Cannibalism versus funerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay: comparisons of bone modifications from four prehistoric sites

Abstract

A distinction between cannibalism and secondary treatment of human bodies can be made based on frequency, distribution and micromorphometric characteristics of cut marks.

Assessing the calorific significance of episodes of human cannibalism in the Palaeolithic

“…In addition, Garn and Block concentrated solely on skeletal muscle tissue, which is not the only edible component of the human body. From ethnographic and archaeological studies, other body parts are known to be eaten during episodes of cannibalism, including the lungs, liver, brain, heart, nervous tissue, bone marrow, genitalia and skin12121419293045. Table 1 therefore shows the full nutritional value of the human body (protein + fat) and highlights the nutritional value of those parts of the body that are most commonly consumed according to ethnographic and archaeological accounts (marked*).…”

“…Recent studies of Palaeolithic cannibalism691112131453 have done much to illustrate that the motivations and social contexts behind episodes of cannibalism go beyond the simplistic ‘nutritional’ or ‘ritual’ label. For Homo sapiens , the motivations for cannibalism are clearly wide-ranging, including nutritional cannibalism with ritual practices surrounding the special treatment of skulls9 and inter-group rivalries placed under stress during harsh climatic conditions5359.…”

“…Our understanding of prehistoric cannibalism has increased exponentially over the last few years thanks to methodological advances and increasing interpretive rigour when examining and recognising anthropogenically modified hominin remains2101112. In the majority of studies, the interpretation is that cannibalism was practiced for nutritional reasons25613 although there has never been a way to quantify how nutritional these episodes may be.…”

“…Therefore, the use of the first signature in determining the motivation behind cannibalism acts within the archaeological record should be applied cautiously alongside a majority of signatures 2–12 to infer a motivation beyond ritual – if only signature 13 and/or 1 are present on a hominin carcass, then defleshing of the carcass for secondary burial or some other pre-depositional treatment of the dead (such as skull-cups), may be suggested. Recent work has further demonstrated that distinctions between cannibalism and the secondary treatment of human bodies can be inferred from the micromorphometric characteristics of cutmarks12, representing a significant methodological advance in allowing researchers to interpret the motivations behind the acts of prehistoric cannibalism.…”

Assessment of statistical agreement of three techniques for the study of cut marks: 3D digital microscope, laser scanning confocal microscopy and micro‐photogrammetry

“…The activities that led to the creation of the cut marks can be determined based on their anatomical distribution. A specific location of marks corresponds to different activities, such as filleting, disarticulation, evisceration or skinning (see Binford, 1981;Lyman, 1987;Nilsen, 2001;Galán & Domínguez-Rodrigo, 2013, Bello et al, 2016. The second research line focuses on the behavioural meaning of the frequency of marks.…”