AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 72:381-397 (1987) Mortuary Practices at the Krapina Neandertal Site MARY D. RUSSELL Department of Anthropology, Case Western Reserve Uniuersity, Cleveland, Ohio 44106 Neandertals, Krapina, Taphonomy, Cutmarks, KEY WORDS Cannibalism, Burial ABSTRACT It has often been reported that the Krapina Neandertal remains bear incised linear striations which appear to be cutmarks. Here, the plausibility of the striations as cutmarks is tested by comparing them to Mousterian butchery marks on large fauna and to cutmarks on modern human skeletons known to have been defleshed with stone tools. The anatomical location, gross appearance, and frequency of occurrence of the striations on the Krapina material do not resemble Mousterian butchery marks on reindeer. The Krapina striations do closely match authenticated cutmarks on 22 modern human skeletons defleshed with stone tools after partial decomposition, preparatory to secondary burial. Data are presented supporting the hypothesis that the striations on the Krapina Neandertal remains are consistent with postmortem processing of corpses with stone tools, probably in preparation for burial of cleaned bones. The HuSnjakovo rock shelter, in the hills above the Croatian town of KraDina, was excavated between 1899 and 1905 by D: Gorjanovic-Kramberger after hominid remains and Middle Paleolithic stone tools were discovered in the Pleistocene layers of the site (GorjanoviC-Kramberger, 1899, 1906, 1913; Malez, 1970a; Russell, n.d.). The hominid material was first identified as Homo sapiens by GorjanoviC-Kramberger in his unpublished excavation diary for the year 1899l (Gorjanovic-Kramberger, 19011, although he classified the sample as Homo primigenius var. Krapinensis in his 1906 monograph on the Krapina hominids. Skerlj (1953) proposed the name Homo neanderthalensis uar. Krapinensis. The Krapina hominids are now considered a sample of a n archaic European population of Homo sapiens, informally called Neandertals (Campbell, 1964; Brace, 1962, 1964; Trinkaus, 1975, 1985; Smith, 1976; Day, 1977; Wolpoff, 1979, 1980). The bulk of the hominid sample a t Krapina dates to the last interglacial and the early last glacial, although some specimens may be later (Malez, 1970b,c). The Krapina site yielded the largest hominid sample ever recovered from a single site. Forty-three adults and adolescents as well as 0 1987 ALAN R. LISS, INC several juveniles under 14 years of age (Trinkaus, 1985) are represented by over 650 hominid bone specimens, while as many as 75 to 82 individuals are represented by 282 teeth (Wolpoff, 1979). The very fragmentary and damaged condition of the Krapina remains has traditionally been explained as evidence of a n intertribal conflict over hunting territory, ending with a cannibalistic feast in which human flesh, brains, and marrow were consumed (GorjanoviC-Kramberger, 1906; 1909a,b; Klaatsch, 1923). The Krapina cannibalism scenario is found in a number of anthropological text books and articles, to be disputed or reckoned with, if not accepted whole-heartedly (Keith, 1915; Boule, 1921; Klaatsch, 1923; Sollas, 1924; HrdliEka, 1930; MacCurdy, 1932; Skerlj, 1939; Courville, 1950; OiegoviC, 1958; Bergounioux, 1958; Vallois, 1961; Coon, 1962; Howell, 1965; Cole and Higgs, 1969; Roper, 1969; TomiC-Karovic, 1970; Smith, 1976; Ullrich, 1978; Burian and Wolf, 1978; Kennedy, 1980; LeMort, Received April 4,1986; revision accepted September 10, 1986 'This may be the earliest written attribution of Neandertal remains to Homo sapaens. Gorjanovie-Kramberger's unpublished field diaries are available for inspection a t the GeoloSkoPaleotoloski Muzej, Demetrova Ulica 1,Zagreb, Yugoslavia. 382 M.D. RUSSELL 1981; Binford, 1981; Campbell, 1982; Wymer, 1982; Trinkaus, 1985; Russell, 1987). A number of workers have noted the presence of incised linear striations on many of the hominid bone specimens from Krapina (Smith, 1976; Ullrich, 1978; LeMort, 1981; Trinkaus, 1985; Russell and LeMort, 1986). These striations have most commonly been interpreted as cutmarks (Smith, 1976; U11rich, 1978; LeMort, 1981; Russell and LeMort, 1986). Smith (1976) pointed out that cutmarks would be consistent with the cannibalism hypothesis, to the extent that they were evidence of post-mortem processing of hominid remains with stone tools. Ullrich (1978) asserted that the striations were definitely butchery marks made during defleshing of corpses by cannibals. Following Gorjanovik-Kramberger (1906b), Ullrich (1978) offered a scenario in which every aspect of the Krapina hominid collection’s physical condition was explained as evidence of cannibalistic activities (off-site selection and dismemberment of body parts for transportation to the rock shelter, disjointing, filleting, and marrow and brain extractionlz. Recently, a detailed refutation of the scenario was provided by Trinkaus (1985) who offered disproof of many elements of the cannibalism hypothesis. For example, the extraordinarily fragmented condition of the hominid remains was explained as the combined result of sedimentary pressure, prehistoric rock falls within the cave and excavation damage; no evidence was found of the kind of hammer blows considered diagnostic of human marrow extraction techniques (Trinkaus, 1985; Russell, 1986). Trinkaus (1985)hypothesized that the preservation pattern at Krapina was consistent with burial of the corpses. This hypothesis was supported by comparing the preservation pattern of 39 skeletal elements a t Krapina to preservation patterns observed a t other Neandertal sites and a t recent burial sites. In brief, evidence was presented demonstrating that relatively fragile and/or small bones such as scapulae, cervical vertebrae, phalanges, and innominates were overrepresented a t Krapina, relative to the preservation patterns seen in unburied hominids of equivalent geological age (Trinkaus, 1985). However, the significance of the striations observable on the Krapina hominid material remains a n open question. Ullrich’s (1978) claim that nearly 160 Krapina hominid bones bear cutmarks made during filleting has not been examined on a specimen by specimen basis. In recent years, however, it has been demonstrated that incised striations which appear grossly to be cutmarks can be produced by nonhuman taphonomic agents (Binford, 1981; Bunn, 1981, 1982; Shipman 1981a,b; Shipman and Rose, 1983, 1984; Potts and Shipman, 1981; Potts, 1982). For that reason, Trinkaus questioned the authenticity of the putative Krapina cutmarks in general, although he conceded that some of the striations could indeed be toolmarks (Trinkaus, 1985). If some of the striations on the Krapina remains are authentic defleshing marks, the motive for defleshing remains open for discussion. To date, the Krapina striations have been interpreted only within the context of the cannibalism scenario (Smith, 1976; U11rich, 1978; LeMort, 1981; Trinkaus, 1985). Verified ritual or gastronomic cannibalism (as opposed to survival cannibalism occurring during episodes of starvation) is relatively rare in the ethnographic record (Brown and k i n , 1983) and its very reality has been questioned (Arens, 1979; cf. Brady, 1982). In contrast, defleshing human skeletons preparatory to secondary burial is a welldocumented and widespread mortuary practice (Hertz, 1907; Haddon, 1908; Lopatin, 1960; Driver, 1961; Meyers, 1971; Wagner, 1972; Alexiou, 1974; k i n , 1975; Crocker, 1977; Huntington and Metcalf, 1979). Thus, in view of evidence for burial a t Krapina (Trinkaus, 1985), a reasonable alternative hypothesis is that genuine cutmarks on the Krapina remains may be the result of defleshing preparatory to burial of cleaned bones. Consideration of the Krapina striations is hampered by several problems. First, there is no complete description of the striations. Smith (1976) and LeMort (1981) provided detailed anatomical descriptions of the striations observable on the cranial material, but neither considered postcranial striations. Ullrich (1978) provided line drawings of the striations observed on 17 postcranial speci- ‘Earlier discussions of the Krapina cannibalism scenario often include references to burnt hominid hone as evidence of cooking (see esp. Tomic-KaroviC, 1970). When GorjanoviC-Kramherger reexamined the burnt specimens in the 1920s, he recognized that many of the burnt specimens were in fact faunal hone. (J.Radovfit, pers, comm.). A few of the Krapina hominid specimens do appear to have been scorched (LeMort, 1981, far a detailed discussion). No living author considers fire to have been a significant taphonomic agent a t Krapina. 383 MORTUARY PRACTICES IN KRAPINA NEANDERTALS TABLE 1. Results of a microscopic examination of the surface of Krapina hominid postcranial specimens for prehistoric incised striations which appear to be cutmarks' N Striations reported by Ullrich, '78 N % Vertebrae Claviculae 64 17 0 15 0 88 0 8 48 Scapulae 19 13 68 9 47 Humeri 24 12 50 11 46 Ulnae Radii 0 s coxae Femora 10 12 13 9 3 1 9 6 30 8 69 67 2 0 2 6 20 0 15 67 Patellae Tibiae Fibulae 15 10 14 13 9 12 87 90 86 4 2 7 27 20 50 Unidentified shaft frag. 15 4 27 Skeletal element With prehistoric striations N Specimens with prehistoric striations % ~ 0 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 150, 155,158 121, 123, 125, 128. 130. 131. 132.136.139 ,---, 1641165, 169, 171,172,173, 174, 175 176, "257.25. "257.29/30 187,188 ~~~ 207,211 214, "257.2, *257.9, "257.21, "257.23, "257.24 215.1, 215.2, 215.3, 216.1 "257.16, "257.27 "227, "228, 229, 230, "232, *233.234 *257.4, "257.6, "257.12, *257.14 'For comparison, Ullrich's (1978) reported frequencies are provided. *Indicates exact anatomical position of fragment is unknown; striations on these specimens are not illustrated in the figures mens but did not document his claim that 102 other postcranial specimens bear cutmarks. Secondly, as noted above, no attempt has been made to distinguish genuine cutmarks from grossly similar linear striations made by nonhuman taphonomic agents. Thirdly, the plausibility of the Krapina striations as defleshing marks has been asserted (Ullrich, 1978) and denied (Trinkaus, 1985),but it has never been tested by comparing the Krapina striations to the cutmarks that occur on butchered fauna or on human bones known to have been defleshed with stone tools. The purposes of this paper are to provide a n inventory of the prehistoric incised linear striations on the Krapina postcrania and to report the results of tests of hypotheses regarding the significance of those striations. The first hypothesis is that the Krapina striations are butchery marks made by cannibals who treated the hominid corpses like other meat-bearing species. The rival hypothesis is that the Krapina striations are defleshing marks made by hominids, preparatory to burial of cleaned bones. To test these hypotheses, the anatomical location, gross appearance, and frequency of prehistoric lin- TABLE 2. Skeletons from the F l l ossuary at the Juntunen, Michigan Late Woodland site used in this analysis (n = 22) Burial No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 13 13a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26127 28 31 UMMA No. 41239 41240 41241 41242 41243 41244 41245 41246 41247 41248 41250 41250a 41251 41252 41253 41254 41255 41256 41257 41262 41263 41266 Sex M F - Age Young adult Adult Adult Adult Young adult Old adult Young adult 3-5 Years 3-5 Years Inf Adult Inf/fetus Young Adult Inf Inf 6-8 years 3-5 years Old adult 4-5 years Adult Adult Infifetus Burial No., field No. of individual skeleton UMMA, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology acquisition No. Sex and age assigned by Wilkinson, 1971. 384 M.D. RUSSELL ear striations on the Krapina hominid remains were compared to published reports describing cutmarks on large game animals from the Mousterian site of Combe Grenal and to cutmarks on defleshed human skeletons from a Late Woodland secondary burial ossuary a t Juntunen, Michigan. The null hypothesis for both experimental hypotheses is that the Krapina striations are meaningless, random sedimentary scratches accumulated by the bones since deposition. INVENTORY OF THE PREHISTORIC STRIATIONS ON THE KRAPINA NEANDERTAL POSTCRANIA Materials and methods The surfaces of all hominid postcranial specimens recovered from the Krapina site were examined under magnification for the presence of incised linear striations. These hominid bones are estimated to have spent from 50,000 to 100,000years in a Pleistocene rock shelter characterized by sandstone and TABLE 3. Fifty-two Krapina hominid specimens preserving anatomical regions most likely to bear euidence of butchery if hominid corpses were disjointed as reindeer carcasses were during the Mousterian Category Specimen numbers 209/212, 207,208 0 s coxae preserving all or most of acetabular rim (n = 3) 0 s coxae preserving portion of acetabulum (n = 4) Femora ureservinn - head (n = 2) Scapulae preserving all or most of glenoid fossa (n = 11) Scapula preserving portion of glenoid fossa (n = 1) Humeri preserving distal articulation and joint capsule region (n = 14) Ulnae preserving olecranon process (n = 2) Ulnae preserving coronoid process (n = 71 Radii preserving all or most of capitulum (n = 8) Radius preserving portion of capitulum (n = 1) 255.1,255.2, 255.4,255.7 213,214 21,123,125,126,127,129, 130,131,132,133,139 34 59,160,161,162,164,165, 166,169,170,171,172,175, 176.178 181,is3 179,180,181,182,183,184, 185 189,190,191,192,193,194, 196,197 195 TABLE 4. A comparison of the frequency ofprehistoric linear striations on the Krapina hominid postcrania to the frequency of cutmarks found on the Juntunen skeletons and on the Combe Grenal reindeer Krapina Juntunen Anatomical part N Ns N Calviculae Scapulae Humeri Ulnae Radii Radio-ulnae 0 s Coxae Femora Tibiae Fibulae Total 17 19 24 10 12 13 9 10 14 128 8 Ncm Combe Grenal N Ncm x2 Krapina x2 Juntunen vs. Juntunen vs. Combe Grenal vs. Combe Grenal 0.6846 0.0049 4.7414" 7.2805* - 25 34 37 38 36 15 15 13 14 11 - - - - O.OO1l' 37 44 35 24 310 11 16 7 2 104 4 3 - 2 6 2 7 48 64 7 41 59 1.0289 1 0 0 241 20 4.7037" 0.6243 0.6743 0.6593' 20.2324" 6.0851'" 4.9542* 6.2168" 15.5174* 0.5039 15.2661* 12.7982" 47.0984 49.3356 9 11 2 0 44 26 - 9 3 0.7005 1.0059 4.7568" Ns, number with striations; Ncm, number with cutmarks *p < -05 or less; ", corrected for small cell size. c2 x2 Krapina - MORTUARY PRACTICES IN KRAPINA NEANDERTALS conglomerate rocks (Gorjanovik-Kramberger, 1906; Guenther, 1959; Malez, 1970a,b,c).The site was exploited in historic times as a source of building materials piror to excavation early in the century (Barik, 1978; Russell, this volume). Dynamite, picks and shovels were used during excavation and account for a significant amount of damage to the Neandertal remains. Nearly all the Krapina material was perserved with shellac. Toolmarks can be most reliably distinguished from grossly similar marks produced by nonhuman agents by inspecting high resolution polymer casts of the striations’ microscopic morphology under a scanning electron microscope (Potts and Shipman, 1981; Shipman, 1981a,b; Shipman and Rose, 1983). However, the production of bone surface casts for SEM analysis requires a scrupulously clean surface, free of all preservatives, dirt, and contaminants (Rose, 1983). Attempts by the author and J. RadovEiC to remove the 80year-old shellac on the Krapina material failed, and thus SEM inspection of the material was precluded. Since shellac preservation of the Krapina bones made SEM analysis of the striations on the material impossible, light microscopy was used to inspect all bone surfaces. During this study, light microscopy at x 10 to x 40 magnification was found adequate for distinguishing incised linear striations from brush marks in shellac, vascular grooves, and some forms of vertebrate gnaw marks (conical pitting or gashes leading from such pits). Light microscopy was also useful for distinguishing between prehistoric linear striations and recent scratches that probably 385 occurred during quarrying a t the turn of the century and during excavation (Russell, this volume). Striations on the Krapina hominid material were considered to be prehistoric if they contained embedded matrix visible under magnification andlor if they had aged to the same color and condition as the surrounding bone surface. A striation was judged to be recent if it cut through matrix and/or if the incision cut through a n old and darkened surface into clean, light-colored bone. Reliability of observations was checked by repeating the microscopic inspection of the collection after a 1-month interval. During the second inspection, three specimens were added to the tally of specimens with prehistoric striations and two removed. Observations were consistent for all other specimens. The results reported below are based on the second tally. During microscopic inspection of the material, the anatomical location, orientation, and length of all prehistoric incised linear striations were mapped onto line drawings of each skeletal element. These striation maps were later used in comparisons of the Krapina striations to reported butchery marks on the Combe Grenal faunal sample and to defleshing marks on the Juntunen human sample as will be discussed below. Results Table 1 summarizes the results of the microscopic inspection of the surface of Krapina hominid postcrania for prehistoric incised linear striations. For comparison, “cutmark” tallies published by Ullrich (1978) are also Fig. 1. Composite drawing of marked claviculae from Krapina and Juntunen. In this figure and all others, hold lines with adjacent numbers represent Krapina striations and specimen numbers; fine lines represent Juntunen cutmarks (asterisk indicates SEM confirmed cutmark). Note that individual Krapina specimens often bear striations in more than one region of the hone; individual Juntunen specimens also bear cutmarks in several locations. 386 M.D. RUSSELL provided in Table 1. Fifty-six specimens had incised striations meeting the criteria used to distinguish prehistoric from recent scratches and from other grossly similar surface morphology (blood vessel tracks, etc.). No striations showed any gross or microscopic signs of healing; all striations on the specimens listed in Table 1 may be considered post-mortem. Discussion The frequency of prehistoric linear striations found by the author after microscopic inspection of the Krapina postcrania differs from similar frequencies reported by Ullrich (1978) after a naked-eye inspection of the gross appearance of the same material. There are significant differences in the frequency with which striations were found on claviculae (x2 = 6.5850, p < .02), 0s coxae (x 2 = 7.7212, p < .Ol), patellae (x 2 = 8.6878, corrected for small cell size (Blalock, 1972),p < .01) > and tibiae (x 2 = 9.6182, corrected for small cell size, p < .01). There is, however, close agreement on the frequency with which vertebrae, scapulae, humeri, ulnae, radii, and femora are marked. The difference in the number of marked fibulae found is not significant if x 2 is corrected for small cell size. For all comparisons, Ullrich’s estimates of the number of specimens bearing cutmarks are higher than the number of bones found to bear prehistoric striations during microscopic examination. It is difficult to make detailed, specimenby-specimen comparisons of this assessment and Ullrich’s (1978) because he provided neither a complete inventory nor explicit criteria for identifying cutmarks. However, in some cases, clear differences in interpretation of individual specimens can be identified. For example, Humerus 159, Radius 189, and Tibia 217 were seen by Ullrich a s bearing extensive evidence of hominid butchery activities. Humerus 159 is marked by a large number of conical pits and short gashes leading from such pits but has no linear striations meeting the criteria used here. Both Radius 189 and Tibia 217 are diaphyseal splinters having the scalloped edges, conical pitting and short transverse gashes characteristically produced by carnivores gnawing on long bone shafts (Hill, 1976,1980; Binford, 1978,1981). I consider these three specimens likely to have been damaged by nonhuman vertebrates. Similarly, Patellae 216.2, 216.3, 216.4, and 216.7 appear to bear conical tooth marks rather than striations that might be cutmarks. Other differences in interpretation can probably be attributed to the use of magnification to test naked-eye assessments of surface damage. For example, Ullrich stated that 12 of the 14 fibulae bear cutmarks. However, the Krapina fibulae have a large number of short transverse vascular grooves which grossly resemble scratches but which are obviously vascular when examined under magnification. Taking this into consideration reduces the number of marked fibulae to seven. In summary, the frequency of genuine prehistoric striations on the Krapina postcrania is lower than a previously published estimate (Ullrich. 1978) based on gross examination of the material. My independent assessment agrees closely with Ullrich’s on the frequency of prehistoric striations on six of ten skeletal elements. Significant differences in judgments regarding the number of specimens bearing striations in the other four skeletal element groups are probably due to differences in method, resulting in a more conservative tally in this study. In addition, animal damage, which has not taken into consideration by Ullrich (1978), appears to account for a small portion of the surface damage in the Krapina hominid collection. TESTS O F HYPOTHESES REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE KRAPINA STRIATIONS Three hypotheses regarding the significance of the prehistoric linear striations on the Krapina hominid material were tested. The butchery hypothesis states that the striations on the Krapina hominid postcrania are butchery marks made by cannibals who treated the hominid corpses like other meat-bearing species (Ullrich, 1978). The secondary burial hypothesis states that the Krapina striations are defleshing marks made by hominids preparing to bury the cleaned bones. The null hypothesis is that the striations are meaningless sedimentary scratches. During butchery, the goal of the activity is removal of meat. The tool-user presumably tries to remove as much meat as possible but a t the same time tries to avoid nicking or slashing the underlying bone, which would dull the blade during the butchery process. In preparing skeletons for secondary burial, the goal of the activity is a thoroughly cleaned bone. If the tool-user takes care to remove all remnants of soft tissue from the bone, the likelihood of leaving cutmarks probably increases, especially for bones with complex shapes like the scapula. MORTUARY PRACTICES IN KRAPINA NEANDERTALS To test these hypotheses, prehistoric striations on the Krapina hominid postcrania, Mousterian butchery marks on large game animals from Combe Grenal and cutmarks on modern human skeletons from a secondary burial ossuary a t Juntunen, Michigan were compared. The following predictions were made. 1) It was predicted that bones cleaned for secondary burial would bear significantly 387 more cutmarks than bones butchered for meat. That is, the Juntunen skeletons were expected to bear more cutmarks than the Combe Grenal bones. 2) It was predicted that if the Krapina hominids were cleaned for secondary burial, the frequency of striations would be similar to the frequency of cutmarks on the Juntunen bones and high compared to the Combe Grenal sample. Conversely, if the Krapina Fig. 2. Composite drawing of marked scapulae from Krapina and Juntunen. Large drawings: Krapina; small drawings: Juntunen. As with the claviculae, individual scapulae often bear multiple striations. The Krapina and Juntunen specimens resemble the Combe Grenal scapulae in having concentrations of striations near the glenoid regions, but at Combe Grenal, the joint capsule is ringed with cuts. 388 M.D. RUSSELL bones were defleshed for meat, the frequency of the striations would be similar to that of the cutmarks on the Combe Grenal bones and low compared to the Juntunen sample. 3) If the Krapina remains were treated as the Juntunen skeletons were, it was expected that the gross appearance, anatomical location and orientation of the Krapina striations would resemble those on the Juntunen sample. Conversely, if the Krapina hominids were butchered for meat, the locations and gross appearance of the striations would resemble cutmarks on the Combe Grenal sample in regions of comparable anatomy. 4)The null hypothesis would be supported if the frequency, gross appearance, and anatomical location of the Krapina striations did not resemble cutmarks on either butchered game animals or defleshed human skeletons and if no consistent pattern of striation placement or appearance were detected in any bone class. Materials and methods Krapina: The microscopic inspection, identification and anatomical mapping of prehistoric incised linear striations on the Krapina postcrania are described above. Juntunen: The surfaces of 310 bones from 22 human skeletons recovered from a Late Woodland ossuary a t Juntunen, Michigan were examined for this research (Table 2). The Juntunen site is located at the west end of Bois Blanc Island in the Mackinac straits (McPherron, 1967a,b). The Juntunen F11 ossuary from which these skeletons were recovered dates to 1320 A.D. 75 years (Crane and Griffin, 1963), just prior to the historic period. Juntunen has been interpreted as a seasonal lake shore fishery site used during the spring and fall (Cleland, 1966, 1982; Fitting, 1970; McPherron, 1967a,b). In the historical period immediately following occupation of * 172 172 172 172 171 / Fig. 3. Composite drawing of marked humeri from Krapina and Juntunen. Some Juntunen marks are drawn separately on far right, for clarity. Note series of short, transverse striations running along shafts (Krapina 164, 172).Similar series of striations were confirmed under SEM as cutmarks on a Juntunen ulna (see Fig. 4). MORTUARY PRACTICES IN KRAPINA NEANDERTALS the Juntunen site, ethnographic studies state that several Amerind families would come together seasonally to fish at semipermanent shore sites like Juntunen, disbanding in winter to hunt in the inland forests (Cleland, 1966; McPherron, 1967aP. Ossuaries were established at the fishing sites. There is evidence that individuals who died away from the Juntunen site were brought back for 0ssuary burial (Clark, n.d.1. Three sources of data suggested that the 22 Juntunen skeletons were prepared for secondary burial (Hewitt, 1895; Hultkrantz, 1953; Kidd, 1953; Hickerson, 1960; Tooker, 1964; Fitting, 1965; 1970; Flanders and Griffin, 1970; Cleland, 1971 Krakker, 1983; Clark, n.d.): 1)archeological analyses of the skeletal material from Juntunen; 2) the mortuary practices investigated a t other Late Woodland sites; and 3) historical observations of the mortuary practices of the population living in the region immediately after the Juntunen occupation. The secondary burial process described is as follows (Clark, n.d.1. Corpses were allowed to decompose underground for varying 389 amounts of time. When enough deaths had occurred within a social group to make a secondary burial ceremony desirable, the accumulated remains were disinterred and any remaining soft tissue carefully removed from the bones with stone knives. Since length of decomposition time varied for each corpse, some skeletons were already clean, others retained varying amounts of partially rotted soft tissue, and still others may have been nearly fully fleshed. At Juntunen, the F11 ossuary pit was dug in sand and lined with bark. Cleaned and diarticulated skeletons were either bundled in bark or skin bags or were rearticulated in a n extended configuration in bark wrappings. The wrapped bones of many individuals were laid in close proximity in the pit and were then covered with sand, creating a burial mound. 'Genetic ties between individuals buried at Juntunen are illustrated by the presence of an unusual dental anomaly shared by two individuals in ossuaries F8 and F11 (C.L. Brace, pers. comm.) For comparison, the Krapina hominid collection contains three individuals who share a genetic trait indicating close kinship (Smith, 1976). Fig. 4. Composite drawing of marked distal forelimb bones from Krapina and Juntunen. Note series of short transverse Juntunen cutmarks, confirmed as such with SEM inspection, on the shafts. Similar series of striations were observed on Karpina humeri, ulnae, and fibulae, 390 M.D. RUSSELL Fig. 5. Composite drawings of marked 0s coxae from Krapina and Juntunen. The sciatic notch is often nicked at both sites. Typically, the acetabula of Combe Grenal reindeer were ringed with cuts. Neither human sample shows any striations ringing the acetabulae, although that anatomical region was well preserved at both sites. MORTUARY PRACTICES IN KRAPINA NEANDERTALS For the Juntunen specimens, gross inspection of linear striations was carried out under strong light. The anatomical location, length, and orientation of each incised linear striation on the Juntunen bones were mapped onto line drawings of each bone element for comparison to the striations found on the Krapina and Combe Grenal postcrania. Striation frequency for each skeletal element was calculated for statistical comparisons to the other samples. A sample of striations from each Juntunen skeletal element was cast for independent assessment as cutmarks based on SEM inspection by P. Shipman (Johns Hopkins University). All the cast striations were confirmed as showing the microscopic morphology of cutmarks made with stone tools (P. Shipman, pers. comm.). These results, combined with the ethnological and archeological evidence cited above, strongly suggest that the striations on the Juntunen skeletons are genuine cutmarks and they are referred to as such hereinafter. Combe Grenal: The Juntunen cutmarks and the Krapina striations were compared to published descriptions of Mousterian butchery marks found on large game animals from the Combe Grenal rock shelter near Sarlat, Dordogne, France (Bordes and Prat, 1965; Bordes, 1972). Mousterian tools and fragmentary Neandertal remains were associated with the fauna (Oakley et al., 1971). Reindeer (Ranifer tarandus) remains were chosen as the comparison sample for this research because they were sufficiently numerous to allow meaningful statistical analysis of cutmark frequencies. Mousterian butchery marks on this faunal collection are described as having rather open, V-shaped cross-sections and as occurring in groups of short parallel marks (Binford, 1981:105; Martin, 1907-1910, Figs. XLIV, XLVII, XLVIII, L; 1909). Cutmarks on postcrania commonly appear on elements of three joints: hip, shoulder, and elbow (Binford, 1981:101, also Figs. 4.22, 4.29, 4.31, 4.32). Innominates typically bear encircling cuts around the acetabular lip where the iliofemoral and ishiofemoral ligaments were severed. On scapulae, cutmarks encircle the glenoid fossa where the glenohumeral joint capsule was cut apart. Distal humeri bear transverse cutmarks low on the posterior face of the distal ends, just above the articular surface. Radio-ulnae show marks on the lateral surface of the olecranon process where the collateral ligaments were severed. Also, 391 the radio-ulnar coronoid process is often marked with transverse cuts. In comparing the gross appearance, anatomical locations, and orientations of the Krapina prehistoric striations to the Combe Grenal reindeer butchery marks, particular attention was given to the joint elements most likely to bear evidence of butchery, assuming that the corpses were disjointed as animal carcasses were in the Mousterian (Binford, 1981; Martin, 1907-1910; 1909).Table 3 lists 52 Krapina hominid specimens from the hip, shoulder, and elbow joints, the anatomical regions most likely to bear cutmarks if the corpses were treated in a manner similar to that used to reduce carcasses to manageable size for meat-consumption a t Combe Grenal. The frequency of cutmarks on the postcrania from the three sampIes were compared on a bone by bone basis using chisquared tests adjusted for small cell sizes (Blalock, 19'72) when necessary. Because of differences in distal limb anatomy, striation frequencies for the radii and ulnae at Krapina and Juntunen were combined to make them comparable to the frequencies for the fused radial and ulnar bones of reindeer. Results Table 4 presents the results of chi-squared tests comparing the frequencies of linear striations on the Krapina, Juntunen, and Combe Grenal samples. As predicted, the Juntunen bones, which were cleaned for secondary burial, bore significantly more cutmarks than did the reindeer bones which were defleshed for meat. Highly significant differences in the frequency of cutmarks were found on all comparable skeletal elements, with the single exception of 0s coxae. These results fulfill the expectation that cutmark frequency is relatively high when a cleaned bone is the goal of the defleshing and low when meat removal is the goal of the activity. It was predicted that if the Krapina hominids were cleaned for secondary burial, the frequency of striations would be similar to the frequency of cutmarks on the Juntunen bones and high compared to the Combe Grenal sample. Conversely, if the Krapina bones were defleshed for meat, the frequency of the striations would be similar to that of the cutmarks on the Combe Grenal bones and low compared to the Juntunen cutmarks. There were no significant differences between the Krapina and Juntunen samples in 392 M.D. RUSSELL 215.2 Fig. 6 . Composite drawing of marked femora from Krapina and Juntunen; below, right: composite drawing of patellae from Krapina. No patellae were included in the Juntunen F11 ossuary collection. Note that the femoral necks are typically ringed with multiple cuts. Krapina Femur 214 has two depressed gashes on the inferoposterior region of the head; similar gashes were observed on a Juntunen specimen, suggesting that the gashes were made during processing of the corpses. the number of marked claviculae, scapulae, humeri, ulnae, 0s coxae, femora, or fibulae. Compared to the Juntunen sample, the Krapina ulnae were less likely to bear striations, while the fibulae were more likely to bear striations. Thus, for seven of nine skeletal elements, the Krapina and Juntunen samples have the same distribution of marked and unmarked bones. Compared to the Combe Grenal sample, the Krapina scapulae, humeri, femora, and tibiae were significantly more likely to bear cutmarks than homologous skeletal elements from the Combe Grenal reindeer sample. As in the comparison of Juntunen with Combe Grenal, no significant difference was found in the frequency of marked 0s coxae. Neither did the frequency of marked distal forelimb bones from Krapina and Combe Grenal differ. In general, these statistical results indicate that the Krapina striations differ significantly from the butchery marks on the Combe Grenal reindeer remains and closely resemble the Juntunen sample in the manner predicted by the secondary burial hypothesis. The Krapina striations’ gross appearance also resembled the Juntunen cutmarks and differed from the Combe Grenal butchery marks. The Krapina striations and the Juntunen cutmarks are fine, delicate, shallow incisions, in contrast to the coarser, V-shaped Combe Grenal butchery marks which appear to bite deeply into the bone surface (Binford, 1981; Martin, 1907-1910). Neither the Krapina striations nor the Juntunen cutmarks resemble the Combe Grenal butchery marks in orientation and anatomical placement. None of the diagnostic butchery marks observed in the Combe Grenal sample are present a t Krapina or Juntunen. Specifically, none of the Krapina innominates bear encircling cuts around the acetabular lip. The scapulae bear no cutmarks circling the glenoid fossa. None of the distal humeri bear transverse cutmarks on the posterior face above the articular con- MORTUARY PRACTICES IN KRAPINA NEANDERTALS c 393 / I \ I' I Fig. 7. Composite drawing of marked tibiae from Juntunen and marked fibulae from Krapina. Significant differences in marked distal hindlimb bones suggests differences in defleshing techniques at the two sites. It should be pointed out that striations were observed on tibia1 shaft fragments at Krapina, but those striations could not be mapped because their exact anatomical locations were unknown. dyles or low on the sides of the condyles. Neither of the ulnae that preserve olecranon processes bear longitudinal cutmarks on the process nor are there any transverse cuts along the anterior lip of the preserved coronoid processes. Thus, the predictions arising from the butchery hypothesis remained unfulfilled on the 52 Krapina specimens most likely to support the hypothesis. Anatomical differences between bipeds and quadrupeds may account for some of these differences. For example, the distal hindlimbs of cursorial animals, such as reindeer, bear relatively little meat compared to humans, which may account for the absence of cutmarks on the reindeer tibiae. However, both species have major muscle masses associated with hips and shoulders and yet there are highly significant differences in striation frequency when those joints are compared. In contrast, Figures 1-7 show that the striations on the Krapina bones are often matched quite closely in location and orientation by striations on the Juntunen skeletons. Furthermore, while the Krapina striations could not be subjected directly to SEM inspection, Juntunen striations in identical anatomical locations and orientations were so examined and were confirmed a s authentic cutmarks (P. Shipman, pers. comm.; Juntunen striations cast for SEM inspection are identified with a n asterisk in Figs. 1-7). These comparisons strengthen the interpretation of the Krapina striations as cutmarks and support the hypothesis that the Krapina remains were treated in a manner similar to that used at Juntunen. In general, it can be said that cutmarks on the Juntunen skeletons and striations on the Krapina remains tend to occur where there 394 M.D. RUSSELL is a change in contour or a bony projection that interrupted the movement of a blade as the bone was cleaned. Claviculae, scapulae and femora are the most frequently marked bone elements in both collections. In both samples, individual claviculae are often nicked or sliced on several surfaces, presumably because it is difficult to clean soft tissue from the curve of the shoulder without hitting that bone. As expected, the complexly shaped scapula frequently bears multiple cutmarks as well: near the glenoid fossa, on the blade, and often along the spine which projects abruptly toward the surface. The femoral neck typically bears a series of cuts ringing the neck. Cutmarks on long bone shafts often nick osseous crests between muscle groups. Another shared characteristic is that both the Krapina and Juntunen bones have striations that occur in repetitive ladder-rung series of short marks. These may be associated with efforts to clean dried tissue clinging to regions of muscle attachment. CONCLUSIONS The gross appearance, anatomical location, and orientation of prehistoric incised linear striations on the Krapina remains are closely matched by confirmed cutmarks found on a human skeletal population defleshed preparatory to secondary burial. This comparison disproves the null hypothesis that the prehistoric Krapina striations identified by the author are random sedimentary scratches. The similarities in the gross appearance, anatomical locations, and orientations of the Juntunen cutmarks and the Krapina striations are backed up by statistical comparisons of striation frequencies: it is statistically justified to discuss the Juntunen cutmarks and the Krapina striations as though they were two samples drawn from a single population. Furthermore, both human samples differ from the Combe Grenal reindeer sample in the ways predicted by the secondary burial hypothesis. Cutmarks on the Juntunen skeletons and striations on the Krapina hominid remains occur far more frequently than cutmarks on butchered fauna. In the case of Juntunen, this is a predicted consequence of the secondary burial hypothesis: when the obiect of the activitv was a cleaned bone. rAher than meat, skeletal elements were ex: pected to bear a relatively large number of cutmarks compared to skeletons defleshed for meat. Since the Krapina sample is very sim- ilar to the Juntunen sample in frequency, location, and orientation of striations on marked bones, it follows that the object of defleshing the hominid corpses at Krapina was also likely to have been cleaned bones rather than meat. The results of all the comparisons carried out for this research tend to support the hypothesis that the Krapina hominid remains were defleshed in preparation for secondary burial. These results are consistent with previously published evidence of burial at Krapina (Trinkaus, 1985). For example, an unusually large number of relatively fragile skeletal elements such as scapulae and juvenile claviculae are preserved at Krapina, suggesting that these bones were buried rather than left on the cave floor surface (Trinkaus, 1985).Scapulae and claviculae are also the skeletal elements most likely to bear the striations which are interpreted here as cutmarks made when the bones were cleaned for burial. Thus, two lines of evidence support the claim that the Krapina Neandertal remains “represent one of the oldest, as well as the largest samples of human burials yet known” (Trinkaus, 1985:213). Furthermore, it seems likely that Krapina Neandertals can be numbered among the many human societies whose mortuary practices include secondary burial of cleaned bones. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by a grant from the International Research and Exchanges Board, New York, and by the Savezni Zavod za Medjunarodnu NauEnu, Prosvetno-Kulturnu i TekniEku Saradju (Federal Administration for International Scientific, Educational, Cultural and Technical Cooperation), Beograd. My thanks go to the staff of the Geloski-Paleontol6ski Muzej or Zagreb, Yugoslavia for their friendship, cooperation, and assistance during the 4 months that I studied the Krapina collection. In particular, I thank J. RadovEiC, curator of the Krapina collection, and GorjanoviCKramberger, scholar. This project could not have been carried out without Dr. RadovEiC’s permission, cooperation, and participation. Conversations with J. Clark a t the University of Michigan regarding the recognition of siens of secondarv burial were crucial to the coiclusions of t h k research. My thanks also go to J. O’Shea and C.L. Brace of the Univeriity of Michigan Museum of Anthropology MORTUARY PRACTICES INI KRAPINA NEANDERTALS 395 for their cooperation during my study of the Cleland, CE (1966) The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Juntunen collection and for helpful conver- Ethnozoology of the Upper Great Lakes Region. Anthropological Papers 29, Museum of Anthropology. Ann sations during this research. P. Shipman do- Arbor: University of Michigan. nated time and materials used during SEM Cleland, CE (1971) Analysis of Burial Associations and inspection of the Juntunen striations. Con- Conclusions. In Cleland CE (ed): The Lansanen Site: A versations with B. Kmentt regarding deer Historical Burial Locality in Mackinac County, Michibutchery were helpful. P. Shipman’s encour- gan, Vol. 1. Publications of the Museum, Anthropologagement and guidance during this project ical Series. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Cleland, CE (1982)The inland shore fishery of the northare gratefully acknowledged. ern Great Lakes: Its development and importance in prehistory. Am. Antiq. 47:761-784. Cole, JM,and Higgs, ES (1969) The Archeology of Early Man. London: Penguin. Alexiou, M (1974) The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradi- Coon, CS (1962) The Origin of Races. New York: Knopf. tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Courville, CB (1950) Cranial injuries in prehistoric man Arens, W (1979) The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology with particular reference to the Neanderthals. Ybk. and Antropophagy. New York: Oxford University Press. Phys. Anthropol. 6:185-205. Baric, L (1978) Dragutin Gorjanovic-Kramberger i Ot- Crane, HP, and Griffin, JB (1963) University of Michikrice Krapinskog PraEovjek. In Malez, M (ed): Krapingan Radiocarbon Dates VIII. Radiocarbon 5:228-253. ski PraEovjek i Evolucija Hominida. Zagreb: JugosCrocker, JC (1977)The mirrored self: identity and ritual lavenska akademija znauosti i umjetnostk. inversion among the Eastern Bororo. Ethnology Bergounioux, FM (1958) “Spiritualite” de 1’Homme de 16:129-145. Neandertal. In von Konigswald GHR, (ed): Hundert Day, MH (1977) Guide to Fossil Man: A Handbook of Jahre Neanderthaler. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon N.V. Human Paleontology. Chicago: University of Chicago Binford, LR (1978) Dimensional analysis of behavior and Press. site structure: learning from a n Eskimo hunting stand. Driver, H (1961) Indians of North America. Chicago: American Antiquity 43:330-361. University of Chicago Press. Binford, LR (1981) Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Fitting, J E (1965) Late Woodland Cultures of SoutheastMyths. New York: Academic Press. ern Michigan. Anthropological Paper 24, Museum of Blalock, HM (1972) Social Statistics. New York: McAnthropology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Graw-Hill. Fitting, JE (1970) The Archeology of Michigan: A Guide Bordes, F (1972)A Tale of Two Caves. New York: Harper to the Prehistory of the Great Lakes Region. Garden and Row. City: Natural History Press. Bordes, F, and Prat, F (1965) Observations sur les faunes Flanders, RE, and Griffin, JB (1970)The Norton Mound du Riss et du Wurm I en Dordogne. L’Anthropologie Group, Kent County, Michigan. In Griffin JE,Flan69:31-46. ders, RE, and Titterington, PF (eds): The Burial ComBoule, M (1921)Les Hommes Fossiles. Paris: Masson. plexes of the Knight and Norton Mounds in Illinois Brace, CL (1962)Refocusing on the Neandertal Problem. and Michigan. Memoirs of the Museum of AnthropolAm. Antropol. 64:729-741. ogy, 2. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Brace, CL (1964)The Fate of the “Classic” Neandertals: GorjanoviC-Kramberger, D (1899) PaleolitiEki ostaci a consideration of hominid catastropbism. Curr. AnEovjeka i njegovih suvremenika iz diluvija u Krapini. thropol. 5:3-43. Ljetopis Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti (Zagreb) 14t90-98. Brace, CL (1967) Tooth form and size in the Pleistocene. J. Dent. Res. 46:809-816. Gorjanovic-Kramberger,D (1901) Komparativno demonBrace, CL (1986) Personal communication. Museum of striranje ostataka lubanje diluvijalnoga eovjeka iz Anthropology, Ann Arbor, Mich. 44109. Krapine s onom danahjega Eovjeka. Liecnicki viestn. 23t77-79. Brady, I(1982) Review Article: The Man-Eating Myth. Am. Anthropol. 84595-611. Gorjkanovit-Kramberger, D (1906)Der diluviale Mensch von Krapina in Kroatien. Ein Beitrag zur PalaoanBrown, P, and Tuzin, D (1983)The Ethnography of Canthropologie. Weisbaden: C.W. Kreidel Verlag. nibalism. Washington, D.C.: Society for Psychological GorjanoviC-Kramberger, D (1909a) Der Urmensch von Anthropology. Krapina-Kannibale. Anzeiger 4. Vers. tschech. NaBunn, HT (1981)Archeological evidence for meat-eating turf. u Arzte (Prague):288-299. by Plio-Pleistocene hominids from Koobi Fora and 01Gorjanovic-Kramberger,D (1909b) PraEovjek iz Krapine duvai Gorge. Nature 291574-577. Kanibal. Glasnik Hrvatskog prirodoslovnog druStva Bunn, HT (1982) Meat-eating and Human Evolution. (Zagreb) 21:62-67. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation. Berkeley: University of California. Gorjanovit-Kramberger, D (1913) Zivot i kultura diluvialnoga Eovejeka iz Krapine u Hrvotskog. Djela jugosBurian, Z, and Wolf, J (1978) The Dawn of Man. New lavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti (Zagreb) York: Abrams. 23:1-54. Campbell, B (1964) Quantitative taxomony and human evolution. In Washburn, SL (ed): Classification and Guenther, EW (1959)Zur Altersdatierung der diluvialen Fundstelle von Krapina in Kroatien. Deutschen Gehuman evolution. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd. sellschaft fur Antropologie 6t202-209. Campbell, B (1982) Humankind Emerging, 3rd Ed. BosHaddon, AC (ed) (1908)Cambridge Antropological Expeton: Little, Brown. dition to Torres Straits, Reports, Cambridge: CamClark, J E (n.d.) Late Woodland Mortuary Practices at bridge University Press. Juntunen, Michigan. Michigan Discussions in AnthroHertz, R (1907)Contribution a une etude sur la represenpology (in press). LITERATURE CITED 396 M.D. R1JSSELL tation collective de la mort. Annee sociologique 10:48137. Hewitt, JNB (1895) The Iroquoian Concept of Soul. J. Am. Folklore 8:107-116. Hickerson, H (1960) The feast of the dead among the seventeenth century Algonkians of the upper Great Lakes. Am. Anthropol. 62:81-107. Hill, AP (1976) On carnivore and weathering damage to bone. Curr. Anthropol. 17t335-336. Hill, AP (1980) Early postmortem damage to the remains of some contemporary East African mammals. In Behrensmeyer, AK, and Hill, AP (eds): Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Howell, RC (1965) Early Man. New York: Time-Life Books. HrdliEka, A (1930) The Skelztal Remains of Early Man. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 83:l-379. Hultkrantz, A (1953) Conceptions of the Soul Among North American Indians. Monograph 1. Stockholm: Ethnographic Museum of Sweden. Huntington, R, and Metcalf, P (1979) Celebrations of Death: the Anthropology of Mortuary Rituals. New York Cambridge University Press. Keith, A (1915)The Antiquity of Man. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott. Kennedy, G (1980) Paleoanthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kidd, KE (1953) The excavation and historical identification of a Huron ossuary. Am. Antiq. 14:359-379. Klaatsch, H (1923) The evolution and progress of man (English translation). New York: Stokes. Krakker, JJ (1983) Changing Sociocultural Systems During the Late Prehistoric Period in Southeast Michigan. Ph. D. Dissertation. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. LeMort, F (1981) Degradations artificielles sur des 0 s humains du Paleolitique. These (docteur 3e cycle), L’universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris. Lopatin, I(1960) The Cult of the Dead Among the Natives of the Amur Basin. The Hague: Mouton. MacCurdy, GG (1932) The Coming of Man. New York: University Society. Malez, M (1970a) Paleolitska Kultural Krapine u svjetlu novijih istrazivanje. In Malez, M (ed): Krapina 18991969. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Malez, M (1970b) Novi pogledi na stratigrafiju Krapinskog nalzista. (English abstract A new look at the stratigraphy of the Krapina prehistoric site.) In Malez, M (ed): Krapina 1899-1969. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Malez, M (1970~)Rezultati revizije Pleistocenske fauna iz Krapine. In Malez, M (ed): Krapina 1899-1969. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Martin, H (1907-1910) Recherches sur l’evolution du Mousterien dans le gisement de a1 Quina (Charente). Vol. I: Industrie Osseuse. Paris: Schleicher Freres. Martin, H (1909) Desarticulations de quelques regions chez les ruminants et le cheval a l’epoque mousterienne. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 6:303-310. McPherron, A (1967a) The Juntenen Site and the Late Woodland Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area. Anthropological Paper 30, Museum of Anthropology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. McPherron, A (196713)On the sociology of ceramics: pottery style clustering, marital residence, and cultural adaptations of an Algonkian-Iroquoian border. In Tooker, E (ed): Iroquois Culture, History and Prehistory. Albany: New York State Museum and Science Service. Meyers, E (1971) Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth. Biblica et Orientalia No. 24. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Oakley, KP, Campbell, BG, and Molleson, TI (1971)Catalogue of Fossil Hominids. Publication #711. London: Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History). OiegoviC, F (1958) Die Bedeutung der Entdeckung des Diluvialen Menschen von Krapina in Kroatien. In von Konigswald, GHR (ed): Hundert Jahre Neanderthaler. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon N.V.. Potts, RB (1982) Lower Pleistocene Site Formation and Hominid Activities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Anthropology. Cambridge: Harvard University. Potts, RB, and Shipman, P (1981) Cutmarks made by stone tools on bone from Olduvai Gorge. Nature 291:577-580. Roper, MK (1969) A survey of the evidence for intrahuman killing in the Pleistocene. Curr. Anthropol. 10:427-459. Rose, J (1983) A Replication Technique for Scanning Electron Microscopy: Applications for Anthropologists. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 62255-261. Russell, MD (1986) Bone Breakage in the Krapina Hominid Collection. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 72:373-379. Russell, MD, and LeMort, F (1986) Cutmarks on the Engis I1 Calvaria? Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 69:317323. Shipman, P (1981a) Applications of scanning electron microscopy to taphonomic problems. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 276r357-385. Shipman, P (1981b)Life History of a Fossil: An Introduction to Taphonomy and Paleoecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Shipman, P, and Rose, J (1983) Early Hominid Hunting, Butchering and Carcass-processing:Approaches to the Fossil Record. J. Anthropol. Archeol. 2:57-98. Shipman, P, and Rose, J (1984) Cutmark Mimics on Modern and Fossil Bovid Bones. Curr. Anthropol. 25116-117. Skerlj, B (1939) Kannibalismus im Altpalaolithikum? Quatar 2: 108-119. Skerij, B (1953) In Vallois, HV, and Movius, HL (eds): Catalogue des honimes fossiles. J. Intl. Congr. Geology. Algiers. Section 5:250-251. Smith FH (1976) The Neandertal Remains from Krapina. Report of Investigations, Number 15. Knoxville: University of Tennesee. Sollas, WJ (1924) Ancient Hunters. 3rd Ed. New York: Knopf. TomiC-KaroviC, K (1970) Krapinski Neandertalac i Kanibalizam. In Malez, M (ed): Krapina 1899-1969. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Tooker, E (1964) An Ethnography of the Huron Indians, 1615-1649. Bulletin 190, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Indian Ethnology. Washington: U S . Government Printing Office. Trinkaus, E (1975) The Neandertals from Krapina, northern Yugoslavia: an inventory of the lower limb remains. Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Anthropologie 67r44-59. Trinkaus, E (1983)The Shanidar Neandertals. New York: Academic Press. Trinkaus, E (1985) Cannibalism and Burial at Krapina. MORTUARY PRACTICES IN KRAPINA NEANDERTALS J. Hum. Evol. 14.203-216. Tuzin, D (1975) The Breath of a Ghost: Dreams and the Fear of the Dead. Ethos 3559-78. Ullrich, H (1978) Kannibalismus und Leichenzerstuckelung beim Neandertaler von Krapina. In Malez, M (ed): Krapinski PraEovjek i Evolucija Hominida. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Vallois, HV (1961) The social life of early man: The evidence of skeletons. In Washburn, SL (edj: The Social Life of Early Man. Chicago: Aldine. Wagner, R (1972) Habu: The Innovation of Meaning in 397 Daribi Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilkinson, RG (1971) Prehistoric Biological Relationships in the Great Lakes Region. Anthropological Paper 43, Museum of Anthropology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Wolpoff, MH (1979) The Krapina Dental Remains. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 50,677114. Wolpoff, MH (1980) Paleoanthropology. New York: Knopf. Wymer, J (19821 The Paleolithic Age. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
