Carcass transport decisions in Homo antecessor subsistence strategies Palmira Saladié a, b, * , Rosa Huguet a, b , Carlos Díez c , Antonio Rodríguez-Hidalgo a, b, d , Isabel Cáceres a, b , Josep Vallverdú a, b , Jordi Rosell a, b , José María Bermúdez de Castro e , Eudald Carbonell a, b, f a IPHES, Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social, C/Escorxador s/n, 43003 Tarragona, Spain b Area de Prehistoria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Avinguda de Catalunya 35, 43002 Tarragona, Spain c Laboratorio de Prehistoria, IþDþi, Universidad de Burgos, Plaza Misael Bañuelos s/n, 09001 Burgos, Spain d Equipo Primeros Pobladores de Extremadura, Casa de la Cultura Rodríguez Moñino, Avda, Cervantes s/n, 10003 Cáceres, Spain e Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre Evolución Humana (CENIEH), Paseo Sierra de Atapuerca s/n, 09002 Burgos, Spain f Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of Beijing, China article info Article history: Received 23 November 2009 Accepted 26 May 2011 Keywords: Differential transport Anatomical proﬁles Archaic Homo Zooarchaeology Hunting Pleistocene abstract Pleistocene foragers used several prey acquisition and processing strategies. These strategies and their associated decisions are elucidated by taphonomic studies that cover animal transport, modiﬁcations by different agents and archaeological remains. Interpretative models of archaeological sites are by necessity based on natural and experimental observations. Ethno-archaeological data shows that several factors inﬂuenced decisions about carcass transport from the kill site to the home site. These factors often have little archaeological visibility. Díez et al. (1999) has previously interpreted the general character- istics of the macro-mammal remains from Gran Dolina Level TD6-2 (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain) as the result of anthropic accumulation, in which the anatomical proﬁles appeared to be the result of selective transport based on the animals’ weight. Recent taphonomic analysis has shown that carcasses with different weights may be subject to similar transport strategies, suggesting that other factors inﬂuenced these choices. The hominins that occupied TD6-2 (the TD6-2 hominin group), at least sometimes, transported large carcasses to the cave in their entirety, implying participation by groups of individuals in hunting parties. These individuals delayed their consumption of large amounts of food, instead moving it to Gran Dolina, where it was shared with other group members. These decisions are evidence of social cooperation and food sharing amongst early European hominins. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction It is uncommon to ﬁnd whole carcasses in archaeological assemblages. Anatomical connections are usually scarce, with a high level of broken remains and a bias in the animals’ anatomical proﬁles. This may be due to: a) hominins selecting certain elements for transport (e.g., Yellen, 1977; Binford, 1978; Bunn and Kroll, 1986; O’Connell et al., 1988,1990; Gifford-Gonzalez, 1993; Oliver, 1993; Monahan, 1998; Faith and Gordon, 2007), b) activities that occur at the home base, e.g., bone cooking, cremation, bone breakage and/or food sharing (e.g., Todd and Rapson, 1988; Blumenschine and Selvaggio, 1988; Gifford-Gonzalez, 1993; Oliver, 1993; Marshall, 1994; Milo, 1998, 2005), c) carnivore gnawing and ravaging (e.g., Binford, 1981; Marean and Spencer, 1991; Marean et al., 1992; Blumenschine and Marean, 1993; Madrigal and Holt, 2002; Munson and Garniewicz, 2003; Marean and Cleghorn, 2003; Faith and Behrensmeyer, 2006), and/or d) differential destruction of some bones or their portions by post-depositional processes (e.g., Brain, 1981; Klein and Cruz-Uribe, 1984; Marean, 1991; Lyman, 1994). The aforementioned causes can hinder the reconstruction of the original anatomical composition. Skeletal-part proﬁles can help to interpret the type of access to animals (Bunn and Ezzo, 1993) and the transport strategy patterns used by Pleistocene hominins. Unfortunately, strict behavioral conclusions based on anatomical proﬁles may only be valid at sites with a simple taphonomic history (Lupo, 1999). Biological and non- biological processes subjected the majority of fauna assemblages, many of which consisted of multiple events, to destruction and modiﬁcation after hominin activity (Marean and Cleghorn, 2003). Many other circumstances can also affect transport decisions and therefore inﬂuence different anatomical proﬁles. The results * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: palmira@prehistoria.urv.cat (P. Saladié), rhuguet@iphes.cat (R. Huguet), clomana@ubu.es (C. Díez), arodriguez@iphes.cat (A. Rodríguez-Hidalgo), icaceres@iphes.cat (I. Cáceres), jvallverdu@iphes.cat (J. Vallverdú), jordi.rosell@ urv.cat (J. Rosell), jm.ber@cenieh.es (J.M. Bermúdez de Castro), ecarbonell@iphes. cat (E. Carbonell). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol 0047-2484/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.05.012 Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 425e446