Hoyme and Bass] SKELETAL REMAINS 389 



only selected individuals participate in the meal. To meet these 

 conditions, it would seem unnecessary to remove so much flesh from 

 so many bodies, and to bury the remaining skeletons, still articulated 

 with ligaments, with so much care. Food is the other alternative, 

 but this seems equally unlikely. Again, it must be emphasized that 

 there are no signs of butchering, such as those seen in animal bones 

 (White, 1955), in which the ends of the bones are cut or chewed off, 

 and the bones split. Unless hunger were severe one would not bother 

 with the small amount of meat which could be obtained from the hands 

 and feet, but would restrict consumption to the more readily obtained 

 flesh of the arms, legs, and trunk. If hmiger had been severe, the 

 cleaned bones would probably have been cooked and gnawed to obtain 

 the last remaining bits. If this had happened — unless the bodies 

 were boiled, cartoon-cannibal style, in very large pots — the limbs 

 would have had to be disarticulated, and the remaining portions 

 could not have been redressed in their ornaments and laid out in 

 anatomical order for burial. All things considered, although there is 

 some evidence that in a few cases the marrow was removed from the 

 bones, there does not seem enough evidence to conclude that cannibal- 

 ism was a widespread practice at either site. What happened to the 

 flesh that was removed, of course, can only be a matter of conjecture ; 

 it may have been eaten, or it may have been disposed of in one of the 

 ways described in the literature for other groups. 



MULTIPLE AND SECONDARY BURMLS 



Both multiple and secondary burials were found at the Tollifero 

 and Clarksville sites, but a consideration of the age and sex of those 

 buried together, and the condition of the remains when interred, 

 shows clear differences. 



At the Tollifero site, there were four instances of two or more per- 

 sons being buried together in the same pit.^^ These were as follows ; 



1. The primary burial of an infant (Ha6-5) with the bundle burial of an adult 

 male (Ha&-4). 



2. The primary burial of a woman over 35 (Ha6-16) with the bundle burial 

 of a woman about 21 (Ha6-17). 



3. The primary burial of an infant (Ha(>-38) with the bundle burials of an 

 adult male (Ha6-37) and a child about 10 years old (Ha&-36). 



4. The primary burial of an infant (Ha6-42) with the bundle burial of an 

 adult male (Ha6-41). 



The other secondary burials were an adolescent (USNM 380890) and 

 an infant (USNM 380896). The bones of these were found broken, 



" In the case of burials 10 ff. and 14 ff. it Is not possible to tell from the available In- 

 formation whether these were in single pits, or merely adjacent to each other ; most of the 

 bones were discarded, so that no analysis Is possible. Ha6-7, a bundle burial of an adult 

 male, may have had parts of another skeleton admixed, but only a mandible was saved. 



