Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

Making skull cups: Butchering traces on cannibalised human skulls from

five European archaeological sites
Francesc Marginedas a, b, *, Antonio Rodríguez-Hidalgo c, d, b, Maria Soto e, Silvia M. Bello f,
�ceres a, b, Rosa Huguet a, b, g, Palmira Saladi�e a, b, g, **
Isabel Ca
a
Area
� de Prehist�
oria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Avinguda de Catalunya 35, 43002, Tarragona, Spain
b
Institut Catal�
a de Paleoecologia Humana i Evoluci� o Social (IPHES), C/ Marcel⋅lí Domingo s/n, Campus Sescelades URV (Edifici W3), 43007, Tarragona, Spain
c
Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology of the Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
d
Institute of Evolution in Africa (IDEA), C/ Covarrubias 36, 28010, Madrid, Spain
e
Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada
f
Centre of Human Evolution Research, Department of Earth Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK
g
Unit Associated to CSIC. Departamento de Paleobiologia. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, C/ Jos�e Gutierrez Abazcal, 2, 28006, Madrid, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The presence of skull cups (bowls made from human calvaria) is considered evidence of the ritualistic treatment
Ritualization of skulls of human bodies. These artefacts are characterised by careful manufacturing which can be taphonomically
Cut marks observed in bone surface modifications (BSM) as cut marks and percussion marks. These BSM show morpho­
Scalping
logical similarities across Upper Palaeolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age assemblages. This study is focused on the
Cannibalism
analysis of the frequency and spatial distribution of cut marks on skull cups from Gough’s Cave (UK), Herxheim
(Germany), and El Mirador Cave (Spain), as compared to the frequency and spatial distribution of modifications
on human skulls (non-skull cups) from TD6.2 of Gran Dolina (Spain) and Fontbr�egoua (France), with the aim of
identifying a common pattern related to a symbolic background. Nearest neighbour analysis and Kernel analyses
were used to identify the distribution pattern of anthropogenically induced modifications. The results indicate
that the frequency and distribution of cut marks on human skulls modified into skull cups are unique and are
most likely to be the result of meticulous cleaning of skulls. A similar frequency and distribution pattern of
modifications was also observed on skulls from Fontbr� egoua, possibly related to the collection of skulls as war
trophies. No parallels with the treatment of skulls of Homo antecessor at TD6.2 of Gran Dolina were observed. We
suggest that the treatment of human skulls for ritualistic purposes therefore results in a consistent pattern of
modification.

1. Introduction
The ritual treatment of skulls has been recorded in numerous
archaeological sites of different chronologies and geographical areas.
Evidence of skull manipulation can include peri- and post-mortem
decapitation; skull mask production, skull caching and secondary de­
positions, decorated carved skulls, and skull cups are among the most
common forms of manipulation, and extend around the world from the
Upper Palaeolithic until the Contemporaneous age (eg. Campillo, 1976;
Villa et al., 1986a, 1986b; Le Mort and Gambier, 1991; Owsley, 1994;
Massey and Steele, 1997; Ostendorf-Smith, 1997; Ostendorf-Smith,
1995; Botella et al., 2000; Verhoeven, 2002; Schaafsma, 2007; Bello
et al., 2011, 2015; Boulestin, 2012; Boulestin and Henry-Gambier, 2012;
Boulestin and Henry-Gambier, 2019; Carod-Artal, 2012; Green, 2012;
Jeunesse, 2012; Jammo, 2014; Santana et al., 2019). In past societies,
human skulls were honoured because it was believed they possessed
vital powers or life force, or they were collected as proof of superiority
and authority (Verhoeven, 2013; Jammo, 2014). Enemy skulls collected
during warfare also demonstrate specific treatment. An example is the
human bone assemblage from the Iberian oppidum of Ullastret (Spain),
where skulls were perforated with iron nails, suggesting that they were
included as part of a costume displaying the skulls of dead enemies

* Corresponding author. Area

� de Prehist�
oria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Avinguda de Catalunya 35, 43002, Tarragona, Spain.
** Corresponding author. Area
� de Prehist�
oria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Avinguda de Catalunya 35, 43002, Tarragona, Spain.
E-mail addresses: francescm63@gmail.com (F. Marginedas), psaladie@iphes.cat (P. Saladi�e).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105076
Received 10 September 2019; Received in revised form 11 December 2019; Accepted 7 January 2020
Available online 16 January 2020
0305-4403/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Marginedas et al.
(Verhoeven, 2013).
Different taphonomic proxies help us to recognise possible ceremo­
nial practices. The presence of skulls without associated postcranial
remains suggests the possible intentional removal of these elements
(Hurlbut, 2000 and inter alia). For example, in the Neolithic site of
Fontbr� egoua (France), Villa et al. (1986b) and Courtin (2000) inter­
preted the absence of skulls in one of the three deposits as a possible
ritual associated with war trophies. In another geographical and chro­
nological context, Massey and Steele (1997) described the presence of
three isolated human skulls in a Mayan pit in Belize, with only some
associated cervical vertebrae. These skulls were cut-marked, suggesting
that the heads were scalped and the flesh was removed after
decapitation.
The most common anthropogenic modifications in association with
ritual treatment in the archaeological record are scalping and the
intentional breakage in the completion of specific morphologies as skull
cups. Scalping is well documented in pre-historic and historic North
American assemblages (Seeman, 1988; Miller, 1994; Owsley, 1994;
Ostendorf-Smith, 1995, 1997; 2003; Murphy et al., 2002; Toyne, 2011),
and is identifiable by a specific distribution of cut marks. According to
the description of Ostendorf-Smith (1997: 246) the pattern usually
consists of a series of cut marks made in a somewhat circular pattern on
the crown of the head. They are most commonly found along the hairline
region of the frontal bone, on the mid-section of the parietal bones, or on
the suprameatal crest, around the temporal bone and the nuchal crest of
the occipital bone. Trophy skulls from the Great Plains region of North
America are also characterised by holes drilled on the top or sides of the
skulls to secure cords for suspension (Owsley, 1994). Archaeological
excavations at Go €bekli Tepe, a transitional Neolithic site in southeast
Turkey, have revealed several fragmented human bones recovered from
fill deposits of buildings and adjacent areas. Three partially preserved
human skulls carry artificial modifications of a type previously un­
identified in assemblages of the same period. Taphonomic research
documented four types of intentional modifications: one drilled perfo­
ration, three cases of carvings, the application of colour, and smaller cut
marks (partly or not related to carvings). Gresky et al. (2017) have
suggested that these remains and modifications could indicate a cult of
the skull in the Early Neolithic of Anatolia and the Levant. Likewise,
Haddow and Knüsel (2017) suggest other anthropic activity identifiable
on burials from Çatalho €yük (Turkey), where removal and recombination
Fig. 1. Example of the skull cups from El Mirador. Lateral view (A, B, C), frontal (D), latero-inferior (E) and detail of the longitudinal cuts (F; white arrows) (Scale ¼
5 cm).
2
Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076
of the skeletal elements with an eventual reintegration or substitution,
was identified. Other sites such as Azraq 18 (Jordan), also reveal an­
thropic manipulation of the heads on several burials with painted or
plastered skulls (Bocquentin and Garrard, 2016). Otherwise, similarly to
Go€bkely Tepe, Bocquentin and Aoudia-Chouakri (2009) associate the
absence of the lower part of a skull and three perforations with its use as
a mask. According to the authors, this skull from F€ aid Sounar II (Capsien,
Alg�erie), can linked ritually as a war trophy or as part of a funerary rite.
Skull cups have been recognised in European prehistoric assem­
blages dating from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Bronze Age (Le Mort
and Gambier, 1991; Bello et al., 2011; Boulestin, 2012; Solari et al.,
2012; Boulestin and Coupey, 2015; Saladi� e and Rodríguez-Hidalgo,
2017; Santana et al., 2019) (Fig. 1). The meticulous breakage of the
skulls from Gough’s Cave (Upper Palaeolithic, United Kingdom), sug­
gests that the modifications were not necessarily driven by the need to
extract the brain for nutritional purposes, rather they were precisely and
intentionally produced to shape the skulls into containers or drinking
bowls (Bello et al., 2011). The intentional breaking of skulls for the
manufacturing of skull cups is currently a diagnostic element for infer­
ring ritual connotations in the treatment of human corpses from Euro­
pean prehistoric assemblages (Bello et al., 2015). Similar modification
patterns to those recognised in Gough’s Cave have been observed at Le
Placard (Upper Palaeolithic, France; Le Mort and Gambier, 1991; Bou­
lestin and Henry-Gambier, 2019), Herxheim (Neolithic, Germany;
Boulestin and Coupey, 2015), Cueva de la Carigüela (Neolithic, Spain;
García-Sanchez and Carrasco-Rus, 1981), Cueva de El Toro (Neolithic,
Spain; Santana et al., 2019), El Mirador (Bronze Age, Spain; C� aceres
et al., 2007), and Cueva de Txispiri-Gaztelu (Bronze Age, Spain; Ruiz de
Gaona, 1945). In most of these sites, the special treatment of skulls was
associated with cannibalistic events.
The number of recognised occurrences of prehistoric human canni­
balism in the old world has increased in the past few years (Villa et al.,
1986a, 1986b; White and Toth, 1991; Ferna �ndez-Jalvo et al., 1996;
Patou-Mathis, 1997; Botella and Alema �n, 1998; Botella et al., 2000;
Andrews and Ferna �ndez-Jalvo, 2003; Maureille et al., 2004; Barroso and
de Lumley, 2006; Rosas et al., 2006; White and Toth, 2007; C� aceres
et al., 2007; Boulestin et al., 2009; Carbonell et al., 2010; Bello et al.,
2011; Saladi� e et al., 2012; Solari et al., 2012; Bello et al., 2015; de
Lumley, 2015; Boulestin and Coupey, 2015; Rougier et al., 2016; San­
tana et al., 2019). The increase in findings of human assemblages
F. Marginedas et al.
promotes a greater understanding of this behaviour and enables us to
identify different aspects of it. Prehistoric cannibalism has been linked
to intergroup violence, possible periods of starvation, and funerary
contexts. Ritualistic behaviour can be associated with the first and last of
these situations. In archaeological assemblages, however, it is not al­
ways possible to identify the ritualistic treatment. Many ceremonies
with symbolic connotations do not necessarily become archaeologically
visible. In addition, different treatments may be equifinal with events in
which the consumption of human flesh is not related to any other deeper
feelings (Saladi�e and Rodríguez-Hidalgo, 2017). Some researchers have
tried to define features of archaeological assemblages that could be
considered ritualistic. For Villa et al. (1986b: 144), a secondary burial of
human remains is an indication of ritualization. The deposition of
human bodies in a different context than other faunal remains has also
been considered evidence of a ritualistic treatment of cannibalised
bodies (Villa et al., 1986b; Villa, 1992; White and Timothy, 1992; Bello
et al., 2016). Other findings, such as the presence of shaped bones, en­
gravings, or the aforementioned skull cups, have been accepted as evi­
dence of a ceremonial component with a marked ritualistic background
(Villa, 1992; Wallduck and Bello, 2016; Bello et al., 2017; Saladi� e and
Rodríguez-Hidalgo, 2017).
The skulls that appear in cannibalised contexts are usually charac­
terised by the presence of abundant cut marks. The disposition and
frequency of bone modification can be assessed through different
Fig. 2. European map with the five studied sites (TD6.2, Gough’s Cave, Fontbr�egoua, Herxheim, and El Mirador Cave).
3
Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076
proxies. In recent years, different researchers have developed evaluation
systems in order to analyse the location of the modifications through
geostatistical tools (Nilssen, 2000; Marean et al., 2001; Abe et al., 2002;
Parkinson, 2013, 2018). This approach essentially treats each anatom­
ical element as a ‘map’ onto which the surface modifications can be
recorded. In this paper, we aim to assess whether it is possible to identify
a pattern specific to the manufacture of skull cups by comparing evi­
dence from different prehistoric cannibalistic assemblages in Europe. To
this end, we have compared the frequency and distribution of cut marks
on skull fragments from TD6.2 (Gran Dolina) (Saladi�e et al., 2012),
Gough’s Cave (Bello et al., 2011), Fontbr�egoua (Villa et al., 1986b),
Herxheim (Boulestin and Coupey, 2015), and El Mirador Cave (C� aceres
et al., 2007; Saladi�e, 2009) (Fig. 2). Cut marks were spatially plotted as
polylines over bone templates in ArcGIS, which allowed us to evaluate
their presence and distribution in different views of the human skull. It
has been proposed that all samples, except those from TD6.2, were
involved in rituals or even cannibalistic events. In three of the sites
(Gough’s Cave, Herxheim, and El Mirador) the elaboration of skull cups
was recorded.
Our main aim is to treat the cut mark distribution over the skulls
through the spatial statistics methods. In that case, cut marks are treated
as objects with spatial characteristics under a delimitated area and the
skull surface is used to evaluate the distribution of cut marks identifying
spatial patterns. This method can help us to recognise a special
F. Marginedas et al.
manipulation of human skulls in different archaeological contexts,
helping to solve the problematic of interpreting wrongly the disposition
of cuts and its functionality.
This methodology allows to identify specific anthropic modifications
related to human behaviour and describing statistically the significance,
in that case, of the accumulation of cut marks in specific areas and
probably related to ritual events in contexts where the human canni­
balism had also been identified.
2. Materials and methods
The skulls analysed in this study comes from stratigraphic unit of
TD6.2 from Gran Dolina (Early Pleistocene, Spain; Saladi�e et al., 2012),
to Gough’s Cave (Magdalenian; Bello et al., 2011), Fontbr� egoua
(Neolithic; Villa et al., 1986b), Herxheim (Neolithic; Boulestin et al.,
2009; Boulestin and Coupey, 2015), and El Mirador Cave (Bronze Age;
C�aceres et al., 2007) (Table 1).
The remains from the TD6.2 sub-unit of the Gran Dolina site (Sierra
de Atapuerca, Spain) represent the oldest occurrence of human canni­
balism to date (800,000 BP) (Ferna�ndez-Jalvo et al., 1996). The material
comprises 181 remains corresponding to a minimum number of in­
dividuals (MNI) of 11: four sub-adults under five years old, two in­
dividuals between five and nine years old, three individuals between ten
and 15, and two young adults (Bermúdez de Castro et al., 2010; Saladi�e
et al., 2012). These Homo antecessor specimens were found mixed and
dispersed among faunal and lithic remains. 44.5% of the human bones
show anthropogenic modifications, including cut marks, green bone
breakage, and human tooth marks (Saladi� e et al., 2012, 2013, 2015).
This evidence suggests a thorough and complete butchering process,
from skinning to the breakage of bones to extract bone marrow. Based
on the taxonomic diversity in the assemblage and the anthropogenic
modifications on faunal bones, Ferna �ndez-Jalvo et al. (1999) suggested
the evidence points toward a case of gastronomic cannibalism, associ­
ated with long periods in which humans fed on other humans as part of
their regular diet. Carbonell et al. (2010), on the basis of the strati­
graphic distribution of the human remains, suggested that the canni­
balistic practice occurred during multiple events, and therefore
interpreted this type of human cannibalism as being part of a cultural
system. Based on taphonomic evidence from the assemblage and the age
at death of the individuals, who were predominantly young, Saladi�e
et al. (2012, 2014) proposed that these episodes developed in the
context of intergroup violence which was aimed at protecting and
broadening the catchment area.
Twenty-seven (NISP) skull fragments identified as Homo antecessor
were recovered from this assemblage. Of these remains, 29.6% (NISP ¼
8) are cut-marked. The morphologies and distribution of the observed
cut marks are associated with scalping, defleshing, and dismemberment
(Saladi�e et al., 2012, 2015).
Gough’s Cave (UK) held a large collection of human remains from
the end of the Upper Palaeolithic (Jacobi and Higham, 2009), the ma­
jority of which bear evidence of anthropogenic modification. Evidence
of defleshing, disarticulation, anthropogenic bone breakage, human
tooth marks, skull cups, and an engraved human bone have been
Table 1
Analysed sites with its NISP, NMI, Age and cut marks percentage.
TD6.2 Gough’s Cave
NISP (*) 181 (27) 205 (37)
NMI 11 5 7
Age 2 adults, 3 adolescents, 2 adults,
6 children 2 adolescents
1 infant
Cut marks % (***) 29,6% 95,1%
(*) Corresponds to Skull NISP; (**) Data from Boulestin et al. (2009); (***) % Corresponds to a total of skulls remains with marks.
4
Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076
identified (Andrews and Fern� andez-Jalvo, 2003; Bello et al., 2011,
2015, 2017). The MNI of the assemblage is six: one infant, two adoles­
cents and three adults (Bello et al., 2015). Andrews and Ferna
�ndez-Jalvo
(2003) interpreted the modifications as gastronomic cannibalism, with
possible special treatment of the skulls. Later studies by Bello and col­
leagues (2011, 2015, 2017) noted that the cannibalism documented at
Gough’s Cave was part of a customary mortuary practice that combined
intensive processing and consumption of the bodies with a ritualistic
manufacture of skull cups and the engraving of a radius. At Gough’s
Cave we counted thirty-seven cranial fragments, mostly from the basi­
cranium and facial areas, in addition to three almost-complete calottes
shaped into skull cups.
At Fontbr� egoua Cave (France) three clusters (H1, H2, and H3) of
human bones were identified, representing a minimum number of 8–14
individuals. The H1 cluster contained mostly cranial bones (five
incomplete crania, isolated fragments of two others, and six mandibles)
and 34 postcranial elements. The MNI is seven: three adults and four
children. The H2 cluster contained 20 remains, probably all belonging to
a single individual. 30.3% of these latter human remains present cut
marks. Association H3 contained 134 fragments of postcranial bones,
the majority of which are lacking articular ends. These bones are from a
minimum of six individuals: three adults, two children, and one indi­
vidual of indeterminate age (Villa et al., 1986b; Villa and Courtin,
1991).
The H1 and H3 accumulations show high frequencies of cut marks
(45.6% and 30.3%, respectively) and all long bones show breakage for
marrow extraction. Villa et al. (1986b), concluded that the evidence
from Fontbr� egoua points to a possible war-related cannibalistic event,
with ritualization of the skulls. Courtin (2000) interpreted the absence
of skull, hand, and foot bones in the H3 accumulation as the removal of
these anatomical parts for warfare trophies.
The Herxheim site (Germany) belongs to the Linear Pottery culture,
and has yielded an assemblage with evidence of cannibalism on the
largest number of human remains from prehistoric Europe, with an MNI
of about 1000 (Boulestin et al., 2009; Boulestin and Coupey, 2015). The
human remains have been extensively butchered, documented by the
presence of cut marks and intentional breakage, and skulls were modi­
fied into skull cups. Some of these skulls also show evidence of injuries
associated with interpersonal violence. The combination of these mod­
ifications suggests that the accumulations of these remains was associ­
ated with one or multiple warfare cannibalistic events (Boulestin et al.,
2009; Boulestin and Coupey, 2015). According to Boulestin and Coupey
(2015), the exploitation of the bodies may have been for nutritional
purposes, as the presence of burned traces on bones would suggest that
the bodies were roasted when flesh was still adherent. After this process,
long bones were broken for marrow consumption. Different values of
strontium isotope (87Sr/86Sr) among elements point toward a non-local
origin of the people who were eaten. For Boulestin and Coupey (2015),
these isotopic dates were enough to show that the commensals and
consumed people belonged to different groups from different geographic
areas, reinforcing the hypothesis of exocannibalism.
At this site, 1649 dispersed skull specimens were recovered from 17
of the 20 deposits (Boulestin and Coupey, 2015). The sample comprises
Fontbr�egoua Herxheim El Mirador
H1 H3
84 (25) 134 (0) 15552 (1649) 165 (42)
6 >1000 6
3 adults 3 adults 61 adults (**) 5 adults
4 infants 2 adolescents 43 infants 1 infant
1 infant
45,6% – 100% 61.9%
F. Marginedas et al.
the remains of prenatal, perinatal, juvenile, and adult individuals.
However, only juvenile and adult bones show evidence of cut marks. It
should be highlighted that there are cut marks on 100% of the skulls
from two deposits.
An assemblage of cannibalised human remains, dated from the Ibe­
rian Bronze Age, was recovered in level MIR4 at El Mirador Cave (Spain,
Bronze Age). All anatomical skeletal parts are represented, including 42
skull fragments, among which six skull cups were identified. The MNI is
six: one eight year old child and five adults aged 20–40 years old
(Ca�ceres et al., 2007). 61.9% (NISP ¼ 26) of skull remains show slicing,
scrape, and chop marks, which are associated with scalping, defleshing,
and disarticulation. The initial interpretation of the modifications
observed in these remains was of gastronomic cannibalism (Ca �ceres
et al., 2007).
For the statistical analysis, we compared published data and draw­
ings of the locations of cut marks recorded on the surface of all human
skulls from the previous sites. The cut marks were individually digitised
as polyline shapefiles and superimposed onto standardised skull
templates.
The templates were built as H. sapiens like because most of the
analysed samples belong to representants of this specie. However, we
use the same skull morphology for TD6, first as a necessity to standardise
the surface to compare inter and intra-site, and second, the morphology
of H. antecessor and H. sapiens are comparable (Bermúdez De Castro
et al., 1997).
The location and distribution of cut marks on the studied skulls were
analysed using the ESRI ArcGIS (v. 10.2) software package. In order to
statistically compare patterns among skulls from the same site (intra site
analysis) and between skulls from different sites (inter site analysis), the
modifications were digitised onto standardised templates of a skull in six
side-views (facets): anterior; dorsal (nuchal facet); left lateral; right
lateral; superior; and occipital (inferior). The spatial distribution of the
cut marks on the different facets was first analysed individually for each
skull. Subsequently, the modifications on all specimens analysed were
combined for each site. In the case of Herxheim, the drawings of the
modifications were not detailed for each individual skull, therefore our
analysis only considered the pattern for the whole assemblage.
We used Kernel density estimation to study the distribution and
frequency of cut marks on the skulls. This tool allowed us to visualise the
accumulation and concentration of cut marks per cm2 on the surface of
the skulls. Digitised cut marks were statistically treated using nearest
neighbour analyses in order to identify and evaluate the presence of
clustered or regularly dispersed patterns of cut marks.
The distribution of spatial objects in geographic systems is often
referred to as a pattern, which reflects how objects are organized across
space; in many cases, the spatial distribution of objects is conceived of in
terms of being random (no spatial relationship among the objects),
clustered (objects form groups), or dispersed (objects are separated
regularly from each other) (Tong and Murray, 2012). In our case, cut
marks were treated as localised objects in delimited spaces (the different
facets of the skull). If the origin of cut marks was related to butchery
activities or behavioural patterns, we would expect a clustered or
dispersed statistical distribution. The quantification of patterns can be
measured with Kernel maps and nearest neighbour analyses. The nearest
neighbour analysis tool measures the average distance between digitised
cut marks and the cut marks nearest to them, producing an index ob­
tained by dividing the mean distance by the expected mean distance.
The models of cut mark distribution patterns (random, clustered, or
dispersed) were determined according to their p value: where p < 0.05
indicates a significant relationship between the marks, and p > 0.05
indicates a random distribution of cut marks. We distinguished between
clustered and dispersed patterns according to the z-score: a z-score of <1
indicates a clustered pattern, whereas a z-score of >1 indicates a
dispersed pattern of cut marks.
A multi-type Lcross function pattern was used to detect spatial co-
dependence between cut marks located on the upper facets of skulls
5
Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076
from Gough’s Cave, Herxheim, Fontbr�egoua, and El Mirador. A multi­
type L function (Lij(r)) was used. If i ¼ j, then Lij(r) ¼ Lii(r); the inter­
pretation of the multitype L function is same as the regular L function
regarding clustering, segregation, and randomness. However, if i! ¼ j,
then Lij(r) measures the dependence between i and j point types. This
dependence can be expressed as association or segregation (above the
benchmark value). The benchmark value, which in the standard L
function implies complete spatial randomness and independence, im­
plies point independence. Confidence envelopes were selected via
resampling (n ¼ 50) Monte Carlo methods.
3. Results
3.1. Gran Dolina, TD6.2
In TD6.2, scalping is documented through two cut marks: the first is a
longitudinal incision on a frontal bone fragment and the second is an
oblique mark on a parietal fragment. The majority of cut marks observed
here are likely associated with defleshing and are present on five of the
eight fragments. The pteric area on a fragment of temporal bone is cut-
marked by 11 transverse incisions, which are associated with the cutting
of the left temporal muscle. A fragment of left zygomatic shows seven
oblique incisions indicative of the cutting of the masseter muscle. On
one of the maxilla fragments, 11 transverse incisions are present on the
cheekbone, and could be associated with the extraction of the masseter
muscle. A second maxilla fragment shows longitudinal incisions, in
addition to a scrape mark in the frontal alveolar area, which is associated
with the cutting of the lips and the buccinator muscle. One fragment in
proximity of the sterion region of the skull presents nine transverse in­
cisions that are often associated with the cutting of the sternocleido­
mastoid muscle and the dismemberment of the head (Saladi�e et al.,
2012).
All human skull fragments show evidence of cut marks (Fig. 3a, b, c).
Kernel density maps shows that the different cut mark associations do
not overlap (Fig. 3d, e, f). The statistical analysis (Table S1) yields
different values depending on the skull facet analysed (Fig. S1). The
anterior facet shows a random distribution of cut marks, although the
result is not statistically significant (p ¼ 0.443), meaning the probability
of the cut mark distribution being a non-grouped pattern is 44.3%. The
right facet of the skull shows statistically significant dispersed patterns
(p ¼ 0.000). Finally, the left facet has a grouped pattern (p ¼ 0.000).
However, we must consider that the low number of cut marks on these
last two skull facets could correspond to a type II statistical error.
3.2. Gough’s cave
The number of cranial specimens with cut marks from Gough’s Cave
is extremely high (95.1%), with remains showing up to 29 incisions
(Fig. 4). Kernel density maps show clusters of cut marks distributed on
all skull facets (Fig. 5), with the greatest densities on the anterior
(Fig. 5a) and left facets (Fig. 5b). Occipital facets show the lowest den­
sity of cut marks (Fig. 5d).
The specimens have cut marks, scrape marks, and chop marks.
Scalping has been identified on the frontal squama in the form of parallel
cut marks along the sagittal suture. The presence of cut marks in the
insertion area of the neck muscles and in the area surrounding the fo­
ramen magnum suggests that the skulls were dismembered. The disar­
ticulation of the mandible was documented by the presence of cut marks
in the insertion area of the medial pterygoid muscle. Cut marks on the
temporal, parietal, and zygomatic bones suggest cutting of the masseter
and temporalis muscles. Other cuts indicate that the tongue, lips, ears,
nose, and eyes were also removed (Bello et al., 2011). The spatial dis­
tribution of the cut marks from the average nearest neighbour analysis
indicates the presence of clustered patterns on all skull facets, according
to the overlapping of the cut marks of the three skulls (Table S2, Fig. S2).
The same is observed in two skull cups (GC87; GC3) when they are
F. Marginedas et al. Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076

Fig. 3. Origin (orange) and insertion (green) areas of the skull muscles on the anterior (A), left (B), and right (C) facet of the skulls in relation to cut marks (blue) and
Kernel density map results for the anterior (D), left (E), and right (F) facet of the skulls from TD6.2 (Scale ¼ 5 cm). (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 4. Origin (orange) and insertion (green) areas of the skull muscles on the anterior (A), left (B), right (C), occipital (D), superior (E), and dorsal (F) facet of the
skulls in relation to cut marks (blue) from Gough’s Cave. (Scale ¼ 5 cm). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the Web version of this article.)

considered individually (Fig. S3; S4). For the third skull cup (CG2), re­
sults are consistent with a clustered distribution on the right facet,
dispersed distributions on dorsal, occipital, and superior views, and a
random pattern on the left and anterior facets (Fig. S5). It is important to
note that this calotte is missing fragments of the right parietal, the
frontal, and the left occipital bones. Most of the isolated skull fragments
(not re-fitted with any of the skull cups) show dispersed (45%) and
clustered (35%) patterns on all their facets.
3.3. Fontbr�egoua
At Fontbr�egoua Cave, on the seven skulls from H1 accumulation,
Villa et al. (1986b: Table 5) recognised numerous cut marks along the
sagittal suture extending from the frontal to the occipital bone and

6
F. Marginedas et al. Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076

Fig. 5. Kernel density map results for the anterior (A), left (B), right (C), occipital (D), superior (E), and dorsal (F) facet of the skulls from Gough’s Cave. (Scale ¼
5 cm).

around the mastoid apophysis; they also observed cut and scrape marks
on the temporal fossa, the orbits close to the nose, and the maxilla. The
authors associated these modifications with a process of defleshing.
They also emphasised (Villa et al., 1986a: 435) that defleshing of the
human skulls was more intensive than the defleshing of animal skulls
since the human remains bear cut marks in locations that are undam­
aged on non-human bones. The cranial fragments from Fontbr� egoua
have between six and 86 cut marks, with the most complete bone ele­
ments having the highest number of cut marks (Fig. 6).
Kernel density maps (Fig. 7) show the most cuts on the superior facet
(Fig. 7a) and the fewest on the dorsal facet (Fig. 7d). Whether we
consider the skulls individually or as a group, the analysis of the dis­
tribution of cut marks is consistent between facets, except for the
anterior and dorsal facets of two specimens (Villa et al., 1986b: Fig. 14).
The number of modifications on these two facets is low and may
therefore produce a type II statistical error. The right, superior, and
anterior facets show a statistically significant clustered distribution
pattern (Table S3, Fig. S6). The spatial distribution of cut marks from the
average nearest neighbour analysis in the individual specimens shows
dispersed patterns on the dorsal facet of specimen 6 (Villa et al., 1986b:
Fig. 14) and on the anterior facet of Specimen 1 (Villa et al., 1986b:
Fig. 14) (Fig. S7; S8). Clustered patterns were found on the right facet of
specimen 2 Villa et al. (1986b): Fig. 14) and 7 (Villa et al., 1986b: Fig. 1)
(Fig. S9); on the anterior facet of specimens 3 and 5 (Villa et al., 1986b:
Fig. 14) (Fig. S8); and on the superior facets of specimens 1, 2, 4 Villa
et al. (1986b): Fig. 13) and 2 (Villa et al., 1986b: Fig. 15) (Fig. S10).
Furthermore, just one random arrangement was found, on the anterior Fig. 6. Origin (orange) and insertion (green) areas of the skull muscles on the
facet of specimen 7, a non-complete maxilla (Villa et al., 1986b: Fig. 14) anterior (A), right (B), superior (C), and dorsal (D) facet of the skulls in relation
(Fig. S8). to cut marks (blue) from Fontbr�egoua. (Scale ¼ 5 cm). (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web
version of this article.)
3.4. Herxheim
squamous area of the frontal bones, the parietal bones, and the superior
At Herxheim, Boulestin and Coupey (2015) classified cut marks into part of the squamous area of the temporal bones. On the frontal, parietal,
three categories according to their location and function. Cut marks and temporal bones, the locations of cut marks are consistent with the
located on the middle sagittal plane are indicative of scalping (Fig. 8). cutting of the temporal muscle. On the occipital bone, the cut marks
These incisions are variable in length and consist of continuous and converge on the muscles rectus capitis posterior major, rectus capitis pos­
discontinuous lines that extend from the glabellar area to the nape of the terior minor, and obliquus capitis superior. Finally, the cut marks and
neck, and then to the external occipital protuberance. Defleshing was scrape marks located on the cranial base may be related to the defleshing
recognised based on cut marks located on the lateral portions of the

7
F. Marginedas et al. Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076

cutting of the lips.

The Kernel density maps (Fig. 9) highlight the presence of clusters of
cut marks on all facets; they are particularly abundant on the anterior
and superior facets (Fig. 9a, e), except for the inferior facet, which has
been cut marked only by few incisions (Fig. 9d).
The distance measurement of the cut marks according to the average
nearest neighbour analysis on the Herxheim skulls reveals a statistically
significant result for all facets (Table S4, Fig. S11). The statistical anal­
ysis highlights a clustered pattern in the six facets of the skull according
to the cumulative model of the cut marks from all samples.

3.5. El Mirador cave, MIR4

The cranial fragments from El Mirador have between one and 47 cut
marks each, with the skull cups having the greatest number of modifi­
cations (Fig. 10). According to the Kernel density maps, the skull cups
show a higher concentration of cuts on the upper part of the skull
(Fig. 11). The other facets also present clusters of cut marks grouped in
specific areas, with the lateral and occipital facets (Fig. 11b and c)
having the largest dispersion of cut marks.
Cut marks were identified on all the bones: frontal, parietal, tem­
poral, and occipital bones. The six skull cups show similarities in the
location, arrangement, and dimension of the cut marks (C� aceres et al.,
2007). Clusters of numerous cut marks are present near the sagittal,
Fig. 7. Kernel density map results for the anterior (A), right (B), superior (C),
and dorsal (D) facet of the skulls from Fontbr�egoua. (Scale ¼ 5 cm).
occipital, and lambdoid sutures. The longest cut marks can be seen on
the superior facet, parallel to the sagittal suture, and would have
sectioned the epicranial aponeurosis of the occipitofrontal muscle
of the skulls after severing of the heads.
(Fig. 10e). Longitudinally grouped marks are found over two supra­
Boulestin and Coupey (2015), also identified several cut marks
ciliary arcs (Fig. 10a). Four of the five occipital fragments show short cut
located on the anterior facet of the skull: the nasal bones show hori­
marks near the foramen magnum (Fig. 10d). In another case, the cut
zontal or slightly oblique cuts associated with the cutting of the nose.
marks appear grouped near the lambdoidal suture (Fig. 10b and c). All
Some of the remains show parallel cut marks located along the
these cut mark groupings are associated with scalping.
infra-orbital border of the maxilla or the zygomatic bone which were
Four of the five temporal bones are cut marked. Firstly, there is a
produced during the enucleation. The alveolar process of the maxilla is
chop mark over the zygomatic arc, near the articular orifice, associated
marked by horizontal or slightly oblique incisions associated with the
with the cutting of the temporal and auricular muscles (Fig. 10b). Two

Fig. 8. Origin (orange) and insertion (green) areas of the skull muscles on the anterior (A), left (B), right (C), occipital (D), superior (E), and dorsal (F) facet of the
skulls in relation to cut marks (blue) from Herxheim. (Scale ¼ 5 cm). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
Web version of this article.)

8
F. Marginedas et al. Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076

Fig. 9. Kernel density map results for the anterior (A), left (B), right (C), occipital (D), superior (E), and dorsal (F) facet of the skulls from Herxheim. (Scale ¼ 5 cm).

Fig. 10. Origin (orange) and insertion (green) areas of the skull muscles on the anterior (A), left (B), right (C), occipital (D), superior (E), and dorsal (F) facet of the
skulls in relation to cut marks (blue) from El Mirador. (Scale ¼ 5 cm). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
Web version of this article.)

further chop marks are present on the zygomatic process, probably
produced during the disarticulation of the mandible (Fig. 10b and c). On
one mastoid process, there are cut marks suggesting that the sterno­
cleidomastoid muscles (the splenius capitis, and longissimus capitis mus­
cle) were severed (Fig. 10c). On another mastoid process, there is a
cluster of cut marks associated with the cutting of the ear (Fig. 10c). The
presence of an isolated cut mark on a temporal bone could indicate that
a temporal muscle was extracted (Fig. 10b). On the maxilla, cut marks
which are associated with the cutting of the nose and lips are present
(Fig. 10a). Cut marks have also been identified inside the skulls that are
often associated with the extraction of the brain.
The distribution analysis of the cut marks on the skulls from MIR4
revealed several patterns (Table S5, Fig. S12). The individual analysis of
all specimens showed one clustered pattern on the superior facet of one
of the specimens (P22-215) (7.1%) (Fig. S13), dispersed patterns for
eight skull facets (57.1%) (Fig. S14; S15; S16; S17; S18), and random
distribution for five skull facets (35.7%) (Fig. S16; S17; S18). This
variability is related to the fragmentary state of the non-skull-cup frag­
ments, and its lesser importance for the manufacture of the skull cup.
The cumulative patterns display evidence of clustered patterns on the
dorsal, left, superior, and anterior facets. The probability that the clus­
tered pattern is random is <1%. The occipital facet shows a dispersed
pattern and, finally, the right facet of the skull has a non-significant
random pattern.

9
F. Marginedas et al.
Fig. 11. Kernel density map results for the anterior (A), left (B), right (C), occipital (D), superior (E), and dorsal (F) facet of the skulls from El Mirador. (Scale ¼
5 cm).
4. Discussion
Evidence of the treatment of human skulls for ceremonial or cultural
purposes first appears in the archaeological record at the end of Palae­
olithic in different forms, the most common being perimortem injuries of
the head, skull decoration, and the shaping of skulls into objects
(Campillo, 1976; Villa et al., 1986b; Le Mort and Gambier, 1991; Ows­
ley, 1994; Ostendorf-Smith, 1995, 1997; Massey and Steele, 1997;
Frayer, 1997; Botella et al., 2000; Verhoeven, 2002; C� aceres et al., 2007;
Bello et al., 2011, 2015; Jeunesse, 2012; Boulestin, 2012; Boulestin and
Henry-Gambier, 2012; Carod-Artal, 2012; Green, 2012; Santana et al.,
2019). The oldest evidence of skull cups so far has been found in the
Badegoulian context of Le Placard and the Magdalenian assemblage of
Gough’s Cave (Bello et al., 2011; Boulestin, 2012; Boulestin and
Henry-Gambier, 2019). The making of skull cups is unambiguous evi­
dence for the intentional and controlled ritual treatment of craniums
(Bello et al., 2011) and human corpses. In addition, the association be­
tween cannibalism and the manufacture of skull cups is close in Gough’s
Cave (Bello et al., 2011), Herxheim (Boulestin and Coupey, 2015),
Cueva de El Toro (Santana et al., 2019), Las Majolicas (Jim� enez Brobeil,
1990) and El Mirador (Ca �ceres et al., 2007; Saladi�
e, 2009; Saladi� e and
Rodríguez-Hidalgo, 2017), suggesting cannibalism was probably a
customary ritualistic practice at these sites.
Bello et al. (2015) suggested that the bodies of individuals at Gough’s
cave were treated within a funerary ritual, combining the intensive
processing of the carcasses to obtain nutrients and the modification of
the skulls to produced skull cups. The ritualistic aspect of the canni­
balism in this assemblage is further documented by the presence of an
engraved human bone. Bello et al. (2017) concluded that the sequence
of manipulations recorded on this human bone (a right radius) suggests
that the engraving was a purposeful component of the cannibalistic
practice, implying a complex ritualistic funerary behaviour for the
Palaeolithic period. At Le Placard Cave (France) and Isturitz (France) (Le
Mort and Gambier, 1991; Henry-Gambier and Faucheux, 2012; Bou­
lestin and Henry-Gambier, 2019) the breakage of the skulls followed a
precise pattern similar to the one observed at Gough’s Cave. However,
both at Le Placard and Isturitz, the modifications of the human skulls
have not been directly associated with cannibalism, at least until now.
For El Mirador, Ca �ceres et al. (2007) initially interpreted the
10
Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076
modifications of the assemblage as suggestive of cannibalism, without
special treatment of the skulls. Later studies, however, concluded that
the breakage pattern of the skulls was consistent with the pattern
identified at other European sites where ritualistic treatment of the
skulls was accepted (Saladi� e, 2009; Saladi� e and Rodríguez-Hidalgo,
2017). This breakage pattern is also repeated in Herxheim, where
violence and ritual components have been proposed (Boulestin and
Coupey, 2015).
The high frequency of cut marks and their consistent spatial distri­
bution seem to be a common pattern among skulls modified into skull
cups. A similar pattern is also present on the skulls from the Neolithic
site of Fontbr�egoua, where, however, the calvaria were not shaped into
skull cups. This is particularly evident for longitudinal cut marks located
on the upper facets of the skulls, extending on the sagittal suture.
Although the skulls from Fontbr�egoua were not shaped into skull cups,
Villa et al. (1986b) proposed a ritual treatment of the craniums based on
the absence of this element in one of the three human remains clusters
identified from the site. The skulls present in other clusters show a
distribution and frequency of cut marks like those observed in Gough’s
Cave, Herxheim and El Mirador. According the multitype L function,
these four sites showed a trend or clustering of the cut marks in the
upper view of the skull.
The upper part of the skull is the only part intentionally preserved
during the manufacture of the skull cup. Most of the cuts produced in
this area correspond to scalping, understood as the first step for the
cleaning of the skull. The Multitype L function demonstrate that Gough’s
Cave, Herxheim, El Mirador and Fontbr� egoua, have the same pattern for
the treatment of the skulls, proving a common objective in all these sites
(Fig. 12). Similarities in distribution patterns of cut marks in the
mentioned assemblages supports the idea that abundant cut marks,
related to intensive skull skinning and defleshing, could occur during the
thorough and meticulous cleaning of heads and suggests its preparation
for its possible use in symbolic ritual environment.
In the TD6.2 sample the distribution and frequency of cut marks
show no similarities to the frequency and distribution of cut marks
observed in skulls that were modified into skull cups. The statistical
analysis showed a heterogenous distribution of these modifications,
suggesting a different treatment of the skull at this site (Table 1).
However, the very fragmentary state of preservation of this
F. Marginedas et al.
Fig. 12. Multitype L function for cut mark distributions in the upper view of
Gough’s, Herxheim, Fontbr�egoua, and El Mirador skulls. Ripley’s isotropic
correction estimate of L (black line); trans, translation corrected estimate of L
(red line); border-corrected estimate of L (green line) compared to the theo­
retical random Poisson process (blue line). (For interpretation of the references
to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)
archaeological assemblage may be a limiting factor when comparing this
sample with the more complete examples of skull cups from other sites.
There are also differences in the frequency and distribution of cut
mark clusters (Kernel density maps and nearest neighbour analyses)
when we compare the skulls from Gough’s, Herxheim, Fontbr�egoua, and
El Mirador with TD6.2.
The cumulative analysis of cut marks on skull cups from Gough’s
Cave and Herxheim revealed statistically significant aggregation pat­
terns on all facets. Regarding MIR4, the cut marks are concentrated
mainly on the upper part of the skull, showing clustered patterns on the
dorsal, left, superior, and anterior facets. The number of cut marks per
specimen ranges between 10 and 56, with the calvaria-shaped parts of
the cups having the largest number of traces. The three assemblages
show a clear pattern of slicing and scraping marks associated with the
extraction of the scalp and ears (Ca �ceres et al., 2007; Saladi�
e et al.,
2015). The distribution of the cut marks on the skull of Fontbr�egoua is
like those observed on the skulls at MIR4. Both assemblages show
clustered patterns on the superior and anterior facets that are related to
the same butchery activities. The Kernel density map and average
nearest neighbour analyses show similar locations of the cuts in the four
samples. The density maps illustrate the maximal overlap of cut marks in
the superior view of skulls, which is associated with the removal of
scalp, on skull cups from Gough’s Cave, Herxheim and El Mirador, and
on non-skull cup calvaria at Fontbr� egoua. However, these are less
frequent and randomly distributed in TD6. The abundance of slicing
marks associated with scalping and defleshing can be linked to the
intensive cleaning of the tissues that adhered to the bone. In the cu­
mulative models from Gough’s Cave, Fontbr�egoua, Herxheim and El
Mirador, kernel density maps and nearest neighbour analyses show a
high concentration of cut marks on the upper part of the skull. These
highly concentrated cut marks are located on the same part of each skull
regardless of its provenience, revealing standardised patterns of scalp
removal. Additionally, these sites present a different pattern with an
amount of cuts not related to dietary reasons.
11
Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076
The preparation of skull cups begins with scalping, which results in a
concentration of cut marks on the calottes, characterised by abundant
parallel slicing marks along the sagittal suture from the frontal bone to
the occipital bone. Examples of scalping are common among prehistoric
and historical American assemblages (e.g. Seeman, 1988; Miller, 1994;
Owsley, 1994; Ostendorf-Smith, 1995, 1997; 2003; Murphy et al., 2002;
Toyne, 2011) as proofs of war trophies. However, the circular pattern of
cut marks observed on these North American assemblages does not have
parallels in the European record. The scalping of the human skulls at
Gough’s, Herxheim, Fontbr�egoua, and El Mirador is documented by
clusters of cut marks on the frontal, parietal, and occipital bones, mainly
concentrated along the sagittal suture. The defleshing of the skulls and
facial muscles at the European Prehistoric sites (Saladi�e et al., 2012;
Bello et al., 2011; Villa et al., 1986b; Boulestin et al., 2009; Boulestin
and Coupey, 2015; C� aceres et al., 2007), on the other hand, resulted in
dispersed cut marks. The defleshing of the facial muscles, the neck, and
the calotte generated clusters between two and 12 cut marks on the
frontal, parietal, occipital, and temporal bones, as well as dispersed
single cut marks on the frontal, maxillofacial, temporal, and parietal
bones. Some differences can be observed, as exemplified by the speci­
mens from El Mirador Cave and Gough’s Cave, but there is a clear trend
towards the aggregation of cut marks in the upper part of the skulls.
In addition, there are differences if we compare the skulls in this
study with descriptions of other assemblages where the ritual treatment
of the skulls has not been proposed. In Brillenh€ ohle (Upper Palaeolithic,
Germany; Sala and Conard, 2016) the cut marks on skulls (NISP ¼ 6 of a
total of 41 remains) are present on the frontal bone and left parietal, on
the right orbit, and on the Foramen Magnum border. Although we do not
know the number of striae per specimen, there do not seem to be par­
allels between the skull cups analysed here, and Fontbr�egoua skulls. Of
particular note is the absence of longitudinal striae arranged in the
upper part of the skulls, and that the striae run between the frontal and
occipital bones. In Moula Guercy (Middle Palaeolithic, France; Defleur
et al., 1999) 65% of the skull fragments present cut marks (NISP ¼ 23 of
a total of 78), which are mainly associated with tissue removal; there is
no evidence of scalping. In the assemblage of Troisi�eme Caverne of
Goyet (Middle Palaeolithic, Belgium; Rougier et al., 2016), although the
skulls are abundant among the Neanderthal specimens (NISP ¼ 9 of a
total of 35 remains), none showed cut marks. In the case of the Bodo
skull (Ethiopia, middle Pleistocene), the cut marks were interpreted as a
possible defleshing without consumption of the body, more similar to
secondary burial practices than cannibalism (White, 1986). However,
the frequency and the distribution of cuts (White, 1986: Fig. 1) are also
notably different from those observed on the ritualized skulls from Eu­
ropean archaeological sites. The Mesolithic site of Grotte de Perrats
show abundant cut marks, localised in the major part of the cases, on the
temporal bones and on the base of the occipitals. Nevertheless, seems
that they have more relation with the removal of soft tissue (Boulestin,
1999). Other cases such as the North American site of Mancos, also show
a lesser frequency of cuts (White and Timothy, 1992) regards to Gough’s
Cave, Herxheim, Fontbr�egoua and El Mirador. On the other hand, it is
also remarkable that the breakage of the skulls is higher in sites with
cannibalism and no documented skull cups.
Among the sites with skull cups, seems that some skulls like those
from Le Placard (Boulestin and Henry-Gambier, 2019), Cueva de las
Majolicas (Jim�enez Brobeil, 1990), Cueva de la Carigüela (García-San­
chez and Carrasco-Rus, 1981) and Cueva de El Toro (Santana et al.,
2019), show similarities with the distribution of cuts from Gough’s
Cave, Herxheim and El Mirador.
The frequency and distribution of cut marks suggest an exhaustive
tissue removal process during the manufacture of skull cups at Gough’s
Cave, Herxheim, and El Mirador. Although showing a similar pattern of
frequency and distribution of cut marks, the modifications of the skulls
at Fontbr� egoua may also have been associated with the meticulous and
intensive cleaning of the skull without the manufacture of skull cups.
The intense preparation of these elements could be linked to their ritual
F. Marginedas et al.
treatment, since obtaining tissues for alimentary purposes does not
usually produce a pattern of abundant cut marks, and the presence of
regular dispersion patterns are scattered on all facets. In fact, cluster
pattern, density, and location of the cut marks is similar to that of
Gough’s Cave, Herxheim, and El Mirador, and different from those
documented in the TD6.2 sample. In this way, the geospatial properties
of cut marks are a proxy that can help in the identification of the
cleaning of the skulls and our understanding of their preparation for
ritual treatment.
5. Conclusion
Skull cups are singular elements for the identification of ritualistic
activities, often in association with cannibalistic events in European
prehistory. These elements are characterised by the presence of abun­
dant cut marks and anthropogenic breakage. The spatial distribution of
these cut marks shows a particular non-random pattern. The spatial
statistics through the georeference of the taphonomic signals as objects
inside a delimitate space (bones), allowed us to demonstrate the exis­
tence of common patterns in the treatment of the skull in cannibalised
contexts from the Badegoulian culture. We demonstrated statistically
that skull cups present areas with clustering of cuts. These cut marks are
associated mainly with the removal of the scalp and defleshing. Ac­
cording to the data, the location of cut marks is correlated with the
functional activities of the butchery process. Nevertheless, the high
frequency of cuts set on areas from all skull fragments, suggests a non-
dietary finality. According to the observations in other sites and exper­
iments, cut marks are not linked exclusively to the removal of soft tissue
for its consume (Saladi�e et al., 2015; Saladi� e and Rodríguez-Hidalgo,
2017). In addition, we have located patterns of spatial distribution of
aggregate and regularly scattered cut marks in the skull cups, with
higher densities than in the skulls without prearranged morphology.
Repetitive patterns, usually indicative of intensive cleaning of bone,
have been recognised in specimens from Gough’s Cave, Fontbr�egoua,
Herxheim, and El Mirador Cave.
A systematic treatment has been identified for the manufacturing of
the skull cups. This process begins with the dismemberment of the skull
or with the removal of the scalp, resulting in large and parallel slicing
marks generated on the upper part of the skull, and continues with the
removal of the muscle, characterised by groups of shorter cut marks
located near the muscle bundles. Finally, this process ends with a careful
breakage of the skulls in order to preserve the cranial vault.
According to the number of cut marks, the removal of the scalp and
the muscles was meticulous and intensive in all skull cups and at
Fontbr� egoua. This pattern is repeated from the Magdalenian site of
Gough’s Cave to the Bronze Age site of El Mirador Cave, providing
further evidence of the preparation of the skulls for their possible ritu­
alization. The intensive removal of the tissue indicates the intentionality
to preserve the cranial vault in contexts where cannibalism events had
been identified. The preparation of skull cups can be related to a ritual
treatment of the human heads in these archaeological contexts.
Acknowledgments
We thank the comments of the editor (Marcos Martino �n-Torres) and
the anonymous reviewers, that helped us to improve our manuscript.
This work was supported by the Ministerio de Economía, Industria y
Competitividad/Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional [PGC2018-
093925-B-C32]; the Ag�encia de Gestio
� d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca
project number [SGR 2017-1040]; the Universitat Rovira i Virgili [2014,
2015 and 2016 PFR-URV-B2-17]; and the Departament de Cultura de
Generalitat de Catalunya [100576, 2014], and is framed in Centres de
Recerca de Catalunya Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya. A.
Rodriguez-Hidalgo has the support of the Spanish Ministry of Science,
Innovation and Universities [IJC2018-037447-I]. We thank our
colleague at IPHES, Josep Vallverdú, for his support in GIS software
12
Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076
management.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105076.
References
Abe, Y., Marean, C.W., Nilssen, P.J., Assefa, Z., Stone, E.C., 2002. The Analysis of
Cutmarks on Archaeofauna: a review and critique of quantification procedures, and
a new image-analysis GIS approach. Am. Antiq. 67, 643–663. https://doi.org/
10.2307/1593796.
Andrews, P., Fern� andez-Jalvo, Y., 2003. Cannibalism in britain: taphonomy of the
creswellian (Pleistocene) faunal and human remains from Gough’s cave (somerset,
england). Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Geol. Ser. 58, 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S096804620300010X.
Barroso, C., de Lumley, H., 2006. La grotte du Boquete de Zafarraya, M� alaga, Andalousie.
Junta de Andalucía.
Bello, S.M., Parfitt, S.A., Stringer, C.B., 2011. Earliest directly-dated human skull-cups.
PLoS One 6, e17026.
Bello, S.M., Saladi�e, P., C�aceres, I., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., Parfitt, S.A., 2015. Upper
Palaeolithic ritualistic cannibalism at Gough’s Cave (Somerset,UK): the human
remains from head to toe. J. Hum. Evol. 82, 170–189.
Bello, S.M., Wallduck, R., Dimitrijevi�c, V., Zivaljevi�
� c, I., Stringer, C.B., 2016.
Cannibalism versus funerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay:
comparisons of bone modifications from four prehistoric sites. Am. J. Phys.
Anthropol. 161, 722–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23079.
Bello, S.M., Wallduck, R., Parfitt, S.A., Stringer, C.B., 2017. An Upper Palaeolithic
engraved human bone associated with ritualistic cannibalism. PLoS One 12,
e0182127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182127.
Bermúdez De Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Martınez, I.,
Mosquera, M., 1997. A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain:
possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Sci 276 (5317), 1392–1395.
Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Martin� on-Torres, M., Prado, L., G� omez-Robles, A., Rosell, J.,
L�opez-Polín, L., Arsuaga, J.L., Carbonell, E., 2010. New immature hominin fossil
from European Lower Pleistocene shows the earliest evidence of a modern human
dental development pattern. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 11739–11744.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006772107.
Bocquentin, F., Aoudia-Chouakri, L., 2009. Le cr^ ane modifi� e et surmodel�e de Faïd Souar
II (Capsien, Alg�erie) Masque, troph�ee ou rite fun� eraire?.
Bocquentin, F., Garrard, A., 2016. Natufian collective burial practice and cranial
pigmentation: a reconstruction from Azraq 18 (Jordan). J. Archaeol. Sci.: Report 10,
693–702.
Botella, M.C., Alem� an, I., 1998. Las huellas del canibalismo. Arch. espa~ noles Morfol. 3,
75–86.
Botella, M.C., Alem� an, I., Jim�
enez, S.A., 2000. Los huesos humanos : manipulaci� on y
alteraciones. Edicions Bellaterra.
Boulestin, B., 1999. Approche taphonomique des restes humains. Le cas des
m�esolithiques de la Grotte des Perrats et le probl�eme du cannibalisme en pr� ehistoire
r�ecente europ�eenne, vol. 776. Archaeopress.
Boulestin, B., 2012. Quelques reflexions a � propos des coupes cr^ aniennes pr�ehistoriques.
In: B B, D., Gambier, H. (Eds.), Cr^ aNes troph�es, cr^
aNes d’anc^estres et autres pratiques
autour de la t^ete: probl�emes d’interpr�etation en arch�eologie. Actes de La
Table Ronde Pluridisciokinaire, Mus�ee National de Pr�ehistoire, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac
(Dordogne, France). Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 35–45.
Boulestin, B., Coupey, A.-S., 2015. Cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture: the Human
Remains Form Herxheim. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Boulestin, B., Henry-Gambier, D., 2012. Cr^ anes troph� ees, cr^anes d’anc^ etres et autres
pratiques autour de la t^ete : probl�emes d’interpr�etation en arch�eologie Sous la
direction de. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Boulestin, B., Henry-Gambier, D., 2019. Les restes humains Badegouliens de la Grotte de
Placard. Cannibalisme et guerre il y a 20.000 ans. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Boulestin, B., Zeeb-Lanz, A., Jeunesse, C., Haack, F., Arbogast, R.-M., Denaire, A., 2009.
Mass cannibalism in the linear Pottery culture at Herxheim (palatinate, Germany).
Antiquity 83, 968–982. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00099282.
C�
aceres, I., Lozano, M., Saladi�e, P., 2007. Evidence for Bronze age cannibalism in El
mirador cave (sierra de Atapuerca, burgos, Spain). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 133,
899–917. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20610.
Campillo, D., 1976. Abrasiones dentarias y cr� aneos enclavados del poblado de Ullastret
(Baix Empor� a, Gerona). Empúries: Revista de M� on Cl� assic i Antiguitat Tardana.
Museu d’Arqueología de Catalunya, pp. 317–326.
Carbonell, E., Ca, I., Lozano, M., Rosell, J., Lorenzo, C., Huguet, R., Canals, A., 2010.
Cultural cannibalism as a paleoeconomic system in the European Lower Pleistocene.
Curr. Anthropol. 51, 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1086/653807.
Carod-Artal, F.J., 2012. Skull cult. Trophy heads and tzantzas in pre-Columbian America.
Rev. Neurol. 55, 111–120.
Courtin, J., 2000. Les premiers paysans du Midi. La maison des roches, Paris.
de Lumley, M.-A., 2015. L’homme de Tautavel. Un Homo erectus europ� een �evolu�e. Homo
erectus tautavelensis. Anthropologie 119, 303–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ANTHRO.2015.06.001.
F. Marginedas et al.
Defleur, A., White, T., Valensi, P., Slimak, L., Cr�egut-Bonnoure, E., 1999. Neanderthal
cannibalism at moula-guercy, ard� eche, France. Science 286, 128–131. https://doi.
org/10.1126/SCIENCE.286.5437.128.
Fern�andez-Jalvo, Y., Carlos Díez, J., C�aceres, I., Rosell, J., 1999. Human cannibalism in
the early Pleistocene of Europe (gran Dolina, sierra de Atapuerca, burgos, Spain).
J. Hum. Evol. 37, 591–622. https://doi.org/10.1006/JHEV.1999.0324.
Fern�andez-Jalvo, Y., Díez, J.C., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J.L.,
1996. Evidence of early cannibalism. Science 271, 277–278.
Frayer, D.W., 1997. Ofnet: evidence for a mesolithic massacre. In: Martin, D.L., Frayer, D.
W. (Eds.), Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past. Routledge, New York,
pp. 181–216.
García-Sanchez, M., Carrasco-Rus, J., 1981. Cr� aneo-copa eneolítico de la cueva de la
Carigüela de Pi~ nar (Granada). Zephyrus XXXII– XXXI, 121–131.
Green, M., 2012. The Celtic World. Routledge.
Gresky, J., Haelm, J., Clare, L., 2017. Modified human crania from G€ obekli Tepe provide
evidence for a new form of Neolithic skull cult. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700564 https://doi.
org/10.1126/sciadv.1700564.
Haddow, S.D., Knüsel, C.J., 2017. Skull retrieval and secondary burial practices in the
Neolithic Near East: recent insights from Çatalh€ oyük, Turkey. Bioarchaeol Int. 1 (1/
2), 52–71.
Henry-Gambier, D., Faucheux, A., 2012. Les practiques autour de la t^ete en Europe au
Pal�eolithique Sup�erieur. Cr^aNes troph�ees, cr^ anes d’anc^etres et autres pratiques
autour de la t^ete : Probl�emes d’interpr�etation en arch�eologie : Actes de La
Table Ronde Pluridisciplinaire, Mus� ee National de Pr�ehistoire, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac
(Dordogne, France), 14-16 Octobre 2010. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Hurlbut, S.A., 2000. The taphonomy of cannibalism: a review of anthropogenic bone
modification in the American Southwest. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 10, 4–26. https://
doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1212(200001/02)10:1<4::AID-OA502>3.0.CO;2-Q.
Jacobi, R.M., Higham, T.F.G., 2009. The early Lateglacial re-colonization of Britain: new
radiocarbon evidence from Gough’s Cave, southwest England. Quat. Sci. Rev. 28,
1895–1913. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.QUASCIREV.2009.03.006.
Jammo, S., 2014. A Study of Skull Symbolism in Near Eastern Neolithic Societies.
University of Tsukuba.
Jeunesse, C., 2012. Ofnet et les d� ep^
ots de t^ etes dans le M�esolithique du sud-ouest de
l’Allemagne. In: Boulestin, B., Gambier, D.H. (Eds.), Cr^ anes troph�ees, cr^anes
d’anc^etres et autres pratiques autour de la t^ete: Probl� emes d’interpr�etation en
arch�eologie. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 69–76.
Jim�enez Brobeil, S.A., 1990. Rituales funerarios neolíticos en la Alta Andalucia. Estado
actual de la cuesti�on. Zephyrus 43, 125–130.
Le Mort, F., Gambier, D., 1991. Cutmarks and Breakage on the Bones from Le Placard
(France). An Example of Special Mortuary Practice during the Upper Palaeolithic.
https://doi.org/10.2307/26295569. Anthropologie.
Marean, C.W., Abe, Y., Nilssen, P.J., Stone, E.C., 2001. Estimating the minimum number
of skeletal elements (MNE) in zooarchaeology: a review and a new image-analysis
GIS approach. Am. Antiq. 66, 333–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694612.
Massey, V.K., Steele, D.G., 1997. A maya skull pit from the terminal classic period, colha,
Belize. In: Whittington, S.L., Reed, D.M. (Eds.), Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient
Skeletons. Smithsonian Institution Press, University of Alabama Press, Washington
DC, pp. 62–77.
Maureille, B., Mann, A., Beauval, C., Bordes, J.G., Bourguignon, L., Costamagno, S.,
Couchoud, I., Lacrampe-Guyaub� ere, F., Laroulandie, V., Marquet, J.-C., Meignen, L.,
Texier, P.-J., Vandermeersch, B., 2004. Le gisement moust�erien des Pradelles
(Marillac-le-Franc, Charente): pass� e, pr�esent, futur. XXVI� Congr�es Pr�ehistorique de
France: Congr�es Du Centenaire, Soci� et�e Pr�
ehistorique Française, pp. 249–262.
Avignon-Bonnieux.
Miller, E., 1994. Evidence for prehistoric scalping in Northeastern Nebraska. Plains
Anthropol. 39, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/2052546.1994.11931728.
Murphy, E., Gokhman, I., Chistov, Y., Barkova, L., 2002. Prehistoric old world scalping:
new cases from the cemetery of aymyrlyg, south siberia. Am. J. Archaeol. 106, 1.
https://doi.org/10.2307/507186.
Nilssen, P.J., 2000. An Actualistic Butchery Study in South Africa and its Implications for
Reconstructing Hominid Strategies of Carcass Acquisition and Butchery in the Upper
Pleistocene and Plio-Pleistocene. University of Cape, Town.
Ostendorf-Smith, M., 2003. Beyond palisades: the nature and frequency of late
prehistoric deliberate violent trauma in the Chickamauga Reservoir of East
Tennessee. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 121, 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ajpa.10232.
Ostendorf-Smith, M., 1997. Osteological indications of warfare in the archaic period of
the Western Tennessee Valley. In: Martin, D.L., Frayer, D.W. (Eds.), Troubled Times:
Violence and Warfare in the Past. Routledge, New York, pp. 241–266.
Ostendorf-Smith, M., 1995. Scalping in the archaic period: evidence from the western
Tennessee valley. Southeast. Archaeol. https://doi.org/10.2307/40713031.
Owsley, D., 1994. Warfare in coalescent tradition populations of Northern Plains. Skelet.
Biol. Gt. Plains Migr. Warf. Health Subsist. 333–343.
Parkinson, J.A., 2018. Revisiting the hunting-versus-scavenging debate at FLK Zinj: a GIS
spatial analysis of bone surface modifications produced by hominins and carnivores
in the FLK 22 assemblage, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.
Palaeoecol. 511, 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PALAEO.2018.06.044.
Parkinson, J.A., 2013. A GIS Image Analysis Approach to Documenting Oldowan
Hominin Carcass Acquisition: Evidence from Kanjera South, FLK Zinj, and
Neotaphonomic Models of Carnivore Bone Destruction.
Patou-Mathis, M., 1997. Analyses taphonomique et palethnographique du mat�eriel
osseux de Krapina (Croatie): nouvelles donn�ees sur la faune et les restes humains.
Pr�ehistoire Eur. 10, 63–90.
13
Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076
Rosas, A., Martínez-Maza, C., Bastir, M., García-Tabernero, A., Lalueza-Fox, C.,
Huguet, R., Ortiz, J.E., Juli�a, R., Soler, V., de Torres, T., Martínez, E., Ca~naveras, J.
C., S�
anchez-Moral, S., Cuezva, S., Lario, J., Santamaría, D., de la Rasilla, M.,
Fortea, J., 2006. Paleobiology and comparative morphology of a late neandertal
sample from El sidron, asturias, Spain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103,
19266–19271. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609662104.
Rougier, H., Crevecoeur, I., Beauval, C., Posth, C., Flas, D., Wißing, C., Furtw€ angler, A.,
Germonpr�e, M., G� omez-Olivencia, A., Semal, P., van der Plicht, J., Bocherens, H.,
Krause, J., 2016. Neandertal cannibalism and Neandertal bones used as tools in
Northern Europe. Sci. Rep. 6, 29005. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29005.
Ruiz de Gaona, M., 1945. Resultados de una exploraci� on en las cavernas prehist� oricas de
Txispiri-Gaztelu (Guipúzcoa). Bol. Real. Soc. Vascong. de Amigos Del País. San
Sebasti� an, pp. 157–176, 271–288, 389–402.
Sala, N., Conard, N., 2016. Taphonomic analysis of the hominin remains from Swabian
Jura and their implications for the mortuary practices during the Upper Paleolithic.
Quat. Sci. Rev. 150, 278–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.QUASCIREV.2016.08.018.
Saladi�e, P., 2009. Mossegades D’omnívors. Aproximaci� o experimental i aplicaci�o
zooarqueol� ogica a la Sierra de Atapuerca. Universitat Rovira i Virgili Tarragona.
Saladi�e, P., C�aceres, I., Huguet, R., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., Santander, B., Oll� e, A.,
Gabucio, M.J., Martín, P., Marín, J., 2015. Experimental butchering of a chimpanzee
carcass for archaeological purposes. PLoS One 10, e0121208. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0121208.
Saladi�e, P., Huguet, R., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., C� aceres, I., Esteban-Nadal, M., Arsuaga, J.
L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., 2012. Intergroup cannibalism in the
European Early Pleistocene: the range expansion and imbalance of power
hypotheses. J. Hum. Evol. 63, 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhevol.2012.07.004.
Saladi�e, P., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., 2017. Archaeological evidence for cannibalism in
prehistoric western Europe: from Homo antecessor to the Bronze age. J. Archaeol.
Method Theory 24, 1034–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9306-y.
Saladi�e, P., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., Díez, C., Martín-Rodríguez, P., Carbonell, E., 2013.
Range of bone modifications by human chewing. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 380–397.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAS.2012.08.002.
Saladi�e, P., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., Huguet, R., C� aceres, I., Díez, C., Vallverdú, J.,
Canals, A., Soto, M., Santander, B., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L.,
Carbonell, E., 2014. The role of carnivores and their relationship to hominin
settlements in the TD6-2 level from Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). Quat.
Sci. Rev. 93, 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.04.001.
Santana, J., Rodríguez-Santos, F.J., Camalich-Massieu, M.D., Martín-Socas, D., Fregel, R.,
2019. Aggressive or funerary cannibalism? Skull-cup and human bone manipulation
in cueva de El Toro (early neolithic, southern iberia). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23805.
Schaafsma, P., 2007. Head trophies and scalping. The Taking and Displaying of Human
Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians. Springer US, Boston, MA, pp. 90–123.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-48303-0_6.
Seeman, M.F., 1988. Ohio Hopewell trophy-skull artifacts as evidence for competition in
Middle Woodland societies Circa 50 B.C.. A.D. 350. Am. Antiq. 53, 565–577. https://
doi.org/10.2307/281217.
Solari, A., Botella, M., Alem� an, I., 2012. Canibalismo en la Cueva de Malalmuerzo:
identificaci�on de huellas de manipulaci� on intencional en restos o �seos humanos de
origen arqueol� ogico (Granada, Espa~ na). Archaeopress, Oxford.
Tong, D., Murray, A.T., 2012. Spatial optimization in geography. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
102, 1290–1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.685044.
Toyne, J.M., 2011. Possible cases of scalping from pre-hispanic highland Peru. Int. J.
Osteoarchaeol. 21, 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.1127.
Verhoeven, M., 2013. The passage of matter, transformations of objects and ritual
meanings in the Neolithic of the Near East. In: Koutrafouri, V.G., Sanders, J. (Eds.),
Ritual Failure: Archaeological Perspective. Sidestone press, Leiden, pp. 23–36.
Verhoeven, M., 2002. Ritual and ideology in the pre-pottery neolithic B of the levant and
southeast Anatolia. Camb. Archaeol. J. 12, 233–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0959774302000124.
Villa, P., 1992. Cannibalism in prehistoric Europe. Evol. Anthropol. Issues News Rev. 1,
93–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.1360010307.
Villa, P., Bouville, C., Courtin, J., Helmer, D., Mahieu, E., Shipman, P., Belluomini, G.,
Branca, M., 1986a. Cannibalism in the neolithic. Science 233, 431–437. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.233.4762.431.
Villa, P., Courtin, J., 1991. Cannibalism in neolithic. Nature 351, 612–613.
Villa, P., Courtin, J., Helmer, D., Shipman, P., Bouville, C., Mahieu, E., Belluomini, G.,
Branca, M., 1986b. Un cas de cannibalisme au N� eolithique. Gall. pr�ehistoire 29,
143–171.
Wallduck, R., Bello, S.M., 2016. Cutting decaying bodies: micro-morphometric analysis
of cut-marks on Mesolithic-Neolithic human remains from Lepenski Vir and Vlasac,
Serbia. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 10, 703–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JASREP.2016.06.036.
White, T.D., 1986. Cut marks on the Bodo cranium: a case of prehistoric defleshing. Am.
J. Phys. Anthropol. 69, 503–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330690410.
White, T.D., Timothy, D., 1992. Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346.
Princeton University Press.
White, T.D., Toth, N., 2007. Carnivore and carnivory: assessing hominid toothmarks in
zooarchaeology. In: Pickering, T.R., Schick, K., Toth, N. (Eds.), Breathing Life into
Fossils: Taphonomic Studies in Honor of C.K. BBob^ Brain. Gosport: Indiana. Stone
Age Institute Press, pp. 281–296.
White, T.D., Toth, N., 1991. The question of ritual cannibalism at Grotta Guattari. Curr.
Anthropol. 32, 118–138.