Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
2001 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2001/4204-0001$3.00
Grave Markers
Middle and Early Upper
Paleolithic Burials and the Use
of Chronotypology in
Contemporary Paleolithic
Research1
by Julien Riel-Salvatore and
Geoffrey A. Clark
449
gested for the Middle Paleolithic, this paper will also test
the validity of the Upper Paleolithic as an analytical unit,
since it will show whether an unambiguous Middle/Upper Paleolithic division exists in a body of evidence other
than stone tools. By extension, the validity of typological
and etic approaches to the dynamic cultural and biological processes of the Paleolithic will also be assessed.
burial was not a regular part of the Neanderthal behavioral repertoire and was, therefore, likely to have been
sporadic. It is handicapped, however, by evidence that
Middle Paleolithic modern humans also sporadically
buried their dead for no symbolic reason. This observation can be interpreted as suggesting that modern humans and Neanderthals were the same species and
shared a behavioral repertoirea view that is supported
by lithic (Boeda 1988) and faunal (Chase 1989) evidence
strongly suggesting that the two hominids had similar
lifeways for an interval of at least 60,000 years (Lindly
and Clark 1990). The alternative interpretation preferred
by Chase and Dibble (1987:285) is that Neanderthals and
modern humans were two distinct species and that only
modern humans would eventually develop the capacity
for symbolic behavior, or neoculture, giving them a
competitive advantage over paleocultural Neanderthals, who were driven to extinction. Despite a lack of
concrete evidence, most of the proponents of the nonsymbolic-burial interpretation adhere to this view.
Others in this group see both kinds of Middle Paleolithic hominids as having the capacity for symbolic behavior, but what this means is debated. Some researchers
argue that despite their ability to act symbolically, Neanderthals apparently never refined this capacity to
the same degree as modern humans and were therefore
condemned to be replaced by them (Defleur 1993; Mellars 1996). A broadly similar expression of this view
based on the analysis of stone and bone tools and personal ornaments has recently been proposed by some
European workers (dErrico et al. 1998, Zilhao and
dErrico 1999a; see Clark 1997a, 1999a). Others argue,
however, that the embryonic ritual behavior embodied
in burials postdating 100,000 years b.p. provides support
for the hypothesis that the two hominid groups were
simply regional variants within a single, wide-ranging,
polytypic species (Brose and Wolpoff 1971, Wolpoff, Wu,
and Thorne 1984, Clark and Lindly 1989a, Wolpoff 1989).
In their view, the Middle Paleolithic archaeological record provides evidence of a fair degree of social complexity
that increased at a different rate from that of biological
evolution (Marshack 1989, Hayden 1993). May (1986:
157, translation ours)2 sums up this position when she
states that the Upper Paleolithic is in continuity with
the Middle Paleolithic, developing further what it contained in germinal form. . . . It is the very principle of
evolution. This position has the advantage of being able
to indicate some of the elements that should or could
be found in Early Upper Paleolithic burials, thereby providing the test implications for Early Upper Paleolithic
burial that the other approaches have studiously avoided.
In fact, the multiregional hypothesis predicts that extremely robust modern humans showing some Neanderthal features will be the earliest buried hominids of
the Upper Paleolithic. It happens that many of the earliest recovered hominids from the Upper Paleolithic
2. Le Paleolithique superieur est en continuite avec le Paleolithique moyen, developpe ce quil contenait en germe. . . . Cest le
principe meme de levolution.
Selection of Data
The geographical area under scrutiny consists of most of
Western Eurasia and Western Russia, that is, the whole
area in which typologically defined Middle and Upper
Paleolithic tool assemblages have been identified. This
is an area of several million square kilometers. Although
many sites there have yielded human remains, only
those considered to have been purposefully buried are
examined here.
One of Gargetts major criticisms of research on Middle Paleolithic burials is that the mere presence of an
articulated skeleton in an archaeological context is often
taken as evidence for purposeful burial (1989:16061;
1999:3133, 4142). This criticism is a valid one. Although is it true that skeletons are rarely so preserved
(1989:15758), nonhuman processes can and sometimes
do result in the preservation of articulated skeletal parts.
Many researchers (May 1986, Smirnov 1989, Defleur
1993) do in fact start their analyses of Middle Paleolithic
burials with the presumption that an articulated skeleton represents intentional burial (but see Vandermeersch
1993 for an alternative approach). All agree, however,
that an articulated skeleton by itself is never sufficient
evidence of a burial.
A common solution is to look for other elements that
may indicate purposeful interment. These include a skeletons position, the presence of a pit or some other type
of burial structure, and the presence of grave
goodsobjects unambiguously associated with the remains and therefore assumed to have been intentionally
placed in a grave (Defleur 1993:5758). As concerns the
identification of burial inclusions as grave goods in
Middle Paleolithic contexts, we refer the reader to Defleurs (1993) thorough and competent discussion of the
matter and to the original sources in which they were
reported as such in recently discovered burials (i.e., Dederiyeh 1 [Akazawa et al. 1995] and Amud 7 [Hovers et
al. 1995, Hovers, Kimbel, and Rak 2000, Rak, Kimbel,
and Hovers 1994]). May (1986:4) also suggests that attention be paid to the total area in which the remains
are found, and Smirnov (1989:216) proposes that the presence of associated features be taken into account. When
one or more of these elements co-occurs with an articulated skeleton, it seems likely that we are dealing with
a purposeful inhumation.
Technically, the number of supposed Middle Paleolithic burials included in this study should be of no importance, since, if they do not carry a symbolic loading,
they should not show any patterns similar to those derived from Early Upper Paleolithic burials (Gargett 1999:
30). Nevertheless, we classified the apparent Middle Paleolithic burials as certain, probable, or possible
(Defleur 1993) and omitted the possible burials from
our sample. When possible, reference was also made to
the original publications for the older sites reviewed by
Defleur (e.g., Solecki 1971; Heim 1976, 1982) to increase
the accuracy of our interpretations. Additional data from
recently discovered Middle Paleolithic burials were gathered from articles or excavation reports and included in
the sample (Bar-Yosef et al. 1992, Rak, Kimbel, and Hovers 1994, Akazawa et al. 1995, Hovers et al. 1995, Tillier
1995, Vermeersch et al. 1998).
A number of criteria were used to determine if a burial
belonged to the Middle Paleolithic. First and foremost,
given that typological approaches have repeatedly been
shown to be seriously flawed (Dibble 1984, 1987; Dibble
and Rolland 1992; Bisson 2000), we looked instead for a
Middle Paleolithic or Mousterian technological signaturethe dominance of flake-based retouched tools in
lithic assemblages (except in the Levant, where bladebased tools appear to be the norm for that period [see
e.g., Bar-Yosef and Kuhn 1999]). This definition roughly
parallels the traditional typology-based one and makes
identification of Middle Paleolithic archaeological strata
possible even in a survey that must depend on secondhand sources. If a proposed burial associated with an
assemblage of Middle Paleolithic signature was recorded,
it was assumed to date to the Middle Paleolithic. (The
use of this concept of signature is proposed simply as a
tool for classifying burials for the purposes of this study.)
In the rare instances when dates were available, if the
burial was dated to over 40,000 b.p.3 it was also included
in the Middle Paleolithic sample. A big problem here is
that the various dates available were obtained by different methods applied to different materials across the
sites (for a very detailed discussion of dating methods
applied to the Paleolithic period, see Zilhao and dErrico
1999a). Effectively, this means that the dates cannot be
directly compared with each other. Since there are no
temporally distinct Middle Paleolithic tool traditions
(but see Mellars 1996), dates never contradicted the attribution of a grave to the Middle Paleolithic based on
assemblage signature.
The Early Upper Paleolithic burials considered here
were compiled from a variety of sources, including syntheses (Oakley, Campbell, and Molleson 1971, May 1986,
Palma di Cesnola 1993) and detailed journal articles
(Klima 1987a, b; Svoboda 1989; Svoboda and Vlcek 1991).
There were, however, significant problems in identifying
3. The date of 40,000 b.p. is not typically associated with the end
of the Middle Paleolithic but is used here because it excludes even
the earliest recorded manifestation of the so-called MiddleUpper
Paleolithic transition, characterized by the development of Upper
Paleolithic tool types.
Data Analysis
middle paleolithic burials
Analysis of the Middle Paleolithic sample (table 3) allows
the following general observations. First, juveniles comprise the largest part of the sample. Most recovered juveniles appear to be under 10 years of age, while most
males belong to the 1630 and 4150 age brackets.5 Females are underrepresented.
Roughly one in five Middle Paleolithic burials contained an individual who showed signs of pathology. Two
out of seven identified females (disproportionately high
for this period) exhibited pathology.
The vast majority of inhumed individuals were Neanderthals. That the three sites that yielded modern human burials produced roughly 30% of the burials might
be interpreted as evidence that modern humans showed
a higher propensity to bury their dead, but this would
be a risky assertion. Two of these sites (Qafzeh and
Skhul) are among the oldest in our sample, while the
third, Taramsa, yielded a single rather plain grave and
dates to between roughly 80,000 and 50,000 years b.p.
(Vermeersch et al. 1998). Following the same dubious
line of reasoning, one could conclude that modern human behavior actually became simpler rather than more
complex over time.
In most cases, the placement and resting plane of the
recovered individuals were not reported by the excavators. This is unfortunate, since in many ethnographic
cultures body position is a significant part of the mortuary program (Carr 1995). Those bodies for which information was available show that roughly equal numbers rested on their backs or right sides and
proportionally fewer of them on their left. This period
has the only evidence for kneeling and seated positions. Most of the skeletons were found in a contracted
or tightly flexed position.
Data on grave orientation are also scarce, but most
burials for which information is available were oriented
one way or another along an east-west axis. The only
sites where bodies were consistently oriented along a
particular axis are La Ferrassie and Qafzeh, and the sites
5. Most paleodemographic studies rely on five-year age-brackets,
but we are using the brackets proposed by Defleur not to reconstruct
a life table but to compare patterns between Middle and Early Upper
Paleolithic groups. This use should not mask much of the variability in the mortuary record.
table 1
Middle Paleolithic Mortuary Data
Status
Sexa
Age
Age
Class
Pathologyb
La Chapelle-auxSaints
Certain
50
4150
Ne
Le Moustier 1
Probable
1630?
Le Moustier 2
Probable
Young
adult
Child
210
La Ferrassie 1
La Ferrassie 2
La Ferrassie 3
Certain
Certain
Certain
M
F
J
4045
2530
10
La Ferrassie 4a
Certain
La Ferrassie 4b
Certain
La Ferrassie 5
La Ferrassie 6
Orientatione
Featuresf
Grave Goods
D/C
WE
Ne
R/F?
Ne
4150
1630
210
N
N
N
Ne
Ne
Ne
D/F
R/C
?
WE
EW
?
P
P
P
Foetus
Foetus
Ne
1 mo.
01
Ne
Certain
Certain
J
J
Foetus
3
Foetus
210
N
N
Ne
Ne
?
?
?
EW
P/M
P
La Ferrassie 8
La Quina
Probable
Certain
J
F
2
?
210
1630
N
Y
Ne
Ne
?
R/?
?
?
Le Regourdou
Certain
3140
Ne
L/C
WE
P/M/H
Le Roc-de-Marsal
Certain
210
Ne
L/F?
NS
Spy 1
Spy 2
Tabun
Skhul 1
Skhul 4
Skhul 5
Skhul 6
Skhul 7
Skhul 9
Qafzeh 3
Qafzeh 8
Certain
Probable
Certain
Certain
Certain
Certain
Probable
Certain
Probable
Certain
Certain
M
F
F
J
M
M
M
F
M
F
M
?
?
30
Child
4050
3040
?
35
?
?
Adult
3140
1630
1630
210
4150
3140
3140
3140
4150
4150
3140
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Ne
Ne
Ne
AMH
AMH
AMH
AMH
AMH
AMH
AMH
AMH
?
?
D/F
K
R/C
D/C
?
R/C
?
L/E?
R/F
EW
?
WE
?
SENW
WE
?
?
?
?
EW
P
P
P
P
Certain
1630
AMH
L/F
NS
Certain
Certain
J
J
Young
adult
6
1314
Lithics?
Boar mandible
210
1115
N
N
AMH
AMH
L/C
D/C
EW
NS
P
P
Qafzeh 15
Shanidar 1
Shanidar 2
Shanidar 3
Shanidar 4
Probable
Certain
Probable
Certain
Certain
J
M
M
M
M
810
3040
2030
40
3040
210
3140
1630
4150
3140
N
Y
N
Y
N
AMH
Ne
Ne
Ne
Ne
?
D/?
?
R/?
L/C
?
WE
?
EW
SENW
P
P/M
M/H
P/M
P/M
Shanidar 5
Shanidar 7
Amud 1
Amud 7
Certain
Certain
Certain
Certain
M
J
M
J
40
9 mos.
Adult
10 mos.
4150
01
1630
01
Y
N
N
N
Ne
Ne
Ne
Ne
?/C
R/C
R/C
R/E
?
NS
NS
NWSE
M/H
H
Kebara 1
Kebara 2
Dederiyeh 1
Probable
Certain
Certain
J
M
J
7 mos.
Adult
13
01
1630
210
N
N
N
Ne
Ne
Ne
?
D/?
D/E
?
EW
SN
P/H
P
Taramsa 1
Certain
810
210
AMH
S/C
EW
P/M
Burial
Qafzeh 9
Qafzeh 10
Qafzeh 11
Physical
Body
Typec
Positiond
Sediment covering?
Lithics?
Flowers, sediment
covering?
Large mammal bones?
table 1
(Continued)
Burial
Kiik-Koba 12
Kiik-Koba 2
Teshik-Tash
Staroselje
Status
Sexa
Age
Age
Class
Pathologyb
Probable
Probable
Certain
Probable
M
J
J
J
Adult
1
810
2
3140
01
210
210
N
N
N
Y
Physical
Body
Typec
Positiond
Ne
Ne
Ne
Ne
?
?
?
D/E
Orientatione
Featuresf
?
?
?
WE
P
P
P
P
Grave Goods
Multiple burial.
a
M, male; F, female; J, juvenile (impossible to determine sex).
b
Y, present (injury, disease, malformation); N, absent.
c
Ne, Neanderthal; AMH, anatomically modern human.
d
D, dorsal; L, lying on left side; R, lying on right side; V, ventral; F, flexed; C, contracted; K, kneeling; E, extended (based on headfeet axis); S, seated.
e
W, west; E, east; N, north; S, south; SE, southeast; NW, northwest.
f
P, pit (visible or deduced); M, mound; H, hearth.
table 2
Early Upper Paleolithic Mortuary Data
Status
Sexa
Age
Age
Class
Pathologyb
Certain
2530
1630
AMH
D/E
NWSE
Certain
Adult
1630
AMH
D/E
NWSE
Certain
Certain
J
M
15
Adult
1115
1630
N
N
AMH
AMH
V/E
L/F
NWSE
NS
S, H
Certain
Young
1630
adult/17
AMH
R/C
P, S
Certain
Older
3140
adult/40
AMH
R/C
Paglicci II
Certain
Teen/13
1115
AMH
D/E
SWNE
Paglicci III
Certain
1820
1630
AMH
D/E
SN
Veneri Parabitta I
Veneri Parabitta II
Certain
Certain
M
F
125
125
1630?
1630?
N
N
AMH
AMH
F/L
D/E
?
?
P
P
Agnano
Certain
20
1630
AMH
?/C
Certain
3842
3040
AMH
R/F
Certain
1723
1630
AMH
D/E
SN
Certain
1723
1630
AMH
V/E
SN
Doln Vestonice XV
Certain
F?
1723
1630
AMH
D/E
SN
Certain
4050
4150
AMH
R/F
EW
P, H
Pavlov I
Certain
4050
4150
AMH
?/C
Burial
Physical
Body
OrienTypec Positiond tatione Featuresf
Grave Goods
Headdress, necklace,
bracelet, armband,
ochre cover, bone
point, ochred split
bear canine, animal
hide?
Necklace, armband,
kneecap, flat unifacial blade, ochred
flint pebble
Headdress, kneecap,
ochre cover, 2
blades, ochre-filled
canal, animal
hide?
Ochre cover (thick on
skull), blade,
headdress
Ochred bracelets, 2
scrapers, 2 serpentine pebbles on
forehead
Headdress, necklace,
bracelet, anklet,
ochre cover (thick
on head), many
good lithics
Two diverse fill types,
ochre cover (thick
on head) and bed,
chunks of ochred
stone over grave,
lithics, diadem
table 2
(Continued)
Physical
Body
OrienTypec Positiond tatione Featuresf
Age
Class
Pathologyb
Middleaged
3140
AMH
Middleaged
910
3140
AMH
R/C
210
AMH
Probable ?
Certain n.a.
Adult
n.a.
?
n.a.
N
n.a.
AMH
n.a.
D/E
n.a.
?
n.a.
Sungir 2
Certain
5565
50
AMH
D/E
NESW
Sungir 3
Certain
79
210
AMH
D/E
SWNE
Sungir 4
Certain
1213
1115
AMH
D/E
NESW
Combe Capelle
Certain
Adult
AMH
D/E
NS
Les Cottes
Saint-Cesaire
Cro-Magnon 1
Cro-Magnon 2
Cro-Magnon 3
Cro-Magnon 5
Lagar Velho 1
Probable M?
Probable M
Probable M
Probable F
Probable M
Probable
I
Certain
J
5060
Adult
50
2030
3040
1 mo.
3
50
50
1630
3140
01
210
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
AMH
Ne
AMH
AMH
AMH
AMH
Hybrid
?
SB?
?
?
?
?
D/E
?
?
?
?
?
?
EW
P, H
Burial
Status
Sexa
Age
Brno II
Probable
Brno III
Probable
Predmost 22
Probable
Predmost 27
Predmost 118
Grave Goods
Ochre, necklace,
bone/ivory discs
and rings, various
bone/stone tools
Ochre
Hare teeth on
forehead
Traces of defleshing
Multiple grave (different times)
Headdress, lithics,
necklace, bracelets,
armbands, suit
Ochre bed, medium
mammoth tusk
spear, 8 javelins, 2
knives, disc near
right temple,
beaded clothes,
headdress, bracelets,
pins, rings, 2 bone
ornaments on
chest, 2 batons de
commandement
Ochre bed, long mammoth task spear, 3
javelins, 1 knife,
disc near right temple, beaded clothes,
headdress, bracelets,
pins, rings
Pierced shells, tooth
on right wrist
Shells? Pendant?
Shells?
Shells?
Shells?
Ochre, wrap, stones
and red deer bones
lining, single
pierced shell
Multiple burial.
a
M, male; F, female; J, juvenile (impossible to determine sex).
b
Y, present (injury, disease, malformation); N, absent.
c
Ne, Neanderthal; AMH, anatomically modern human.
d
D, dorsal; L, lying on left side; R, lying on right side; V, ventral; F, flexed; C, contracted; K, kneeling; E, extended (based on headfeet axis); S, seated.
e
W, west; E, east; N, north; S, south; SE, southeast; NW, northwest.
f
P, pit (visible or deduced); M, mound; H, hearth.
based on figures that include the four Cro-Magnon burials claimed by May (1986:3738) to be associated with
over 300 shells and a single pendant. The association of
this material with any of the Cro-Magnon skeletons is
far from unambiguous, and some writers discount it altogether (Oakley, Campbell, and Molleson 1971:1045;
Harrold 1980:205). If this were done here, the proportion
of Early Upper Paleolithic graves unambiguously associated with grave goods would fall to three-quarters.
table 3
Characteristics of Middle (N p 45) and Early Upper
(N p 32) Paleolithic Burials Compared
Characteristic
Sex
Male
Female
Juvenile
Unknown
Age
01
210
1115
1630
3140
4150
50
Unknown
Pathology
Present
Absent
Physical type
Neanderthal
Modern
Hybrid
Placement
Extended
Flexed
Contracted
Unknown
Resting plane
Dorsal
Ventral
Left
Right
Seated
Kneeling
Unknown
Grave orientation
N
NE
E
SE
S
SW
W
NW
Unknown
Grave features
Pit
Hearth
Mound
Stone casing
Number of features
0
1
2
3
Grave goods
Present
Absent
Middle
Upper
17
7
20
1
16
8
6
2
7
12
1
9
9
7
0
0
1
3
3
12
5
2
3
3
8
37
4
28
32
13
0
1
30
1
4
6
14
21
13
4
6
9
9
0
6
10
1
1
18
12
2
2
5
0
0
11
4
0
6
2
1
0
7
1
21
3
2
2
0
4
2
0
3
16
31
5
8
0
17
4
0
3
11
26
8
1
12
16
4
0
23
22
28
4
Comments
iain davidson and william noble
School of Human and Environmental Studies/School
of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale,
N.S.W. 2351, Australia (Iain.Davidson@une.edu.au).
31 iii 01
Riel-Salvatore and Clark do not address what Gargett
(1999) demonstrated. Gargetts point was that the good
taphonomic information from well-excavated Neandertal skeletons allows discussion of the taphonomic histories of the bodies. He showed that among the remains
of Neandertals claimed as burials, two processes seem
to have operated. On the one hand are bodies crushed
by rockfall like beer cans that someone has stomped on.
These tend to be complete but broken collections of
bones, as at Shanidar and Saint-Cesaire. This process is
also evident in the bodies of early modern humans,
contemporary with Neandertals, from Qafzeh. On the
other hand are bodies that had lain in natural depressions
in the sediment such as might have been formed by cryoturbation at La Ferrassie. Natural processes of sediment
formation had generally covered these bodies slowly; the
typical absence of significant limb segments strongly
suggested that the meat had rotted before interment of
the bodies. This taphonomic history would explain the
absence of the skull from the Kebara 2 skeleton. There
will be modern human bodies in caves for the same two
reasons as for Neandertals. That people were wandering
around in dangerous landscapes long after the emergence
of modern human morphology is shown by Otzi, the
Neolithic body found in the Austrian/Italian Alps (Spindler 1994).
The inclusion of Saint-Cesaire in table 2 confirms our
expectation that beer cans/rockfall victims occurred
after 40,000 years ago, and we have no doubt that some
bodies from this period would have been found with
missing parts just like the rotten meat Neandertals.
The numbers of bodies subject to the Neandertal taphonomy will be much smaller because the time period
is shorter. If there were about 12 beer cans in the
100,000 years of table 1, in the 20,000 years of table 2
there should be about 2. This in itself suggests that there
is something rather different about the Early Upper Palaeolithic sample that would account for the larger numbers of bodies per thousand years, and indeed there is
something different. Many of the burials are in the
opencertainly Doln Vestonice, Pavlov, Brno, Predmost, and Sungir areand there are none in the open
for the sample in table 1. We have commented elsewhere
(Noble and Davidson 1996) that a single open-air burial
of a Neandertal would do more to confirm the hypothesis
of Neandertal deliberate burial than any manipulation
of the currently available (and not very reliable) evidence.
The presence of burials of modern humans in the open,
of course, is not unexpected, as the earliest (and earlier)
burials of modern humans in Australia are also in the
open (Davidson 1999a). Nothing could be a clearer indication of the danger of ignoring taphonomic histories.
That there are more bodies per thousand years in the
sample in table 2 is itself suggestive of different occurrences affecting the items in the two tables, and further
analysis of the samples reveals what that difference
ismodern humans were and Neandertals were not deliberately buried.
It comes as a surprise, therefore, that Riel-Salvatore
and Clark argue that there is a similarity between table
1 and table 2. Inspection of the data in table 2 shows the
extent to which they have been willing to overlook evidence that they present. A x2 test on the frequencies of
grave goods in the two sets of data gives a value (x2 p
9.5), which is highly significant (p ! 0.01). Further inspection of the nature of the grave goods confirms a substantial difference between table 1 and table 2all of the
things claimed as grave goods in table 1 occur as part of
the debris left in caves used by Neandertals and might
have washed into natural hollows as part of the normal
sedimentation process. This has been pointed out before
by Harrold (1980). The grave goods in table 2 are different
from what is found in the earlier sample and would be
easier to associate with symbolic structuring of the world
(albeit we acknowledge the need for caution pointed out
by Riel-Salvatore and Clark).
We have classified the specimens from table 1 according to Gargetts (1999: fig. 9) analysis of beer cans (Qafzeh, Shanidar, Dederiyeh) and rotten meat (La Chapelle-aux-Saints, La Ferrassie, Le Roc de Marsal, Amud,
Kebara, and Kiik-Koba). We omit Teshik Tash because it
is so clearly ravaged that little can be said about the
original state of deposition of the body except that it was
not buried. Grave goods are rare with the beer cans,
and those with the rotten meat are mostly lithics.
There are two possible scenarios that do not require these
finds to be grave goods. Either the rotten meat had
their gear with them, like Otzi, and died in their beds,
or the lithics washed into the natural hollows where they
died. The fact that most of those in the sample were the
juveniles from La Ferrassie suggests that these are washins, as it may be less likely that very young infants were
carrying their gear. The beer cans did not generally
have grave goods (except for the flowersand these have
been dismissed many times [Gamble 1989; Gargett 1989;
Noble and Davidson 1989, 1996]). We might be tempted
to go farther and suggest that Neandertals may not have
carried gear with them in the manner of Otzi anyway,
but carrying seems to have been the distinctive hominine adaptation since 2.5 million years ago. It is more
likely that they did not sleep with their gear.
Overall, then, the data in tables 1, 2, and 3 show that
there was a substantial difference between the bodies
that date earlier than the Early Upper Palaeolithic and
the sample of later ones. Riel-Salvatore and Clark have
elegantly confirmed the importance of Gargetts (1999)
analysis. Neandertals (and contemporary early modern
people) were not buried; people from the Upper Palaeolithic (and contemporary people in other parts of the
world) often were. This is a separate matter from the
issue of variation in symbolic behaviour during the Upper Palaeolithic (Davidson 1997, 1999b).
f. derrico and m. vanhaeren
Institut de Prehistoire et de Geologie du Quaternaire,
CNRS, and Universite Bordeaux I, Talence, France
(f.derrico@iquat.u-bordeaux.fr). 3 iv 01
The potential of Palaeolithic burials for the debate on
the origin of symbolism and, by extension, of articulated
oral language and cultural modernity has been often underestimated, and the literature on the subject is mainly
composed of surveys, mostly of old finds, and osteologically based descriptions. Therefore, we welcome RielSalvatore and Clarks attempt to use burials as an independent means of evaluating processes of biological
and cultural change during the Upper Pleistocene. That
said, we find that their attempt has some major
weaknesses.
The assumption on which they base their analysisthat the earliest phases of a cultural phenomenon
must necessarily be characterized by simpler forms of
behaviourshould certainly be substantiated before being accepted as a reliable theoretical framework. Not
only have many cultural anthropologists already criticized this faith in the continuous and inexorable progress
of mankind (e.g., Kuper 1988) but also one can wonder
whether mortuary practices are the best place to apply
such a model. As is shown by the ethnography of traditional societies, complex cultural systems may be
characterized by simple burials with high archaeological
visibility or, alternatively, complex mortuary practices
that leave little or no archaeological evidence. Also, durable grave goods may be absent in burials produced by
highly complex societies. We see, in principle, no reason
this should have been different in Upper and even Middle
Palaeolithic societies. If we are right, the pattern that
Riel-Salvatore and Clark try to read as a process may
instead represent snapshots of behaviours from different
societies with equivalent cognitive abilities. It would, in
this case, be only the presence or absence of funerary
practices rather than their apparent variability that matters for identifying evolutionary trends.
We see a major epistemological problem in Riel-Salvatore and Clarks way of testing Gargetts natural
interpretation. It is not by comparing and looking for
differences between Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic burials that one can establish whether the former are natural or anthropic in origin. We need natural
analogies to test natural interpretations, and it is precisely the lack of these analogies that, in our view, keeps
the debate on Neandertal burial practices open and eventually weakens Gargetts position. The inadequacy of
Riel-Salvatore and Clarks approach is demonstrated by
the fact that, according to their model, they would have
considered the Middle Palaeolithic burials natural in origin if they had found significant differences between
them and the Upper Paleolithic burials. Still, given the
variability of mortuary practices in traditional societies
(see Pearson 1999), differences between Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic burials do not imply the
natural origin of the former and may, in the absence of
a natural analogue, simply reflect cultural changes with
no evolutionary implications. In other words, we cannot
oblige Middle Palaeolithic people to bury their dead in
the same way Upper Palaeolithic people did to grant
them the right to be incorporated into modern humanity
while at the same time claiming diversity of mortuary
practices to be a hallmark of cultural modernity.
We also have reservations about the criteria used here
to separate the Middle from the Upper Palaeolithic and
subdivide the latter. The chronological criterionbefore
and after 40,000 b.p.is of little value considering the
uncertainty of the dating methods of this period and the
fact that most of the burials are not directly dated. The
blade/flake ratio is even more inadequate. Blade-based
industries occur in the Middle Palaeolithic, and not just
in the Near East (Bar-Yosef and Kuhn 1999), and flakebased industries occur in the Upper Palaeolithic. The use
of this last criterion seems to overlook the contribution
to the characterization of Palaeolithic industries of recent technological studies (see Zilhao and dErrico
1999a:357 for an extensive discussion). These studies
have shown that Upper Palaeolithic technocomplexes,
seen as chronologically and spatially defined technical
systems, are useful analytical entities for exploring cultural variability, including changes in mortuary practices, and the ecological adaptation of European huntergatherers during oxygen-isotope stages 32. Independent
of their views on the transition, most of our colleagues
share with us the opinion that insight into this time
period will not be reached without a better characterization of these entities. Riel-Salvatore and Clarks crusade against the Upper Palaeolithic technocomplexes is
even more surprising given that they use chronological
limits between technocomplexes (Gravettian/Solutrean)
to establish an arbitrary frontier within the Upper Palaeolithic. Why not, instead, get rid of all chronological
barriers and look for significant clusters in the available
data? This would be more coherent and avoid the impression that boundaries are being chosen to fit the
model.
Criticisms can also be leveled at their database. Given
that many scholars believe that the placing of grave
goods in Neandertal burials has not been unambiguously
proven, a thorough examination of the evidence, including observations on site taphonomy, should have been
their first concern. This does not appear in their list,
which incorporates almost all of the claimed evidence,
sometimes dubious, for symbolic behaviour associated
with Middle Palaeolithic burials.
Incidentally, Riel-Salvatore and Clark group Zilhao
and dErrico with researchers such as Mellars who argue
that despite their ability to act symbolically, Neanderthals apparently never refined this capacity to the same
degree as modern humans and were therefore condemned to be replaced by them. From the debate on
this topic (see dErrico et al. 1998; Zilhao and dErrico
1999a, b; Mellars 1999) it is clear that they defend a quite
of sexual dimorphism. What this means for Riel-Salvatore and Clarks data on differential mortuary treatment
is an open question, but one can certainly be skeptical
about their conclusions. They seem unconcerned that
many of these patterns are reified categories that have
their origin in the questionable interpretations of other
archaeologists.
Next there is the kind of pattern that one needs to
argue more strenuously for. For example, Riel-Salvatore
and Clark aver that fragments of bone might just represent the beginning of a trajectory of cultural transformation that sees them as the meaningfully constituted
Middle Paleolithic equivalent of the carved images and
ornaments of the Early Upper Paleolithic. Although this
is a plausible scenario, it is by no means the basis for an
unequivocal inference of continuity.
The most egregious misuse of the notion of pattern is
in their so-called burial features (primarily pits and
mounds). We are told that there are 31 pits associated
with Middle Paleolithic remains, and these are presented
as support for claims of purposeful burial. In all cases of
unobservable pits, the inference that the pit once existed
depends on the a priori assumption that the individual
had been purposefully buriedmore circular argument.
Moreover, such pits could just as easily be seen as prerequisite for natural burial. Low spots (regardless of how
they were created, and there are many natural ways) promote natural burial. Under the circumstances it is hard
to see such evidence as compelling, especially given
that the very few observable depressions were filled not
with the same sediments into which they were dug,
which would be expected in a purposeful burial, but with
the same sediments that overlie those into which they
were dug, which is strongly suggestive of natural in-filling and in any case precludes the use of the pit or low
spot as unequivocal support for the claim of purposeful
burial.
All of Riel-Salvatore and Clarks conclusions rest on
arguments from want of evident alternatives. Ultimately
their argument is fallacious and their analysis unconvincing because both rest on the a priori acceptance of
shakily supported claims of purposeful Middle Paleolithic burial.
I am resigned to the reality that most paleoanthropologists will never be persuaded by my position, but
I hope that readers will see that my skepticism is rigorously empirical and grounded in a nuanced understanding of archaeological site formation. Moreover, I
hope that they will see this paper for what it isa wholesale recycling of dubious archaeological claims in the
pursuit of evidence for the regional continuity model
of modern human origins.
erella hovers and anna belfer-cohen
Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel (hovers@
h2.hum.huji.ac.il). 30 iii 01
Tracing uniquely human behaviors has always been a
focal point of prehistoric research. Riel-Salvatore and
order to explain first the revolutionary and dramatic appearance of such art and second its coexistence with the
relatively conservative mortuary behavior.
Moreover, gradual shift in burial practices does not
appear to be an all-inclusive pattern of change through
time between the Middle and the Early Upper Paleolithic. Gradualism is more apparent than real for some
characteristics of burials, as is clearly seen from RielSalvatore and Clarks table 3. For instance, at Sungir, an
Early Upper Paleolithic site dated to 30,00025,000 years
ago (Bader 1998:217), the sheer numbers (over 13,000
beads) and variety of grave goods are overwhelming
(Bader 1998:7273, 77; Gamble 1994:18687). Certainly
this site resembles more the finds known from the Late
Upper Paleolithic than it does accepted instances of intentional burial in the Middle Paleolithic.
Gradual transformation as the main explanatory
mechanism of culture change masks the boundaries between cultures. The differences among the Chatelperronian (considered to be a Mousterian-based tradition), the Aurignacian (believed to be intrusive into
Western Europe), and the regional variants of the Gravettian (dErrico et al. 1998, Otte and Keeley 1990) are
obliterated when burial data are used to treat the Early
Upper Paleolithic as a whole. These classifications and
cultural subdivisions of the entities of the Early Upper
Paleolithic rely mainly on lithic techno-typological criteria and certainly have their problems. Nevertheless,
classifications of this type are more consistent with the
dynamics of the period, including population movements and influx into Europe during the time span of
the Early Upper Paleolithic (e.g., Semino et al. 2001).
While the article deals with a particular phenomenon
of human behavior, it relates to a profound analytical
issuethe measure of the phenomena observed in the
archaeological record. It seems that whenever we succeed in obtaining an answer that has eluded us for years
(in the case, the validity of Middle Paleolithic burials),
we have to face the consequences of that answer. These
are rarely, if ever, simple or clear-cut. One way to come
to terms with this unsettling reality is by remembering
that this is, in fact, the normative procedure of scientific
inquiry.
g ro v e r s . k r a n t z
363 Gunn Rd., Port Angeles, Wash. 98362, U.S.A.
(krantz@olypen.com). 2 ii 01
Riel-Salvatore and Clark have done rather well in following the modern rules of successful publication: (1)
keep the subject as narrow as possible to minimize the
number of people who are qualified or likely to criticize
it; (2) quantify all data for at least arithmetic manipulation (statistics is better and computer analysis is best);
(3) follow Established Doctrine wherever possible; and
(4) provide an impressive bibliography that proves that
you did your homework.
Their biggest failing is in rule 1, where they have included both Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) and Early
lars larsson
Institute of Archaeology, University of Lund, S-223 50
Lund, Sweden (Lars.Larsson@ark.lu.se). 31 iii 01
There are good arguments both for and against the existence of deliberate burials in the Middle Palaeolithic.
Let us hope that the debate over natural processes versus
culturally based activities will continue. What tends to
receive less consideration is the fact that burial is an act
rooted in a mental conceptual world. It is not just a question of the criteria for regarding a collection of human
bones as a grave but also what variations within a criterion one is prepared to accept.
We project our own conceptions of symbolic acts onto
a culture borne by Neanderthal mana species seemingly different from our own, with a conceptual world
which may have differed significantly from that represented by Homo sapiens sapiens. This is why Riel-Salvatore and Clarks claim to be able to distinguish clear
similarities in the treatment of human bodies during the
Middle Palaeolithic and Early Upper Palaeolithic is so
important. Certain differences are suggested between
burials in this period and those in the later Upper Palaeolithic. Further interesting aspects of mortuary practice could also have been considered. One of these is the
preservation of the skeleton. If only complete, articulated skeletons are accepted as evidence of burial (Gargett 1999), many finds will probably be excluded. At the
end of the Upper Palaeolithic and the beginning of the
Mesolithic, there are several instances in which considerable handling and circulation of skeletal parts occurred
both peri- and postmortem (Cauwe 1998, Cook 1991).
Articulated skeletons are rarely found here, which means
that these cases are not included among burials. Yet there
are strong indications that human bones were used in
rituals associated with conceptions about the special
status of humans, and there is no doubt that they represent traces of actions with symbolic value.
This means that the identification of collections of
human bones as graves is not really such an important
issue. Is it not more important to try to discover the
preconditions for the deliberate handling and deposition
of skeletal parts, using arguments for or against some
form of symbolic act? In this context the assessment of
the Early Palaeolithic hominid remains from Atapuerca
assumes significance (Bahn 1996). The same applies to
the interpretation of the distribution of hominid remains
and other bones at the Early Palaeolithic site of Bilzingslebenwhether as a form of symbolic handling (Mania
1998:5155) or the result of natural taphonomic processes (Gamble 1999:172). If it is possible to distinguish
special patterns in the distribution and composition of
these skeletal parts, then they are of more significance
for abstract thinking about ideas on the treatment of the
body after death than complete skeletons in cave
deposits.
The discussion of grave goods in conjunction with
skeletons can scarcely be left as a simple matter of presence versus absence. This is clear from observations from
Mesolithic burials (Larsson 1993)admittedly much
ently produced the hole and that the width of the opening shows that the brain must have been injured . . . but
the skull shows that she survived some 15 days (Broca
1873). The woman would probably have had some loss
of language or cognition. When I reported Brocas description (Marshack 1985) I was informed by numerous
colleagues that there was no evidence of interpersonal
violence or intergroup aggression in the Upper Paleolithic. An argument against Brocas interpretation of the
hole was, in fact, published some years later, suggesting
that it had probably been caused by the pickaxe of a
worker during the excavation (Delluc and Delluc 1989).
A macrophoto of the hole, prepared for me by M. Sakka
of the Musee de lHomme, documents a rounding of the
edge in a process of healing rather than the jagged edge
that would occur if a pickaxe had struck an ancient skull.
A dozen years later an arrowhead was discovered in the
thigh of a late Upper Paleolithic female buried at San
Teodora Cave in Sicily (Bachechi, Fabri, and Mallegni
1997), with the comment that new bone growth . . .
indicate(s) that the individual under study survived the
wound for some time. Broca had also noted that the
old man buried at Cro-Magnon had a hollow similar
to that produced in our day by a spent ball in one of
his femurs. It is not the fact of such injury that is relevant
but that such injuries may have been more common than
is indicated in our rare Paleolithic burials.
Paleolithic hunter-gatherers were seasonally mobile,
and so deaths would periodically have occurred during
a groups seasonal round. Would accidental death at a
seasonal camp have invited a burial that was different
from that found at longer-term sites or shelters or in their
nearby caves? Would the pragmatics of burial at a temporary habitation have led to a simple burial, probably
in a shallow pit, have grave goods or criteria indicating
status or rank as noted by the Binfords, or have contained
at most the momentary weapon or tool of that individual? Such simple burials would not have persisted archeologically, not only because of taphonomic processes
but also because of their seasonal locale and context. The
old man at Cro-Magnon had survived till his burial at
the apparently long-term seasonal site at Les Eyzies;
the female, with an injury to skull and brain, would not
have been highly mobile and was probably able to survive
for some weeks because of a seasonal encampment at
Les Eyzies. There is a sense in Cro-Magnon that there
had been separate recurrent burials. The cave is at the
foot of the high cliff shelf and overhang of the Abri Pataud, which overlooks the Veze`re River and its floodplain. Hallam Movius excavated many levels at Pataud
extending from the Aurignacian and Perigordian to the
Proto-Magdalenian and Solutrean, a period encompassing some 15,000 years. Where, except for the four skeletons in Cro-Magnon a few yards below, were all the
burials? Did their absence mean that no one had died
near there, that there were no burials, or that taphonomical processes had destroyed thousands of years of
evidence? Would those who died while the group was
camped on the shelf have been buried on that shelf, on
the floodplain below, or, depending on the season, on the
table 1
Mid Upper Palaeolithic (30,00020,000 years b.p.) Burials from Italy and Adjacent South-Eastern France
Specimen
Grotta du Marronier
Grotta du Figuier
Grotta dei Fanciulli 4
Grotta dei Fanciulli 5
Grotta dei Fanciulli 6
Grotta del Caviglione
Barma Grande 1
Barma Grande 2
Barma Grande 3
Barma Grande 4
Barma Grande 5
Barma Grande 6
Baousso da Torre 1
Baousso da Torre 2
Baousso da Torre 3
Arene Candide 1
Paglicci 2
Paglicci 25
Ostuni 1
Ostuni 1 bis
Ostuni 2
Veneri 1
Veneri 2
Sex
Age
Positiona
Orientation
Ochre
Featuresb
Grave Goods
?
?
M
F
F?
M
M
M
F?
F?
M
M
M
M
?
M
M
F
F
?
?
M
F
ca. 8
23
adult
old
1315
adult
adult
3335
1213
1415
adult
adult
adult
2530
ca. 15
1415
1314
1820
ca. 20
fetus
not child
! 3035
! 3035
?
?
E
F
F
E/F
E
E
E
E
E
F
E
E
EV
E
E
E
E/F
E/F
E/F
E/F
?
SE-NW
N-S
N-S
N-S
S-N
N-S
E-W
E-W
E-W
N-S
N-S
NW-SE
NW-SE
NW-SE
S-N
SW-NE
N-S
S-N
S-N
S-N
S-N
yes
yes
yes
?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
?
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
?
?
yes
yes
P
D
P, St
P, St
P, St
P? St
P? St
P
P
P
?
?
?
?
?
P, St
St
P
P, St
?
P
P
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
?
yes
yes
Grande, one of several Ligurian sites at which C14 determinations on human remains are currently under way
(V. Formicola, personal communication, 2000). The preliminary results do not contradict previously suggested
archaeological correlations (Mussi 1986, 1996, 2001).
While state-of-the-art knowledge cannot be expected of
authors working with secondhand inventories (including
May 1986, notorious for both incompleteness and duplication [Mussi 1989]), there should be at least some
critical assessment of the literature. Bisson, Tisnerat, and
White (1996), instead, are quoted at face value to claim
that the Barma Grande burials postdate 20,000 years
b.p. The so-called new dates for Barma Grande have
already been discussed elsewhere (Bolduc, Cinq-Mars,
and Mussi 1996). Suffice it to say that Bisson, Tisnerat,
and White make use of three bone samples, one without
any known depth and a second belonging to a rodent;
the third was apparently found at 8 m, where an Aurignacian level once existed: the resulting age is 19,000
years, while an age in excess of 30,000 years would be
expected if this futile exercise in paleostratigraphy had
any scientific meaning at all.
At a general European level, Riel-Salvatore and Clark
do not mention the Red Lady of Paviland, redated by
Aldhouse-Green and Pettit (1998), and omit most of the
evidence on Predmost that is easily available in Jelnek
(1991). Combe Capelle and Les Cottes are included, but,
according to Gambiers revision (1990), they do not belong to the Palaeolithic.
Then, much emphasis is given to the proposal of
subdividing the Upper Palaeolithic into early
(40,00020,000 years b.p.) and late (20,00010,000
years b.p.) to allow a better understanding of changes
through time. Not only has such a subdivision long been
standard among both archaeologists and physical anthropologistsand obviously in the study of burial practicesbut it has already been further refined: at an international symposium held in Moravia in 1995, the
need for the identification of a Mid Upper Palaeolithic,
between 30,000 and 20,000 years ago, was discussed by
a group of 27 specialists from 11 European countries and
substantiated by an even wider number of scientific contributions (Mussi and Roebroeks 1996, Roebroeks et al.
2000). If this more detailed subdivision is used, not only
all the specimens assembled in my table but practically
all those of Riel-Salvatore and Clark fall within the Mid
Upper Palaeolithic time range: they are Cro-Magnon burials related either to the final Aurignacian or to the Upper
Perigordian (Bouchud 1966, Movius 1969), with Combe
Capelle and Les Cottes best dismissed and only one Early
Upper Palaeolithic grave left, Saint-Cesaire, the only Upper Palaeolithic burial of a Neandertal. It is quite clear
that, all over the middle latitudes of Eurasia, from the
Atlantic coast to Siberia, the Mid Upper Palaeolithic burials are the first uncontroversial evidence of anatomically modern humans burying their dead. Their age clusters in the millennia around 25,000 years b.p., while the
Neandertal graves span 50,000 years or more, with the
latest, Saint-Cesaire, some 10,000 years earlier than the
Mid Upper Palaeolithic burial.
Reply
g. a. clark and j. riel-salvatore
Tempe, Ariz., U.S.A. 25 v 01
Although we do not necessarily agree with all of them,
we very much appreciate the thoughtful comments on
our essay. Our position is that, if Gargetts criteria for
evaluating the intentionality of Middle Paleolithic burials are to have general applicability, they should also be
applied to burials claimed for the Early and Late Upper
Paleolithic. As does Straus, we think it advantageous to
divide the Upper Paleolithic into early and late phases
in pattern searches of all kinds that seek to compare it
with the Middle Paleolithic. This is because human adaptations to the middle latitudes of western Eurasiavariable from one geographical region to the
nextwere also very different before and after 20,000
years ago, given that the first 20,000 years of the Upper
Paleolithic correspond to the relatively mild, although
deteriorating, paleoclimates of oxygen-isotope stage 3
(57,00024,000), whereas those of the 24,00011,000years interval (oxygen-isotope stage 2) correspond to the
pleniglacial maximum and subsequent recovery. The divisions of the Paleolithic (and, indeed, the Paleolithic
itself) were created (not discovered) by several generations of French prehistorians in order to erect a temporal
grid that would bring order to Stone Age archaeology in
the years before the development of radiometric chronologies (Sackett 1981). They embody all kinds of implicit preconceptions and assumptions about biological
and cultural evolution and their material correlates that
have no intrinsic meaning apart from the conceptual
frameworks that define and contextualize them. These
conceptual frameworks are accidents of history, ultimately arbitrary, always vague, and seldom made explicit, producing miscommunication as scholars define
and use differently terms and concepts thought to be held
in common (Clark 1991).
Davidson and Noble claim that we dont address Gargetts argument that consideration of taphonomic processes allows for more nuanced assessments of the intentionality involved in claimed human burials. We
disagree. In fact, one of us (GAC) has explicitly defended
Gargetts approach, describing it as commendable and,
in fact, essential if the discipline is ever to overcome the
nave and anachronistic expectation that first-hand
knowledge of data is a sine qua non for credible research
conclusions (Duff, Clark, and Chadderdon 1992:222).
Instead, we take issue with what he concludes from his
research (that all Middle Paleolithic burials can be accounted for by taphonomic processes). And we are certainly not advocating a disregard for taphonomy. Quite
the contrary (although taphonomic research is still very
much a work in progressstill in the pattern-searching
stages). All we claim is that something might be gained
by taking into consideration the firsthand observations
of the original excavators. A more accurate restatement
trated when and where they are. Their time-space distributions can be explained as the material consequences
of the demographic compression that was such a conspicuous feature of the Pleniglacial and Tardiglacial in
the west (Barton, Clark, and Cohen 1994, Clark, Barton,
and Cohen 1996) and the relative prevalence of caves in
these regions.
We do not dispute Hovers and Belfer-Cohens claim
that even if intentional burial is shown to exist in the
Middle Paleolithic this behavior need not have been
symbolic or linked to other forms of symbolic behavior
(Chase and Dibble 1987). At the same time, our study
does suggest that at least some of the Middle and Early
Upper Paleolithic burials are directly comparable, with
the implication that if we elect to attribute symbolic
loading to all Early Upper Paleolithic inhumations we
must also extend this interpretation to comparable Middle Paleolithic burials. It is also possible that what had
originated as an essentially utilitarian form of behavior
(getting rid of a dead body) might eventually have taken
on a symbolic loading, although this possibility lacks any
clear-cut test implications. Our goal was not so much
to try to demonstrate that Middle Paleolithic hominids
had symbolic behavior as to show that we must be careful to avoid interpretive double standards when dealing
with comparable data sets (Roebroeks and Corbey 2000,
Gaudinski and Roebroeks 1999).
Tongue in cheek, Krantz chastises us for covering too
large an area and time span and thereby inviting criticism. The intent of the paper was to compare the Middle
with the Early Upper Paleolithic rather than with the
Upper Paleolithic en bloc, where, we argue, Late patterns
likely swamp Early ones and thus give the impression
of less continuity than may in fact be the case. Human
origins research is not for the faint of heart; we certainly
were not trying to avoid criticism. Along with the rest
of the profession, we will be interested to see evidence
for very young dates for Skhul and Qafzeh. At present,
and depending on the method used, Skhul is dated from
81,000 to 119,000 years ago, Qafzeh from 92,000 to
115,000 years ago (Bar-Yosef 1998:47). The Levantine
Mousterian now extends back to ca. 270,000 years ago
(Mercier et al. 1995). By using the available dates for
Skhul and Qafzeh we were not subscribing to what
Krantz calls established doctrine. Although he acknowledges archaeological evidence for continuity in adaptation in Europe, he appears to think the situation is
different for the Levant. There is, however, abundant evidence for archaeological continuity in the Levant, acknowledged even by staunch advocates of biological replacement (e.g., Bar-Yosef 1998). On a global scale, there
are no correlations whatsoever between kinds of hominids and kinds of archaeological assemblages.
Larssons observations regarding the tricky business of
inferring subtle differences in cognition are points well
taken. We tried to take skeletal preservation into account
but were often limited by the nature of the published
accounts and the lack of a taphonomic focus among
many early workers. Having said that, the whole point
of the exercise (and an important subtext of the modern-
human-origins debate in general) is that documented intentionality in human burial tells us something interesting and important about human cognitive evolution
(although clearly it is not the only monitor of cognition).
Regarding rockfalls and fragmented but complete skeletons (Gargetts beer cans), Larsson remarks that if
rockfalls were a common cause of death we might expect
to find evidence of other cave-dwelling animals with
beer can signatures. While we acknowledge that rockfalls occurred in caves and rock shelters throughout geological time and that they were episodic and occasionally cataclysmic, to invoke them to explain complete but
crushed human skeletons appears to us to be reaching.
To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence that
hyenas and cave bears were ever killed by rockfalls, and,
given the very sporadic human use of caves and rock
shelters throughout prehistory, the probability is practically nil that the two events would ever have
coincided.
Marshack raises a number of interesting questions
about skeletal evidence for interpersonal violence (better
documented in the Mesolithic, when unambiguous cemeteries show up for the first time), the possible effects of
mobility on whether people were buried, and sociodemographic factors that might have selected for increasingly frequent burial (hence improved archaeological visibility) during the Late Upper Paleolithic.
Although we used all the data available to us and acknowledged that they almost certainly do not represent
the full range of mortuary practices over the relevant
time and space intervals, unless there is systematic bias
due to contextual factors (e.g., caves versus open sites,
short-term versus long-term sites, etc.) there is no reason
to think that the sample we analyzed would be biased
in any particular direction (although, of course, it is dominated by remains recovered from caves and rock
shelters).
Perhaps our most acerbic critic is Mussi, who sees
little redemptive value in the paper. She claims that we
have the chronology of the Italian sites wrong (and in
consequence omitted some cases under the mistaken impression that they were late), evidently giving greater
weight to typological criteria for assemblage definition
than to hard radiometric evidence. This theoretical
stance is problematic in a number of respects. For one
thing, the Italian Upper Paleolithic industries have traditionally been classified according to Laplaces analytical framework, which differs markedly from that
of Bordes. Second, not all Italian workers adopt a chronotypological approach. Bietti (1991) points out that many
of the so-called Upper Paleolithic index-fossil tool types
occur in varying frequencies outside the prehistoriandefined analytical units to which they are supposedly
confined (see also Kuhn and Bietti 2000). Italy also apparently lacks a Solutrean. Clearly, radiometric dates and
paleoenvironmental data are the only secure foundations
upon which to erect any kind of prehistoric chronology.
Mussi advocates dividing the Upper Paleolithic into
three stages, including a Mid Upper Paleolithic dated
between 30,000 and 20,000 years ago into which most
References Cited
a k a z a w a , t . , s . m u h e s e n , y. d o d o , o . k o n d o , y. m i z o g u c h i , y. a b e , y. n i s h i a k i , s . o h t a , t . o g u c h i ,
a n d j . h a y d a l . 1995. Neanderthal infant burial from the
Dederiyeh Cave in Syria. Paleorient 2122:7786.
a l d h o u s e - g r e e n , s . , a n d p . p e t t i t . 1998. Paviland
Cave: Contextualizing the Red Lady. Antiquity 72:75672.
[mm]
a l e k s e e v, v. p . 1976. Position of the Staroselye find in the
hominid system. Journal of Human Evolution 5:41321. [at]
a l l s w o r t h - j o n e s , p . 1986. The Szeletian. Oxford: Clarendon. [lgs]
a r r i z a b a l a g a , a . , a n d j . a l t u n a . 2000. Labeko Koba
(Pas Vasco): Hienas y humanos en los albores del Paleoltico
superior. Munibe 52. [lgs]
b a c h e c h i , k . , p - f . f a b r i , a n d f . m a l l e g n i . 1987. An
refugium: An information exchange model, in Debating complexity. Edited by D. Meyer, P. Dawson, and D. Hanna, pp.
24153. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University
of Calgary.
c l a r k , g . a . , a n d j . m . l i n d l y. 1989a. Modern human origins in the Levant and Western Asia: The fossil and archaeological evidence. American Anthropologist 91:96285.
. 1989b. Comment on: Grave shortcomings, by Robert H.
Gargett. current anthropology 30:7879.
. 1991. On paradigmatic biases and Paleolithic research
traditions. current anthropology 32:57787.
c l a r k , g . a . , a n d m . n e e l e y. 1987. Social differentiation
in European Mesolithic burial data, in Mesolithic Western Europe: Recent trends. Edited by P. Rowley-Conwy, M. Zvelebil,
and H. P. Blankholm, pp. 12127. Sheffield: John R. Collis.
c l a r k , g . a . , a n d c . m . w i l l e r m e t . 1995. In search of
the Neanderthals: Some conceptual issues with specific reference to the Levant. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 5:
15356.
c o o k , j i l l . 1991. Preliminary report on marked human
bones from the 19861987 excavations at Goughs Cave, Somerset, England, in The Late Glacial in north-west Europe: Human adaptation and environmental change at the end of the
Pleistocene. Edited by N. Barton, A. J. Roberts, and D. A. Roe,
pp. 16068. Council for British Archaeology Research Report
77. [ll]
d a v i d s o n , i . 1997. The power of pictures, in Beyond art:
Pleistocene image and symbol. Edited by M. Conkey, O. Soffer, D. Stratmann, and N. G. Jablonski, pp. 12560. Memoirs of
the California Academy of Sciences 23. [id, wn]
. 1999a. First people becoming Australian. Anthropologie
(Brno) 37(1):12541. [id, wn]
. 1999b. Symbols by Nature: Animal frequencies in the
Upper Palaeolithic of Western Europe and the nature of symbolic representation. Archaeology in Oceania 34:12131. [id,
wn]
d e fl e u r , a l b a n . 1993. Les sepultures mousteriennes. Paris:
CNRS.
d e l l u c , g . , a n d b . d e l l u c . 1989. Le sang, la souffrance et
la mort dans lart paleolithique. LAnthropologie 93:389406.
[am]
d e r r i c o , f . , j . z i l h a o , m . j u l i e n , d . b a f fi e r , a n d
j . p e l e g r i n . 1998. Neanderthal acculturation in Western
Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. current anthropology 39:S144.
d i b b l e , h a r o l d l . 1984. Interpreting typological variation of
Middle Paleolithic scrapers: Function, style, or sequence of reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11:43136.
. 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper
morphology. American Antiquity 52:10917.
d i b b l e , h . l . , a n d n . r o l l a n d . 1992. On assemblage
variability in the Middle Paleolithic of Western Europe: History, perspectives, and a new synthesis, in The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, behavior, and variability. Edited by H. L.
Dibble and P. A. Mellars, pp. 128. Philadelphia: University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
d u a r t e , c . , j . m a u r c i o , p . b . p e t t i t t , p . s o u t o , e .
t r i n k a u s , h . v a n d e r p l i c h t , a n d j . z i l h a o . 1999.
The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo
do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in
Iberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
(U.S.A.) 96:76049.
d u f f , a . i . , g . a . c l a r k , a n d t . j . c h a d d e r d o n . 1992.
Symbolism in the Early Palaeolithic: A conceptual odyssey.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2:21129.
f a r i z y, c . , f . d a v i d , a n d j . j a u b e r t . 1994. Hommes et
bisons du Paleolithique moyen a` Mauran. Paris: CNRS. [lgs]
f o r m i c o l a , v. , a n d m . g i a n n e c c h i n i . 1999. Evolutionary trends of stature in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 36:31933. [mm]
f r e e m a n , l . g . 1973. The significance of mammalian faunas
from Paleolithic occupations in Cantabrian Spain. American
. 1989. Review of: Les sepultures prehistoriques: Etude critique, by Fabienne May (Paris: CNRS, 1986). Les Nouvelles de
lArcheologie 35:53. [mm]
. 1996. Rituels funeraires dans les sepultures gravettiennes des Grottes de Grimaldi et de la Gr. delle Arene Candide:
Une mise au point, in Nature et culture. Edited by M. Otte,
pp. 83346. ERAUL 68. [mm]
. 2001. Earliest Italy: An overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
In press. [mm]
m u s s i , m . , a n d w. r o e b r o e k s . 1996. The big mosaic. current anthropology 37:69799. [mm]
newell, raymond, trinette constandse-westerm a n n , a n d c h r i s t o p h e r m e i k l e j o h n . 1979. The
skeletal remains of Mesolithic man in western Europe: An
evaluative catalogue. Journal of Human Evolution 8:1228.
n e w e l l , r a y m o n d , e t a l . 1990. An inquiry into the ethnic
resolution of Mesolithic regional groups. Leiden: Brill.
n o b l e , w i l l i a m , a n d i a i n d a v i d s o n . 1989. On depiction and language: Reply. current anthropology 30:33740.
[id, wn]
. 1991. The evolutionary emergence of modern human behaviour: Language and its archaeology. Man 26:22354.
. 1993. Tracing the emergence of modern human behavior:
Methodological pitfalls and a theoretical path. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12:12149.
. 1996. Human evolution, language, and mind. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
n o r r i s , s c o t t . 1999. Family secrets. New Scientist 2191:
4246.
o a k l e y, k . p . , b . g . c a m p b e l l , a n d t . i . m o l l e s o n .
Editors. 1971. Catalogue of fossil hominids. Pt. 2. Europe. Ketterings, England: Trustees of the British Museum (Natural
History).
o n o r a t i n i , g . , a n d j . c o m b i e r . 1996. Restes denfant et
parure de coquillages du site gravettien du Marronnier (SaintReme`ze-Arde`che): Temoins de lexpansion occidentale de la
culture de tradition noaillienne mediterraneenne, in Nature
et culture. Edited by M. Otte, pp. 25971. ERAUL 68. [mm]
o t t e , m . , a n d l . h . k e e l e y. 1990. The impact of regionalism on Palaeolithic studies. current anthropology 31:
57782. [eh, ab]
p a l m a d i c e s n o l a , a r t u r o . 1993. Il Paleolitico superiore
in Italia. Florence: Garlatti e Razzai.
p e a r s o n , m . p . 1999. The archaeology of death and burial.
Phoenix Mill: Sutton. [fd, mv]
p e l e g r i n , j . 1995. Technologie lithique: Le Chatelperronien
de Roc-de-Combe et de La Cote. Paris: CNRS. [lgs]
p e y r o n y, d . 1934. La Ferrassie: Mousterien, Perigordien, Aurignacian. Prehistoire 3:192. [rhg]
r a k , y. , w. h . k i m b e l , a n d e . h o v e r s . 1994. A Neandertal infant from Amud Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 26:31324.
r i e l - s a l v a t o r e , j u l i e n . 2001. A critical reevaluation of
the evidence for Paleolithic intentional burial. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe,
Ariz.
r o e b r o e k s , w i l , a n d r o b e r t c o r b e y. 2000. Periodisations and double standards in the study of the Paleolithic, in
Hunters of the Golden Age. Edited by W. Roebroeks, M.
Mussi, S. Svoboda, and K. Fennema, pp. 4976. Leiden: Leiden
University Press.
r o e b r o e k s , w. , m . m u s s i , j . s v o b o d a , a n d k . f e n n e m a . Editors. 2000. Hunters of the Golden Age: The Mid
Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia (30,00020,000 b.p.). Leiden: Leiden University Press. [mm]
r o n e n , a . Editor. 1998. The transition from Lower to Middle
Palaeolithic and the origin of modern humans. British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. [at]
s a c k e t t , j a m e s . 1981. From de Mortillet to Bordes: A century of French Paleolithic research, in Towards a history of