SC - Chili Classification

[Jim Revells]

    Analysis of skeletal remains in Anasazi sites have shown evidence of
considerable post-mortem mutilation. It appears to have been extensive
enough to preclude it's use as ceremonial or the result of punishment. Many
of the bones were 'pot polished', indicating that the bones had been boiled,
and there were indications that the long bones had been broken in such a
manner as to extract the marrow. These are all common characteristics of
cannibal practices. The number of bones discovered were more numerous within
a given time period than ritual use would have produced.
    There are also indications that the Anasazi fell victim to diseases and
conditions caused by regular consumption of human flesh. If it were a rare
or ritual occurrence, this would not have happened. Needless to say, this
provoked a firestorm in the anthropological community, especially for those
who had their own particular ethnological axes to grind. The problem with
these issues is that they get politicized very quickly, and they get ugly
even quicker.
    When evidence was discovered that there were humans present in North
America LONG before the prevailing theories said they should have been,
artifacts were literally destroyed, and in one case, a river was diverted to
cover a site that could have produced conclusive evidence. I really hate it
when politics gets mixed up with science, but I'm sure that Galileo felt the
same way.
    Here is the URL for a paper that pretty much covers the issues, and
presents refuting evidence, just so you don't think I'm propagandizing, here
http://sipapu.gsu.edu/john/mutilation.pdf  You'll need Acrobat Reader for
this, BTW, as it's in .pdf format.

    Sieggy

> Huh?  Last I heard, the consensus was probably drought and raiders and the
> issue of cannibalism was a minor question of whether or not it was a
ritual
> practice.  Documentation references, please.
>
> Bear