Roth (1 907) for example, recorded several accounts (with photographs) ... (1 872, 1873) observed an inquest in Queensland in which the body was skinned, the.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: AN ALTERNATIVE TO 'CANNIBALISM IN THE NEOLITHIC' Michael P. Pickering
Villa et al. (1986:431) proposed that human skeletal material, recovered from the Neolithic levels of Fontbregoua Cave in southeastern France, exhibited particular attributes which indicated the state of the remains was a product of cannibalism: The analysis of these bones strongly suggests that humans were butchered, processed, and probably eaten in a manner that closely parallels the treatment of wild and domestic animals at Fontbregoua. The crux of Villa's argument was that the condition and context of the skeletal material was the same as that of dietary fauna1 remains recovered from the same site. A total of 13 discrete clusters of bones were recovered from small shallow pits (20 cm to 100 cm wide and 8 cm to 35 cm deep) ...' (Villa et al. 1986:432). Ten of these pits contained the remains of butchered animals, the other three pits contained human skeletal material. Following a comparative analysis the authors concluded: I...
In sum, it is clear that human and animal carcases were processed and discarded according to the same pattern of selective butchering (Villa et al. 1986:434). The evidence that caused them to reach this conclusion was: (i) Similar butchering techniques in human and animal remains ...; (ii) similar patterns of long bone breakages that might facilitate marrow extraction; (iii) identical patterns of postprocessing discard of human and animal remains; (iv) evidence of cooking; if present ... (Villa et al. l986:43l). An assessment of Australian anthropological data suggests that a viable alternative explanation exists. The remains are more likely to be a product of non-cannibal activities associated with mortuary rites. Villa et al. (1986:431) dismiss this proposition early in their article: it has been suggested that human bones with cut marks are not the remains of cannibal meals but the traces of funerary rites involving the handling of corpses without consumption of human tissue. Secondary burial may mimic cannibalism if it includes active dismemberment and defleshing of the body; however, the absence of bone breakage for marrow and the mode of bone disposal will set it apart from dietary cannibalism.
36 Food for Thought
However,this is not necessarily the case. Such rites can and do produce a similar state in human remains. This will be illustrated here through reference to historic observations of Australian Aboriginal mortuary practices. In drawing on ethnographic data from Australia I do not consider that direct analogy is possible between the French Neolithic and the Australian ethnographic present. Rather I use the Australian material to illustrate how particular social phenomena may produce evidence similar to that at Fontbregoua, and how diversity in social practices can exist between groups which, technically, appear very similar. These social phenomena would not be accurately reflected in the archaeological record. Australian sources presented here were considered in an investigationinto cannibalism amongst Aborigines (Pickering 1985). This study, showed that authors were often mistaken in their conclusions about cannibalism, their interpretations of observations being coloured by predispositions, induced by the application of social- evolutionary theory and colonial politics. Authors considered they were observing acts relating to cannibalismbut few reported first hand the eating of human flesh. Early observers thus often misinterpreted components of mortuary rituals as evidence of cannibalism. However, while their interpretationsas to the final fate of human remainswere incorrect, their basic observations were often accurate, and it is these which are useful. The human skeletal materials recovered at Fontbregoua were highly fragmented. Various anatomical segments were poorly represented:
... Missing anatomical sections are represented by isolated elements of scraps of littlefood value, for example carpals, occipital condyle, minute bits of sacrum of ... intact lower leg parts (Villa et al. 1986:434). They concluded that the missing segments - fingers, toes and foot bones were culled from carcasses and removed from the cave. The '... elements or scraps of little food value ...' referred to are also the most fragile elements of a dessicated or decomposing body destined for delayed interment. This is well-supported by descriptions in Australian ethnographic and archaeological literature where, in some areas, bodies were allowed to dessicate or decompose prior to secondary disposal. Roth (1907) for example, recorded several accounts (with photographs) of bodies exposed in trees or on a platform, being exhumed for inquest and carried around before final disposal. By the time of the final disposal a number of body parts may have been lost. This is compounded by the selective disposal of remains. Ribs and carpals, for example, are often lost or left behind when remains are gathered for final disposal, and are thus either missing or poorly represented at the Rnal site. I myself have noted this during examination of human remains in both archaeologicalsites and historic cave sites, which housed hollow log coffins containing human remains. Berndt (1977465) has also noted this. Bones are also kept as charms or magical items. Villa et al. (1986:435) argued that the cut marks and fracturing they observed was inflicted when the bone was fresh - that is, it was the result of 'immediate' rather than 'delayed' processing. In delayed interment however, bone is not necessarily directly exposed to weathering. The breakdown of its organic components may occur some time later when the body begins to decompose or become dessicated. Drying or decomposing flesh serves to protect the bones. It is not unlikelythat bone could retain its 'freshness' for some time after death, thus preservingfracture patterns. Sometimes
Pickering 37
time later when the body begins to decompose or become dessicated. Drying or decomposingflesh serves to protect the bones. It is not unlikelythat bone could retain its 'freshness' for some time after death, thus preservingfracture patterns. Sometimes flesh was deliberately removed from the body so that final disposal could take place soon after death. I have observed secondary cave burials in northern Australia where bones were 'greasy' despite having long since gone through primary and secondary disposal. Villa et al. (1986:434) regarded the presence of cut marks and the highly fragmented nature of the remains as crucial evidence of cannibalism. They described the abundance of filletingldefleshing marks on the bone. Such marks would not be unusual in cases where the bodies had been prepared prior to interment. McDonald (1872, 1873) observed an inquest in Queensland in which the body was skinned, the head removed, the legs cut off at the knees and the thighs, and the arms removed with the shoulder blades intact. These were all then defleshed '... all scraping and cutting away the flesh from the bones (McDonald l872:218). The flesh was later buried. A year later he wrote (1973: 177): ...l
The bones, when scraped are distributed amongst the relatives and friends of the deceased; hence the difficulty in getting an entire skeleton of a full grown blackfellow: and again the bones are broken to get out the marrow. Roth (1907:402) provided a description which parallels some of the evidence from Fontbregoua: Two or three months later, when the body had rotted, it was taken down by two old women, opened out the skull, jaw, pelvis and limb-bones cleaned up and rubbed with charcoal, while the remainder of the corpse, including the bones of the toes, fingers, ribs, and back bone, was burnt. The bones were taken back to camp for the inquest into the death whereupon: The mother, widow, or sister of the deceased then started hammering away at the pelvis, etc., as before, making it crack when mentioning the name of the person whose footprint has been originally detected, and thus confirming the evidence of accused's guilt.. . (Roth 1907:402). Basedow (1935230) observed a woman cook her dead child then remove the flesh from the bones using a sharpened mussel shell. The skull was opened along the sutures. The flesh and bones were wrapped in separate bundles. The flesh was later buried in the camp while the bones were placed in a hollow log coffin.
Of their own material, Villa et al. (1986:436) concluded: The evidence of breakage to extract marrow and the mode of discard constrasts.strongly with known secondary burial practices. I would argue that it compared strongly with known secondary burial practices in Australia. Villa et al. used American Indian evidence as the basis for their model. This may have limited their interpretation. Both animal and human bones can be cracked in order to extract marrow. Though the ultimate fate of the marrow may differ - consumption or discard - the material residues would be similar. This simply reflects an efficient reduction and extraction strategy.
38 Food for Thought
Villa et al. (1986:432) noted that the three concentrations of human skeletal material differed in the anatomical parts represented. One concentration contained predominately cranial material; another predominately post-cranial materials. Davidson (1948:78-9) reported a practice, from the Kimberleys of northwestern Australia, which would look the same: The Lyne River people have a unique custom of dividing the bones of adults into three bundles. The arms, shins, hands, shoulder blades, collarbone, and ribs are placed in one. The thighs, feet, hips, spine and teeth are bestowed in a second. The kneecaps, breast-bone, top of spine, and jaw are assigned to a third. One bundle is taken to the pool where the deceased was first 'found' as a spirit child by his or her father. Another bundle is interred at the place the deceased's umbilical cord is buried. The third is taken by the mother's brother to the place where the man was initiated or the woman first rubbed with charcoal after birth. A man's skull is put under the stone which commemorates his first killing of a kangaroo. A woman's skull is carried to the place where she first crawled. A mortuary ritual filmed amongst the Gidjingali people of Arnhem Land in northern Australia (McKenzie 1980) documents bones being scraped clean, covered with ochre, then smashed with hammers and rocks and deposited in a hollow log coffin as part of a ceremony. The bones of several individuals were processed and mixed in the course of this ceremony. In northern Australia, I have noted cases where the remains of several individuals have been deposited together in one cave. Peterson (1974:107) reported a similar incident in northeastern Arnhem Land: Inside a sand sculpture of the clan well a close male relative ... breaks the long bones and the skull before placing them in the log ... The bones of several people of both moieties may be placed in the same coffin.
CONCLUSION The mortuary practices of Australian Aborigines reflect complex metaphysical beliefs. Maddock (1982: 153) has summarised the significance of primary and secondary mortuary. When two disposals are made the first is concerned with the flesh and the second with the bones: usually the body is buried or exposed on a platform until the flesh decays: the bones are then recovered and deposited in a hollow log or a hiding place in the rocks somewhere. The practice of primary and secondary disposal therefore adds a duality of flesh and bone to the original duality of body and spirit. There are numerous examples of Aboriginal mortuary practices similar to those presented here, Berndt ( l 977), Davidson (1948), Maddock (1982) and Meehan (1971) provide useful summaries of the diversity in Aboriginal mortuary practices. Villa et al. (1986:436) concluded, 'We believe that cannibalism is the only satisfactory explanation for the evidence found at Fontbregoua cave'. The question arises, why should this be the only acceptable explanation?
Pickering 39
The idea that early societies were cannibalistic has its roots in the social evolutionary theories of the 19th and early 20th centuries. These theories advocated that cannibalism was one phenomena which would be characteristic of poorly developed societies, those 'low' on the evolutionary scale. It was presumed that as man progressed or 'evolved' technologically, socially and morally, such practices would disappear. There is no doubt that some societies have developed technologically upon the lines which suggest social evolution. The history and archaeology of the northern hemisphere in particular indicates continual technological development over time. There is no evidence however, to suggest that technological and moral/social development go hand-in-hand. Contemporary, so-called, 'primitive' societies still excite and impress with the rigidity and severity of what they conceive to be correct moral behaviour. There are neither theoretical reasons nor definite material evidence to suppose that prehistoric societies were cannibalistic. Given the disparities in space, time, and culture context I cannot deny that Villa et al. may be correct, I have however, suggested alternative explanations. I do not advocate direct analogy between the Australian ethnographic present and the French Neolithic. The consideration of such diverse ethnographic data does, however, contribute to the development of general interpretive models; as well as remind us of the potential for diversity in social phenomena within and between social and cultural groups in space and time.
REFERENCES Basedow, H. 1 935 Knights of the Boomerang. Endeavour Press: Sydney Berndt, R.M. and C.H. Berndt 1977 The World of the First Australians. Ure Smith: Sydney Davidson, D.S. 1948 Disposal of the dead in Western Australia. In Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 93(1): 78-9 Maddock, K. 1982 The Australian Aborigines: A Portrait of their Society. 2nd edition. Penguin: Victoria Meehan, B. 1971 The form, distribution and antiquity of Australian mortuary Practices. Unpublished MA theses. University of Sydney. McDonald, A. 1872 Extracts of a letter to W. Boyde Dawkins. In Journal of the Royal Anthropological lnstitute 1 214-19 McDonald, A. 1873 Mode of preparing the dead among the natives of the upper Mary River, Queensland. Journal of the Royal Anthropological lnstitute 2 :176-79 McKenzie, K. 1980 Waiting for Harry. (Film and Video) Australian lnstitute of Aboriginal Studies: Canberra Peterson, N. 1974 Mortuary customs of northeast Arnhem Land. An account compiled from Donald Thornson's field notes. In Memoirs of the National Museum of Victoria 37:97-108 Pickering, M.F 1985 Cannibalism amongst Aborigines? A critical review of the literary evidence. Unpublished Litt. B. thesis. Australian National University: Canberra Roth, W.E. 1907 Burial ceremonies and disposal of the dead. North Queensland Ethnography Bulletin No.9. In Records of the Australian Museum 6(5):365-403 Villa, l?,C. Bouville, J. Courtin, D. Helmer, E. Mahieu, P. Shipman, G. Bellumonini and M. Branca l986 Cannibalism in the Neolithic. In Science 233:431-37.
72 Main Road Lancefield Vic 3435
