Erik Trinkaus Cannibalism and Burial at Krapina
Department of Anthropology,
University of New Mexico, The fragmentarybut abundant Neanderthal remains from Krapina have
Albuquerque, NM 87131, U.S.A. long been considered to provide evidence for cannibalism in the early
Upper Pleistocene.A reviewof the purported evidencefor cannibalism at
Received 10July 1984 and Krapina (craniocervicalfragmcntation~diaphysealsplitting, "eut-rnarks"
accepted 3 September 1984 patterned preservationand breakage, burnt bone, and disassociationof the
skeletons) indicates that none of the damage patterns present in the
Keywords: Neanderthals, Krapina Neanderthal sample can be explained solely as the products of
Krapina, taphonomy, cannibalism. Furthermore, the frequenciesof skeletal part preservation
cannibalism, burial. indicate that the Krapina Neanderthals were buried, by natural or human
processes, soon after death.
1. Introduction
In 1895, Pleistocene deposits were discovered in the Krapina rockshelter in the Hrvatsko
Zagorje of northern Croatia, Yugoslavia. Starting four years later and continuing until
1905, D. Gorjanovi~-Kramberger conducted excavations at the site, producing a wealth of
fossils and artifacts, including approximately 800 human bones and bone fragments, the
largest sample of archaic human remains known from one site. These remains were
described in a series of publications culminating in monographs on the Neanderthal fossils
(1906) and the archeological remains (1913) (see Malez, 1970a, 1971, and Smith, 1976a,
for complete bibliographies). The site quickly became known to paleoanthropologists. Yet,
it was only recently, as a result of renewed interest in the Neanderthals, that the Krapina
sample has attracted the attention it deserves (e.g., Kallay, 1959, 1970a,b, among others;
Schaefer, 1964; Trinkaus, 1975, 1978; Smith, 1976a, b, 1978, 1982; Musgrave, 1977; Guth,
1978; Wolpoff, 1978, 1979; Alexeev, 1979). In addition, reanalyses of the excavation field
notes of Gorjanovid-Kramberger and the archeological and paleontological remains
(Guenther, 1959; Malez, 1970a,b,c) have provided more secure chronological,
paleontological and archeotogical frameworks against which to evaluate the human
remains.
It is apparent that the fragmentation of the Krapina Neanderthal remains has been
largely responsible for the dearth of attention paid to this sample until recently, despite the
rapid and extensive publication of many aspects of the site and its fossils by
Gorjanovi&-Kramberger three-quarters of a century ago. No one specimen preserves a
complete calotte, upper facial skeleton, or long bone, and originally each bone was
considered as though it represented a separate individual. Recently, through the efforts of
U. Schaefer, F. H. Smith, M. H. Wolpoff, J. Radov~i~, N. Minugh and myself, it has been
possible to associate many of the remains by individual and reassemble portions of bones.
Yet, the Krapina sample remains primarily a collection of isolated and incomplete bones.
O f particular interest here is the source of the fragmentation and disassociation of the
Krapina remains. Although most hominids fossils are incomplete, few of the larger Upper
Pleistocene samples exhibit a comparable level of both fragmentation and disassociation.
The traditional (Gorjanovi~-Kramberger, 1960, 1909) and recently revived (e.g.,
Tomi~-Karovi~, 1970; Ullrich, 1978) explanation for the condition of the fossils is that the
Krapina Neanderthals practiced cannibalism, fragmenting the bones to obtain brains,
marrow, and other soft tissues for ritual or dietary purposes. Although this interpretation
has been frequently questioned or ignored, it remains a common explanation for the
Journal of Human Evolution (1985) 14, 203-216
0047-2484/85/020203 + 14 $03.00/0 9 1985AcademicPress Inc. (London) Limited
204 E. TRINKAUS
condition of the Krapina fossils.* New perspectives on patterns of bone breakage and
accumulation (e.g., Behrensme~er & Hill, 1980; Klein, 1980; Brain, 1981; Binford, 1981;
Potts, 1982), however, suggest that alternative interpretations may better explain the
condition of the Krapina Neanderthal remains.
2. The Site of Krapina
The site of Krapina is a 12 m high rockshelter in the Hugnjakovo hill, above the village of
Krapina in northern Croatia. It was cut into Miocene sandstone and conglomerate during
the Middle Pleistocene and was filled with debris during the Upper Pleistocene (Gnenther,
1959; Malez, 1970a, 1978). Gorjanovi~-Kramberger divided the deposits into nine levels,
the first being the basal and culturally sterile level, and levels 2-9 being cultural horizons
within, and frequently separated by, sterile geological deposits. Levels 2, 3 and 4 represent
the earliest cultural horizons, and levels 3 and 4 (the "zona s Homo" of
Gorjanovi~-Kramberger, 1906) yielded the majority of the hominid remains (Smith,
1976a; Malez, 1978). Levels 2, 3 and 4 were, together, ca 3 m thick. They contained a
considerable amount of weathered sandstone amongst the abundant human and
non-human mammalian remains [including Castorfiber, Ursus spelaeus, Crocuta c~ocuta, Fells
pardus, F. silvestris, Dicerorhinus kirchbergensis, Sus scrofa, Megaloceros giganleus, Lmma dama,
Cervus elphaus, Capreolus capreolus, and Bos primigenius (Malez, 1970b, following the
terminology of Kurtfin, 1968)]. Relatively few artifacts derived from these cultural levels
(Grojanovi~-Kramberger, 1913; Malez, 1970c) [all of the cultural material at Krapina is
attributable to the Middle Paleolithic (Malez, 1970c)]. Level 4 was overlain by a 1 m thick
sterile rockfall, containing blocks of sandstone and related debris from the wall of the
rockshelter, some of which were removed by dynamite during the excavations
(Gorjanovi&Kramberger, 1906). The subsequent cultural levels exhibit cold and
cold-temperate macrofaunas (Malez, 1970b) and yielded abundant cultural remains
(Malez, 1970c) and a few hominids (Smith, 1976a; Malez, 1978). Levels 2-4 are usually
referred to the terminal last interglacial or initial last glacial, and the subsequent levels
probably date to the early last glacial (Malez, 1970a, 1978).
* The interpretation that the Krapina Neanderthals were cannibals,
although first proposed in 1906 by Gorj anovi~-Kramberger, did not become
popular until relatively recently. During the first half of the twentieth
century, even though the Krapina sample was mentioned in most reviews of
human paleontology, only Hrdli~ka (1930) and Skerlj (1939) accepted
Gmjanovi~-Kramberger's interpretation. Osborn (1928), Hooton (1931),
and Howells (1944), for example, did not mention cannabalism or patterns
of breakage with respect to the Krapina fossils, Boule (1921) only
mentioned the charring of the bones, whereas Keith (1915), Sollas (1924),
and MacCurdy (1932) stated that some of the specimens were charred and
possibly split open but questioned the interpretation of cannibalism.
Supporters of cannibalism at Krapina have increased in number since
World War II (e.g., Courville, 1950; O~egovid, 1958; Vallois, 1961; Howell,
1965; Roper, t969, Tomi&Karovi6, 1970; Smith, 1976a; Burian & Wolf,
1978; Ullrich, 1978; Campbell, t982; Wymer, 1982) even though many
have continued to ignore the issue (e.g., LeGros Clark, 1955; Howells, 1967;
Kennedy, 1975; Day, 1977; Wolpoff, 1980) and some (e.g., Bergounioux,
1958; Coon, 1962; Cole & Higgs, 1969; Kennedy, 1980) have mentioned the
interpretation with evident lack of enthusiasm. Thus, despite variation in
its popularity, the idea that cannabilism occurred at Krapina has never
been fully accepted or rejected by paleoanthropologists.
