# Taphonomic approach of Gravettian mortuary practices: Comparative study of Human and Saiga antelope from Buran-Kaya III (Crimea)

Laurent Crépin, Stéphane Péan, Marylène Patou-Mathis, Alexander Yanevich, Sandrine Prat

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Laurent Crépin, Stéphane Péan, Marylène Patou-Mathis, Alexander Yanevich, Sandrine Prat. Taphonomic approach of Gravettian mortuary practices: Comparative study of Human and Saiga antelope from Buran-Kaya III (Crimea). L'anthropologie, 2025, 129 (3), pp.103386. 10.1016/j.anthro.2025.103386. hal-05224615

HAL Id: hal-05224615

https://hal.science/hal-05224615v1

Submitted on 26 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
Taphonomic approach of Gravettian mortuary practices: comparative study of Human and Saiga antelope from Buran-Kaya III (Crimea).

Approche taphonomique des pratiques funéraires gravettiennes : analyse comparative des Hommes et des Antilope saïga de Buran-Kaya III (Crimée).

Laurent Crépin (a, b), Stéphane Péan (b), Marylène Patou-Mathis (b), Alexander Yanevich (c), Sandrine Prat (d).

a- Musée d'Angoulême, Angoulême, France

b- Histoire Naturelle des Humanités Préhistoriques (HNHP), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, MNHN-CNRS(E&E)-UPVD, Alliance Sorbonne Université, Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Paris, France

c- Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

d- Histoire Naturelle des Humanités Préhistoriques (HNHP), CNRS, MNHN-CNRS(E&E)-UPVD, Alliance Sorbonne Université, Musée de l'Homme, Paris, France

Laurent Crépin (a) : l.crepin@mairie-angouleme.fr

Stéphane Péan (b) : stephane.pean@mnhn.fr

Marylène Patou-Mathis (b) : marylene.patou-mathis@mnhn.fr

Alexander Yanevich (c) : janevic_a@ukr.net

Sandrine Prat (d) : sandrine.prat@mnhn.fr

Auteur correspondant : Laurent Crépin, l.crepin@mairie-angouleme.fr

## Abstract

The topic of this article concerns our last results on comparative taphonomic studies about human and faunal remains from a Gravettian site in Eastern Europe (Buran-Kaya III, Crimea). Indeed, this site which we excavated some years ago, provided a rich collection of archaeological artefacts especially lithic industry, faunal and human remains mainly for Early Upper Palaeolithic period. One the most important discovery on this site is the presence of an important quantity of human fragments with cutmarks on some of them.

We developed a comparative taphonomical study between the two main species of the site. We used classical methods as well as new technological supports (SEM, 3D digital video microscopy, CT-Scan ...), both on human and saiga antelope remains.
This paper aims to describe the modifications observed on the human remains and explore the post-mortem treatment of the bodies, including potential nutritional cannibalism and mortuary practices.

To test these hypotheses, we conducted a comparative analysis of the skeletal representation, taphonomic modifications and spatial distribution of human and saiga antelope remains. The results suggest a specific mortuary practice associated with secondary disposal or a non-nutritional cannibalism. Such specific practices are very rare in European Upper Palaeolithic contexts, and are only present in a very small number of sites.

Résumé

Cet article traite de nos derniers résultats sur les restes humains et fauniques d'un site gravettien d'Europe de l'Est (Buran-Kaya III, Crimée). En effet, ce site, que nous avons fouillé il y a quelques années, a fourni une riche collection d'artefacts archéologiques, en particulier de l'industrie lithique, de la faune et des restes humains, principalement pour la période du Paléolithique supérieur ancien.

L'une des découvertes les plus importantes sur ce site est la présence d'une quantité importante de fragments humains avec des marques de découpes sur certains d'entre eux.

Nous avons développé des études taphonomiques comparées entre les deux espèces principales du site. Nous avons utilisé des méthodes classiques ainsi que de nouveaux supports technologiques (MEB, microscopie numérique 3D, CT-Scan...), tant sur les restes humains que sur les restes d'antilopes saïgas.

Les objectifs sont de décrire les modifications observées sur les restes humains et d'explorer le traitement post-mortem des corps, y compris le cannibalisme nutritionnel potentiel et les pratiques mortuaires. Pour tester ces hypothèses, nous avons effectué une analyse comparative de la représentation du squelette, des modifications taphonomiques et de la distribution spatiale des restes humains et de ceux de l'antilope saïga. Les résultats vont dans le sens d'une pratique mortuaire spécifique associée à une dépôt secondaire ou à un cannibalisme non nutritionnel. Ces pratiques spécifiques sont très rares dans les contextes du Paléolithique supérieur européen et ne sont présentes que dans un très petit nombre de sites.

Key-words

Mortuary practices, Gravettian, modern human, saiga antelope, comparative taphonomy

Mots-clefs

Pratiques funéraires, gravettien, homme moderne, antilope saïga, taphonomie comparée

1. Introduction
The Buran-Kaya III site in Crimea is a key site for understanding the earliest anatomically modern human occupation in Europe and their possible biological and/or cultural interactions with Neanderthals (e.g. Marks and Monigal, 2000; Chabai, 2001; Chabai et al., 2004; Anikovich et al., 2007; Demidenko, 2008). This site has revealed a rich archaeological sequence spanning the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic, along with numerous well-preserved human remains in situ in the Upper Palaeolithic layers (Prat et al., 2011; Prat et al., 2018).

Located in eastern Crimea, the Buran-Kaya complex of sites lies along the Burulcha River in the Belogorsk region. Buran-Kaya III was discovered in 1990 by A. Yanevich and excavated until 2001 by a team led by A. Yanevich (Palaeolithic to Neolithic layers) and A. Marks (Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic layers), with contributions from V. Chabai, Y. Demidenko, K. Monigal, M. Otte and Y. Yamada (Chabai et al., 2004). Additional fieldwork was carried out between 2009 and 2011 by A. Yanevich and S. Péan.

In layers 6-2, 6-1, and 5-2, the lithic industries are characterized by a high proportion of microliths (87% of tools in layer 6-1), with a few microgravettes (Yanevich, 2014), aligning with the Gravettian technocomplex. Additionally, lithic artifacts typically linked to the Aurignacian technocomplex, such as Dufour and pseudo-Dufour blades (Yanevich, 2014), which are in the immediately underlying layers 6-3, 6-4, and 6-5, are absent in layers 6-2, 6-1, and 5-2. This absence further reinforces the classification of the lithics from the layers 6-2, 6-1 and 5-2 as Gravettian. The nature of this lithic industry suggests either long-term occupation or repeated settlement episodes (Yanevich, 2014). A number of 61 osseous points have been identified in layers 6-2, 6-1, and 5-2, mostly made of bone (and at least two specimens made of antler), interpreted as projectile spear points, arrowheads, awls and needles (Crépin et al., 2014; Yanevich, 2014). Together with marine and fresh water perforated shells (partly with human made perforations), personal ornaments made of mammal skeletal blank have been found: five beads and one engraved plate made of mammoth ivory and one fox perforated canine (layer 6-1) and two red deer perforated upper canines (layer 6-2). The lack of production waste indicates that these bone tools were likely imported. When combined with zooarchaeological data (Crépin et al., 2014), this evidence points to a pattern of recurrent short-term occupations, possibly for seasonal hunting or temporary butchery activities. This may have been related to the acquisition and processing of small- to medium-sized mammals, particularly Saiga antelope, which is the main game. Other animals, such as red fox, polar fox, and hare, were also consumed, with their fur likely being processed and utilized (Crépin et al., 2014).

Two human cranial fragments from the Gravettian layers have been dated to 32,450+250/-230 $^{14}$C B.P. for the specimen in layer 6-2 (37.4–36.2 ka cal B.P., GrA-50457, Péan et al., 2013), and 31,900+240/-220 $^{14}$C B.P. for the one in layer 6-1 (36.7-35.7 ka cal B.P., GrA-37938, Prat et al., 2011). Alongside
specimens from Mandrin cave in France (56.8-51.7 ka cal. B.P., Slimak et al. 2022); Bacho Kiro in Bulgaria (45.8-43.6 ka cal B.P., Fewlass et al., 2020; Hublin et al., 2020), Grotta del Cavallo Riparo Bombrini, Grotta di Fumane in Italy (e.g. 47.5-43.0 ka cal B.P., Benazzi et al., 2011, Benazzi et al., 2015); Peştera cu Oase in Romania (Oase 1, 41.8-36.9 ka cal B.P., Trinkaus et al., 2003) and Kostenki in Russia (Kostenki 14: 39.4-36.7 ka cal B.P., Marom et al., 2012), the Gravettian remains from Buran-Kaya III represent one of the earliest known occurrences of anatomically modern humans in Europe.

At Buran-Kaya III, around 200 human remains were uncovered in the three well-documented Upper Palaeolithic layers attributed to Gravettian (6-2, 6-1, and 5-2) mainly in layer 6-1. Their taxonomic classification is based on permanent teeth and the occipital fragment from layer 6-1. These dental remains exhibit traits that are more commonly found in anatomically modern humans than in Neanderthals (Prat et al., 2011). Furthermore, the occipital bone, lack features characteristic of Neanderthals, such as an occipital “bun” or a bilaterally transverse torus. Based on this combination of morphological traits, the human remains from layer 6-1 at Buran-Kaya III are attributed to anatomically modern humans (Prat et al., 2011).

Palaeogenomic analysis of these two fragments (Bennett et al., 2023) has revealed that these individuals belonged to the second wave of *Homo sapiens* settlement in Europe. Both cranial elements show evidence of distant interbreeding with Neanderthals, while the specimen from layer 6-1 also carries traces of interbreeding with individuals from the first wave of settlement, represented by the Zlatý Kůň individual (ca. 45,000 years old). Their genomes exhibit the highest similarity to Gravettian associated individuals found in later Gravettian populations of Western Europe and Mesolithic Caucasus populations.

The study of enamel dental hypoplasia, a nonspecific biomarker, suggests that these individuals were in good health (Prat, 2014). Isotopic analysis of bone collagen indicates a diet primarily based on terrestrial resources, with mammoth meat playing a dominant role in their protein intake (Drucker et al., 2017). This contrasts with the zooarchaeological record, where mammoth is represented only by a single ornament at the site (Crépin et al., 2014). Among the human remains from layer 6-1, only a few bones show evidence of human modifications.

This paper aims to describe the modifications observed on the human remains and explore the post-mortem treatment of the bodies, including potential nutritional cannibalism and mortuary practices.

To test these hypotheses, we conducted a comparative analysis of the skeletal representation, taphonomic modifications and spatial distribution of human and saiga antelope remains.
Rodrigo et al., 2009; Denys & Patou-Mathis, 2014, Fernández-Jalvo & Andrews, 2016, Hanon et al., 2018).

The following morphological criteria were used to differentiate linear marks resulting from dry particle abrasion during trampling and from butchery.

Trampling striations (see review in Hanon, 2019, p. 64-65):

- no preferential orientation, overlapping marks;

- mark irregularity, profile variation along its length;

- three joint criteria: high proportion of specimens bearing marks in the assemblage; high number of marks per specimen; high variability in length, depth, width and orientation per specimen except for short trampling less than two minutes);

- discriminating criteria: flat-bottomed transverse profile; mark trajectory more frequently sinuous; absence of shoulder effect or squaring along the mark.

Butchery striations (see review in Hanon, 2019, p. 55):

- asymmetrical V-shaped profile;

- straight trajectory;

- internal micro-striations;

- “shoulder” effect (secondary striation parallel to the main striation);

- few individualised marks on the surface of the bone.

After the determination study, the human bone specimens were cleaned. Very few marks of excavation tools were noticed.

The specimens were moulded with silicone paste (President light body) after the cleaning and before taking photos and observed under dinolite, stereo microscope and MEB. They were moulded twice to be observed again under MEB, in order to reduce the deposits in the striations and get a more accurate observation.

The technical equipements used are: mineralogist's magnifying glass, portable digital microscope (Dino-Lite), digital camera, stereomicroscope, digital microscope (HIROX, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Musée de l'Homme, Paris), scanning electron microscope (VEGA TESCAN, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris).
### 3. Results

The human remains from Buran-Kaya III from layer 6-1 (2001, 2009 and 2010 field seasons) primarily consist of cranial parts (NISP=109) and teeth (NISP=31, TABLE 1), accounting for 95% of the total remains. In contrast, the postcranial skeleton is represented by only seven hand phalanges. Based on the dental remains, at least five individuals have been identified: [5-9] years old, [10-14] years old, [15-19] years old, [20-24] years old, and over 30 years old (Prat, 2014).

The skeletal preservation, represented here as Percentage Survival (Ps), differs between humans and saiga antelopes (FIGURE 1, FIGURE 2). The human remains show a distinct absence of post-cranial elements, with no preserved long bone epiphyses or diaphyseal fragments identified. In contrast, the saiga antelope skeleton is better represented overall, particularly in long bones and skulls, though there is a noticeable deficit in the axial skeleton.

Concerning the surface bone modifications, the human remains show no sign of modification by carnivores and appear to have been buried relatively quickly, as evidenced by minimal degree of weathering, in contrast to the saiga antelope remains (FIGURE 3). Post-depositional fragmentation is notable for both taxa. The bones are highly fragmented, with 45% of the remains being less than 2 cm in size, 48% ranging between 2 and 5 cm, and only 7% larger than 5 cm.

Eighteen percent of saiga antelope remains show signs of intensive processing, including butchery cutmarks (FIGURE 4) resulting from skinning, disarticulation, defleshing and scraping, green-bone breakage patterns due to marrow extraction, and combustion staining (Crépin et al. 2014). Other V-shaped linear marks observed on saiga bones are attributed to dry sedimentary abrasion during trampling (FIGURE 4).

Among the human remains, 15 bone specimens (10.2%) show linear marks with V-shape cross section.

Among them, two occipital bone fragments, Nos. 55 and 57, are associable to one element.

The occipital fragment No. 55 is a small specimen (around 5 x 6 cm) with at least five striations visible only on the external side of the bone. Three of these marks make up a single set, probably produced during the same movement. These striations are fine, each about 12-13 mm long, one after the other with a small gap of a few millimetres between each and the whole shows a pronounced curved trajectory to the edge of the fragmented bone. They are shallow and narrow, and the morphology of these traces, observed by SEM, shows a V-shaped profile, the presence of micro-striations and Hertzian cones (FIGURE 5). Some of these striations are intersected by plant root U shaped etching linear marks. The position and orientation of these three successive striations, interpreted as cutmarks, suggest a single gesture with a relatively wide movement of the lithic tool, which "jumped" from one trace to another in the same gesture.
Other V-shaped linear marks are much shorter, finer, more superficial and non-orientated; they are
more likely due to trampling.

Another distinctive taphonomical feature of this bone is the presence of a probable percussion mark
on one edge. This possible impact point is associated with crushing marks, which were made on
relatively green bone but apparently did not succeed in breaking the bone: only the cortical outer table
of the bone was damaged, but the diploe and the inner table clearly did not undergo fracturing during
this action, which may or may not have been voluntary. However, the morphological details of this
trace do not allow us to validate or not this action, nor the possible contemporaneity with the
cutmarks.

The other occipital specimen from layer 6-1, No. 57, which is associated with the remain previously
described (No. 55), is a squamous part fragment, with the presence of the inion.

Numerous root traces are present throughout this specimen and greatly complicate the reading of the
surfaces, as they intersect practically all of the other taphonomical marks observed.

Numerous V-shaped linear traces are more or less easily visible on this specimen. Most traces on the
most convex parts of the occipital squama are very superficial, fine, short, in groups of two to four,
with no preferential orientation. This small number of traces can be attributed to trampling.

Other V-shaped linear marks are situated on and around the inion, mainly on the right side. They are
visible in the concavity to the right of the inion and seem to extend over it. In this area, there is a group
of three relatively pronounced, parallel, slightly sinuous and long striations. They are 7 to 15 mm long,
asymmetrically V-shaped in cross-section, maximally 50 to 100 µm deep, and they exhibit internal
micro-striations and a few shoulder effect traces (FIGURE 6). These three striations seem to begin on
the right side of the bone before disappearing in the most concave part at the right base of the inion.
This group of marks reappears on the inion, concentrated in a space less than one mm wide where the
three traces seem to overlap. Only wide traces are visible, with straight or curved edges, sub-parallel,
and with a few micro-striations at the bottom of the traces.

This group of cutmarks is clearly the result of the same action, with at least two or three successive
and identical gestures using a lithic tool. The movement would have started on the right side of the
inion and then been stopped and/or prolonged on that side. The nuchal ligament (strong and broad,
located in the posterior region of the nuchal region, and continuing the supraspinous ligament) as well
the trapezius muscle (also attached to the vertebral column and shoulder girdle) are inserted in this
area. The identified action could be an attempt to cut these two soft tissues.

The human temporal bone is represented by a single fragment of the temporo-mastoid, No. 56. It
shows the most obvious linear traces attributed to an anthropic origin in the assemblage, although
they are partly covered with manganese deposits or small carbonate crusts, which quite limits
observations. There are three cutting marks, which are very pronounced compared to the other
fragments in the assemblage. Two of these intersect. The smallest striation measures approximately 7
mm and crosses (at an angle of 15°) one of the other two 11 mm long striations. The latter two
scratches are parallel, relatively deep (around 150 to 250 µm), with a rather asymmetrical V-shaped
profile, a fairly straight shape (one is more markedly curved at its ends) and fairly blunt edges (FIGURE
7). SEM observations revealed a few micro-striations on the scratch walls, despite quite significant
alteration. Lastly, the ends of the two parallel striations are sheaf-shaped. They all have the same
overall direction. This group of linear marks appears to be highly structured and also seems to be the
result of one same gesture. The movement seems to originate at the base of the bone, moving
upwards. The striations are positioned under the end of the sternocleidomastoid muscle, which is one
of the largest and most superficial cervical muscles. They therefore appear to result of three marked
and quick gestures made with a lithic tool in order to cut this muscle.

Three to four other very short (less than 3 mm), very shallow linear traces, with flat bottom or U-
shaped cross-section, poorly marked and very altered at the edges, have been attributed to the
trampling action.

This fragment of fronto-parietal bone No. 46, from an adult individual, is the specimen bearing the largest number of linear marks on the exterior side, with a few rather unusual taphonomic traces. We counted at least 30 linear traces, almost all of which point in the same direction and are mostly interrupted at the upper fracture edge of the bone (FIGURE 8a).

Of the four linear traces with a different orientation, at least two are the result of excavation metal
tools (FIGURE 8a, top left of the specimen) and will therefore not be discussed here.

Three linear traces split into steps cross the piece from one edge to the other. These traces are long (10–20 mm), very thin, shallow, and straight, with a V- or U-profile (FIGURE 8c). They have microstriations on their walls and bases, and show a few shoulder effects.

The remaining twenty or so striations are almost all similar: same direction, parallel, very shallow, not
very pronounced, relatively wide, slightly curved, and all interrupted at the edge of the bone. Most are
less than 10 mm long and show microstriations. The cross-section is often flattened and asymmetrical.
They also exhibit numerous post-depositional alterations, such as manganese oxide deposits and
carbonate crusts (FIGURE 8b and c).

All of these traces appear to result from the same scratching and cleaning gesture of the bone surface,
which is attributed to scalping. The intense and systematic removal of this part of the skull, which was
likely still covered in skin or flesh, necessitates this type of action.
In addition, numerous plant root marks can be seen on this bone. Many of them overlap the linear traces and are therefore posterior to them, as are certain deposits of manganese oxides or small carbonate crusts which sometimes cover certain striations (FIGURE 8b).

Finally, a brownish discolouration can be observed on the inner and outer surfaces of the lower edge of this bone. This staining is thought to be the result of contact with low-temperature heat (less than 200°C). The fact that the staining is visible on both sides of the bone and covers an area of less than 1 cm² suggests that it occurred after the cranial remains fragmented, either through contact with an incandescent element or heated sediment.

A total of fifteen human cranial remains from Buran-Kaya III layer 6-1, attributed to at least four individuals, exhibit anthropic marks (TABLE 2).

Based on their position and orientation, these striations are attributed to scalping and disarticulation. Apart from possible traces of percussion on the occipital specimen No. 55, no marks of green bone fracture or burning modifications were observed on the human remains.

The percentages of bones with cutmarks and percussion marks considering the anatomical part are also different: anthropic modification are observed for the skull remains on 13.5 % for humans, 1.4% for saiga antelope; and for post-cranial remains, 0% for humans and 14.8% for saiga antelope. The modification frequencies are significantly different (chi square = 15.81, p<0.05, ddl = 2). This suggests different methods of treatment for these two species. The specific butchery marks, along with the over-representation of cranial remains, appear to indicate a deliberate selection of human skulls for non-dietary purpose.

Concerning the spatial distribution, although the human and saiga remains are spread across all the squares (FIGURE 9), their spatial distribution shows a concentration of human remains in square 11Б, conversely saiga are regularly disperse on the 6 m² of the excavation area.
4. Discussion and conclusions

The morphology, location in relation to muscle insertions, and distribution of the cutmarks suggest
two distinct processes: scalping, as evidenced by fronto-parietal fragments, and disarticulation of the
occipital and temporal bones (FIGURE 10). Three possible anthropogenic actions on human bodies can
be proposed to explain the presence of these cut marks on various human remains: dietary and non-
dietary cannibalism, or mortuary practices (e.g. Villa et al., 1986; Le Mort & Gambier, 1991; White,
1992; Fernández-Jalvo et al., 1996; Boulestin, 1999; Duday, 2009, Boulestin & Henry-Gambier, 2012;
Marginedas et al., 2020). Our findings indicate that the two taxa were processed differently, with
human skulls being intentionally selected for post-mortem treatments of the dead. As a result, the
hypothesis of nutritional cannibalism (as defined by Villa and colleagues, Villa et al., 1986) is not
supported by the data from Buran-Kaya III. Instead, ritual cannibalism or a specific mortuary practice,
such as post-mortem disarticulation of bodies for secondary disposal, are proposed as alternative
explanations. Furthermore, the presence of imported personal ornaments, comprising perforated
shells, five ivory beads, one engraved ivory plate and one fox perforated canine in layer 6-1,
strengthens the hypothesis of symbolic behaviour and/or a specific ritual associated with these
Gravettian individuals. It must be noticed that personal ornaments made of fox canines, mammoth
ivory and fossil shells are often associated to human remains in Gravettian burials from Central and
Eastern Europe (Henry-Gambier, 2008).

Gravettian subsistence activities at Buran-Kaya III were primarily centred around the use of Saiga
antelope (Crépin et al., 2014), likely during recurrent short-term occupations, such as seasonal hunting
or temporary butchery camps. The human remains from layer 6-1 uncovered from the Upper
Palaeolithic layers have been directly dated to 36.9-35.5 ka cal BP (layer 6-1, Prat et al., 2011). These
remains with also the remains unearthed from layer 6-2 (37.1–35.7 ka cal BP, Péan et al., 2013)
represent some of the oldest direct evidence of anatomically modern humans in Europe within a well-
documented archaeological context (Gravettian *sensu lato*), which is quite unique. Based on
taphonomic observations, the specimens from layer 6-1 are the oldest Upper Palaeolithic modern
human remains from Eastern Europe to show evidence of post-mortem treatment of the corpses. This
is the earliest evidence (dating to 32 ka ¹⁴C BP, i.e. 37-36 ka cal BP) of complex burial practices
performed by anatomically modern humans in Eastern Europe. Anthropic treatment of human remains
has been documented in modern humans from both Aurignacian [e.g., perforated teeth from
Brassempouy (Henry-Gambier et al., 2004); cut marks from Mladeč (Teschler-Nicola, 2006), La
Crouzade (Henry-Gambier & Sacchi, 2008), Les Rois (Ramirez-Rozzi et al., 2009); burned bones and
perforated teeth from Isturitz (White & Normand, 2015)] and Gravettian contexts [e.g., perforated
teeth from Abri Pataud, layer 5 (Vercoutère et al., 2008); grooved teeth from Les Vachons (Le Mort,
1981), Dolní Věstonice (Svoboda, 2006)]. In Western Europe, the most common funeral practice associated with the Gravettian techno-complex is primary burial, where the dead, regardless of age or sex, were deposited in the ground with ochre, objects, and ornaments (Henri-Gambier, 2008). However, primary deposition of the body followed by the selection of bones for secondary burial, which corresponds to a post-mortem manipulation of the body is apparently showed in Gravettian layer 6-1 at Buran-Kaya III. Post-mortem interventions have been also described in in Magdalenian (e.g. Le Mort & Gambier, 1991) and other Gravettian contexts, such as Abri Pataud layer 2, Dordogne, France (21,800 +/- 90 BP - 22,470 +/- 90 BP, or 25.85-27.12 ka cal BP) (Chiotti et al., 2013; Henri-Gambier et al., 2013a) and in the Abri de Fournol, Lot, France (Villotte et al., 2019). It has to be noted that the bodies were not buried also at Cro-Magnon, Dordogne, France (e.g. Henri-Gambier et al., 2013b), at Cussac, Dordogne, France (e.g. Henri-Gambier et al., 2013c; Jaubert et al., 2017; Peignaux et al., 2019), at Gargas, Hautes Pyrénées, France (Foucher et al., 2019) or at Vilhonneur, Charente, France (Henry-Gambier et al., 2007). All these discoveries modify this paradigm concerning the primary burial for Gravettian culture (see also Villotte et al., 2019). This suggests that there was a diversity of mortuary practices among the Gravettian cultural techno-complex.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editors and the reviewers of L'Anthropologie.

We also thank the CNRS, the Fyssen Foundation, the French National Research Agency (ANR "Mammouths" Research Project No. ANR-05-JCJC-0240-01), the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (ATM Program on "Relations Sociétés-Nature dans le long terme"), and the French Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs for their financial support. Thanks also to the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine for permission to excavate at Buran-Kaya III, and to all the team members of the 2001 and 2009–2011 field seasons.

We dedicate this article to Krystyna, who died to save lives.
References

Anikovich, M.V., Sinitsyn, A.A., Hoffecker, J.F., Holliday, V.T., Popov, V.V., Lisitsyn, S.N., Forman S.L., Levkovskaya G.M., Pospelova, G.A., Kuzmina I.E., Burova, N.D., Goldberg, P., MacPhail R.I., Giaccio, B., Praslov, N.D., 2007. Early Upper Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and implications for the dispersal of modern humans. *Science*, 315, 223-6

Benazzi, S., Douka, K., Fornai, C., Bauer, C. C., Kullmer, O., Svoboda, J., Pap, I., Mallegni, F., Bayle, P., Coquerelle, M., Condemi, S., Ronchitelli, A., Harvati, K., Weber, G. W., 2011. Early dispersal of modern humans in Europe and implications for Neanderthal behaviour. *Nature*, 479(7374), 525–528.

Benazzi, S., Slon, V., Talamo, S., Negrino, F., Peresani, M., Bailey S.E., Sawyer, S., Pantta D., Vicino, G., Starnini, E., Mannino, M.A., Salvadori, P.A., Meyer, M., Pääbo S., Hublin J.J., 2015. The makers of the Protoaurignacian and implications for Neandertal extinction. *Science*, 348, 793–796

Bennett, A.E., Parasayan, O., Prat, P., Péan, S., Crépin, L., Yanevich, A., Grange, T., Geigl, E-M., 2023. Genome sequences of 36,000- to 37,000-year-old modern humans at Buran-Kaya III in Crimea. *Nature Ecology and evolution*. 7(12), 2160–2172.

Binford, L. R., 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York, Academic Press, 509 p.

Boulestin, B., 1999. Approche taphonomique des restes humains. *Le Cas des Mésolithiques de la Grotte des Perrats et le Problème du Cannibalisme en Préhistoire Récente Européenne* BAR International Series 776, Archaeopress, Oxford.

Boulestin, B., Henry-Gambier D., 2012. Crânes trophées, crânes d'ancêtres et autres pratiques autour de la tête : problèmes d'interprétation en archéologie. BAR International Series 2415, Archaeopress, Oxford

Bunn, H.T., 1986. Patterns of Skeletal Element Representation and Hominid Subsistence Activities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, and Koobi Fora, Kenya. *Journal of Human Evolution*, 15, 673-690.

Chabai, V.P., 2001. The Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic in Crimea (Ukraine). In: Zilhão J, Aubry T, Carvalho AF (Ed), Les premiers hommes modernes de la péninsule ibérique. Actes du colloque de la commission VIII de l'UISPP, Trabalhos de Arqueologia 17, Lisboa p. 25-35.

Chabai, V.P., Monigal, K., Marks, A.E., 2004. The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. ERAUL 104, Liège. 482 p.

Chiotti, L., Nespoulet, R., Henry-Gambier, D., 2013. Une nouvelle fouille à l'abri Pataud. In: Nespoulet, R., Chiotti, L., Henry-Gambier, D. (Ed), Le Gravettien Final de l'abri Pataud (Dordogne, France). Fouilles et Études 2005-2009. Archaeopress, BAR International Series, 2458, Oxford, pp. 13–21.
Crépin, L., Péan, S., Lázničková-Galetová, M., 2014. Comportements de subsistance au Paléolithique supérieur en Crimée : analyse archéozoologique des couches 6-2, 6-1 et 5-2 de Buran-Kaya III. *L'Anthropologie*, 118(5), 584-598.

Demidenko, Y.E., 2008. The Early and Mid-Upper Palaeolithic of the North Black Sea region: an overview. *Quartär* 55, 99–114

Denys, C., Patou-Mathis, M., 2014. Manuel de Taphonomie. Éditions Errance

Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Pickering, T.R., Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., 2005. Cutmarked bones from Pliocene archaeological sites at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia: implications for the function of the world's oldest stone tools. *Journal of Human Evolution*, 48(2), 109-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.09.004.

Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., de Juana, S., Galán, A.B., Rodríguez, M., 2009. A new protocol to differentiate trampling marks from butchery cut marks, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 36(12), 2643-2654

Drucker, D.G., Naito, Y.I., Péan, S., Prat, S., Crépin, L., Chikaraishi, Y., Ohkouchi, N., Puaud, S., Lázničková-Galetová, M., Patou-Mathis, M., Yanevich, A., Bocherens, H., 2017. Isotopic analyses suggest mammoth and plant in the diet of the oldest anatomically modern humans from far southeast Europe. *Scientific Reports*, 7, 6833. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-07065-3

Duday, H., 2009. *The Archaeology of the Dead: Lectures in Archaeothanatology*. Translated by Cipriani, A.M. and Pearce, J. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Fernández-Jalvo, Y., Díez, J.C., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J.L. 1996. Evidence of Early Cannibalism. *Science*, 271, 277-278.

Fernández-Jalvo, Y., Andrews, P., 2016. Atlas of taphonomic identifications: 1001 images of fossil and recent mammal bone modification. Springer, Dordrecht

Fewlass, H., Tamalo, S., Wacker, L., Kromer, B., Tuna, T., Fagault, Y., Bard, E., MacPherron S., Aldeias, V., Maria, R., Martisius, N.L., Paskulin, L., Rezek, Z., Sinet-Mathiot, V., Sirakova, S., Smith G.M., Spasov, R., Welker, F., Sirakov, N., Tsanova, T., Hublin, J.J., 2020. A 14C chronology for the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition at Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. *Nature Ecology and Evolution*, 4, 794-801

Fisher, J.W., 1995. Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory*, 2, 7-68.

Foucher, P., San Juan-Foucher, C., Villotte, S., Bayle, P., Vercoutère, C., Ferrier, C., 2019. Les vestiges humains gravettiens de la grotte de Gargas (Aventignan, France): datations 14C AMS directes et contexte chrono-culturel. *Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française* 116, 29-39.

Giacobini, G., Patou-Mathis, M., 2002. Fiche Rappels taphonomiques. In: Patou-Mathis, M., (Ed.), Retouchoirs, compresseurs, percuteurs, retouchoirs, os à impressions et éraillures. Fiches de la
Commission de nomenclature sur l'industrie de l'os préhistorique, Cahier X, Editions Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, p. 21-28.

Hanon, R., 2019. Comportements de subsistance des hominines du Pléistocène inférieur d'Afrique du Sud : analyse archéozoologique du site de Cooper's D (Bloubank Valley). Thèse de Doctorat, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris 565 p.

Hanon, R., Péan, S., Prat, S., 2018. Reassessment of Anthropic Modifications on the Early Pleistocene Hominin Specimen Stw53 (Sterkfontein, South Africa). *Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris*, 30, 49-58. 10.3166/bmsap-2018-0013. hal-02196934.

Henry-Gambier, D., Maureille, B., White, R., 2004. Vestiges humains des niveaux de l'Aurignacien ancien du site de Brassempouy (Landes). *Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris.*, 16, 49-87.

Henry-Gambier, D., Sacchi, D., 2008. La Crouzade V-VI (Aude, France): un des plus anciens fossiles d'anatomie moderne en Europe occidentale. *Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris*, 20, 79-104

Henry-Gambier, D., Beauval, C., Airvaux, J., Aujoulat, N., Baratin, J.F., Buisson-Catil, J., 2007. New hominid remains associated with gravettian parietal art (Les Garennes, Vilhonneur, France). *Journal of Human Evolution*, 53, 747-750.

Henry-Gambier, D., 2008. Comportement des populations d'Europe au gravettien: pratiques funéraires et interprétations. *Paleo* 20, 165-204

Henry-Gambier, D., Villotte, S., Beauval, C., Brůžek, J., Grimaud-Hervé, D., 2013a. Les vestiges humains : un assemblage original. In: Nespoulet, R., Chiotti, L., Henry- Gambier, D. (Eds.), Le Gravettien Final de l'abri Pataud (Dordogne, France). Fouilles et Études 2005–2009. BAR International Series 2458. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 135–177.

Henry-Gambier, D., Nespoulet, R., Chiotti, L., 2013b. An Early Gravettian cultural attribution for the human fossils from the Cro-Magnon rock shelter (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne). *Paleo* 24, 121-138.

Henry-Gambier, D., Courtaud, P., Duday, H., Dutailly, B., Villotte, S., Deguilloux, M.-F., Pémonge, M.-H., Aujoulat, N., Delluc, M., Fourment, N., Jaubert, J., 2013c. Grotte de Cussac (Le Buisson-de-Cadouin, Dordogne): un exemple de comportement original pour le Gravettien. In: Jaubert, J., Fourment, N., Depaepe, P. (Ed.), Transitions, Ruptures et Continuité En Préhistoire : XXVIle Congrès Préhistorique de France, Bordeaux-Les Eyzies 31 Mai-5 Juin 2010. vol. 1. Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, pp. 169–182.

Hublin, J. J., Sirakov, N., Aldeais, V., Bailey, S., Bailey, S., Bard, E., Delvigne, V., Endarova, E., Fagault, Y., Fewlass, H., Hajdinjak, M., Kromer, B., Krumov, I., Marreiros, J., Martisius, N.L., Paskulin, L., Sinet-Mathiot, V., Meyer, M., Pääbo, S., Papav, V., Rezek, Z., Sirakova, S., Skinner, M.M., Smith, G.M.,
Spasov, R., Talamo, S., Tuna, T., Wacker, L., Wleker, F., Wilcke, A., ZAhariev, N., MacPherron, S., Tsanova, T., 2020. Initial Upper Palaeolithic *Homo sapiens* from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. *Nature* 581, 299-302

Jaubert, J., Genty, D., Valladas, H., Camus, H., Courtaud, P., Ferrier, C., Feruglio, V., Fourment, N., Konik, S., Villotte, S., Bourdier, C., Costamagno, S., Delluc, M., Goutas, N., Katnecker, É., Klaric, L., Langlais, M., Ledoux, L., Maksud, F., O'Farrell, M., Mallye, J.-B., Pierre, M., Pons-Branchu, E., Régnier, É., Théry-Parisot, I., 2017. The chronology of human and animal presence in the decorated and sepulchral cave of Cussac (France). *Quaternary International*, 432, 5-24.

Le Mort, F. 1981. Dégradations artificielles sur des os humains du Paléolithique. Thèse de 3ème cycle, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, 204 p.

Le Mort, F., Gambier, D., 1991. Cutmarks and breakage on the human bones from Le Placard (France). An example of special mortuary practice during the Upper Palaeolithic. *L'Anthropologie* 29, 189-194.

Lyman, R. L. 1994. Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Marginedas, F., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., Soto, M., Bello, S.M., Cáceres, I., Huguet, R., Saladié, P., 2020. Making skull cups: Butchering traces on cannibalised human skulls from five European archaeological sites. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 114, 105076

Marks, A, Monigal, K., 2000. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic interface at Buran-Kaya-III, Eastern Crimea. In: Orschiedt, J., Weniger, G.C., (Eds), Neanderthals and Modern Humans-Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern Europe from 50,000-30,000 BP. Neanderthal Museum, Mettmann, p. 212-226.

Marom, A., McCullagh, J.S.O., Higham, T.F.G., et al., 2012. Single amino acid radiocarbon dating of Upper Paleolithic modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 6878-81

Olsen, S.L., Shipman, P., 1988. Surface modification on bone: Trampling versus butchery, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 15(5), 535-553

Patou-Mathis, M., 1994. Taphonomie/Bone Modification. Outillage peu élaboré en os et en bois de Cervidés, IV, Artefacts 9, Ed. CEDARC, Treignes

Péan, S., Puaud, S., Crépin, L., Prat, S., Quilès, A., van der Plicht, J., Valladas, H., J. Stuart, A., Drucker, D., Patou-Mathis, M., Lanoë F., Yanevich, O., 2013. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic sequence of Buran-Kaya III (Crimea, Ukraine): new stratigraphical, paleoenvironmental and chronological results. *Radiocarbon*, 55, 1454-69
Peignaux, C., Kacki, S., Guyomarc'h, P., Schotsmans, E.M.J., Villotte, S., 2019. New anthropological data from Cussac cave (Gravettian, Dordogne, France): in situ and virtual analyses of locus 3. *Comptes Rendus Palevol* 18 (4), 455-464.

Poplin, F., 1976. Remarques théoriques et pratiques sur les unités utilisées dans les études d'ostéologie quantitative, particulièrement en archéologie préhistorique. Actes du IXe Congrès UISPP, Nice, septembre 1976, Thèmes spécialisés, 124-141.

Poplin, F., 1983. Essai d'ostéologie quantitative sur l'estimation du nombre d'individus. Kölner Jahrbuch für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, 16, pp. 153-164

Prat S, Péan SC, Crépin L, Drucker, D.G., Puaud, S., Valladas, H., Lázničková-Galetová, M., van der Plicht, J., Yanevich, A., 2011. The Oldest Anatomically Modern Humans from Far Southeast Europe: Direct Dating, Culture and Behavior. *PLOS ONE*, e20834: 1-13.

Prat, S., 2014 Stress physiologique et état de santé des plus anciens Hommes anatomiquement modernes du sud-est de l'Europe (données dentaires, couche 6-1, Buran-Kaya III, Crimée). *L'anthropologie* 118, 567-83

Prat, S., Péan, S., Crépin, L., Puaud, S., Drucker, D.G., Lázničková-Galetová, M., Van der Plicht, J., Valladas, H., Verna, C., Patou-Mathis, M., Lebon, M., Yanevich, A. 2018. The First Anatomically Modern Humans from South-Eastern Europe. Contributions from the Buran-Kaya III Site (Crimea). *Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris*, 30 (3-4), 169-179.

Ramirez-Rozzi, F., d'Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Grootes, P.M., Kerautret, B., Dujardin, V. 2009. Cutmarked human remains bearing Neandertal features and modern human remains associated with the Aurignacian at Les Rois. *Journal of Anthropological Sciences*, 87, 153-85

Svoboda, J., 2006. The Burials: Ritual and Taphonomy. In: Trinkaus, E., Svoboda, J. (Ed.) Early Modern Human Evolution in Central Europe. The People of Dolní Věstonice and Pavlov. Oxford University Press pp. 15–26.

Slimak, L., Zanolli, C., Higham, T., Frouin, M., Schwenninger, J. L., Arnold, L. J., Demuro, M., Douka, K., Mercier, N., Guérin G., Valladas, H., Yvorra, P., Giraud, Y., Seguin-Orlando, A., Orlando, L., Lewis, J.E., Muth, X., Camus, H., Vandevelde, S., Buckley, M., Mallol, C., Stringer, C., Metz, L. 2022. Modern human incursion into Neanderthal territories 54,000 years ago at Mandrin, France. *Science advances*, 8(6), eabj9496.

Teschler-Nicola, M. 2006. Taphonomic aspects of the human remains from the Mladeč cave. In: Teschler-Nicola, M. (Ed.) Early Modern humans at the Moravian Gate. The Mladeč Caves and their Remains. Springer-Verlag, Wien, pp. 75–92

Trinkaus, E., Moldovan, O., Milota, Ş., Bîlgăr, A., Sarcina, L., Athreya, S., Bailey, S.E., Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., Higham, T., Bronk Ramsey, C., van der Plicht, J., 2003. An Early Modern Human from the Peştera
cu Oase, Romania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 11231-36.

Vercoutère, C., Giacobini, G., Patou-Mathis, M. 2008. Une dent humaine perforée découverte en contexte Gravettien ancien à l'abri Pataud (Dordogne, France). *L'Anthropologie* 112(2), 273-83

Villa, P., Bouville, C., Courtin, J., Helmer, D., Mahieu, E., Shipman, P., Belluomini, G., Branca, M., 1986. Cannibalism in the Neolithic. *Science* 233, 431-437

Villotte, S., Crépin, L., Rué, M., Bocaeg, E., Le Luyer, M., Madelaine, S., Caverne, J.B., Morala, A., 2019. Evidence for previously unknown mortuary practices in the Southwest of France (Fournol, Lot) during the Gravettian. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 27, 101959.

White, R., Normand, C., 2015. Les parures de l'Aurignacien ancien et archaïque de la grotte d'Isturitz: perspectives technologiques et régionales. *P@lethnologie* 7, 140-66.

White, T. D. 1992. Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346. Princeton University Press.

Yanevich, A., 2014. Les occupations gravettiennes de Buran-Kaya III (Crimée) : contexte archéologique. *L'Anthropologie*, 118(5), 554-566.
Caption tables and figures

Table 1. *Homo sapiens* and *Saiga tatarica* skeletal remains from Buran-Kaya III layer 6-1, in terms of NISP (Number of Identified Specimens), MNE (Minimum Number of Elements), MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals), MAU (Minimum Animal Unit) and Ps (Percentage of Survival).

Tableau 1. Restes squelettiques d'*Homo sapiens* et de *Saiga tatarica* de la couche 6-1 de Buran-Kaya III, en termes de NISP (nombre de restes déterminés totalement), MNE (nombre minimal d'éléments), MNI (nombre minimal d'individus), MAU (unité animale minimale) et Ps (pourcentage de survie).

Table 2. Inventory of *Homo sapiens* remains with anthropic modifications from Buran-Kaya III layer 6-1.

Tableau 2. Inventaire des restes d'*Homo sapiens* ayant subi des modifications anthropiques provenant de la couche 6-1 de Buran-Kaya III.

Figure 1. Compared skeletal distribution of human and saiga antelopes from Buran-Kaya III layer 6-1, in terms of NISP (Number of Identified Specimens) and Ps (Percentage of survival). Limb parts: stylopodium and zeugopodium.

Figure 1. Distribution squelettique comparée des restes humains et d'antilopes saïgas de la couche 6-1 de Buran-Kaya III, en termes de NISP (nombre de restes déterminés totalement) et de Ps (pourcentage de survie). Parties des membres : stylopodium et zeugopodium.

Figure 2. Human and saiga antelope skeletal preservation from Buran-Kaya III layer 6-1. Laurent

Figure 2. Conservation squelettique des restes humains et d'antilopes saïgas de la couche 6-1 de Buran-Kaya III.

Figure 3. Compared surface bone modifications of human and saiga antelope remains from Buran-Kaya III layer 6-1, in terms of NISP (Number of Identified Specimens).

Figure 3. Comparaison des modifications taphonomiques des restes humains et d'antilopes saïga de la couche 6-1 de Buran-Kaya III, en termes de NISP (nombre de restes déterminés totalement).

Figure 4. *Saiga tatarica* long bone flakes with V-shaped linear marks, SEM views: a) and b) defleshing cut-marks, c), d) and e) defleshing (red arrows) and trampling (green arrows) marks.

Figure 4. Éclats d'os longs de *Saiga tatarica* avec des marques linéaires à section en V, vues MEB : a) et b) marques de décharnement, c), d) et e) marques de décharnement (flèches rouges) et de piétinement (flèches vertes).
Figure 5. *Homo sapiens* occipital specimen No. 55 from Buran-Kaya III layer 6-1: a) external view, b) and c) SEM views (Photo L. Crépin).

Figure 5. Reste d'os occipital d'*Homo sapiens* No. 55 de la couche 6-1 de Buran-Kaya III : a) vue externe, b) et c) vues MEB (Photo L. Crépin).

Figure 6. *Homo sapiens* occipital specimen No. 57 from Buran-Kaya III layer 6-1: a) external view, b) detailed view, c) and d) SEM views, e) HIROX cross-section, in µm (Photo L. Crépin).

Figure 6. Reste d'os occipital d'*Homo sapiens* No. 57 de la couche 6-1 de Buran-Kaya III : a) vue externe, b) vue détaillée, c) et d) vues MEB, e) coupe HIROX, en µm (Photo L. Crépin).

Figure 7. *Homo sapiens* temporal specimen No. 56 from Buran-Kaya III layer 6-1: a) external view; b) and c) SEM views, d) HIROX Cross-section (Photo L. Crépin).

Figure 7. Reste d'os temporal d'*Homo sapiens* No. 56 de la couche 6-1 de Buran-Kaya III : a) vue externe ; b) et c) vues SEM, d) coupe HIROX (Photo L. Crépin).

Figure 8. *Homo sapiens* fronto-parietal specimen No. 46 from Buran-Kaya III layer 6-1: a) external view, b), c) and d) SEM views (Photo L. Crépin).

Figure 8. Reste d'os fronto-parietal d'*Homo sapiens* No. 46 de la couche 6-1 de Buran-Kaya III : a) vue externe ; b) et c) vues SEM, d) coupe HIROX (Photo L. Crépin).

Figure 9. Spatial distribution of (a) human and (b) saiga antelope remains in terms of percent of the NISP in the layer 6-1 of Buran-Kaya III (2001 field works).

Figure 9. Distribution spatiale des restes (a) humains et (b) d'antilopes saïga en pourcentage du nombre des restes dans la couche 6-1 de Buran-Kaya III (fouilles de 2001).

Figure 10. External views of (a) human temporal (No. 56), (b) occipital (No. 57) and (c) fronto-parietal (no. 46) specimens from Buran-Kaya III layer 6-1, bearing V-shaped linear marks interpreted as cut-marks (Photos L. Crépin).

Figure 10. Vues externes de restes humains (a) d'os temporal (No. 56), (b) occipital (No. 57) et (c) fronto-parietal (No. 46) de la couche 6-1 de Buran-Kaya III, portant des marques linéaires à profil en V interprétées comme des traces de découpe (Photos L. Crépin).
% NISP

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Homo sapiens

Total NISP = 149

% Ps

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Saiga tatarica

Total NISP = 632

Axial and girdle parts

Upper/Fore limb

Lower/Rear limb

Hand and foot
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
Trembling

Perrotelle

Water dissolution

Plant roots

Caviruves

Humans

Combustion

% offered sedge bones % offered human bones

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>a</figcaption></figure>

SEM HV: 15.00 kV
View field: 19.49 mm

Vac: LowVac, 30 Pa
Det: LVSTD

5 mm

VEGA\\ TESCAN

MNHN

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>b</figcaption></figure>

SEM HV: 15.00 kV
View field: 386.8 µm

Vac: LowVac, 30 Pa
Det: LVSTD

100 µm

VEGA\\ TESCAN

MNHN

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>c</figcaption></figure>

SEM HV: 15.00 kV
View field: 3.90 mm

Vac: LowVac, 20 Pa
Det: LVSTD

1 mm

VEGA\\ TESCAN

MNHN

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>d</figcaption></figure>

SEM HV: 15.00 kV
View field: 4.78 mm

Vac: LowVac, 20 Pa
Det: LVSTD

1 mm

VEGA\\ TESCAN

MNHN

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>e</figcaption></figure>

c

d
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

a

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

b

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

c
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>b</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>c</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

SEM HV: 20.00 kV
View field: 2.30 mm

Vac: LowVac, 25 Pa
Det: LVSTD

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

VEGA\\ TESCAN

MNHN

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>d</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

SEM HV: 20.00 kV
View field: 1.39 mm

Vac: LowVac, 27 Pa
Det: LVSTD

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

VEGA\\ TESCAN

MNHN

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>e</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>b</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>c</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>d</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>b</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>c</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>d</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>
Saiga tatarica
% of remains

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

Homo sapiens
% of remains

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>a</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>b</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>c</figcaption></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="6">Homo sapiens</th><th colspan="6">Saiga tatarica</th></tr><tr><th>Qsp</th><th>NISP</th><th>MNE</th><th>cMNI</th><th>MAU</th><th>%MAU</th><th>Ps (%)</th><th>Qsp</th><th>NISP</th><th>MNE</th><th>cMNI</th><th>MAU</th><th>%MAU</th><th>Ps (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Frontal pair</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3,00</td><td>100,0%</td><td>60,0%</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1,0</td><td>18,4%</td><td>1,2%</td></tr><tr><td>Parietal</td><td>2</td><td>41</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1,50</td><td>50,0%</td><td>30,0%</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Temporal</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1,00</td><td>33,3%</td><td>20,0%</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Occipital</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2,00</td><td>66,7%</td><td>40,0%</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Half-maxilla pair</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1,00</td><td>33,3%</td><td>20,0%</td><td>1</td><td>53</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3,0</td><td>55,3%</td><td>3,7%</td></tr><tr><td>Hyoid</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1,0</td><td>18,4%</td><td>1,2%</td></tr><tr><td>Sphenoid</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1,00</td><td>33,3%</td><td>20,0%</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Calvaria unidentifed element</td><td></td><td>50</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2,0</td><td>36,9%</td><td>2,5%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total Cranium</strong></td><td><strong>21</strong></td><td><strong>109</strong></td><td><strong>12</strong></td><td><strong>5</strong></td><td><strong>0,57</strong></td><td><strong>19,0%</strong></td><td><strong>11,4%</strong></td><td><strong>25</strong></td><td><strong>59</strong></td><td><strong>8</strong></td><td><strong>2</strong></td><td><strong>0,3</strong></td><td><strong>5,9%</strong></td><td><strong>0,4%</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Half-mandible pair</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2,00</td><td>66,7%</td><td>40,0%</td><td>2</td><td>30</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>3,0</td><td>55,3%</td><td>3,7%</td></tr><tr><td>Isolated lower teeth</td><td>16</td><td>16</td><td>16</td><td>4</td><td>1,00</td><td></td><td>20,0%</td><td>20</td><td>93</td><td>93</td><td>14</td><td>4,7</td><td>85,7%</td><td>5,7%</td></tr><tr><td>Isolated upper teeth</td><td>16</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>5</td><td>0,75</td><td></td><td>15,0%</td><td>12</td><td>34</td><td>34</td><td>11</td><td>2,8</td><td>52,2%</td><td>3,5%</td></tr><tr><td>Unidentified teeth</td><td></td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>58</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total isolated teeth</strong></td><td><strong>32</strong></td><td><strong>31</strong></td><td><strong>28</strong></td><td><strong>5</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>32</strong></td><td><strong>185</strong></td><td><strong>127</strong></td><td><strong>14</strong></td><td><strong>4,0</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>TOTAL SKULL</strong></td><td><strong>22</strong></td><td><strong>142</strong></td><td><strong>42</strong></td><td><strong>5</strong></td><td><strong>1,91</strong></td><td><strong>63,6%</strong></td><td><strong>38,2%</strong></td><td><strong>26</strong></td><td><strong>274</strong></td><td><strong>141</strong></td><td><strong>14</strong></td><td><strong>5,4</strong></td><td><strong>100,0%</strong></td><td><strong>6,7%</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Vertebrae</td><td>25</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>40</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>0,1</td><td>1,8%</td><td>0,1%</td></tr><tr><td>Sternum</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ribs</td><td>24</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>26</td><td>16</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>0,2</td><td>3,5%</td><td>0,2%</td></tr><tr><td>Clavicle</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Scapula</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>3,0</td><td>55,3%</td><td>3,7%</td></tr><tr><td>Innominate (hip bone)</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0,5</td><td>9,2%</td><td>0,6%</td></tr><tr><td>Sacrum</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total axial & girdle</strong></td><td><strong>57</strong></td><td><strong>-</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>72</strong></td><td><strong>28</strong></td><td><strong>16</strong></td><td><strong>3</strong></td><td><strong>0,2</strong></td><td><strong>4,1%</strong></td><td><strong>0,3%</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Humerus</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>21</td><td>10</td><td>8</td><td>5,0</td><td>92,2%</td><td>6,1%</td></tr><tr><td>Radius</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>28</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2,0</td><td>36,9%</td><td>2,5%</td></tr><tr><td>Ulna</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2,0</td><td>36,9%</td><td>2,5%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total upper limb Sp & Zp</strong></td><td><strong>6</strong></td><td><strong>-</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>6</strong></td><td><strong>55</strong></td><td><strong>18</strong></td><td><strong>8</strong></td><td><strong>3,0</strong></td><td><strong>55,3%</strong></td><td><strong>3,7%</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Femur</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>14</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>2,5</td><td>46,1%</td><td>3,1%</td></tr><tr><td>Patella</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1,0</td><td>18,4%</td><td>1,2%</td></tr><tr><td>Tibia</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>27</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>4,5</td><td>83,0%</td><td>5,5%</td></tr><tr><td>Fibula / Malleolar bone</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total lower limb Sp & Zp</strong></td><td><strong>8</strong></td><td><strong>-</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>8</strong></td><td><strong>44</strong></td><td><strong>16</strong></td><td><strong>8</strong></td><td><strong>2,0</strong></td><td><strong>36,9%</strong></td><td><strong>2,5%</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Carpal bones</td><td>16</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>12</td><td>18</td><td>17</td><td>3</td><td>1,4</td><td>26,1%</td><td>1,7%</td></tr><tr><td>Metacarpal bones</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>37</td><td>9</td><td>5</td><td>4,5</td><td>83,0%</td><td>5,5%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total carpus & metacarpus</strong></td><td><strong>26</strong></td><td><strong>-</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>14</strong></td><td><strong>55</strong></td><td><strong>26</strong></td><td><strong>5</strong></td><td><strong>1,9</strong></td><td><strong>34,2%</strong></td><td><strong>2,3%</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Hand proximal phalanx</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hand intermedial phalanx</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>0,63</td><td>20,8%</td><td>12,5%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hand distal phalanx</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0,20</td><td>6,7%</td><td>4,0%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total hand phalanges</strong></td><td><strong>28</strong></td><td><strong>7</strong></td><td><strong>7</strong></td><td><strong>2</strong></td><td><strong>0,25</strong></td><td><strong>8,3%</strong></td><td><strong>5,0%</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tarsal bones</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>10</td><td>20</td><td>16</td><td>4</td><td>1,6</td><td>29,5%</td><td>2,0%</td></tr><tr><td>Metatarsal bones</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>19</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>3,0</td><td>55,3%</td><td>3,7%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total tarsus & metatarsus</strong></td><td><strong>20</strong></td><td><strong>-</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>12</strong></td><td><strong>39</strong></td><td><strong>22</strong></td><td><strong>4</strong></td><td><strong>1,8</strong></td><td><strong>33,8%</strong></td><td><strong>2,3%</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total foot phalanx</strong></td><td><strong>28</strong></td><td><strong>-</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unidentified metapodial bone</td><td></td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hand/foot proximal phalanx</td><td>20</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>8</td><td>21</td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>1,1</td><td>20,7%</td><td>1,4%</td></tr><tr><td>Hand/foot intermedial phalanx</td><td>16</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>8</td><td>27</td><td>18</td><td>3</td><td>2,3</td><td>41,5%</td><td>2,8%</td></tr><tr><td>Hand/foot distal phalanx</td><td>20</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>8</td><td>14</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>1,0</td><td>18,4%</td><td>1,2%</td></tr><tr><td>Unidentified Phalanx</td><td></td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>27</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sesamoid bones</td><td>12</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>24</td><td>28</td><td>24</td><td>2</td><td>1,0</td><td>18,4%</td><td>1,2%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total hand & foot</strong></td><td><strong>114</strong></td><td><strong>7</strong></td><td><strong>7</strong></td><td><strong>0,06</strong></td><td><strong>2,0%</strong></td><td><strong>1,2%</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>74</strong></td><td><strong>231</strong></td><td><strong>107</strong></td><td><strong>5</strong></td><td><strong>1,4</strong></td><td><strong>26,7%</strong></td><td><strong>1,8%</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>TOTAL POST-CRANIAL</strong></td><td><strong>185</strong></td><td><strong>7</strong></td><td><strong>7</strong></td><td><strong>0,04</strong></td><td><strong>1,3%</strong></td><td><strong>0,8%</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>160</strong></td><td><strong>358</strong></td><td><strong>157</strong></td><td><strong>8</strong></td><td><strong>1,0</strong></td><td><strong>18,1%</strong></td><td><strong>1,2%</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>TOTAL</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>149</strong></td><td><strong>49</strong></td><td><strong>5</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>632</strong></td><td><strong>298</strong></td><td><strong>15</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table_2</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Inventory<br/>N° of<br/>Human<br/>remains</th><th rowspan="2">Observation<br/>Dino-Lite (a)<br/>SEM (b)<br/>Hirox (c)</th><th rowspan="2">Number<br/>of<br/>marks</th><th colspan="5">Linear mark</th><th>Shoulder<br/>effect</th><th colspan="3">Microstriation</th><th rowspan="2">Hertzian cone<br/>Yes / No</th><th rowspan="2">Interpretation<br/>of marks</th><th rowspan="2">Other Linear<br/>mark i.e.<br/>Trampling<br/>External or<br/>Internal side</th></tr><tr><th>Trajectory</th><th>Direction</th><th>Profil shape</th><th>Symetry</th><th>Deepness</th><th>Presence</th><th>Presence</th><th>Trajectory</th><th>Location</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>15</td><td>a - b</td><td>4</td><td>Straight<br/>Curvy<br/>Sinuous</td><td>Unidirectional</td><td>Narrow V<br/>Wide U</td><td>Symmetric<br/>Asymmetric</td><td>Superficial<br/>Low Deep</td><td>Yes / No</td><td>Yes / No</td><td>Continu<br/>Discontinu</td><td>Wall<br/>Bottom<br/>Both</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>a - b</td><td>30</td><td>St / C</td><td>Unid</td><td>V</td><td>Asym</td><td>Superf</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Disc</td><td>Bottom</td><td>No</td><td>Scalping</td><td>Ext</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>a - b</td><td>4</td><td>S</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>Ext</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>a - b</td><td>8</td><td>-</td><td>Unid</td><td>V</td><td>-</td><td>Low</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Scalping</td><td>Ext</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>a - b - c</td><td>5</td><td>Si / C</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>Cont</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Disarticulation ?</td><td>Ext</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>a - b - c</td><td>3</td><td>St</td><td>Unid</td><td>V</td><td>-</td><td>Deep</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>Cont</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Disarticulation</td><td>Ext + Int</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>a - b</td><td>3</td><td>Si / St</td><td>Unid</td><td>V</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Disc</td><td>Wall</td><td>Yes</td><td>Disarticulation</td><td>Ext</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>a - b</td><td>4</td><td>St</td><td>Unid</td><td>V</td><td>Asym</td><td>Low</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Scalping ?</td><td>Ext</td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>a - b</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>Sym</td><td>Superf</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>87</td><td>a - b</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>Unid</td><td>V</td><td>Asym</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>94</td><td>a - b</td><td>2</td><td>St</td><td>-</td><td>U</td><td>-</td><td>Low</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>Ext + Int</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>a</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>Unid</td><td>V</td><td>Asym</td><td>Deep</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>Scalping ?</td><td>Ext + Int</td></tr><tr><td>98</td><td>a</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>Unid</td><td>U</td><td>-</td><td>Deep</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>Ext</td></tr><tr><td>176</td><td>a</td><td>1</td><td>St</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>Asym</td><td>Deep</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>Ext</td></tr><tr><td>186</td><td>a</td><td>1</td><td>St</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>Asym</td><td>-</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Disc</td><td>-</td><td>No</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>