Palmira Saladié is an archaeologist specializing in prehistory, recognized for her work at the Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES). She earned her doctorate in Prehistory from the Universitat Rovira i Virgili of Tarragona with a thesis focused on the analysis of bear and human bites on fossil bones, a taphonomic approach that would mark her research trajectory. Since then, she has oriented her career towards studying the subsistence strategies of Pleistocene human populations in the Iberian Peninsula, analyzing key site faunal remains such as Atapuerca, Barranc de la Boella, or Abric Romaní. Among her main lines of research stands out the study of human cannibalism in different prehistoric periods, along with taphonomic experimentation to understand the marks left by hominids and animals on bones.
Throughout her career, Saladié has made notable contributions to archaeology and prehistory with impactful discoveries. She was part of the Atapuerca research team that identified the oldest known case of communal hunting, dating back about 400,000 years.
In addition to her prolific scientific output, with over 200 publications, Palmira Saladié has also advocated for public dissemination with her latest book published in 2020 titled The Hunt: We Became Omnivores, a book from the Origin series (Atapuerca Notebooks) that explores how hunting activities turned us into omnivores and brings human evolution to the general public through accessible language.
In this interview for ArqueoTimes, we will delve into Palmira Saladié's career, her most outstanding projects, and her views on prehistoric archaeology.
When did you decide to dedicate yourself to prehistoric archaeology and what led you to specialize in taphonomy and human paleontology? Could you explain what these fields entail?
In reality, my foundational training is in archaeology, which I combine with taphonomy in my daily work. Applying it to the study of animal and human remains. I believe that since a very young age, I had an interest in these aspects of human history. At 10 years old, I was impacted by the illustration of prehistory from then-current social studies textbooks. The hardest part was knowing what steps to take to pursue this path. Although life led me there. Back then, there wasn't a degree program in Archaeology.
Through the study of animal remains and their characteristics and modifications, we examine the relationships that living beings had with their environment, especially ecological relations with other animals and their role in subsistence. As for human remains, we study the causes of death of these individuals and the treatment they received from their peers after death. All this speaks to us about the social relationships of past groups, the main interest of prehistoric archaeology.
The IPHES has established itself as a reference center in human evolution. How has this multidisciplinary environment influenced your research work? What does it offer to work with an international team and on projects like Atapuerca for professional development?
It's essential, there is no other place like this. Research work has a clearly inspirational component, which you achieve by being surrounded by many sensitivities and fields of experience that contribute their knowledge. IPHES has always fostered teamwork, which is fundamental for training and learning in any discipline. This applies to the Atapuerca team whose philosophy and spirit are exactly the same.
A significant part of your research focuses on understanding how our Pleistocene ancestors lived and fed themselves. What have we learned about hominin subsistence strategies thanks to studies at sites like Atapuerca, Abric Romaní, or Boella?
From my perspective, one of the most important things we've learned is the organizational and strategic capabilities of these human groups, a key factor in evolutionary success: cooperation for resource acquisition and distribution to ensure the survival of all members.
You participated in the discovery that 400,000 years ago Atapuerca hominids hunted large prey like bisons as a group. What does this finding mean? How did you determine it was communal hunting and what does it reveal about the social and cognitive capacities of those hominids?
This represents a paradigm shift in terms of high capabilities, as we mentioned earlier, organizational skills. When excavating that level, we started asking many questions because it was different from everything seen until then and with great antiquity. We are talking about communal hunting in the Middle Pleistocene, meaning an entire group organized to hunt part of a bison herd in one hunting event. Probably everyone participated in some way. Moreover, considering the amount of meat obtained and thus the number of animals hunted, it must have been a large group, larger than what we usually consider for this period. We are talking about significant capabilities, not just technological and cultural but also social.
Your studies have addressed cases of cannibalism from different periods (from Homo antecessor to hunter-gatherer groups at the end of the Paleolithic). What evidence allows identifying cannibalism in a site and what do you believe were the motivations behind these practices in each context?
The modifications we find on bones are the main evidence. These are signs that occurred during the process of butchering bodies and are similar to those found on animal carcasses.
Cannibalism is one of the most complex behaviors archaeologists face. We know its motives can be very diverse, from hunger to contempt for an enemy or compassion for a fellow being. And between these extremes, there's a wide range of nuances. My opinion is that most prehistoric cases we've found so far are episodes of violence. But this isn't exclusive and certainly groups practicing aggressive behavior by eating their enemies also consumed family members out of love, as has happened in contemporary societies that have practiced cannibalism.
Your approach combines the study of bone marks with experimentation (for example, replicating fractures or cut marks). How is this experimental archaeology carried out and how does it help interpret fossil records correctly? Could you share an example where experimentation was crucial for your conclusions?
Experimentation is essential to generate reference frameworks for interpreting archaeological remains and in the case of bones, the signals they show. Lewis Binford, an American archaeologist, said in the 1990s that archaeologists need both remains and sites to study the past but also need to know how models work in the present world to interpret those objects.
In my thesis, I studied human bite marks on bones through experiments to interpret those found on archaeological bones. There's still much work to be done in this area, but human bites are the clearest evidence of cannibalism. If you find them on human bones, there's no doubt about consumption by members of the same species.
Recently, you published a book for public dissemination titled The Hunt: We Became Omnivores. What motivated you to write this notebook and what can readers find in it? Why do you consider it important to bring this knowledge to the general public and what impact do you expect it will have on understanding our evolution?
It was an assignment from my thesis advisor, Dr. Carlos Díez of Burgos University, who is the coordinator of the series. Hunting speaks about how humans organized socially, as I mentioned earlier, this aspect seems fundamental to me for human evolutionary success.
Looking at your career trajectory, is there any discovery or moment you feel particularly proud of?
Not especially on an individual level. I usually enjoy fieldwork day-to-day; I fondly remember the first pick of traditional Acheulean in Barranc de la Boella, but also excavating mammoth tusks that same year. Excavating Abric Romaní habitation floors is exciting. Or excavating Homo antecessor remains is almost spine-chilling. I have incredible luck to be at all the sites where I work and share it with my colleagues.
What projects are you currently working on or planning to focus on in the future? What questions about prehistory would you like to see answered in the next few years, whether through new excavations, innovative analytical techniques, or interdisciplinary collaborations?
I will continue working at the sites I mentioned. We need to expand our knowledge of Homo antecessor subsistence and cannibalistic practices and understand how Acheulean arrived in the Iberian Peninsula at Barranc de la Boella. Abric Romaní always surprises us with new insights into Neanderthal life, coming years will see what it offers.
Lastly, what advice would you give to young (and not-so-young) individuals considering a career in taphonomy, zooarchaeology, or the study of human evolution through faunal remains?
Professionally, if they are studying for their degree, they should aim for good grades to continue afterward. They need to know it's very vocational work but that if they have a vocation, they will enjoy it. Personally, I would advise them not to give up on anything in either personal or professional life, but especially not to give up on their dreams and fight for a world where science is fundamental for progress.
You can find more information about Palmira Saladié through the following links to her profiles and projects:
Instagram: @palmira.saladie
Twitter (X): @PalmiraSaladie
Other: @palmirasaladie.bsky.social
Interviewed by:
Francisco Javier Luengo Gutiérrez
Director of Arquetimes
Mª Dolores Rodas Romero
Communication Area
Comments