 8 to TD10 they belong to
the Middle Pleistocene. Finally, TD11 closes the occupational and sedimentary sequence of Gran Dolina
at an early moment of Late Pleistocene (figure 2).

65 Arsuaga et al. (1999), 431–457.

14
 Studies of the lower Pleistocene human fossils found in TD 6 (Aurora stratum) of Gran Dolina
provide evidence of cannibalism.66 The TD6 human hypodigm includes numerous postcranial remains
representing different skeletal parts, as well as some neurocranial, mandibular, facial, and dental spec-
imens. Together with to these bone remains herbivore remains and a number of primitive lithic tools
on flint, quartzite, sandstone and limestone, as well as the waste of their production were also found.
The assemblage lacked large instruments such as bifaces and cleavers. The stone tools were defined as
pre-acheulean technology similar to Mode 1.67 The use-wear analysis indicated that many of the TD6
tools were used to quarter and deflesh carcasses. Most of the faunal and human fossil bones from the
Aurora stratum have human induced damage. Unfortunately, breakage of the human bones could not be
analysed using Villa and Mahieu’s methodology68 , because it is based on long bones which are rare in the
Gran Dolina assemblage. Instead, qualitative fracture analysis, considering peeling, percussion marks,
conchoidal scars and adhered flakes was used.
The human fossils belonged to at least six individuals, which were all infants or adolescents, none
of them older than 20 years of age.69 Of the six hominids hominid 3 is the best preserved. Hominid
3 is a juvenile (probably female) that was approximately 10–11.5 years old at the time of death. This
specimen has been named the type specimen of Homo antecessor. No complete cranial element (skull
vault, mandible or maxilla) has been found in the Aurora stratum. Teeth are the only complete elements
of the cranial skeleton.

Hominid Fossil remains Age at

death
Hominid 1 * Mandible, right side, with M1-M3 in situ. 13–15
* Maxilla, left side, with C and P3 in situ.
* Teeth, mandible: canine and incisor (left side), first and second
premolar (right side).
* Teeth, maxilla: first and second Premolar, first and second molar
(right side), second premolar and first molar (left side).
Hominid 2 Fragment of left maxilla with canine and first molar in situ. 3–4
Hominid 3 * left maxilla and zygomatic bone. 9.5–11
* Teeth in situ: incisor, first premolar, first molar, second mo-
lar, third molar (germen) (right side); canine, first and second
premolar, first molar (left side).
* Fragments of the alveol-frontal.
Hominid 4 Incisor, mandible, left side < 20
Hominid 5 Incisor, mandible, left side < 20
Hominid 6 Incisor, left side (Germ?), maxilla. 3–4

Table 6: Table of human remains from the Aurora stratum: Maxilla, mandible, teeth and skull remains.

There are very few complete elements from the axial skeleton. One cervical vertebra and one rib of
an individual, together with the atlas and a clavicle of a juvenile individual, are complete. Similarly, only
two patellae represent complete limb elements. The skeletal parts with more complete elements were
hands and feet (mainly foot phalanges).
During excavation striations on a small temporal bone fragment were noticed, and subsequent analyses
revealed similar marks on two podial phalanges. Scanning electron microscope analyses of replicas from
these human bones showed clear features characteristic of cut-marks. The temporal bone exhibits about
12 parallel striations on the mastoid crest where the sternocleidomastoid muscle was attached. Identical
placement of cut marks on human skulls has been reported from Neolithic assemblages with extensive
evidence of cannibalism.70 Comparisons with faunal material indicate similar features, probably created
by an identical type of stone tool. Location and distribution of the cut marks suggest of dismembering and
defleshing activities. Both human and non-human remains show similar intensive exploitation. Slight
differences, however, have been observed between faunal and human remains that appear related to
different musculature, weight, and bone structure; e.g. peeling, a type of fracture similar to bending fresh

66 Bermudez de Castro et al. (1997), 1392.

67 Bermudez de Castro et al. (1999), 696.
68 Villa & Mahieu (1991).
69 Lorenzo et al. (1999), 505.
70 Villa et al. (1986a), 143.

15
twig between hands71 , is frequent in humans but rare in fauna. Furthermore, non-human and human
skulls are broken. Cut marks are frequent at the strongest muscle attachments (face muscles, temporalis
and sternocleidomastoid72 ). The observations imply that human and animal carcasses were similarly
processed, with no special or ceremonial treatment for humans, thus indicating cannibalism (see above).
Further, most of the bone fragments show fractures produced when the bones were still green, some of
them with percussion marks that indicate that the actual bone was held against a stone like an anvil and
was hammered on the surface to break the bone and extract the nutritious marrow. These percussion
point marks left on the bone are diagnostic for the use of a stone hammer-like tool (hammerstone), the
impact of which leaves a very distinctive type of crushing pattern at each point the blow lands. This act
of smashing the bone also leaves scrape marks on its reverse side where it lies against a hard surface;
these are known as anvil abrasions. Cranial and postcranial human skeletons had not been sorted out,
and human elements were found disseminated and mixed with herbivore bone fragments.
The influence of carnivores in the site is shown by five fossil remains of felids and mustelids, but
the low incidence of tooth marks (4% of the bone remains), especially in the joint attachment, is not
consistent with a pattern of carnivore priority access to the carcasses.
Comparing the Gran Dolina material with the criteria proposed for cannibalism one has to admit
that the evidence of cannibalism at Gran Dolina is very convincing: First, there are analogous butchering
techniques in humans and non-humans such as dismembering, evisceration, filleting, marrow extraction,
periosteum removal, and skinning (table 7). Secondly, similar breakage pattern to extract the marrow are
observed in human and non-human bones. Thirdly, there are identical patterns of post-processing discard
of human and non-human remains. The fact that the human remains were found in the site in a very
random way, mixed with the animals and the stone tools, with no specific distribution, and treated in the
same way as the animal bones, does suggest that they are the remains of food consumed by hominids. The
cannibalistic practice at Gran Dolina was actually nutritious. But of course it is neither possible to say
why these people were killed nor whether they were members of the group or foreigners. The abundance
of cut marks on temporal bones and facial bones has also been observed at Fontbrégoua.73 However, a
different process is observed on the Bodo cranium with marks around the eye sockets.74 Anyway, I do
not think that the differences in the processing allow any conclusion about the purpose of defleshing.

Body parts Fauna Homo

Heads 1 mandible (F) 2 maxillae (2F)
4 skull fragments (1F, 4S) 1 mandible (F)
4 skull fragments (2D, 2F, 1S)
Axial 24 ribs (1D, 3E, 20F) 4 ribs (2E, 4F)
4 vertebrae (2D, 2F) 3 clavicles (1D, 2F)
2 vertebrae (1D,1F)
Limbs 4 humerii (3F, 1P) 1 radius (D, F)
7 tibiae (1D, 5 F, 1M, 1P) 1 femur (F, M)
1 radius (F)
2 ulnae (2F)
6 femur (5F, 1P)
15 long bones (12 F, 3P)
2 scapulae (2F)
3 flat bones (3F)
1 coxal (F)
Hand & Foot 8 metapodials (6F, 1M, 1P) 2 metapodials (2D, 1P)
elements 2 phalanges (2D 3 phalanges (3D)
1 sesamoid (D)

Table 7: Aim of the action deduced from the type of mark, cut mark, and bone. D=dismembering,
E=evisceration, F=filleting, M=marrow extraction, P=periosteum removal, S=skinning

71 White (1992), 140.

72 e.g. see Fernández-Jalvo et al. (1999), 605 figure 5a.
73 Villa et al. (1986b).
74 White (1986).

16
4.2 Bodo d’Ar, Ethiopia
The Bodo cranium was found in 1976 on an outcrop of Middle Pleistocene sediments at the site of
Bodo in the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia75 . It belonged to an “archaic Homo sapiens” or Homo
rhodesiensis.76 Although nearly 100 fragments of the cranium were found, most of the cranial base has
not been recovered77 . Several hundred stone tools were found in the same layer (layer B), but only
eight of them were located within 400 square metres of the hominid discovery. There were also some
faunal remains found within the surrounding area of the Bodo cranium, including terrestrial, amphibious,
and aquatic species. According to C.G. Conroy, the presence of many hippopotamus remains, including
several skeletons, together with stone tools, suggests that this was a site at which hominids butchered
their prey.78

Figure 3: The 17 cut marks identified by T. White on the Bodo cranium. Shaded portions of the drawing
show areas of postfossilization weathering. Adopted from White (1986) 505, figure 1. Arrows
by the author.

In 1981 Tim White and Desmond Clerk examined the Bodo cranium and identified multiple narrow
striae on the anterior surface of the left zygomatic bone. These marks were later confirmed through
microscopic analysis as cut marks.79 Unfortunately, many areas of the cranium show postfossilization
weathering, so any cut marks in these areas would have been obliterated. Figure 3 shows the 17 cut
marks areas observed by White.80 According to Tim White, some cut marks were produced by multiple
stone tool cutting strokes (e.g. area 1), others were produced by a single stroke (e.g. area 2). Scanning
electron micrographs of the cut marks show long, fine, parallel-to-subparellel grooves81 indicating that the
implement used was probably a flake. In addition, the Bodo cranium shows several healed depressions on
the frontal. These are not necessarily related to the cut marks, which show no healing process. There is
no indication of rodent gnawing or carnivore damage on the surface of the Bodo cranium. Even abrasion
and trauma induced by transport prior to burial is absent. In addition, the distribution, morphology,
and dimensions of the marks on the Bodo cranium eliminate the possibility that marks were made by
abrasive particles in the sedimentary matrix prior to fossilisation as well as the possibility that the bones
were scored by agents such as stones or hooves.82 It is evident that intentional postmortem defleshing of
some kind occurred. The symmetry of the oblique cut marks on the frontal region (areas 2–5) and the
consistent parasagittal directionality and dualtrack morphology of cut marks on the posterior parietals
(ares 13–16) indicate a patterned intentional defleshing of this individual by another hominid with a
stone tool. Unfortunately, the cranial base is missing so that little can be said about the brain removal
through the foramen magnum. No cut marks were observed that would have been applied if the jaw
was separated from the skull. Unfortunately, the mandible is also missing. Therefore it cannot be said

75 Conroy et al. (1978).

76 Kalb et al. (1982).
77 White (1986), 503.
78 Conroy et al. (1978), 67–70.
79 White (1986), 506–507.
80 White (1986), 504f.
81 e.g. White (1982) figure 2.A, B and figure 3. B, C.
82 White (1986), 508.

17
whether the tongue was cut out as would have been indicated by cut marks on the lingual surface of the
mandibula. There is no convincing evidence whether the Bodo specimen was defleshed for burial ritual
or any kind of cannibalism.

4.3 Krapina, Croatia

The Krapina cave is located in Hrvatsko Zagoje, Croatia. The cave was excavated between 1895 and
1905 by Dragutin Gorvanovic-Kramberger.The excavation revealed almost 1000 tools and 884 human
bone fragments belonging to almost 75 different individuals of Homo neanderthalensis, most of whom
died between the ages of 16 and 24. Most hominid discoveries contain scattered and/or shattered bones;
four relatively complete vaults (A, B, C, E) were reconstructed from small pieces. All the crania lack
bases, and all but C lack faces.83 Numerous limb bone shafts that were discovered around the walls
of the cave had been split lengthwise or broken cross-sectionally, whereas the smaller bones (vertebrae,
metacarpals, phalanges) were unbroken. The fragmentary nature of the Krapina bones was heavily
discussed. Rumours of cannibalism were born when the excavator Gorvanovic-Kramberger suggested,
that the inhabitants of the cave ate members of their tribe and scattered the limb bones to extract the
marrow.84
Most of the bones were radiographed at the University of Zagreb in 1989; the remainder were radi-
ographed at the Radiology Clinic in Zagreb in 1997. When Mary Russel examined the bones in 1986, she
came to the conclusion that the Krapina people did not practice cannibalism, because the morphology of
the bone breakage was not consistent with the cannibalism hypothesis.85 Russell noted that microscopic
inspection of the Krapina hominid specimens showed that 23% of the material was broken during the exca-
vation in the 19. century. Furthermore, Russell found support for the thesis that prehistoric breakage was
caused by sedimentary pressure and/or rock pressure. Trinkaus noted that the pattern of fractures seen
in the Krapina bones resembles that seen in Neanderthal burials that were crushed in situ by sediment
weight.86 Furthermore, oblique fractures and diaphyseal splitting are not diagnostic of human marrow
extraction techniques and are in fact commonly produced by many non-human taphonomic agents.87
Marrow extraction by hominids is most convincingly demonstrated by evidence of hammer blows, i.e.
by radial or conchoidal fractures of long bone shafts, but no evidence for hammer blows associated with
marrow extraction have been found on any Krapina hominid specimen. Yet another fact still supports the
theory of cannibalism among the Krapina people: some of the bones showed striations which were inter-
preted as cut marks or defleshing marks by a number of workers; Trinkhaus questioned the authenticity
of the cut marks, although he conceded that some of the striations could indeed be toolmarks.88 But
if some of the striations on the Krapina bones are authentic defleshing marks, the motive for defleshing
must be discussed. Unfortunately, the plausibility of the Krapina striations as defleshing marks has been
both asserted89 and denied90 , but it had never been tested by comparing the Krapina material to the
cut marks that occur on butchered fauna or on human bones known to have been defleshed with stone
tools. In her study Russell showed that the striations on Krapina bones were similar to those that occur
on bones defleshed for secondary burials, not for meat.91 Moreover, the human skeletal part representa-
tion at Krapina strongly suggests that the remains were protected from extensive destruction soon after
death.92 The rapid interment of the bones could have resulted from a series of rockfalls from the shelter
wall, although this is less likely regarding the distortion of the bones. Therefore, the bones might have
been buried by members of the clan. But to explain the fragmentation and disassociation of the remains
it is necessary to assume post-depositional disturbance or pre-depositional partial disarticulation of the
bodies.
Another argument for cannibalism among the Krapina people was that some bones were charred and
therefore must have been cooked. But according to Ullrich, only 6.8% of the skull pieces and 0.5% of the
postcranial pieces show any evidence of burning.93 The burning of a few human bones is not related to
cannibalism. It is more likely that the charring of the bones occurred incidentally to the occupation of

83 Russell (1987a), 373.

84 See Russell (1987a) 373f.
85 Russell (1987a & 1987b).
86 Trinkaus (1985), 213.
87 Russell (1987a), 374.
88 Trinkaus (1985), 207, 209.
89 Ullrich (1978).
90 Trinkaus (1985).
91 Russell (1987b).
92 Trinkaus (1985), 209 ff.
93 Ullrich (1978).

18
the rock shelter.
Paola Villa questioned Russell’s findings, because of the inadequacy of her data.94 But even Villa
had to admit that the Krapina material was selected and incomplete. Therefore only the bone breakage
pattern could provide a significant argument. In the summer of 1999, Alan Mann and Janet Monge, both
form the University of Pennsylvania Museum, studied the radiographs of the Krapina bones. Although
radiographs are not the latest in cutting-edge technology, they do allow researchers to speculate about
the nature of the bone scattering and the bones appear to have been butchered with stone tools. Mann
hesitated, however, to attribute the markings to cannibalism, since he had no other evidence to support
the claim. Just a month after Monge and Mann have published their results, biologist Tim White from
the University of California at Berkeley produced evidence from Moula-Guercy in southern France, that
Neanderthals did practice cannibalism (see below). White claims, that the bones from Krapina show cut
marks similar to those of Moula-Guercy. However, the tips of the Moula-Guercy bones show striation
patterns, typically caused by twisting the bones apart at the joints; the Krapina bone tips do not have
these striations.
Therefore it becomes clear that the Krapina site was a Neanderthal burial site. The sediment pressure
and the excavation destroyed and scattered the bones. The theory of cannibalism at Krapina cannot be
proved; instead, there is enough evidence to make it improbable in principle.

4.4 Moula-Guercy, France

The cave site of Moula-Guercy near the west bank of the Rhone River in Ardeche in southeastern France,
has been excavated since 1991. The stratigraphic sequence is exclusively Middle Palaeolithic. The
excavations have yielded several hominid skeletal fragments together with stone tools and faunal remains
in the same stratigraphic and spatial context. Some of the hominid bones show cut marks.
The cave of Moula-Guercy has been divided into 17 levels (IV–XX): The lowest exposed levels (XVI–
XX) belong to the terminal Middle Pleistocene (stage 6).95 The upper levels (IV–XI) belong to isotope
stage 4. Between those two units lies a thick and homogenous deposit (levels XII through XV) containing
an abundant fauna representative of a temperate forest. The hominid fossils came from level XV, a
temporary Mousterian occupation thought to date between 100 000 and 120 000 B.P. The hominid bones
were identified as the remains of at least six Neanderthals. Additionally, the layer contains structural
evidence in the form of a stone wall and three hearths.96 There were 78 identified, unconjoined hominid
fragments in layer XV. Additionally, there were 1527 nonhominid remains with a dominance of the red
deer cervus elaphus. The hominid fossils include cranial, dental, and postcranial remains. They were so
broken and isolated that determining individual ages was difficult: At least one large and one smaller adult
Neanderthal were represented by clavicles and calcaneal fragments. Two immature individuals were aged
at 15 to 16 years, based on dental eruption; two other individuals were aged six to seven years (table 8).
The hominid and the cervid remains evince parallel discard and processing histories based on their spatial

Age group and sex Individuals with evi-

dence of cannibalism
Adult (> 18) 2
Subadult (12–18) 2
Child (3–12) 2
Infant (0–3) –
Sex? 6
Minimum number of Individuals 6

Table 8: Age and sex of the Moula-Guercy sample

and stratigraphic commingling as well as on the modifications to the hominid and nonhominid bones.97
Only one of the identified cervus specimens, but none of the hominid, shows carnivore modification.
On the other hand, both hominid and deer bones show abundant and unequivocal evidence of hominid-
induced modification. Cut marks, percussion pits, anvil striae, internal vault release, inner conchoidal

94 Villa& Mahieu (1991), 46, FN.

95 Defleur et al. (1999), 128.
96 Defleur et al. (1999), 129 figure 1c.
97 The antiquity of the modifications is demonstrated by the matrix cover and manganese rosettes superimposed on cut

marks, as well as by multiple cut marks crossing ancient fracture edges of refit pieces discovered in different parts of the
cave.

19
scars, crushing of spongy bone, and peeling are all found on both the animal and the hominid remains
(table 9). Analysing the modification to the bones leads to an understanding of the butchering process:
For example, all three individuals represented by the distal clavicle display cut marks on the lateral
inferior surface of this bone, indicating disarticulation at the shoulder. Cut marks on the femoral shaft
indicate that the thigh musculature was removed. Sharpe V-shape scratches on a fragment of a child’s
skull indicate the cutting strokes of a sharp stone flint. In some cases, the cut and percussion marks show
signature criteria indicating successive strokes of the same implement in defleshing and cutting.98 A
comparison of hominid-induced modification on different skeletal parts of deer and Neanderthal99 shows
that all crania and limb bones of both taxa are broken. Only hand and foot bones remained intact. Cuts
across the feet, ankles and elbows indicat the cutting of tendons. In one of the juvenile Neanderthals, the
tongue was cut out as indicated by cut marks on the lingual surface of the mandibula. The temporalis
muscle was removed from two of the immature cranial vaults. Cut marks on the clavicle also show
where the Neanderthals disarticulated the arm at the shoulder. Bone fracture is related to the extracting
of marrow and brains in both Homo and Cervus. The patterns of bone modification observed on the
hominid and deer remains are also in parallel, save for anatomical differences between the taxa. There is
an elevated frequency of hominid vault fragments relative to those of deer, presumably because fracture of
the much larger hominid cranial vault produces more pieces. Furthermore, fracture of deer metapodials
yields more marrow then does fracture of hominid metacarpals or metatarsals, generating differential
fragmentation between the two taxa for these elements.

Human Percussion Crushing Cut marks Peeling Hammer- Anvil

Body damage, stone pits striae
part abrasion
Heads absent present frequent (removal common common absent
of tongue and
temporalis mus-
cle)
Trunk ? present frequent present present ?
Arms present present frequent ? ? ?
Legs present frequent frequent ? present present
Foot & absent absent present ? absent absent
Hand ele-
ments

Table 9: Moula-Guercy: Aim of action deduced from the type of mark, cut mark, and bone

The bone modification indicate that the hominids were defleshed and disarticulated. Finally, the
marrow cavity was exposed by a hammer-on-anvil technique. Refitting of femoral pieces shows that the
medial distal femoral shaft surface was struck with a percussor and fractured while supported on an
anvil.100
It is interesting that even though the Neanderthals had fire in the cave as the hearths indicate, the
bones bear few signs of burning. Tim White suggested that they ate the flesh raw or hacked it from the
bone before cooking.101 I could not find whether the animal bones show burning damage; if they do not,
it may be possible that the cave was a station for hunters where the processed their prey. After that
they could have carried the pieces to another dwelling place before eating. Anyway, I do not think that
Moula-Guercy was a second burial place: The Neanderthal bones were mingled with those of the deer
and scattered throughout the cave. Both types of bones appear to have been littered across the cave floor
rather than buried. If the deer were butchered for food, then the Neanderthals were, too.

4.5 Mouth of the Klasies river, South Africa

The Klasies River is a small stream on the Tsitsikamma coast of South Africa. Near the river are caves
that were inhabited by Homo sapiens about 125.000 years ago. Fossil human remains found in several
layers of the Klassies river occupation were regarded as strong evidence of cannibalism rather than of

98 Defleur et al. (1999), 130 figure 2.

99 Defleur et al. (1999), 129, table 1.
100 Defleur et al. (1999), 130 figure 2a.
101 Culotta (1999), 19.

20
intentional burial: Fire-blackened fragments of skulls and other bones showing cut and tear marks and
percussion impact. While this alone would not convince that cannibalism had taken place, the pieces
were mixed with the rubble of kitchen debris, shells and bones. If cannibalism had taken place, it was
doubtless ritual cannibalism: The people in the caves had plenty of food supply, e.g. fish from the river,
hunting prey and plants.102

4.6 Gough’s Cave, UK

Like Gran Dolina, Gough’s cave at Cheddar George in Somerset is part of a cave system that was used
as shelter by animals and also habitation by people. It use extends back at least 30 000 years. In the
cave unusually damaged human remains have been found which are dated to the very end of the upper
Palaeolithic. The bones are from five people: two adults, two teenagers and a young child aged about
three. Stable isotope analysis of the human bones shows that the people who lived there 12 000 years
ago were primarily hunting red deer and wild cattle, though horses were also part of their diet; they were
probably nomadic herdsmen who moved around the country seasonally.103
Just as in Gran Dolina, the human remains were mixed in with animal bone food refuse. The two
kinds of remains had also been processed in an identical way: A jawbone of a deer and a human jawbone
both show cut marks that seem have been applied to remove the tongue. Professor Chris Stringer of the
Natural History Museum in London examined the human bones. He pointed out that all human remains
show a pattern consistent with dismemberment or butchery. One skull in particular was very revealing: It
show a pattern of cut marks that would have been applied if the jaw was separated from the skull.104 But
also the preservation of the material points towards a processing explanation: Complete ribs were found,
which were fairly delicate bones, but very little evidence of leg bones and arm bones was found. These
seemed to be in very small fragments as though they had been broken with considerable force. Chris
Stringer feels certain that the details of processing clinch the case for cannibalism at Gough’s cave. But
of course the evidence cannot say whether the people were eaten by members of their own group or by
foreigners. One of the individuals does seem to have been beheaded. Cut marks on neck vertebrae indicate
that the individual was beheaded, probably when he (or she) was lying face down105 , but one cannot say
how much violence was involved in the death. Maybe cannibalism is the only plausible explanation for
the Gough’s cave remains, because if one argues for secondary burial all the animal remains mixed with
the human were also secondary burials, which is not very likely. I will discuss this to a greater extend
when coming to the human remains in Fontbrégoua. However, in my opinion the remains from Gough’s
Cave only allow the same conclusions as the Bodo cranium: remains from both sites bear undeniable cut
marks, indicating that the bodies were intentionally defleshed, although not necessarily eaten.

4.7 Fontbrégoua, France

Fontbrégoua is a cave in southeastern France. It was excavated by the Italian archaeologist Paola Villa
in 1986. Several clusters of human and animal bones have been excavated from its Neolithic levels.
Analysis of the cranial and postcranial human remains in addition to detailed bone modification studies
strongly suggest that humans were killed, processed and probably eaten in a manner that finds parallels
in the treatment of wild and domestic animals at Frontbregoua. Dr. Paola Villa suggested that there
is strong evidence for dietary cannibalism, i.d. the use of humans by humans as food, which is found
in bone modification and discard. The key features of dietary cannibalism involve detailed similarities
in the treatment of animal and human remains. She propounded the theory that if it is accepted that
the animals of Fontbrégoua were processed as food items, then it can be suggested by analogy that the
human remains subjected to identical processing, were also eaten. Therefore, her hypothesis of dietary
cannibalism is based on the four types of evidence that I have already mentioned: 1. Similar butchering
techniques in human and animal remains; thus, frequency, location and type of verified cut marks and
chop marks on animal and human bones must be similar, regarding the anatomical difference between
animal and human. 2. Similar patterns of long-bone breakage that might facilitate marrow extraction.
3. Identical patterns of postprocessing discard of human and animal remains. 4. Evidence of cooking,
that would indicate comparable treatment of human and animal remains.
The Fontbrégoua cave is devided into three areas: The porch, the main room, and the lower room
(figure 4). Skeletal and cultural remains were found in all three areas. Stratigraphic and cultural evidence

102 White (1987).

103 Korn et al. (2001), 30.
104 Korn et al. (2001), 30.
105 Korn et al (2001), 30f.

21
 Figure 4: Plan of Fontbrégoua Cave with features: H1, H2, H3 contain human bones.

suggest that during the 5th and 4th millennia B.C. the cave was repeatedly used as a temporary camp.
Preserved habitation features include 13 clusters of bones, which occur in shallow, small hollows of man-
made origin. Three clusters (H1, H2, H3) contained human bones only, the other clusters (features 1–10)
contained the remains of animals. Of the ten clusters containing animal remains, four features (1, 3,
9, 10) contained the remains of several wild animals, mostly wild boar. Four features (4, 5, 6, 7) each
contained the partial remains of a domestic sheep (ovis aries). The excavators judged these features to
be the product of single episodes of butchering. Feature 8 contained a cluster of badly damaged and
pulverised sheep bones, found under a heavy stone. The sheep was probably killed by the stone when it
fell down. Feature 2 contained the only one that might be judged as “ritual”: It contained a single left
frontal bone and horn of a domestic ox with skinning marks above the orbit surrounded by a circle of
stones.
Of the clusters containing human remains, H1 was found in the Lower room, H3 in the main room and
H2 in the porch. Unfortunately, H1 and H2 were disturbed, i.e. they were originally deposited together
but were later displaced vertically and horizontally by other agents. The chronology suggests that cluster
H3 is the youngest of the three.106 It contained 134 fragments of postcranial bones that lack most of
the articular ends. The bones are from at least six individuals, amongst them two children and three
adults. There were also eight stone bracelet fragments that conjoin to form two round bracelets found
in H3. In addition, H3 contained the broken pieces of a small, polished axe, which was probably used
for butchering the axial skeleton, for the chop marks, made with an axe, present on a human rib and a
vertebral fragment of feature H3. The six individuals were killed and discarded at the same time, for the
refitting links combined with vertical plots of elements show that feature H3 represents a single event.107
The disturbed H1 cluster contained mostly cranial bones108 and 34 postcranial elements that belong
to a minimum number of individuals of seven, three adults and four children. Cut marks on the cranial
elements109 show that the sternocleidomastoid and the muscle temporalis were removed. Carnivore or
rodent marks are visible on some bones. Interestingly, 45,6% of all bones of H1 and 30,3% of all bones
of H3 show cut marks.
The number of postcranial bones in H2 was too small to be informative. Furthermore, the excavators
were not sure that all bones have been discovered. Neither rodent nor carnivore marks are visible on the
H2 bones, but of ten bones, three show cut marks.
As shown in figure 4 human and animal clusters were found together all over the cave, even in the
same level (H3, 9,10). The body parts represented in each cluster suggested the following observation: 1.

106 Villa et al. (1986a), 432, Table 1.

107 Villa et al. (1986a), 433.
108 Five incomplete crania, fragments of two others, and six mandibles.
109 Villa et al (1986b), 163, figure 14.

22
In all the clusters humans and animals are represented by selected body parts; other parts are missing
or less frequent then expected. 2. Sometimes only a small portion of an anatomical segment is present.
For example, in feature H3 the sacrum and pelvis were only represented by small fragments.
The pattern that emerges from all the animal and human clusters shows that the carcasses were
processed and discarded according to the same kind of selective butchering. Three observations are
interesting: 1. Missing anatomical segments are represented by isolated elements or scraps of little
food value, e.g. intact lower leg parts in feature 4. 2. The isolated elements are near or at the point
of segmentation and disjointing. 3. There are abnormally high frequencies of ovicaprine milk teeth
with maximum degree of wear and totally resorbed roots. These teeth were lost naturally. The only
explanation is that the animals were kept in pens inside the cave; thus, it is likely that they were killed
and butchered at the site. Therefore, segmentation of the carcasses took place in the cave itself. After
disarticulation, selected body parts were set aside for further processing; thus they are missing from the
feature. Villa suggested that defleshing and marrow fracturing was done on a skin, the most nutritious
parts being removed to be consumed outside, while the remaining detritus of the carcass was bundled up
to the skin and put to one side.110 This would explain why the bones were tightly packed in well-defined
clusters and why so many fragments can be conjoined.
Selective processing of different body parts may have been due to patterns of delayed consumption or
to sharing with other members of the group who were not living at the cave. Segmentation and selection
of parts for different use or distribution are normally practised when butchering animals; their occurrence
in the processing of human carcasses is significant. None of the bones show evidence of cooking, although
the defleshed meat may have been cooked once it had been removed from the bone.
All cut marks on animal or human bones show features suggesting that they were made shortly after
death. This immediate processing is consistent with an interpretation that both animals and humans
were processed for use as food. Interestingly, two of the three clusters of human bones correspond to the
wild animal pattern of butchering. The frequency of cut marks was high111 , e.g. 41.7% of the human
humeri and 40.0% of the animal humeri.
With respect to cut mark location and morphology, a remarkable degree of concordance can be
observed between animal and human bones: 70% of the cut mark varieties on the human bones can be
matched to similar marks on correspondending animal bones. Differences in cut mark location between
animal and human bones are important for two elements, the scapula and the cranium (table 10). The

Body parts Fauna Homo

Crania 84,6 CM 100 CM
76,9 SK 75 SK
30,8 D 25 D
Mandible 78,6 CM 88,9 CM
57,1 SK 66,7 SK
54,5 D 55,6 D
Ribs 59,1 CM 26,3 CM
32,9 F 21 F
36,4 D 13,2 D
Humerus 40 CM 41,7 CM
40 F 41,7 F
10 D
Femur 41,4 CM 38,5 CM
27,6 F 23,1 F
24,1 D 38,5 D
Tibia & Fibula 38,5 CM 32,8 CM
38,5 F 28 F
7,6 D 4D
Scapula 44,4 CM 50 CM
22,2 F 18,7 F
22,2 D 50 D

Table 10: Percentage of bones with cut marks from human and faunal remains at Fontbrégoua. CM=Cut
marks, F= Filleting marks, SK=Skinning marks, D= Dismembering marks. See also Villa et
al. (1986b), 152, figure 7a.

110 Villa et al. (1986a), 434.

111 Villa et al. (1986a), 435, table 4.

23
greater variety of cut marks on human scapulae might be due to the greater complexity of the human
anatomy. The treatment of the human crania parallels that of animal crania in respect to sagittal skinning
marks, but the human material also shows cut marks in locations that were undamaged on animal bones.
It has been suggested that the human crania were more extensively defleshed because they were kept as
trophies or ritual objects.112 Other evidence linked with dietary cannibalism has been observed in the cave
remains: all marrow bones in the feature and all bones in the H3 cluster were broken in several fragments.
The high degree of fragmentation of the long bones is primarily attributed to deliberate breakage for
marrow, although some damage might be due to sediment pressure and postdepositional alteration. In
H3 most of the long bone fragments were thin, elongate shaft splinters. Neither fracture morphology nor
impact scars with splintered margins are exclusively associated with human marrow fracturing, and they
may have been produced by carnivores, but strong evidence against carnivore damage and for the human
origin of bone breakage is provided by the repetitive patterns of the bone clusters: sharp horizontal
boundaries and localised densities of homogenous items.
Fontbrégoua is maybe the most striking evidence of cannibalism: Although domestic sheep were
butchered one at a time, wild animals were obviously captured and butchered in groups, as a result
of a successful hunting. Interestingly, two of the three clusters of human bones correspondent to the
wild animal pattern of butchering. It is easy to imagine how hunting fortune did not drive game to the
inhabitants of the cave but another family, strolling around the cave or the surrounding woods, which
was captured and finally treated like game and butchered. This scenario would match the archaeological
record perfectly. The people were butchered immediately, because it would not have been sensible to
keep them: Keeping would mean feeding, caring, and the sharing of rare resources. Another explanation
would be a single violent attack in which the six people at Fontbrégoua died and were afterwards eaten
by the attackers. The link between conflict, warfare and aggressive exocannibalism mentioned in so many
reports about cannibals seems to match the Fontbrégoua assemblage perfectly. Anyway, these are only
speculations. But it should be clear that the Fontbrégoua cave people were eaten by cannibals: the
evidence of breakage to extract marrow and the mode of discard contrast strongly with known secondary
burial practice at this time. Elements of ritual may have been present in the treatment of the human skulls,
but this is not very convincing: The skulls were also found in an garbage pit. Furthermore, cannibalism in
Fontbrégoua was obviously not motivated by starvation: The human remains were associated with animal
remains, so animals were available. Finally, the pattern that emerges is consistent with an interpretation
as cannibalism, probably exocannibalism: similarities in treatment of animal and human remains are
striking. Other, non-cannibalistic explanations for the bone assemblages at Fontbrégoua do not convince.
Villa pointed out, that if the bones were the end product of a funerary ritual, then one must conclude
“that the Fontbrégoua people hunted, herded and butchered – but did not eat – food animals and that
they gave secondary burial to boars, deer, sheep, roe deer, badgers and marten.”113 Stringer made the
same point about the bones at Gough’s Cave: “If you argue for that, we’ve then got to argue that these
animal bones were being treated ritually and buried in the same way. So I think the human bones were
being processed in the same way as the animal bones for food. So we clearly have this cannibalism going
on.”114

4.8 Cannibalism in the American southwest

Characteristics of skeletal remains from some archaeological sites in south-western America have led
investigators to conclude that sporadic cannibalism was practised by the Anasazi, a prehistoric Native
American people. Anasazi burials are typically primary burials and are often accompanied with grave
goods. However, during the excavation of several sites in the Four Corners area of Colorado, Arizona, Utah
and New Mexico, human skeletal remains obviously not in their primary contexts have been encountered.
These remains are extremely fragmentary, with obvious intentional cut marks. Turner115 and White116
summarised the evidence and concluded that cannibalism was practised at these localities. Turner and
Turner117 have extended these studies. However, the practice was very uncommon, as the number of
recorded cases of cannibalism is very small in comparison to the thousands of Anasazi sites that have
yielded evidence of intentional, primary, considered burial. However, since last year, even those who
denied cannibalism among the Anasazi have been forced to re-thing their doubts.

112 Villa et al. (1986b), 435 & FN 30.

113 Paola Villa in Cannibal–Bones of contention, Channel 4, 27.02.2001.
114 Chris Stringer in Cannibal–Bones of contention, Channel 4, 27.02.2001.
115 Turner, C.G. Taphonomic reconstruction of human violence and cannibalism based on mass burials in the American

Southwest. In: LeMoine & McEachern (1983) 219-240.

116 White (1992).
117 Turner & Turner (1999).

24
4.8.1 Cannibalism at Anasazi site 5MT10010
Convincing evidence for cannibalism was found in a small Anasazi site (figure 5) known as 5MT10010 in
south-western Colorado, located along Cowboy Wash. Results from a study done show that three families
occupied the site for approximately 20 to 30 years. When the residents abandoned their homes, sometime
around 1150, at least seven people – men, women and children – were systematically cut up and possibly
consumed. Their incomplete remains were left on floors and in other non-burial contexts in two of the

Figure 5: Map of 5MT10010, showing the three pithouses (F3, F13, F15). The inset shows the interior
of F15 where the coprolite was found. Adopted from Marlar et al. (2000) 75, figure 1.

three pithouses.118 In feature 3, over a thousand human bones and fragments were found piled in a side
chamber while others were recovered directly from the floor of the structure with no sediment beneath.
In feature 13, whole bones and fragments were left directly on the floor, piled in a side chamber or stacked
on a bench. Scorched tooth and bone fragments were also found in the central hearth and in ash piles on
the structure floor. Although no human remains were left behind at the time of abandonment, fragments

118 The human remains were left in feature 3 and 13. See Marlar et al. (2000) 75, figure 1.

25
of a cooking pot were found scattered throughout the structure in the third pithouse (feature 15). An
unburned human coprolite was found in the central hearth of that structure. Its unburned condition
shows that it was deposited after the last use of the hearth.
Researchers collected the human faeces from the hearth and tested them for biochemical evidence of
human tissue.119 Extensive analyses of the three pithouses at the site, and the human bones and tools
found inside, along with laboratory tests, showed:
• human blood residue on two stone tools used in butchering
• human myoglobin, which is found only in human skeletal and cardiac muscle cells, in the human
excrement and on the shards from the cooking pot in pithouse 15. Evidently, human flesh was cooked
in the vessel and the individual who defecated in the hearth was involved in the consumption of
human flesh.
• cut marks and charring on human bones, including skulls, entirely consistent with food preparation.
• No evidence of mammals, corn or other vegetable matter in the coprolite, which suggests that the
depositor of the coprolite had not consumed these foods 12–36 hours before defecation.

One unusual finding at the excavation was that in the pithouses, almost all roofing material, tools,
vessels and other valuables were still there. The excavators therefore suggested that people had no time to
pack or had to flee. The people who periodically occupied and abandoned that part of Colorado between
700 and 1300 were farmers. The 5MT10010 site was part of a small community that attempted to colonise
the area between 1130 and 1150. The community consisted of a cluster of 10 small sites with a total
population of 70 to 125 people. Previous excavations of three other sites in the community revealed the
same pattern of abandonment; a total of at least 35 adults and children were killed when the settlement
was abandoned. It is possible that the entire community was extinguished in a single episode of violence
and social chaos caused by a drought. Looking at the diet of the depositer of the coprolite, which did
not include plants, makes a drought more than likely. Another case of cannibalism, where at least four
individuals were killed, happened at Cottonwood Canyon site 42SA12209 some 250 years earlier120 . Here,
too, a drought seems the most convincing reason for the cannibalistic activity, for material culture, pollen
and macrobotanical remains from the site all indicate that the prehistoric inhabitants were agriculturists
who relied heavily on the cultivation of corn of their subsistence.

4.8.2 Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346

The site 5MTUMR-2346 is located in Mancos Canyon on the Utah Mountain Indian Reservation in Mon-
tezuma County, southwest Colorado, approximately 10 km south of the southern boundary of the Mesa
Verde National Park.During salvage excavation of the Anasazi pueblo in 1973 over two thousand broken
and scattered bones representing approximately thirty humans had been recovered. The assemblage had
been recovered in site and was essentially unmixed with other fauna. The material was dated to 1100
A.D. The site had two dwelling periods; most deposits of fragmented human bones were located in rooms
of the earlier pueblo (figure 6), in room 14 and 15. A full 75 percent of the total Mancos minimum num-
ber of individuals121 and all five individuals age six years and younger came from these two rooms122 ,
indicating that bone deposition was not random (figure 7). With increasing age, immature individuals
stood a much higher chance of having their remains deposited in room 15 or 14.
Determining the sex of the Mancos individuals was more difficult than determining the age (table 11),
because intact specimen retaining the pubis, the most accurate sex indicator of the skeleton, were not
recovered.123
For the scattered and fragmentary nature of some assemblages the excavator, L. V. Nordby, suggested
four hypotheses124 , two of them involving secondary burial. He rejects such ideas based on the nature
and degree of fragmentation of specimen. Two other hypotheses involve cannibalism: Either the site
was attacked by people who killed the inhabitants and dismembered and cannibalised the corpses or the
people from the site attacked another pueblo, killed a number of young adults and children and returned
with the bodies or parts of them to the site, either for an cannibalistic ritual or because of famine.

119 Marlar et al. (2000).

120 White & Folkens (2000).
121 Minimum number of individuals is 29.
122 room 14 came 10 individuals, from room 15 came 13 individuals.
123 White (1992), 92.
124 White (1992), 60ff.

26
Figure 6: Map of the combined older (indicated in black) and younger pueblos at 5MTUMR-2346. Prove-
nience for the broken, scattered human bones is indicated by the base of the vertical columns.
Specimen counts are indicated by height of each column, segmented by element groups. Rooms
14 and 15 are indicated by the author. All broken human bones came from the older settlement.
Adopted from White (1992), 55 figure 3.12.

Figure 7: 5MTUMR-2346: Age segregation by room. The larger number of specimens from younger
individuals is in room 14.

Age group and sex Individuals with evi-

dence of cannibalism
Adult (> 18) sex? 15
Subadult (12–18) 8
Child (3–12) 5
Infant (0–3)
Age? / Sex? 1
Total 29

Table 11: Age and sex groups in the Mancos sample

27
 In the Mancos sample, virtually all damage to the skeletal elements is attributable to human agency.
There is no evidence that carnivores modified this assemblage.
There are many theories why cannibalism happened in Mancos and Southwest USA. One theory is the
starvation-theory: People ate each other to escape starvation. But according to White125 this is not very
likely. If starvation was the reason for cannibalism it must be seen in a broader context. This leads to the
next theory, the drought-theory: A drought was noted in the Mancos-region in the period AD 1140–1189,
but it is not possible to establish a relationship between this drought and the human bone assemblage.126
The third theory is that cannibalism was introduced to the Southwest by Mesoamerican Indians, who
were said to be fierce cannibals (see above). But there is no evidence to indicate that cannibalism in
the Southwest had a Mesoamerican connection nor is there evidence to rule this possibility out. The
fourth theory is – in my opinion a very convincing – mixture between the other theories; furthermore,
this theory includes warfare. However, the degree to which the cannibalism inferred for the Mancos
assemblage relates to warfare between indigenous groups is not possible to ascertain. It is, for example,
possible that climatically induced famine led to raiding bands of individuals preying upon and consuming
other people. In this instance, the distal explanation for the bone assemblage at Mancos would be
climatic, a more proximal explanation would be famine, and the most local could be the revenge or/and
ritual associated internecine warfare.

4.8.2.1 Cannibalism or mortuary ritual?

Extensive perimortem fragmentation of the skeletal elements is observed at the Mancos assemblages.
There is much evidence of human induced toolmarks resulting from defleshing, disarticulation, and per-
cussion activities. There is also much evidence for thermal alteration: There is a very strong pattern of
burning damage on the bones. This patterning correspond to the flesh cover of the bones in the human
body: The more superficial a bone, the more burning. On the other hand, there is only minimal evidence
of geological alteration of the bones and no evidence of alteration by nonhuman mammals. The context
of the occurrence and the damage on the bones indicate that the primary, if not exclusive, agent of
the modifications was human. This may provide clues about prehistoric human behaviour: Burial rites
and/or cannibalism.
It might be argued that the heavy percussion to the Mancos bones documented by White resulted
from activities designed to eliminate identifiable bones, rather than to derive nutrition from them. This
explanation is undermined by the fact that the mandible, one of the most diagnostic and recognisable
human bones, is the most intact bone in the assemblage. Furthermore, long-bone shafts of large diameter
(= large marrow context) were fractured, whereas long-bone shafts of small diameter (e.g. radius, ulna)
were mostly unbroken. This pattern implies that destruction of bones was keyed to the acquisition of their
nutritional contents. Furthermore, many Mancos 5MTUMR-2346 human bone specimen bear evidence
of pot polish on their broken ends. The inference that the human bones, once fragmented, were cooked
in pots like animal bones127 represents a strong argument for cannibalism. On the other hand, cooking
the bones facilitates the defleshing for mortuary ritual as well.

4.8.2.2 Human skeletal remains

Besides the more typical burials described by White128 scattered bone beds were found in several loca-
tions on the Mancos 5MTUMR-2346 site. There is a clear dichotomy between these remains and the
intentional, primary burials. Unlike the primary burials, there was no association or articulation of skele-
tal elements, and multiple individuals were mixed together in the scattered bone beds. It is inferred that
fragmentation of these remains was not a result of sediment pressure because fragments of individual
skeletal elements were found widely separated. Further support for this inference comes from the fact
that thin long bone shafts (e.g. fibulae) were intact, whereas bones that are much larger and more re-
sistant to fragmentation (e.g. femur and tibiae) were highly fragmented. Furthermore, elements in the
bone beds manifest burning and trauma. There is no evidence of purposive burial, and no evidence of
burning in situ. Therefore, White suggest that the term “burial” should not be applied to these broken
and shattered remains.129

125 White (1992), 363f.

126 White (1992), 362.
127 White (1992), chapter 12.
128 White (1992), 50ff.
129 White (1992), 53.

28
 Several bone deposits were not as concentrated as the bone beds. In these cases, the bone fragments
were found throughout the fill above the floors, extending from the floor itself through the floor contact
, and into the fill. These bones were mixed with substantial amounts of organic debris, earth, potsherds,
flakes, ground stone, and pecked stone artefacts.
Each part of the skeleton shows a distinctive pattern of processing (see table 12). Percussion damage
is widespread and particularly evident on subcutaneous bones of the vault. Evidence of crushing is
minimal. Hammerstone pits and abrasion, related to percussion, are present on the vault. Adhering
flakes and peeling are common. Cut marks are rare, chop marks and scraping virtually absent. Evidence
of burning is widespread, with the heaviest burning damage found on subcutaneous, ectocranial surfaces.
The lack of cut marks near the occipital condyles and the low frequency of cut marks in the nuchal region
suggest that the skull and upper cervical vertebrae were removed as a unit. The high incidence of cut
marks on the vault compared to a lower incidence of cut marks on the facial region suggest that the
scalp was removed from some of the heads.130 The overall low incidence of cut marks, particularly on the
mandibles, the temporals, and the nuchal region, suggest that muscle masses were infrequently removed
or did not require heavy cutting.

Body Percussion Crushing Hammer- Cut Chop Peeling Burning

part damage, stone marks marks
abrasion pits
Heads widespread minimal present rare absent common widespread
Trunk present minimal ? frequent absent ? low
Arms present present ? present ? ? present
Legs frequent frequent ? present ? ? frequent
Foot & rare present absent ? ? ? rare
Hand
ele-
ments

Table 12: Aim of action deduced from the type of mark, cut mark, and bone in the Mancos sample

Disarticulation of anatomical segments of the trunk is most clearly seen in the os coxae, where cut
marks around the acetabulum indicate femoral removal. Furthermore, frequent cut marks on the su-
perior clavicular surface are probably associated with decapitation, and it is possible that the upper
cervical vertebrae accompanied the head as a unit.131 Frequent cut marks on the external rib surfaces,
parasagittal marks on the posterior surfaces of lumbar and thoracic vertebral arches, cut marks on the
inferior clavicular surfaces, and cut marks in the scapula’s infraspinous fossa indicate the removal of skin
and musculature. Removal of rib slabs is indicated by the fragmentation pattern within the ribs and
associated damage to the vertebrae. Evidence of burning of the bones of the trunk is lower than that
seen in the cranium. Neither the trunk as a unit nor rib slabs seem to have been exposed to intense heat
in the way that the cranium was. The pattern of thermal damage correlates strongly with the depth of
the soft tissue coverage.
It is very difficult to say anything about the processing of arms. The small sample size and the
absence of proximal humeri make it impossible to say anything about removal of hands at the wrist or
disarticulation of arms on the shoulder. But transverse slicing cut marks on the distal humeri indicate the
segmentation of the arm at the elbow. Burning on the fleshed arm occurred, with the most subcutaneous
parts of the forearm showing most of the damage. Subsequent to burning, all bones of the arm were
broken. Fracture of the arm bones was accomplished by bending at midshaft and by percussion.
The leg bones are very fragmented by fracture. Disarticulation of the leg at the hip is indicated by
slicing marks around the acetablum and by marks on the very limited femoral sample. Burning of the
fleshed leg is best indicated in the tibial shafts that show a clear patterning of burning damage to the
subcutaneous anteromedial surface. Subsequent to burning, percussion fracture of the ends and the shaft
was accomplished on an anvil. The same is indicated for the femur, but the burning is less frequent on
this bone. There seems to be a difference in the processing of young and old leg bone shafts, depending
on the largeness.

130 This might be related to functional aspects (e.g. easier access to the bone), aesthetic reasons (e.g. avoid the smell of

burning hair) or ritual reasons (e.g. trophy acquisition).

131 White (1992), 236.

29
 Foot and hand elements were processed in a very similar manner: They show virtually no evidence of
toolmarks associated with disarticulation or defleshing. But disarticulation did occur as proven by the
crushing damage to the hand’s and foot’s regions with a thin cortex and spongy bone below. Shafts of
both the hand and foot bones, although considerably thinner-walled and easier to break than humeral or
femoral shafts, were left unbroken in almost all cases. Burning of the foot is less patterned than is the
case for the hand.

4.9 Conclusion
In contrast to the reports and rumours of cannibalism discussed in chapter 3, the fossil evidence is more
convincing. As shown above, there are indeed sites where cannibalism seems to have been practised.
Although it is undeniable that people were processed and butchered by other people (e.g. Atapuerca,
Moula Guercy, Fontbrégoua, Gough’s Cave, Mancos), it is absolutely not possible to say why this hap-
pened. Apart from cannibalism there are other theories that would explain the processing of bodies (e.g.
second burial). Some may argue that if the processing of the human bodies is similar to the processing
of animal carcasses the humans were also treated as food. But on the other hand, people were hunters:
They gained their skills by processing animal carcasses. If they had to process a body for any reason, they
would do it as fast and as good as they can, therefore using their animal-butchering skills. The only thing
that would probably win everybody for the cannibal thesis would be traces of human teeth on human
bones. But yet such a thing is not found. In my opinion, the most convincing evidence of cannibalism
is the human coprolite found at the Anasazi site 5MT10010 revealing traces of human myoglobin. When
cannibalism happened here, it could have happened elsewhere as well. Therefore, the question should be
why it happened at all. We can only speculate upon the reason: Whether climatic changes, warfare, diet
or social and cultural pressure – we will never know for sure. It is a widespread prejudice that the Homo
neanderthalenis was THE cannibal of our past. But even if we consider some of the sites mentioned above
as scenes of cannibalism, the Neanderthals were not the only cannibals: Homo sapiens is also suspect of
being a cannibal.

30
5 Conclusion
Nowadays, ethnologists try not to define cannibalism as a negative characteristic. They rather refer to it
as normal but strange behaviour. Yet cannibalism is still seen as the border line between the “primitive”
and the “civilised”. The “primitive” devours skin particles, marrow, and ashes of the deceased, and
sometimes he drinks blood; doubtless, he is a cannibal. The civilised may drink blood, celebrate Holy
Communion or use medicine made of bones or mummies, but he is never stigmatised as a cannibal, because
cannibalism does not at all fit into Western and European thinking. The thought of ingesting human
flesh or drinking blood may fill people with disgust, but organ transplantation and blood transfusion are
now an accepted part of standard medical practice. Perhaps when it has to do with medicine, people
accept cannibalism more readily, forgetting that some treatments actually constitute taking in another
person’s flesh and blood. Of course, this is not the same as cannibalism; the point is: people have no
problems accepting the “replacement” of flesh and blood for medical purposes; what they fear is the
eating of human flesh and blood.
The question is, if cannibalism – whether it existed as described in so many reports and pictures –
is indeed more cruel and abhorrent than the treatment and torture of enemies “invented” by the pure
European spirit of civilisation. The famous sixteenth-century philosopher and writer Michel de Montaigne
considered the ethical implications suggested by Tupinamba’s cannibalism, drawing a rational conclusion
in his famous essay “On Cannibals”: “ I am not sorry that we should here take notice of the barbarous
horror of so cruel an action, but that, seeing so clearly into their faults, we should be so blind to our
own. I conceive there is more barbarity in eating a man alive, than when he is dead; in tearing a body
limb from limb by racks and torments, that is yet in perfect sense; in roasting it by degrees; in causing it
to be bitten and worried by dogs and swine(. . . ), than to eat him after he is dead.“ The more civilised a
society the more cruel it seems to be, e.g. the civil war in former Yugoslavia, the war in the Kosovo, the
Holocaust, the religious wars in France and the persecution of witches.
Even if the author tends to deny cannibalism in general, there still could well be societies in which
cannibalism was performed: The point is that all reports are not free of prejudices and that truth and
propaganda are blended by the authors. However, just because Europeans cannot imagine eating another
person it does not mean that other societies and cultures feel the same way. An Indian would never eat
a cow, but there are many other people who would do so.
As shown in this paper there is evidence for cannibalism in our past. The reasons for that kind of
cannibalism will never be revealed, but if cannibalism in the archaeological record comes as close to our
present as 1000 years, why should it not have been able to survive over the centuries?
To prove ancient cannibalism, scientists can only work with the material remains, the bones. As men-
tioned above, there are certain criteria of cannibalism, but their conclusiveness is a matter of interpreta-
tion: bones could have been broken or charred for other reasons rather than cannibalism. Unfortunately,
we do not know anything about the spiritual world of early hominids. Therefore we cannot say anything
about their burial rites.

31
List of Tables
1 Possible reasons for cannibalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Cases of cannibalism mentioned in the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Reported rights of kin to human flesh during mortuary feasts in a South Fore population . 8
4 Condition of human bones in three contexts: Conflict, Secondary Burial, Cannibalism . . 13
5 Archaeological sites mentioned in this thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6 Table of human remains from the Aurora stratum, Gran Dolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7 Aim of the action deduced from the type of mark, cut mark, and bone . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8 Age and sex of the Moula-Guercy sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9 Moula-Guercy: Aim of action deduced from the type of mark, cut mark, and bone . . . . . 20
10 Percentage of bones with cut marks from human and faunal remains at Fontbrégoua . . . 23
11 Age and sex groups in the Mancos sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12 Aim of action deduced from the type of mark, cut mark, and bone in the Mancos sample . 29

List of Figures
1 The study of human cannibalism involves Anthropology as well as Archaeology . . . . . . . 2
2 Stratigraphy of Gran Dolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3 The 17 cut marks identified by T. White on the Bodo cranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4 Plan of Fontbrégoua Cave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5 Map of 5MT10010, showing the three pithouses (F3, F13, F15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6 Map of the combined older and younger pueblos at 5MTUMR 2346 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7 5MTUMR-2346: Age segregation by room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

32
References
[1] Arens, W. (1979) The Man-eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
[2] Arsuaga, J.L., Martinéz, I., Lorenzo, C., Gracia, A.,Munoz, A., Alonso, O. & Gallego, J. (1999).
The human cranial remains from Gran Dolina Lower Pleistocene site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain).
J. of Human Evolution 37, 431–457.
[3] Barker, F. , Hulme, P. & Iversen, M. (eds.) (1988) Cannibalism and the Colonial World. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
[4] Behringer, W. (ed) (1992) Amerika. Die Entdeckung und Entstehung einer neuen Welt. München.

[5] Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Martinez, I. & Mosquera, M.
(1997) A hominid from lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible ancestor to Neanderthals
and Modern humans. Science 276, 1392–1395.
[6] Bermúdez de Castro, J.M, Carbonell, E., Cáceres, I., Fernández-Jalvo, Y., Mosquera, M., Ollé, A.,
Rodrguez, J., Rodrguez, X.P., Rosas, A., Rosell, J., Sala, R., Vergs, J.M. & van der Made, J. (1999)
The TD6 (Aurora stratum) hominid site. Final remarks and new questions. J. of Human Evolution
37, 695–700.
[7] Bitterli, U. (1976) Die Wilden“ und die Zivilisierten“. Grundzüge einer Geistes- und Kulturge-
” ”
schichte der europäisch-überseeischen Begegnung. München.
[8] Bower, B. (1993) The cannibal’s signature. Science News 143, 12.
[9] Bower, B. (1999) Cave finds revive Neanderthal cannibalism. Science News 156, 213.
[10] Brown, P. & Tuzins, D. (eds.) (1983) The Ethnography of Cannibalism. Society for Psychological
Anthropology, Washington, D.C.
[11] Conroy, G.C., Jolly, C.J., Cramer, D. & Kalb, J.E. (1978) Newly discovered fossil hominid skull from
the Afar Depression, Ethiopia. Nature 275, 67–70.
[12] Corbin, A. (1992) The Village of Cannibals. Rage and murder in France, 1870. Polity Press, Cam-
bridge.
[13] Cortés, H. (1980) Drei Berichte von Hernán Cortés an Kaiser Karl V. Frankfurt/M.
[14] Culotta, E. (1999) Neanderthals were cannibasl, bones show. Science 286, 18–19.
[15] Davies, N. (1981) Human Sacrifice: In History and Today. William Morrow, New York.
[16] Defleur, A., Dutour, O., Valladas, H., Vandermeersch, B. (1993) Cannibals among the Neanderthals?
Nature 362, 214.

[17] Defleur, A., White, T.D., Valens, P., Slimak, L. & Crégut-Bonnoure, E. (1999) Neanderthal canni-
balism at Moula-Guercy, Ardeche, France. Science 286, 128–131.
[18] Dı́az, G. & Rodgers, A. (1993) The Codex Borgia. Dover Publications, New York.
[19] Diaz del Castillo, B.de (1988) Die Geschichte der Eroberung von Mexiko. Frankfurt/M.

[20] Durham, W.H. (1991) Coevolution. Genes, Culture, and human Diversity. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, California.
[21] Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings. Scibners, New York (1951).
[22] Fernández-Jalvo, Y., Diez, J.C., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E. & Arsuaga, J.L. (1996).
Evidence of early cannibalism. Science 271, 277–278.
[23] Fernández-Jalvo, Y. Carlos Diez, J., Cáceres, I. & Rosell, J. (1999) Human cannibalism in the early
Pleistocene in Europe (Gran Dolina, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). J. of Human Evolution
37, 591–622.

33
[24] Forsyth, D.W. (1983) The beginning of Brazilian Anthropology: Jesuits and Tupinamba cannibalism.
J. of Anthropological Research 39 (1), 147–178.
[25] Forsyth, D.W. (1985) Three cheers for Hans Staden: The case for Brazilian cannibalism. Ethnohistory
32 (1), 17–36.

[26] Gaidusek, D.C. (1977) Unconventional viruses and the origin and disappearance of Kuru. Science
197, 943–960.
[27] Gibbons, A. (1997) Archaeologists rediscover cannibals. Science 277, 635–637.
[28] Gibbs, C., Amyx, H., Bacote, A., Masters, C. & Gaidusek, D.C. (1980) Oral transmission of Kuru,
Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, and Scrapie to nonhuman Primates. J. of infectious diseases 142 (2),
205ff.
[29] Gordon-Grube, K. (1988) Anthropophagy in Post-Renaissance Europe: The tradition of Medicinal
Cannibalism. Am. Anthropologist 90, 405–409.

[30] Harris, M. (1977) Cannibals and Kings. Random House, New York.
[31] Hogg, G. (1990)3 Cannibalism and human sacrifice. Hale, London.
[32] Holden, C. (1999) What Fijians had for dinner. Science 286, 39.
[33] Holt, T. (2000). Valhalla. Orbit, London.
[34] Johanson, D. & Edgar, B. (1998) Lucy und ihre Kinder. Spektrum Verlag, Heidelberg-Berlin.
[35] Kalb, J.E., Jolly, C.J., Mebrate, A., Tebedge, S., Smart, C. Oswald, E.B., Cramer, D., Whithead,
P., Wood, C.B., Conroy, G.C., Adefris, T., Sperling, L. & Kana, B. (1982) Fossil mammals and
artefacts from the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Nature 298, 25–29.
[36] Kohl, K.-H. (1986) Exotik als Beruf. Erfahrung und Trauma der Ethnographie. Frankfurt/M.-New
York.
[37] Kolata, G. (1986) Anthropologists suggest cannibalism is a myth. Science 233, 1497–1500.
[38] Korn, D., Radice, M. & Hawes, Ch. (2001) Cannibal. Macmillan Publishers Ltd., London.
[39] LeMoine, G,M, & McEachern, A.S. (eds.) (1983) Carnivores, human scavengers, and predators:
A question of bone technology. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary,
Canada.
[40] Le Mort, F. (1989) Traces de decharnement sur les ossements neanderthaliens de Combe-Grenal
(Dordogne). Bull. Soc. Prehistorique Francaise 86 (3), 79–87.

[41] Lewis, I.M. (1989) Schamanen, Hexer, Kannibalen. Die Realität des Religiösen. Frankfurt/M.
[42] Lincoln, H., Baignet, M. & Leigh, H. (1986) The Messianic Legacy. Jonathan Cape Ltd., London.
[43] Lorenzo, C., Arsuaga, J.L. & Carretero, J.M. (1999) Hand and foot remains from the Gran Dolina
Early Pleistocene site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). J. of Human Evolution 37, 501–522.
[44] Lyman, R.L. (1982) Archaeofaunas and subsistence studies. Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory 5, 331–393.
[45] Lumely, H. de, Lumely, M.A. de, Brandi, R., Guerrier, E., Pillard, B. & Pillard, F. (1972) Haltes et
campements de chasseurs neanderthaliens dans la Grotte de l’Hortus (Valflaunes, Herault). Etudes
Quaternaires 1, 527–624.
[46] Lumely, M.A. de (1972) Les Neanderthaliens de la Grotte de l’Hortus (Valflaunes, Herault). Etudes
Quaternaires 1, 375–385.
[47] Marlar, R.A., Leonard, B.L., Billman, B.R., Lambert, P.M. & Marlar, J.E. (2000) Biochemical
evidence of cannibalism at a prehistoric Pueblon site in southwest Colorado. Nature 407, 74–78.

[48] Maynard, F. & Dumas, A. (1937) The Whalers. Hutchinson.

34
[49] Mencher, Kennedy (1999) The Kwakiutls: Whom they consume and who consumes them.
[50] Monegal, E.R. (ed.) (1982) Chroniken Lateinamerikas von Kolumbus bis zu den Unabhängigkeit-
skriegen. Frankfurt/M.
[51] Peter-Röcher, H. (1998) Mythos Menschenfresser: Ein Blick in die Kochtöpfe der Kannibalen. C.H.
Beck, München.
[52] Polis, G.A., Myers, C.A. & Hess, W.R. (1984) A survey of intraspecific predation within the class
Mammalia. Mammal review 14, 187–198.
[53] Rice, A.P. (1910) Cannibalism in Polynesia. American Antiquarian 32, 77–84.
[54] Russell, M. (1987a) Bone Breakage in the Krapina Collection. Am. J. of Phys. Anthropology 72,
373–379.
[55] Russell, M (1987b) Mortuary practices at the Krapina Neanderthal site. Am. J. of Phys. Anthropology
72, 381–397.
[56] Sagan, E. (1974) Cannibalism-Human aggression and cultural form. Harper and Row, New York.
[57] Sahagún, Fray Bernardino de (1932) A History of ancient Mexico 1547–1577. Translated by F.R.
Bandelier from the Spanish version of C.M. de Bustamante. Fisk University Press, Nashville.
[58] Sanday, P. (1986) Divine Hunger. Cannibalism as a cultural system. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
[59] Scurla, H. (ed.) (1972) Beiderseits des Amazonas. Reisen deutscher Forscher des 19. Jahrhunderts
durch Südamerika. Berlin.
[60] Spiel, Ch. (1974) Menschen essen Menschen. Fischer, Frankfurt/M:
[61] Steadman, L.B. & Merbs, C.F. (1982) Kuru and Cannibalism? Am. Anthropologist 84, 611–627.
[62] Trinkaus, E. (1985) Cannibalism and Burial at Krapina. J. of Human Evolution 14, 203–216.
[63] Turner, C.G. & Turner, J.A. (1999) Man Corn. Cannibalism and violence in the Prehistoric American
Southwest. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
[64] Ullrich, H. (1978) Kannibalismus und Leichenzerstückelung beim Neanderthaler von Krapina. In:
M. Malez (ed.), Krapinski Pracovjek i Evolucija Hominida. Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i um-
jetnosti, Zagreb.
[65] Villa, P., Helmer, D. & Courtin, J. (1985) Restes osseux et structures d’habitat en grotte : l’apport
des remontages dans la Baume Fontbrégoua. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Francaise 82, 389–421.
[66] Villa, P., Bouville, C., Courtin, J., Helmer, D., Mahieu, E., Shipman, P., Belluomini, G. & Branca,
M. (1986a) Cannibalism in the Neolithic. Science 233, 431–437.
[67] Villa, P., Courtin, J., Helmer, D., Shipman, P., Bouville, C. & Mahieu, E. (1986b) Un cas de
cannibalisme au Néolithique. Boucherie et rejet de restes humains et animaux dans la grotte de
Fontbrégoua a Salernes (Var). Gallia Préhistoire 29, 143–171.
[68] Villa, P. & Mahieu, E. (1991) Breakage pattern of human longbones. J. of Human Evolution 21,
27–48.
[69] Watts, D.P. & Mitani, J.C. (2000) Infanticide and cannibalism by male chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale
National Park, Uganda. Primates 41 (4), 357–365.
[70] White, T.D. (1986) Cut marks on the Bodo Cranium. Am. J. of phys. Anthropology 69, 503–509.
[71] White, T. D. (1987) Cannibalism at Klasies? Sagittarius 2, 6–9.
[72] White, T.D. (1992) Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.
[73] White, T.D. & Folkens, P.A. (2000)2 Human Osteology. Academic Press, London-SanDiego.
[74] White, T.D. & Toth, N. (1989) Engis: Preparation damage. Am. J. of phys. Anthropology 78,
361–367.

35