Making skull cups: Butchering traces on cannibalised human skulls from five European archaeological sites

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 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 b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Ritualization of skulls Cut marks Scalping Cannibalism

The presence of skull cups (bowls made from human calvaria) is considered evidence of the ritualistic treatment of human bodies. These artefacts are characterised by careful manufacturing which can be taphonomically observed in bone surface modifications (BSM) as cut marks and percussion marks. These BSM show morpho­ logical similarities across Upper Palaeolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age assemblages. This study is focused on the 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

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

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,

� * 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: [email protected] (F. Marginedas), [email protected] (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 0305-4403/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

F. Marginedas et al.

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 €bkely Tepe, Bocquentin and Aoudia-Chouakri (2009) associate the Go 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., �ndez-Jalvo et al., 1996; 1986a, 1986b; White and Toth, 1991; Ferna �n, 1998; Botella et al., 2000; Patou-Mathis, 1997; Botella and Alema �ndez-Jalvo, 2003; Maureille et al., 2004; Barroso and Andrews and Ferna 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

(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 €bekli Tepe, a transitional Neolithic site in southeast excavations at Go 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 €yük (Turkey), where removal and recombination on burials from Çatalho

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

F. Marginedas et al.

Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076

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

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

Fig. 2. European map with the five studied sites (TD6.2, Gough’s Cave, Fontbr�egoua, Herxheim, and El Mirador Cave). 3

F. Marginedas et al.

Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076

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.

identified (Andrews and Fern� andez-Jalvo, 2003; Bello et al., 2011, 2015, 2017). The MNI of the assemblage is six: one infant, two adoles­ �ndez-Jalvo cents and three adults (Bello et al., 2015). Andrews and Ferna (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

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 �ndez-Jalvo et al., 1996). The material balism to date (800,000 BP) (Ferna 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 �ndez-Jalvo et al. (1999) suggested modifications on faunal bones, Ferna 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 NISP (*) NMI Age

181 (27) 11 2 adults, 3 adolescents, 6 children

Cut marks % (***)

29,6%

Gough’s Cave

Fontbr�egoua

205 (37) 5 2 adults, 2 adolescents 1 infant 95,1%

H1

H3

84 (25) 7 3 adults 4 infants

134 (0) 6 3 adults 2 adolescents 1 infant –

45,6%

Herxheim

El Mirador

15552 (1649) >1000 61 adults (**) 43 infants

165 (42) 6 5 adults 1 infant

100%

61.9%

(*) Corresponds to Skull NISP; (**) Data from Boulestin et al. (2009); (***) % Corresponds to a total of skulls remains with marks. 4

F. Marginedas et al.

Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076

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 �ceres et al., 2007). 61.9% (NISP ¼ 26) of skull remains show slicing, (Ca scrape, and chop marks, which are associated with scalping, defleshing, and disarticulation. The initial interpretation of the modifications �ceres observed in these remains was of gastronomic cannibalism (Ca 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 codependence between cut marks located on the upper facets of skulls

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 cutmarked 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 5

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 facet of specimen 7, a non-complete maxilla (Villa et al., 1986b: Fig. 14) (Fig. S8).

Fig. 6. Origin (orange) and insertion (green) areas of the skull muscles on the anterior (A), right (B), superior (C), and dorsal (D) facet of the skulls in relation 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 part of the squamous area of the temporal bones. On the frontal, parietal, and temporal bones, the locations of cut marks are consistent with the cutting of the temporal muscle. On the occipital bone, the cut marks converge on the muscles rectus capitis posterior major, rectus capitis pos­ terior minor, and obliquus capitis superior. Finally, the cut marks and scrape marks located on the cranial base may be related to the defleshing

At Herxheim, Boulestin and Coupey (2015) classified cut marks into three categories according to their location and function. Cut marks located on the middle sagittal plane are indicative of scalping (Fig. 8). These incisions are variable in length and consist of continuous and discontinuous lines that extend from the glabellar area to the nape of the neck, and then to the external occipital protuberance. Defleshing was 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, 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 (Fig. 10e). Longitudinally grouped marks are found over two supra­ ciliary arcs (Fig. 10a). Four of the five occipital fragments show short cut marks near the foramen magnum (Fig. 10d). In another case, the cut marks appear grouped near the lambdoidal suture (Fig. 10b and c). All these cut mark groupings are associated with scalping. Four of the five temporal bones are cut marked. Firstly, there is a chop mark over the zygomatic arc, near the articular orifice, associated with the cutting of the temporal and auricular muscles (Fig. 10b). Two

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).

of the skulls after severing of the heads. Boulestin and Coupey (2015), also identified several cut marks located on the anterior facet of the skull: the nasal bones show hori­ zontal or slightly oblique cuts associated with the cutting of the nose. Some of the remains show parallel cut marks located along the infra-orbital border of the maxilla or the zygomatic bone which were produced during the enucleation. The alveolar process of the maxilla is marked by horizontal or slightly oblique incisions associated with the

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.

Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076

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).

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

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, �ceres et al., 2007; Saladi� 1990) and El Mirador (Ca 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. �ceres et al. (2007) initially interpreted the For El Mirador, Ca 10

F. Marginedas et al.

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

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 �ceres et al., 2007; Saladi� extraction of the scalp and ears (Ca 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

F. Marginedas et al.

Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076

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.

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. � propos des coupes cr^ Boulestin, B., 2012. Quelques reflexions a 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.

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 nondietary 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 �n-Torres) and We thank the comments of the editor (Marcos Martino 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� d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca 093925-B-C32]; the Ag� encia de Gestio 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

F. Marginedas et al.

Journal of Archaeological Science 114 (2020) 105076

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.

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: �seos humanos de identificaci� on de huellas de manipulaci� on intencional en restos o 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.

13