Experimental Butchering of a Chimpanzee Carcass for Archaeological Purposes

March Experimental Butchering of a Chimpanzee Carcass for Archaeological Purposes 0 Current address: IPHES , Carrer Marcel li Domingo s/n, Edifici W3, Campus Sescelades, 43007, Tarragona , Spain 1 1 IPHES, Institut Catala de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolucio Social , Tarragona , Spain , 2 Area de Prehistoria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV) , Tarragona, Spain, 3 GQP-CG , Grupo Quaternario e Pre- Historia do Centro de Geociencias (uI and D 73-FCT) , Tomar , Portugal , 4 Unit associated to Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC), Departamento de Paleobiologia, Museo de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN) , Madrid, Spain, 5 Equipo Primeros Pobladores de Extremadura, Caceres , Spain 2 Academic Editor: Michael D. Petraglia, University of Oxford, UNITED KINGDOM Two archaeological assemblages from the Sierra de Atapuerca sites show evidence of anthropogenic cannibalism. These are the late Early Pleistocene level TD6-2 at Gran Dolina, and the Bronze Age level MIR4 in the Mirador Cave. Despite the chronological distance between these two assemblages, they share the common feature that the human remains exhibit a high frequency of anthropogenic modifications (cut marks, percussion pits and notches and peeling). This frequency could denote special treatment of bodies, or else be the normal result of the butchering process. In order to test these possibilities, we subjected a chimpanzee carcass to a butchering process. The processing was intensive and intended to simulate preparation for consumption. In doing this, we used several simple flakes made from quartzite and chert from quarries in the Sierra de Atapuerca. The skull, long bones, metapodials and phalanges were also fractured in order to remove the brain and bone marrow. As a result, about 40% of the remains showed some kind of human modification. The frequency, distribution and characteristics of these modifications are very similar to those documented on the remains of Homo antecessor from TD6-2. In case of the MIR4 assemblage, the results are similar except in the treatment of skulls. Our results indicate that high frequencies of anthropogenic modifications are common after an intensive butchering process intended to prepare a hominin body for consumption in different contexts (both where there was possible ritual behavior and where this was not the case and the modifications are not the result of special treatment). - Funding: This work was supported by Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) of Spain Government, project n CGL2012-38434-C03-03 and project n HAR2012-32548; and by the Catalonian Government, project n SGR2014-899. Funding for the fieldwork came from Cultural and Tourism Council of Castilla y Len and Atapuerca Foundation. ARH is beneficiary of a predoctoral research fellowship (FPI) from the MINECO (CGL2009-12703-C03-02). BS is beneficiary of a predoctoral fellowship from Among the archaeological deposits in the Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain), two assemblages show evidence of cannibalism. These are the late Early Pleistocene level TD62 of Gran Dolina CONICYT-Advanced Human Capital Program (Becas Chile 2011). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. and the Bronze Age level MIR4 in Mirador Cave. Remains of hominins/humans (hereafter referred to as human remains) were recovered with obvious evidence of butchering and consumption [16]. All of these studies concluded that human bodies were processed in the same way as animal carcasses. However, in both assemblages, a higher number of cut marks were documented on the human remains than on other animal remains [4,5,7]. This tendency has also been observed in other cannibalized assemblages, such as Moula Guercy (France) [8,9] and Brillenhhle (southwestern Germany) [10], in which the percentage of human bones with cut marks ranges between 40 and 60%. The cut marks, along with the anthropogenic bone breakage, can provide a remarkable amount of paleo-economic information about prehistoric human groups. Since the 1980s, a great deal of research has focused on the macroscopic and microscopic morphology of cut marks [1114] and their distribution on the skeleton and on different parts of the bones in order to infer information such as the timing of access that Pleistocene hominins had to carcasses [1518], the handedness [19] and, more recently, Stiner et al.[20]suggested that through the orientation of cut marks may determine if one or several individuals were involved in the butchering. However, Egeland [21] indicates that the orientation diversity is related to the skill and experience of the butchers. In this line of research, several proposals have been put forth as to the different variables that may influence the frequency of cut marks. Binford [22] suggested that when the burden of extracting the tissue is lower and, therefore, more scraps of meat are attached to the bone, fewer marks should be expected. The frequency of cut marks would therefore be related, according to these observations, to the intensity of the butchering process. Milo [23] supported a similar argument, although she added, as another variable, the difficulty in processing of carcasses. None of these assessments, however, was supported by actualistic data to substantiate these hypotheses. Egeland [21] used an experimental approach to test the butchering process intensity and its relationship to the frequency of cut marks with quantitative data. For this purpose, he proposed studying the relationship between two simple measurements: the number of arm movements made during defleshing activities, and resulting number of individual striae. Experimental data obtained by Egeland [21] indicates that the relationship between increased frequencies of cut marks and more intensive processing is not consistent. Previously, Lyman [24] had suggested that the variations in cut marks frequency were related to the size of the animals butchered, with more cut marks on larger specimens. He later, however, needed to expand his explanatory models to account for the diversity of frequencies of butchered bones intra and inter-assemblages [25]. And he finally claimed that the interpretations of cut mark frequencies may require unique contextual data in each specific assemblage [26]. Dewbury and Russell [27] concluded that the raw material of the stone tools used is another variable that can affect the frequency of marks. Although their results were not statistically significant, they claim that this variable should be taken into consideration. In addition, Padilla [28]showed that, in butchery experiments, the frequencies of cut marks vary depending on the experience and skill of the butchers. Finally, Domnguez-Rodrigo and Yravedra [29] proposed three major variables as significant factors: (1) the size of carcass and type of (...truncated)