Butchery, Art or Rituals
Open accessAbstract
Evidence and traces recorded on fossil bones, directly or indirectly produced by hominins, can shed light on multiple issues of importance in human evolution. For example, fossil bones bearing cut marks may indicate the presence of hominins despite \nthe absence of hominin fossils. Moreover, cut marks on fossil bones are associated with the use of stones or any hard material for tool-making and preparation and transformation of skeletal elements to have a secondary use by humans. Therefore, cut marks are indicative of technological innovations in human evolution, evolution of their brains and their behaviors, including the beginnings of artistic expression. Correct interpretation of these innovative actions and distinction from butchery needs special attention, particularly in a cannibalistic context given the debate, complexity and meaning that this practice has. This paper focuses on two aspects that have special relevance in human evolution: i) the use of stone tools (cut marking) and implications of cut marks for \nexploring human behavior as a potential indicator of artistic decoration, funerary treatments vs. butchery, ii) the significance of transforming specific anatomical elements, the skulls, to become ritual artefacts vs. useful accessories. These aspects have had \nspecial significance in the ongoing debate about evolutionary trends in the human brain and acquirement of modern human behaviors and mentality, including art. This paper takes a special case study of an Upper Paleolithic site, Gough¿s Cave, (UK). \nThis paper reinforces the importance of taphonomic identifications in their contexts, rather than concluding based on individual specimens or individual marks.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
A clear limitation of Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews' (2021) model is the reduced number of cases used as evidence of survival and ritualistic cannibalism.
“Although theoretically valuable, a clear limitation of Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews (2021) model is the reduced number of cases used as evidence of survival and ritualistic cannibalism.”
From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews (2021)
The discussion of cannibalistic contexts (indexed under References; page unavailable) uses named cases to illustrate survival and ritual cannibalism, including El Sidrón and the Aztec accounts. It does not establish that the model rests on a reduced number of cases. Calling that a limitation is the citing authors’ assessment, not a conclusion stated in the source. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA reduced frequency of bone modifications and the possible selection of demographic or social groups has been more often associated with 'funerary cannibalism'.
“On the other hand, a reduced frequency of bone modifications and the possible selection of demographic or social groups has been more often associated with 'funerary cannibalism' (Fernández-Jalvo & Andrews, 2021;Scott & McMurry, 2011).”
From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Fernández-Jalvo & Andrews, 2021
The passage on Fiji’s Navatu burials (section labeled References; page unavailable) says remains from mortuary practices showed few signs of consumption and were less damaged than consumed individuals. This supports the reduced-modification distinction, but the copy does not link it to selection of demographic or social groups. It also distinguishes funerary rites without tissue consumption from dietary cannibalism, rather than clearly identifying the less-damaged burials as funerary cannibalism. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe Fiji Navatu midden assemblage has also been interpreted as a form of gastronomic cannibalism due to the high frequency of modifications.
“Although the midden assemblage has also been interpreted as a form of gastronomic cannibalism due to the high frequency of modifications (Fernández-Jalvo & Andrews, 2021, p. 385)”
From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Fernández-Jalvo & Andrews, 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
McPherron, S. P., Alemseged, Z., Marean, C. W., Wynn, J. G., Reed, D. N., Geraads, D., Bobe, R. L., & Béarat, H. A. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09248 · Cited by 835 · see citing works
Paleolithic Technology and Human Evolution
Ambrose, S. H. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1059487 · Cited by 773 · see citing works
Trampling as a cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks
Behrensmeyer, A. K., Gordon, K. D., & Yanagi, G. T. (1986) · Nature · doi:10.1038/319768a0 · Cited by 498 · see citing works
Flaked stones and old bones: Biological and cultural evolution at the dawn of technology
Plummer, T. (2004) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.20157 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Natural Modifications to Bones in a Temperate Setting
Andrews, P., & Cook, J. (1985) · Man · doi:10.2307/2802756 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
Man corn: cannibalism and violence in the Prehistoric American Southwest
(1999) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-5766 · Cited by 268 · see citing works
A new method for the quantitative analysis of cutmark micromorphology
Bello, S. M., & Soligo, C. (2008) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2007.10.018 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Nonaka, T., Bril, B., & Rein, R. (2010) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.04.006 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
Configurational approach to identifying the earliest hominin butchers
Domínguez‐Rodrigo, M., Pickering, T. R., & Bunn, H. T. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1013711107 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Paleobiology and comparative morphology of a late Neandertal sample from El Sidrón, Asturias, Spain
Rosas, A., Martínez-Maza, C., Bastir, M., García-Tabernero, A., Lalueza-Fox, C., Huguet, R., Ortiz, J. E., Julià, R., Soler, V., de Torres, T., et al. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0609662104 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Ferna´ndez-Jalvo, Y., Carlos Dı´ez, J., Ca´ceres, I., & Rosell, J. (1999) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0324 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
Self-citationMicroscopic criteria for the determination of directionality of cutmarks on bone
Bromage, T. G., & BOYDE, A. (1984) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330650404 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Quantitative micromorphological analyses of cut marks produced by ancient and modern handaxes
Bello, S. M., Parfitt, S. A., & Stringer, C. B. (2009) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.04.014 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Villa, P., Bouville, C., Courtin, J., Helmer, D., Mahieu, É., Shipman, P., Belluomini, G., & Branca, M. (1986) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.233.4762.431 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Evidence for bronze age cannibalism in El Mirador Cave (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain)
Cáceres, I., Lozano, M., & Saladié, P. (2007) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.20610 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Taphonomic identification of cut marks made with lithic handaxes: an experimental study
de Juana, S., López, A. B. G., & Domínguez‐Rodrigo, M. (2010) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.02.002 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
(2010) · Current Anthropology · doi:10.1086/653807 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Range of bone modifications by human chewing
Saladié, P., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., Díez, C., Martín-Rodríguez, P., & Carbonell, E. (2013) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.002 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Fernández–Jalvo, Y., Fernández-Lomana, J. C. D., de Castro, J. M. B., Carbonell, E., & Arsuaga, J. L. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.271.5247.277 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Self-citationJacobi, R. M., & Higham, T. (2009) · Quaternary Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.03.006 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Hominid butchers and biting crocodiles in the African Plio–Pleistocene
Sahle, Y., Zaatari, S. E., & White, T. D. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1716317114 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Use and abuse of cut mark analyses: The Rorschach effect
Domínguez‐Rodrigo, M., Saladié, P., Cáceres, I., Huguet, R., Yravedra, J., Rodríguez‐Hidalgo, A., Martín, P., Pineda, A., Marín, J., Clara, G., et al. (2017) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2017.08.001 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
The earliest evidence for the use of human bone as a tool
Verna, C., & d’Errico, F. (2010) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.07.027 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Distinguishing butchery cut marks from crocodile bite marks through machine learning methods
Domínguez‐Rodrigo, M., & Baquedano, E. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-24071-1 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Cifuentes‐Alcobendas, G., & Domínguez‐Rodrigo, M. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-55439-6 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Andrews, P., & Fernández–Jalvo, Y. (2003) · Bulletin of the Natural History Museum Geology Series · doi:10.1017/s096804620300010x · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Self-citationHarris, J. A., Marean, C. W., Ogle, K., & Thompson, J. C. (2017) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.06.011 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
An Upper Palaeolithic engraved human bone associated with ritualistic cannibalism
Bello, S. M., Wallduck, R., Parfitt, S. A., & Stringer, C. B. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0182127 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Marginedas, F., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., Soto, M., Bello, S. M., Cáceres, I., Huguet, R., & Saladié, P. (2020) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2020.105076 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Hanon, R., Péan, S., & Prat, S. (2018) · Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d anthropologie de Paris · doi:10.3166/bmsap-2018-0013 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Bahn, P. G. (1991) · Nature · doi:10.1038/351614a0 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Smith, F. H., & Smith, M. O. (1993) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330910215 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Gowlett JAJ (2009) Artefacts of apes, humans, and other: Towards comparative assessment andanalysis. Journal of Human Evolution 5: 401-410.
- Whiten A, Schick K, Toth N (2009) The evolution and cultural transmission of percussive technology: Integrating evidence from paleoanthopology and primatology. Journal of Human Evolution 57: 420-435.
- Olsen A, Shipman P (1988) Surface modification on bone: trampling vs. butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 535-553.
- Yravedra J, Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Santonja M, Pérez-González A, Panera J, et al. (2010) Cut marks on the Middle Pleistocene elephant carcass of Áridos 2 (Madrid, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2469-2476.
- Pickering T, White T, Toth N (2000) Brief Communication: Cutmarks on a Plio-Pleistocene Hominid From Sterkfontein, South Africa. Journal of Physical Anthropology 111: 579-584.
- Fernández-Jalvo Y, Andrews P (2016) Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications: 1001+ images of fossil and recent mammal bone modification. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Buisson D, Gambier D (1991) Façonnage et gravure sur des os humains d’Isturitz (Pyrenées-Atlantiques). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 88: 174–177.
- Bello SM, Parfitt SA, Saladié P, Cáceres I, Rodríguez-Hidalgo A (2015) Upper Palaeolithic ritualistic cannibalism: Gough's Cave (Somerset, UK) from head to toe. Journal of Human Evolution 82: 170-189.
- White TD (1992) Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346. Princeton University Press, NJ, USA.
- Degusta D (1999) Fijian cannibalism: Osteological evidence from Navatu. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 110: 215–241.
- Wade L (2018) Feeding the Gods. Science 360(6395): 1288-1292.
- Cook J (1986) Marked human bones from Gough’s Cave Somerset. 1986. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 17: 275-285.
- Cook J (1991) Preliminary report on marked human bones from the 1986-1987 excavations at Gough's Cave, Somerset, England. Anthropologie (Brno) 29(3): 181-187.
- Díez JC, Fernández-Jalvo Y, Rosell J, Cáceres I (1999) The site formation (Aurora Stratum, Gran Dolina, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 37: 623–652.
- Pares JM, Arnold L, Duval M, Demuro M, Pérez-González, Bermúdez de Castro JM, et al. (2013) Reassessing the age of Atapuerca-TD6 (Spain): New paleomagentic results. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 4586-4595.
- Fernández-Jalvo Y, Andrews P (2011) When human chew bones. Journal of Human Evolution 60: 117-123.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Knapping tools in Magdalenian contexts: New evidence from Gough’s Cave (Somerset, UK)
Bello, S. M., Crété, L., Galway‐Witham, J., & Parfitt, S. A. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261031 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Bello, S. M. (2025) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-024-09676-3 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“Although theoretically valuable, a clear limitation of Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews (2021) model is the reduced number of cases used as evidence of survival and ritualistic cannibalism.”
InfluentialBello, S. M., & Crété, L. (2024) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-024-09675-4 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Theoretical Origins and Biocultural Approaches to Taphonomy in Bioarchaeology
Trombley, T. M., & Agarwal, S. C. (2025) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-025-09722-8 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Schulting, R., Fernández‐Crespo, T., Ordoño, J., Brock, F., Kellow, A., Snoeck, C., Cartwright, I. R., Walker, D. M., Loe, L., & Audsley, T. (2024) · Antiquity · doi:10.15184/aqy.2024.180 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fernández-Jalvo, Y.
- Venue
- Journal of Anthropological and Archaeological Sciences
- Publisher
- Lupine Publishers LLC
- Published
- 2021-01-18
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 2690-5752 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3162447301
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 3.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Anthropological and Archaeological Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Archaeological and Geological Studies
- Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and Rock Art Studies
- Keywords
- cut marks, butchery, cannibalism, lithic artifacts, hominin behavior, human evolution, art and ritual, taphonomy, Upper Palaeolithic
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
