Hélène Rougier does not share Shipman’s assurance. The California State University, Northridge, anthropologist says the similarities between the incisions and known art from the era as well as the fact that the engraver was aware they were consuming and decorating another human, make interpreting the cuts as ceremonial behavior tempting. “But other hypotheses cannot be definitely dismissed,” she wrote in an e-mail. For instance, the carving might have been a spur-of-the-moment decision, she says. Maybe the arm bone was actually engraved for functionality, not as a ritual, suggests Paul Pettitt, an archaeologist at Durham University in England. With the pointy tip such a fractured fragment would likely produce, this bone might have been used to puncture other materials. If so, “certainly these would have been used in tasks that were somewhat messy,” he says. Like grooves on a bike handle, deep carvings enhance grip. And because Bello compared her bone with animal bones and antlers that also have been interpreted as tools, this possibility cannot be ruled out, he notes.
Scientific American