CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesArchaeological and Geological Studies

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

Open access
Cole, James·2017·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/srep44707PMC PMC5382840
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Episodes of Palaeolithic cannibalism have frequently been defined as ‘nutritional’ in nature, but with little empirical evidence to assess their dietary significance. This paper presents a nutritional template that offers a proxy calorie value for the human body. When applied to the Palaeolithic record, the template provides a framework for assessing the dietary value of prehistoric cannibalistic episodes compared to the faunal record. Results show that humans have a comparable nutritional value to those faunal species that match our typical body weight, but significantly lower than a range of fauna often found in association with anthropogenically modified hominin remains. This could suggest that the motivations behind hominin anthropophagy may not have been purely nutritionally motivated. It is proposed here that the comparatively low nutritional value of hominin cannibalism episodes support more socially or culturally driven narratives in the interpretation of Palaeolithic cannibalism.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Cole constructs a nutritional template for the calorie value of the human body and applies it to unambiguous Palaeolithic cannibalism sites. It finds humans are comparable to similar-weight fauna but yield fewer calories than many large fauna often found with modified hominin remains, suggesting cannibalism was not purely nutritional.

Key findings

  • The human skeletal muscle template gives 19,951 calories per 24.897 kg muscle mass, compared with Garn and Block’s earlier estimate of 18,000 calories per 30 kg muscle mass; the paper notes Garn and Block underestimated skeletal muscle calorie value.
  • Human skeletal muscle is broadly in line with fauna matching human size and weight, but significantly lower than larger fauna such as mammoth, woolly rhino, or deer species regularly consumed by past hominins.
  • Whole cannibalistic episodes hold the same calorific value or less than many individual large faunal species, including mammoth, rhinoceros, auroch, bison, cow, bear, horse, giant deer, red deer, musk-ox, deer, boar, or reindeer; small fauna such as birds, fish, hare, roe deer, and saiga return lower calories than a hominin.
  • The low nutritional return relative to large fauna, plus the difficulty of hunting hominins, suggests motivations were not purely nutritional; the paper proposes more socially or culturally driven narratives for Palaeolithic cannibalism.

Methods

  • The human nutritional template was built from published chemical composition data for four adult male individuals and average limb muscle weights; percentage values were converted back to grams, and calories calculated using 4:4:9 kcal/g for protein:carbohydrate:fat.
  • The template was applied to Palaeolithic cannibalism sites selected from a recent review that had no ambiguity about cannibalism as a behavioural act; later prehistoric sites were excluded. Each site was assigned a total full-body maximum, an intermediate value for commonly consumed body parts, and a minimum skeletal muscle value, using age-corrected values from Table 2.
  • Faunal comparison used skeletal muscle values because full-body nutritional breakdowns were unavailable across all faunal species; Table 6 estimated days a group of 25 modern males, Neanderthal males, and Pleistocene anatomically modern human males could survive, using daily energy expenditures of 2,400, 4,070, and 3,788.5 calories respectively.

Limitations

  • Stated: the template represents only an adult human male; female and sub-adult data were unavailable, and primary data collection was outside the study’s ethical and legal scope. Age downscaling used male growth charts and simplified non-linear growth.
  • Stated: values pertain only to modern humans; non-Homo sapiens may differ, with Neanderthals probably having higher muscle mass, so estimates are minimum values for non-Homo sapiens. Other stated caveats include small averaged base sample, raw meat only with no cooking analysis, faunal comparison limited to skeletal muscle, each site assumed 100% modification as a maximum potential calorie value, and single versus multiple episodes treated as single.
  • Evident from the text: the comparative and heuristic tables rely on modern male reference values and broad age categories, so sex, population, and individual variation are not fully captured; the faunal comparison is constrained by available nutritional data and may not reflect full carcass exploitation such as marrow.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/srep44707

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

7 of 54 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Recognised complexity within Neanderthal societies with distinct cultural and symbolic traditions illustrates a hominin that is more behaviourally similar to our own species.

    “In addition, the recognised complexity within Neanderthal societies with distinct cultural and symbolic traditions697071 illustrates a hominin that is more behaviourally similar to our own species.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [69] Ruebens, K., McPherron, S. P. & Hublin, J.-J. Regional Behaviour Among Late Neanderthal Groups in Western Europe: A Comparative Assessment of Late Middle Palaeolithic Bifacial Tool Variability. Journal of Human Evolution 65, 341–362 (2013). source
    • cites [70] Radovčić, D., Sršen, A. O., Radovčić, J. & Frayer, D. W. Evidence for Neanderthal Jewelry: Modified White-Tailed Eagle Claws at Krapina. PLOS One, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119802 (2015). source
    • cites [71] Zilhāo, J. et al. Symbolic Use of Marine Shells and Mineral Pigments by Iberian Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 107, 1023–1028 (2010). source

      The paper reports symbolically organized Neandertal behavior at two Iberian sites and compares their shell ornaments with early modern human material (opening section; page unavailable). Its Conclusion links behavioral modernity with social complexification. It does not establish distinct cultural traditions across Neandertal societies, so that part of the claim goes beyond the evidence presented. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Recent palaeo-genetic studies have hinted at a more explicit and active degree of social interaction between hominin species than was previously thought possible.

    “Recent palaeo-genetic studies666768 have already hinted at a more explicit and active degree of social interaction between hominin species than was previously thought possible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [66] Reich, D. et al. Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature 468, 1053–1060 (2010). source
    • cites [67] Meyer, M. et al. A mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos. Nature 505, 403–406, doi: 10.1038/nature12788 (2014). source

      The main text proposes gene flow between hominin populations as one possible explanation for the Sima de los Huesos mtDNA, so it does hint at contact. It does not establish active social interaction or say that such interaction was previously thought impossible. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [68] Meyer, M. et al. Nuclear DNA sequences from the Middle Pleistocene Sima de los Huesos hominins. Nature 531, 504–507 (2016). source
  • Findingown data

    Garn and Block's original estimate of 18,000 calories per 30 kg muscle mass is not dissimilar to the template's value.

    “Garn and Block’s41 original estimations of the calorie value of protein within edible skeletal muscle mass (18,000 calories per 30 kg muscle mass) are not dissimilar to the results obtained from the nutritional template presented in this study (19,951 calories per 24.897 kg muscle mass – S1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Garn and Block41

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingown data

    The nutritional template presented in this study gives 19,951 calories per 24.897 kg of skeletal muscle mass.

    “19,951 calories per 24.897 kg muscle mass – S1”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    The average values presented within the broad age categories in Table 2 (infant, child, juvenile, adolescent and adult) match the age categories used in the archaeological sites under investigation.

    “However, the average values presented within the broad age categories in Table 2 (infant, child, juvenile, adolescent and adult) match the age categories used in the archaeological sites under investigation (Table 3)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 30
  • May combine two claims. 6
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    There is increasing evidence that Neanderthals may have been as socially complex and varied on an intra- and inter-group level as modern humans in the treatment of their dead and within the symbolic realm.

    “In regards to Neanderthals there is an increasing body of evidence that suggests they may well have been as socially complex and varied on an intra- and inter-group level as modern humans in the treatment of their dead606162 and within the symbolic realm636465.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [60] Rendu, W. et al. Evidence supporting an intentional Neanderthal burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 81–86 (2014). source

      The Abstract (page not specified) supports intentional Neandertal burial and reports multiple possible burials, some reflecting complex funeral practices. It does not establish that Neandertals were as socially complex or varied as modern humans at intra- and inter-group levels. In the citing sentence, separate citations are attached to the claim about the symbolic realm. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [61] Sandgathe, D. M., Dibble, H. L., Goldberg, P. & McPherron, S. The Roc de Marsal Neanderthal Child: A reassessment of its status as a deliberate burial. Journal of Human Evolution 61, 243–253 (2011). source
    • cites [62] Pettitt, P. B. The Neanderthal dead: exploring mortuary variability in Middle Palaeolithic Eurasia. Before Farming 1, 1–26 (2002). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [69] Ruebens, K., McPherron, S. P. & Hublin, J.-J. Regional Behaviour Among Late Neanderthal Groups in Western Europe: A Comparative Assessment of Late Middle Palaeolithic Bifacial Tool Variability. Journal of Human Evolution 65, 341–362 (2013). source
    • cites [11] Rougier, H. et al. Neanderthal cannibalism and Neanderthal bones used as tools in Northern Europe. Nature: Scientific Reports 6, 29005, doi: 10.1038/srep29005 (2016). source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) describes considerable diversity in late Neandertal mortuary behaviour, which supports caution against a single simple label. But it says the Goyet evidence cannot establish whether the treatment of human remains was symbolic or related to food processing, and it does not identify motivations or social contexts beyond those possibilities. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [12] Bello, S. M., Wallduck, R., Dimitrijevic, V., Zivaljevic, I. & Stringer, C. B. Cannibalism versus funerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay: comparisons of bone modifications from four prehistoric sites. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23079 (2016). source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    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?”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [22] Russell, M. D. Mortuary practices at the Krapina Neanderthal site. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 72, 381–397 (1987). source
    • cites [60] Rendu, W. et al. Evidence supporting an intentional Neanderthal burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 81–86 (2014). source
    • cites [61] Sandgathe, D. M., Dibble, H. L., Goldberg, P. & McPherron, S. The Roc de Marsal Neanderthal Child: A reassessment of its status as a deliberate burial. Journal of Human Evolution 61, 243–253 (2011). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When compared to most other fauna, human skeletal muscle has a nutritional value broadly in line with those that match our size and weight, but produces significantly fewer calories than most of the larger fauna such as mammoth, woolly rhino or deer species known to have been regularly consumed by past hominins.

    “Table 5 shows that when compared to most other fauna, human skeletal muscle has a nutritional value broadly in line with those that match our size and weight, but produce significantly fewer calories than most of the larger fauna such as mammoth, woolly rhino or deer species known to have been regularly consumed by past hominins.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The calorie values presented are based on the assumption that 100% of the flesh was consumed to facilitate a direct comparison between faunal and human species.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    It is unknown whether the data would change substantially for non-Homo sapiens species.

    “It is unknown whether the data would change substantially for non-Homo sapiens species.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The average values in Table 2 are useful as a heuristic device when calculating the overall calorie values for episodes of Palaeolithic cannibalism.

    “and are therefore useful as a heuristic device when calculating the overall calorie values for episodes of Palaeolithic cannibalism.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The values in Table 2 represent a simplified reflection of reality in regards to calorie values because growth rates are not linear.

    “It should be kept in mind that as growth rates are not linear, the values represent a simplified reflection of reality in regards to calorie values.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Growth rates are not linear.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Garn and Block estimated that a 50 kg male would yield 30 kg of edible muscle mass, which would yield around 4.5 kg of protein or 18,000 calories.

    “Garn and Block41 claimed that a 50 kg male would yield 30 kg of edible muscle mass, which in turn would yield around 4.5 kg of protein or 18,000 calories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Garn and Block41

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Garn and Block concluded that the nutritional value of cannibalism may be questionable unless a group is in a position to consume its own number in a year.

    “These calculations led the authors to conclude; “the nutritional value of cannibalism may therefore be viewed as questionable, unless a group is in a position to consume its own number in a year”41: 106.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites 41: 106

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The nutritional template represents only the potential nutritional value of an adult human male.

    “First, the nutritional template represents only the potential nutritional value of an adult human male.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The use of average values from a small base sample when calculating human calorie values is a caveat.

    “A third caveat is the use of average values from a small base sample when calculating human calorie values.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In the majority of studies, Palaeolithic cannibalism has been interpreted as practiced for nutritional reasons.

    “Episodes of Palaeolithic cannibalism have frequently been defined as ‘nutritional’ in nature, but with little empirical evidence to assess their dietary significance.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites 25613

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If extended to a 'person a week' ration for a group of 60 people, Garn and Block's estimate amounts to 9 grams (36 calories) of quality protein per day.

    “If this were extended to a ‘person a week’ ration for a group of 60 people, then this would amount to 9 grams (36 calories) of quality protein per day.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A small number of studies invoke ritual motivations for Upper Palaeolithic cannibalism at Gough's Cave and, less certainly, at Caune de l'Argo.

    “A small number of studies also invoke ritual motivations to, for example, the Upper Palaeolithic episodes of cannibalism associated with Homo sapiens at Gough’s Cave (UK)91019 and, less certainly, at the potential Homo erectus site of Caune de l’Argo (France)520.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites 91019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [520]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The use of average values from a small base sample cannot be avoided without a substantially larger dataset, which was unavailable at the time of writing.

    “Due to the variable nature of each human individual this cannot be avoided without a substantially larger dataset (which was unavailable at the time of writing).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisenone given

    No information was supplied by Garn and Block by which their estimate could be tested or assessed.

    “However, no information was supplied by which this estimate could be tested or assessed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Garn and Block41

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Garn and Block suggested that 30 kg of edible muscle mass would serve one day's protein requirement for 60 people averaging 60 kg, working on 1 g protein per kg body weight per day.

    “The authors further suggested that this would serve one day’s protein requirement for 60 people (averaging 60 kg in weight, working on the protein requirement principles that 1 gram of protein is needed per kilogram of body weight per day)41.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [41] Garn, S. M. & Block, W. D. The limited nutritional value of cannibalism. American Anthropologist 72, 106 (1970). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This conclusion supports interpretations from Gran Dolina relating to Homo antecessor.

    “Certainly, this conclusion would support interpretations from Gran Dolina relating to Homo antecessor613.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [6] Saladié, P. et al. Intergroup cannibalism in the European Early Pleistocene: The range expansion and imbalance of power hypotheses. Journal of Human Evolution 63, 682–695 (2012). source
    • cites [13] Carbonell, E. et al. Cultural Cannibalism as a Paleoeconomic System in the European Lower Pleistocene: The Case of Level TD6 of Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). Current Anthropology 51, 539–549 (2010). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The mental and physical effort to hunt a hominin would presumably be much greater than that required for small game given the hominins ability to fight, run and think their way out of the hunt and pursuit in a way that a saiga (for example) simply could not.

    “the mental and physical effort to hunt a hominin would presumably be much greater than that required for small game given the hominins ability to fight, run and think their way out of the hunt and pursuit in a way that a saiga (for example) simply could not.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Investigations at Atapuerca and Gough's Cave have demonstrated how Palaeolithic cannibalism interpretations can be extended beyond the broad labels of 'nutritional' or 'ritual' based on the series of cannibalistic signatures.

    “Investigations at Atapuerca613 and Gough’s Cave9 have demonstrated how Palaeolithic cannibalism interpretations can be extended beyond the broad labels of ‘nutritional’ or ‘ritual’ based on the series of cannibalistic signatures stated above.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [613]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [9] Bello, S. M., Saladié, P., Caceres, I., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A. & Parfitt, S. A. Upper Palaeolithic ritualistic cannibalism at Gough’s Cave (Somerset, UK): The human remains from head to toe. Journal of Human Evolution 82, 170–189 (2015). source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    It was not possible to conduct analyses on cooked human flesh in this study.

    “However, given the nature of this study, it was not possible to conduct analyses on cooked human flesh.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For Homo sapiens, the motivations for cannibalism are wide-ranging, including nutritional cannibalism with ritual practices surrounding the special treatment of skulls and inter-group rivalries placed under stress during harsh climatic conditions.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [9] Bello, S. M., Saladié, P., Caceres, I., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A. & Parfitt, S. A. Upper Palaeolithic ritualistic cannibalism at Gough’s Cave (Somerset, UK): The human remains from head to toe. Journal of Human Evolution 82, 170–189 (2015). source
    • cites [53] Kozlowski, S. K. et al. Maszycka Cave, a Magdalenian site in Southern Poland. Jahrbuch Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 40, 115–252 (1995).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [59] Kozlowski, S. K., Poltowicz-Bobak, M., Bobak, D. & Terberger, T. New information from Maszycka Cave and the Late Glacial recolonisation of Central Europe. Quaternary International 272–273, 288–296 (2012). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Each episode of Palaeolithic cannibalism would have had its own specific cultural context and reason for consumption.

    “Undoubtedly, each episode of Palaeolithic cannibalism would have had its own specific cultural context and reason for consumption.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The possibility of Homo erectus ritual cannibalism from l'Argo could suggest that even the oldest episodes of cannibalism were social acts with cultural meaning beyond an easy meal.

    “The intriguing possibility of Homo erectus ritual cannibalism from l’Argo20 could further suggest that even the oldest episodes of cannibalism were social acts that had some cultural meaning for the consumers beyond an easy meal.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] de Lumley, M.-A. L’homme de Tautavel. Un Homo erectus européen évolué. Homo erectus tautavelensis. L’Anthropologie 119, 303–348 (2015). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Homo sapiens motivations for cannibalism are frequently context specific, including survival, warfare and symbolic cannibalism.

    “We know that Homo sapiens motivations for cannibalism are frequently context specific, including survival, warfare and symbolic cannibalism as discussed above5.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Saladié, P. & Rodriguez-Hidalgo, A. Archaeological Evidence for Cannibalism in Prehistoric Western Europe: from Homo antecessor to the Bronze Age. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, doi: 10.1007/s10816-016-9306-y (2016). source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The values in Tables 1 and 2 are for raw meat only.

    “Finally, the values in Tables 1 and 2 are for raw meat only.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Hominins may have been seen as another source of food and cannibalised opportunistically, such as when a group member died, possibly as an easy alternative to hunting.

    “Hominins may have been seen (rather functionally) as another source of food (“meat for meat’s sake”) and were cannibalised on an opportunistic basis (such as when a member of the group passed away) possibly as an easy alternative to going out and hunting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    All types of cannibalism involve feeding on the tissues of individuals of the same species and are therefore inherently 'nutritional', regardless of secondary emotive drivers such as ceremony or ritual.

    “Indeed, these labels may be seen as somewhat ambiguous given that all types of cannibalism involve feeding on the tissues of individuals of the same species and are therefore inherently ‘nutritional’, regardless of secondary emotive drivers such as ceremony or ritual5.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Saladié, P. & Rodriguez-Hidalgo, A. Archaeological Evidence for Cannibalism in Prehistoric Western Europe: from Homo antecessor to the Bronze Age. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, doi: 10.1007/s10816-016-9306-y (2016). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Previous studies have tended to focus on calorie values for the flesh of the Pleistocene fauna.

    “Previous studies5253 have tended to focus on calorie values for the flesh of the Pleistocene fauna.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [52] Soffer, O. The Upper Palaeolithic of the Central Russian Plain (Academic Press, 1985). source
    • cites [53] Kozlowski, S. K. et al. Maszycka Cave, a Magdalenian site in Southern Poland. Jahrbuch Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 40, 115–252 (1995).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The sites in Tables 3 and 4 exhibit anthropogenic modifications on more than 20% of the hominin remains, with some (e.g., Gough's Cave) at over 65% modification.

    “the sites in Tables 3 and 4 exhibit anthropogenic modifications on more than 20% of the hominin remains5 (with some, such as Gough’s Cave, at over 65% modification9)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [5] Saladié, P. & Rodriguez-Hidalgo, A. Archaeological Evidence for Cannibalism in Prehistoric Western Europe: from Homo antecessor to the Bronze Age. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, doi: 10.1007/s10816-016-9306-y (2016). source
    • cites [9] Bello, S. M., Saladié, P., Caceres, I., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A. & Parfitt, S. A. Upper Palaeolithic ritualistic cannibalism at Gough’s Cave (Somerset, UK): The human remains from head to toe. Journal of Human Evolution 82, 170–189 (2015). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The site of Caune de l'Argo highlights the possible nature of ritual cannibalism for Homo erectus, where post-cranial remains were processed differently from cranial remains, perhaps similar to the Gough's Cave assemblage, though more work is needed to confirm this.

    “The site of Caune de l’Argo highlights the intriguing possible nature of ritual cannibalism for Homo erectus where the post-cranial remains have been processed in a different fashion to the cranial remains, perhaps facilitating an interpretation not dissimilar to the Gough’s Cave assemblage; although more work on this site is needed to confirm this.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] de Lumley, M.-A. L’homme de Tautavel. Un Homo erectus européen évolué. Homo erectus tautavelensis. L’Anthropologie 119, 303–348 (2015). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There has been much recent interest in how cooking can increase the calorie value retrieved from meat.

    “There has been much recent interest in how cooking can increase the calorie value retrieved from meat495051.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites 495051

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

32 of 32

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There has been little empirical evidence or no way to quantify the dietary or nutritional significance of Palaeolithic cannibalism episodes.

    “Episodes of Palaeolithic cannibalism have frequently been defined as ‘nutritional’ in nature, but with little empirical evidence to assess their dietary significance.”
    “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.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Caloric value relative to associated fauna is a valid proxy for whether cannibalism was nutritionally motivated.

    “This could suggest that the motivations behind hominin anthropophagy may not have been purely nutritionally motivated.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The faunal species found in association with anthropogenically modified hominin remains were available to the hominins as potential food.

    “Results show that humans have a comparable nutritional value to those faunal species that match our typical body weight, but significantly lower than a range of fauna often found in association with anthropogenically modified hominin remains.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Data for females and sub-adults are not available within the published literature.

    “However, data for females and sub-adults are not available within the published literature”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Growth rates are not linear.

    “as growth rates are not linear”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The published materials used here are the only sources that shared the same original data format, displaying full body compositional data as percentages for body weight, fat and protein content.

    “The published materials used here are the only sources that shared the same original data format, in displaying the full body compositional data as percentages for body weight, fat and protein content.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Each site is taken as 100% modification, representing a maximum potential calorie value.

    “each site is taken as 100% modification and therefore represents a maximum potential calorie value”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The calorie values presented are based on the assumption that 100% of the flesh was consumed to facilitate a direct comparison between faunal and human species.

    “the calorie values presented are based on the assumption that 100% of the flesh was consumed to facilitate a direct comparison between faunal and human species”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    All episodes are treated as a single episode of cannibalism in line with many of the original site interpretations.

    “all episodes are treated as a single episode of cannibalism in line with many of the original site interpretations”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Hominins regularly exploited faunal remains that were lower in calories with no cultural influence.

    “and hominins regularly exploited faunal remains that were lower in calories with no cultural influence.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Modern humans have a range of complex motivations for cannibalism that extend from ritual, aggressive, and survival to dietary reasons.

    “We know that modern humans have a range of complex motivations for cannibalism that extend from ritual, aggressive, and survival to dietary reasons.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The demographics of Palaeolithic cannibalism episodes are similar (adults to infants).

    “However, the similarity of demographics across Palaeolithic cannibalism episodes (adults to infants) may indicate that the motivations followed the inter- and intra-group dynamics involving resource and territory defence proposed at Gran Dolina TD613.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Hominins have a calorie content and body composition similar to modern humans, such that a modern human nutritional template can be used to infer hominin calorie returns.

    “The use of the human nutritional template presented here highlights that humans (and by inference hominins) fall within the expected range of calories for an animal of our average body weight.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The four adult male human individuals used to construct the nutritional template are representative of average human body composition.

    “The human nutritional template was constructed using previously published data relating to the chemical composition of the human body for four adult male human individuals424344 and average limb muscle weights7374.”
14 of 14

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?

  • Human bodies have limited nutritional value.

    “Considering the limited nutritional values of human bodies (Cole, 2017;Sack, 2021)”

    From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Cole, 2017

    The Conclusion says humans provide significantly fewer calories per individual than large fauna such as mammoth, bison, cattle and horse. But it also says humans fall within the expected calorie range for animals of their body weight. The claim omits that comparison and makes the nutritional value of human bodies sound generally limited. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Cole, J. Prehistoric Cannibalism: an act of nutritional necessity or a result of socio-cultural conditions? MA thesis, University of Southampton (2006).
  2. Kozlowski, S. K. et al. Maszycka Cave, a Magdalenian site in Southern Poland. Jahrbuch Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 40, 115–252 (1995).
  3. Radovčić, D., Sršen, A. O., Radovčić, J. & Frayer, D. W. Evidence for Neanderthal Jewelry: Modified White-Tailed Eagle Claws at Krapina. PLOS One, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119802 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Solomon, E. P., Schmidt, R. R. & Adragna, P. J. (Saunders College Publishing, USA, 1990).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cole, J.
Affiliations
University of Brighton (GB)
Corresponding author
Cole, James
ORCID
Cole, James
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-04-06
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
44707-44707
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/srep44707
PMC
PMC5382840
OpenAlex
W2604820144
Semantic Scholar
e9a17b5dc80090c09fc452f822c1c871854534ba
Cited by
34
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4
FWCI
15.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Archaeological and Geological Studies
Keywords
cannibalism, Paleolithic, hominin diet, nutritional value, calorie estimation, faunal remains, prehistoric human remains
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Body Weight, Cannibalism, Child, Diet, Female, Fossils, Humans, Male, Nutritive Value, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-17.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-17.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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