The Bioarchaeology of Violence

10. Meaning and the Bioarchaeology of Captivity, Sacrifice, and Cannibalism: A Case Study from the Mississippian Period at Larson, Illinois

10 Meaning and the Bioarchaeology of Captivity, Sacrifice, and Cannibalism A Case Study from the Mississippian Period at Larson, Illinois Mallorie A. Hatch Introduction Bioarchaeological studies of violent conflict have formed a substantial foundation for reconstructions of past behavior. Diverse forms of interpersonal violence, including warfare and gender violence, have been inferred from human skeletal remains with increasing frequency in the past 15 years. More research, however, is necessary to understand the particular social contexts and meanings, including captivity and violent sacrifice, that created the signatures observed in the human body. As forms of interpersonal violence, captivity and violent sacrifice may leave signatures in the human body, and the meanings communicated by violence may be interpreted from human skeletal remains and their associated archaeological contexts. These interpretations are also through examination of ethnohistories. In eastern North America, ethnohistorical accounts of Native American warfare abound with descriptions of captivity, sacrifice, and cannibalism and their meanings. While ethnohistorical discussions indicate a discrete suite of behaviors that should result in the identification of captivity and sacrifice in human skeletal remains, in practice, captivity and sacrifice often leave signatures similar to secondary mortuary processing and cannibalism. In order to illustrate how bioarchaeologists may evaluate captivity and sacrifice in the archaeological record, a case study from the Mississippian (ca. ad 1000–1450) period Larson site in the central Illinois River valley is presented. 202 · Mallorie A. Hatch Violence as Meaning As captivity and sacrifice commonly occurred in concert with episodes of violence, understanding how violence creates many messages communicated by the acts of captivity and sacrifice provides an important baseline. Violence is always performed as meaningful action that communicates a message between perpetrators, victims, and witnesses (Blok 2000; Bosson 2006; Riches 1986). The message intended by the perpetrators may become entangled in the cultural conceptions of victims and witnesses and may be further complicated by each actor’s intense emotions and experiences. The most potent meaning of violence, therefore, comes from the tripartite oppositions between perpetrators, victims, and witnesses (Riches 1986). Viewing all violent actions as meaningful highlights the messages communicated by violence (Blok 2000; Tilly 2003). For violence to be effective , it must successfully disseminate this meaning. As Blok (2000, 28) argues: The effective use of physical force very much depends on its symbolic form. Like all performances, it turns on how it is carried out: it depends on the message, on what people want to say, to communicate . Hence the ritualization of violence. Although violence may be primarily directed at the attainment of specific ends, such as wounding or killing an opponent, it is impossible to understand these violent operations in terms of these easily recognizable goals alone. There are more effective ways to obtain these results. As a communicative medium, violence transforms the physical human bodies it targets into a message. In this way, those who are the objects of violence are transformed into contested symbols (Verdery 1999). In turn, the resulting bodies of the deceased may represent an especially potent materialization of meaning for both the victims and the perpetrators. Interpreting the materialization of these meanings, however, is complicated by mortuary rituals that occur between death and final deposition of remains (e.g., O’Shea 1981). The archaeological record disguises and alters the meaning and practice communicated by violence. Despite such a limitation, bioarchaeological analysis should seek to reconstruct and understand the sequences of practices and meanings associated with violent conflict, captivity, and sacrifice. Cannibalism, which is Meaning and the Bioarchaeology of Captivity, Sacrifice, and Cannibalism · 203 often confused with other violent practices, should also be reconstructed to understand how its patterns may differ. In precontact North America, examination of ethnohistorical accounts of Native American war may be a source for hypotheses that help us understand the culturally specific nature of violent practice. Reports of Eastern Native American warfare abound with descriptions of captive-taking and sacrifice. Yet, as witnesses of violence, European chroniclers largely understood this practice through their own cultural lenses. Their perspectives were often biased by political goals and by preconceived notions of Native American savagery and inferiority. Thus, the meanings intended by the Native American individuals and groups participating in violent conflict may not have been accurately identified or understood. That is why it is necessary to examine such documents critically. Captivity, Sacrifice, and Cannibalism as Practice and Meaning Ethnohistorical reports of captivity, sacrifice, and cannibalism among Eastern and Plains Native Americans commonly discuss these...