The Biocultural Signature of Afro‑Caribbean Religious Rituals from a Multiregional Medicolegal Perspective Biological anthropologists working in medicolegal seAings sometimes encounter human remains in ritual contexts. In Florida, New York, and New Jersey, states with large Caribbean populations, these assemblages of human remains and material culture frequently result from Afro‑Caribbean religious practices. One such religious tradition is Palo (often called Palo Mayombe), in which practitioners use dancing, drumming, song, trance, and animal sacrifice in order to engage with a creolized, Kongo‑inspired spiritual cosmos (BeAelheim 2001; Dawson 2003; Ochoa 2010a,b; Palmié 2002). Originally developed in Cuba, Palo practices frequently center on ngangas – assemblages of material culture and human remains often contained in cauldrons (Figure 1). Forensic anthropological research in the state of Florida (Winburn et al. 2016) has highlighted the biocultural signature of human remains used in Florida Palo religious practices (Table 1; Figure 2). However, research comparing medicolegal interpretations of Afro‑Caribbean religious practices across state lines has not yet been conducted. Allysha Powanda Winburn 1 , Christopher W. Rainwater 2,3,4 , Gina O. Hart 2 , Sarah Kiley Schoff 1 , and NicoleEe M. Parr 5 1 C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida; 2 Office of Chief Medical Examiner, New York City; 3 Department of Anthropology, Center of the Study of Human Origins, New York University; 4 New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology; 5 Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS Fig 1. Example of a Florida nganga assemblage. Note human skull (L), articulated (anatomical) hand (R), and statue draped with decorated chain (center). Image adapted from Winburn et al. (2016). Traditionally, anthropologists working within the medicolegal seAing treat ritual assemblages as forensic cases, assessing the remains for biological profile and trauma, and simply noting the material contexts in which they were deposited. However, ritual cases are almost never of forensic significance, beyond a possible association with grave robbery (Winburn et al. 2016). The extraordinary depositional contexts in which these remains are found are essential to their accurate interpretation. In this study, we considered multiple lines of evidence to contextualize the rituals involved in the creation of these assemblages, and compared trends in the resulting “biocultural signatures” between Florida and NJ/NY. Adopting a holistic, comparative perspective, we surveyed 13 case files from Afro‑Caribbean ritual assemblages analyzed in medicolegal contexts across New York and New Jersey (Table 2; sample sizes for the various analyses ranged from n=22 to n=25). We compared the biocultural and taphonomic signatures of these cases with previously reported data for 42 Florida Palo assemblages (see Table 1; sample sizes for the various analyses ranged from n=43 to n=53; Winburn et al. 2016). SCAN FOR REFERENCES, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS & ADDITIONAL INFORMATION aip231@ufl.edu SHARED FEATURES BETWEEN LOCI • Evidence of animal sacrifice ‑ Associated feathers, faunal remains • Evidence of nganga‑construction ‑ Pots/cauldrons, palos (sticks) ‑ Ritual use of metallic mercury • Ritual remains typically adult • Acquisition of buried human remains ‑ Soil staining, adherent soil All of the above are consistent with Palo, but the character of ritual practices may vary between loci. REGIONAL DIFFERENCES • Florida: ‑ Adherent blood more common (vs. wax) ‑ Evidence of postmortem disarticulation ‑ Remains confiscated at airports • NJ/NY: ‑ Food offerings present (Figure 3; compare with Figure 1) ‑ Primary deposits in home (vs. yard/outbuilding) ‑ Modern grave robbery more common • European individuals Table 2. Biocultural characteristics seen in the highest frequencies in Northeastern (NJ/ NY) Afro‑Caribbean ritual assemblages (two reported previously in Gill et al. 2009) Taphonomic Indicators (n=25) Material Culture Associations (n=22) Biological Profile of Remains (n=24) Context Data (n=24) Soil staining (92%) Faunal remains (55%) AGE: Adult (96%) (vs. 4% Juvenile) DEPOSITION: Primary (83%) Most in situ in home (58%) Secondary (17%) Most deposited in yard/outbuilding (8%) Adherent soil (88%) Pot/cauldron (50%) Generic postmortem damage (48%) Palos (sticks – 50%) SEX: Male (38%) approx. equal to female (33%) Autopsy cut (28%) Dirt (50%) Adherent desiccated soft tissue (20%) Various metal objects (41%) ANCESTRY: European (33%) vs. African (13%) and Asian/Native American (4%) 8% possibly of Hispanic ethnicity ORIGIN: Modern cemetery, i.e., grave robbery (83%) Historic/ archaeological (4%) Anatomical specimen (8%) Adherent feathers (16%) Coins (36%) Adherent mercury (16%) Generic metal chains (36%) Adherent wax (16%) Feathers (27%) Table 1. Biocultural characteristics seen in the highest frequencies in Florida Palo ritual assemblages (data from Winburn et al. 2016). Taphonomic Indicators (n=43) Material Culture Associations (n=43) Biological Profile of Remains (n=53) Context Data (n=47) Soil staining (63%) Faunal remains (44%) AGE: Adult (89%) (vs. 11% Juvenile) DEPOSITION: Primary (34%) Most in situ in yard/ outbuilding (17%) Secondary (26%) Most deposited in/ near water (13%) Confiscated at airports (9%) Generic postmortem damage (61%) Pot/cauldron (30%) Adherent feathers (51%) Beads (28%) SEX: Male (62%) (vs. 30% female) Adherent soil (49%) Palos (sticks – 23%) Postmortem sharp‑ force damage – incl. disarticulation (35%) Smooth stones (16%) ANCESTRY: Asian/Native American (36%) and African (34%) vs. European (17%) 17% possibly of Hispanic ethnicity ORIGIN: Modern cemetery, i.e., grave robbery (36%) Historic/archaeological (11%) Anatomical specimen (11%) Adherent animal blood (30%) Coins (14%) Dripped/spaAered staining (21%) Knives/machetes (14%) Adherent mercury (16%) Generic shells (12%) All cases presented a unified signature of Afro‑Caribbean ritual practices consistent with Palo, including ritual use of human remains, cauldrons, sticks, and metallic mercury, along with evidence of animal sacrifice. Differences also emerged between the loci of study. In Florida, ritual remains typically represented African or Asian/Native American adult individuals; and while the remains often bore evidence of postmortem disarticulation, they were only conclusively aAributed to grave robbery 36% of the time. In the Northeast, the remains more frequently represented European adult individuals, and were conclusively aAributed to grave robbery in nearly all cases (83%). These differences in biological profile and origin may reflect differential access to human remains in the two loci. Where Florida ritual remains more frequently exhibited adherent animal blood, NJ and NY remains exhibited higher frequencies of adherent soft tissue (perhaps due to their modern cemetery origins) and wax (possibly related to the higher frequencies of candles in these assemblages). Northeastern ritual assemblages also included food offerings, absent in the Florida cases. Locations of primary (in‑situ) nganga deposits indicate that the Northeastern ritual space was more frequently located in the home than in the yard, perhaps reflecting restricted access to outdoor spaces in urban regions of NJ and NY. Comparative analysis from these disparate medicolegal contexts is ongoing. We hope that this overview illustrates the potential for biological anthropologists to contribute to the study of Afro‑Caribbean ritual practices in the U.S. – if they synthesize biological, material cultural, ethnographic, and taphonomic data, and adopt a comparative, holistic, multiregional perspective. Fig 2. Example of human remains used in Florida Palo ritual. Note non‑human animal blood and adherent feathers. Image adapted from Winburn et al. (2016). Fig 3. Examples of New Jersey nganga assemblages. Note rings of palos (sticks), hooked staves, vegetation, bird remains, bananas, and other food offerings. A multiregional biocultural signature of Afro‑Caribbean ritual emerged, with shared features highlighting similarities in religious practices in these regions. However, some regional differences also emerged.