Cannibal Britons?

**llyd** · 16th February 11, 05:28 PM

So....was he a man of good taste?

**Spartan Tartan** · 16th February 11, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Llwyd

So....was he a man of good taste?

Nice.

**skauwt** · 16th February 11, 05:46 PM

deleted

**Bugbear** · 16th February 11, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Canuck of NI

I too want to know more, particularly about the cannibal angle. Knife marks on the bones would show they were defleshed, but more than one culture has done that for ceremonial rather than dining purposes. So, are there human gnaw marks on them as well? Were the long bones broken open and the marrow scooped out? Was a "How To Cook Your Kin" paleo-cookbook found nearby?

I don't mean to get involved with the discussion, Canuck of NI, but here is a link to the journal source article that the news articles are attempting to summarize. I decided to post it rather than PM it to you.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0017026
And I am going to copy and paste the citation provided.

Bello SM, Parfitt SA, Stringer CB (2011) Earliest Directly-Dated Human Skull-Cups. PLoS ONE 6(2): e17026. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017026Editor: Michael Petraglia, University of Oxford, United KingdomReceived: October 22, 2010; Accepted: January 19, 2011; Published: February 16, 2011Copyright: © 2011 Bello et al.
It would be interesting to see what beloitpiper has to say about the research.

Hope that helps.

**auld argonian** · 17th February 11, 06:33 AM

Look up some of those great Robert E. Howard stories about Bran Mak Morn and Cormac Mac Art...I heartily recommend "The Worms Of The Earth".

Fiction but pretty damn good...Crom!

Best

AA

**Lallans** · 17th February 11, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Bugbear

I don't mean to get involved with the discussion, Canuck of NI, but here is a link to the journal source article that the news articles are attempting to summarize. I decided to post it rather than PM it to you.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0017026
And I am going to copy and paste the citation provided.

Bello SM, Parfitt SA, Stringer CB (2011) Earliest Directly-Dated Human Skull-Cups. PLoS ONE 6(2): e17026. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017026Editor: Michael Petraglia, University of Oxford, United KingdomReceived: October 22, 2010; Accepted: January 19, 2011; Published: February 16, 2011Copyright: © 2011 Bello et al.
It would be interesting to see what beloitpiper has to say about the research.

Hope that helps.

OK having read the introduction only at this point, I can see that the long bones of the people in question were indeed split for their marrow, which is pretty convincing evidence. The ice age was raging then and anyone who doesn't think cannibalism is common amongst people who are up against it for food are probably kidding themselves. It'll take more to convince me there was such a cult however.

**Father Bill** · 17th February 11, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Burly Brute

How do they know FOR SURE the skull cups werent crafted after the people died of "natural" causes?

Natural causes, like perhaps heart failure caused by a knife through the middle of it.

My favourite grace: "For food and friends, and the ability to tell the difference, we give thee thanks, O Lord."

**ForresterModern** · 17th February 11, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Chas

Hi Jim,

I have seen Viking faeces at York (Jorvik) and it is all petrified. In fact they were selling 'Viking Poo Pendants' for the ladies and cuff-links for the men, in the gift shop. The idea was that it was inert and in no way usable - and only 2,000 years old.

Regards

Chas

The archaeological term for petrified feces is coprolith, and they are in fact very important findings in animal archaeology, and I can only presume human archaeology as well, as a way of determining dietary habits of populations.

Not sure I would want a set of coprolith cufflinks, though.

**auld argonian** · 17th February 11, 08:23 AM

The coprolithic thing kind of flies in the face of what I've read about. I've seen references to the regret that archaeologists and anthropologists have that human feces doesn't survive in any appreciable form that allows them to analyze the contents for clues to the dietary habits of past peoples.

Best

AA

**Arlen** · 17th February 11, 08:43 AM

In many ways it's the classic example of the journalist choosing parts of the research but not explaining the whole of it nor pointing out why the theory was formed.

There was an episode of Time Team a few years ago where they visited that site and found some small evidence of cannibalism.
They make an extraordinary effort to balance the entertainment of a TV program with the need to point out WHAT the evidence was and WHY it was a theory and would need a lot of further investigation.

I think, especially in times like an ice age, there will always be groups of people who decide to go down that path even if the majority of people in the area don't.