Cited by 100Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesArchaeological and Geological Studies

Mortuary practices at the Krapina Neandertal site

Russell, Mary D.·1987·American Journal of Physical Anthropology

Abstract

It has often been reported that the Krapina Neandertal remains bear incised linear striations which appear to be cutmarks. Here, the plausibility of the striations as cutmarks is tested by comparing them to Mousterian butchery marks on large fauna and to cutmarks on modern human skeletons known to have been defleshed with stone tools. The anatomical location, gross appearance, and frequency of occurrence of the striations on the Krapina material do not resemble Mousterian butchery marks on reindeer. The Krapina striations do closely match authenticated cutmarks on 22 modern human skeletons defleshed with stone tools after partial decomposition, preparatory to secondary burial. Data are presented supporting the hypothesis that the striations on the Krapina Neandertal remains are consistent with postmortem processing of corpses with stone tools, probably in preparation for burial of cleaned bones.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajpa.1330720311

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Neanderthals seem to have had varying attitudes to the burial and treatment of their dead.

    “Why then would a hominin species such as the Neanderthals, who seem to have had varying attitudes to the burial and treatment of their dead2260616272, not have an equally complex attitude towards cannibalism?”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Russell, M. D.
Affiliations
Case Western Reserve University (US)
Corresponding author
Russell, Mary D.
Venue
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1987-03
Volume
72
Issue
3
Pages
381-397
ISSN
  • 0002-9483 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-8644
OpenAlex
W2138557510
Cited by
100
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
12.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Physical Anthropology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Michigan
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Archaeological and Geological Studies
Keywords
cut marks, funerary practices, lithic artifacts, reindeer, secondary burial, skeletal remains
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Haplorhini, Bone and Bones, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Fetus, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Mortuary Practice, Yugoslavia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review