Cited by 210Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesArchaeological and Geological Studies

Human cannibalism in the Early Pleistocene of Europe (Gran Dolina, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain)

Ferna´ndez-Jalvo, Yolanda, Carlos Dı´ez, J., Ca´ceres, Isabel, Rosell, Jordi·1999·Journal of Human Evolution

Abstract

Human remains belonging to at least six individuals were found in an exploratory excavation made at the site of Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). These remains were recovered from the Aurora Stratum of Unit TD6. This stratum has a thickness of approximately 30 cm. The area of the exploratory excavation is about 7 m(2). According to palaeomagnetic analyses, Unit TD6 shows reversed polarity, which is considered to belong to the Matuyama chron. This unit is immediately below TD7, where the Matuyama-Brunhes boundary has been detected, indicating an age of around 780,000 years BP. There is no specific distribution, treatment, or arrangement of the human remains, which were found randomly mixed with abundant faunal remains and stone tools. Most of the faunal and human fossil bones from the Aurora Stratum have human induced damage. Stone tool cutmarks are frequent, and peeling (a type of fracture similar to bending a fresh twig between the hands) provides a specific breakage pattern together with percussion marks and chopmarks. Both nonhuman and human remains show similar intensive exploitation. Slight differences, however, have been observed between fauna and humans (e.g., peeling frequent in humans, rare in fauna), that appear related to different musculature, weight, and bone structure. The characteristics of this fossil assemblage suggest that it is solely the result of consumptive activities as there is no evidence of ritual or other intention. The possibility of distinguishing between dietary vs. survival cannibalism is discussed here.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/jhev.1999.0324

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cook, 1986, Marked human bones from Gough's cave, Somerset, Proc. Univ. Bristol Spelaeol. Soc., 17, 275
  2. Leroi-Gourhan, 1972, Fouilles de Pincevent: Essai d'analyse ethnographique d'un habitat Magdelenien, Gallia Prehistoire, 7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferna´ndez-Jalvo, Y., Carlos Dı´ez, J., Ca´ceres, I., & Rosell, J.
Affiliations
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
Venue
Journal of Human Evolution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-09
Volume
37
Issue
3-4
Pages
591-622
ISSN
0047-2484 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010341975
Cited by
210
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
36.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Human Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
Early Pleistocene, Gran Dolina, hominin skeletal remains, peeling, Matuyama-Brunhes boundary, faunal remains, Aurignacian, hominin diet
MeSH terms
Animals, Archaeology, Bone and Bones, Cannibalism, Diet, Fossils, Humans, Paleodontology, Spain, Tooth, Hominidae, History, Ancient

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