Southern Zagros Mountains, Iran): Description, Afﬁnities, and Evidence for Butchery

Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 248–259

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol

Paleolithic hominin remains from Eshkaft-e Gavi (southern Zagros Mountains, Iran): description, afﬁnities, and evidence for butchery

Jeremiah E. Scott*, Curtis W. Marean

School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Institute of Human Origins, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4101, USA article info abstract

Article history: Eshkaft-e Gavi is a cave located in the southern Zagros Mountains of Iran and is one of the few Received 19 July 2008 archaeological sites in the region to preserve both Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic occupations. Accepted 25 May 2009 Excavation of the site in the 1970s yielded an assemblage of lithic and faunal remains, including ten hominin specimens: a mandibular molar, four cranial fragments, a clavicular diaphysis, the proximal half Keywords: of a metacarpal, a fragment of os coxa, the proximal diaphysis of a juvenile femur, and a patella. The Cannibalism bones derive from a minimum of four individuals, including two juveniles. Although many of these Epi-Paleolithic remains could be Epi-Paleolithic in age, one of the juvenile specimensdthe mandibular molardoccurs at Modern humans Upper Paleolithic the base of the cave’s Upper Paleolithic sequence. The remains are very fragmentary, but those that preserve diagnostic morphology indicate that they represent modern humans. The molar is taxonomi- cally diagnostic, thus confirming the association of the Aurignacian-like Baradostian Industry with modern humans. Four of the specimensda piece of frontal bone, the clavicle, the juvenile femur, and the patelladdisplay clear evidence for intentional butchery in the form of stone-tool cutmarks. These cutmarked specimens, along with a fragment of parietal bone, are also burned. Although this evidence is consistent with cannibalism, the small sample makes it difficult to say whether or not the individuals represented by the hominin remains were butchered and cooked for consumption. Nevertheless, the cutmarked Eshkaft-e Gavi specimens add to a growing sample of hominin remains extending back into the Plio-Pleistocene that display evidence of intentional defleshing. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction The character of the lithic sequence of the Zagros Mountains is now reasonably well known based on systematic descriptions of the The Zagros Mountains of Iran and Iraq were the focus of intensive materials from Warwasi and Bisitun (Dibble, 1984; Dibble and archaeological research in the middle twentieth century (Garrod, Holdaway, 1990, 1993; Olszewski, 1993a,b; Olszewski and Dibble, 1930; Coon, 1951; Braidwood and Howe, 1960; Braidwood et al., 1994), Kobeh (Lindly, 2005), and Kunji (Speth, 1971; Baumler and 1961; Young and Smith, 1966; Hole and Flannery, 1967; Solecki, Speth, 1993), but it is not well dated. The Middle Paleolithic in the 1963, 1971; Piperno, 1972, 1974; Rosenberg, 1985), after which Zagros is typically classified as the Zagros Mousterian, and to date, political events in Iran and instability in the Iraqi Zagros curtailed there is no dramatic variation found within it that justifies any research by scientists from the United States and western Europe. formal divisions. All radiocarbon dates for the Zagros Mousterian Field research is now once again commencing (Roustaei et al., 2002; have so far been infinite dates, and thus it is likely that the Zagros Heydari, 2007). While much of the initial effort targeted the tran- Mousterian is older than 35 ka. The succeeding Upper Paleolithic in sition to food production, Paleolithic studies benefited enormously. the Zagros is represented by what has been traditionally called the The highly dissected limestones of the Zagros (Oberlander, 1965)are Baradostian. Given its similarities with Aurignacian assemblages, riddled with caves and rockshelters, many of which were discovered Olszewski and Dibble (1994) proposed that the Baradostian be to be rich Paleolithic sites. The result is that these projects produced renamed the Zagros Aurignacian. a large sample of Paleolithic material from numerous sites. The only reasonably complete hominin remains found in association with the Zagros Mousterian are the Neandertals at Shanidar in Iraq (Trinkaus, 1983). Although hominin fragments were said to have been found at the Iranian Middle Paleolithic sites of Bisitun * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.E. Scott), [email protected] and Tamtama (Coon, 1951), only the Bisitun radius is hominin, most (C.W. Marean). likely representing a Neandertal (Trinkaus, 2006; Trinkaus and

Biglari, 2006). Upper Paleolithic human remains are more rare in shows that all but the tiniest fragments below 1 cm were captured this region. Hole and Flannery (1967) mentioned human remains by the sieving operation, and thus the sample is not strongly biased from Gar Arjeneh, but these are undescribed, and Trinkaus et al. to larger fragments and is unlikely to be missing identifiable frag- (2008) recently reported the recovery of an Upper Paleolithic ments through selective retention (Marean et al., 2004). human premolar at Wezmeh Cave, Iran. Here we describe ten The cave has a rough figure-eight shape, with each section of the Upper Paleolithic and Epi-Paleolithic hominin remains from the site eight being about 15 m 7m(Fig. 3). Roof collapse from blasting in of Eshkaft-e Gavi, Iran. In 1991, CWM initiated a study of several the roof rock occurred at the opening of the cave and in the middle of Zagros Paleolithic faunal assemblages, including the sites of Bisitun, cave near the junction of the two chambers, leaving piles of rubble in Eshkaft-e Gavi, Kobeh, Kunji, and Tamtama (Marean, 1998; Marean both places. Excavations were placed to avoid this rubble and any and Kim, 1998; Marean and Cleghorn, 2003; Cleghorn and Marean, disturbance resulting from modern activities, as well as to sample 2004). The analysis of the Eshkaft-e Gavi faunal assemblage both the front and rear chambers. The rear test excavation (Opera- resulted in the rediscovery of most of the hominin remains tion A, including Squares G, M, and N) was 3 m2 and was excavated to described here, the discovery of several new specimens, and the a depth of 1.5 m. The front test excavation (called Operation B, observation of evidence for butchery on some of those remains. including Squares C and D) was a 2 m2 excavation that reached a depth of 2 m. Excavations were carried out within 10-cm arbitrary Background to the site and excavations levels within natural stratigraphy. The excavators used a lot numbering system in which the smallest individual unit of excava- Eshkaft-e Gavi is a large cave on the Marv Dasht plain on the tion, usually a square/10-cm-level combination, was assigned lower Kur River Valley, about 14 km southwest of Persepolis, a unique ascending lot number, with each operation having its own southernmost Zagros (29 52 19.49 N, 52 44 53.85 E) (Fig. 1). It is set of numbers. The associations of the lots to the strata are indicated approximately 20 m above the plain and faces northeast, and the in Figs. 4 and 5 with shading and connecting lines. Kur River flows just 750 m to the northeast. The site was discovered A schematic of the sequence in Operation A was reconstructed by W. Sumner in 1969 during a survey, and M. Rosenberg investi- from the excavation notes and information provided by Rosenberg gated it in 1978 from Sumner’s lead. He found that substantial (Fig. 4). The excavators noted that the stratigraphy in Operation A disturbance had occurred from mechanical excavation of the talus was not always clear, and it was particularly challenging in the lower slope and partial collapse of the roof from blasting. Fortunately, the part of the sequence where light was very poor and the sediments interior cave preserved an intact deposit, and Rosenberg initiated were rocky and complex. Overall, Operation A had more dramatic excavations for two weeks in July of 1978 (Rosenberg, 1985) as part signs of disturbance than Operation B, most of it being concentrated of the Malyan Project, directed by W. Sumner and R. Dyson. Our near the top of the sequence, but with the lower part likely having description of the excavations and our drawings of the figures and some ancient rodent burrowing. Starting at the bottom, the deposits stratigraphy are from Rosenberg (1985) and unpublished notes have high quantities of limestone rock fall, some Middle Paleolithic made available to us by Rosenberg. artifacts, and fossil bone. The latter deposits are overlain by hard, All of the sediments were sieved, and all of the sieved material yellow clay that is cross-cut with possible rodent burrows that occur was retained. Recovery appears to have been excellent, as there is from roughly 120 cm to 80 cm below datum. Next is a concentration a sample of several thousand small animals (micromammals, of archaeological finds, including lithic artifacts and fauna. The lithic amphibians, reptiles, and birds) currently under study. A histogram artifacts are Upper Paleolithic in form, and probably Baradostian in (Fig. 2) of the large-animal faunal fragments shows that even very affinity. This is followed by a rocky, orange sediment (described as small specimens (less than 2 cm in size) were recovered and that ‘‘soil’’ by Rosenberg), and then finally, at the top, an organic sedi- the distribution is strongly skewed to small fragments. This pattern ment with significant amounts of dung and few archaeological finds.

48 54 60

Tamtama

Ke-Aram 1 36 36

Khunik Cave

Tal-i Iblis Hunter's Cave Eshkaft-i-Gavi 30 Ghar-i Kar Kobeh Bisitun and Warwasi Harsin Jahrom Kal-i Daoud

Hulailan Sites Kunji, Houmian Gar Arjeneh, 54 60 Ghamari

CAVE SITES OPEN AIR SITES

Figure 1. Map of Iran showing some of the major Paleolithic sites, including those discussed in the text. Latitude and longitude are shown. 250 J.E. Scott, C.W. Marean / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 248–259

1600 sediments resemble those in Operation A and are rich in organics, recent pottery, and ground stone. 1400 We attempted to date unidentiﬁable shaft fragments with radio-

s carbon dating, but in all instances, these attempts were unsuccessful

n 1200

e due to a lack of collagen. This failure is unfortunate because this site is

m i

c 1000 one of the few in the Zagros that includes both Middle Paleolithic and e

p Upper Paleolithic assemblages. It is important to note that the

S 800

f stratigraphy is rather complicated, and there are several forms of o

r evidence that suggest disturbance from either animals or people. The e 600

lack of stratigraphic order to the six radiocarbon dates reported by mb

u 400 Rosenberg (1985) may result from a combination of being near the N limits of radiocarbon dating and bioturbation. 200

0 The hominin remains

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 1 1 100

o o o o o o o

t t t t t t t

o o o o o o o o o o o

t t t t t t t t t t

t The Eshkaft-e Gavi hominin sample consists of ten craniodental

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 0

90 and postcranial specimens (Table 1). Nine of these specimens were

100 110 120 13 140 150 160 170 180 19 millimeters recovered from the uppermost layers of Operation A, Square G (Lots 11, 14, and 19; see Fig. 4). The other specimen, a mandibular molar Figure 2. Histogram of specimen length for the Eshkaft-e Gavi large-mammal faunal crown, was recovered from Operation B, Square D, between 100 cm assemblage (does not include micromammals, amphibians, birds, and reptiles). and 125 cm below datum (Lot 21; Fig. 5). The specimens from Operation A almost certainly represent modern humansdthese Operation B has a much cleaner sequence with few signs of specimens are stratified above Rosenberg’s (1985) 14C dates and disturbance (a schematic of this sequence is given in Fig. 5). The could therefore be quite young, perhaps Epi-Paleolithic in age. On lowest deposits are an organic, orange sediment with several lenses the other hand, the molar crown occurs at the base of the Upper containing relatively high concentrations of charcoal flecks. The Paleolithic sequence within the carbon-dated sediments. Early lithic artifacts are Middle Paleolithic and bone is well preserved. The Upper Paleolithic assemblages (as opposed to the initial Upper bottom of the deposit was not reached, and it is likely that the Middle Paleolithic ‘‘transitional’’ industries) are generally attributed to Paleolithic deposits penetrate much deeper. Above, the Mousterian modern humans (reviewed in Churchill and Smith [2000]), and archaeological finds become less abundant, and then, at approxi- although the strength of the association in Europe has been ques- mately 150 cm below datum, lithic and faunal densities increase and tioned (e.g., Conard et al., 2004), a recent study conducted by Bailey there is a clear transition to the Upper Paleolithic Baradostian by et al. (2009) has affirmed this connection. Thus, the Baradostian’s 125 cm below datum. Six 14C dates clustered between 90 cm and similarity to the Aurignacian (Olszewski and Dibble, 1994) suggests 125 cm of the deposit range from 18,000 to >28,000 yrs BP; they do that human remains associated with this industry will be not occur in stratigraphic order (Rosenberg, 1985). The top 15 cm of anatomically modern.

Figure 3. Plan and cross section of Eshkaft-e Gavi. The heavy dotted lines adjacent to the squares indicate the location of the section drawings illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5. J.E. Scott, C.W. Marean / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 248–259 251

Operation A North Baulk

W E E MDC-AG W MDC-AN MDC-AM 0 9 Lot 11: human burial? 1 in 40cm ash lens pit 3 2 organic soil 5 7 14 8 6 19 4 10 12 orange rocky soil, 20 21 22 50 13 24 Upper Paleolithic 25 16 27 26 29 17 28 30 18 31 hard yellow clay, occupational hiatus 100 23 32 39 40 33 34 41 35 yellow sticky soil, possibly Mousterian? 36 37 W E 150 cm N M layers with possible intrusive artifacts G from modern pit

Figure 4. Schematic representation of the sequence in Operation A, as reconstructed from the excavation notes and information provided by M. Rosenberg. Squares G (MDC-AG), M (MDC-AM), and N (MDC-AN) are shown. The shading indicates major stratigraphic aggregates of arbitrary levels, and the numbers within these are the lot numbers of individually excavated arbitrary levels. See text for further details.

Nevertheless, because Neandertal remains have been found in mountainous character holds out the possibility that they could association with industries that contain Upper Paleolithic–like have harbored late-occurring Neandertal populations. Moreover, elements (e.g., Le´veˆque and Vandermeersch, 1980; Hublin et al., given reports of the persistence of Neandertal features in early 1996; Bailey and Hublin, 2006), we evaluated the morphology of modern humans in Europe, interpreted by some researchers as the molar crown with the goal of determining if it can be evidence of admixture between these two groups (e.g., Trinkaus unequivocally assigned to modern humans and to test the et al., 2003; Trinkaus, 2005, 2007; Soﬁcaru et al., 2006, 2007; hypothesis that the Baradostian does signal the presence of Rougier et al., 2007; but see Harvati et al., 2007), we examined the modern humans. The Zagros Mountains could represent a barrier remaining Eshkaft-e Gavi specimens for evidence of the presence to early modern humans exiting Africa, and their rugged of Neandertal traits.

E MDC-BC W MDC-BD 0 1 1 2 2 organic sediment notched blades 3 4 5 orange rocky sediment 6 7 8 50 Upper Paleolithic burins 9 continuous 10 occupation 11 backed 12 blades with three main 13 15 occupational 16 floors 18 17 charcoal side scrapers 22 19 stratum Transition 20 21 Barodostian points 25 24 31 less chipped stone 26 unretouched 32 blades 27 150 cm cease Mousterian? 33 28

two 29 occupational floors yellow rocky sediment 30 Operation B South Baulk

Figure 5. Schematic representation of the sequence in Operation B, as reconstructed from the excavation notes and information provided by M. Rosenberg. Squares C (MDC-BC) and D (MDC-BD) are shown. The shading indicates major stratigraphic aggregates of arbitrary levels, and the numbers within these are the lot numbers of individually excavated arbitrary levels. See text for further details. 252 J.E. Scott, C.W. Marean / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 248–259

Table 1 Inventory of the Eshkaft-e Gavi hominin remains.

Specimen Operation Square Lot Description Estimated age at death

B21-5615 B D 21 Unerupted left mandibular molar (M1 or M2) 3–10 yrs A19-1230 A G 19 Right frontal fragment Adult A14-1500 A G 14 Right parietal fragment (in two pieces) Adult A11-2094 A G 11 Cranial vault, unidentified fragment (in three pieces) Adult A11-2095 A G 11 Cranial vault, unidentified fragment Adult A11-2096 A G 11 Right proximal femoral shaft and metaphysis 3–8 A11-2098 A G 11 Left clavicular shaft >12–13 yrs A11-2099 A G 11 Left patella >14–16 yrs A11-2208 A G 11 Right innominate fragment >13–16 yrs A11-2209 A G 11 Left fifth metacarpal, proximal half Adult

Mandibular molar Neandertal. Another feature that has been used to discriminate between Neandertal and modern human mandibular molars is the Eshkaft-e Gavi B21-5615 (Fig. 6) is a left mandibular molar. The shape of the crown outline (Souday, 2008; see also Bailey et al., root is in the initial stages of formation (less than 2 mm long) and 2009), with modern humans having more rectangular molars and the crown surface is unworn, indicating that the tooth had not yet those of Neandertals being more oval. The rectangular shape of the erupted. Because the tooth was still in its crypt, interproximal wear Eshkaft-e Gavi molar aligns it more closely with modern humans (C. facets are absent, making it difficult to ascertain its position along Souday, pers. comm.). the tooth row. A hypoconulid is present, though small (a grade 3 cusp 5 under the Arizona State University dental anthropology Frontal bone system; see Turner et al. 1991), and it is centrally positioned. The occlusal morphology of the tooth is not irregular (i.e., there are five Eshkaft-e Gavi A19-1230 (Fig. 7) is a fragment of frontal bone distinct cusps), suggesting that the tooth is probably an M1 or an preserving the superolateral corner of the right orbit and the M2. The hypoconid and metaconid contact each other, forming the surrounding region. Its maximum dimensions are as follows: Y fissure pattern. Depending on the position of the tooth, the 33.4 mm wide (medial to lateral), 21.0 mm tall (superior to infe- estimated age at death of the individual from whom the specimen rior), and 22.0 mm deep (anterior to posterior). The lateral half of derives was as follows: M1, 3–5 years; M2, 6–10 years (Bass, 1995). the superior orbital margin is preserved (ca. 20 mm), along with There are five small pits, each no larger than 0.5 mm in diam- a small portion of the frontal squama (the trigonum supraorbitale, eter, on the occlusal surface of the molar: one on the hypoconid, following the terminology employed by Cunningham [1908]) and near this cusp’s border with the hypoconulid; one on the tip of the the anterior margin of the orbital plate. The zygomatic process is hypoconulid; one on the tip of the entoconid; and two on broken off. The anterior part of the frontozygomatic suture is the mesial marginal ridgedone near the midline of the tooth and present on the specimen, but posteriorly, the break invades the root the other located more buccally. These features represent pit-form of the zygomatic process. Posterior to the root of the zygomatic enamel hypoplasias, enamel defects indicative of developmental process, a small flange of bone with a segment of temporal line stress (e.g., Hillson and Bond, 1997). Such defects are common in (measuring 9.2 mm in length), which is very distinct, and a small the remains of late Pleistocene humans (e.g., Trinkaus et al., 2006, portion of the temporal surface of the frontal are present. The 2008). In addition to the hypoplasias, a small buccal pit is present in overall size of the bone and the development of the temporal line the buccal groove between the protoconid and hypoconid. Buccal indicate that specimen A19-1230 is from an adult individual. pits have also been observed on other Upper Paleolithic hominins Although there is a slight bulge directly superior to the supero- (e.g., Dolnı´ Veˇstonice 13 and 15; Trinkaus et al., 2006). lateral corner of the orbit, it is evident that the specimen does not The mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions of the tooth are possess a supraorbital torus. The bulge is roughly teardrop-shaped, 11.6 mm and 10.5 mm, respectively. The buccolingual diameter of with the tail of the teardrop running along the superior orbital the Eshkaft-e Gavi specimen is fairly typical of late Pleistocene margin. The transition between the supraorbital region and the hominins, falling very close to the sample means presented by Bailey frontal squama, which was apparently quite steep, is smooth, and and Hublin (2006) for Upper Paleolithic modern humans (M1 there is no sulcus. The lack of a clear separation between these mean ¼ 10.8; M2 mean ¼ 10.6) and Neandertals (M1 mean ¼ 10.8; elements is most evident in medial viewdthe anteriormost extent 1 M2 mean ¼ 10.8). Although molar size is uninformative with respect of the preserved anterior cranial fossa is almost in the same coronal to group affinity in this case, nonmetric traits can be used to plane as the anteriormost extent of the superior orbital margin; only distinguish between Neandertal and modern human molars (Bailey, about 5.0 mm separates the endocranial surface from the ectocra- 2002a,b; Bailey and Hublin, 2006; Souday, 2008; Bailey et al., 2009). nial surface at this point. The medial cross section of the supraorbital One such feature is the midtrigonid crest, a ridge of enamel that margin is sharp and triangular, not rounded or rectangular, as would connects the protoconid and the metaconid (Bailey, 2002a,b; Bailey be expected if a torus were present. Thus, Eshkaft-e Gavi A19-1230 and Hublin, 2006; Bailey et al., 2009). While this feature is present in possesses the autapomorphic frontal morphology that is charac- some modern humans, it is rare (<10%), whereas in Neandertals, it is teristic of modern humans (e.g., Cunningham, 1908; Smith and present on over 90% of mandibular first and second molars (Bailey, Ranyard, 1980; Minugh-Purvis, 1988; Minugh-Purvis et al., 2000; 2002b; Bailey and Hublin, 2006). Notably, specimen B21-5615 does Sla´dek et al., 2002). not possess the midtrigonid ridge, suggesting that it is probably not Parietal bone

Eshkaft-e Gavi A14-1500 (Fig. 8A) consists of two pieces of a left 1 The mesiodistal diameter of the Eshkaft-e Gavi molar was not compared to data from other Paleolithic hominins due to the confounding inﬂuence of interproximal parietal bone that ﬁt together and have been reassembled. It is wear in the latter group. likely that the break occurred during excavation, as there are other J.E. Scott, C.W. Marean / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 248–259 253

Figure 6. Specimen B21-5615, a left mandibular molar (either M1 or M2), in (A) occlusal (mesial is up) and (B) buccal (mesial is to the left) views. Note that the root is in the initial stages of formation. Scale bar equals 10 mm. apparently fresh breaks. The sagittal suture and sulcus are identified with regard to position or side. Eshkaft-e Gavi A11-2094 preserved, as well as the parietal foramen, indicating that the has been broken into three pieces, which fit together and have been fragment is a posterior portion of parietal, from just superior to the reassembled. The breaks are fresh and are likely the result of exca- lambdoidal suture. The break that divides the two pieces runs vation damage. Some of the edges display further excavation breaks nearly parallel to the sagittal suture. The medial fragment of the suggesting that it was once larger and more complete. The largest specimen is larger and trapezoidal in shape. Its maximum ante- piece accounts for approximately 75–80% of the total specimen. roposterior length is 42.7 mm. The greatest mediolateral dimension Eshkaft-e Gavi A11-2095 also exhibits a fresh, probably excavation- of this fragment of the specimen is 30.4 mm. The smaller (lateral) related break, and it is possible that it derives from the same indi- fragment is bell-shaped, with the base of the bell oriented medially vidual as specimen A11-2094, given their similarities in bone (i.e., articulating with the larger specimen). The length of the thickness and preservation, as well as their close proximity. The medial border is 33.4 mm and the mediolateral width of the endocranial and ectocranial surfaces of these two specimens are specimen is 18.4 mm. The maximum thickness of the bone is extensively abraded and some surfaces are covered with a hard 4.9 mm. The bone possesses no diagnostic features. matrix, obliterating and/or obscuring any features that might aid in identification or siding (e.g., arachnoid foveae, meningeal grooves, Other neurocranial fragments parietal foramina, parietal striae, temporal lines). The thickness of the bones indicates that they may be parietal or occipital fragments Eshkaft-e Gavi specimens A11-2094 (Fig. 8B, right) and A11-2095 from an adult individual. The preservation of these fragments, (Fig. 8B, left) are fragments of cranial vault that cannot be securely particularly the adhering matrix, prevents accurate measurement of

Figure 7. Specimen A19-1230, a frontal fragment preserving the superolateral corner of the right orbit, in (A) lateral, (B) anterior (including close-up photograph of cutmark), and (C) medial views. Scale bar for lateral, anterior, and medial views equals 10 mm; scale bar for close-up of cutmark equals 1 mm. 254 J.E. Scott, C.W. Marean / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 248–259

Figure 8. Eshkaft-e Gavi bone fragments that do not bear cutmarks: (A) A14-1500, a right parietal fragment, in ectocranial view (the sagittal suture and parietal foramen are to the left), which exhibits evidence of burning; (B) A11-2094 (right) and A11-2095 (left), unidentified fragments of cranial vault, in ectocranial view; (C) A11-2209, the proximal half of a left fifth metacarpal, in lateral (above; proximal is left) and dorsal (below; proximal is right) views; (D) A11-2208, a right pelvic fragment, in lateral view (anterior is to the right). Scale bar equals 10 mm. their thickness, but these specimens are noticeably thicker than Metacarpal specimen A14-1500 (stratified directly below specimens A11-2094 and A11-2095), indicating that they probably do not derive from the Eshkaft-e Gavi A11-2209 (Fig. 8C) is the proximal half of a left same individual as the parietal fragment. fifth metacarpal. The break in the shaft follows a roughly diagonal course, with the medial half extending more distally than the lateral half. The bone is otherwise relatively well preserved, Clavicle although the articular surface for the fourth metacarpal is slightly abraded, exposing the underlying trabecular bone. The greatest Eshkaft-e Gavi A11-2098 (Fig. 9) is the shaft of a left clavicle. The proximodistal dimension of the specimen (medially) measures sternal end is broken just medial to the attachment site for pec- 30.3 mm. The maximum mediolateral diameter of the base is toralis major. The lateral end is broken at the medialmost extent of 14.3 mm; the greatest dorsoventral dimension is 11.8 mm. At the the trapezoid line. The specimen is otherwise relatively complete, proximalmost point of the shaft break, the bone is oval in cross with the following features preserved: the conoid tubercle, section, being wider mediolaterally (8.1 mm) than dorsoventrally subclavian sulcus, and the attachment sites for the deltoideus and (7.0 mm). The thickness of the cortical bone is 1.1–1.8 mm. The trapezius. The conoid tubercle and the attachment site for the missing distal epiphysis makes the specimen difficult to age, deltoideus are prominent; however, the other muscle attachment although the preserved portion is similar in size and morphology to sites are indistinct. The shaft is very slender, measuring 9.7 mm the fifth metacarpals of modern human adults. superoinferiorly and 11.0 mm anteroposteriorly at the middle of the Trinkaus (1983) noted that the fifth metacarpals of some preserved shaft. At the medial break, the latter measurements are Neandertals are characterized by strong muscle insertion sites, 9.2 mm and 8.8 mm, respectively. The cortical thickness at the particularly for extensor carpi ulnaris and opponens digiti minimi. medial break is 2.4–2.9 mm. The medullary cavity is oval in cross In the case of the latter, some Neandertal specimens exhibit section at the medial break, with the long axis oriented poster- a distinct crest on the ulnar aspect of the metacarpal shaft, osuperiorly. The specimen could be from a juvenile, as juvenile a condition that Trinkaus (1983) described as rare in modern clavicles are morphologically similar to those of adults (Scheuer humans. Specimen A11-2209 does not possess a distinct crest on its and Black, 2000). Without the sternal epiphysis it is difficult to ulnar aspect. Moreover, the proximal articular surface of the Esh- determine age; however, the length of the preserved portion (ca. kaft-e Gavi specimen is sellar (i.e., mediolaterally concave), as in 92.2 mm) indicates that the individual was likely at least 12–13 modern humans, which contrasts with the more condyloid (i.e., years of age at death (based on modern human aging standards mediolaterally convex) condition observed in Neandertal fifth presented in Scheuer and Black [2000]). metacarpals (Trinkaus and Villemeur, 1991). Neandertal clavicles are similar to those of modern humans in midshaft circumference, but differ in overall length, with the Neandertal clavicle being longer, and thus appearing more gracile in Os coxa comparison to modern human clavicles (Trinkaus, 1983). Unfortu- nately, the missing medial and lateral portions make it impossible to Eshkaft-e Gavi A11-2208 (Fig. 8D) is a right pelvic fragment. It accurately estimate the complete length of the Eshkaft-e Gavi preserves the posteroinferior arm of the lunate surface of the clavicle. While specimen A11-2098 is very gracile, it does fall within acetabulum, the superior tip of the ischial tuberosity, the poster- the range of variation exhibited by modern humans. osuperior border of the obturator foramen, and a portion of the J.E. Scott, C.W. Marean / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 248–259 255

Figure 9. Specimen A11-2098, the shaft of a left clavicle, in superior view (medial is up; scale bar equals 10 mm), with close-up photograph of the cutmark located on anterior surface (scale bar equals 1 mm). medial surface just inferior to the arcuate line (which is not bone renders aging of the individual extremely difficult, although an preserved). The maximum proximodistal height and ante- estimate of 3–8 years of age at death seems reasonable based on roposterior breadth of the specimen are both approximately comparisons with more complete modern human material. The 40.0 mm, while the maximum mediolateral dimension is approxi- maximum proximodistal length of the fragment is 56.5 mm. mately 37.0 mm. There is a hole through the bone that runs from Proximally, the neck and the metaphyseal surface for the greater the medial surface internally out through the ischium externally, trochanter are not preserved, having been broken transversely at the just superior to the ischial tuberosity. The portion of ischial tuber- level of the inferior border of the neck-shaft junction. The superior osity that is preserved is fused, indicating that the individual was at portion of the posterior half of the bone has also been broken away least 13–16 years of age at death (Scheuer and Black, 2000). down to the metaphyseal surface of the lesser trochanter. Thus, the While there are several documented differences between the anterior surface extends farther proximally than does the posterior pelves of modern humans and Neandertals, most of these are found surface. Only about half of the metaphysis for the lesser trochanter is in the pubis and ilium (e.g., McCown and Keith, 1939; Stewart, preserved; this feature is medially placed and visible in anterior 1960; Trinkaus, 1976a, 1983; Rak and Arensburg, 1987; Rak, 1990). view. Inferior to the lesser trochanter, the gluteal tuberosity and the One feature of the ischium that has been discussed in relation to pectineal and spiral lines are present and well defined. Distally, differentiating Neandertals from modern humans is the position of slightly less than 30 mm below the inferior border of the lesser the groove for the internal obturator muscle in relation to the trochanter, the bone is broken at the point where these muscle ischial tuberosity (Rak, 1990; Trinkaus, 1996). The Eshkaft-e Gavi attachment sites converge into the linea aspera. This break is right in specimen preserves only the very uppermost margin of the ischial angle and transverse in shape, suggesting that it occurred when the tuberosity and the region superior to the tuberosity is damaged, but bone was in a dry state (Villa and Mahieu, 1991) and therefore was it appears that that the groove for the internal obturator muscle is not related to marrow extraction. At the break, the shaft is slightly located entirely cranial to the tuberosity. Rak (1990) argued that oval in cross section, with a maximum diameter of 15.1 mm (running this configuration was typical of modern humans, whereas in posterolaterally to anteromedially) and a minimum diameter Neandertals, the groove is shifted caudally, thus encroaching on the (perpendicular to the maximum dimension) of 12.8 mm. The cortical tuberosity. However, Trinkaus (1996) showed that the position of bone has a maximum thickness of 4.4 mm and a minimum thickness the groove for the internal obturator muscle is actually much more of 3.0 mm. The medullary cavity has a maximum diameter of 6.9 mm variable in late Pleistocene hominins and modern humans, with (length) and a minimum diameter (perpendicular to the long axis) of both forms of the groove, as well as intermediate variants, being 5.7 mm. There is no evidence of pilastry. present in modern humans and Neandertals. Consequently, this In comparison to a small sample of modern juvenile human feature is uninformative with respect to the specimen’s affinities. femora, the gluteal tuberosity of the Eshkaft-e Gavi femur is rugose and mediolaterally extensive, merging with the pectineal line Femur medially. However, it does not take the form of a ridge. The specimen lacks features associated with strong development of the Eshkaft-e Gavi A11-2096 (Fig. 10) is a fragment of the left prox- gluteus maximus seen in some juvenile Neandertals, such as imal femoral shaft of a juvenile individual, as indicated by its small a hypotrochanteric fossa and a third trochanter (Trinkaus, 1976b). size and unfused lesser trochanter. The fragmentary condition of the The lack of a pilaster on the posterior femoral surface is 256 J.E. Scott, C.W. Marean / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 248–259

Figure 10. Specimen A11-2096, a left proximal juvenile femoral fragment, in (A) anterior and (B) posterior views (proximal is up; scale bar equals 10 mm), with close-up photograph of some of the cutmarks located on the bone’s anterior surface (scale bar equals 1 mm). a characteristic of Neandertal femora (Trinkaus, 1976b), but the superoinferior and mediolateral dimensions are 34.4 mm and absence of this feature can also be explained by the age of the 39.2 mm, respectively. The anteroposterior thickness of the bone is individual at death, as the pilaster usually develops after puberty 18.6 mm. The widths of the femoral articular facets are highly (Scheuer and Black, 2000) in modern humans. asymmetric, with the medial articular facet (18.65 mm) being 72.0% the size of the lateral facet (25.9 mm). This degree of asymmetry is Patella typical of early and recent modern humans, but it falls outside the range of variation (75.5–90.0%) for Neandertal patellae, which tend Eshkaft-e Gavi A11-2099 (Fig. 11) is a complete left patella. The to be more symmetrical (Trinkaus, 2000). surfaces of the superior, medial, lateral, and inferior edges of the bone are damaged, exposing the underlying trabeculae; the Number of individuals in the sample damage to the inferior edge is extensive, invading the inferior portion of the medial and lateral articular facets. The bone is Based only on the lack of repetition of skeletal elements, the completely ossiﬁed, indicating that the individual was at least 14– minimum number of individuals in the sample is one. However, it is 16 years of age at death (Scheuer and Black, 2000). The maximum clear that the sample is composed of individuals of different

Figure 11. Specimen A11-2099, a left patella, in (A) anterior and (B) posterior views, with a close-up photograph of the cutmarks. Both scale bars equal 10 mm. J.E. Scott, C.W. Marean / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 248–259 257 ontogenetic ages. The femur and the molar both indicate the a location where flesh would have been removed (femur or clavicle), presence of at least one individual under the age of ten years among or either disarticulation (patella) or defleshing/skinning (frontal) the remains, and their stratigraphic separationdthe femur is near would have been the goal. These are clearly stone-tool cutmarks the top of the Upper Paleolithic/Epi-Paleolithic sequence and the generated in the process of defleshing and/or dismemberment. molar is at the basedindicates that there are two subadults in the Three of the four cutmarked specimens (patella, clavicle, femur) assemblage. On the other hand, the clavicle, patella, pelvic frag- come from the same feature (Lot 11). Lot 11 is part of a stratum that ment, fifth metacarpal, and the four cranial fragments all signal the occurs in the back of the cave and fills a large shallow pit. It is an presence of at least one older individual. ashy deposit with various ashy lenses. There are 161 other frag- The parietal fragment can be separated from the other neuro- ments of mammal bone from mostly bovids and/or cervids, and 31% cranial fragments based on overall thickness: specimens A11-2094 of all of the fragments are burned. Lithic artifacts are common. The and A11-2095 are thick and likely from a fully adult individual, excavators thought Lot 11 might be a secondary burial, and they while specimen A14-1500 is thinner and probably belongs to argued that it may be Epi-Paleolithic or later. However, it seems a different individual, possiblydthough not necessarilyda more likely that it is a secondary dump for ash and debris from subadult. The frontal fragment is most likely from an adult, given hearths (explaining the ashy lenses), or, less likely, a location of in the marked development of the temporal line. The parietal and situ burning. Either way, the large quantity of burned nonhuman frontal fragments could represent the same individual, and their bone seems inconsistent with a burial, either primary or secondary, close stratigraphic proximity is consistent with this conclusion. and it seems more likely that the human bone is there in the same Thus, at least four individuals are represented among the Eshkaft-e context as the mammal bone: as food refuse from a butchery-and- Gavi human remains. cooking event. This inference is more consistent with cannibalism, and less consistent with ceremonial defleshing, but the small Evidence of butchery and burning sample of material makes a firm conclusion impossible. Never- theless, the cutmarks on the Eshkaft-e Gavi specimens add to Several of the Eshkaft-e Gavi specimens show clear signs of a growing sample of butchered hominin remains extending back butchery and burning. Stone-tool cutmarks, diagnosed using pub- into the Plio-Pleistocene (e.g., White, 1986; Fernańdez-Jalvo et al., lished criteria (Blumenschine et al., 1996) and an extensive collec- 1996, 1999; Defleur et al., 1999; Pickering et al., 2000; Ramirez tion of experimentally generated surface marks for comparison, Rozzi et al., 2009). were identified on four of the bones: (1) the frontal fragment has a single cutmark on the ectocranial surface near the medial break Conclusions superior to the orbit (Fig. 7); (2) the clavicle has a single cutmark in the center of the diaphysis (Fig. 9); (3) the patella has multiple The hominin remains described here derive from Eshkaft-e Gavi, cutmarks on the anteroinferior surface near the inferior margin of a cave in the southern Zagros Mountains, Iran. While the cave the bone (Fig. 11); and (4) the juvenile femur has cutmarks on the preserves Epi-, Upper, and Middle Paleolithic deposits, all of the anterior aspect of the proximal shaft (Fig. 10). The cutmarks on the specimens come from the Epi- and Upper Paleolithic deposits. femur are slices (they enter the bone at an angle), and they occur in Hominin remains are not common from Zagros Mountain sites, and a parallel-to-subparallel manner down the shaft. This pattern is thus Eshkaft-e Gavi is notable for having a sample, albeit rather consistent with a few related slicing actions for defleshing (Binford, small. However, the excavations there were not extensive, and the 1981; Nilssen, 2000). presence of these specimens suggests that the site may have more These four bones, along with the parietal fragment, also exhibit remains that could be revealed through expanded excavations. evidence of extensive burning. The frontal fragment, clavicle, Consistent with their Epi- and Upper Paleolithic context, the femur, and patella each exhibit a black carbonization over most of hominin remains appear to represent anatomically modern their surfaces. The frontal fragment and femur are also character- humans. The age of the bulk of the sample is uncertain, but the ized by a white calcining, on the far left portion of the margin in the molar occurs at the base of the Upper Paleolithic sequence near the case of the frontal fragment and on the posterior surface of the boundary with the Middle Paleolithic. It lacks diagnostic Nean- femoral diaphysis. The parietal is covered with a dark-gray dertal features and is morphologically similar to modern human carbonization across the entire endocranial surface and part of the material, and thus, like the early Upper Paleolithic industries in ectocranial surface, and both surfaces have a lustrous sheen. Europe (e.g., the Aurignacian), the Baradostian appears to be The presence of cutmarks and burning raises the possibility that associated with modern humans. The younger specimens exhibit the human remains were cannibalized. Cannibalism is a topic that no evidence of archaic features; in each case where diagnostic has both inherent appeal and targeted bias, and identifying it in the anatomy is preserved, it is anatomically modern. Many of the archaeological record requires rigorous method and documentation hominin specimens are burned, perhaps from cooking, but the (Villa et al., 1988; White, 1992; Villa, 1992). To begin, two questions sample and contextual information are insufficient to confidently must be addressed: (1) Is there evidence for human butchery? and state whether this burning resulted from intentional cooking or (2) Is there evidence for human consumption? Here, we use the term secondary burning. Four of the hominin specimens show clear ‘‘butchery’’ to simply mean intentional dismemberment and/or traces of stone-tool butchery by humans, and this patterning is defleshing by people, and no goal to that action is implied. Dis- more consistent with cannibalism, though such an inference should memberment and/or defleshing can be carried out with many goals be regarded cautiously, given the small sample. Regardless, the in mind, including consumption and ritual preparation for burial. Eshkaft-e Gavi hominin sample expands the record of human The cutmarks reported here have all the features regularly used butchery of human carcasses into the Upper Paleolithic/ to diagnose stone-tool cutmarks (Fisher, 1995; Blumenschine et al., Epi-Paleolithic of the Zagros Mountains. 1996), and they are clearly not the result of tramplingdthe marks are subparallel and appear to have been made by the same stone and Acknowledgements action; most are long scraping marks, which have not been reported in trampling damage; the marks are deep and V-shaped, and one The analysis of the Zagros faunal collections was funded by NSF can clearly see that the sharp-edged tool cut into the bone at a steep grant SBR-9727668 to CWM. We thank the following people for angle (Behrensmeyer et al., 1986); and each mark occurs at aiding us in various aspects of this study: Yoshiko Abe for producing 258 J.E. Scott, C.W. Marean / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 248–259 the first drafts of the site plan and stratigraphy figures, and assisting Le´veˆque, F., Vandermeersch, B., 1980. Dećouverte de restes humains dans un niveau with the analysis of the nonhuman faunal assemblage; Naomi Castelperronien a` Saint-Ce´saire (Charente-Maritime). C.R. Acad. Sci. 291, 187–189. Cleghorn for a draft of Fig. 1; Melinda Zeder and the Smithsonian Lindly, J.M., 2005. The Zagros Mousterian: A Regional Perspective. Arizona State Institution for lending the collection to CWM; Caroline Souday for University Anthropological Papers No. 56, Tempe. graciously sharing her knowledge of molar shapes in the genus Marean, C.W., 1998. A critique of the evidence for scavenging by Neanderthals and early modern humans: new data from Kobeh Cave (Zagros Mountains, Iran) and Homo; Michael Rosenberg for providing helpful information about Die Kelders Cave 1 layer 10 (South Africa). J. Hum. Evol. 35, 111–136. the site and reading this manuscript and checking our excavation Marean, C.W., Cleghorn, N., 2003. Large mammal skeletal element transport: details for accuracy; and Fereidoun Biglari for providing Eshkaft-e applying foraging theory in a complex taphonomic system. J. Taphonomy 1, 15–42. Gavi’s geographic coordinates. We are grateful to Steve Leigh, the Marean, C.W., Kim, S.Y., 1998. Mousterian faunal remains from Kobeh cave (Zagros associate editor, Erik Trinkaus, and two anonymous reviewers for Mountains, Iran): behavioral implications for Neanderthals and early modern providing helpful comments and suggestions that greatly improved humans. Curr. Anthropol. 39, S79–S114. Marean, C.W., Domıńguez-Rodrigo, M., Pickering, T.R., 2004. Skeletal element the manuscript. equifinality in zooarchaeology begins with method: the evolution and status of the ‘‘shaft critique.’’ J. Taphonomy 2, 69–98. McCown, T.D., Keith, A., 1939. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, Vol. II: The Fossil References Human Remains from the Levalloiso-Mousterian. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Minugh-Purvis, N., 1988. Patterns of Craniofacial Growth and Development in Bailey, S.E., 2002a. A closer look at Neanderthal postcanine dental morphology: the Upper Pleistocene Hominids. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. mandibular dentition. Anat. Rec. 269B, 148–156. Minugh-Purvis, N., Radovcˇic´, J., Smith, F.H., 2000. Krapina 1: a juvenile Neandertal Bailey, S.E., 2002b. Neandertal Dental Morphology: Implications for Modern Human from the early late Pleistocene of Croatia. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 111, 393–424. Origins. Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University. Nilssen, P.J., 2000. An Actualistic Butchery Study in South Africa and Its Implications Bailey, S.E., Hublin, J.-J., 2006. Dental remains from the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur- for Reconstructing Hominid Strategies of Carcass Acquisition and Butchery in Cure (Yonne). J. Hum. Evol. 50, 485–508. the Upper Pleistocene and Plio-Pleistocene. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Bailey, S.E., Weaver, T.D., Hublin, J.-J., 2009. Who made the Aurignacian and other Cape Town. early Upper Paleolithic industries? J. Hum. Evol. 57, 11–26. Oberlander, T., 1965. The Zagros Streams: A New Interpretation of Transverse Bass, W.M., 1995. Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual, fourth ed. Drainage in an Orogenic Zone. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia. Olszewski, D.I., 1993a. The late Baradostian occupation at Warwasi Rockshelter, Iran. Baumler, M.F., Speth, J.D., 1993. Middle Paleolithic assemblage from Kunji Cave, Iran. In: Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros- In: Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros- Taurus. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. Taurus. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 1–74. 187–206. Behrensmeyer, A.K., Gordon, K.D., Yanagi, G.T., 1986. Trampling as a cause of bone Olszewski, D.I., 1993b. The Zarzian occupation at Warwasi Rockshelter, Iran. In: surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks. Nature 319, 768–771. Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros- Binford, L.R.,1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York. Taurus. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. Blumenschine, R.J., Marean, C.W., Capaldo, S.D., 1996. Blind tests on inter-analyst 207–236. correspondence and accuracy in the identification of cut marks, percussion Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L., 1994. The Zagros Aurignacian. Curr. Anthropol. 35, marks, and carnivore tooth marks on bone surfaces. J. Archaeol. Sci. 23, 68–75. 493–507. Pickering, T.R., White, T.D., Toth, N., 2000. Cutmarks on a Plio-Pleistocene hominid Braidwood, R.J., Howe, B., 1960. Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. The from Sterkfontein, South Africa. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 111, 579–584. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Piperno, M., 1972. Jahrom, a Middle Paleolithic site in Fars, Iran. East and West 22, Braidwood, R.J., Howe, B., Reed, C.A., 1961. The Iranian prehistoric project. Science 183–197. 133, 2008–2010. Piperno, M., 1974. Upper Paleolithic caves in southern Iran: preliminary report. East Churchill, S.E., Smith, F.H., 2000. Makers of the early Aurignacian of Europe. Yearb. and West 24, 9–13. Phys. Anthropol. 43, 61–115. Rak, Y., 1990. On the differences between two pelvises of Mousterian context from Cleghorn, N., Marean, C.W., 2004. Distinguishing selective transport and in situ the Qafzeh and Kebara caves, Israel. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 81, 323–332. attrition: a critical review of analytical approaches. J. Taphonomy 2, 43–67. Rak, Y., Arensburg, B., 1987. Kebara 2 Neanderthal pelvis: first look at a complete Conard, N.J., Grootes, P.M., Smith, F.H., 2004. Unexpectedly recent dates for human inlet. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 73, 227–231. remains from Vogelherd. Nature 430, 198–201. Ramirez Rozzi, F.V., d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Grootes, P.M., Kerautret, B., Dujardin, V., Coon, C.S., 1951. Cave Explorations in Iran, 1949. University Museum, University of 2009. Cutmarked human remains bearing Neandertal features and modern human Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. remains associated with the Aurignacian at Les Rois. J. Anthropol. Sci. 87,153–185. Cunningham, D.J., 1908. The evolution of the eyebrow region of the forehead, with Rosenberg, M., 1985. Report on the 1978 sondage at Eshkaft-e Gavi. Iran 23, 51–62. special reference to the excessive supraorbital development in the Neanderthal Rougier, H., Milota, S¸., Rodrigo, R., Gherase, M., Laurentxiu, S., Moldovan, O., Zilhaõ, J., race. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin. 46, 283–311. Constantin, S., Franciscus, R.G., Zollikofer, C.P.E., Ponce de Leo´ n, M., Trinkaus, E., Defleur, A., White, T., Valensi, P., Slimak, L., Cre´gut-Bonnoure, E´ ., 1999. Neanderthal 2007. Pes¸tera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology of early modern Europeans. cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, Arde`che, France. Science 286, 128–131. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 1165–1170. Dibble, H.,1984. The Mousterianindustry fromBisitun Cave (Iran). Paleórient 10,23–34. Roustaei, K., Biglari, F., Heydari, S., Vahdatinasab, H., 2002. New research on the Dibble, H.L., Holdaway, S.J., 1990. Le Paleolithique moyen de L’Abri sous roche de Palaeolithic of Lureston, West Central Iran. Antiquity 76, 19–20. Warwasi et ses relations avec le Mousterien du Zagros et du Levant. L’An- Scheuer, L., Black, S., 2000. Developmental Juvenile Osteology. Academic Press, San thropologie 94, 619–642. Diego. Dibble, H.L., Holdaway, S.J., 1993. The Middle Paleolithic industries of Warwasi. In: Sla´dek, V., Trinkaus, E., Sˇefcˇa´kova´, A., Halouzka, R., 2002. Morphological affinities of Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros- the Sˇal’a 1 frontal bone. J. Hum. Evol. 43, 787–815. Taurus. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. Smith, F.H., Ranyard, G.C., 1980. Evolution of the supraorbital region in upper 75–100. Pleistocene fossil hominids from south-central Europe. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Fernańdez-Jalvo, Y., Dıéz, J.C., Bermu´ dez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J.L., 53, 589–610. 1996. Evidence of early cannibalism. Science 271, 277–278. Soficaru, A., Dobos¸, A., Trinkaus, E., 2006. Early modern humans from the Pes¸tera Fernańdez-Jalvo, Y., Dıéz, J.C., Caćeres, I., Rosell, J., 1999. Human cannibalism in the Muierii, Baia de Fier, Romania. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 17196–17201. early Pleistocene of Europe (Gran Dolina, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). J. Soficaru, A., Petrea, C., Dobos¸, A., Trinkaus, E., 2007. The human cranium from the Hum. Evol. 37, 591–622. Pes¸tera Cioclovina Uscata, Romania: context, age, taphonomy, morphology, and Fisher Jr., J.W., 1995. Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. J. Archaeol. paleopathology. Curr. Anthropol. 48, 611–619. Meth. Theory 2, 7–68. Solecki, R., 1963. Prehistory in Shanidar Valley, northern Iraq. Science 139, 179–193. Garrod, D., 1930. The Paleolithic of southern Kurdistan. Bull. Am. School Prehist. Res. Solecki, R., 1971. Shanidar: The First Flower People. Knopf, New York. 6, 13–43. Souday, C., 2008. Analyse Morphome´trique des Molaires Dećiduales et De´finitives Harvati, K., Gunz, P., Grigorescu, D., 2007. Cioclovina (Romania): affinities of an early Dans le Genre Homo: Perspectives Phylogeńe´tiques et Biogeógraphiques. Ph.D. modern European. J. Hum. Evol. 53, 732–746. Dissertation, Museúm National d’ Histoire Naturelle. Heydari, S., 2007. The impact of geology and geomorphology on cave and rock- Speth, J.D., 1971. Kunji Cave. Iran 9, 172–173. shelter archaeological site formation, preservation, and distribution in the Stewart, T.D.,1960. Form of the pubic bone in Neanderthal man. Science 131,1437–1438. Zagros Mountains of Iran. Geoarchaeology 22, 653–669. Trinkaus, E., 1976a. Morphology of European and southwest Asian Neandertal pubic Hillson, S., Bond, S., 1997. Relationship of enamel hypoplasia to the pattern of tooth bones. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 44, 95–104. crown growth: a discussion. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 104, 89–103. Trinkaus, E., 1976b. The evolution of the hominid femoral diaphysis during the upper Hole, F., Flannery, K., 1967. The prehistory of south-western Iran: a preliminary Pleistocene in Europe and the Near East. Z. Morphol. Anthropol. 67, 291–319. report. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 33, 151–206. Trinkaus, E., 1983. The Shanidar Neandertals. Academic Press, New York. Hublin, J.-J., Spoor, F., Braun, M., Zonneveld, F.W., Condemi, S., 1996. A late Nean- Trinkaus, E., 1996. The M. obturator internus sulcus on middle and late Pleistocene derthal associated with Upper Paleolithic artefacts. Nature 381, 224–226. human ischia. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 101, 503–513. J.E. Scott, C.W. Marean / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 248–259 259

Trinkaus, E., 2000. Human patellar articular proportions: recent and Pleistocene Trinkaus, E., Moldovan, O., Milota, S¸., Bıˆlgar, A., Sarcina, L., Athreya, S., Bailey, S.E., patterns. J. Anat. 196, 473–483. Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., Higham, T., Ramsey, C.B., van der Plicht, J., 2003. An early Trinkaus, E., 2005. Early modern humans. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34, 207–230. modern human from the Pes¸tera cu Oase, Romania. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. Trinkaus, E., 2006. The purported human femur from Tamtama Cave, Iran. Bas- 100, 11231–11236. tanshenasi 2, 11–12. Turner II, C.G., Nichol, C.R., Scott, G.R., 1991. Scoring procedures for key morpho- Trinkaus, E., 2007. European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals. logical traits of the permanent dentition: the Arizona State University dental Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 7367–7372. anthropology system. In: Kelley, M., Larsen, C.S. (Eds.), Advances in Dental Trinkaus, E., Biglari, F., 2006. Middle Paleolithic human remains from Bisitun Cave, Anthropology. Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 13–31. Iran. Paleórient. 32, 105–111. Villa, P., 1992. Cannibalism in Europe. Evol. Anthropol. 1, 93–104. Trinkaus, E., Villemeur, I., 1991. Mechanical advantages of the Neandertal thumb in Villa,P.,Mahieu,E.,1991.Breakage patternsofhumanlong bones. J.Hum.Evol. 21,27–48. flexion: a test of an hypothesis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 84, 249–260. Villa, P., Courtin, J., Helmer, D., 1988. Cannibalism in Old World prehistory. Rivista di Trinkaus, E., Biglari, F., Mashkour, M., Monchot, H., Reyss, J.L., Rougier, H., Heydari, S., Anthropologie 66, 47–64. Abdi, K., 2008. Late Pleistocene human remains from Wezmeh Cave, Western White, T.D., 1986. Cut marks on the Bodo cranium: a case of prehistoric defleshing. Iran. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 135, 371–378. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 69, 503–509. Trinkaus, E., Hillson, S.W., Franciscus, R.G., Holliday, T.W., 2006. Skeletal and dental White, T.D., 1992. Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346. Priceton pathology. In: Trinkaus, E., Svoboda, J. (Eds.), Early Modern Human Evolution in University Press, Princeton. Central Europe: The People of Dolnı´ Veˇstonice and Pavlov. Oxford University Young Jr., T.C., Smith, P.E.L., 1966. Research in the prehistory of central western Iran. Press, Oxford, pp. 419–458. Science 153, 386–391.