Cannibalism versus funerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay: comparisons of bone modifications from four prehistoric sites
Abstract
Objectives Humanly induced modifications on human and non-human bones from four archaeological sites of known funerary rituals (one interpreted as cannibalism and three interpreted as funerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay) were analyzed to ascertain whether macromorphological and micromorphological characteristics of cut marks can be used to distinguish cannibalistic from secondary burial practices. Material and methods Four collections were analyzed: the Magdalenian assemblage from Gough's Cave (UK) and the Mesolithic-Neolithic bone samples from Lepenski Vir, Padina and Vlasac (Serbia). A total of 647 cut marks (345 on human and 302 on non-human remains) were imaged and measured using an optical surface measurement system, the Alicona InfiniteFocus, housed at the Natural History Museum (London, UK). Results The frequency of cut marks at Gough's Cave exceeds 65%, while it is below 1% in the Serbian sites, and no human tooth marks and only one case of percussion damage have been observed on the three Serbian collections. The distribution of cut marks on human bones is comparable in the four assemblages. Cannibalized human remains, however, present a uniform cut mark distribution, which can be associated with disarticulation of persistent and labile articulations, and the scalping and filleting of muscles. For secondary burials where modification occurred after a period of decay, disarticulation marks are less common and the disarticulation of labile j…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Recent studies of Palaeolithic cannibalism show that the motivations and social contexts behind episodes of cannibalism go beyond the simplistic 'nutritional' or 'ritual' label.
“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.”
From Assessing the calorific significance of episodes of human cannibalism in the Palaeolithic (2017) · cites this paper as [12]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 102 · Cited by 56
- Authors
- Bello, S. M., Wallduck, R., Dimitrijević, V., Živaljević, I., & Stringer, C. B.
- Affiliations
- Natural History Museum (GB)
- University of Belgrade (RS)
- Corresponding author
- Bello, Silvia M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Physical Anthropology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-08-25
- Volume
- 161
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 722-743
- ISSN
- 0002-9483 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-8644
- OpenAlex
- W2510261502
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 102
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 39.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Physical Anthropology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
- Faculty of Philosophy (University of Belgrade) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Leverhulme Trust (RPG‐2013‐348)
- Institute of Infection and Immunity
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Archaeological and Geological Studies
- Keywords
- cannibalism, disarticulation, cut marks, secondary burial, Magdalenian, Lepenski Vir, Padina, butchery
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Anthropology, Physical, Bone and Bones, Cannibalism, Deer, Diet, England, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Rabbits, Technology, History, Ancient, Serbia
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