80 



P. ANDREWS AND Y. FERNANDEZ-JALVO 



Table 4 Surface damage induced by humans and other taphonomic agents at Gough's Cave. The human-induced damage is shown in the top part of the 

 table, and all different types of modification are shown combined in the lower part for comparison with non-human taphonomic modifications 



Human induced damage 



Cut-marks 



Percussion 

 marks 



Conchoidal 

 scar 



Adhered 

 flakes 



Removed 



flakes 



Peeling 



Overall 

 human 



human 



48.9% 



26.1% 



1.1% 



3.4% 



3.4% 



22.7% 



69.3% 



equid 



37.1% 



31.8% 



3.8% 



1.5% 



1.5% 



3.0% 



73.5% 



cervid 



50.0% 



23.8% 



0.0% 



4.8% 



4.8% 



0.0% 



57.1% 



large-mammal indet 



100.0% 



100.0% 



60.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 



100.0% 



Taphonomic damage 



Overall 

 human 



Trampling 



Weathering 



Mn oxides 



Root-marks 



Chewing 





human 



69.3% 



8.0% 



9.1% 



2.3% 



1.1% 



2.3% 





equid 



73.5% 



3.0% 



17.4% 



1.5% 



0.8% 



1.5% 





cervid 



57.1% 



14.3% 



4.8% 



21.4% 



0.0% 



4.8% 





large-mammal indet 



100.0% 



0.0% 



20.0% 



20.0% 



0.0% 



40.0% 





phalanx and four of cervid. Cut-marks and percussion marks appear 

 near the articular surfaces, suggesting dismemberment activities. 

 Terminal phalanges are only known for horse and they have cut- 

 marks at both the palmar and dorsal sides, which is uncommon. 

 Human phalanges are rare and have no cut-marks at cannibalistic 

 sites, like Mancos, Fontbregoua, Navatu (Turner & Turner, 1990; 

 Villa etal. 1986a and 1986b; White, 1992,Degusta, 1999), and now 

 also Gough's Cave. In contrast to this, there are 16 phalanges from 

 six individuals (5%), some of them cut (19%), at the Atapuerca site 

 (Fernandez et al. 1999). The Neanderthal site of Moula-Guercy 

 (France) has few phalanges too, 9 from 5 individuals, but four of 

 them were cut (44%) and two smashed (22%). 



Human-induced damage is the most frequent modification 

 observed on the fossil bones recovered from Gough's Cave (Table 4). 

 Percentages of modifications produced by humans are high, much 

 higher than at other sites where cannibalism has been taphonomically 

 studied (Fig. 25) with the exception of Fontbregoua (Villa et al. 

 1986a&b). For instance, nearly half the modifications on fossil 

 bones of both human and non-human species are cut-marks. The 

 high percentage is partly the result of the refitting of bones before the 

 taphonomic analysis was carried on. Weathering, manganese oxide 

 stains, root-marks, chewing do not have a special relevance at the site 

 (Table 5). Chewing mark measurement indicate a small carnivore 

 sized like fox: average tooth mark sizes are 1.8mm (N = 23) for 

 surface pits (category a of Andrews & Fernandez-Jalvo 1997); 

 1.5mm (N = 36) for striations of diaphysis surface (category b); and 

 2.4mm (N = 25) for punctures on articular ends. These values are 

 similar to those found for a sample of recent sheep bones chewed by 

 foxes (Andrews & Armour-Chelu 1998). Most fossils affected by 

 chewing are complete, and chewing is not related to broken edges 

 (types d, e or f). These traits strongly suggest that the carnivores 

 chewing the bones of the Gough's Cave fossil assemblage could not 

 break the bone but could only chew the surfaces of the bones. 



One of the difficulties in analysing the taphonomy of the Gough's 

 Cave assemblage is that much of it comes from old excavations 

 where bone distribution were not recorded. Fortunately, the 1 986-87 

 excavations recorded these data and showed that human and non- 

 human skeletal elements were randomly mixed (Fig. 9). There was 

 also a very high density of finds per square meter, which appears to 

 be proportionally higher than from the old excavations, but it should 

 be noted that the 1986-87 excavations were close to an overhanging 

 wall in the cave, and the higher concentration of remains may be due 

 to preferential preservation in this area protected by the wall. One 

 final point is that no evidence of burning or cooking has been found 

 at Gough's Cave fossil assemblage. 



CONCLUSIONS 



The single most important conclusion arising out of our analyses is 

 that the butchering techniques observed on human and non-human 

 skeletons at Gough's Cave are similar, apart from differences arising 

 out of differences in body weight. All activities associated with 

 human butchering have been recorded on human and non-human 

 skeletons (Table 5). Peeling, a type of fracture similar to bending a 

 fresh twig between two hands, provides a specific breakage pattern, 

 but it only occurs on human (with the exception of large mammal 

 jaws), and this is related to the lighter body weight and size of 

 humans. 



The one major exception to this is the difference in skull complete- 

 ness. The survival of relatively complete human skulls, despite 

 extensive cut-marks and percussion damage seen on the skulls, 

 indicates special treatment, for in all other cases these processes have 

 resulted in high degrees of breakage, even when the bones thus 

 broken were more robust than thin-walled human skulls. This sug- 

 gests there may be a ritual element in the treatment of human skulls. 



Human and non-human jaws have a high degree of breakage, and 

 the location of cut-marks suggests tongue extraction on both humans 

 and horses. Ribs of both human and large mammals are extensively 

 damaged. Cut-marks and percussion damage suggest dismember- 

 ing, filleting and evisceration. Vertebrae show clear evidence of 

 dismemberment activities, both in humans and non-human skel- 

 etons, although peeling on the vertebrae is restricted to humans. 



Table 5 Butchering activities identified at Gough's Cave 



Equid 



Cervid 



Homo 



CRANIAL 



AXIAL 



LIMBS 



EXTREMITIES 



Dismembering 

 Filleting 



tongue extraction 

 Skinning 

 Dismembering 

 Filleting 



Marrow extraction 

 Evisceration 

 Dismembering 

 Filleting 



Marrow extraction 

 Periosteum removal 

 Dismembering 

 Filleting 



Marrow extraction 

 Periosteum removal 



