Table 1.
Anthropogenic modifications on bone of principal taxa from TD6–2 (Homo antecessor and Cervidae 2–3 sized) and MIR4 (Homo sapiens and Ovicaprini).
Fig 1.
Selection of the quartzite and chert flakes used in the butchery experiment.
a) QTAC19; b) QTAC20; c) QTAC21; d) SNC40; e) SNC41 and f) SNC42.
Table 2.
Experimental protocol variables and edge features of the stone tools.
Fig 2.
Explanatory scheme of the different steps followed during the butchering process.
a) Pattern of the slices and direction of the cuts made during the skinning of the carcass. b) Areas in which the dismembered by segments (dashed line) and the disarticulation of elements (continuous line) was performed. c) Areas where bone was broken by percussion (dots) and where the fracture was performed by bending (dashed line).
Table 3.
Features of the anvil and hammerstone used for the fracture of each bone.
Table 4.
Number remains of more than 2cm recovered.
Table 5.
Number of specimens that show cut marks.
Fig 3.
Examples of cut marks on the chimpanzee sample.
a) Slicing marks on a scapula. b) Slicing marks on the shaft of a chimpanzee femur. c) Another example of slicing marks on an ulna. d) Phalange with cut marks. e) Cut marks on a pisiform. f) Chop marks on a shaft of femur performed during the fracture of the bone.
Fig 4.
Distribution of the cut marks on: a) skull, b) mandible, c) vertebrae and d) ribs of the chimpanzee sample.
Fig 5.
Examples of bone breakage from the chimpanzee sample.
a) Two fragments resulting from fracture of the chimpanzee’s face. b) Peeling on the rib angles. c) Fragments resulting from fracturing a humerus. d) Percussion impact on a radius. e) Parasite flake products fracturing a femur. f) Percussion pit on femur fragment.g) Breakage of one metapodial (left) and one phalanx (right).
Fig 6.
Distribution of the cut marks on fore limb elements.
a) Scapulae, b) humeri, c) radii d) and ulna of the chimpanzee sample.
Fig 7.
Distribution of the cut marks on the coxa and hind limb elements.
a) Coxa, b) femurs, c) tibiae d) and fibulae of the chimpanzee sample.
Fig 8.
Distribution of the cut marks on metapodials and phalanges of the chimpanzee sample.
Fig 9.
Distribution of cut marks on Homo antecessor from TD6–2 elements.
a) skulls, b) mandibles, c) clavicles, d) vertebrae, e) ribs.
Fig 10.
Distribution of cut marks on Homo antecessor limb bones.
a) humerus, b) radii, c) ulnae, d) femurs e) tibiae, f) fibula, g) metapodials, e) and phalanges.
Fig 11.
Distribution of cut marks on Homo sapiens from MIR4A elements.
a) skulls, b) mandibles, c) clavicles, d) vertebrae, e) ribs, f) and scapulae.
Fig 12.
Distribution of cut marks on Homo sapiens from MIR4A limb bones.
a) humerus, b) ulnae, c) tibiae, d) femurs, e) fibula and f) metatarsal.
Fig 13.
Multiple Correspondence Analysis of cut mark distribution from experimental chimpanzee elements, Homo antecessor and Cervidae of TD6–2 assemblage and Homo sapiens and ovicaprini of MIR4A assemblages.
Figure captions: A = NISP; B = Maxim number of cut marks on one specimen; C = Skull with cut marks (NISP); D = Mandible with cut marks (NISP); E = Ribs with cut marks (NISP); F = Vertebrae with cut marks (NISP); G = Scapulae with cut marks (NISP); H = Humeri with cut marks (NISP); I = Radii with cut marks (NISP); J = Coxa with cut marks (NISP); K = Femurs with cut marks (NISP); L = Tibiae with cut marks (NISP); M = Metapodials with cut marks (NISP); N = Phalanges with cut marks (NISP); O = Remains with defleshing cut marks; P = Remains with disarticulation cut marks; Q = Remains with skinning cut marks; R = Remains with peeling; S = Remains with percussion marks; T = Total of remains with anthropogenic modifications