RESEARCH ARTICLE Cannibalism versus funerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay: comparisons of bone modifications from four prehistoric sites Silvia M. Bello 1 | Rosalind Wallduck 1 | Vesna Dimitrijević 2 | Ivana  Zivaljević 2 | Chris B. Stringer 1 1 Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD, London, UK 2 Laboratory for Bioarchaeology, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, 18- 20  Cika Ljubina, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia Correspondence Silvia M. Bello, Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD, London, UK. Email:s.bello@nhm.ac.uk Funding Information The research work of SMB is part of the “Human Behaviour in 3D” Project, funded by the Calleva Foundation. The research work of RW is part of the “Cut mark micromorphometrics and the stage of carcass decay: a pilot study using 3D microscopy” project funded by the Leverhulme Trust (Grant RPG-2013-348). VD and I  Z contributions were funded by Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia (Project III 47001 - Bioarchaeology of Ancient Europe: Humans, Animals and Plants in the Prehistory of Serbia). The research of CBS is supported by the Calleva Foundation and the Human Research Fund at the Natural History Museum (London). Abstract Objectives: Humanly induced modifications on human and non-human bones from four archaeo- logical sites of known funerary rituals (one interpreted as cannibalism and three interpreted as funerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay) were analyzed to ascertain whether macromorphological and micromorphological characteristics of cut marks can be used to distin- guish cannibalistic from secondary burial practices. Material and methods: Four collections were analyzed: the Magdalenian assemblage from Gough’s Cave (UK) and the Mesolithic-Neolithic bone samples from Lepenski Vir, Padina and Vlasac (Serbia). A total of 647 cut marks (345 on human and 302 on non-human remains) were imaged and measured using an optical surface measurement system, the Alicona InfiniteFocus, housed at the Natural History Museum (London, UK). Results: The frequency of cut marks at Gough’s Cave exceeds 65%, while it is below 1% in the Serbian sites, and no human tooth marks and only one case of percussion damage have been observed on the three Serbian collections. The distribution of cut marks on human bones is com- parable in the four assemblages. Cannibalized human remains, however, present a uniform cut mark distribution, which can be associated with disarticulation of persistent and labile articulations, and the scalping and filleting of muscles. For secondary burials where modification occurred after a period of decay, disarticulation marks are less common and the disarticulation of labile joints is rare. The micromorphometric analyses of cut marks on human and non-human remains suggest that cut marks produced when cleaning partially decayed bodies are significantly different from cut marks produced during butchery of fresh bodies. Conclusions: A distinction between cannibalism and secondary treatment of human bodies can be made based on frequency, distribution and micromorphometric characteristics of cut marks. KEYWORDS breakage damage, cut marks, human tooth marks, Magdalenian, Mesolithic 1 | INTRODUCTION There are many ways in which societies interact with the remains of their dead. The dead are preserved (e.g., mummification, embalming), reduced to their bare bones (e.g., excarnation, defleshing), destroyed beyond recognition (e.g., cremation), exhumed and displayed (e.g., ossuaries), and hidden from sight yet memorialized (e.g., tomb stones). Among these practices, cannibalism remains an extremely contentious issue in archaeology (Arens, 1979; Bahn, 1992; Turner & Turner, 1999) with many societies denying its occurrence (Anderson, 2008; Conklin, 2007; Fausto, 2007; Stoneking, 2003). Gathering incontrovertible evi- dence of human body consumption is difficult (cf. Diamond, 2000; Sal- adi e et al., 2012) and modifications of human remains are more often interpreted as defleshing or cleaning of partially skeletonized bodies 722 | V C 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ajpa Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2016; 161: 722-743 Received: 8 January 2016 | Revised: 27 July 2016 | Accepted: 11 August 2016 DOI 10.1002/ajpa.23079