↓ Skip to main content

Lethal Interpersonal Violence in the Middle Pleistocene

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
66 news outlets
blogs
10 blogs
twitter
304 tweeters
facebook
24 Facebook pages
googleplus
10 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Lethal Interpersonal Violence in the Middle Pleistocene
Published in
PLoS ONE, May 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0126589
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nohemi Sala, Juan Luis Arsuaga, Ana Pantoja-Pérez, Adrián Pablos, Ignacio Martínez, Rolf M. Quam, Asier Gómez-Olivencia, José María Bermúdez de Castro, Eudald Carbonell

Abstract

Evidence of interpersonal violence has been documented previously in Pleistocene members of the genus Homo, but only very rarely has this been posited as the possible manner of death. Here we report the earliest evidence of lethal interpersonal violence in the hominin fossil record. Cranium 17 recovered from the Sima de los Huesos Middle Pleistocene site shows two clear perimortem depression fractures on the frontal bone, interpreted as being produced by two episodes of localized blunt force trauma. The type of injuries, their location, the strong similarity of the fractures in shape and size, and the different orientations and implied trajectories of the two fractures suggest they were produced with the same object in face-to-face interpersonal conflict. Given that either of the two traumatic events was likely lethal, the presence of multiple blows implies an intention to kill. This finding shows that the lethal interpersonal violence is an ancient human behavior and has important implications for the accumulation of bodies at the site, supporting an anthropic origin.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 304 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
Spain 2 3%
Italy 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 66 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 29%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 11 15%
Professor 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 21 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 19%
Social Sciences 14 19%
Psychology 5 7%
Unspecified 4 5%
Other 15 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 857. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,825
of 8,639,458 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#74
of 118,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83
of 221,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#6
of 6,242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,639,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 118,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 221,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.