Erik Trinkaus

Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, U.S.A.

Received 10July 1984 and accepted 3 September 1984

Keywords: Neanderthals, Krapina, taphonomy, cannibalism, burial.

Cannibalism and Burial at Krapina

The fragmentary but abundant Neanderthal remains from Krapina have long been considered to provide evidence for cannibalism in the early Upper Pleistocene. A review of the purported evidence for cannibalism at Krapina (craniocervical fragmcntation~ diaphyseal splitting, "eut-rnarks" patterned preservation and breakage, burnt bone, and disassociation of the skeletons) indicates that none of the damage patterns present in the Krapina Neanderthal sample can be explained solely as the products of cannibalism. Furthermore, the frequencies of skeletal part preservation indicate that the Krapina Neanderthals were buried, by natural or human processes, soon after death.

1. Introduction In 1895, Pleistocene deposits were discovered in the Krapina rockshelter in the Hrvatsko Zagorje of northern Croatia, Yugoslavia. Starting four years later and continuing until 1905, D. Gorjanovi~-Kramberger conducted excavations at the site, producing a wealth of fossils and artifacts, including approximately 800 human bones and bone fragments, the largest sample of archaic human remains known from one site. These remains were described in a series of publications culminating in monographs on the Neanderthal fossils (1906) and the archeological remains (1913) (see Malez, 1970a, 1971, and Smith, 1976a, for complete bibliographies). The site quickly became known to paleoanthropologists. Yet, it was only recently, as a result of renewed interest in the Neanderthals, that the Krapina sample has attracted the attention it deserves (e.g., Kallay, 1959, 1970a,b, among others; Schaefer, 1964; Trinkaus, 1975, 1978; Smith, 1976a, b, 1978, 1982; Musgrave, 1977; Guth, 1978; Wolpoff, 1978, 1979; Alexeev, 1979). In addition, reanalyses of the excavation field notes of Gorjanovid-Kramberger and the archeological and paleontological remains (Guenther, 1959; Malez, 1970a,b,c) have provided more secure chronological, paleontological and archeotogical frameworks against which to evaluate the human remains.

It is apparent that the fragmentation of the Krapina Neanderthal remains has been largely responsible for the dearth of attention paid to this sample until recently, despite the rapid and extensive publication of many aspects of the site and its fossils by Gorjanovi&-Kramberger three-quarters of a century ago. No one specimen preserves a complete calotte, upper facial skeleton, or long bone, and originally each bone was considered as though it represented a separate individual. Recently, through the efforts of U. Schaefer, F. H. Smith, M. H. Wolpoff, J. Radov~i~, N. Minugh and myself, it has been possible to associate many of the remains by individual and reassemble portions of bones. Yet, the Krapina sample remains primarily a collection of isolated and incomplete bones.

Of particular interest here is the source of the fragmentation and disassociation of the Krapina remains. Although most hominids fossils are incomplete, few of the larger Upper Pleistocene samples exhibit a comparable level of both fragmentation and disassociation. The traditional (Gorjanovi~-Kramberger, 1960, 1909) and recently revived (e.g., Tomi~-Karovi~, 1970; Ullrich, 1978) explanation for the condition of the fossils is that the Krapina Neanderthals practiced cannibalism, fragmenting the bones to obtain brains, marrow, and other soft tissues for ritual or dietary purposes. Although this interpretation has been frequently questioned or ignored, it remains a common explanation for the

Journal of Human Evolution (1985) 14, 203-216

0047-2484/85/020203 + 14 $03.00/0 �9 1985 Academic Press Inc. (London) Limited

204 E. TRINKAUS

condition of the Krapina fossils.* New perspectives on patterns of bone breakage and accumulation (e.g., Behrensme~er & Hill, 1980; Klein, 1980; Brain, 1981; Binford, 1981; Potts, 1982), however, suggest that alternative interpretations may better explain the condition of the Krapina Neanderthal remains.

2. The Site of Krapina

The site of Krapina is a 12 m high rockshelter in the Hugnjakovo hill, above the village of Krapina in northern Croatia. It was cut into Miocene sandstone and conglomerate during the Middle Pleistocene and was filled with debris during the Upper Pleistocene (Gnenther, 1959; Malez, 1970a, 1978). Gorjanovi~-Kramberger divided the deposits into nine levels, the first being the basal and culturally sterile level, and levels 2-9 being cultural horizons within, and frequently separated by, sterile geological deposits. Levels 2, 3 and 4 represent the earliest cultural horizons, and levels 3 and 4 (the "zona s Homo" of Gorjanovi~-Kramberger, 1906) yielded the majority of the hominid remains (Smith, 1976a; Malez, 1978). Levels 2, 3 and 4 were, together, ca 3 m thick. They contained a considerable amount of weathered sandstone amongst the abundant human and non-human mammalian remains [including Castor fiber, Ursus spelaeus, Crocuta c~ocuta, Fells pardus, F. silvestris, Dicerorhinus kirchbergensis, Sus scrofa, Megaloceros giganleus, Lmma dama, Cervus elphaus, Capreolus capreolus, and Bos primigenius (Malez, 1970b, following the terminology of Kurtfin, 1968)]. Relatively few artifacts derived from these cultural levels (Grojanovi~-Kramberger, 1913; Malez, 1970c) [all of the cultural material at Krapina is attributable to the Middle Paleolithic (Malez, 1970c)]. Level 4 was overlain by a 1 m thick sterile rockfall, containing blocks of sandstone and related debris from the wall of the rockshelter, some of which were removed by dynamite during the excavations (Gorjanovi&Kramberger, 1906). The subsequent cultural levels exhibit cold and cold-temperate macrofaunas (Malez, 1970b) and yielded abundant cultural remains (Malez, 1970c) and a few hominids (Smith, 1976a; Malez, 1978). Levels 2-4 are usually referred to the terminal last interglacial or initial last glacial, and the subsequent levels probably date to the early last glacial (Malez, 1970a, 1978).

* The interpretation that the Krapina Neanderthals were cannibals, although first proposed in 1906 by Gorj anovi~-Kramberger, did not become popular until relatively recently. During the first half of the twentieth century, even though the Krapina sample was mentioned in most reviews of human paleontology, only Hrdli~ka (1930) and Skerlj (1939) accepted Gmjanovi~-Kramberger's interpretation. Osborn (1928), Hooton (1931), and Howells (1944), for example, did not mention cannabalism or patterns of breakage with respect to the Krapina fossils, Boule (1921) only mentioned the charring of the bones, whereas Keith (1915), Sollas (1924), and MacCurdy (1932) stated that some of the specimens were charred and possibly split open but questioned the interpretation of cannibalism. Supporters of cannibalism at Krapina have increased in number since World War II (e.g., Courville, 1950; O~egovid, 1958; Vallois, 1961; Howell, 1965; Roper, t969, Tomi&Karovi6, 1970; Smith, 1976a; Burian & Wolf, 1978; Ullrich, 1978; Campbell, t982; Wymer, 1982) even though many have continued to ignore the issue (e.g., LeGros Clark, 1955; Howells, 1967; Kennedy, 1975; Day, 1977; Wolpoff, 1980) and some (e.g., Bergounioux, 1958; Coon, 1962; Cole & Higgs, 1969; Kennedy, 1980) have mentioned the interpretation with evident lack of enthusiasm. Thus, despite variation in its popularity, the idea that cannabilism occurred at Krapina has never been fully accepted or rejected by paleoanthropologists.

CANNIBALISM AND BURIAL AT KRAPINA 2 0 5

The impression of the deposits at Krapina provided by the descriptions of Gorjanovi~-Kramberger and the recent work of Malez and Guenther is of sediments containing abundant blocks of sandstone and conglomerate. These blocks were interspersed with the bones of large mammals (especially Ursus spelaeus) and occasional hearths, with human bones scattered through the cultural levels, frequently in the general vicinity of the hearths. The excavation of the site appears to have been done, as was common at the time, with local workmen using shovels under the direction of Gorjanovi~-Kramberger (Gorjanovi~-Kramberger, 1906; Malez, 1970a). During the excavations, the individual specimens were labeled according to cultural level, which has permitted the assignment of specimens to stratigraphic horizons and the reanalysis of the site accordingly (Malez, 1970b, c, 1978). Nonetheless, given the method of excavation, it is not certain whether the various human and other mammalian bones were in direct association (positional and/or anatomical) in situ or were merely dose to each other in levels that were, on the average, about a meter thick. Also, at least some of the bones were disturbed in situ by rockfalls from the shelter wall (Gorjanovi~-Kramberger, 1906), and the use of dynamite to remove large blocks and large excavation tools undoubtedly contributed further to their fragmentation (as is indicated by fresh [twentieth century] breaks on many of the specimens).

3. The Cannibalism Explanation

Cannibalism was first attributed to the Krapina Neanderthals by Gorjanovi~-Kramberger (1906, 1909) to explain the extreme fragmentation and occasional burning of their remains. In more recent years, Tomi~-Karovi~ (1970), Smith (1976a,b*), and Ullrich (1978) have revived this explanation, using new analyses of the human sample to substantiate it. The characteristics of the sample that have been used to support this interpretation, by one or more of the above authors, are: (1) the fragmentation of cervical vertebrae and occipital bones, presumably to provide access to the endocranial cavity for brain removal, (2) the longitudinal splitting of the larger diameter diaphyses (presumably to facilitate marrow extraction) in contrast to the more intact condition of the smaller diameter long bones, (3) the presence of"cut-marks" on long bones and cranial pieces, which are presumed to be the products of defleshing and dismemberment, (4) the disproportionate representation of certain bones or bone portions, showing patterning in butchering and in which portions of the body were saved and/or transported to the rockshelter, (5) the burning of bones, presumably as a result of cooking of the region, and (6) the disassociation of the bones from individual skeletons. These points will be examined individually, to determine whether the pattern of human bone preservation in the Krapina sample could only have been created by cannibalism or can be explained as the product of more commonly occurring pre- and post-depositional processes.

(i) Craniocervical Fragmentation The Krapina sample preserves an exceptional number of cervical vertebrae (22), including 4 C1 and 4 C2. Although some of these bones are damaged (as are virtually all known Neanderthal vertebrae) and the spinous processes are incomplete, they are present in

* Smith (pers. comm.) has recently expressed doubts that cannibalism is the only explanation for the condition of the Krapina human remains.

206 E. TRINKAUS

reasonable numbers and some are quite well preserved. The region around the foramen magnum is generally absent from the Krapina crania, as it is from most Pleistocene hominid crania (Jacob, 1972; Trinkaus, pers. observ.) [only seven European and western Asian Neanderthals (La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1, Engis 2, La Ferrassie 1, Pech-de-l'Az6 1, Shanidar 1 and 2, and Teshik-Tash 1), five of which formed part of burials, preserve at least half of the foramen magnum]. However, there are several reasonably complete squamous portions of occipital bones (e.g., the Krapina skull B occipital and occipital 1), and recently occipital fragments have been attached to other, more complete, cranial pieces along clean, uneroded breaks (Minugh & Radov~i~, in prep.). Many of the breaks of the Krapina neurocranial specimens resemble the type of cracks that develop in dried cranial vault bone subjected to sediment pressure; after removal of adhering matrix, adjacent pieces usually fit together tightly, as with adjacent sides of a fresh break. It is for this reason that several researchers (e.g., Schaefer, Smith, Wolpo~t, Minugh, and Radovi~i4) have been able to add significantly to the Krapina A, C, D, and E crania with formerly isolated cranial pieces. The general state of preservation and pattern of breakage of the Krapina posterior crania and cervical vertebrae suggest, therefore, that their crania were broken postmortem from sediment pressure and movement and that pieces became separated post-depositionally.

(ii) Diaphyseal Splitting The Krapina femora and tibiae are represented primarily by longitudinal diaphyseal sections, whereas the remaining fibulae and, to a lesser extent, humeri, ulnae, and radii show little of this longitudinal splitting (Trinkaus, 1975; Smith, 1976b). Only the Krapina 213 and 214 proximal femora and Krapina 218 and 219 distal tibiae are exceptions to this pattern.

The Krapina femoral and tibial diaphyseal sections are all longer than wide, are broken transversely or slightly obliquely at their ends, and have sides that run parallel to their diaphyseal axes~ This pattern, however, is merely the product of normal failure of diaphyseal bon~s subjected to transverse pressure. The predominant orientation of haversian systems in human long bones is longitudinal, and dry diaphyses tend to split along the inter-osteonic spaces and/or perpendicular to them. It is only near epiphyses, where irregular patterns of biomechanical stress promote complex orientations of osteons, that more irregular breakage patterns commonly occur; the Krapina femora and tibiae show the greatest irregularities in their fracture patterns in the vicinities of the lesser trochanter and tibial tuberosities (e.g., specimens 213, 214, 217, 257"5, 258'18). Furthermore, the Krapina femoral and tibial diaphyseal pieces show none of the conchoidal and radial fracturing of the cortical bone produced by humans when cracking open bones, experimentally or for marrow (Martin, 1910; Binford, 1981; Bunn, 1981). Their pattern of breakage resembles, to a very large extent, that seen in the femora and tibiae from Neanderthal burials that were crushed in situ by sediment weight (e.g., Shanidar 1, 4, 5, and 6 and Tabfin C 1).

The contrast in diaphyseal preservation between those of the femora and tibiae at Krapina and the associated fibulae, humeri, ulnae, and radii may also be attributed to bone response to sediment pressure. Basically, the smaller the diameter of a tube, the less likely it is to collapse under transversely applied pressure. The best preserved diaphyses are therefore those with the smallest diameter and relatively thickest cortical bone

C A N N I B A L I S M A N D B U R I A L A T K R A P I N A 207

(fibulae). The next best preserved are those of the arm bones, which were nonetheless somewhat fragmented due to their relatively thin walls. Not surprisingly, the Neanderthal burials that experienced extensive crushing (Tabfin C1 and Shanidar specimens) have generally well preserved fibulae, radii, and ulnae, slightly less complete humeri, and fragmentary and crushed femora and tibiae (McCown & Keith, 1939; Trinkaus, 1983). The fracture pattern of the Krapina diaphyses can therefore be explained as the product of sediment pressure acting on diaphyses of variable diameter and cortical thickness.

(iii) "Cut-Marks" Various authors have described "cut-marks" on the Krapina human remains, that are taken to indicate disarticulation and butchering. Ullrich (1978) identified "cut-marks" on 30"1% of the postcranial bones and 14'4% of the skull fragments, most commonly on the claviculae, patellae, fibulae, and mandibles but occurring on most bones except those of the hand, foot, and vertebral column. There is no doubt that there are numerous marks on the external surfaces of the Krapina bones. However, it is uncertain whether any of the damage marks described or illustrated by authors supporting this interpretation closely resemble the marks created by experimental or ethnographically observed butchering with lithic implements (Binford, 1981; Bunn, 1981; Potts & Shipman, 1981; Potts, 1982; Shipman & Rose, 1983) or those evident on animal remains from mousterian sites (Martin, 1908, 1909; Deb~nath & Duport, 1971) and on the nuchal region of one Neanderthal specimen [Marillac 2 (Vandermeersch, 1980)]. Furthermore, no attempt has been made by Ullrich or others to distinguish these marks from damage caused by non-hominid vertebrate gnawing, sedimentary particles and sandstone blocks in situ (especially during post-depositional shifting and compaction of the sediments), excavation with tools such as shovels, or removal of matrix with metal tools. In addition, although the locations of the "cut-marks" on the long bones are generally in the vicinities of major muscle packages, they are not located where disarticulation or butchering as practiced by modern hunter-gatherers (Binford, 1981; Gifford et al., 1981; Shipman, 1983) or other Neanderthals (Martin, 1907, 1909) would create them. It is therefore highly uncertain whether the marks evident on the Krapina bones accumulated from a variety of non-hominid processes or from human manipulation of the bones around the time of death. Even if some of the marks are indeed cut-marks, it will remain difficult to determine whether they were associated with cannibalism or some form of non-cannibalistic ritual treatment of the body.

(iv) Patterned Preservation and Breakage The Krapina human sample preserves at least one of most of the bones in the skeleton, but specific portions of certain bones are consistently absent from the sample. For example, despite the presence of 17 humeri, eight ulnae, nine radii, 14 femora, 15 tibiae, and 14 fibulae from mature individuals, none of the proximal humeri, tibiae, or fibulae and none of the distal ulnae, radii, or femora are preserved (Table 1). This is the same pattern of long bone preservation as that observed by Dart (1958) for the Makapansgat bovid remains and subsequently documented for a variety of mammalian taxa subjected to different attritional processes (Binford, 1981; Brain, 1976, 1981; Potts, 1982). It is also the general pattern evident in the long bones from buried Neanderthals, in which proximal humeri, tibiae, and fibulae and distal ulnae and femora are less frequently preserved than their

208 E. TRINKAUS

opposite ends (radii from Neanderthal burials preserve both ends with about equal frequency) (Table 1). These patterns are due to the greater durability of the earlier fusing epiphyses; they preserve more frequently when subjected to crushing and erosion, which is due to their generally thicker cortical bone over the underlying trabecular bone. Similarly, what little patterning in cranial breakage exists in the Krapina sample is easily explained as the product of relative bone durability. Supraorbital tori, sections of cranial vault, temporal petrous and mastoid portions, and mandibular corpori are more compact and preservebetter than, for example, nasal regions, sphenoid bones, and basioccipitals. This suggests that the Krapina human remains were subjected to common post-mortem attritional processes and that any patterning in skeletal part preservation is due to the relative durabilities of osteological regions.

Despite the tendency in the Krapina sample, as well as in most Neanderthal samples, for the cranial vaults from nasion to inion, temporal bones, maxillary alveolar portions, and mandibular corpori to be best preserved, a surprising number of the more fragile regions of the nasal and temporal regions are preserved in the Krapina sample (Gorjanovi~-Kramberger, 1906; Smith, 1976a). Furthermore, a number of the more fragile immature cranial and postcranial elements are preserved, including neurocrania (skulls A and B), scapulae (specimens 121 to 124, 136, and 137), humeri (specimens 167, 168, and 177), ulnae (specimens 187 and 188), radii (specimens 198 and 199), and hand phalanges (specimens 205'20, 205'25, and 206" 13). In addition, fragile mature bones, such as scapulae and innominate bones, are well represented in the sample (Table 1). This suggests that, despite the extensive fragmentation and attrition of these human remains, conditions of preservation allowed some of the more fragile elements of the skeleton to survive.

(v) Burning of Bone Gorj anovi~-Kramberger (1960, 1909) and many subsequent authors have noted that some of the Krapina human remains were charred and have attributed this to the cooking of humans during cannibalism. However, as noted by Ullrich (1978), only 6"8% of the skull pieces and 0"5% of the postcranial pieces show any evidence of burning (most are darkened only along one margin or surface). The majority of the "burned human bone" from Krapina is in fact non-hominid (Trinkaus, pers. observ.). As noted by Ullrich, the burning of a few human bones was probably unrelated to cannibalism. It could easily have occurred when previously present human bone happened to be adjacent to a hearth. The charring of the human bones probably occurred incidentally to the occupation of the rockshelter and not as part of a systematic eating of those individuals.

(vi) Disassociation oft& Skeletons GorjanovK-Kramberger (1906) noted that the human remains were not found in articulation, but were scattered and mixed with the bones of other mammals in the cultural levels of the rockshelter. This has been interpreted as evidence that the bones were scattered through cannibalism. Given the excavation techniques of Gorjanovi6-Kramberger, it is not possible to determine how widely separated bones or fragments of bones from the same individual may have been. However, it has been possible to reassemble a number of cranial and postcranial pieces (Schaefer, 1964; Trinkaus, 1975;

C A N N I B A L I S M A N D B U R I A L A T K R A P I N A 209

Smith, 1976a, 1982; Wolpoff, pers. comm.; Minugh & Radov~id, in prep.) and to associate maxillary and mandibular dentitions (Wolpoff, 1979), right and left bones from individuals (Trinkaus, 1975, unpubl, data), pedal phalanges (Trinkaus, 1975), and arm bones (Trinkaus, unpubl, data), suggesting that there was considerably more association of bones in partial skeletons than was initially believed. The large number ofjoins that have been made recently suggests that Gorjanovi~-Kramberger perceived the bones as widely scattered and did not look extensively for associations during or subsequent to the excavations. It is therefore no longer possible to ascertain how much disassociation of human skeletal parts existed 'at Krapina. Furthermore, any scattering of the bones that indeed existed could have been produced by a variety of processes, including rockfalls, sedimentary settling of the deposits, the activities of other mammals (especially U. spelaeus and rodents), and human activities (e.g., building hearths) adjacent to buried partial skeletons. Therefore, uncertainties as to the original amount of disassociation of the bones, combined with the variety of processes that could have scattered partial skeletons near the surface, suggest that cannibalism need not be invoked to explain whatever scattering may have existed.

Summary This review of the "evidence" for cannibalism at Krapina makes it evident that none of the damage patterns present in the Krapina Neanderthal sample can be explained solely as a product of cannibalism. Most are normal effects of sediment pressure on bone, and others are the usual results of post-depositional disturbance of the bones by human and animal activity, geological processes, and excavation techniques of the turn-of-the-century. Given the number of explanations for the condition of the Krapina human remains that do not invoke cannibalism and require only the presence of processes known to occur commonly during the deposition, compaction, and excavation of Pleistocene rockshelter deposits, it is best to conclude that there is no evidence for cannibalism at Krapina.

4. The Burial Hypothesis

The rejection of cannibalism as an explanation leaves open the questions of (1) how the Krapina Neanderthals came to be interred in the Hu~njakovo hill rockshelter and (2) how their remains were fragmented.

It has traditionally been assumed (usually implicitly) that the Krapina Neanderthals were left on the surfaces of their cultural levels and interred through subsequent sedimentation in the rockshelter. This is undoubtedly the process whereby most, if not all, Middle Pleistocene and many Upper Pleistocene human specimens became preserved. It is a process, however, which tends to produce biased distributions in skeletal part preservation, since scavengers, subsequent human and animal activity at the site, and weathering take their toll of the remains originally present. Characteristically, this produces a frequency distribution of remaining skeletal parts with relatively abundant cranial, mandibular, and dental remains, a few diaphyses of the larger long bones, and few of the other postcrania (Brain, 1981; Binford, 1981; Potts, 1982). This pattern is present in samples of Pliocene and Lower Pleistocene African hominids, all of which were preserved through non-hominid depositional processes (Oakley et al., 1977; Leakey et al., 1978, Brain, 1981 ). It is evident in the scattered remains of Middle Pleistocene hominids, which occur in

210 E. TRINKAUS

I:igure 1. Cumulat ive percentage graph of min imum number of anatomical units (MNAU: number of bones or bone portions preserved in sample divided by number of that bone or bone portion in a complete skeleton) for the Krapina sample ( ), samples of"bur ied" ( - - ) and "non-buried" ( . . . . . ) Neanderthals, and recent human burial samples ( ). The M N A U percentage for each skeletal element is with respect to the total M N A U for the sample. See Table 1 for the list of skeletal elements, numbered 1 to 39.

I00

g

""'"'" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*'" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . �9 .

I I I . . . . . I 0 . . . . I . . . . . . . . . 2 ~ 1 q I I I o I I I [ ~ 1 i I 5 I I 20 59

Skeletal part

Table 1 Skeletal part representation (numbers of bones or portions thereof) for adolescents and adults from Krapina compared with those of adolescent and adult "Buried" and "Non-Buried" Last Interglacial and Early Last Glacial Neanderthals (sensu lato) and recent human burial samples

Skeletal part Krapina* "Buried"'~ "Non-buried ''+ Recent buriedw

1. Neurocrania 20 12 59 38 68 2. Upper facial 10 14 12 36 50 3. Mandibles t2 10 19 34 64 4. Dentition 175 274 316 747 783

5. Cerv. vertebrae 22 36 3 254 288 6. Thor. vertebrae 12 71 1 452 534 7. Lumb. Vertebrae 21 38 1 193 252 8. Sacra 0 10 1 39 52 9. Ribs 63 138 0 901 993

10. Ctaviculae 10 12 0 81 103 11. Scapulae 13 16 1 78 105 12. Prox. humeri 0 9 2 72 91 13. Humeral shafts 9 22 5 63 129 14. Dist. humeri 13 19 5 73 100 15. Prox. ulnae 7 17 1 71 98 16. Ulnar shafts 4 21 1 46 109 17. Dist. ulnae 0 11 0 74 89 18. Prox. radii 9 13 0 73 94 19. Radial shafts 4 18 1 44 121 20. Dist. radii 0 15 0 77 98 21. Carpals 1 59 0 520 388 22. Metacarpals 4 69 3 416 472 23. Hand phalanges 48 120 0 811 721

CANNIBALISM AND BURIAL AT KRAPINA 211

Table 1-continued

Skeletal part Krapina* "Buried"]" "Non-buried"~. Recent buriedw

24. Innominates 12 t9 1 77 t20 25. Prox_ femora 2 16 0 86 t 13 26. Femoral shafts 14 22 8 66 133 27. Dist. femora 0 11 1 75 98 28. Patellae 15 13 1 68 77 29. Prox. tibiae 0 11 I 66 94 30. Tibial shafts 13 18 2 64 121 31. Dist. tibiae 2 15 0 66 111 32. Prox. fibulae 0 7 0 61 91 33. Fibular shafts 14 20 2 61 104 34. Dist. fibulae 2 15 2 68 96 35. Tall 13 18 2 82 97 36. Calcanei 1 17 0 77 97 37. Ant. tarsals 4 62 0 352 378 38. Metatarsals 12 77 8 390 448 39. Pedal phalanges 32 93 2 584 423

* The Krapina adolescent and adult sample probably contains ca 43 individuals, an estimate determined from the inventory and aging of the dental remains of Wolpoff (1979). This is probably a maximum estimate, since some of the teeth taken to represent single individuals may go into associated dentitions. The sample includes all individuals given an age estimate of 14 or above. Data from personal research, Malez (1971), Smith (t976a), Wolpoff (1979), and Minugh (pets. comm.).

]" The Neanderthal "burial" sample includes adult individuals from the sites of Amud, La Chapelle-aux-Saints, La Feerassie, Kiik-Koba, and Shanidar, plus La Quina 5, Spy 1 and 2, and Tabfin C1. Neanderthal 1 and R~gourdou 1, although undoubtedly burials given their associated ele- ments, were not included due to the obvious biases in skeletal part recovery when discovered, and insufficient data are available for the Saint-C~sairc burial for it to be included. The sample contains the remains of 16 individuals. Data from personal research supplemented by Endo & Kimura (1970), Helm (1982), and McCown & Keith (1939).

++ The Neanderthal "non-burial" sample includes adult and adolescent specimens from the sites of Akshtyr', Angles-sur-l'Anglin, Arcy-sur-Cure, Bau de l'Aubesier, Baume des Peyrards, Bisceglie, Bisitun, Camerota, Caminero, Cariguela, Castelmerle, Chgtteauneuf-sur-Charente, Circeo, Cova Negra, Dzhruchula, Ehringsdorf, Fond-de-Forat, Genay, Gibraltar,

�9 o . . .

Hortus, Kulna, Lebenstedt, Lezetxlkl, Malarnaud, Manllac, La Masque, Monsempron, Montgaudier, La Naulette, Ochoz, Ohaba-Ponor, Pofi, Petit-Puymoyen, La Quina (except La Quina 5), Rozhok, Saccopastore, Saint Brais, Saint Brelade, Sala, Sedia del Diavolo, Spy (isolated metatarsal), Subalyuk, Tabfin Layers C and E (except Tabfin C 1 ), Vindij a, Wildscheuer, and Zuttiyeh. Data from personal research supplemented by Oakley et al. (1971), Lumley (1973), and Wolpoffet al. (1981). The sample probably includes 146 individuals; uncertainties in the number of individuals exists only for the Hortus and Vindija samples.

w The recent human burial samples includes the remains from the southwest Amerindian Pueblo IV sites of Pottery Mound (left column; 49 individuals) and Kuaua (right column; 84 individuals), New Mexico (collections of the Maxwell Museum, University of New Mexico).

212 E. TRINKAUS

both cultural and geological deposits (Oakley et al., 1971, 1975, 1977). It also describes the pattern of preservation in a sample of last interglacial and early last glacial Neanderthal (sensu lato) remains, which were almost certainly not buried (Table 1).* By contrast, Neanderthals that were intentionally buried show preservation of all skeletal elements; the relatively rare elements are the more fragile bones and bone segments and the small bones likely to have been missed using the techniques of early excavations (Table 1). The pattern of preservation seen in the Neanderthal "burial" sample is essentially the same as that seen in skeletal samples from recent human burials (Table 1; Figure 1).

The Krapina adolescent and adult sample (younger individuals are not included in the comparison, due to the fragility and poor preservation of their non-dental remains) shows much greater similarity in skeletal part preservation to the "burial" Neanderthal sample than to the "non-burial" sample. This is apparent in both the raw counts of preserved skeletal elements (Table 1) and in the cumulative percentage graph of their minimum number of anatomical units (MNAU) (Figure 1). The similarities between the Krapina and Neanderthal "burial" samples are evident especially with respect to their abundant preservation of postcrania, including many of the more fragile and small bones, such as vertebrae, ribs, scapulae, phalanges, and innominate bones (Table 1). The Krapina sample shows a dearth of certain epiphyses, but this is to be expected in a sample so fragmented and perhaps incompletely recognized during excavation. The human skeletal part representation at Krapina thus strongly suggests that the remains were protected from extensive destruction soon after death. In addition, the preservation of some of the fragile portions of their crania and postcrania and of fragile immature remains suggests that they were not subjected to extensive destruction. The primary process that could have protected them is rapid burial, especially given the human and non-human activity in the rockshelter and the presence of numerous carnivores at the site.

The rapid interment of the Krapnia Neanderthals could have resulted from a series of rockfalls from the shelter wall. The nature of the Krapina deposits and the fragmentary nature of the fossils make this a reasonable possibility. However, the fact that the Krapina human remains, although fragmented, were not crushed, distorted or extensively abraded makes this explanation less likely. Alternatively, they might have been intentionally buried by other members of their social groups. This would account for the pattern of skeletal part preservation and the relatively fresh condition of the bones. However, it would have to invoke either post-depositional disturbance of the remains and/or pre-depositional partial disarticulation of the bodies by humans to account for their fragmentation and disassociation. It is not possible with currently obtainable data to choose between these alternative forms of burial. Yet, it is possible to conclude that the Krapina human remains

* The distinction between "burial" and "non-burial" status for Pleistocene fossil remains has been made on the basis of whether there was association of skeletal elements in a partial skeleton. Given the likelihood that a Pleistocene human body left on the surface would have been extensively scavanged by carnivores, including many that consume bone (Kurt~n, 1968; Brain, 1981; Straus, 1982), it is only with relatively rapid interment that a body would not be subjected to such scavenging and remain largely in articulation. Additional information, such as the presence of a burial pit [e.g., at La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Bouyssonie et aL, 1908) and La Ferrassie (Peyrony, 1934)], provides confirmation of an intentional burial for a few individuals. However, since all of the intentionally buried Pleistocene humans were interred in cultural levels, the absence of a discernable pit does not indicate the absence of burial.

C A N N I B A L I S M A N D B U R I A L A T K R A P I N A 213

were most likely broken, damaged, and sQmewhat dispersed by geological and biological activities in the rockshelter subsequent to and possibly at the time of burial.

The data are insufficient to determine whether the Krapina Neanderthals were accidentally or intentionally buried, but it would not be surprising if they had been buried by their kin. A number of Neanderthals were intentionally buried, usually in a simple pit in a cultural level (Harrold, 1980). A few of these burials [e.g., R~gourdou 1 (Bonifay & Vandermeersch, 1962; Vandermeersch, 1965), Shanidar 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (Solecki, 1971; Trinkaus, 1983), and possibly Tabfin C1 (McCown & Keith, 1939; Jelinek, 1982, pers. comm.)] date to the early last glacial, contemporaneous with or slightly more recent than the majority of the Krapina specimens. The Krapina Neanderthals could represent one of the oldest, as well as largest, samples of human burials yet known.

5. C o n c l u s i o n

This examination of the evidence for cannibalism among the Krapina Neanderthals should indicate that there are no patterns in the Krapina sample that can be solely interpreted as the products of that practice. Most of the patterns of damage and preservation among the human remains can be easily explained as the products of normal depositional and post-depositional geological and biological processes. Furthermore, the skeletal part preservation pattern of the Krapina Neanderthals suggests that they were rapidly buried by their kin or possibly by rockfalls.

It is possible that there were instances of cannibalism, ritual or dietary, among archaic humans during the Pleistocene. However, as with possible instances of Pleistocene interhuman violence, each case has to be examined carefully and alternative, non-human explanations must first be rejected. Furthermore, even if human modification of the remains in question appears to be the best explanation for the observed pattern, systematic and/or intentional cannibalism and interhuman violence should be invoked only when alternatives have been thoroughly evaluated and rejected.

I would like to thank Dr I. Crnolatac, former Director of the Geolo~ko-Paleontolo~ki Muzej, Zagreb for his hospitality and assistance during my studies of the Krapina remains. In addition, I would like to extend my gratitude to the many individuals who have permitted me to examine original Neanderthal remains in their care, to F. H. Smith, M. H. Wolpoff, and N. Minugh for sharing their findings on the Krapina sample with me, M. Petraglia for the collection of the Pottery Mound and Kuaua data, and L. R. Binford, E. Ingbar, G. Burgett, K. Maurer Trinkaus and especially N. Minugh for their helpful comments during the preparation of this paper. This work has been supported, in part, by Wenner-Gren grant 2927 and NSF grants BNS76-14344 and BNS-8004578.

References Alexeev, V. P. (1979). Horizontal profile of the Neanderthal crania from Krapina comparatively compared.

Collegium Anthropologicum 3, 7-13. Behrensmeyer, A. K. & Hill, A. P. (Editors). (1980). Fossils in the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bergounioux, F. M. (1958). "SpiritualitC' de l'homme de N~andertal. In (G. H. R. yon Koenigswatd, Ed.)

HundertJahre Neanderthaler, pp. 151-166. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon N.V. Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones. New York: Academic Press. Bonifay, E., & Vandermeersch, B. (1962). D6p6ts rituels d'ossements d'ours dans le gisement moust~rien du

R~gourdou (Montignac, Dordogne). Comptes rendus de l'Acadgmie des Sciences, Paris 255D, 1635-1636.

214 E. TRINKAUS

Boule, M. (1921). Les Hommes Fossiles. Paris: Masson. Bouyssonie, A., Bouyssonie, J. & Bardon, L. (1908). Dficouverte d'un squelette humain moust~rien ~ La

Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corr~ze). Comptes rendus de l'A caddmie des Sciences, Paris 147, 1414-1415. Brain, C. K. (1976). Some principles in the interpretation of bone accumulations associated with man. In (G. L.

Isaac & E. R. McCown, Eds.) Human Origins, pp. 97 116. Menlo Park: W. A. Benjamin. Brain, C. K. (1981). The Hunters or the Hunted. ) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bunn, H. T. (198t). Archaeological evidence for meat-eating by Plio-Pleistocene hominids fi'om Koobi Fora and

Olduvai Gorge. Nature 291,574-577. Burian, Z. & Wolf, J. (1978). The Dawn of Man. New York: Abrams. Campbell, B. G. (1982). Humankind Emerging, 3rd Ed. Boston: Little, Brown. Cole, J. M. & Higgs, E. S. (1969). The Archaeology of Early Man. London: Penguin. Coon, C. S. (1962). The Origin of Races New York: Knopf. Courville, C. B. (1950). Cranial injuries in prehistoric man with particular reference to the Neanderthals. Yearbook

of Physical Anthropology 6, 185 205. Dart, R. A. (1958). The osteodontokeratic culture of Australopithecus prometheus. Transvaal Museum Memoirs 10. Day, M. H. (1977). Guide to Fossil Man, 3rd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Deb6nath, A., & Duport, L. (1971). Os travaill~s et os utilis~s de quelques gisements pr~historiques Charentais

(Palfiolithique ancien et moyen). Bulletin et M&wires de la Socidtd Archgologique et Historique de la Charente 1971, 189-202.

Endo, B. & Kimura, T. (1970). Postcranial skeleton of the Amud man. In (H. Suzuki & F. Takai, Eds.) TheAmud Man and his Cave Site, pp. 231-406. Tokyo: Academic Press of Japan.

Gifford, D. P., Isaac, G. L. & Nelson, C. M. ( 1981 ). Evidence for predation and pastoralism at Prolonged Drift: A pastoral Neolithic site in Kenya. Azania 15, 57-108.

Gorjanovi~-Kramberger, D. (1906). Der Diluviale Mensch yon Krapina in Kroatien. Wiesbaden: C. W. Kreidel Verlag.

Gorjanovi~-Kramberger, D. (1909). Pra~ovjek iz Krapine kanibal. Glasnik hrvatskog prirodoslovnog dru~tva 21, 62-67.

Gorjanovi&Kramberger, D. ( 1913). Pivot i kultura diluvijalnoga &vjeka iz Krapine u Hrvatskog. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti.

Guenther, E. W. (1959). Zur Altersdatierung der diluvialen Fundstelle yon Krapina in Kroatien. Deutschen Gesellschaft f i r Anthropologie 6, 202-209.

Guth, C. (1978). Contribution des N4anderthaliens de Krapina ~. la connaissance de la r~gion temporale et plus spficialemeut du tympanal. In (M. Malez, Ed.) Krapinski Pradovjek i Evolucija Hominida, pp. 193-212. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti.

Harrold, F. B. (1980). A comparative analysis of Eurasian Palaeolithic burials. World Archaeology 12, 195-211. Heim, J.-L. (1982). Les Hommes Fossiles de La Ferrassie II. Archives de l'Institut de Paldontologie Humaine 38, I-272. Hooton, E. A. (1931). Up.from the Ape. New York: Macmillan. Howell, F. C. (1965). Early Man. New York: Time-Life Books. Howells, W. W. (1944). Mankind so Far. Garden City: Doubleday, Doran and Co. Howells, W. W. (1967). Mankind in the Making, 2nd Ed. Garden City: Doubleday. Hrdli~ka, A. (1930). The Skeletal Remains of Early Man. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 83, 1-379. Jacob, T. (1972). The problem of head-hunting and brain-eating among the Pleistocene man of Indonesia.

Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 7, 81-91. Jelinek, A. J. (1982). The Tabun Cave and Paleolithic man in the Levant. Science 216, 1369 1375. Kallay, J. (1959). Dentale anthropologie und Neandertal problem. Deutschen Gesellschaft f i r Anthropologie 6,

191-202. Kallay, J. (1970a). Komparativne napomene o ~eljustima Krapinskih praljudis obzirom na polo~aj medu

Hominida. In (M. Malez, Ed.) Krapina 1899-1969, pp. 153-164. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti.

Kallay, J. (1970b). Osobitosti zubi Krapinskih Neandertalaca. In (M. Malez, Ed.) Krapina 1899-1969, pp. 165-176. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti.

Kennedy, G. E. (1980). Paleoanthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kennedy, K. A. R. (i975). Neanderthal Man. Minneapolis: Burgess. Keith, A. (1915). Antiquity of Man. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott. Klein, R. G. (1980). The interpretation of mammalian faunas from stone-age archeological sites, with special

reference to sites in the Southern Cape Province, South Africa. In (A. K. Behrensmeyer & A. P. Hill, Eds). Fossils in the Making, pp. 223-246. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kurt6n, B. (1968). Pleistocene Mammals of Europe. Chicago: Aldine. Leakey, R. E., Leakey, M. G. & Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1978). The hominid catalogue. In (M. G. Leakey & R. E.

Leakey, Eds) Koobi Fora Research Project 1: The fossil hominids and an introduction to their context, 1968-1974. pp. 86-182. Oxford: O.U.P.

LeGros Clark, W. E. (1955). The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

C A N N I B A L I S M A N D B U R I A L A T K R A P I N A 215

M. A. de Lumley, (1973). Les Antfinaandertatiens et Naandertaliens du bassin mediterran6en occidental europ6en. Etudes Quaternaries 2, 1-626.

MacCurdy, G. G. (1932). The Coming of Man. New York: University Society. Matez, M. (1970a). Novi pogledi na stratigrafiju Krapinskog nalazi~ta. In (M. Malez, Ed.) Krapina 1899-1969, pp.

13-44. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Malez, M. (1970b). Rezultati revizije Pleistocenske faune iz Krapine. In (M. Malez, Ed.) Krapina 1899-1969, pp.

45-56. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Malez, M. (1970c). Paleolitska kultura Krapine u svjetlu novjih istrazivanja, In (M. Malez, Ed.) Krapina

189!,~ pp. 57-129. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Malez, M. (1971). Yugoslavia. In (K. P. Oakley, B. G. Campbell, & T. I. Molleson, Eds) Catalogue of Fossil

Hominids H, pp. 337-343. London: British Museum (Natural History). Malez, M. (1978). Stratigrafski, palenfaunski i paleolitski odnosi Krapinskog nalazi~ta. In (M. Maiez, Ed.)

Krapi~a Pra(ovjek i Evolucija Hominida, pp. 61-102. Zagreb: Jugoslavcnska akademija znanosti i umietnosti. Martin H. (1907). Presentation de quelques ossments utilis6s de l'6poque moustfirienne. Bulletin de la Socigtd

Prlhistorique Franfaise 4, 269-277. Martin, H. (1908). Etude anatomique de la r6gion tibiotarsienne du Renne et recherches sur la dfisarticulation

lYpoque moust~rienne. Congr~s Prdhistorique de France, Autun 3, 203-223. Martin, H. (1909). D6sarticulations de quelques r~gions chez les ruminants et le chevai 5_ l'~poque moust~rienne.

Bulletin de la Soci(tg PrghistoY~que Franfaise 6, 303-310. Martin, H. (1910). La percussion osseuse et les esquilles qui en derivent. Experimentation. Bulletin de la Socigtg

Prghistorique Franfaise 7, 299-304. McCown, T. D. & Keith, A. (1939). The Stone Age of Mount Carmel H. Oxtbrd: Clarendon Press. Minugh, N. S. & Radov~id, J. (in prep.). New reconstructions of six major specimens from Krapina, Croatia,

Jugoslavia. Musgrave, J. H. (1977). The Neandertals from Krapina, northern Yugoslavia: An inventory of the hand bones.

Zeitschrift f i r Morphologie und Anthropologie 68, 150-171. Oakley, K. P., Campbell, B. G. & Molleson, T. I. (Eds) (1971). Catalogue of Fossil Hominids H. London: British

Museum (Natural History). Oakley, K. P., Campbell, B. G. & Molleson, T. I. (Eds) (1975). Catalogue of Fossil Hominids III. London: British

Museum (Natural History). Oakley, K. P., Campbell, B. G. & Molleson, T. I. (Eds) (1977). Catalogue of Fossil Hominids I, 2nd Ed. London:

British Museum (Natural History). Osborn, H. F. (1928). Man Rises to Parnassus. Princeton: Princeton University Press. O~egovi~, F. (1958). Die Bedeutung der Entdeckung des Diluvialen Menschen von Krapina in Kroatien. In

(G. H. R. von Keonigswald, Ed.) HundertJahre Neanderthaler, pp. 27-31. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, N.V. Peyrony, D. (1934). La Ferrassie. Moust~rien P~rigordien--Aurignacien. PrJhistoire 3, I 92. Potts, R. B. (1982). Lower Pleistocene site formation and hominid activities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Ph.D.

Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University. Potts, R. B. & Shipman, P. (1981). Cutmarks made by stone tools on bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Nature

291,577-580. Roper, M. K. (1969). A survey of the evidence for intrahuman human killing in the Pleistocene. Current

Anthropology 10, 427-459. Schaefer, U. (t964). Homo Neanderthatensis (King) II. E-sch/idel-fragment 1, frontale F1 und torus fragment

37,2 von Krapina. ZeitschriJ~fi~r Morphologie und Anthropologie 54, 260-271. Shipman, P. (1983). Early hominid lifestyle: hunting and gathering or foraging and scavenging? In

(l. Clutton-Brock & C. Grigson, Eds) Animals and Archaeology: l. Hunters and their Prey, S163, 31-49. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Shipman, P. & Rose, J. (1983). Early hominid hunting, butchering, and carcass-processing behaviors: Approaches to the fossil record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 57-98.

Skerlj, B. (1939). Kannibalismus im Ahpalaolithikum? Qugztar 2, 108-119. Smith, F. H. (1976a). The Neandertal Remains ti'om Krapina. Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of Tennessee, Report of

Investigations 15, 1-359. Smith, F. H. (1976b). The Neandertal remains from Krapina, northern Yugoslavia: An inventory of the upper

limb remains. Zeitschrift fiLr Morphologie und Anthropologie 67, 275-290. Smith, F. H. (1978). Some conclusions regarding the morphology and significance of the Krapina Neandertal

remains. In (M. Malez, Ed.) Krapinski Pra{ovjek i Evolucija Hominida, pp. 103-118. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjemosti.

Smith, F. H. (1982). Upper Pleistocene hominid evolution in south-central Europe: A review of the evidence and analysis of trends. Current Anthropology 23, 667-703.

Solccki, R. S. (1971). Shanidar, thefrstj'lower people. New York: Knopf. Sollas, W.J. (1924). Ancient Hunters, 3rd Ed. New York: Macmillan. Straus, L. G. (1982). Carnivores and cave sites in Cantabrian Spain. Journal of Anthropological Research 38, 75-96.

216

Tomi&Karovid, K. (1970). Krapingki Neandertalac i Kanibalizam. In (M. Malez, Ed.) Krapina 1899-1969, pp. 183-187. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjemosti.

Trinkaus, E. (1975). The Neandertals from Krapina, northern Yugoslavia: An inventory of the lower limb remains. Zeitschrift fi~r Morphologie und Anthropologie 67, 44-59.

Trinkaus, E. (1978). Functional implications of the Krapina Neandertal lower limb remains. In (M. Malez, Ed.) Krapinski Pra~ovjek i Evolucija Hominida, pp. t55-192. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti.

Trinkaus, E. (1983). The Shanidar Neandertals. New York: Academic Press. Ullrich, H. (1978). Kannibalismus und Leichenzerstuckelung beim Neandertaler von Krapina. In (M. Malez,

Ed.) Krapinski Pra(ovjek i Evolucija Hominida, pp. 293-318. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti.

Vallois, H. V. (1961). The social life of early man: The evidence of skeletons. In (S. L. Washburn, Ed.) The Social Life of Early Man, pp. 214-235. Chicago: Aldine.

Vandermeersch, B. (1965). Position stratigraphique et chronologique relative des restes humains du Pal~olithique moyen du Sud-Ouest de la France. Annales de Palgontologie (Vertgbrgs) 51, 69 126.

Vandermeersch, B. (1980). Circonscription de Poitou-Charentes. Gallia Prghistoire 23, 301-316. Wolpoff, M. H. (1978). The dental remains from Krapina. In (M. Malez, Ed.) Krapina Pragovjek i Evolucija

Hominida, pp. 119-144. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Wolpoff, M. H (1979). The Krapina dental remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 50, 67-114. Wolpoff, M. H. (1980). Paleoanthropology. New York: Knopf. Wolpoff, M. H., Smith, F. H., Malez, M., Radov~id, J. & Rukavina, D. (1981). Upper Pleistocene human

remains from Vindija Cave, Croatia, Yugoslavia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 54, 499-545. Wymer..J. (1982). The Palaeolithic Age. New York: St Martin's Press.