Next Article in Journal
Extra-Abdominal Applications of the Greater Omentum in Canine and Feline Surgery: Current Knowledge, Surgical Techniques, and Clinical Perspectives
Previous Article in Journal
Habitat Shifts and Conservation Challenges of Falconidae Under Climate Change in Northwestern China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Following Camels Between Bone and Culture: Camel–Human Interactions in China from the Neolithic to the Late Imperial Period
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/ani16172653
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Faunal Deposits in Pre-Beaker Funerary Contexts at Humanejos (Parla, Madrid, Spain)

by
Verónica Estaca-Gómez
1,2,
Laura Aguilar-Molina
1,3,
Ana Mercedes Herrero-Corral
4,
Rodrigo Paulos-Bravo
5,
Ruth Maicas
6,
Raúl Flores-Fernández
7,
Rafael Garrido-Pena
8 and
José Yravedra
1,5,9,*
1
Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, Complutense University of Madrid, C/ Profesor Aranguren sn, 28040 Madrid, Spain
2
Research Group Arqueología Prehistórica, Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, Complutense University of Madrid, C/ Profesor Aranguren sn, 28040 Madrid, Spain
3
Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Barcelona, Gran Vía de las Corts Catalanes 585, 08007 Barcelona, Spain
4
Ramón y Cajal Research Fellow, Department of Archaeology and Social Processes, Institute of History (IH), Centre for Human and Social Sciences (CCHS), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), C. de Albasanz 26, 28037 Madrid, Spain
5
Research Support Center (CAI) of Archaeometry, and Archaeological Analysis, Complutense University of Madrid, C/ Profesor Aranguren SN, 28040 Madrid, Spain
6
Department of Prehistory, Museo Arqueológico Nacional, C/Serrano 13, 28001 Madrid, Spain
7
Territorial Archaeologist, Territorial Service of Culture, Tourism and Sport of León, Junta de Castilla y León, Av. Peregrios, sn, 24008 León, Spain
8
Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, Autonomous University of Madrid, Calle de Francisco Tomás y Valiente, 9, 28049 Madrid, Spain
9
Research Group Ecosistemas Cuaternarios C/ Profesor Aranguren sn, 28040 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2026, 16(17), 2653; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16172653
Submission received: 19 July 2026 / Revised: 21 August 2026 / Accepted: 22 August 2026 / Published: 24 August 2026
(This article belongs to the Collection Zooarchaeology: The History of Animal-Human Relations in the Natural and Cultural Environment)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Simple Summary

In this paper, we present the zooarchaeological and taphonomic study of faunal remains from 31 burial pits of the pre-Bell Beaker funerary contexts of Humanejos (Parla, Madrid, Spain). The assemblage was dominated by animals, and sheep/goats, cattle and pigs were the most common species. Two different types of faunal assemblages were identified. Some consisted of complete or nearly complete articulated animals intentionally placed in the graves, including cattle skulls, dogs, pigs and sheep/goats. Others were composed of disarticulated remains bearing traces of processing and consumption, suggesting that they represent refuse incorporated into the pit fills. These findings provide new insights into the role of animals in Copper Age funerary practices in central Iberia and contribute to a better understanding of the relationships between funerary rituals, animal exploitation, and everyday life.

Abstract

This study presents the first zooarchaeological analysis of the faunal remains associated with the pre-Beaker funerary contexts of Humanejos (Parla, Madrid, Spain). A total of 3974 animal remains recovered from 31 burial pits were analysed. Species representation was assessed using the NISP and MNI, and bone surface modifications were examined to evaluate human activities. The results indicate that domestic taxa account for 84% of the total MNI and that the faunal remains occur in two distinct types of assemblages. The first consists of complete or nearly complete articulated animals intentionally deposited within the graves, including bovine skulls and the interment of dogs, pigs, and caprines. The second comprises disarticulated faunal remains representing one or several individuals, with no apparent anatomical association, and is interpreted as refuse or pit-fill material. This assemblage exhibits greater taxonomic diversity, with caprines predominating, and provides evidence of carcass processing and consumption, as indicated by cut marks. The differences between these assemblages offer new insights into the role of animals in pre-Beaker funerary practices at Humanejos and contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between funerary rituals, animal management, and daily life in Copper Age central Iberia.

1. Introduction

Until the end of the twentieth century, zooarchaeological studies of the Copper Age in the inland Iberian Peninsula were scarce. Only a limited number of archaeological sites had been investigated, and the available faunal assemblages were generally small. In addition, many of these sites presented stratigraphic problems, with faunal remains originating from different chrono-cultural contexts. As a result, the zooarchaeological evidence available for this period was extremely limited [1,2].
In recent decades, the growing number of archaeological interventions, many of them undertaken within the framework of preventive archaeology, has considerably expanded the zooarchaeological record of the Copper Age in the Iberian Peninsula. Numerous sites in the Madrid region, including Humanejos, Camino de las Yeseras, Barrio del Castillo, Aldovea, Soto de Henares, Zanjillas, La Cuesta, El Espinillo, El Juncal, Huerta de los Cabreros and Las Cabeceras [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16], together with sites in Guadalajara, Ciudad Real, Valladolid, Burgos, southern Spain and Portugal [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32], have provided a substantial body of new zooarchaeological and taphonomic evidence. As a result, our understanding of animal husbandry, exploitation strategies and the role of animals in Copper Age societies has improved significantly. Moreover, some of these studies have moved beyond the traditional identification and description of faunal assemblages by incorporating new analytical and interdisciplinary approaches into zooarchaeological research [33,34,35].
Based on these studies, Copper Age zooarchaeological contexts in the Iberian Peninsula represent a highly complex archaeological record [7,16,28,36,37,38,39,40]. Faunal remains appear mainly in two types of assemblages: those consistent with the secondary deposition of domestic refuse and those resulting from intentional deposits.
Domestic refuse is characterized by fragmented and anatomically disarticulated remains displaying bone surface modifications related to food processing and other activities such as skinning. These faunal remains are mainly composed of sheep/goats, cattle and pigs, while dogs and wild animals occur less frequently [5,12,13,14,15,16,18,21,25,27,28,34]. These species formed the basis of Copper Age animal husbandry. Such assemblages are generally interpreted from an economic perspective.
In intentional deposits, complete or partially complete animals were deliberately interred, usually in anatomical connection, and their bones are rarely fractured. These faunal remains tend to be dominated by dogs, pigs and cattle, although other taxa, such as caprines, may occasionally be present [13,14,15,16,28,33,37,38,40,41]. Intentional deposits also tend to include a higher proportion of juvenile individuals, under 4–5 years of age, whereas domestic bone assemblages generally display mortality profiles dominated by adults [7,13,14,15,16,28,33,40,41].
The interpretation of faunal remains becomes even more challenging when they are associated with human burials. Although relatively uncommon, such associations have been documented in Copper Age contexts across the Iberian Peninsula, both in caves [28] and at open-air sites [37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Their archaeological interpretation remains controversial because the association of faunal remains with burials does not necessarily imply intentional deposition. While some assemblages may represent grave goods, offerings associated with funerary rituals, or other forms of symbolic behaviour, others may simply reflect the incorporation of animal bones in the fills of burial pits [28,36,45,46,47,48]. Distinguishing between these different depositional processes is therefore essential for understanding the role of animals in Copper Age funerary practices.
This paper presents the first zooarchaeological study of the faunal remains associated with the pre-Beaker funerary contexts of Humanejos. By combining taxonomic composition, mortality profiles, anatomical representation and taphonomic evidence, this study aims to distinguish intentional animal deposits from faunal remains incorporated into burial fills that are consistent with the secondary deposition of domestic refuse, thereby providing a more comprehensive interpretation of the role of animals in Copper Age funerary contexts.

2. The Site

Humanejos is situated in Parla, south of Madrid (Spain), and takes its name from a nearby stream that flows into the Tagus River (Figure 1). The site was first identified in 1982 during an emergency archaeological intervention directed by Guillermo Kurtz in advance of the construction of the southern junction of the N-401 road. However, the archaeological significance and extent of the site were not fully recognized until 2002, when archaeological monitoring associated with a major urban development project prompted extensive preventive excavations. These investigations revealed a large archaeological complex currently covering approximately 20 ha, including both settlement areas and funerary contexts. The earliest occupations date to the Late Neolithic (4th millennium BCE), followed by phases corresponding to the Copper Age, Early Bronze Age (Protocogotas) and Iron Age, as well as later Roman and Medieval occupations [49].
The most prolific period at Humanejos is represented by the pre-Beaker phases, namely the Late Neolithic (3300–2900 cal BC) and Copper Age (c. 2900–2500 cal BC), together with Beaker contexts (c. 2500–2000 cal BC). The faunal assemblage examined in this study derives from pre-Beaker burials. A total of 44 inhumations have been documented for this period, of which 31 contained faunal remains. These exhibit considerable variability, comprising single, double and multiple human interments (24, 8 and 9 cases, respectively). Individuals of both sexes are represented, with adults predominating over subadults, and strontium isotope analyses indicate that some non-local individuals were also buried at the site [50,51]. Together with the faunal deposits discussed in this article, the grave goods associated with these burials include globular pottery vessels with inward-curving rims and lithic artefacts such as retouched flint blades, arrowheads and a dagger/knife showing varying degrees of use-wear [52]. From c. 2700–2600 cal BC onwards, copper objects, including awls, daggers/knives, axes and variscite beads, also occur.

3. Sample and Methods

As in most studies of Iberian Prehistory, the criteria used here to identify intentional animal deposits are based on approaches developed through debates concerning the archaeological recognition of symbolic behaviour beyond purely functional activities. These criteria derive from comparisons between ordinary domestic assemblages and unusual faunal occurrences. In this perspective, neither the faunal remains nor the archaeological context alone define a deposit as symbolic. Rather, their interpretation depends on the combined assessment of contextual, anatomical, and taphonomic evidence, since such practices were embedded within the social and cultural dynamics of prehistoric communities [53,54,55].
Accordingly, following Grant and Richards [56] and Thomas [57], intentional animal deposits are understood as deliberate burials of complete animals, isolated crania, or selected anatomical elements deposited in anatomical connection. These remains typically show evidence of intentional selection and occur recurrently within specific archaeological contexts. Conversely, fragmented and disarticulated faunal remains displaying characteristics typical of domestic refuse, such as extensive fragmentation, evidence of butchery or food consumption, and the absence of anatomical connection, were considered likely to derive from the backfilling of burial pits rather than from intentional funerary deposits. Therefore, the distinction between intentional animal deposits and faunal remains consistent with the secondary deposition of domestic refuse was based on the combined assessment of the archaeological context, anatomical representation, articulation, taphonomic modifications, and mortality profiles.
The sample analysed in this study comprises 3948 faunal remains. The assemblage associated with the funerary pits of Humanejos was classified into two broad categories. The first consists of faunal remains incorporated into the pit fills, ranging from a few isolated fragments to relatively large faunal assemblages, which are considered consistent with the secondary deposition of domestic refuse. The second comprises intentionally deposited remains, including complete animals, partially articulated body portions, bovine crania and deer antlers.
Faunal remains were identified through comparison with reference collections housed at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid and with the aid of the atlases published by Barone, Schmid, Martin and Blázquez, and Hilson [58,59,60]. To distinguish between specific taxa, such as Ovis aries, Capra hircus, Capra pyrenaica and Capreolus capreolus, the methods described by Boesseneck, Prummel and Frisch, and Fernández were employed [61,62,63,64,65]. The criteria proposed by Prummel [66] were followed to distinguish between Cervus elaphus and Bos taurus. The distinction between dogs and wolves was based on osteometric criteria, with shoulder height estimated from the maximum length of the long bones, following Koudelka [67].
Species abundance was estimated using the NISP (Number of Identified Specimens) and the MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals), following Brain [68]. Mortality patterns were reconstructed through dental eruption, tooth wear and epiphyseal fusion data. We used the criteria proposed by Silver [69], Payne [70,71], Grant [72], Pérez-Ripoll [73], Mariezkurrena [74], Brown and Chapman [75,76], Klein et al. [77], Levine [78], Guadelli [79], Rowlett and Chiu [80], Hambleton [81], Azorit Casas [82] and Marín et al. [83]. The resulting data were grouped into three age categories: infant, juvenile–subadult and adult–senile.
The bone surfaces of all specimens were examined using 10–15× magnification, following Blumenschine [84], to identify bone surface modifications and traces of human activity. Cut marks were identified and differentiated from other modifications, such as trampling marks and carnivore damage, following the criteria proposed by Binford [85], Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews [86], and Yravedra [87]. Weathering stages and root etching alterations were recorded according to Behrensmeyer [88] and Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews [86].

4. Results

Of the 44 pre-Beaker burial pits identified at Humanejos, 31 (68.9%) contained faunal remains. Among the burials with faunal evidence, 71% contained only animal remains incorporated into the grave fills, whereas 29% included intentional animal deposits placed alongside the deceased (Table 1).
The analysed assemblage comprises 3948 faunal remains. According to the NISP, Ovis/Capra are the most abundant taxon, followed by Bos taurus, Sus sp., Canis familiaris, and wild species (Table 2). In terms of the MNI, caprines, both Ovis aries and Capra hircus, predominate (37.8%), followed by Bos taurus (14.9%), Sus sp. (16.9%) and Canis familiaris (8.0%). Other identified taxa include Cervus elaphus (10.0%), Oryctolagus cuniculus (6.0%), Equus ferus (6.0%), and Capreolus capreolus, represented by a single individual.
The distribution of taxa across the funerary pits further highlights the importance of Ovis/Capra, which occur in 83.9% of the burials containing faunal remains. Bos taurus are present in 71% of these contexts, Sus sp. in 58.1%, and Canis familiaris in 48.4% (Table 2). These data suggest that animal husbandry was primarily focused on caprines, with cattle and pigs also playing a significant role. Wild taxa indicate that hunting continued to contribute to subsistence practices during the Copper Age. Cervus elaphus was identified in 51.6% of the burials, whereas Equus ferus occurred in 38.7% (Table 2).
A minimum of 201 individuals was identified in the assemblage. Age at death could be estimated for 183 of them. Adult individuals predominate, accounting for 75.6% of the total sample. The remaining individuals comprise infants (13.4%) and juveniles–subadults (10.9%). Ovis/Capra and Sus sp. display the greatest variability in mortality profiles, with 36.8% and 44.1%, respectively, falling within the non-adult categories.
Before discussing skeletal representation in detail, it is important to note that bone preservation is generally good. Most specimens exhibit low weathering stages, with Behrensmeyer stages 1–2 predominating [88], indicating relatively rapid burial. Biochemical alterations and vermiculations are more frequent, affecting most of the assemblage to a low or moderate degree. Nevertheless, these alterations have not hindered the observation of bone surfaces or the identification of bone surface modifications, such as carnivore and human alterations. Carnivore tooth marks are concentrated on the epiphyses of long bones and on axial elements, frequently causing the collapse of epiphyseal ends.
Cut marks were recorded on all taxa represented within the refuse assemblages, including both domestic and wild species, providing clear evidence of carcass-processing and consumption practices (Table 3). No cut-marked specimens were identified in Canis familiaris. In ungulates, cut marks on long bones are mainly associated with defleshing the humerus and femur, whereas those located around the joints indicate disarticulation. In some cases, their distribution also indicates the exploitation of specific anatomical parts, such as the removal of cheek meat from the mandible (Table 3).
Intentional deposits (Table 4) include four cattle skulls (burials 25, 60, 62), three whole dogs (burials 35, 43, 53, Figure 2), one caprine (burial 20), one articulated caprine forelimb (humerus, radius, ulna) (burial 66, Figure 3) and a piglet (burial 60) (Figure 4). These remains are notable for the absence of cut marks and other anthropogenic modifications associated with food consumption, in contrast to the refuse assemblages. The significance of these intentionally deposited animal remains is difficult to interpret, as they are associated with the burials of human individuals of different age groups, who are not always represented by complete skeletal remains but instead by selected elements, most commonly the skull (Figure 2). Nor was a consistent pattern observed in relation to grave goods, as intentional animal deposits occur in burials both with and without such items.
Thus, cattle skulls occur in different archaeological contexts: associated with antlers (graves 25 and 62), with pottery (grave 62), or without associated pottery vessels (graves 25 and 60). Similarly, the caprine deposit may accompany the deceased together with a substantial assemblage of pottery vessel and copper artefacts (grave 66; Figure 3) or be associated with a dagger and two flint points. The dog burials also display considerable variability. One individual was associated with a single pottery vessel (grave 35), another with numerous pottery vessels (grave 53), whereas a third was accompanied only by a flint point and no pottery (grave 43). These differences indicate that intentional animal deposits did not follow a single funerary pattern.
Nevertheless, the taxonomic composition and taphonomic evidence described above show that dogs and cattle predominate among the intentional deposits associated with human burials. This contrasts with the faunal assemblages recovered from the refuse fills, where Ovis/Capra remains the dominant taxon and dogs are only sparsely represented (Figure 5; Table 5). Pigs constitute the second most abundant taxon, followed by cattle. Although cattle rank second in terms of the NISP, pigs are more prominent when considering the MNI (Figure 5).
The skeletal representation also differs markedly between the two types of assemblages. The dogs from graves 35, 43, and 53, together with the complete sheep from grave 20, exhibit a well-balanced representation of the axial and appendicular skeleton, consistent with the deposition of complete carcasses (Table 4). In contrast, the refuse fills are characterized by a reduced representation of axial elements and an uneven distribution of anterior and posterior limb bones (Table 5). Nevertheless, when considered as a whole, the refuse assemblages include all skeletal regions in most taxa. Red deer is the only clear exception, with antlers accounting for 67.7% of the identified remains, probably reflecting their selection as raw material for the manufacture of bone tools.
Finally, it is worth noting that dogs also exhibit notable variation in body size. The individual from grave 53 could not be used to estimate shoulder height because none of its long bones was complete, although the dimensions of its preserved epiphyses are comparable to those of the dog from grave 35. The latter preserved complete tibiae with maximum lengths of 16.0 and 16.1 cm, corresponding to an estimated shoulder height of 46–47 cm according to Koudelka [67]. In contrast, the dog from grave 43 exhibits extensive diagenetic fractures that precluded osteometric analysis, although its preserved skeletal elements suggest a smaller individual. These observations indicate that at least two different body-size groups of dogs were represented among the intentional animal deposits at Humanejos.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

At first sight, the presence of faunal remains within funerary contexts may suggest that they formed part of symbolic practices associated with burial rituals, such as grave goods, offerings, or other forms of ritual behaviour. However, the assemblage at Humanejos demonstrates that the association between animal remains and human burials is more complex. Most of the faunal remains recovered from the graves display a taxonomic composition, mortality profiles, and taphonomic alterations comparable to those documented in domestic contexts from Copper Age settlements across the inland Iberian Peninsula. These observations indicate that a substantial proportion of the assemblage is consistent with the secondary deposition of domestic refuse within the grave fills rather than with intentional funerary deposits. Nevertheless, a smaller group of faunal remains displays characteristics consistent with deliberate deposition as part of funerary practices.
The faunal assemblage recovered from the grave fills at Humanejos closely resembles those documented in domestic contexts throughout the Middle Tagus Valley. These assemblages are generally characterized by a predominance of caprines, bovines and suids, mortality profiles dominated by adult individuals, and a relatively low representation of dogs and wild taxa [3,4,8,9,12,13,14,15]. Similar patterns have also been reported in funerary contexts such as Camino de las Yeseras [38], Aldovea [13], and other Copper Age sites [36]. Such similarities suggest that a substantial proportion of the faunal remains recovered from the graves at Humanejos may derive from domestic refuse incorporated into the pit fills. At the same time, this overlap between domestic and funerary assemblages highlights the difficulties involved in distinguishing refuse deposits from faunal remains intentionally placed as part of funerary practices.
The mortality profiles and butchery evidence further support the interpretation that much of the faunal assemblage derives from domestic refuse. The age-at-death distribution of cattle is consistent with husbandry strategies combining meat production with the exploitation of secondary products, particularly milk. In contrast, the mortality profile of pigs suggests greater emphasis on meat production, a pattern further supported by the presence of butchery marks. Caprines appear to have fulfilled a broader economic role, as their mortality profiles are compatible with the exploitation of both meat and dairy resources.
Wild taxa, particularly red deer and horse, also formed part of the subsistence economy at Humanejos. Cut marks recorded on their remains provide clear evidence of carcass processing and consumption (Table 3). In addition, shed antlers were recovered from graves 25 and 35, while the skeletal representation of red deer is dominated by fragmented antlers (Table 5). Together with the worked antler artefacts recovered from graves 34, 66, and 87, this evidence indicates that red deer also represented an important source of raw material for antler artefact production.
Dogs constitute a distinctive component of the assemblage. Most individuals reached adulthood, except for a subadult recovered from burials 53 and a young adult of burial 53. No cut marks were identified on any of the dog remains, suggesting that, unlike other taxa, they were not processed for consumption. This pattern may indicate that dogs occupied a particular position within pre-Beaker communities at Humanejos.
Their specific role remains uncertain. Nevertheless, dogs may have participated in activities such as hunting or livestock management, both of which are compatible with the economic practices inferred from the faunal assemblage. This interpretation is also consistent with the medium body size estimated for the dog from grave 35 (67). Further palaeopathological analyses may help to clarify the functions performed by these animals and provide a better understanding of their relationship with human communities during the Copper Age.
Although most of the faunal assemblage appears to derive from domestic refuse incorporated into the grave fills, a smaller group of remains reflects deliberate depositional practices associated with funerary behaviour. Such intentional animal deposits are well documented in Copper Age funerary contexts across the Iberian Peninsula, including El Tajillo del Moro (Málaga), Casa Noguera (Murcia), Monte das Cabeceiras (Beja), Camino de las Yeseras (Madrid), Gobaederra (Álava), and Cerro de la Cabeza (Ávila), among many others [3,4,8,9,12,13,14,15,89,90,91,92]. Therefore, the presence of similar deposits at Humanejos is not unexpected. Nevertheless, only nine intentional deposits were identified, occurring in 29% of the pre-Beaker burials. As described in the previous section, these deposits are characterized by the preservation of anatomical connections and the absence of anthropogenic modifications associated with carcass processing, such as butchery marks or intentional bone breakage. They are generally associated with other grave goods and were placed near the deceased. The identified deposits comprise three cattle skulls, three complete dogs, one piglet, one complete sheep, and one articulated sheep forelimb.
Nevertheless, not all faunal remains can be assigned unequivocally to either domestic refuse or intentional deposits. Several finds occupy a more ambiguous position and illustrate the interpretative difficulties inherent in funerary contexts. For example, burial 35 contained a shed antler deposited alongside the deceased, which may represent either a grave good or a piece of raw material placed within the burial. A similar situation is observed in burial 25, where a cattle horn could be interpreted either as part of the pattern of cranial deposits documented at the site or as the deposition of a raw material resource.
Another particularly complex case concerns burial 60. Two postcranial cattle remains were recovered at the same stratigraphic level as the laterally positioned individual and the associated grave goods (Figure 4). These bones were located close to the ventral region of the body and lacked cut marks, although they were fractured and disarticulated. Their interpretation therefore remains uncertain. They may represent a meat offering, a funerary deposit comparable to the piglet recovered from the same burial, or, alternatively, intrusive remains incorporated into the fill.
These examples highlight the need for greater methodological standardization in the recording and interpretation of faunal remains from funerary contexts. Future comparative and synthetic studies may help to refine the criteria used to distinguish intentional deposits, grave goods, offerings, and intrusive faunal remains, thereby improving our understanding of the diverse roles animals played in Copper Age funerary practices.
Finally, the interpretations proposed here should be regarded as preliminary and will benefit from comparison with the faunal assemblage recovered from the pre-Beaker settlement of Humanejos, which is currently under study. Such comparison between funerary and domestic contexts will provide a valuable framework for assessing similarities and differences in taxonomic composition, mortality profiles, and carcass-processing practices. In particular, it will help determine whether the patterns identified in the funerary assemblage, including the predominance of caprines in refuse deposits and the selective deposition of dogs, cattle, and pigs in funerary contexts, are specific to burial practices or reflect broader patterns of animal exploitation within the community. Ultimately, this comparison will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between everyday economic activities and funerary behaviour in Copper Age societies of the Iberian Peninsula.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.E.-G. and J.Y.; Data Curation, V.E.-G., J.Y., L.A.-M., A.M.H.-C., R.P.-B., R.M. and R.G.-P.; Formal Analysis, V.E.-G., L.A.-M., R.G.-P. and J.Y.; Investigation, V.E.-G., L.A.-M., A.M.H.-C., R.P.-B., R.M., R.G.-P. and J.Y.; Zooarchaeology–taphonomy: V.E.-G., L.A.-M. and J.Y.; Methodology, V.E.-G., L.A.-M. and J.Y.; Administration, R.F.-F. and R.G.-P.; Supervision, J.Y., R.F.-F. and R.G.-P.; Validation, V.E.-G., J.Y., R.M., R.F.-F. and R.G.-P.; Visualization, V.E.-G., L.A.-M. and J.Y.; Writing—original draft, V.E.-G. and L.A.-M.; Funding, R.G.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Dirección General de Patrimonio, Comunidad de Madrid. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación: PID2019-105690GB-I00. Vida y muerte en Humanejos (Parla, Madrid): arqueometría de un asentamiento y necrópolis excepcional del III y II milenios cal AC en el interior peninsular.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are included in this manuscript, and the samples are housed at the Archaeological and Paleontological Regional Museum of Madrid.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Archaeological and Paleontological Regional Museum of Madrid for helping with the study of these samples and the reviewers for their comments on this paper. We would like to thank Sara Genicio for the pictures in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4. The authors acknowledge the use of ChatGPT (OpenAI) and GPT-5.6 Luna for assistance in the linguistic revision and improvement of the English version of the manuscript. The authors take full responsibility for the scientific content, interpretation of the data, and final wording of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Morales, A.; Liesau, C. Arqueozoología del Calcolítico en Madrid: Ensayo crítico de síntesis. In El Horizonte Campaniforme de la Región de Madrid en el Centenario de Ciempozuelos; Blasco, C., Ed.; Universidad Autónoma de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 1994; pp. 227–247. [Google Scholar]
  2. Díaz del Río, P. La Formación del Paisaje Agrario: Madrid en el III y II Milenios BC; Consejería de Cultura de la Comunidad de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2001.
  3. Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck, C. Análisis faunístico de los yacimientos de Huerta de los Cabreros, Cantera de la Flamenca y Puente Largo del Jarama (Aranjuez, Madrid). In El Poblamiento desde el Neolítico Final a la Primera Edad del Hierro en la Cuenca Media del Río Tajo; Muñoz, K., Ed.; Universidad Autónoma de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 1998; pp. 1418–1444. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cerdeño, M.E.; Herráez, E. Estudio de la fauna del yacimiento de El Espinillo (Villaverde, Madrid). In El Espinillo: Un Yacimiento Calcolítico y de la Edad del Bronce en las Terrazas del Manzanares; Baquedano, M.I., Blanco, J.F., Alonso, P., Álvarez, D., Eds.; Arqueología, Paleontología y Etnografía; Comunidad de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2000; Volume 8, pp. 141–149. [Google Scholar]
  5. Yravedra, J. Arqueozoología y tafonomía del yacimiento calcolítico del Barranco del Herrero (San Martín de la Vega, Madrid). Estud. Prehist. Arqueol. Madr. 2007, 14, 427–440. [Google Scholar]
  6. Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck, C.; Blasco, C.; Ríos, P.; Vega, J.; Menduiña, R.; Blanco, J.F.; Baena, J.; Herrera, T.; Petri, A.; Gómez, J.L. Un espacio compartido por vivos y muertos: El poblado calcolítico de fosos de Camino de las Yeseras (San Fernando de Henares, Madrid). Complutum 2008, 19, 97–120. [Google Scholar]
  7. von Lettow-Vorbeck, C.L.; Vega, J.; Daza, A.; Ríos, P.; Menduiña, R.; Blasco, C. Manifestaciones simbólicas en el acceso noreste del Recinto 4 de Foso en Camino de las Yeseras (San Fernando de Henares, Madrid). Salduie 2014, 13, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Galindo, L.; San José, V.; Sánchez, M.; Sánchez, M.; Lorente, M. Soto del Henares. Aproximación a un poblado de recintos. In Actas de las Cuartas Jornadas de Patrimonio Arqueológico de la Comunidad de Madrid; Museo Arqueológico Regional: Madrid, Spain, 2009; pp. 263–271. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chorro, M.A. Estudio de la Fauna Calcolítica del Área Central de Camino de las Yeseras (San Fernando de Henares, Madrid). Master’s Thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  10. Flores-Fernández, R.; Sanabria, P.J.; Garrido-Pena, R. Materiales campaniformes en La Cuesta (Torrejón de Velasco). In Actas de las IX Jornadas de Patrimonio Histórico de la Comunidad de Madrid; Comunidad de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2014; pp. 379–384. [Google Scholar]
  11. Martínez, V.; Moreno, E.; Gallego, C.; López, O. El yacimiento inédito de El Juncal (Getafe): Primera aproximación. In La Arqueología en el Trazado Ferroviario del Sur de la Comunidad de Madrid. Una Aventura Fascinante; ADIF Alta Velocidad: Madrid, Spain, 2015; pp. 243–280. [Google Scholar]
  12. Moreno-García, M.; Cantalapiedra-Jiménez, V. Sobre el aprovechamiento de recursos de origen animal en la región de Madrid durante el III milenio cal. AC: La fauna de los contextos calcolíticos del Sector 3 de Las Cabeceras (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid). BSAA Arqueol. 2021, 85–86, 177–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Estaca-Gómez, V.; De la Torre, A.; Señoran, J.M.; Martínez, A.B.; Major, M.; Yravedra, J. Aprovechamiento de recursos animales en el yacimiento calcolítico precampaniforme de Aldovea (Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid). Complutum 2023, 34, 31–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Estaca-Gómez, V.; López, G.; Morín, J.; Yravedra, J. Estudio zooarqueológico y tafonómico del yacimiento calcolítico Las Zanjillas (Torrejón de Velasco, Madrid). Munibe Antropol.-Arkeol. 2023, 74, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Estaca-Gómez, V.; Major-González, M.; Cañas-Martínez, J.; Yravedra, J. Zooarchaeology of the Pre-Bell Beaker Chalcolithic Period of Barrio del Castillo (Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain). Heritage 2025, 8, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Estaca-Gómez, V.; Major-González, M.; Cañas-Martínez, J. Between the Symbolic and the Domestic in the Bronze Age of the Middle Tagus Valley: New Contributions from the Barrio del Castillo (Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2026, 73, 105811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Molero Gutiérrez, G. Estudio de los restos faunísticos de La Loma del Lomo I (Cogolludo, Guadalajara). In La Loma del Lomo I; Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España; Ministerio de Cultura: Madrid, Spain, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  18. Molero Gutiérrez, G. Estudio de los restos faunísticos de La Loma del Lomo II (Cogolludo, Guadalajara). In La Loma del Lomo II; Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España; Ministerio de Cultura: Madrid, Spain, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  19. Molero Gutiérrez, G. Estudio de los restos óseos hallados en la zona norte de La Loma del Lomo III (Cogolludo, Guadalajara). In La Loma del Lomo III; Patrimonio Histórico de Castilla-La Mancha; Ministerio de Cultura: Toledo, Spain, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  20. García Somoza, P. Zooarqueología de los sectores 0 y Vía Pecuaria del yacimiento Ampliación de Aguas Vivas. In El Yacimiento Arqueológico de Aguas Vivas: Prehistoria Reciente en el Valle del Río Henares; Cantalapiedra Jiménez, V., Ísmodes Ezcurra, A., Eds.; Ergástula Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 2010; pp. 133–161. [Google Scholar]
  21. Yravedra, J. Zooarqueología de los sectores 1 y 2 del yacimiento Ampliación Aguas Vivas. In El Yacimiento Arqueológico de Aguas Vivas: Prehistoria Reciente en el Valle del Río Henares (Guadalajara); Cantalapiedra-Jiménez, V., Ismodes-Ezcurra, A., Eds.; La Ergástula Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 2010; pp. 121–132. [Google Scholar]
  22. de Lugo Enrich, L.B. Rituales funerarios neolíticos, calcolíticos y de la Edad del Bronce en la provincia de Ciudad Real: Cerro Ortega (Villanueva de la Fuente) y Castillejo del Bonete (Terrinches). Cuad. Prehist. Arqueol. Univ. Autón. Madr. 2018, 3, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Carbajo, M. La Gestión de los Recursos Ganaderos y Cinegéticos Durante la Prehistoria Reciente en el Valle del Duero: El Casetón de la Era (Villalba de los Alcores, Valladolid). Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  24. Almeida, N.J.; Basílio, A.C.; Silva, C.; Soares, A.M.; Borges, N. Faunal remains manipulation during the Chalcolithic in Pits 13, 16 and 54 from Monte das Cabeceiras 2 (Beja, Southern Portugal). Zephyrus 2021, 88, 41–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Galindo Pellicena, M.A. Estudio de la Macrofauna de los Niveles Holocenos del Yacimiento de El Portalón (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos). Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  26. Galindo Pellicena, M.A.; Carretero, J.M.; Arsuaga, J.L. Primary or Secondary Products? The Nature of Capra and Ovis Exploitation within the Chalcolithic and Bronze Levels at Portalón Site (Atapuerca Hill, Burgos, Spain). In Animal Secondary Products: Archaeological Perspectives on Domestic Animal Exploitation in the Neolithic and Bronze Age; Greenfield, H.J., Ed.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 103–127. [Google Scholar]
  27. Martín Rodríguez, P. Caracterización Zooarqueológica de las Cuevas-Redil en la Prehistoria de la Meseta Norte: El Caso de El Mirador (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos). Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pérez-Romero, A.; Iriarte, E.; Galindo-Pellicena, M.Á.; García-González, R.; Rodríguez, L.; Castilla, M.; Francés-Negro, M.; Santos, E.; Valdiosera, C.; Arsuaga, J.-L.; et al. An Unusual Pre-Bell Beaker Copper Age Cave Burial Context from El Portalón de Cueva Mayor Site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos). Quat. Int. 2017, 433, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Abril, D.; Nocete, F.; Riquelme, J.A.; Bayona, M.R.; Inácio, N. Zooarqueología del III milenio A.N.E.: El barrio metalúrgico de Valencina de la Concepción (Sevilla). Complutum 2010, 21, 87–100. [Google Scholar]
  30. Serrano, J.A.C.; Cantal, J.A.R.; Bareas, C.P.; Prestel, R.L.; Juárez, A.B.; Torres, F.T. Sacrificio de animales y ritual en el Polideportivo de Martos-La Alberquilla (Martos, Jaén). Cuad. Prehist. Arqueol. Univ. Granada 2012, 20, 295–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Almeida, N.J.; Valera, A. Faunal Remains Associated with Human Cremations: The Chalcolithic Pits 16 and 40 from the Perdigões Ditched Enclosures (Reguengos de Monsaraz, Portugal). Open Archaeol. 2022, 8, 765–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Gomes, S.; Baptista, L. Arquitetura e arquivo. Contributos para uma compreensão das estruturas em negativo da Pré-História Recente das colinas entre os Barrancos da Morgadinha e da Laje (Serpa, Beja). Estud. Quaternário 2017, 17, 89–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Blázquez-Orta, R.; Rodríguez, L.; González, M.M.; Estaca-Gómez, V.; De Gaspar, I.; Feranec, R.S.; Carretero, J.M.; Arsuaga, J.L.; García, N. Dogs from the Past: Exploring Morphology in Mandibles from Iberian Archaeological Sites Using 3D Geometric Morphometrics. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2024, 57, 104660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Blaschikoff, L.; Daza-Perea, A.; Requicha, J.; Detry, C.; Rasteiro, R.; Guimarães, S.; Ureña, I.; Serra, O.; Schmidt, R.; Valera, A.; et al. A Multidisciplinary Study of Iberian Chalcolithic Dogs. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2022, 42, 103338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Aramendi, J.; Estaca-Gómez, V.; Maté-González, M.A.; Blázquez, C.S.; Morín, J.; López, G.; Yravedra Sainz de los Terreros, J. New Virtual Approach to the Study of Metallurgy through the Analysis of Slice Marks from the Chalcolithic Site of Las Zanjillas (Torrejón de Velasco, Madrid, Spain). Archaeometry 2024, 66, 565–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Márquez-Romero, J.E. Sobre los depósitos estructurados de animales en yacimientos de fosos del sur de la Península Ibérica. In Animais na Pré-História e Arqueologia da Península Ibérica: Actas do IV Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular; Universidade do Minho: Braga, Portugal, 2006; pp. 15–25. [Google Scholar]
  37. Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck, C. Los mamíferos de estructuras de carácter doméstico y funerario. In Yacimientos Calcolíticos con Campaniforme de la Región de Madrid: Nuevos Estudios; Blasco, C., von Lettow-Vorbeck, C.L., Ríos, P., Eds.; Patrimonio Arqueológico de Madrid; Comunidad de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2011; Volume 6, pp. 171–198. [Google Scholar]
  38. Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck, C. Fauna in Living and Funerary Contexts of the 3rd Millennium BC in Central Iberia. In Key Resources and Sociocultural Developments in the Iberian Chalcolithic; Bartelheim, M., Ramírez, B., Kunst, P., Eds.; Tübingen University Press: Tübingen, Germany, 2017; pp. 107–128. [Google Scholar]
  39. Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck, C.; Daza, A.; Llorente, L.; Morales, A. More Questions than Answers: The Singular Animal Deposits from Camino de las Yeseras (Chalcolithic, Madrid, Spain). Anthropozoologica 2013, 48, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Daza-Perea, A. Preliminary Studies of Late Prehistoric Dog (Canis lupus f. Familiaris Linnaeus, 1758) Remains from the Iberian Peninsula: Osteometric and 2D Geometric Morphometric Approaches. Pap. Inst. Archaeol. 2017, 27, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Fabián, J.F.; Blanco, A. Cuatro enterramientos calcolíticos en hoyo del Cerro de la Cabeza (Ávila). Complutum 2012, 23, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck, C. Depósitos con ofrendas de animales en yacimientos Cogotas I: Antecedentes y características. In Cogotas I: Una Cultura de la Edad del Bronce en la Península Ibérica: Homenaje a M. Dolores Fernández-Posse; Rodríguez Marcos, J.A., Fernández Manzano, J., Eds.; Universidad de Valladolid: Valladolid, Spain, 2012; pp. 219–257. [Google Scholar]
  43. Arroyo, A.E.; Delibes de Castro, G.; Velasco Vázquez, J.; Cruz Sánchez, P.J. Historia de un golpe en la cabeza: Sobre el enterramiento calcolítico del hoyo 197 de “El Soto de Tovilla” (Tudela de Duero, Valladolid). BSAA Arqueol. 2008, 74, 9–48. [Google Scholar]
  44. Albizuri, S. Animales sacrificados para el cortejo fúnebre durante el Bronce Inicial (2300–1300 cal BC). El asentamiento de Can Roqueta II (Sabadell, Barcelona). Quad. Prehist. Arqueol. Castelló 2011, 29, 7–26. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pollock, S. Feasts, Funerals, and Fast Food in Early Mesopotamian States. In The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires; Bray, T.L., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 17–38. [Google Scholar]
  46. Groot, M. Animals in Ritual and Economy in a Roman Frontier Community: Excavations in Tiel-Passewaaij; Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  47. Losey, R.J.; Bazaliiskii, V.I.; Garvie-Lok, S.; Germonpré, M.; Leonard, J.A.; Allen, A.L.; Katzenberg, M.A.; Sablin, M.V. Canids as Persons: Early Neolithic Dog and Wolf Burials, Cis-Baikal, Siberia. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 2011, 30, 174–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Serjeantson, D. Review of Animal Remains from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Southern Britain; Research Department Report Series 29; English Heritage: Portsmouth, UK, 2011.
  49. Garrido-Pena, R.; Flores-Fernández, R.; Herrero-Corral, A.M. Las Sepulturas Campaniformes de Humanejos (Parla, Madrid); Dirección General de Patrimonio Cultural, Comunidad de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  50. Garrido-Pena, R.; Flores-Fernández, R.; Herrero-Corral, A.M. La necrópolis prehistórica de Humanejos (Parla, Madrid). In Actualidad de la Investigación Arqueológica en España II (2019–2020): Conferencias Impartidas en el Museo Arqueológico Nacional; Carretero, A., Papí, C., Eds.; Museo Arqueológico Nacional: Madrid, Spain, 2020; pp. 9–27. [Google Scholar]
  51. Cintas-Peña, M.; Garrido-Pena, R.; Herrero-Corral, A.M.; Flores-Fernández, R.; Waterman, A.J.; Díaz-Zorita Bonilla, M.; Díaz-del-Río, P.; Peate, D.W. Isotopic Evidence for Mobility in the Copper and Bronze Age Cemetery of Humanejos (Parla, Madrid): A Diachronic Approach Using Biological and Archaeological Variables. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2024, 31, 1152–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. López Rodríguez, M.C.; Muñoz Moro, P.; Gutiérrez Sáez, C.; Flores Fernández, R.; Garrido Pena, R.; Herrero Corral, A.M. Functional study of the pre-Beaker Copper Age lithic and metallic grave goods of the Humanejos cemetery (Parla, Madrid, Spain). In Beyond Use-Wear Traces: Going from Tools to People by Means of Archaeological Wear and Residue Analyses; Beyries, S., Hamon, C., Maigrot, Y., Eds.; Sidestone Press: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 393–405. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hodder, I. This Is Not an Article about Material Culture as Text. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 1989, 8, 250–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Bradley, R. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe; Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  55. Garrow, D. Odd Deposits and Average Practice. A Critical History of the Concept of Structured Deposition. Archaeol. Dialogues 2012, 19, 85–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Grant, A. Survival or Sacrifice? A Critical Appraisal of Animal Burials in Britain in the Iron Age. In Animals and Archaeology: 4. Husbandry in Europe; Grigson, C., Clutton-Brock, J., Eds.; BAR International Series 227, British Archaeological Reports; BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1984; pp. 221–227. [Google Scholar]
  57. Richards, C.; Thomas, J. Ritual Activity and Structured Deposition in Later Neolithic Wessex. In Neolithic Studies: A Review of Some Current Research; BAR British Series, British Archaeological Reports; Bradley, R., Gardiner, J., Eds.; BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1984; pp. 189–218. [Google Scholar]
  58. Barone, R. Anatomie Comparée des Mammifères Domestiques. Tome 1: Ostéologie; École Nationale Vétérinaire: Paris, France, 1986.
  59. Schmid, E. Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists; Elsevier Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hilson, S. Mammal Bones and Teeth: An Introductory Guide to Methods of Identification; Institute of Archaeology, University College London: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  61. Boessneck, J. Osteological Differences between Sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and Goats (Capra hircus Linné). In Science in Archaeology; Brothwell, D., Higgs, E., Eds.; Thames & Hudson: London, UK, 1969; pp. 331–358. [Google Scholar]
  62. Prummel, W.; Frisch, H.J. A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex and Body Side in Bones of Sheep and Goat. J. Archaeol. Sci. 1986, 13, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Fernández, H. Ostéologie Comparée des Petits Ruminants Eurasiatiques Sauvages et Domestiques (Genres Rupicapra, Ovis, Capra et Capreolus): Diagnose Différentielle du Squelette Appendiculaire. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zeder, M.A.; Lapham, H.A. Assessing the reliability of criteria used to identify postcranial bones in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37, 2887–2905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Zeder, M.A.; Lapham, H.A. Assessing the reliability of criteria used to identify mandibles and mandibular teeth in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37, 225–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Prummel, W. Distinguishing Features in Postcranial Skeletal Elements of Cattle, Bos primigenius f. taurus and Red Deer, Cervus elaphus. Schriften Archäologisch-Zool. Arbeitsgruppe Schleswig-Kiel 1988, 12, 5–52. [Google Scholar]
  67. Koudelka, F. Modificierte Methoden zur Bestimmung der Hunderassen aus den Knochenresten. Mitth. Anthropol. Ges. Wien 1885, 15, 169–175. [Google Scholar]
  68. Brain, C.K. The Contribution of Namib Desert Hottentots to an Understanding of Australopithecus Bone Accumulations. Sci. Pap. Namib. Desert Res. Stn. 1969, 1969, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  69. Silver, I.A. The Ageing of Domestic Animals. In Science in Archaeology; Brothwell, D.R., Higgs, E.S., Eds.; Thames and Hudson: London, UK, 1969; pp. 283–302. [Google Scholar]
  70. Payne, S. Kill-Off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Aşvan Kale. Anatol. Stud. 1973, 23, 281–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Payne, S. Reference Codes for Wear States in the Mandibular Cheek Teeth of Sheep and Goats. J. Archaeol. Sci. 1987, 14, 609–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  72. Grant, A. The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Ungulates. In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites; Wilson, B., Grigson, C., Payne, S., Eds.; BAR International Series 109, British Archaeological Reports; BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1982; pp. 91–108. [Google Scholar]
  73. Pérez Ripoll, M. Estudio de la secuencia del desgaste de los molares de “Capra pyrenaica” de yacimientos prehistóricos. Arch. Prehist. Levantina 1988, 18, 83–127. [Google Scholar]
  74. Mariezkurrena, K. Contribución al conocimiento del desarrollo de la dentición y del esqueleto postcraneal de Cervus elaphus. Munibe 1983, 35, 149–202. [Google Scholar]
  75. Brown, W.; Chapman, N. Age Assessment of Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) from a Scoring Scheme Based on Radiographs of Developing Permanent Molariform Teeth. J. Zool. 1991, 225, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Brown, W.A.B.; Chapman, N.G. The Dentition of Red Deer (Cervus elaphus): A Scoring Scheme to Assess Age from Wear of the Permanent Molariform Teeth. J. Zool. 1991, 224, 519–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Klein, R.G.; Allwarden, K.; Wolf, C. The Calculation and Interpretation of Ungulate Age Profiles from Dental Crown Heights. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective; Bailey, G., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  78. Levine, M.A. The Use of Crown Height Measurements and Eruption-Wear Sequences to Age Horse Teeth. In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites; Wilson, B., Grigson, C., Payne, S., Eds.; BAR International Series 109, British Archaeological Reports; BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1982; pp. 223–250. [Google Scholar]
  79. Guadelli, J.L. Détermination de l’âge des chevaux fossiles et établissement des classes d’âge. PALEO Rev. D’archéologie Préhist. 1998, 10, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  80. Rowlett, B.V.; Chiu, M.-Y. Age Estimation of Prehistoric Pigs (Sus scrofa) by Molar Eruption and Attrition. J. Archaeol. Sci. 1994, 21, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  81. Hambleton, E. Method for Converting the Results of Different Analyses of Mandibular Tooth Wear into a Similar Format. In Animal Husbandry Regimes in Iron Age Britain: A Comparative Study of Faunal Assemblages from British Iron Age Sites; BAR International Series, British Archaeological Reports; BAR Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  82. Azorit Casas, C. Guía para la determinación de la edad del ciervo ibérico (Cervus elaphus hispanicus) a través de su dentición: Revisión metodológica y técnicas de elección. An. Real Acad. Cienc. Vet. Andal. Orient. 2011, 24, 235–264. [Google Scholar]
  83. Marín, J.; Saladié, P.; Azorit, C.; Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A. Identification of Age at Death in Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) through the Upper Dentition: Eruption Pattern, Wear Stage and Crown Heights. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2024, 163, 105934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Blumenschine, R.J.; Marean, C.W.; Capaldo, S.D. Blind Tests of Inter-Analyst Correspondence and Accuracy in the Identification of Cut Marks, Percussion Marks, and Carnivore Tooth Marks on Bone Surfaces. J. Archaeol. Sci. 1996, 23, 493–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  85. Binford, L. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  86. Fernández-Jalvo, Y.; Andrews, P. Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  87. Yravedra, J. Tafonomía Aplicada a la Zooarqueología; Aula Abierta: Madrid, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  88. Behrensmeyer, A.K. Taphonomic and Ecologic Information from Bone Weathering. Paleobiology 1978, 4, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  89. Alameda, M.C.; Carmona, E.; Pascual, S.; Martínez, F.; Díez, C. El “campo de hoyos” calcolítico de Fuente Celada (Burgos): Datos preliminares y perspectivas. Complutum 2011, 22, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  90. Fabián, J.F. El IV y el III Milenio AC en el Valle Amblés (Ávila). In Monografías de Arqueología en Castilla y León; Junta de Castilla y León: Valladolid, Spain, 2006; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  91. Ferrer, J.; Marqués, L.; Fernández, J.; Baldomero, A.; Garrido, A. El sepulcro megalítico del Tajillo del Moro (Casabermeja, Málaga). Cuad. Prehist. Univ. Granada 1980, 5, 81–118. [Google Scholar]
  92. García, L.A.; Martínez, C. Intervención arqueológica en Casa Noguera (Archivel, Caravaca de la Cruz). Mem. Arqueol. Murcia 1997, 12, 235–252. [Google Scholar]
Animals 16 02653 g001
Figure 1. Location of Humanejos and other pre-Beaker Chalcolithic sites within the regional framework of the Community of Madrid mentioned in the text.
Figure 1. Location of Humanejos and other pre-Beaker Chalcolithic sites within the regional framework of the Community of Madrid mentioned in the text.
Animals 16 02653 g001
Animals 16 02653 g002
Figure 2. Dog burial between human skulls in pit 35. Photograph Sara Genicio.
Figure 2. Dog burial between human skulls in pit 35. Photograph Sara Genicio.
Animals 16 02653 g002
Animals 16 02653 g003
Figure 3. Burial pit 66, with a caprine forelimb among grave goods. Photograph Sara Genicio.
Figure 3. Burial pit 66, with a caprine forelimb among grave goods. Photograph Sara Genicio.
Animals 16 02653 g003
Animals 16 02653 g004
Figure 4. Burial pit 60, with an adult human male (A), a piglet (B), in upper white box and a bovine pelvic in the second white box. (C). Photograph Sara Genicio.
Figure 4. Burial pit 60, with an adult human male (A), a piglet (B), in upper white box and a bovine pelvic in the second white box. (C). Photograph Sara Genicio.
Animals 16 02653 g004
Animals 16 02653 g005
Figure 5. Faunal representation by the NISP and MNI in refuse fills and intentional deposits.
Figure 5. Faunal representation by the NISP and MNI in refuse fills and intentional deposits.
Animals 16 02653 g005
Table 1. Information on the graves and their relationship with the faunal remains.
Table 1. Information on the graves and their relationship with the faunal remains.
BurialFauna in FillNISPMNIIntentional DepositHuman MNIGrave Goods
13 2 adults1 vessel
20X13731 sheep3 adults1 dagger, 2 flint points
21X32 1 adult1 vessel, 2 flint blades and 1 polished adze
25X7951 cattle skull6 non-adult craniaRed deer antler?
29X63 1 non-adult1 bone awl
33X31915 1 adult, 1 non-adult
34X163 2 non-adults
35X415171 dog3 adults, 1 non-adult1 vessel, red deer antler?
43X12041 dog1 young adult1 awl
44 2 adults1 vessel
45 1 adult2 vessels
46X41 3 adults2 vessels, 2 flint blades, 2 flint points, 3 copper objects
47 2 adults, 2 non-adults2 bone rods, 2 copper objects
48 2 adults5 vessels
49 1 adult, 3 non-adults11 vessels, 3 copper objects, 20 variscite beads
51X31 1 adult1 vessel
52 2 adults, 1 non-adult5 vessels and 1 copper object
53 1 adult
SU 10982 * X12011 dog 5 vessels
54 8 non-adults11 vessels and 4 variscite beads
56 1 adult
59X11 1 adult
60X12071 piglet, 1 cattle skull1 adult1 bone awl
62X794181 cattle skull2 adults1 vessel, red deer antler?
63 2 adults5 copper objects, 2 bone rods, 11 variscite beads
64 1 adult3 vessels, 1 copper object, 60 variscite beads
65X343 2 adults5 vessels, 4 copper objects, 63 clinochlore beads
66X511 sheep forelimb (humerus, radius, ulna)2 adults4 vessels, 7 copper objects, 1 flint point and 1 tabular flint piece
67 1 adult1 flint point
68X11 1 adult6 flint points
69X14512 1 Adult
70X1035 1 adult cranium
73X8010 1 adult cranium
78X264 1 Adult
79X675 1 adult
84 1 adult1 flint point
86X396 1 adult cranium
87X1615 1 adult cranium
88X41 1 adult cranium
92X909 1 adult cranium
93X20915 1 adult cranium
98X15712 1 Adult
99X43720 Adult femur
100X335 Adult femur
106X21210 Adult femur
* (associated with burial 53).
Table 2. Taxonomic representation based on the NISP and MNI. The table also shows the percentage representation according to the NISP and MNI, as well as the percentage that is immature (non-adult individuals). The representation of each taxon by grave is provided, together with the NI (number of individuals), indicating individuals considered to form part of a possible intentional deposit in graves 20, 25, 35, 43, 53, 60, 62, and 66.
Table 2. Taxonomic representation based on the NISP and MNI. The table also shows the percentage representation according to the NISP and MNI, as well as the percentage that is immature (non-adult individuals). The representation of each taxon by grave is provided, together with the NI (number of individuals), indicating individuals considered to form part of a possible intentional deposit in graves 20, 25, 35, 43, 53, 60, 62, and 66.
SpeciesFauna in Pit BurialsFrequency Presence in PitsDeposits
NISPMNIAdJuIn%NISP%MNI% of Non-Adults MNINo. Cases%NI%
Bos taurus91430270323.214.911.12271.0333.3
Equus ferus1151212002.96.001238.70
Ovis/Capra67154261216 26.951.82374.2
Ovis aries213161621316 8.00825.8222.2
Capra hircus5166516 3.00516.1
All Ovis/Capra9357648121623.737.958.32683.9222.2
Sus sp. 40934198710.416.978.91858.1111.1
Canis familiaris44816151011.38.06.31548.4333.3
Cervus elaphus1682018114.310.011.11651.6
Oryctolagus
cuniculus		401211101.06.09.1619.4
Capreolus
capreoulus		211000.10.5013.2
Large-sized 23200005.9
Medium-sized 2100000.5
Small-sized588000014.9
Indet.7600001.9
Total 39482011522227100.0 9
Table 3. Some of the bones showing cut marks in different species from the pre-Beaker animal remains of Humanejos.
Table 3. Some of the bones showing cut marks in different species from the pre-Beaker animal remains of Humanejos.
BurialSpeciesAnatomical Part with Cut Marks and FunctionBurialSpeciesAnatomical Part with Cut Marks and Function
25BosMetacarpal -disarticulation-33Ovis/CapraScapula -defleshing-
35BosVertebrae -disarticulation-35Ovis/CapraMandible -disarticulation-
65BosMetatarsal -disarticulation-60Ovis/CapraScapula -defleshing-
69BosRadius -defleshing-62Ovis/CapraMandible -cheek meat removal-
70BosFemur -filleting-62Ovis/CapraHumerus -defleshing-
86BosRadius -disarticulation-62Ovis/CapraFemur -filleting-
87BosMetacarpal -disarticulation-69Ovis/CapraHumerus -disarticulation and defleshing-
98CervusHumerus -defleshing-73Ovis/CapraTibia -defleshing-
98SusHumerus -defleshing-25EquusMetacarpal -disarticulation-
69CervusMetatarsal -disarticulation-92CervusRadius -defleshing-
Table 4. Skeletal representation (NISP) of the intentional deposits of cattle, sheep, and dogs. * The piglet deposit is not included because only part of the skeleton was recovered during excavation.
Table 4. Skeletal representation (NISP) of the intentional deposits of cattle, sheep, and dogs. * The piglet deposit is not included because only part of the skeleton was recovered during excavation.
Grave2560 *622066354353
NISPBos taurusBos taurusBos taurusOvis ariesOvis ariesCanis familiarisCanis familiarisCanis familiaris
Horn core26240
Cranium 325211 112
Maxilla 22 222
Mandible 222
Teeth 610 241616
Vertebrae 28 422121
Ribs 32 341224
Scapula 1 32
Humerus 21222
Radius 21222
Ulna 1212
Carpals 52
Metacarpal 3610
Pelvis 2 122
Femur 1 222
Tibia 2 222
Fibula 2
Patella 2
Talus 2 222
Calcaneus 2 212
Tarsals 1 5
Metatarsal 2 4510
Phalanges 10 6
Total265300110312997120
Table 5. Skeletal representation (NISP) and %NISP of the faunal remains recovered from the fills of the Humanejos burials, excluding the intentional animal deposits presented in Table 4.
Table 5. Skeletal representation (NISP) and %NISP of the faunal remains recovered from the fills of the Humanejos burials, excluding the intentional animal deposits presented in Table 4.
Bos taurusEquus ferusOvis/CapraSus sp.Canis familiarisCervus elphus
NISP%NISP%NISP%NISP%NISP%NISP%
Horn core539.1 30.4 10567.7
Cranium14725.287.0374.5235.677.110.6
Maxilla91.510.9232.8122.966.110.6
Mandible223.810.9556.7122.91010.253.2
Teeth254.3119.630737.39523.23030.6
Vertebrae356.02320.0718.66515.92626.510.6
Ribs457.71513.0546.66014.766.110.6
Scapula233.954.3192.3112.711.021.3
Humerus172.965.2273.3194.644.163.9
Radius183.165.2263.2102.4 53.2
Ulna91.532.691.192.211.0
Carpals91.565.260.771.7 31.9
Metacarpal183.176.191.182.0 53.2
Pelvis325.510.9253.051.2 21.3
Femur274.654.3313.851.211.031.9
Tibia193.332.6415.0112.755.153.2
Patella 10.6
Talus50.910.950.620.511.010.6
Calcaneus61.021.781.020.511.0
Tarsals81.410.970.971.7
Metatarsal162.721.7222.751.2 42.6
Metapodial61.010.9141.7225.422.0
Phalanges345.876.1232.8174.211.042.6
Total583100.0115100.0822100.0409100.0102104.1155100.0
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Estaca-Gómez, V.; Aguilar-Molina, L.; Herrero-Corral, A.M.; Paulos-Bravo, R.; Maicas, R.; Flores-Fernández, R.; Garrido-Pena, R.; Yravedra, J. Faunal Deposits in Pre-Beaker Funerary Contexts at Humanejos (Parla, Madrid, Spain). Animals 2026, 16, 2653. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16172653

AMA Style

Estaca-Gómez V, Aguilar-Molina L, Herrero-Corral AM, Paulos-Bravo R, Maicas R, Flores-Fernández R, Garrido-Pena R, Yravedra J. Faunal Deposits in Pre-Beaker Funerary Contexts at Humanejos (Parla, Madrid, Spain). Animals. 2026; 16(17):2653. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16172653

Chicago/Turabian Style

Estaca-Gómez, Verónica, Laura Aguilar-Molina, Ana Mercedes Herrero-Corral, Rodrigo Paulos-Bravo, Ruth Maicas, Raúl Flores-Fernández, Rafael Garrido-Pena, and José Yravedra. 2026. "Faunal Deposits in Pre-Beaker Funerary Contexts at Humanejos (Parla, Madrid, Spain)" Animals 16, no. 17: 2653. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16172653

APA Style

Estaca-Gómez, V., Aguilar-Molina, L., Herrero-Corral, A. M., Paulos-Bravo, R., Maicas, R., Flores-Fernández, R., Garrido-Pena, R., & Yravedra, J. (2026). Faunal Deposits in Pre-Beaker Funerary Contexts at Humanejos (Parla, Madrid, Spain). Animals, 16(17), 2653. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16172653

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop