The use of the word ritual by archaeologists

It used to be a running joke within archaeological circles that anything that was discovered that didn't have an obvious mundane purpose was ascribed a ritual significance. A classic example of this was an antler device with a hole bored through one end that had for many years been described as a talking stick. Further analysis has suggested a couple of much more mundane uses, most likely as a tool to get a better grip on a thick rope. There is good evidence for ritual practices throughout the neolithic and into the bronze and iron ages, particularly in the creation of stone axe heads that would have been far too fragile to actually be useful, and were significantly overworked. The development of heavily stylised statuary as seen in the Willendorf Venus lends further credence to this supposition. However it is undoubtedly the case that many of the practices ascribed a ritual importance are in fact unlikely to be such.

This is particularly the case with the evidence for ritual de-fleshing of bodies. It is reasonably well established that in the neolithic bodies were left on platforms in the open to be stripped down to the bone by birds and animals. Moving into the bronze age and later through the iron age, generally inhumations were of cremated remains, or dressed burials. The evidence for defleshing by human agents is limited to the appearance of cut marks on long bones and skulls found in caves and pits. One of the more famous are those found in Goughs cave in Cheddar in Somerset but there are plenty of others. When these bones were recently re-analysed it was suggested that the position and type of the cuts were more akin to those found in butchery and the disarticulating of a carcass prior to consumption.

This would make more sense, as, contrary to common opinion, cannibalism has historically been more widespread than is generally accepted. There is, of course an argument, backed by anthropological evidence, that cannibalism can be in itself ritualistic, the eating of defeated enemies hearts is a prime example, as is the consumption of human brains as a source of spiritual power. There is however more evidence that cannibalism is a routine stage of most civilisations in times of hardship, having been seen across the world during periods of extreme environmental stress. The practice has even been shown to exist in the modern age in severe survival situations, so would this perhaps be a better interpretation than the old cliche of ritual activity? Of course, ritual allows the creation of far more interesting stories, and it is often the case that those archaeologists who are also folklorists tend to be more prone to buying into these stories and thereby propogating them further.

In archaeology, as in most things, the military mantra should perhaps be the first port of call - KISS Keep It Simple Stupid....