Reaction Paper

aaaforever

carbonell_20101.pdf

Home >Reading homework help >Reaction Paper

539

Reports

Cultural Cannibalism as a Paleoeconomic System in the European Lower Pleistocene

The Case of Level TD6 of Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain)

Eudald Carbonell, Isabel Cáceres, Marina Lozano, Palmira Saladié, Jordi Rosell, Carlos Lorenzo, Josep Vallverdú, Rosa Huguet, Antoni Canals, and José Marı́a Bermúdez de Castro

Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES), Unidad Asociada al Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientı́ficas (CSIC). Universitat Rovira I Virgili (URV), Campus Catalunya, Avinguda de Catalunya, 35, 43002 Tarragona, Spain (Carbonell, Cáceres, Lozano, Saladié, Rosell, Lorenzo, Vallverdú, Huguet, Canals) (icaceresprehistoria.urv.cat)/Visiting professor, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of Beijing (IVPP; Carbonell)/Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre Evolución Humana (CENIEH), Paseo Sierra de Atapuerca, s/n, 09t002 Burgos, Spain (Bermúdez de Castro). 19 III 10

Human cannibalism is currently recorded in abundant ar- chaeological assemblages of different chronologies. The TD6 level of Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos), at more than 800 ka, is the oldest case known at present. The analysis of cranial and postcranial remains of Homo antecessor has established the presence of various alterations of anthropic origin (cut marks and bone breakage) related with exploita- tion of carcasses. The human remains do not show a specific distribution, and they appeared mixed with lithic tools and bones of other taxa. Both nonhuman and human remains show similar evidence of butchering processes. The strati- graphic evidence and the new increment of the collection of remains of Homo antecessor have led us to identify a succession of cannibalism events in a dilated temporal sequence. These data suggest that hunting strategies and human meat con- sumption were frequent and habitual actions. The numerous evidences of cannibalism, the number of individuals, their age profile, and the archaeostratigraphic distribution suggest that cannibalism in TD6 was nutritional. This practice, accepted and included in their social system, is more ancient cultural cannibalism than has been known until now.

Cannibalism is by definition the act of consuming tissues of individuals of the same species, and it occurs among a wide variety of living organisms. From an ethological point of view, there are different mechanisms that determine this behavior. However, why humans process and consume other humans is a complex question, and moving away from purely ethologic causes, the answer may encompass nutritional, economic, cos- mogonic, social, and political purposes. Because these con- ditions can sometimes intermingle, cannibalism must be viewed not as something unitary or simple (Sanday 1986) but rather as a complex activity that has some temporal conti- nuity.

Human cannibalism has traditionally given rise to extreme feelings ranging from fascination to revulsion—attitudes often caused by ignorance or cultural bias. Denying the anthro- pophagy is a response to the moral issue. Several scientific researchers have even taken positions of denial with regard to its existence (Arens 1979; Bahn 1992; Salas 1921). Can- nibalism revealed through oral and written sources has led to paradoxical situations that are explained only by traditions and customs (Conklin 2001; Sanday 1986). Strictly speaking, we can infer that a society rejects that which cannot be log- ically and acceptably explained within its social system, beliefs, and environment.

Classifying cannibalism from different perspectives has al- lowed us to combine archaeological cases from a range of typologies. First, human cannibalism can be considered by examining the relationship between those who consume and those who are consumed (Villa 1986; White 1992). Endocan- nibalism occurs when the consumed individuals are from the same group as those who consume them. It is usually asso- ciated with sacred beliefs and matters related to the spiritual regeneration of the deceased, including respect and honor, although some argue it was used, for example, for social con- trol (Kantner 1999). The term exocannibalism refers to the consumption of individuals outside the group and is related to expressions of hostility, violence, and contempt and may indicate a clear predator/prey relationship between the con- sumers and the consumed. When a group practices both types of cannibalism, these differences can sometimes be observed in the treatment of the bodies and bones, although an ar- chaeological reading is not always possible (Conklin 2001; Fausto 2007; Sanday 1986).

Second, cannibalism can be classified by means of moti- vation or function, although sometimes the lack of recogni- tion of certain behaviors can cause these concepts to be am- biguous. Nutritional cannibalism refers to the consumption of human flesh for its taste or nutritional value. With regard to this type, Terrazas (2007) suggests cannibalism can be prag- matic, as the objective is to obtain benefits such as nutrients. Ritual or magical cannibalism is related to religious beliefs. This type may include sacrificing and consuming individuals or ingesting the bodies of the dead in funerary rituals. Finally, survival cannibalism takes place in times of food stress. Al-

540 Current Anthropology Volume 51, Number 4, August 2010

Figure 1. Schematic plan of the TD6 level from south to north. The test pit (south area) was excavated in 1994–1995, whereas the excavations of the middle and north areas are in progress (2003–2010). A color version of this figure is available in the online edition.

though these are the most widely accepted and processed types of cannibalism found in archaeological sites, there are still other possible motivations for human cannibalism, such as using it for medicinal or figurative purposes.

Regardless of how cannibalism is viewed from the outside, it is usually closely linked to the cultural systems of the groups that practice it. The term culture comprises the ways of life, traditions, and beliefs that make up a social system. Canni- balism within any of these areas becomes a cultural phenom- enon. The motivations that lead humans to consume con- specifics are diverse, and the complexity escalates as societies become increasingly structured and hierarchical. It is precisely with regard to such groups that cultural cannibalism has been defined: a practice seen as part of the system of values and beliefs within a society, usually associated with a symbolic component (Fausto 2007; Sanday 1986). Archaeological re- mains cannot always provide answers to these questions be- cause there may be expressions in the practice of anthropic cannibalism that are archaeologically unrecognizable.

The archaeological record leaves no doubt about the ex- istence of such practices among different species within the genus Homo, from the Pleistocene until recent prehistory in Europe, starting with Homo antecessor (Fernández-Jalvo et al. 1996, 1999) and including Neanderthals (Defleur et al. 1999;

Rosas et al. 2006) and Homo sapiens during the Upper Pa- leolithic (Andrews and Fernández-Jalvo 2003) and the Meso- lithic (Boulestin 1999). In the Neolithic, evidence of canni- balism at archaeological sites increases quantitatively (Botella and Alemán 1998; Botella, Alemán, and Jiménez 2000; Villa et al. 1986a, 1986b). Finally, such practices have recently been documented in Bronze Age sites on the Iberian Peninsula (Cáceres, Lozano, and Saladié 2007).

Cannibalism is identified in archaeological contexts through taphonomic criteria (Cáceres, Lozano, and Saladié 2007; Turner and Turner 1992; Villa et al. 1986b; White 1992). The oldest example of this behavior currently comes from the remains recovered from level TD6 of the Gran Dolina site at the Sierra de Atapuerca (Spain; Fernández-Jalvo et al. 1996, 1999). The remains found there during the first phase of interventions provide clear evidence of nutritional cannibal- ism (Fernández-Jalvo et al. 1996, 1999). This kind of can- nibalism gives rise to two different assumptions: (1) it was a repetitive behavior over time as part of a culinary tradition; versus (2), it occurred in response to a time of nutritional stress, as a specific case of survival cannibalism. Stratigraphic data along with the taphonomic and zooarchaeological results presented in this paper suggest that the evidence of canni-

Figure 2. North-south schema at Gran Dolina lithostratigraphic unit 6 (top right); southern Trinchera stratigraphic unit 6 and bedsets (Ssp; left). Left center, microstratigraphy of Gran Dolina bedset 6.2, located in the northern face of the sounding pit. Cave morphology reconstruction: 1 p hypothetical cave morphology; 2 p observed cave morphology. A, Gran Dolina 6.2 bedset; B, microstratigraphical units; C, facies number; D, facies description; E, sedimentary process and deposits. Limits: 1 p abrupt and flat, 2 p scoured surface, 3 p gradual and flat. Sedimentary structures and lithologies: 4 p sand and mud, 5 p mud, 6 p granules and fine gravels matrix to clast supported, 7 p sand and clay, 8 p lithoclast and speleothems, 9 p massive, 10 p lamina set, 11 p grading and partial alineation, 12 p calcareous coarse gravels and blocks, 13 p current marks and paleocurrent orientation, 14 p human remains. Ped- ological structures: 15 p prismatic, subangular, and granular micro- aggregation; 16 p dusty coatings, coarse infillings, and intercalation tex- tural features; 17 p desiccation figures and fissural textural infillings.

542 Current Anthropology Volume 51, Number 4, August 2010

Table 1. Number of identified speci- mens (NISP) and taxa of level TD6

Taxa NISP

Homo antecessor 165 Eucladoceros giulii 32 Cervus elaphus 8 D. nestii? vallonetensis 18 Cervidae indet. medium size 283 Cervidae indet. small size 91 Cervidae indet. 159 cf. Bison voigtstedtenensis 119 Equus stenonian 59 Stephanorhinus etruscus 45 Sus scrofa 1 Cercopithecidae 2 Mammuthus sp. 1 Canis mosbachensis 17 Vulpes praeglacialis 7 Canidae indet. 1 Ursus dolinensis 9 Crocuta crocuta 3 Lynx sp. 4 Carnivora 15

Total 1,039

Note. indet. p indeterminate.

balism found in level TD6 may be the result of the first scenario.

Level TD6 of Gran Dolina

The Sierra de Atapuerca is located 14 km east of the city of Burgos, Spain, and has a maximum altitude of 1,082 m above sea level. There are several Pleistocene deposits found in this area, one of which is Gran Dolina. The Gran Dolina cavity is made up of 11 lithostratigraphic units, all with archaeo- paleontological records except for TD1, TD2, and TD3, which are sterile. The lower levels of this site (TDW4, TDW5, TD5, and TD6) have provided evidence (lithic tools and faunal remains) of settlement close to a million years ago.

Two phases of excavation of level TD6 of Gran Dolina have been carried out to date. The first is a biostratigraphic test pit (9 m2) dug between 1993 and 1997, and the second is a profiled section of the site with the Railway Trench (13 m2; fig. 1). In 1994 the biostratigraphic test pit reached the upper part of level TD6. An unprecedented set of human remains was recovered in this level, showing clear anthropogenic signs of processing associated with a significant accumulation of lithic tools and faunal remains. Different methods of dating and biostratigraphic studies have established that level TD6 of Gran Dolina was formed during the end of the Lower Pleistocene (Berger et al. 2008; Falguères et al. 1999; Parés and Pérez-González 1995, 1999; Pérez-González et al. 2001). Paleoanthropological studies indicate that the human remains belong to a new species. Using the ATD6–5 jaw and the teeth as holotypes, the remains were classified as Homo antecessor (Bermúdez de Castro et al. 1997). Due to the importance of

the assemblage, the layer was named the Aurora Stratum (Car- bonell et al. 1999a).

The Aurora Stratum was excavated between 1994 and 1995. Archaeoestratigraphic and sedimentological studies indicated the existence of different microstratigraphic units arranged on a northwest-southeast slope (fig. 2). This phenomenon suggests some diachrony in the formation of the complex. However, the diachrony was difficult to quantify because the vertical resolution of archaeostratigraphic unit 1 is low (Ca- nals, Vallverdú, and Carbonell 2003). The excavation works in level TD6 have been underway since 2003. New human remains, macromammal fossils, and lithic tools have been recovered in this sector, indicating that these associations of elements are distributed throughout the surface of the site (Bermúdez de Castro et al. 2008). Sediment mainly originates from a gravitational entrance located to the north of Gran Dolina and forms a smooth northwest-southeast slope. At approximately squares 15–16, these deposits interdigitate with those identified in the test pit, and a change of slope occurs.

The magnetic north stratigraphic profile of the level TD6 test pit shows a bed set at least four lithofacies rhythms within archaeostratigraphic unit 1 (Canals, Vallverdú, and Carbonell 2003; Vallverdú et al. 2001). The microstratigraphic units are made up of a rhythm of muds and calcarenites with granules of limestone. This allowed many of the objects recovered during this excavation phase to be assigned to their respective lithofacies rhythms or equivalent surfaces. The excavation of this area has revealed the existence of human remains in each of these well-stratified sedimentary rhythms and, conse- quently, the existence of multiple processing events of human carcasses in Gran Dolina during the formation process of level TD6.

In level TD6, together with the human fossils we have recovered fossils of other animals and 845 lithic artifacts made from flint (Neogene and Cretaceous), quartzite, sandstone, quartz, and limestone. The diversity of raw materials was the result of selection behavior because the retouched pieces have been preferentially made with Cretaceous flint (Carbonell et al. 1999b). Macromammal species are abundant and 15 dif- ferent taxa have been identified (tables 1, 2): H. antecessor, Ursus dolinensis, Canis mosbachensis, Vulpes praeglacialis, Cro- cuta crocuta, Lynx sp., Mustela palerminea, Mammuthus sp., Equus cf. altidens, Stephanorhinus etruscus, Cervus elaphus, Eucladoceros giulii, Dama nestii vallonetensis, cf. “Bison voigt- stedtensis,” and Sus scrofa (Bermúdez de Castro et al. 1997; Garcı́a 2001; Garcı́a and Arsuaga 1999; van der Made 1998, 1999). Both lithic tools and faunal remains allow us to infer that the TD6 level represents a camp site (Carbonell et al. 1999b; Dı́ez et al. 1999). The tool manufacturing process took place inside the cave because all the structural categories pro- duced during the successive stages of the chaı̊nes opératoires are represented. We have recovered cores and flakes derived from reduction sequences and from retouching artifacts. Also we have found two sets of refitted artifacts of Neogene flint, suggesting that their flaking occurred inside the cave. In re-

543

Table 2. Number of identified specimens (NISP) and minimal number of elements (MNE) grouped for size-weight cate- gory and Homo antecessor remains

NISP (MNE) Very large (+1,000 kg)

Large (300–1,000 kg)

Medium (100–300 kg)

Small (!100 kg)

Homo antecessor (!100 kg) Indeterminate Total

Antler/corn � (�) 4 (�) 55 (�) 2 (�) � (�) 160 (�) 221 (�) Skull 2 (2) 20 (2) 58 (5) 62 (5) 21 (3) 12 (�) 175 (16) Maxillae �(1) 3 (6) 4 (3) � (�) 4 (5) � (�) 11 (15) Mandible 6 (2) 8 (6) 11 (7) 10 (2) 5 (5) 1 (�) 41 (22) Maxillae/mandible � (�) 1 (�) 2 (�) � (�) � (�) � (�) 3 (�) Isolated tooth 13 (�) 71 (�) 52 (�) 15 (�) 24 (�) 31 (�) 206 (�) Hiodes � (�) 1 (1) � (�) 1 (1) � (�) � (�) 2 (2) Vertebrae 2 (2) 17 (7) 49 (7) 63 (11) 19 (14) 9 (�) 159 (41) Clavicle � (�) � (�) � (�) � (�) 3 (�) 1 (�) 3 (3) Ribs 4 (1) 72 (11) 89 (8) 129 (18) 31 (14) 16 (�) 341 (52) Coxae 1 (1) 2 (1) 7 (1) 5 (5) 2 (1) 1 (�) 18 (9) Scapula � (�) 4 (2) 6 (2) 9 (6) 3 (3) 1 (�) 23 (13) Humerus 1 (1) 12 (6) 34 (7) 9 (2) 3 (3) � (�) 59 (19) Radius � (�) 19 (4) 26 (7) 14 (7) 2 (2) � (�) 61 (20) Ulna 2 (1) 6 (1) 8 (3) 4 (4) 2 (2) � (�) 22 (11) Carpals 1 (1) 9 (9) 1 (1) 6 (6) 5 (5) � (�) 22 (22) Femur 1 (1) 15 (4) 30 (5) 25 (12) 4 (2) � (�) 75 (24) Patella � (�) � (�) � (�) 2 (2) 2 (2) � (�) 4 (4) Tibia � (�) 31 (11) 26 (7) 10 (6) 2 (2) � (�) 69 (26) Fibula � (�) � (�) 2 (2) � (�) 2 (2) � (�) 4 (4) Talus � (�) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) � (�) � (�) 6 (6) Calcaneus � (�) 2 (2) � (�) � (�) 1 (1) � (�) 3 (3) Tarsals 1 (1) 1 (1) 4 (4) 3 (3) � (�) � (�) 9 (9) Metapodial � (�) 44 (12) 42 (12) 27 (10) 6 (5) 3 (�) 122 (39) Phalanges 1 (1) 15 (10) 13 (13) 19 (17) 24 (18) � (�) 72 (59) Long bone 1 (�) 181 (�) 461 (�) 186 (�) � (�) 9 (�) 838 (�) Flat bone 4 (�) 118 (�) 198 (�) 95 (�) � (�) 9 (�) 424 (�) Articular bone 2 (�) 14 (�) 10 (�) 10 (�) � (�) 3 (�) 39 (�) Indeterminates 1 (�) 58 (�) 3 (�) 5 (�) � (�) 1,312 (�) 1,379 (�)

Total 43 (15) 730 (98) 1,193 (96) 713 (119) 165 (92) 1,567 (�) 4,411 (419)

Sources. Data from Huguet 2007; Saladié 2009.

lation with the faunal remains, there is evidence of all the butchering process stages, and so we infer a primary or early access to carcasses that were obtained by either hunting or scavenging (Dı́ez et al. 1999).

One of the most outstanding features of H. antecessor is the primitive morphology of its teeth. This morphology is similar to that of hominids from Africa 1.8 and 1.4 million years ago (Bermúdez de Castro et al. 1999, 2001). These hom- inids also share many of their dental characteristics with Asian Homo erectus and other African forms at periods a little more recent than that determined in TD6. The facial morphology of individual 3 is similar to that of current human popula- tions, while the frontal bone retains a primitive morphology (Arsuaga et al. 1999). Other features present in the fossils of Dolina, such as the high squama temporalis and the presence of the styloid process, are shared with Neanderthals and Homo sapiens and, therefore, bring together the three populations in the same clade. The absence of derived features and the set of cranial and dental features have led us to propose H. antecessor as the last common ancestor between the African lineage that gave rise to our species, H. sapiens, and the lineage

leading to the European Neanderthals of the Upper Pleisto- cene (Arsuaga et al. 1999; Bermúdez de Castro et al. 1997).

To date 165 remains have been recovered that correspond to a minimum of 11 individuals of different ages. Specifically, six individuals have been identified as children, four of which are 0–4 years old and two of which are between 5 and 9 years old; two adolescents 10–14 years old; and three young adult individuals 15–20 years old (Bermúdez de Castro et al. 2006, 2008, 2010). Although the assignment of sex is very problem- atic with incomplete remains, the size of the mandibular body enabled us to identify two male individuals (hominids 1 and 10) and a female individual (hominid 7; Bermúdez de Castro et al. 2008; Carbonell et al. 2005). Human remains recovered include teeth and cranial and postcranial elements. The ma- jority of human remains are very fragmented. In fact, there are no complete cranial elements, and axial wholes are scarce.

Evidence of Cultural Cannibalism in TD6

The analysis of the cranial and postcranial remains of Homo antecessor has established the presence of several damages of

Figure 3. Examples of human damage on human remains of TD6 of Gran Dolina. Top left, humerus of an infantile specimen without evident human modifications; top right, maxilla that shows a percussion pit on the zygomatic process; bottom left, cut marks on the shaft fragment of tibia—these incisions are related to defleshing of the corpse; bottom right, human rib with incisions on the ventral side of angle.

545

Table 3. Homo antecessor remains with human-induced modifications

Cut marks

Percussion pits

Percussion impacts

Conchoidal scars

Adhered flakes Peeling

NISP %h NISP %h NISP %h NISP %h NISP %h NISP %h

Skull 7 4.2 4 2.4 . . . . . . 4 2.4 1 .6 2 1.2 Mandible 2 1.2 1 .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .6 5 3.0 Vertebrae 3 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4 Ribs 12 7.2 1 .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clavicle 4 2.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scapula 1 .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Radius 2 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 Ulna 2 1.2 1 .6 1 .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coxae 1 .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .6 . . . . . . Femur 4 2.4 2 1.2 1 .6 1 .6 1 .6 . . . . . . Fibula 1 .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tibia 2 1.2 . . . . . . 1 .6 . . . . . . 1 .6 . . . . . . Metapodial 3 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .6 Phalange 4 2.4 1 .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2

Total 48 28.7 10 6.0 3 1.8 5 3.0 5 3.0 21 12.6

Note. NISP p number of identified specimens. Percentage (%h) is estimated number of identified of Homo antecessor specimens (data from Huguet 2007; Saladié 2009).

anthropic origin (cut marks and bone breakage) related to the exploitation of carcasses (fig. 3; table 3).

Cut marks (slicing, chop, and scraping marks) on the cra- nial segment are abundant on the base of the temporal bones, face, and zygomatic bones: segments with a large amount of muscular attachments and ligaments. Cut marks found on the face indicate skinning and defleshing activities. Cranial fragments also display abundant evidence of breakage (per- cussion pits and adhered flakes) mainly located on the lower part of the cranium. The majority of zygomatic bones are broken in a similar manner to those documented in Native American cannibalized remains (Turner and Turner 1999; White 1992) and Neolithic individuals (Fontbrégoua; Villa et al. 1986a, 1986b).

In the axial segment, ribs, vertebrae, and clavicles exhibit cut marks and peeling. On the limbs we found cut marks and bone breakage by percussion and bending. Phalanges and metapodials are smashed, indicating intensive exploitation of human remains (Saladié 2009).

Human remains do not display any specific distribution in level TD6; they appear mixed with bones of other animals and lithic tools. The taphonomic analysis shows that the way in which human bodies were processed is similar to the way in which faunal remains were. All surface bone damage on these human and nonhuman remains is of anthropic origin. Cut marks, peeling, and percussion marks show that the corpses of these individuals were processed in keeping with the mimetic mode used with other mammal carcasses: skin- ning, defleshing, dismembering, evisceration, and periosteum and marrow extraction. The butchery techniques exhibited in TD6 show the primordial intention of obtaining meat and marrow and maximally exploiting nutrients. Once consumed,

human and nonhuman remains were dumped, mixing them together with lithic tools.

These practices were conducted by H. antecessor, who in- habited in Europe 1 million years ago. Significantly, there is no conclusive evidence about another human species inhab- iting Europe at this time (Muttoni et al. 2009); thus, we consider that the same species is responsible for the human consumption and assert that the TD6 level has evidence of cannibalism. Homo antecessor, with a cranial capacity of 1,000 c3, was able to choose raw materials based on specific knap- ping objectives. This behavior demonstrates the relative degree of complexity in the production of lithic tools of evolved mode 1 (Carbonell et al. 1999b; Rodrı́guez 2004). Zooar- chaeological analyses show that humans had primary and immediate access to the majority of the taxa represented at the site, reflecting some degree of social cohesion within these human groups (Huguet 2007; Rosell 2001). The prey selection and the primary or early access to the carcasses in direct competition with other predators indicate a certain level of organization inside these human groups. A group cohesion is required for obtaining resources to guarantee a strategical success and the survival of the group. Necessarily, a level of behavioral complexity is present among these human groups. This complexity allows using the cannibalism in response to resources competition with other human groups; thus, these hominids would have been able to establish the consumption of other hominids as a useful behavior within their paleoeco- nomical system.

The skeletal representation discovered at the site suggests that humans were completely processed inside the cave, so the hominids had primary access to the corpses. Other small- sized animals (!100 kg) were processed in the same way (Dı́ez

Table 4. Number of remains with cut marks, localization, morphology, and activity attached by elements and size-weight category and Homo antecessor

Element, size-weight category No. CM Location CM-m Activity

Skull: Large 1 Zygomatic process Sl Sk Medium 4 Occipital and parietals Sl Sk Small 3 Nassal and endocranial bones Sl Sk Homo antecessor 6 Temporal and zygomatic process Sl Sk � Df

Maxillae: Medium 1 Above molars Sl Sk Homo antecessor 1 Below orbital bone Sl/Sc Df

Mandible: Very large 2 Below molars Sl Df Large 1 Below molars/premolars Sl Df Medium 2 Ascending ramus, lateral side Sl Sk � Da Small 1 Ascending ramus and notch, lateral side Sl Da Homo antecessor 2 Below molars and ascending ramus Sl Df

Vertebrae: Very large 2 Above articular facets and transverse processes Sl Df � Da Large 2 Spinous process Sl Df Medium 6 Laminae, spinous process, and above articular facets Sl Df � Da Small 1 Laminae Sl Df Homo antecessor 5 Laminae, spinous process, and above articular facets Sl Df � Da

Clavicle: Homo antecessor 3 Shaft and ends Sl/Sc Df � Da

Ribs: Very large 2 Angle and shaft, external side Sl/Sc Df � Da Large 24 Neck and shaft, ventral and external sides Sl Df � Da � Ev Medium 20 Neck and shaft, ventral and external sides Sl Df � Da � Ev Small 12 Shaft, ventral and external sides Sl Df � Ev Homo antecessor 12 Neck and shaft, ventral and external sides Sl Df � Da � Ev

Coxae: Medium 1 Inferior edge of ilium Sl/Sc Df Small 1 Inferior edge of ilium Sl Df Homo antecessor 1 Edge of acetabular fossa Sl Da

Scapula: Large 2 Neck, borders, and ventral surface Sl Df � Dm Small 2 Neck, and dorsal and ventral surfaces Sl Df � Dm Homo antecessor 1 Neck Sl Dm

Humerus: Large 7 Medial and distal shaft; anterior, lateral, and medial sides Sl Df Medium 15 Proximal, medial, and distal shaft, all sides Sl/Sc Df � Da � Pr Small 5 Medial and distal shaft; posterior, lateral, and medial sides Sl Df � Da Homo antecessor 1 Medial and distal shaft, anterior and posterior sides Sl Df

Radius: Large 7 Medial and distal shaft, some sides Sl/Sc Df Medium 9 Proximal, medial, and distal shaft, all sides Sl Df � Da Small 5 Medial and distal shaft; anterior, lateral, and medial sides Sl/Sc Df � Da

Homo antecessor 2 Distal shaft, anterior and posterior sides Sl/S/Ch Df � Da � Pr Ulna:

Very large 2 Trochlear notch Sl/Sc Da Large 1 Medial shaft, posterior side Sl Df Medium 2 Medial shaft and distal end, posterior side Sl Da or Sk Homo antecessor 1 Medial and distal shaft, posterior side Sl/Sc Df � Pr

Femur: Very large 1 Distal shaft, posterior side Sl/Sc Df Large 6 Proximal, medial, and distal shaft, and proximal end; poste-

rior, lateral, and medial sides Sl Df � Da

Medium 9 Proximal, medial, and distal shaft, all sides Sl Df Small 6 Proximal, medial, and distal shaft, and proximal end; poste-

rior, lateral, and medial sides Sl Df

Homo antecessor 4 Proximal, medial, and distal shaft, all sides Sl/Sc Df � Pr Tibia:

Large 13 Proximal, medial, and distal shaft, all sides Sl Df Medium 9 Proximal, medial, and distal shaft, all sides Sl Df /Da or Sk

547

Table 4 (Continued)

Element, size-weight category No. CM Location CM-m Activity

Small 3 Proximal and medial shaft and proximal end; posterior, lateral, and medial sides

Sl Df

Homo antecessor 2 Distal side, anterior side Sl Df Fibula:

Medium 1 Medial shaft, lateral side Sl Df Homo antecessor 1 Proximal shaft, lateral side Sl Df

Hamate: Medium 1 Lateral side Sl Sk

Sesamoid: Medium 1 Lateral side Ch Sk

Metapodials: Large 12 Proximal, medial, and distal shaft, all sides Sl Sk � Df Medium 6 Medial and distal shaft, all sides Sl/Ch Sk � Df Small 3 Proximal and medial, lateral and medial sides Sl Sk Homo antecessor 3 Medial shaft, lateral side and proximal end, anterior side Sl Df � Da

Phalanges: Large 3 Proximal shaft and end, anterior side Sl Sk Medium 2 Shaft medial, anterior side Sl Sk Small 3 Proximal, medial, and distal shaft, anterior and palmar sides Sl Sk or Da Homo antecessor 4 Proximal, medial, and distal shaft, anterior and palmar sides Sl Tr or Df

Note. CM p number of cut marks, CM-m p cut mark morphology, Sl p slicing marks, Sc p scraping marks, and Ch p chop marks. Activity: Skp skinning, Df p defleshing, Da p disarticulation, Dm p dismembering, Ev p viscera removed, Pr p periostium removed, and Tr p tendon removed. Data from Saladié 2009.

et al. 1999; table 4). These data suggest that they practiced gastronomic cannibalism (Carbonell et al. 2006; Fernández- Jalvo et al. 1999). Today, new stratigraphic evidence and an increased number of H. antecessor remains have led us to support the previous hypothesis (Fernández-Jalvo et al. 1999). A wide variety of species from different size categories and individuals of different ages were found along with the H. antecessor remains in TD6. In this regard it is important to consider data from paleoclimatic and paleoenvironmental analyses, which found that the environment of TD6 would have consisted of a temperate climate with a landscape similar to that of a present-day holartic forest with a large potential pool of resources (Burjachs 2002; Cuenca-Bescós, Laplana, and Canudo 1999; Garcı́a Antón 1998; Rodrı́guez 1997). We could rule out a situation of nutritional stress, because the TD6 hominids had a high diversity of vegetal and animal resources available, and they could perform raising strategies to exploit preys of different sizes. Cannibalism in TD6 cannot have been an isolated event because it has been documented in different archeostratigraphic units (fig. 2). Sedimentary characteristics have allowed us to identify a succession of events in a dilated temporal sequence (Canals, Vallverdú, and Carbonell 2003). Human fossils with evidence of consump- tion by other humans have been discovered in all archeo- stratigraphic units. It is important to point out that we have excavated only a small area of the total surface of level TD6. During future fieldwork seasons we expect to find new human remains and further evidence of cannibalism.

The abundant evidence of cannibalism, the number of in- dividuals, their age profile, and the archeostratigraphic dis- tribution suggest that the motive for cannibalism in level TD6 was nutritional. Evidence shows that these hominids had pri-

mary and immediate access to the corpses of other hominids because the anatomical segments providing the most amounts of meat were those consumed. The same primary and im- mediate access to other mammals has been detected in those brought into the cave by the hominids. The exploitation se- quence rules out the scavenging of corpses abandoned by carnivores because the carnivore toothmarks found on these remains were always made after anthropic activity (Dı́ez et al. 1999; Fernández-Jalvo et al. 1999; Huguet 2007; Rosell 2001; Saladié 2009).

A relationship between who ate and who was eaten has been established that is similar to the hunter-versus-prey relation- ship. We are looking at hunting strategies to obtain and con- sume human meat as a frequent and habitual action, making H. antecessor the most numerous species (according to the minimum number of individuals) in this association.

In TD6, cannibalism has been included as a subsistence strategy of H. antecessor. This strategy was incorporated as successul behavior against another group to compete for re- sources and territories. The cannibalistic behavior was valu- able for the species, and it was transmitted between genera- tions because we can observe cyclic episodes of cannibalism in the different sublevels of TD6. Such strategies can be related to the competition between different human groups for ter- ritorial resources. When faced with a competitive situation, hunter-gatherer groups create more complex strategies (Win- terhalder and Smith 2000). The cannibalism documented in TD6 exhibits this type of response; it is cultural cannibalism with a functional purpose. This type of cannibalism would have reaped a double benefit. On the one hand it served a dietary purpose, while on the other it would have proved

548 Current Anthropology Volume 51, Number 4, August 2010

useful in defending the group’s territory from other human groups. Anthropophagy was practiced for a long period of time during which humans of one group consumed those of another. The represented ages of H. antecessor (infants and juveniles) suggest that individuals that would have posed a lower risk for hunters and that would have been effective in the strategy of controlling competitors were sought out. The pyramid of mortality suggests exocannibalism as H. antecessor would have been limiting the reproductive capabilities of the competitor group.

So, anthropophagy was an integral part of the way of life of these hunter-gatherers. The goal of these people would have been to obtain meat from a broad taxonomical variety of resources; H. antecessor would have been included among those resources. This drift from simple ethological activities to the cannibalistic behavior of the H. antecessor species would have been closely related to their subsistence system. These societies would have had some degree of socio-structural com- plexity. Cannibalism would have been integrated into their cultural context as a response to a variety of different possible situations.

In conclusion, about 1 million years ago, the hominids of level TD6 added cannibalism to their set of survival strategies as a way of competing with other human groups for available resources. This practice, accepted and included in their social system, is the oldest example of cultural cannibalism known to date. Over time, this behavior would take on more com- plexity and assume abstract and symbolic concepts lacking in the TD6 record.

Acknowledgments

We are deeply grateful to the Atapuerca research team, the fieldwork participants, and to J. L. Arsuaga, codirector of the Atapuerca Project. We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript that have greatly improved the final version. The Ministerio de Ciencia y Investigación (project CGL2006-13532-C03) and General- itat de Catalunya (SGR 2009-324, SGR 2009-188) supported this research. Funding for the fieldwork came from Consejerı́a de Cultura y Turismo of the Junta de Castilla y León and Fundación Atapuerca. Palmira Saladié had received a grant from Fundación Duques de Soria-Fundación Atapuerca, and Rosa Huguet received a grant from Fundación Atapuerca.

References Cited

Andrews, P., and Y. Fernández Jalvo. 2003. Cannibalism in Britain: taphonomy of the Creswellian (Pleistocene) faunal and human remains from Gough’s Cave (Somerset, England). Natural History Museum Bulletin (Geology/Palaeontology) 58(suppl.):59–81.

Arens, W. 1979. The man-eating myth: anthropology and anthro- pophagy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arsuaga, J.-L., I. Martı́nez, C. Lorenzo, A. Gracia, A. Muñoz, O. Alonso, and J. Gallego. 1999. The human cranial remains from

Gran Dolina Lower Pleistocene site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 37:431–457.

Bahn, P. 1992. Cannibalism or ritual dismemberment? In Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, eds. P. 330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berger, G. W., A. Pérez-González, E. Carbonell, J. L. Arsuaga, J. M. Bermúdez de Castro, and T.-L. Ku. 2008. Luminescence chronol- ogy of cave sediments at the Atapuerca paleoanthropological site, Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 55:300–311.

Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., J. L. Arsuaga, E. Carbonell, A. Rosas, I. Martı́nez, and M. Mosquera. 1997. A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Science 276:1392–1395.

Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., E. Carbonell, I. Cáceres, J. C. Dı́ez, Y. Fernández-Jalvo, M. Mosquera, A. Ollé, J. Rodrı́guez, X. P. Rod- rı́guez, and A. Rosas. 1999. The TD6 (Aurora stratum) hominid site: final remarks and new questions. Journal of Human Evolution 37:695–700.

Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., E. Carbonell, E. Gómez, A. Mateos, M. Martinón-Torres, A. Muela, J. Rodrı́guez, S. Sarmiento, and S. Varela. 2006. Paleodemografı́a del hipodigma de fósiles de homi- ninos del nivel TD6 de Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos): estudio preliminar. Estudios Geológicos 62:145–154.

Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., M. Martinón-Torres, L. Prado, A. Gómez- Robles, J. Rosell, J. López-Polı́n, J. L. Arsuaga, and E. Carbonell. 2010. New immature hominin fossil from European Lower Pleis- tocene shows the earliest evidence of a modern human dental development pattern. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences of the USA 107:11739–11744.

Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., A. Pérez-González, M. Martinón-Torres, A. Gómez-Robles, J. Rosell, L. Prado, S. Sarmiento, and E. Car- bonell. 2008. A new early Pleistocene hominin mandible from Atapuerca-TD6, Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 55:729–735.

Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., and S. Sarmiento. 2001. Analyse mor- phométrique comparée des dents humaines de Gran Dolina (TD6) et de Sima de los Huesos d’Atapuerca. L’Anthropologie 105:203– 222.

Botella, M. C., and I. Alemán. 1998. Las huellas del canibalismo. Archivos españoles de morfologia 3:75–86.

Botella, M. C., I. Alemán, and S. A. Jiménez. 2000. Los huesos hu- manos. Manipulación y alteraciones. Barcelona: Bellaterra.

Boulestin, B. 1999. Approche taphonomique des restes humaines. Le cas des Mésolithiques de la grotte des Perrats et le problème du cannibalisme en préhistoire récente européenne. BAR International Series 776:276.

Burjachs, F. 2002. Paleoecologı́a del Homo antecesor: palinologı́a de las unidades TD5, 6 y 7 de la “Gran Dolina” de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). In XIII Simposio de la Asociación de Palinólogos en Lengua Española (APLE). Libro de textos completos. S. Moreno Grau, B. Elvira Rendueles, and J. M. Moreno Angosto, eds. Pp. 365–372. Cartagena: Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena.

Cáceres, I., M. Lozano, and P. Saladié. 2007. Evidence for Bronze Age cannibalism in El Mirador cave (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 133:899–917.

Canals, A., J. Vallverdú, and E. Carbonell. 2003. New archaeo-strat- igraphic data for the TD6 level in relation to Homo antecessor (Lower Pleistocene) at the site of Atapuerca, north-central Spain. Geoarchaeology 18:481–504.

Carbonell, E., J. M. Bermúdez de Castro, J. L. Arsuaga, E. Allué, M. Bastir, A. Benito, I. Cáceres, et al. 2005. An early Pleistocene hom- inin mandible from Atapuerca-TD6, Spain. Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences of the USA 102:5674–5678.

Carbonell, E., M. Esteban, A. M. Nájera, M. Mosquera, X. P. Rod- rı́guez, A. Ollé, R. Sala, J. M. Vergès, J. M. Bermúdez de Castro, and A. I. Ortega. 1999a. The Pleistocene site of Gran Dolina, Sierra

549

de Atapuerca, Spain: a history of the archaeological investigations. Journal of Human Evolution 37:313–324.

Carbonell, E., M. Garcı́a-Antón, C. Mallol, M. Mosquera, A. Ollé, X. P. Rodrı́guez, M. Sahnouni, R. Sala, and J. M. Vergès. 1999b. The TD6 level lithic industry from Gran Dolina, Atapuerca (Bur- gos, Spain): production and use. Journal of Human Evolution 37: 653–693.

Carbonell, E., M. Lozano, I. Cáceres, J. Rosell, and P. Saladié. 2006. Les primeres evidències de canibalisme a Europa: Gran Dolina TD6 (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Espanya). Cypsela 16:11–18.

Conklin, B. A. 2001. Consuming grief: compassionate cannibalism in an Amazonian society. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Cuenca-Bescós, G., C. Laplana, and J. I. Canudo. 1999. Biochron- ological implications of the Arvicolidae (Rodentia, Mammalia) from the Lower Pleistocene hominid-bearing level of Trinchera Dolina 6 (TD6, Atapuerca, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 37:353–373.

Defleur, A., T. White, P. Valensi, L. Slimak, and E. Crégut-Bonnoure. 1999. Neanderthal cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, Ardèche, France. Science 286:128–131.

Dı́ez, J. C., Y. Fernández Jalvo, I. Cáceres, and J. Rosell. 1999. Zoo- archaeology and taphonomy of Aurora stratum (Gran Dolina, Si- erra de Atapuerca, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 37:623– 657.

Falguères, C., J.-J. Bahain, Y. Yokoyama, J. L. Arsuaga, J. M. Bermúdez de Castro, E. Carbonell, J. L. Bischoff, and J.-M. Dolo. 1999. Ear- liest humans in Europe: the age of TD6 Gran Dolina, Atapuerca, Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 37:343–352.

Fausto, C. 2007. Feasting on people eating animals and humans in Amazonia. Current Anthropology 48:497–529.

Fernández-Jalvo, Y., J. C. Dı́ez, J. M. Bermúdez de Castro, E. Car- bonell, and J. L. Arsuaga. 1996. Evidence of early cannibalism. Science 271:277–278.

Fernández -Jalvo, Y., J. C. Dı́ez, I. Cáceres, and J. Rosell. 1999. Human cannibalism in the early Pleistocene of Europe (Gran Dolina, Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 37:591–622.

Garcı́a, N., and J. L. Arsuaga. 1999. Carnivores from the early Pleis- tocene hominid-bearing Trinchera Dolina 6 (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 37:415–430.

———. 2001. Les carnivores (Mammalia) des sites du Pleistocene ancien et moyen d’Atapuerca (Espagne). L’Anthropologie 105:83– 93.

Garcı́a Antón, M. 1998. Reconstrucciones de paleovegetación en Ata- puerca según análisis polı́nico. In Atapuerca y la evolución humana. E. Aguirre, ed. Pp. 61–72. Madrid: Fundación Ramón Areces.

Huguet, R. 2007. Primeras ocupaciones humanas en la Penı́nsula Ibérica: paleoeconomı́a en la Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos) y la Cuenca de Guadix-Baza (Granada) durante el Pleistoceno inferior. PhD dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona.

Kantner, J. 1999. Survival cannibalism or sociopolitical intimidation? explaining perimortem mutilation in the American Southwest. Human Nature 10:1–50.

Muttoni, G., G. Scardia, D. V. Kent, C.C. Swisher, G. y Manzi. 2009: Pleistocene magnetochronology of early hominin sites at Ceprano and Fontana Ranuccio, Italy. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 286(1–2):255–268.

Parés, J. M., and A. Pérez-González. 1995. Paleomagnetic age for hominid fossils at Atapuerca archaeological site, Spain. Science 269: 830–832.

———. 1999. Magnetochronology and stratigraphy at Gran Dolina

section, Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 37:325–342.

Pérez-González, A., J. M. Parés, E. Carbonell, T. Aleixandre, A. I. Ortega, A. Benito, and M. A. Martı́n Merino. 2001. Géologie de la Sierra de Atapuerca et stratigraphie des remplissages karstiques de Galerı́a et Dolina (Burgos, Espagne). L’Anthropologie 105:27– 43.

Rodrı́guez, J. 1997. Análisis de la estructura de las comunidades de mamı́feros del Pleistoceno de la Sierra de Atapuerca: revisión de metodologı́as. PhD dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Ma- drid, Madrid.

Rodrı́guez, X. P. 2004. Technical systems of lithic production in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene of the Iberian Peninsula: technological variability between north-eastern sites and Sierra de Atapuerca sites. British Archaeological Reports, International Series S1323. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Rosas, A., C. Martı́nez-Maza, M. Bastir, A. Garcı́a-Tabernero, C. Lalueza-Fox, R. Huguet, J. E. Ortiz, et al. 2006. Paleobiology and comparative morphology of a late Neandertal sample from El Sid- rón, Asturias, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 103:19266–19271.

Rosell, J. 2001. Patrons d’aprofitament de les biomasses animals dur- ant el Pleistocè inferior i mig (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos) i superior (Abric Romanı́, Barcelona). PhD dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona.

Saladié, P. 2009. Mossegades d’omnı́vors. Aproximació experimental i aplicació zooarqueològica als jaciments de la Sierra de Atapuerca. PhD dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona.

Salas, J. C. 1921. Los indios caribes. Estudio sobre el origen del mito de la antropofagia. Barcelona: Talleres graficos Lux.

Sanday, P. R. 1986. Divine hunger: cannibalism as a cultural system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Terrazas, A. 2007. Bases teóricas para el estudio bio-social de las prácticas mortuorias. In Tafonomı́a, medio ambiente y cultura. C. Serrano and A. Terrazas, eds. Pp. 13–39. México D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Turner, C. G., and J. A. Turner. 1992. The first claim for cannibalism in Southwest: Walter Hough’s 1901 discovery at Canyon Butte Ruin 3, northeastern Arizona. American Antiquity 57:661–682.

Vallverdú, J., M.-A. Courty, E. Carbonell, A. Canals, and F. Burjachs. 2001. Les sediments d’Homo antecessor de Gran Dolina, (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Espagne). Interpretation micromorphologique des processus de formation et enregistrement paleoenvironne- mental des sediments. L’Anthropologie 105:45–69.

Van der Made, J. 1998. Ungulados de Gran Dolina, Atapuerca: nuevos datos e interpretaciones. In Atapuerca y la evolución humana. E. Aguirre, ed. Pp. 97–110. Madrid: Fundación Ramón Areces.

———. 1999. Ungulates from Atapuerca TD-6. Journal of Human Evolution 37:380–413.

Villa, P., C. Bouville, J. Courtin, D. Helmer, E. Mahieu, P. Shipman, G. Belluomini, and M. Branca. 1986a. Cannibalism in the Neo- lithic. Science 233:431–437.

Villa, P., J. Courtin, D. Helmer, P. Shipman, C. Bouville, and E. Mahieu. 1986b. Un cas de cannibalisme au Néolithique. Gallia Préhistoire 29:143 –171.

White, T. D. 1992. Prehistoric cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Winterhalder, B., and E. A. Smith. 2000. Analyzing adaptive strategies: human behavioral ecology at twenty-five. Evolutionary Anthro- pology 9:51–72.