Grave Shortcomings: The Evidence for Neandertal Burial [and Comments and Reply] Author(s): Robert H.

Gargett, Harvey M. Bricker, Geoffrey Clark, John Lindly, Catherine Farizy, Claude Masset, David W. Frayer, Anta Montet-White, Clive Gamble, Antonio Gilman, Arlette Leroi-Gourhan, M. I. Martnez Navarrete , Paul Ossa, Erik Trinkaus, Andrzej W. Weber Reviewed work(s): Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1989), pp. 157-190 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743544 . Accessed: 15/11/2011 08:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp 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

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number 2, April I989 t I989 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation Anthropological for Research. rights All reserved oo0I-3204/89/3002-ooo0$2.50

GraveShortcomings
The EvidenceforNeandertal Buriall by RobertH. Gargett
Evidence purposeful for inferences disposalofthedeadandother ofritual behavior theMiddlePaleolithic examined in are geoarand Cave geomorphology, chaeologically. sedimentology, form basis for reexamination theNeandertal the a of taphonomy discoveries mostoften citedin thisconnection: Chapelle-auxLa Le La and Saints, Moustier, Ferrassie, Teshik-Tash, Regourdou, Shanidar. are between pubthe Logicalincongruencies identified and thatNeandertals werebelishedobservations theconclusion ingburied their by conspecifics.
ROBERT H. GARGETT is a Regent's in Intem-Fellow theDepartmentofAnthropology theUniversity Califomia, at of Berkeley

The existenceofa Middle Paleolithicculturewithparallels to that of modernhumans is widely accepted. Like Homo sapiens sapiens, Neandertalsare believedto have otherritualssuggesting buriedtheirdead and performed or to some that they had a concept of an afterlife an emotional capacity equal to our own. The paleoanto thropologicalliteraturecontains, besides references purposefulburial by Neandertals,many inferencesof ritual behavior. For example, there are reportsof nine burialmounds at La Ferrassie(Peyrony I934), the burial ofa bear at Regourdou(Bonifay i964), stone "cysts" containingcave bear skulls at Drachenloch (Bichler i92i, citedin KurtenI976), and burnedand brokenbones suggestingcannibalismat Krapina (Gorjanovic-Kramberger some sort of sedimentsare interpreted representing as humanlike consciousness or spirituality (see BerI906,

theseanomalous citedin Trinkaus i985). Usually

into the scholarlyand popular have been incorporated view of Neandertalwithout,it seems, any serious criti-

gounioux I958, Vandermeersch I976). Such inferences cism (see, e.g., BouyssonieI954, Eddy I984, Howell I965, Peyrony i92i, Shackley I980, Wolpoff I980, Wy-

from SimonFraser archaeology University Honors,I987). (B.A., His research interests paleoanthropology, are Paleolithic archaeoland He ogy, geoarchaeology. has published, withBrian Hayden, "Site Structure, and in in Kinship, Sharing Aboriginal Australia," TheInterpretation Archaeological of SpatialPatterning, edited by EllenKrollandT. Douglas Price(New York:PlenumPress, in and in (LithicTechnology, press), "Specialization thePaleolithic" in press). The present in form vii 88. 2o paperwas submitted final

in in (Berkeley, 94720, U.S.A.). Calif. Born I952, hehasa degree

i. A versionof this paperwas submitted the Department to of Archaeology, SimonFraser University, partoftherequirement as foran HonorsB.A. degree. Mark Skinner, KnutFladmark, Chris and Ho I985, Blutzer Trinkaus I98I, Knilsel, Brian Hayden, Randall White, William Farrand, and (see,e.g.,Binford F. ClarkHowellhaveall graciously commented earlier on draughts i985). The followingreview of the archaeologicalconand offered their suggestions its improvement. for textsofNeandertalburialwill complement otherrecent

mer i982). Examination of the reportsof Neandertal findssuggests, burialhas been however,thatpurposeful inferred the absence of unequivocal stratigraphic in evidence. Considerationofthe sedimentological contextof the discoveriesproducesa quite different understanding of the realityof Neandertalmortuary practices. Given the abundantevidence,botharchaeologicaland of ethnographic, the mortuary practicesof anatomically modernH. sapiens, the criteria recognizing for such behavior in the archaeologicalrecordare usually implicit or ill-defined. is simplyassumed thathuman remains It discovered in an archaeological context were placed therepurposely. the majority cases the inference In of is probablywell founded.In the Middle Paleolithic,however,one is potentiallydealing with the earliestoccurrence of purposeful burial,and the criteria recognizfor ingremainsthathave been purposely disposedofneed to be made explicit.The proportion fragmentary of remains of Neandertalsin the fossilrecordis much higherthan that of complete or nearlycomplete specimens (Mann and Trinkaus I973). It is clear that not all Neandertal remains underwent similar processes between burial and discovery. This suggeststhatsomething special was to the fewcompletespecihappening preserve relatively mens in the fossilsample,and that "something"is usuburial(see, e.g.,Trinally taken to have been purposeful kaus i985:209). Burialdoes have the effect increasing of the chances of survival, but it can be demonstrated that naturalburialis expectablein certainsedimentary environments. Caves and rockshelters be places ofrapid can thereis enhancedby deposition.Moreover, preservation othervariables:chemical and atmospheric, example. for of Interpretation the archaeological record as a document of Paleolithic behavior has only recentlybenefitted fromadvances in taphonomyand geoarchaeology

I58

| CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April 1989

tion of the hypothesis that Neandertals buried their purposeful dead, I shall discuss criteriaforrecognizing Then I shall examine burialin the archaeologicalrecord. the reportsof Neandertal remains most oftencited as burial-La Chapelle-aux-Saints, evidenceforpurposeful and Teshik-Tash,Regourdou, Le Moustier,La Ferrassie, and draw I908), La Ferrassie I909), and Le Moustier I9I4), Shanidar-in the lightof these considerations (in (in discoveriesofNeandertalskeletons,some in anomalous some general conclusions. Because originalfieldnotes contexts,convincedtheirexcavatorsthattheyhad been wereunavailableforthisstudyand onlypublisheddistilburied (Bouyssonie,Bouyssonie,and Bar- lationscould be consulted,the conclusionsmustbe conintentionally sideredtentative. I909, I9I0, I9II, don I908, I9I3; CapitanandPeyrony at I930, I934). Later, sitessuch i9i2a, b, i92i; Peyrony as Tabuinin Israel (Garrodand Bate I937), Teshik-Tash in in the U.S.S.R. (OkladnikovI949, as reported Movius Archaeology Caves: An Overview in
I906, cited in Most discoveriesof Middle Paleolithic hominid fossils in Jugoslavia (Gorjanovic-Kramberger to Any effort Trinkaus i985), Drachenloch in Switzerland (Bichler have been made in caves and rockshelters. in the cited in Kurten I976), Regourdou France interpret contextof Neandertalburialmust include i92i, i962), these and Vandermeersch a considerationof the processes that transform (Bonifay i962, i964; Bonifay occupationby humans in and Shanidar Iraq (SoleckiI955, I960, I96I, I963, naturalsheltersduringand after of envibody "evi- and animals and make them special sedimentary andLeroi-Gourhan i961), the I97I; Solecki for While much remainsto dence" for ritual behavior among Neandertals grew. ronments bone preservation. of Wherevercomplete or nearly complete remains were be done to improveour understanding cave sedimenour current database is substandiscovered, theywere claimed to have been buried,and tologyand taphonomy, inferencesof accompanyingritual became more and tial (see, e.g., Colcutt I979). more common. Archaeologistsand human paleontoloThe kind of deposit under study is created by the gistscontinueto accept these findings (see, e.g.,Vander- gradualremoval,by solution and mechanical processes, meersch I965, I976; Trinkaus i983, i985). of clasts of various sizes fromthe limestonebedrockin Nean- which caves and rocksheltersform. The seemingly of Recently, reinterpretations severalimportant resultsin solution of carbonatesgradually dertalsites have resultedin a much more conservative insignificant and probablymore accurate view of fossil record.For complex ramifiedcave systems.Various erosional and shelters. Bothsite example, Trinkaus (I985) argues that cannibalismwas weathering agentscreateoverhanging naturaland arnot the cause oftheburnedand brokenbones at Krapina. typesmay accumulate deeply stratified I985, Fordand The burningis arguablyincidental; the missing basi- chaeological deposits (see, e.g., Jennings I976). As naturalmechanismssuch as runcrania are a common and predictabletaphonomicphe- Cullingford of nomenonand the splintering most ofthe bone proba- ning water and wind break down parentmaterial and bly the result of the rain of limestone rubblefromthe combine with others to reworkthe accumulated sediceiling of the cave throughoutits history (Trinkaus ments, the shelter"retreats"upslope, with older sedimentsaddingto the talus outside (fig.i). A cave evolves i985). The evidence for the cult of the cave bear at of Drachenlochhas been questioned;reports the excava- in much the same way but is also subject to ongoing tion disagreeon the shape, size, and contentsof the al- karsticprocesses that may not be seen in rockshelters. has a Caves form unique class ofarchaeologicalsite.There leged "cysts," and an awarenessof cave taphonomy allowed an equally likelynaturaloriginto be positedfor is greaterclastic variation in caves than in any other I985:i63). Because of (Jennings the concentration preservedbear crania-their loca- depositionalenvironment no in no two caves are formed identicalparentmaterial, tion in the cave (KurtenI976). i985:23). Thus the interpretation Some archaeologistsmay question the usefulnessof two are alike (Farrand at taphonomicstudiesundertaken a removein space and of sedimentswithin each cave is a freshundertaking, build-up of sedimentsare time. However,if we are to improveour understanding because the rules governing of peculiar to each. of the Middle Paleolithic (keepingin mind the rarity Frost, earthquake, and other mechanical processes, deposits and the conservatismof modernarchaeology), If coupled with chemical weathering,contributeto the must be subjectedto modernscrutiny. earlierfindings the evidence is lacking or equivocal, we must assign gradualaccumulation of parentmaterialon the flooras provisional status to the conclusions of early workers the ceiling and walls break down (Ford I976:5i). The methodsto im- rate at which depositionoccurs and, indeed,the characand wait fornew discoveriesby rigorous that If of proveour understanding. the spirituality H. sapiens terof the depositionitselfdepend on many factors excave to cave (Straus from as Thus,for I979:334). neanderthalensissuffers a result,it may ultimately vary of ample, at Shanidar there are many meters of deposit, simplifyratherthan complicate our understanding thereis in some places while at La Chapelle-aux-Saints Paleolithic boundary. the Middle/Upper sedimen- barelya meter. Afteroutliningwhat cave geomorphology, of to Friability theparentmaterialis a majordeterminant have to contribute an evaluatology,and taphonomy I953),

and ongoingappraisalsofMiddle Paleolithicbiocultural evolution,all aimed at solvingtheriddleofthe observed Paleolithic at culturaldisconformity the Middle/Upper of boundary (see White i982 fora summary the debate). The archaeologyof Neandertalburialbegan in France At in the early2oth century. La Chapelle-aux-Saints (in

Amudin Israel(SuzukiandTakai I970), Krapina

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I 159

Proximityto flowingwater may result in periodic i985:23). Such sedifluvialor basin deposition(Farrand by mentsare easily distinguished theirdegreeof sorting Aeolian depositioncan and the size rangesrepresented. fineand medium sand,again easily resultin well-sorted discerned.Fine sedimentssuch as loess are also easily transported wind and may entercave depositsin that by way. Vegetable mattersuch as branchesand dead and into the dyingplants or flowersmay be incorporated agents(FordI976:58). depositsby a varietyof transport into thecave from sediments Animals and humans carry tools and raw mateoutside: bone and otherfoodrefuse, rial of stone,and finesedimentsthatmay clingto furor Erlandson feet, fuel, and bedding (Butzer i982:78;
I984:788; I964:II72). Wells and Jorgensen
J L7

90

sedimentsare con"chimneys"are open to the surface, stantlywashed or blown in, and a cone of talus forms et inside the cave (Sutcliffe al. I976:499). Knowledgeof of the originand mode of transport all sediments,nonto culturalor cultural,is fundamental an understanding of the archaeologicalrecordin caves and rockshelters. Flushingout, cementationby calcareous concretion, due to difoverby travertine, encrustation and covering in and the accumulationofseepingwaferences porosity ter are all expectable in caves. Reactivationof karstic processes aftera dormantperiod duringwhich depositionhas occurredcan resultin gradualsubsidenceofthe deposit, marooning cemented sediments high on the walls or deforming unconsolidatedstrataand bringthe erosional effects (Glover I979; Straus ing about further
I979:333).

Where

Groundwatercan color sediments accordingto the brothof chemicals that it carriesin solution. particular Weatheringof iron oxides results in the characteristic red or brown "cave earth" often described (Jennings attenand ofthe changesin cave morphology the composition I 985: I 63). Color can act eitheras a mask,drawing to tion away from real stratigraphic changes,or as a useful and build-upof sediments.Differential susceptibility and minhis- indicator thepresenceofpaleosols, organics, of weatheringresults in very different sedimentary all ofwhich important the are to bedded lime- erals(Butzer I97I:207), tories.For example,massive, horizontally fromthinlybedded,dip- correctinterpretation occupation and abandonment. of stone will weatherdifferently All of the physicalerosional mechanismsthat act on ping, and fissuredmaterial. The latter is much more susceptibleto gradualbreakdown creating mostlyfineor subaerial sedimentsare also at work in caves and rocksuch as eboulis, while the shelters.Wherever producesdifferrelativelysmall fragments, slopes exist,gravity former will more commonly break down by periodic, ential movement of particles downslope accordingto possiblycatastrophic collapse. The sedimentsproduced size and shape with the movementof surfacewater or dustto car-sizedblocks waterice in the sediments(Butzeri982:54). Gullyingby includeall sizes ofparticlesfrom local topog- surface wateror subsidencein sinkholesis also possible oflimestonebedrock.Size, shape,exposure, and of I by raphy, intensity human or animal occupationalso (Farrand 985:2 5). Trampling animals or humans,escontribute to sedimentological differencesbetween pecially when combined with surfacewater, creates a in caves (Farrandi985:23). Deposits that resultfromsuch plasticsubstrate which,typically, particleson the survariablewithinsites as well as face can be moved downwardby as much as io cm, processesare extremely between them. Some regularity does exist,however,in obscuringcontacts and destroying associations (Butzer Distribu- I98I:I55). depositsthatform through gradualbreakdown. have been experimentally Similareffects tionofrubbleon thefloor a cave is predictable, least demonstrated sandy substrates(Gifford-Gonzalez of at in et in a broadsense: "Breakdownofroofand wall resultsin al. I985). Even buriedremainsmay not escape such dispiles ofunbeddedangularblocks,conical in shape below turbances I it (Harrold980: I 9 6). Forexample, is thought a roofdome,fan-shaped like thatmuch of the disturbance the KrapinaNeandertal againstwalls and extending of riversinto neighboring confining passages. Inside such skeletal serieswas due to the occasional presencein the piles, further fracturing blocks can be seen to accom- cave of Ursus spelaeus, even though the remains are of down"(Jennings I 64). I 985: panythesettling believed to have been intentionallyburied (Trinkaus

Rockshelter evolution(Laville, Rigaud, and Sackett 1980: fig.3.3, reprinted permissionofthe by Academic Press).
FIG. I.

i6o I

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April 1989

The complete homogenizationof previously I985:209). in Bone is usually preserved the special environment deposits is not unheard of (Erlandson I984, of a cave betterthan in a subaerial locality. Relatively stratified is sediments frequent occurring Wood and JohnsonI978). Such featuresas graves and rapidburialbynaturally to coupled with protectivemounds would be difficult discern after in caves, and protectionfromweathering rodentactivity. the (usual) alkalinity of the deposits is ultimatelyreprolonged Finally,it cannot be assumed that,once humans had sponsible for preservation(Sutcliffeet al. 1976:496). even on lefttheirimprint a cave, no otheranimal gainedentry However, preservationcan occur differentially of or that other animals were not the habitual residents, withina cave. The absolute size and relativedensity a can affectits preservation.Cancellous bone partsof fragment on with humans relying the shelteronly during has a lower chance of survival than dense bone (Trinthe year. Horns have a high I970:III0). Sediments are the prime evidence foruse and aban- kaus I985:208; Sutcliffe A clast's locaof donment of caves by humans and animals and post- probability survival (Brain I980:iI7). disturto by depositionalreworking all classes of naturalmecha- tion in a cave can contribute its destruction, Those thatfindtheirway, either nisms (Farrand i985:22). To interpretarchaeological bance, or preservation. conscious or unconscious "housekeeping"or by color differ- through structures, sedimentary remains correctly, must be examinedin de- chance, into protectedareas such as rockfallniches or ences, and beddingformation the tail in situ. Strataare real units,representing record against walls have a higherlikelihood of preservation (KurtenI976:8 8). In part ofdeposition.Each has a top,a bottom,and a horizontal thanthose subjectto trampling thesemust thismay explainwhyso much ofthe knownNeandertal and ifassociationsare to be perceived extent, theymay (ButzerI 98 I: I 55). Withouttheunderstand- skeletalsample consistsofisolated fragments; be identified in knowl- be remnantsof skeletonsthatwere not protected any ing of the succession of events that comes from con- way from disturbance by subsequent inhabitants or sequence,no chronological edgeofthe stratigraphic To ensureadequate geologicalprocesses. trolis possible (StrausI979:332-33). A subjective assessment of the Lower and Middle the from site,all ofthematerial, of retrieval information not just individual hominid skeletons or "associated" Paleolithic hominid fossil record suggests that somewas must be examined and understood. thingdifferent happeningin the later periodto refauna or artifacts, intact;that fairly sedi- sult in the severalskeletonspreserved Accurate descriptionof "behaviorallymeaningful ana- "something"is usually consideredto have been intenrelies on complementary ments" (Straus I979:337) the originand mode of tional burial. Whetherpurposely or naturallyburied, lyticaltechniques to determine must increasewith deposition of the cave sediments and the post- however,the chance of disturbance out, time.Geological processessuch as periodicflushing them (Colcutt I979). depositional processes affecting may contribDeterminationof whether sediments are naturallyor collapse of bedrock,and otherdisturbance dependson knowledge ute to the presenceof fewerintactremainsof the more depositedor disturbed culturally the gained fromthe other sedimentsin the site (McGuire ancientH. erectusin caves from LowerPaleolithicas remainsfromthe could well as of the numerousfragmentary I980). Althoughit is possible thathuman activity a naturalprocess,it is usefulto ask the question, Middle Paleolithic. Some caves are just less likely to mimic buriedor not; some would bone,whether "How do we tell them apart?" If there is no way of have preserved enoughorwere humans nothave accumulatedsedimentsrapidly thenit is logical to creditnaturefirst, knowing, too close to communitiesof scavengersto have allowed later,or at least to give them equal weight. of Because caves are used as habitationsby many kinds preservation an individuallyingexposed on the cave The time ofyearand the climatemay also contribhominids,theytendto accumulate floor. ofanimals,including or the by Sut- ute to preservation freezing covering bodywith bone quickly (FarrandI985:2.2; Straus I979:333; to it carnivores, snow or otherwiserendering unattractive scavencliffeet al. I976:495). Pack rats,burrowing and huntersare all po- gers. Subsequent animal occupation might be more birds,bats, scavengers, raptorial or tentialagentsfordepositionof bone in caves (Henschel, damagingto surficial partlyburiedbones than subsebody Sutcliffe quent human occupation by virtue of different Tilson, and von BlottnitzI979; Klein I975:286; et I 970: I I I0; Sutcliffe al. I 976:495). Boththeremainsof weightor habits of movement. burial were solely responsibleforintact If purposeful meals and the remainsof deceased occupantsare reprewe of sented. The task of the archaeologistbecomes one of preservation skeletalremains, mightexpectto find human fromanimal vectorsand determining completeskeletonsin morelocations.As it is, complete separating for or nearly complete skeletons are found in numbers likelydepositionalagentsand modes ofpreservation thanone in onlya fewplaces: Krapina,La Ferrasthe hominidremains.Accumulationsdue to carnivores greater for and humans can sometimes be distinguishedon the sie, and Shanidar, example.It is clear thatat Krapina The ratio of cra- and Shanidar repeated ceiling collapse has sealed the basis of skeletal elementsrepresented. disturbance(save them fromfurther varieswithbodysize bones, protecting bone preserved nial to post-cranial of of preyin carnivoreassemblages (Klein and Cruz-Uribe fromsettlingand subsequent shifting the overlying of remainsoccur in hominidoc- rubble).The depositionalhistory La Ferrassiehas not i984:82). Fewercarnivore simito yetbeen elucidated,but it is likelyto demonstrate cupationstratathanin thosethatcannotbe attributed it and others, is lar peculiaritiesof rapid deposition. Obviously, somehominids(Strausi982). By these criteria thingspecial has to occur fora skeletonto be preserved to naturalassemblages. possible tentatively identify

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I i6i

intact,perhapsirrespective the treatment of receivedat death. Other (perhapsrandom)eventsmay well explain the sample of complete and nearlycomplete Neandertals.

of Archaeological Correlates Burial

On the basis of their experience at La Chapelle-auxSaints, Bouyssonie,Bouyssonie,and Bardon(I908) proof posed some criteriafor the inference burial: (i) the positionofthe body,flexed, ifin sleep; (2) a duggrave; as of (3) protection the corpse; (4) foodor othergraveofferings; and (5) magic or ritual manifestations (Shackley In a study of mortuary I980:85-86). practices in the were Middle Paleolithic,Binford's (I968: I40-4I) criteria "the presenceof an excavated graveand/oran arrangement of the bodyor bodypartswhich seem to preclude is somewhat more natural Harrold agency." (I980:I97) selective: "a case was not counted as a burial without some strongpositive indication to that effect, such as strongly-flexed body position, or unequivocal association with a burial trenchor gravegoods." The Evidence Reexamined Inferenceof mortuary ritual fromarchaeologicaldepositsrequiresthatnon-humanagentsbe ruledout. The LA CHAPELLE-AUX-SAINTS criteria just mentionedare too generalforthis.The posi- Excavatedin I908, La Chapelle-aux-Saints the southin tionofthe skeletoncan tell us nothing itself. Presum- west of Franceyieldedthe first by "evidence" forburialin ably, if the flexedposition mimics sleep, death during the Middle Paleolithic: a nearlycomplete specimen of flexionsuch the then little-knownNeandertal (Bouyssonie,Bouyssleep can producea flexedcorpse.(Extreme as that observedin the prehistoric of hunter-gatherers sonie, was I andBardon 908, I 9 I 3). The skeleton discovthe NorthwestCoast is not seen in any of the Neander- ered in a large,roughlyrectangular depressionclaimed tal "burials"; theirdegreeofflexionis well withinwhat to have been "intentionally excavated" (I908:5I6). one would expectto occur naturally sleepinghumans Nothingin thereports, in unequivocallysupports however, or those who died in otherways, forexample, froma the hypothesisthat the burialwas purposeful. fall.) The depressionthat holds the remains cannot be six The excavatorsidentify strata (p. 5I5). Although considered "dug grave"unless it can be shown to have crude, these descriptionspermitreconstruction the a of been createdby humans and not by any of a numberof following history: probablesedimentary naturalagencies. Protection the corpseis a usefulcriof The cave appears to have been formed the contact at terionas long as it can be shown to have been the result between strataof different lithologicalcomposition.In of purposeful behavior.Inferences offerings of requirea cross section (fig. 2) it is low, ellipsoid, and flatspatially definedstratumthat includes the burial and bottomed.Thus it is most likelya bedding-plane tunnel distinctionof the materialsfromotherclasts that may created by high-energy stream flow (see underground occurin the gravefillby accident.Magic or ritualmust, WarwickI976:73). Stratum5, the basal layer,on which again, be demonstrated clear association and non- the skeleton lay, is variouslyreferred as "calcareous by to naturallyoccurringsediments.It is not enough to say that humans could have produced a given deposit; it must be shown that naturecould not. A new stratum, createdwhen thegravewas dug,is the fundamental criterion recognizing for interpurposeful butes of mortuary ritual, such as presence/absence of offerings, graves,or preparation the body,can be adof duced only when a new stratumhas been identified. If the individualwas coveredby a new stratumexcavated fromculturalsediments(eitherin the processof digging a graveor by collectingmaterialto cover a corpselying on the surface),then care must be taken to separate those objects that were deliberately placed with the de- FIG. 2. La Chapelle-aux-Saints, transverse section ceased from those alreadypartofthe deposits.It is obvi- (Bouyssonie,Bouyssonie,and Bardon ig80:fig.3, ous thatobjectslyingon or near the underlying stratum reprinted permissionofMasson, Paris). by

with the will be morelikelyto have been contemporary burial,whereas those that are mixed in with the new fromthe stratumwill be practicallyindistinguishable restof the detritus. occupationofan area byhumansis Contemporaneous reason to suspect that theymay have created"anomalous" deposits,but it is no reason to assume so. An archaeological inferenceis "a descriptivestatement of and this "implies thatit is necessary highprobability," the to rule out other possibilities beforeconstructing an I976:i2). Most important, inferinference"(Schiffer ence, like any other inductive conclusion, depends on knowledge(Sullivan I 978:I88). We are in a posicurrent tion today to combine evidence frommany recentactualistic studies with enhanced knowledge of natural sedimentary phenomena to produce otherlikely explaof nations fordepositionand transformation important conclusions can result from sediments.That different looking at the same data is an expectable outcome of (Kuhn I970). progress scientific

ment(Drucker I972:5;

HarrisI979:95).

Variable attri-

i62

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April I989 and eryoftwo stonetools nearthenasal aperture numerthe throughout "grave"fill(also ous otherflintartifacts and seen as offerings); (4) the occurrenceof more bovid remains in a depression in the marl but nearer the mouth of the cave (considered evidence for magical ritual).There is no doubt that the sedimentsin which the skeleton was found contain numerous stone tools and much bone. Moreover,there is no doubt that the rectangular Neandertalremainswere foundin a roughly of However,the hypothesis depressionin the substrate. intentional burial with associated animal parts and is stone tools as grave offerings not supportedby the of circumstances discoveryas reported. To recognizeassociations,the horizontaland vertical extentof a stratummust be known (ButzerI98I:I55).
I5)

and "marly soil" (Bouyssonie, marl" (Boule I909:258) Bouyssonie, and Bardon I908:5i6), white and hard to break up. (The term "marl" refersto a calcareous rock thatalternateswith limestonein this sedimentary area [Boule I909].) Once the cave was opened to the air,whichmusthave aftercessation of the vadose condition,arbeen shortly chaeological depositsbegan accumulating.Stratumi is describedas "yellowish,clayeyearth,"over 0.5 m deep insidethemodin places. It has a wide areal distribution erncave and extendsout onto the cave apronbeyondthe entrance. The descriptionof these sediments closely matches that of the most common class of sediments "cave earth." foundin caves, yellow or reddish-yellow This class of sediments can result froma number of processes,any of which may be active at any time: (i) the gradual mechanical breakdownof parentmaterial, silt up which producesclasts grading from size; (2) soluwhich removes cartion by weakly acid groundwater, bonatesfrombedrockand leaves clay-sizedparticles;(3) in trickling fromabove of loessic or humic silts through the joints and fissuresthat characterizekarstic limefrom farther of stone; and (4) the introduction sediments back in the cave. Oxidation ofthe mineralsand inputof responsiis organicsfromanimal constituents probably ble forthese sediments'yellow color (ButzerI97I:207; Stratum6 is describedas "scorchedsoil," perhapsthe Its resultofthe presenceofa fire. positionat the contact betweenStratai and 2 impliesthatit was one ofthelast eventsassociated with depositionof archaeologicalmaterial. unit; it Stratum4 does not representa sedimentary merelyidentifiescertain large clasts derivedfromthe limestonebedrock. a Stratum2 is clay. It may represent periodofrelative inactivityduring which the cave received only fineof naturalweathering the grainedinput,eitherthrough bedrock or fromfines washed in throughthe jointed the above. In effect, cave may have been limestonefrom acting as a "settlingtank" forfinesediments(see Ford a It may also represent basin deposit,one that I976:55). a accumulatedduring wet period.Some ofthe sediments out the from upcave. Sorting may have been introduced originsof most of the sedimentsis no doubtimpossible with which the excavation because of the thoroughness was carriedout in I908. recentbreakdown rubble,probaStratum3 represents bly autochthonousand partlycomposed of weathered particlesof the exposed limestonebeyondthe entrance. to I.45 m by i.00 Withregard the "grave" depression, m by 0.30 m, in Stratum5, Bouyssonie, Bouyssonie,and in severalobservations support Bardon(i 908, I 9 I 3) offer of the hypothesisof burial: (i) the positionof the skeleton,flexed,"as if asleep, perhapscold"; (2) the presence of threeor four (myemphasis)large,flatpieces ofbovid long bone above the head, along with a bovid distal two first phalanges,and one second phalanx metatarsal, articulated(it is and, nearby,some reindeervertebrae, thattheseweregraveofferings); thediscovsuggested (3)

FordI976:55).

nize a unit of association that encompasses all of the archaeological sediments at the site, Stratum i. By everypiece of bone and stone at La Chapelle definition, is in association with every other.Because no visible overlaythe skeleton,we will neverbe sure new stratum that any of the items suggestedto have been offerings were,in fact,intendedas such. It is worthnotingthatall were discoveredabove the level of the alleged offerings of the head. If the depressionhad been dug to receive a burial,we would expectto see at least some ofthe offerat ingsoccurring or nearthe contactwith Stratum5. We at cannotknow forcertainthe rate of sedimentation La Chapelle, but it is a safe guess that not all of the arat chaeologicaldepositswere introduced once. Thus any of inference graveinclusionsbecomes questionable.Furthereis no evidence of a contactbetweenthe thermore, sedifill hypothetical of the "grave" and the overlying ments.If therehad been such a contactand it had been of and verticaltransport obscuredbytrampling resultant to sedimentsof the kind referred by Butzer (i982:i55), we could not be sure that therehad ever been clear-cut associations. In the absence of such data, it cannot be was filledas a singleeventas it said thatthis depression been covwould have been ifthe bodyhad immediately ered as partof a burial procedure. As we have seen, caves can be rapid accumulatorsof withinthemare sedimentsof all kinds,and depressions for especiallylikelyrepositories sediments.Once a clast thereis verylittlelikelihoodthatit entersa depression, transwill be dislodgedexceptby a much higher-energy portagent than the one that depositedit. If the depression in which the "old man" lay had not been immediatelyfilled by his relativesit would nevertheless have been the most likelyplace forsedimentsto collect, inevitablyin burial and, thus,preservation. resulting It naturally. The depressionitselfcould have occurred is situated at a point where the slope of Stratum 5 changes fromsteep to level to steep again (fig.3). It is here, where energywas lost because of the gradient phase, that heavy change in the underground-stream of clasts would have tended to collect until the energy the streamincreased enough to displace them. Turbuand lence, friction, increasedpressureat the contactbetween the bedrock and the restingclasts would have

and Bouyssonie, Bardon(I908:5 Bouyssonie,

recog-

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I

663

space and (possiby afforded the confined the protection allowed his bly) rapid burial in the cave environment skeleton to be preserved.We must conclude that the depositionof this Neandertalcould have been a natural than the resultofritualbehavioron phenomenonrather the partof Late PleistoceneH. sapiens. o, '.oQ .s~o -CLE MOUSTIER

3. La Chapelle-aux-Saints, longitudinalsection (Bouyssonie,Bouyssonie,and Bardon 1908: fig.2, reprinted permissionofMasson, Paris). by

FIG.

at The rockshelter Le Moustier,near Les Eyzies in the Dordogne,was formedin Cretaceous limestone by the was action of the Vezere River.The older,upperterrace the site of excavations that yielded two Neandertal skeletons: a late adolescent discovered by Hauser in were described as burials, but according to Oakley,
I908

in and an infant excavated Peyrony I9I4. by

Both

we mightinferfromthe position of the corpse,at the contactbetween the pristinecave substrateand the archaeological deposits,that the "old man" crawledin to sleep or perhapsto escape the cold or predators shortly after thissmall niche was openedand died thereand that

heldthere overtheyears(I908:5I7-i8).

like erodedthe underlying bedrock, leavinga depression the "potholes" of surficialbedrock streams (see Warin wick I976:94). Furthermore, depression thatlevel any have of stretch the cave's slopingfloorwould naturally and promotedsolution. The accumulated groundwater horizontal bottom and nearly vertical sides of the of "grave" at La Chapelle parallel descriptions solution basins (e.g., Sweeting I973:83). A much fullerunderin of standing microtopography caves will be needed beforewe can say forcertainthatthe "grave" could not in factbe a karstfeature. The small size of the cave is anotherpotentialargumentagainstthe likelihoodthatthisold Neandertalwas 2 and buried.It is approximately m wide at the entrance widensto about 5 m at thepointwherethe skeletonwas found.From the base to the ceiling in the centerit is roughly2 m, but at the time of excavation sediments filled to within it m oftheceiling. Thereis rea0.3-0.5 son to suspect that thereneverwas much headroomin this part of the cave. Since opening,the processes of bedrockbreakdownhave acted to raise the ceiling and build up the floor,as is evidenced by the large clasts depicted in the profiles.How much of the sediment the overlying skeletonis breakdownand how much allochthonousis now impossible to assess. Some of the sedimentsin the excavatedportionofthe cave mayhave been transported therefromfarther back, thus increasing the net rate of deposition. The effectof all these processeshas teen to keep the floorclose to the ceiling. when the "old man" was deposited, access to Therefore, his grave mighthave requireda crawl of some meters an through openingthatcould well have been less than2 m wide and on theorderofo. 5 m high.This soundsmore like a den. The presenceof so many Mousterianimplementsis tantalizing evidencethatit was occupiedovera reasonably longperiodfollowing deathand (possibly) the interment the individual.The excavatorssuggest of that it was a tomb and that numerous funeralfeasts were

tions "cannot be relied upon." Thereforeonly the infant'sdepositionwill be dealt with here. The recordof sedimentationat Le Moustieris one of with sterilerivergravels bedrockbreakdownalternating was discovand sand (Peyrony I930). Because the infant StrataH and I and sedimentsof eredin a pit dug through StratumJare involved,these stratawill be describedin detail. StratumK is an UpperPaleolithicdeposit,and its presence immediately above the final Mousterian hereas well. From requiresthatit be considered stratum the strataare as follows: oldest to youngest, StratumH is i.2 m deep and includes tools of the It MousterianofAcheulian tradition. is brown,containing much burnedand calcined bone and ash. sand. The artifacts show signsof I Stratum is fluviatile rollinginconsistentwith the indicatedmode of deposition. If the particle-size distributionis unimodal, as in would be expected in a fluvial environment which sand is being dischargedfromthe sedimentload, then must have been deposited at or near this the artifacts point duringthe fluvialregime.A streamthat had lost to sand would long since have lost the energy transport largerparticlesof stone,such as the abilityto transport long distances.Perhapstheywere beingeroded artifacts, out of nearbyearlierdeposits. StratumJis brownand includes Mousterianartifacts. The color may be due to the high organic contentof occupation sedimentsor soil development. of StratumK is yellow and contains artifacts Chatelperronianand Mousterian industriesmixed. The latter a are heavilyweatheredand probablyrepresent secondary depositionof unknown origin,perhapsthe same as I to those thatcontributed Stratum (Laville,Rigaud,and Sackett i980).2 it In I9I4, digging, must be assumed,near the contact
2. Laville and

and Molleson(I97I:i5o) Campbell,

Hauser'sobserva-

Alternatively,deposits Le Moustier. at Theirrevision thestratigraphic of column

Rigaud(I973) provide updated an description the of

includes numerous subdivisionsof Peyrony'searlier,coarser schema.For example,Stratum is defined beingcomposedof J as fivenatural layersdiffering theproportion clayto limestone in of rubble. Sincetheir study was designed answer to specific questions about palaeoclimateand not to elucidatequestionsof context, their refinements oflittlepractical for are use present purposes.

I64

| CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number

2,

April 1989

to it was possible forPeyrony have made such a mistake. If,indeed, the pits had been filledwith a mixtureof H and I, implyingthat the pit had been dug beforeJwas deposited,we would have to accept that theyhad been with the Mousterian created penecontemporaneously occupation and that this represented a Neandertal burial.We cannot,however,conclude thatthe pits were dug beforeJwas deposited,because Peyronysays that they were filledwith the sedimentsof J,and his published profiledocumentsit (see fig.4). Since the profile H onlyshows the pits beingdug through and I (implying J the thattheyhad been dug before was deposited), only way sedimentsof Jcould have become the fillis if the holes had been left open and sediments of J had acJ cumulatedoversome time.Thus disposal oftheinfant's I - -1 r in s 1 bones need not have been purposeful. sufficient 2. The holes mighthave been dug through of quantitiesofJto have resultedin a mixture H, I, and J fromthe restof that Peyrony was unable to distinguish slas the sedimentsin J.The pits must thenhave been indistinguishable from the surroundingunstratifiedsedimentsuntil the contrasting sands ofI were reached(see fig.4). If this were the case, and we can have no way of it knowingwhat depthofJwas dug through, is conceivable that these pits were created during the Upper Paleolithic occupation represented StratumK (Jis by only 40 cm thick).Even if only equal partsof Jand the infat' werepitseMotstiro,gsetheosathraug Stratuv.Te" pit excavatedpit sedimentswere mixed,thepits could have measrony (firte 07-o8m In) diaefterwthe topfandta flatapose lime-tn been dug through least 2o cm (and quite easily 40 cm) rigt,wa"empty" save forthre at os6mkelep.n h o ewe of J.In this case it is possible that the skeleton is not soeslabs. ta omda"i"hafa thatit could even that of a Neandertal.The proposition Iroughlybe an Upper Paleolithicintrusionmighthelp to explain ecountactedetwee tumt the ofetran H and oerignal If thepresenceofthe "empty"pit nearby. it is not a hole for a diameter andwa dug to house the funeralofferings the deceased, as m in spro h o measured o.5-. Thiohespt Peyronyspeculates, it and its neighbormay originally have functioned storagepits in the UpperPaleolithic. as somebonesofa very The largerof the two would have been i.o m deep and about0.4 m deep and contained us constrains to acceptthat the smaller a minimumof o.8 m. child.The evidence young H 3. The pits could have been dugthrough and I before that of thispitwas purposely butaspects it suggest dug, Paleolithic Jbegan to accumulate and not filledin at the time. In caseofMiddle is thesituation nota clear-cut of this scenario,theywould have filledwithunadulterated burial.Both pits had been filledwith sediments by was per- sedimentsof the Neandertaloccupationrepresented Stratum (Peyrony I930:i59), and no contact J the ceivedbetween fillofthepitand Stratum (see fig. J.This would mean that the remainsof the infanthad J that the thisdoesnotpreclude possibility there somehow foundtheirway into a pit createdby an un4).While to it was a contact, makesit difficult acceptwithout known processforan unknownpurpose.The bones are and of questionthe contemporaneity the creation the said to have includedthe "cranium,mandible,and postcranial bone" (Oakley, Campbell, and Molleson of filling thepit. of by thereare three I97I:i5o). Gradual infilling these pits is suggested the data in Peyrony's Given report, ways in which the featureshe excavated might have Peyrony'sobservationthat they were filled with sediit mentsofJ. reiterate, seems to precludethe possibilTo beencreated: whenthesurface itythat a new stratumwas createdover the deceased,a I. The holescouldhavebeencreated sand(Stratum Ifso,thefillshould necessaryconditionif we are to inferthat the remains laid wasnewly river I). have consisted of a mixtureof H and I, because both were disposed of deliberately. in context thecreation It is impossibleto choose amongthesethreescenarios. from their removed were primary at ofthepits.No Stratumwouldhaveexisted thetime They eitherprecludeburial in a Mousteriancontextor J the describes fillas are not supportedby Peyrony'sobservations.We have in thisscenario. however, Peyrony, he beingthatof J.Therefore wouldhave to have mis- neitherthe means to testthemnow northe data to supof takenthe mixture H and I forJ.BothH and Jare port one or another.We cannot even go to the fossil in as described beingbrown: theabsenceofdiagnostic recordto break the stalemate,since the remainsof the were lost in WorldWar II (althoughthe difficulty mnrepnrecise assume that infant have tto than color,wec-riteria

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial iI65

metres

lo -

FIG.

LAF

4). Peyronyr934:fig. (after profile FIG. 5.La Ferrassie,stratigraphic with the clay thatfillsthe spaces between.The contact B withStratum shows signsoferosionbya small stream. StratumB is a deposit of yellow calcareous sand, apof pearingto originatefromthe disaggregation the wall and of the vault of the rockshelterin between occupations. "Mousterianlevel," light-brown. Stratum is thefirst C LA FERRASSIE from the D Stratum is a second level indistinguishable Perhapsthe most important Middle Paleolithic"burial" former separatedfrom by a "pavement"ofcalcareit but site, La Ferrassie, yielded two nearlycompleteand five ous blocks. C and D together about o.6 m deep near are fragmentary i Neandertal skeletons between I909 and the skeletons La Ferrassie and 2 butbarely m of 0.2 i920. It is a largecollapsed rockshelter the limestone deep at the easternend of the excavation. in massifnear the Dordogne River. Excavated by Capitan fromslopewash, StratumE is a red clay, originating and Peyronyand reexcavatedin the I96os and '70s, it mixed with calcareous elements associated with has generated much romanticspeculationon the nature Mousteriantools and Upper Paleolithic artifacts. ofNeandertalritual (see, e.g.,Bergounioux I958, BouysLa Ferrassie i, a nearly complete Neandertal adult, sonie I954, Howell I965, Shackley I980). A numberof was discoveredin I909 at the contactbetweenB and C. sedimentary anomalies occur in the deposits,most of According the excavators, to therewas no grave,but the which are not adequately explainedby inferred body,with its legs strongly flexed, had been placed near ritual. Peyrony(I934) describesthe relevantsediments(see the back wall on sedimentsleftby the previousinhabifig.5) as follows: tants.Three limestoneblocks had probably been placed A Stratum is a brick-red stratum lyingon the bedrock ritually its head and shouldersand thenthe bodyhad on (or at any rate sterile sediments).It is comprisedof a been coveredeitherwith branchesor skins or with dirt shingleofcalcareous elements,sometimesrolled,mixed and occupationdebris.(Theyarguethatit could not have of ascertainingsubspecies frominfantremains might well preclude a test even if the bones were available). Because of the ambiguityof the data reported Peyby rony,this Neandertal "burial" is best consideredproblematic.

i66

| CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April I989

aboutthecontemporary ecosystem assumethat to naturalburial couldnothaveoccurred. theabsence any In of tangible evidence purposeful for disposal, haveto acwe ceptan uncertain statusfor thiscase of"ritual burial." A yearlaterandonlyo.s m awayfrom Ferrassie La i, and Capitan Peyrony unearthedsecond a adultNeandertal skeleton similar in circumstances. Theydo not go intogreat detail,suggesting whatever that occurred to entomb first the also happened thesecond.Peyrony to 2 contends La Ferrassie wasplaced that headto (I 92I:33) i headwithLa Ferrassie at aboutthetimethelatter was interred. he Both, maintains, werewatched carefully to protect them from scavengers. Once again, assumptions aboutwhatcouldhavehappened haveno support from or stratigraphic other evidence. Nothing aboutthedis2 positionof La Ferrassie is suggestive purposeful of burial. theremains twoimmature of Neandertals La Ferrasat sie. At the base of the Mousterian level (C/D) they identified pits,each measuring m in diameter two 0.7 in form)" intotheAcheulian clayey gravel underlying the Mousterian layerand refilled with a mixture of aboutequal partsoftheblackearth theMousterian of layerand of the underlying gravel. The first conpit tained remains a ten-year-old Ferrassie lackthe of (La 3), ingthetrunk thelowerlimbbones(Oakley, and Campand 0.3-0.4 m deep, "verypreciselydug (half-spherical Capitan and Peyrony(I9I2b:439-40) reportfinding

FIG. 6. La FerrassieI iIl situ, I909 (Capitan and I9IO: pl. I, reprinted permissionof the Peyrony by Socie'ted'Anthropologie Paris). de

reported similar, fact as in comprised remains two the of individuals, humerus femur a foetus Ferthe and of (La rassie4) and a neonate skeleton Ferrassie (Heim 4a) (La These pitswerenotrecognized untilthe contrasting stratum belowwas encountered. is often difficult to (It see such features even whenexcavating withextreme care.)Therewas also no recognition a new stratum of created whenthepitswerefilled. as seemspossible If, from situation the withLa Ferrassie (see below), the 5 with pitswerehalf-filled gravel halfwithMousteand riansediments, instead having then of beeninterred the remains weremostlikelydeposited (possibly) in natucreated rally such depressions as occur elsewhere the on siteand thencovered first expectable and by slumping with sediments then infilling thelower and gradually by theMousterian thatoverlies wholeofStratum the layer B. Thismayexplain the why bonesofLa Ferrassiewere 3 discovered different at in depths thepit(thelongbones at the bottom, handbonessomewhat a higher, femur higher still,andnearthetopa cranial instead fragment) of at the contactwiththe underlying stratum one as wouldexpect. These immature remains cannot assumed have be to beenburials. Holesin theground notnecessarily are the result human of and digging, anydepression a natural is for receptacle sediments. La Ferrassie andtheninemounds withwhich has it 5 beenassociated havestirred always mostofthespeculationaboutritual thesite.Themounds meter-sized at are "cones"formed Stratum in C/D (fig. and theNeans),
I968).

bell, and Molleson I971). The contentsof the second,

been leftexposed withouthavingbeen devouredby hy-

obscuredby the left, but it does not appearto have been The maintain positionedverydifferently. investigators that the corpse was "strongly flexed."I do not concur; thelowerlimbsare barelyflexedat thehip and theknee, and the individualis lyingon his back. The location of the skeleton,on a sloped surfacenear the back wall of the shelter, to may have contributed its preservation.Whatever caused the change in depositionalenvironment evidencedby the contactbetweenB and C is verylikely responsibleforthe preservation of the corpse lyingon B. We simplydo not know enoughabout the sedimentary processes active at the time or

flexed to within 4S? of the left femur. The right leg is

thiswas a naturalburial.They findno signsofslumping or collapse that could have accounted forthe death of the individualor the relativelyintact conditionof the remains. Theirphotograph hereas fig.6) shows the (reproduced fullto the corpselyingon its back, with its head turned left.Its leftarm lay along the leftside of the body; its lowerright armwas flexedand lay at a right angleto the axis ofthebody. left Its femur flexed I350 from was at the axis and lyingto the right the body.The tibiawas of

and the enas.)Capitan Peyrony 9II:52) reject ideathat (I

GARGETT

BurialI I67 Neandertal

dertalremainswere foundunderone ofthemin i 920. At of by this point C/D is characterized greatirregularity thickness. The plan (PeyronyI934:fig. 26) shows the nine mounds in a very regular pattern,and the excavators explain them as part of a funeralrite forthe infantwhose remainsone of them contained(the other eightbeing "empty"). The "burial" itselfwas not recognizeduntil the exsedicavatorssaw the contrastwith the lighter-colored and ments of B. This visible portionwas flat-bottomed less than 5 cm deep and 0.3-0.4 m in diameter.Peyrony tendedinto the Mousterianlayer.The remainshad, he flexedbecause been placed in the pit,probably thought, had been deposited it was so small, and thenthreeflints on carefully top and the dirtpiled back into the pit and FIG. La Ferrassie 6,plan ofand sections 7. through moundedup over it. "grave" (after 34). +, skeleton;x, Peyrony I934:fig. but Some ofthebones arewell preserved, theones that limestone blockwith cranium; diagonal shading, "penetrated"the Mousterianlayerwere completelydepreservedwere "buried" in the yellow sedimentsinto which the pit had been dug. How the bones of the baby espeeven got into the lower sedimentsis a mystery, cially if this was the "bottom" of a deeper pit. One would expect the bones to have occurredin Mousterian sedimentsif theyhad been purposelyburied.If the pit had originallybeen deeper and had not been filled in it when the remainswere placed there, is likelythatthe would have slumpedor sedimentsofthe yellow stratum otherwise graduallycovered part of the skeleton and subsequentlybeen covered by the build-upof Mousterian sediments.This can occur in any unconsolidated of sedimentsirrespective the mode ofcreationofthepit. However, if it was slumping that partiallyburied the remains,we would not expect to see the vertical-sided that Peyrony shows; the edges would have been feature much softened erosion.Thus it is not clear how this by feature mighthave been formed. It does not seem likely,however,that it was a ritual the burial.Ifit had been purposeful, "grave"would most filledwithpristine sediments likelynothave been partly above; ofthe lower stratum, thenfilledwith those from instead,it would have been filledwith a new stratum comprisedof a mixture of sediments fromboth. The situation suggestsa slow, natural burial in a (perhaps) formed depression. naturally There is also no evidence that the mounds were createdas new stratato cover a burial. That the eight othermounds were "empty"suggestssome explanation otherthan human agency. Hummocky terrainsuperficially similar to the mounds at La Ferrassieis reported by Scotterand Zoltai (i982) in the Sunshinearea ofBritish Columbia. Mounds like these are knownto be a permafrost althoughthe mechanismoftheirformafeature, tion is the subject of debate. Sedimentsin rockshelters oftenshow the effects freezing of (Laville, Rigaud,and
composed (Peyrony I934:3I). Those that were better(I934:32) considered it only the bottom of a pit that ex-

cuplike depressions.

their 9). Previously strata horizontal havebeenmade fig. vertical. is notdifficult imagine It to thatthe"moreor moundsunderwhichLa Ferrassie was less regular" 5 found weretheresult natural of of deformationtheoriginal sediments. No good evidence that existsforthe suggestion the mounds whatthey saidtobe-features are in are created somemysterious It ritual. wouldseemas if, mortuary liketherest, Ferrassie iS notnecessarily burial. La a 5 La Ferrassie was discovered 6 the during I92I field season. On a surface described "undulating" as and le to "/strongly" (called sol,possibly sloped referringbedrockorsterile several parent material), irregular depressionsfilled withsediments theMousterian of stratum wereexcavated. very One the large lfig. contained pit 7) skeleton a childofaboutthree of The mapartial years. of was found nearthelowest jorportion thebody point in thepit,thecranium aboutI.25 m away.Abovethis, in the sediments thatfilled pit,was found limethe a stoneblockwithsmallcuplike on depressions one surfacethattheexcavators considered artifact an (Peyrony on of involvPeyrony speculates thepossibility ritual of of ingthesevering thechild'sheadand theremoval
the face P. 35). He admits that;the depression was I934:33-36).

created and it havebeen"chosen" as naturally that must " then a "/grave, filled withsurrounding sediments. There no that of is,however, indication thefilling thepitwas a there no discernible is fill contact between event; single andoverlying sediments. "burial" The couldeasily have occurred A on naturally. depression this steep slope would naturallyhave collected sedimentswashing The is mobile wouldproband downslope. cranium very Sackett I980). Finally, Laville and Tuffreau (I984) report ablyhavebeendislocated thebody if in decomposed the the a greatdeal of cryoturbation affecting sedimentsof open,as seemslikely the given absenceoffacialbones. what they term Bed M at La Ferrassie,roughlycorre- Thus eventhislast "burial"will have to be viewedas spondingto Peyrony'sMousterian levels C and D (see problematic.

i68

j CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April 1989

TESHIK-TASH

Located in the Jurassic limestone massif of southeastem Uzbekistan,Teshik-Tash is the site not only of of an inferred burial but also of an arrangement animal bones attributedto ritual. Here, in I938, Okladnikov Neanderunearthed partialskeletonofa i2-year-old the tal male (Okladnikov I949, summarized in Movius I 95 3). He proposedthatthe remainshad been buriedin a shallow grave surroundedby goat homs placed point are down in a circle (fig.8). These inferences based on circle of the inferred position of the body,the inferred homs, a supposedly non-randomoccurrence,and the good conditionof the bones relativeto those elsewhere on the site.As Movius summarizesthefinds(pp.25-28), At a depthof 2o cm. below the craniuma small slab oflimestone(2i cm. by I8 cm.) was encountered, which seemed to have been inserted orderto supin portthe block ofmaterialon which the head had paraland fibulaelay roughly been placed. The femur lel to each otherand it is possible thattheyare in clavicles,and situ. The cranium,mandible,vertebrae, the ribs,also foundmore or less together, constitute a in second grouplyingapproximately place and some the leg bones. On thisbasis, it is prob50 cm. from able thatthe skeletonoriginally generally parallel lay to the westernwall ... with its feettowardthe enand its stratigraphic positrance.Bothits orientation tion suggestthatthe bodyhad been intentionally buriedin a shallow gravepit excavatedin the sterile by stratum.... This is confirmed the factthatall the animal bones, otherthan the goathorns,foundin this not area had been brokeninto small fragments, only by the occupantsofthe cave, but also by blocks of the stones thatfellfrom vault. But the bones ofthe skeletonwere not brokenin thismanner,since they wereprotected the layerofearthplaced overthe by interment. Neither of the two profilespublishedby Okladnikov (Movius I953: fig.4) shows the burial,and Movius was unable to correlate either with any of the published plans of the site (p. 2o). At one point (p. 25) it is stated the skeleton was found in sterile silty clay; the sediand ments are describedas being "light-gray" "truewabased on ter-laindeposits," an assumptionpresumably theirbeingfinely "striated"(p. 22 [bywhichhe probably means "laminated"]). They are elsewhere referred to, as however, being"coarselylaminated"and "yellowish" the and as containing"limestonefragments size ofa pea and smaller, stronglyrounded at the edges" (p. 26). are Moreover,a numberof largerlimestone fragments and the account apparentin the publishedphotographs of "blocks of stones thatfell fromthe vault." Although the skull was broken into more than I50 pieces, Okladnikov concluded that the "burial" and the fromthe processesthatbroke hornshad been protected otherbones in the area. He judgedthe skull to have been "flattenedby the weight of the overlyingdeposits," the thoughhow he could distinguish resultsofpressure

1* .~~~S

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-I #lI

-S

,--^

'N~~~~~~~~~~~~~%

skeleton removal cranium and post-cranial after of horns.

S, reprinted courtesyofPeabody Museum, Harvard to with University). distribution horns I, of reference skullofNeandertal child;2, distribution of

FIG. 8. Teshik-Tash, plan of "burial" (Movius I953:fig.

fromthose of directhits by ceiling fromthe overburden spalls is unclear. In any event,horn would be less susceptible to breakage (Brain I980:II7). Near the wall therewould have been less scuffling trampling and and more chance forpreservation intact (Kurten I976:88); this alone could account forthe observed"uncharacterof istic concentration" preserved material.

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I I69

The presenceof two halves ofa pair ofhorns,crossed, is advanced as proofthat all the goat horns had once been arranged pointdown in a circle,but ifthehornshad once encircleda grave,how did any of themcome to be horizontal? theyhad escaped disturbance predators If by as he reports, whyweretheynot stillvertically oriented? That they had in fact escaped disturbanceseems imof plausible given the distribution the Neandertal'sribs at two levels and in two separatehorizontalconcentrations within the ringof horns.And if any of the horns had been disturbed,the presence of two halves lying horizontaland crossedcould not be consideredto mean that theyhad once been placed point down in the dirt. The simplest explanation for the deposition of these skeletal parts,keepingin mind that thereis no perceptiblegravecut,is carnivore The breakagecould activity. have been caused by trampling, ceiling spalls, or pressure. The bones of the skeleton were not articulatedor in anatomical position. An incisorwas found25 cm from thecranium.Yet the investigator notes thatthecranium and mandible had no visible gnaw marks on them and thatwhen "some beast ofprey... exhumedthe suggests corpseand devouredthe softparts... the skull and jaw were left untouched." It is difficult see how the to craniumcould have been undisturbed the carnivore by and still have lost an incisor,much less how the incisor could have been transported its restingplace 25 cm to away. The remains must have lain exposed for some time, which would explain the confusionof bone and horn. Gnaw marks on the femurwould argue against Okladnikov'sview thatthe leg bones werein theiroriginal locations. The parallel dispositionof the threelong bones could easily have occurredrandomly,but even more likely it was a response to the slope. Clasts like thesewould naturally oriented be relative non-randomly That a predator was in evidence is reason enough to suspect that some undetermined, possibly significant portionof the "ritual" assemblage at Teshik-Tash was the resultofpredator activity. The gnaw marksand the coprolitefound lend credence to this hypothesis.The predominance hornsis reminiscent othercarnivore of of assemblages (e.g., Brain I980). Indeed, Binford (i98i:2, 62, I96) suggeststhat theymay be presentin largepart because of carnivoreactivity.Goat remains make up roughly85% of the faunal assemblage at Teshik-Tash, and, since horn is the most likely skeletal part to survive,theprobability six horns'beingpreserved this of in area of the site by chance is high. Okladnikovfoundno evidencefora grave.He suggests thatthe originalposition of the skeleton,which he has somehow inferred fromthe distribution bone, makes of a good case forburialin a shallow pit. (The shallowness is probably deducedfromthe factthatthe craniumlay a mere 25 cm below the contact with the overlying cultural stratum.)Neither the horns nor the sedimentary matrixnor the bones themselvessupportthe inference of purposeful burial. No substantialevidence exists for ritual at this site. mortuary

REGOURDOU

to thetrend theslope(Butzer of i982:i02).

Situatedonly 500 m fromLascaux in the Dordogne,RegourdouCave, the upperportionofa complexkarstsysattentionas the site both of a Neantem,has attracted dertal burial and of ritual involving the brown bear (Ursus arctos). Bonifay (I964) describes a number of piles of rubble and wide-arealerosional events that he to terms "tumuli" and "graves" and attributes the efof forts Neandertals.The depositsinclude bone of varia ous animals (including completebearskeleton)and the remains of a Neandertaladult (minus the craniumand the lower limb bones),all ofwhich are said to have been buriedpurposely. Regourdoupresents a complex depositional history, for beginning, our purposes,with the openingof a shaft during the early Wurm glaciation (BonifayI964:58). much of the Wind and waterhave probablytransported sand-size sediment that forms the talus cone visible under the "chimney" (fig.9). It is safe to say that the overwhelming majorityof lithic sedimentslargerthan sand-size are autochthonous: the roofappears to have been collapsingat a relatively rapidrate,judgingby the and the large blocky rubble shown in the illustrations vast quantity of smallish (i.e., < 30 cm) rubble that formsthe "tumuli" and ultimatelyfilledthe cave. The impressionone gets of the cave fromthe profiles (figs.9 and io) and the plan (fig.ii) is thatof a roughly rectangular containerwith an ingressforsedimentsat the south end throughthe chimneyand an egressinto the lower reaches of the cave systemto the south-west. From Bonifay'sdescriptionof the historyof the cave at complex it appearsthatthe sedimentsof interest Regourdouare depositedin theverytop ofa vault thatonce formed ceilingof a lower chamber.In fact,although the it is not so described,the basal layer depicted in the profiles most likelya largecone of roofcollapse with is its base in the lower cave. Bonifay that (i962:58) reports the originalhorizontalentranceto the lowerpartofthe cave systemwas cut offby this pile of rubble,and in io thatthebasal layeris largebreakfigure it is apparent down materialthatformsa steeplyslopingpile beneath thevault. This kindofbuild-upis expectableas the ceilbreaksdown to createa vault (see Warwick inggradually thatopenedat RegourI976:fig. 3.I6). Thus the chimney dou duringthe Middle Paleolithic was the verticalextremeof a vault thathad its originwell below the level of interest. As withmost such piles ofrubblein caves, as particles broke down inside it and spaces between clasts closed up, the pile settled (see Jennings I985:I64). If this had occurreddesultorily, would probablyhave led to the it openingof exits forsedimentsto the lower cavern,resulting in erosional events or phases. With water undoubtedly involvedto a greater lesser degree,thereis or the possibilitythat periodicflushing out occurred.The trendof the depositsis downwardfromthe chimneyto the south-west.An erosional event has removed sediments fromStrataIV, V, and VI (see fig.I2) and created the substrate the bear/Neandertal for burial (IVA-D). In

I70 1 CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April 1989

ch

+1

1
7
_

|LLKi4lHxG4;4,EDhC!/

~~Am
-2M
-3M

N,im LiK,}J3l13oG
Mt L' K'

8
J l
iH
lG.

OIN' FIG.

'E

'D'

9. Regourdou, longitudinalsection (BonifayI964:fig.

I,

reprinted permissionofMasson, Paris). by

crosssectionthe strataresemblean erosionalchannelor gulley.The boundariesof this "grave" are the western bedrockwall, the base of the talus cone, the southern bedrock wall, and the sloping east bedrock wall-in short,the entirefloorof the cave, an area of approximatelyi2 m' on averageo.s m deep (i.e., nearly6 m3 of sediment). What evidence do we have that Neandertalsdug this depression?The answer is probablyto be foundin an analysis of the originand depositionof the sediments that remain. The sediments removed in creatingthe "grave"mighteasilyhave been lost in one pulse ofwater erosion. Water would always have sought the lowest point,the west wall, and, dependingon the location of the opening to the lower chamber,would have exited there.The channel-shaped erosionalcut shownin figure i2 may very well be theresultofwatererosion(although the possibilityof wind deflation cannot be ruled out). " The formations thatBonifay sees as "walls," "graves, and "tumuli" are all easily explained by natural phenomena: FeatureVILA(fig.io) is a pile ofrock,sand,and cinders 2 m in diameterand about i m high.In its centrewere brown-bear bones, includinga cranium,that had been protectedby the stones. Parts of beaver,deer,and Bos werealso found.These are said to have been "offerings." The pile accumulated duringthe depositionof Stratum VII. Its presenceat the base of the talus suggeststhatat least some oftherubblethatcontributed it could have to rolled to rest there. Sediments are easily transported downslopeby slopewash or solifluction, even when the slope is only I-20 fromthe horizontal.Any clasts that

fall fromthe ceiling onto a slope as steep as this talus cone will tend to be "rapidly"transported its lowest to part.Some ofthe clasts thatmake up VIIA probably fell from the fissureopening in the ceiling (see Jennings fora description this process). I985:I64 of FeatureVA (fig.io) is a "grave" about i m deep and i m in superior a diameter, containing bearskull and other bone and stone, including a "pierced" stone. Possibly createdrapidly, nevertheless it filledrather slowlywith sediments characteristicof Stratum V. This suggests that it was created beforeV was laid down; otherwise thereshould have been a visible contactbetweenthe fill and V. One possible explanationforit is an hourglass effect. Fine sediments within larger, blocky rubble would gradually transported be down through spaces the betweenthe largerclasts,perhapsinto the lowerpartof the cave, creating void intowhich overlying a sediments would subside. Bone and othermobile sedimentswould in naturallycollect and be protected such a depression. Its status as a ritualformation evidently is uncertain. FeatureVB (fig.io) is a roughlyarranged small stone "wall" that also containedthe craniumof a brownbear and others, introduced." profile In "possiblyaccidentally thispile appearsno different from any other.Thereis no need to invoke Neandertalbehaviorto explain it. Why Bonifaywould say that some of the bone in this pile could have been introducedaccidentallyis unclear. Feature (figs. IO, i2) is the"tumulus" which IVA in 9, the unarticulated, partial Neandertal remains were found.It rests against the "northwall," which in turn forms largebear "grave."The remainslay on a bed of the flat stone and were covered by others,among which

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I7I

+Ini
__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__

FI G I .

R .) f~~~~~~~~~~~~Q

er

I
FiG.. 10.

2 1

3~~~1

4
2,

SI1

section (Bonifay1964:fig. Regourdou,transverse

reprinted permissionofMasson, Paris). by

a (cores,flakes,scrapers, bearhumerus) were "offerings" mixed with small rubble, sand, and cinders. Also included were otherbones of bear and deer. It is curious that,in figurei2, IVA is shown fillinga depressionbetween the "northwall" and the erodedtalus alluded to above (i.e.,IV-VI). This would indicatethatIV had been laid down and erodedbeforeIVA began to accumulate. angles to However,in figures and io (sectionsat right 9 pile one another), IVA is shown as a typicaldome-shaped ofrubblelike VB or VIIA. Also in figureio, IV is shown as overlying IVA, which would mean that it post-dated that feature.There is no doubt that the stones of IVA collectedduringa periodwhen eitherNeandertalswere insideas it was collecting usingthe cave or theirdetritus fell down the shaft.The clasts that formIVA, with all the rest in this chamber,would have been subjectedto downslope movementand would have come to rest at the bottom,where the floorlevelled out. This process would have been hastenedby the action of rapidlyrun-

ning water, which would have created the erosional event and the collection of rocks at the bottomof the slope. FeatureIVB (fig.I3) is a "coffer" about i m2 "carefully constructed"with stones sometimes placed vertically againstthe wall and a "pavement" of stones at its base. It containeda numberof bear bones, some showingcut marks.All partsof the skeleton are represented. These were covered with another "pavement" of stones on which were foundthreecrania: one deer and two bear. There is nothing unusual about vertically oriented stonesin thisenvironment. theyhappento fallagainst If somethingsuch as a wall or anotherstone, flatstones can land vertically (Kurten I976:88). The space delineated by IVB is in part createdby the "northwall," and a space would be expectedto appearwhere it does. Anyrubblebeingtransported downslopewould come to restagainstthe "northwall"/IVAcomplex.The "space" thatis called IVB would therefore naturally containonly

I72 1 CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April I989

D4-\'
04
=+-EZ
-

D3

D2 |

Dl
Dl

~
WS

Large stab
(Over IC),

E4-

,-$ E3

E E2'

IB

El

______________

North Watt
F4 F3

F 2l

__

I_

+ I11111111 I
G4 -G3

+
G1

G2

FIG. I I.

Regourdou, plan ofexcavation (after Bonifayi962:diagram 22). long and about 0.7 m high. The "grave" itselfformsa rectangleo.6 m by i.5 m. It containeda completebear skeletonthataccordingto the excavatorhad been cut-up beforedisposal; thus the diverse other elements and animal parts must have been introducedlater. Also foundwas a "pierced" stone.All thiswas coveredwitha huge flat stone weighing approximately850 kg. The "northwall," as mentionedabove, could easily be accounted for by the fact that it lies directlyunder the node betweenthe two vaultsforming above (see fig.9). A line of weakness in the ceiling might be expected to producea linear talus formation. The "northwall," not shown in figure lies along the east-westline in Tran9, sect F, accordingto the plan, and probablygradesinto IVA in places (ifindeed these are different formations), a forming wide accumulation at the base of the main talus.Thus it too is a predictable occurrence thisenviin ronment-a combination of ceiling spalls falling in

those clasts thatfell fromthe ceiling.We mightexpect any flattishstones to have come to rest flatinside the creating "pavement"thatoccursin the "grave,"thereby the middle.Withso manypartsofbear beingdiscovered the throughout cave, we should beginto thinkabout the of possibility thatthischamberwas home to generations hibernating bears. It seems likely that the threecrania on thathave been preserved the top of IVB would have and been protectedfromtraffic subsequent destruction by being against the wall. Nothing about this feature suggeststhatit could not have occurrednaturally. Feature IVC (figs.11-13) is the major bear "burial," "/arranged" between two large blocks fallen fromthe vault but "dug out" betweenthem.The "grave"is completed on three sides by "walls" of dry stone-the IVB; "northwall," the "south wall," and (presumably) the fourth a large flat stone (once again, presumably is standingvertically?).The "north wall" is nearly 3 m

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial

I 73

G3

F3

E3

D3

C3

North Wall MA
e
VI

South Wall
~~~~~~IVC

Largeslab

G3 F3 E3 D3 C3 62 F2 E2 D2 C2

1 metre

FIG. 12. Regourdou,section through axis (after "burial" along north-south Bonifay1962:diagram23).

E5

E4

E3

E2

El

IVD

TVC

1VB

ES

E E4 E E2| El E3|

1 metre

FIG. 13. Regourdou,section through "burial" along east-westaxis (after BonifayI962:diagram 23). place and clasts of similar origincoming to rest there. The presenceofthehuge stoneslab is notwithoutprecedent in this cave (see figs.9 and io). That it occurs diunderthevault thatis openingup in thesouthemrectly most partofthe ceilingcannot be a coincidence.It need not have been hefted into place to covera bear.That the skeletalpartswere not in anatomicalpositionsuggested to Bonifay thatthebear corpsehad been cut up before its "entombment."However, if the bear had died on the spot, natural processes could easily account for disarticulation.The space beneaththe block would not have filledup immediatelywith fine sediments(ifindeed it ever did; none are shown in figs. I2 and I3). Instead, disturbances producedby,forexample,animals or running water could have resultedin the displacementof the bones fromtheiranatomical positions. FeatureIVD (figs.Io, i i, and 13) is a big,elongated pile of stones about o.5 m deep and more than 4 m long. There is no reason to thinkthatthispile, occurring it as does at the base ofwhat appearsto be a bedrockslope,is

I741

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April 1989

0-10
A CK

D-L3
SOOTH

0-12

0-I

0-9
TOPSOIL __NjA*THX ANDBI

D-8

D-7
MOOERN SURFA CE

D-6
OF CAVE

D-S

D-4

DALW oOINt CEOE

ASH LAYER A

LIOOITDF~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~YELLOW
SEEOO DRAWON St<:rION OAAU/Ne

DARK

BROWN

MIXED

LOAM

_iw CALCINHO ILICITE4E_CAP OCNE LAYEA -

?..>

LAYER 8

1'
|a

-~OI
I

~
/
SOB . -

OO!$

L-

SAID

-L

---

11I,

iBIi L I0100L'

,,,
YELLOWISH A REDDI SH - RRDW' LOAM

,
DROWN

od~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R; ~~~~~~~
I, I

~~~~~~ LOAM ~~~~~~~~SANDY

'Cl-IIEAA IS

J-_

LAYER C

7s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A
CMIOFrE

fRIOA-

IAII

Y II

- EA_ 7-- TH

IJ_s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L0^ tEVEL OF CROSS-SECTION Of WEST WALL ON LINE 0/3-0D311 SPANIDAR CAVE 5/30/Sii
| EXCAVATD /9s/-/953 I

-+

-;

LAYER-I 0

l/m.

l,i.

L NOW FILLED

WITH

DEBRIS

BELOW MSETERS lESm 0ODATUM

BD

90CR

FIG. I 4.

Shanidar 2, profile showinglocation (Solecki I955 SmithsonianInstitution Press).

and 1960. fig.8, reprinted permissionof the by

not anothernaturalphenomenon.Its irregular shape in plan and its size, coveringthe lengthof the base of the slope, make natural process an overwhelminglikelihood. Overall, the schematic quality of the "walls" in the plan suggestsa little artisticlicense. For example, the line between IVA and the "north wall" is arrowio straight, it would be difficult yet from figure to judge where one ended and the other began. Also, that the "northwall" is missingfromthe profile figure is a in 9 mystery, since it is shown in plan as butting against up IVA betweenTransects3 and 4, the line alongwhich the section of figure9 is supposed to dissect the cave. All this makes the interpretation conscious rearrangeof ment of naturallyoccurring sedimentshard to accept. FeatureIIIA (figs.9 and io) is a "grave" only o.5 m in diameterand 0.3 m deep containing rocksand a circular flat stone. The originsof this featureare unclear. Like VA, it is apparentlyfilled with sediments that ac-

cumulatedover time,not at the time that the hole was eroded.Thus it is probablynot a grave. Feature IIIB (figs. 9 and io) is a sort of "small stonework" forminga "pavement" covering several square meters. The substrate here is almost level. Downslope movementis verymuch reduced,and clasts thatwere fallingfromthe ceilingwere likelyto remain where theyfell. To sum up, it would seem that the features described at Regourdoucan be explained by bedrockbreakdown, slope transport,and possibly water erosion. Where slopes existed,linearlags of rubblecollectedat the botwere opening,small domes of talus tom; wherefissures were created;elsewhere, largeand small rubbleoccurred thatdisrupted normalcourseoftransport deposithe and tion and led to anomalous but explicablemorphologies. There is no reason to continuein the beliefthat any of the depositsat Regourdouare the resultof ritualacts.

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial

I75

NORTHr

B-6

B-7

B-8

8-9

O DAruM
*c .Ai LENYSE SFASHES

s~~~~~~~~" N 7-

c I -HEARTHS L C LOOSE_

EA R T

IjLAYER

*-CHARCOAL

CUT BAC

2 \

52/n

M CUE T BELOW 2EE St/AON/ORo

AN

C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HND C HARDU A

ADUr

IEAAr

'0n DATUM

FIG. I

5. Shanidar and 3, profile I showinglocation (Solecki 1955 and 196o:fig. reprinted permissionofthe 3, by SmithsonianInstitution Press). changed his mind about Shanidar 4, however,he had of suggested thatthe survivors Shanidari had purposely piled rockson top ofthe ones thathad killed and buried him. Shanidar 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 werepreserved i, virtually complete,althoughreduced to bone meal in places by rockfalls;Shanidar 8 and 9 were incomplete,the latter consisting onlyofnine vertebrae. Only Shanidar3 shows to anylesion suggesting deathprior burialbyrockfall-a partiallyhealed puncturewound on the left ninth rib contextforthe skele(Trinkausi983 :4 I4). Stratigraphic tons was, apparently, to difficult discern.Only five socalled culturallayerswere identified: Bi, B2, C, and A, D. This means that the entire Middle Paleolithic sedimentaryhistory of Shanidar Cave is subsumed under Layer D. Although color and clastic differences are notedon the profiles thatshow the depositionalcontextsofShanidari, 2, and 3 (figs. I4 and i 5), no meaningful behavioral distinctionsare made. The Mousterian sedimentsat Shanidar appear jumbled and random,as one would expect in a cave that is "rapidly"degrading. There is clearly a greatdeal of collapsed material surrounding the threeindividualsillustrated.

SHANIDAR

in Shanidar, Kurdistan, a solutioncave createdin grayis brownMiddle Cretaceouslimestone(Solecki I95 5:402). Active tectonismand solution have produceddeposits in excess of I4 m deep inside the cave. The likelyorigin formuch of the sedimentationin the cave is the high "crevice" that opens above the excavated portion,an to incipientshaftthat in all likelihood contributed the preservation the abundant Neandertalremains.The of fortuitous collection of soil samples in the vicinityof of of Shanidar4 and the subsequentdiscovery a quantity flowerpollen in those samples led to the conclusion, some seven yearsafter the excavation,thatthe individual had been buriedwith flowers.This brought sharp a of tumaroundin the interpretation the cause of death and thereasonforpreservation Shanidar4. Originally, of Solecki (i963:I79) had consideredShanidar4, 6, 8, and 93 to have been killed by rockfalls.Even before he
Neandertals Trinkaus 3. The newnumbering theShanidar for (after to here;Shanidar and VIII are referred as 8 VII i983) is employed and 9 and the "Shanidar child"as 7.

I76 1 CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April I989 such as the one in which Shanidar4 met his demise is a logical place in which to take shelter. Since contemthe poraneitycannot be demonstrated, suggestionthat all of these individualswere "interred"at once is specious. Recently developed, refinedradiometrictechwithoutdestroying niques could be used to determine, much bone,ifthereis any chance thatthese individuals were contemporary. environBut what about the pollen? A preliminary was based on i2i pollen grains mental reconstruction gleaned fromone sample in Layer D: about a thirdof them were date palm (Solecki and Leroi-Gourhan Whereas the usual pollen counts were quite i96i:734). low relativeto the thousandsthat can be expectedfrom peat bogs or lake bottoms,the tens and hundredsfrom the vicinityof Shanidar4 were an unusuallyhighnumber forthe cave. Moreover,the presenceof an antherin the sedimentssuggestedthat whole flowerswere being into the cave and deposited in the niche transported alongwith the deceased. Because it was alreadybelieved the thatpurposeful disposal was a possibility, discovery thatNeanof flowerpollen convincedthe investigators dertalshad buriedthe dead with flowersat Shanidar. This interpretation ignores the most probable agent forthe deposition of the flowers:wind. Shanidar is a Inside,it widens to 53.34 m, and the vault in the ceiling is I3.20 m high.There is a good chance that any strong tenwind blowingat the mouth ofthe cave would carry derflowers well as twigsand branchessome distance as samintothe cave. Changingclimate,lack ofsystematic of could all pling,or the ephemeralcharacter flowering absence of similarpolto have contributed the reported elsewhere in the cave. The relative len concentrations of of improbability co-occurrence the rightevents (i.e., the right season, aeolian deposition, protectionfrom and ensuring preservation) trampling, burial by roof-fall may also help to explain why therewere no similarpolin len concentrations any of the othersamples. The roaround dents that left theirfossil burrowseverywhere agent possible transport the skeletalremainsare another forthe flowers;most rodentsbuild nests of vegetation for agentsfor transport Even if arguments alternative the pollen are unacceptable,the question of lack of-demonstrableassociation of the pollen with the burial must be raised. The two samples richestin pollen were about thesame level on which theskeleton "takenfrom
(Hanney I975).

burial exists in the No clear evidence forpurposeful Shanidar deposits. There are no grave pits, no nonnaturally occurring protective strata. Solecki infers, of however,that the survivors the deceased individuals Of were treating themwith reverence. the rocksoverlying Shanidar i he reports:"It looked like an unusual stones-a pocket of smallerstones among a lot oflarger upon a layer" (I 960:6I3). He concluster,superimposed returned of tinues: "I believe that survivors the rockfall aftera while and, seeing what had happened,heaped some loose stones,the closest at hand,overthe unfortunate's remains" (p. 6i9). There seems to be no valid for claim, otherthanthe beliefofthe investigator, ritual sediments. dispositionof the corpse or of the overlying The size of roofcollapse materialsis random:humanly from those stonescould notbe distinguished transported thatnaturallyfell there. Shanidar 4 "lay in an occupational deposit of loose brownsandyloam soil, next to a largestone.... Stones of small size were foundabove the skeleton .... There were no large stones over it, but the skeletonwas evidently crushed: it could have been redepositedin its presentfindposition" (Solecki I96I:695). In the same area,but lowerdown,the remainsofShanidar6, 8, and 9 were discovered.Solecki (I97 I: 237)describestheoverlying sedimentsas follows: above of There was a widespreadcovering rockfall ShanidarIV, consistingofabout i foot8 inches of and fragmented, jumbledstonesand rock broken, above meal. There were no largestonesimmediately the skeletons.The skeletonsofIV and ofthe associated remainsappearedto lie in a niche,boundedon the south and east by largestone blocks. There was which was widespread, no doubtthatthe rockfall, to had sealed in the remains.But it did not contribute the death ofthe individualsin the niche,as I had misHowever,it is takenlypublishedin an earlierreport. still conceivablethatthe crushedstateofthe bones could in parthave been due to the forceofthis subseThe averagethicknessofthe fallen quent rockfall. zone was about io inches. The natureofthe softsoil and the positionofthe stoneblocks leads me to behad been scooped out amongthe lieve thata crypt and rocks,and the individualshad been interred coveredoverwith earth. above Shanidar4, a Even thoughno largerocksoccurred coveringof debris o.s m deep could easily have killed and interredthe individual. Solecki infersthat the reat were interred mains of Shanidar6, 8, and 9, an infant, the same time: "ShanidarIV and VI musthave obviously been contemporary, since one was on top of the other" however,thattheywere (Solecki i96i:696). He reports, separatedby I9 cm of sediment.In the absence of good of evidenceit is unlikelythatthe inference stratigraphic place, superposimultipleburialcan hold up. In the first not tion is usually taken to implytemporalseparation, Solecki's belief that the niche had contemporaneity. A been "scooped out" is unsubstantiated. naturalniche

is cave.Itsmouth 25.00 m acrossand7.92 m high. large

horizontaland vera thathas distinct identified stratum That tical boundaries,how can association be inferred? to the pollen occurs in proximity the skeletonsis undeniable.That the skeletonsofShanidar4, 6, 8, and 9 occur in proximity one anotheris undeniable.It is not easy, to however,to accept Solecki's subjective interpretations of ritual protectionand purposefuldeposition of the flowerpollen. Solecki (i960:606) was unable to locate a burial pit forthe "Shanidar child," and acceptable eviburial at Shanidaris similarlyeludence forpurposeful sive.

lay" (SoleckiI971:247,

Without having myemphasis).

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I I77

SUMMARY

that long-accepted"facts" are not based on solid data, to the consequentrevisionis a clearcontribution knowledge. Gargett'sconclusions have promptedme to look Conclusions Withrespect more closely at these data forLa Ferrassie. From the above examination of published accounts of to at least two of its reportedburials, I am forcedto rests on the archaeologicalevidence forburial and ritualin the conclude that our traditionalunderstanding Middle Paleolithicit is evidentthatprocessesotherthan somethingquite a bit more solid than what Gargettdehuman behaviormay have producedthe de- scribesas "a pre-i96os disciplinewidenaivete" and that purposeful raised by him eitherforceor,indeed, posits in question. In many cases simple and likely ex- no considerations got planations have been ignored in favor of complex authorizeus to believe that our predecessors things scenarios invoking enigmatic purposeful behavior. all wrong. from These scenariosoftenrequireelaboratearguments Because the firstdiscoveriesof Neanderthalskeletal in at tenuous premises. The relative ease with which they remains La Ferrassie, i909 and i910, leftunrewithwhich they solved the question ofwhetheror not the bones were in have been acceptedand the confidence of have been employed in reconstructions Neandertal intentionally dug graves (see Breuil's I909 field notes, in may be the resultofa pre-ig6osdiscipline-wide reproduced facsimileby Heim [I976:46, fig.I31,and lifeways pro- Peyrony's naivete with regardto the mutually reinforcing [I948:55] discussion ofthe prosand cons),the cesses ofgeomorphology taphonomy. and Only recently initial discoveryin August i9i2 of what mightbe two in have improvements method and technique enabled (or two more) Neanderthal burials was treatedby the with apto archaeologists be criticalof the kinds of observations excavators,Louis Capitan and Denis Peyrony, it propriatecaution and restraint. is to reviewedhere.Such criticism not intended vilify; The excavation of the a is made in the hope thatit will facilitate much-needed two pits later shown to contain the remains of three reappraisalof Neandertal's culturalcapacity.Removing individuals (as summarizedby Gargett)was postponed the necessity of accountingfor sophisticatedspiritual until an ad hoc commission of expertscould be conbehavioramong Neandertalsmay make it easier in the vened at the site to witness it. The commission was long run to explain human culturalevolution.If the re- composed of Pierre Paris, G. A. Blanc, Henri Begouen, cent paper by White (i982) is any indicationofthe lack Henri Breuil, Jean Bouyssonie, and Hugo Obermaier between (Peyrony of agreementon the nature of the differences Modernspecialistswill recognize I934:30). Neandertal and anatomicallymodernH. sapiens, then that the membershipof the commission included sevthis study should improve the situation. Questions of eral of the most experienced and most competent Begenetic interchangebetween the two subspecies may Palaeolithicarchaeologists the early2oth century. of ritual ginningon August 8, I91I2, the commissionwitnessed, neverbe answered,but the removal of mortuary fromthe behavioralrepertoire Neandertalmay make at trench-side La Ferrassie, excavationof the two of the at in the observed disconformity material culture at the pitsin question.When the operation the was completed, Middle/UpperPaleolithic boundary a little easier to members of the commission made their observations understand. and conclusions a matterof formalrecordby signinga It cannot be arguedthat,because thereis no physical report(proces-verbal)draftedby the Abbe Breuil and evidence forburial in the archaeologicalrecordof the signedalso bythe excavatorsofrecord, Capitan and PeyMiddle Paleolithic,Neandertaldid not burythe dead. At rony. least until good evidence is recoveredor can be gleaned The fulltextof the report, publishedlaterby Peyrony fromthe as yet unmined fieldnotes of the excavators, (I939:237-38), is directlyrelevantto an evaluation of

At La Chapelle-aux-Saintsthe inferenceof burial is based on a depressionof unknown originin the basal At sediments. Le Moustiertwo pits are evidentthatmay or may not have been createdforthe purposeofburying numerousremainsare preserved, a child.At La Ferrassie all of them in ambiguous contexts.At Teshik-Tashthe remains could be a carnivoreassemblage ratherthan a burial.At Regourdouthe singlepartialNeanpurposeful dertal skeleton and complete though disarticulated The evi- HARVEY M. BRICKER not brownbearwereprobably buriedpurposely. and dence fromShanidar has problemsof stratigraphy Tulane University, DepartmentofAnthropology, association and depends on speculation about deposi- New Orleans, La. 70Ii8, U.S.A. IO x 88 tional processes. At the same time, the many Middle Paleolithiclocalities thathave yieldedonlyfragmentary Attemptingto subject received knowledge that has Neandertalfossilsbear silent witness to the possibility achieved the statusofdogma to the close scrutiny made burialhas contrib- possible by more recently thatsomething otherthanpurposeful acquired knowledgeis necesintactremains. of uted to the preservation relatively shows admirable.If reexamination saryand thoroughly

however,the workinghypothesisshould be that Neanseditransform dertaldid not burythe dead or otherwise ritual. The onus is ments in the course of performing the realityof now on the fossil recordto demonstrate burial and ritual among Neandertals.

Comments

I78

1 CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April I989 comingfromthe digging."4 The "new stratum"was explicitlyrecognizedat the time ofexcavation,and its obvious significance was fullyappreciated. In sum,I findno evidencethatthe eightscientistswho reportedNeanderthal burials at La Ferrassie in i9i2 were,with respectto the crucial questions at issue, incompetent(bythe standards eithertheirtimeor ours), of naive, or patentlyin error. trulyconservative A view of the fossil record cannot (at least, not yet) accept Gargett'sallegationthat "thereis no physicalevidence for burial in the archaeological record of the Middle Paleolithic."
GEOFFREY CLARK AND JOHN LINDLY

is Gargett'scontribution anotherin a series of assaults on the notionof "modern"culturalbehaviorin the Middle Paleolithic (see also Chase and Dibble i987). It sucdismantlesthe argument intentional for cessfully burial of the dead at several well-knownEurasian Neandertal sites and goes on to suggestthat the apparentlack of "sophisticatedspiritualbehavior" on the part of Neandertalsallows us betterto differentiate Neandertalsculturallyfrommodernformsof Homo sapiens. While we do not dispute Gargett's reanalysis,we do take issue withhis conclusionsin respectoftheway in which they bear on the stickyproblemof bioculturaldisconformity Paleolithic transition. at the Middle/Upper It seems to be truethat Neandertalsdid not regularly with bury their dead, nor do they demonstrate"modern" thatthepitswere"filled (Peyrony I939:2 37) states in a mixture, about equal parts,ofthe black earthofthe symbolicbehaviorin theiradaptations,at least insofar Mousterian level located above and of the underlying as that can be monitoredby select categoriesof data in indicate clearly the archaeologicalrecord(Chase and Dibble i987). Any gravel."3Context and Frenchgrammar that the superpositionreferred is the general strati- analysis of Neandertal symbolicbehaviorshould,howto succession ofthatpartofthe site,not some char- ever,be juxtaposedwith analysis ofthat ofmorphologigraphic assumes that acteristic of the pit-filling mistakenly (place modifies foyer,not cally modernhumans. Gargett modernhumans in generalhad a symThe use of the term"mixture"(melange) cannot morphologically terre). reasonably be understood to describe a case of clear bolic componentto theirbehaviorand that the lack of stratigraphic superposition,but it is exactly the term evidence for purposefulburial by Neandertals can be sediment used to clarifybehavioral distinctionsbetween these thatwould be used to describethe back-filled in holes thathad been dugthrough two strataofdifferent hominids.This line of reasoningis unwarranted. seems If one compares the behaviorof Neandertalsen bloc colors and compositions.Any possible ambiguity modernhumans en bloc over the to be removedby the penultimatesentenceofthe report and morphologically "The discovery thesetwosmallskeletons Middle and Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia, theredoes inof (I939:238): in between these periodsin the permitted demonstration, an irrefutable manner, deed appear to be a difference the burialand ofgraveside ritual ofthe existence,from time oftheMousterianepoch, the incidenceofpurposeful of trenchesdug artificially the purpose of placing and intentionalinclusion of gravegoods (HarroldI980; for bodies in them,which were thencoveredwith the earth see also Clark and Neeley i987). However, a coarsegrainedcomparisonlike this can be misleadinggiventhe by en- unequal lengthsof time represented the two periods et creus6es remplies i. "L'existence fossesartificiellement de (ca. 2oo,ooo yearsforthe Middle Paleolithic,ca. 35,000 absolue." suite,6taitd'une 6vidence
2. "II y a donc Ia, de la faconla plus nette,la preuved'un rite 1'6tablisCes fouilles Ce fun6raire. point6taitencoretresdiscut6. sentd'unefaconqui ne peutlaisseraucun doute." 6gales, la terre de d'unm6lange, peu presparparties a 3. "remplies sousplace au-dessuset du gravier noire du foyermoust6rien jacent."

translation)'and "There is, then,in the clearestfashion, the proofofa funerary ritual.That pointhad been much debated.These excavationsestablishit in a fashionthat allows of no doubt" (I939:238).2 Whatlate-2oth-century understanding geomorpholof ogy and taphonomypermitsor requiresus to conclude thatthe early-2oth-century competenceofCapitan,Peyrony,Breuil,and otherswas inadequate? I findnothing ofthissortin Gargett's discussionofthe I9I2 findsat La Ferrassie.Indeed, his criticismseems to rest primarily on a misunderstanding. states that there was "no He of recognition a new stratum createdwhen thepitswere filled."He apparently believes thatbothpits were filled with two strata,in superposition-light-colored gravel beneath and a darker,artifact-rich sedimentabove. He uses this assumed stratigraphic succession within the pits to suggesta scenario wherebyhuman skeletal remains "depositedin (possibly)naturallycreateddepressions" were covered,over an indefinite period of time, by successive episodes of "slumping and infilling"by first gravelsand thenthe darker the Mousterianmidden. I believe that this scenario,probable or improbable,is because I findno evidencethatthe essentiallyirrelevant pits were filled with the two superposed strata that Gargettattemptsto explain. The commission's report

and laterfilledwas shownabsolutely" (I939:237,

Gargett'sconclusions.The commissionunderstood that the most important generalquestionwas whether not or evidenceexistedofNeanderthalfunerary ritualand that the specificquestion was whetherthe pits containing the bones were artificially graves.Its answerswere dug categorical: "The existence of trenchesartificially dug

my

DepartmentofAnthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe,Ariz. 85287-2402, U.S.A. 27

IX

88

squelettes permis d6mona de 4. "La d6couverte ces deuxpetits de 1'existmoust6rienne, trer, d'unemaniere irr6futable, 1'6poque des les pour puis encede fossescreus6es artificiellement y placer corps, recouverts la terre de provenant creusement." du

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I I79

yearsforthe Upper),tendingto mask variationwithin modern humans purposefullyburied their dead. An of of similarities betweenthem. understanding this aspect ofthe development symperiodswhile deemphasizing In addition,our understanding the transition itselfis bolic behavior must be sought outside such a dichotof in limitedby differences paradigmatic biases thatschol- omy. arsfrom researchtraditions to different bring bearon the issue (Clark and Lindly I988, n.d.). We have arguedthat MASSET FARIZY AND CLAUDE the evidence points to both biological and culturalcon- CATHERINE Universite tinuityacross the Middle/UpperPaleolithic boundary Laboratoired'EthnologiePrehistorique, and the transitionfromarchaic to modernH. sapiens de Paris i Pantheon-Sorbonne, rue de l'Amiral 44, and that these transitions not coincide in time (see Mouchez, 750I4 Paris, France. 26 x 88 did also Wolpoff al. i988). Moreover, et thereis growing supand portforthe idea of no qualitative differences only The problemsencounteredin the studyof Palaeolithic over clinal changes in adaptationbetween the Middle Stone burials are numerous,but the loss of information Age/MiddlePaleolithic and the earlyLower Stone Age/ the millennia between burial and excavation should be Upper Paleolithic (Chase I986, n.d.; Simek and Price the same for this archaeological structureas for any of n.d.; Simek and Snyder n.d.; BrooksI988; Svoboda I988, other.The situationis complicatedby the difficulty exfromigth-and early2oth-century n.d.; Geneste I988; Boeda I988; Straus n.d.; Clark and learninganything be- cavations, in which very little informationwas reLindly I988, n.d.). In short,the apparentdifferences tween Neandertal and morphologically modernhuman corded; human remains were consideredimportantin burialpracticesdo not stand up to closer inspection. themselves and the archaeological context hardly In response to a related paper on Eurasian Middle noticed.Gargett'saim ofquestioningthe realityofMidPaleolithic symbolismthatreliedheavilyon burialdata dle Palaeolithic burials and exploringtheir context is (Chase and Dibble i987), we examinedevidenceforsym- well founded,thoughmost of what he says about the bolic behavior(including Middle taphonomyof cave deposits and the dynamicsof cave burialofthe dead) from Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age sites in southwestern sedimentologicalmechanisms is already well known. Asia and North and South Africaassociated with the He hopes to show, througha meticulous review of old mod- textsabout some Neandertalburials,how questionable remainsofwhat are claimed to be morphologically ern humans (Lindlyand Clark n.d.). We foundno evi- these burials are. None of these has reallybeen considdence forsymbolicbehavior,nor could any differences eredconclusivelydemonstrated (Quechon I 97 I), and the in archaeologicalassemblagesbe detectedbetweensites latestreferences Shanidarare missing(StewartI977). for associated with archaic H. sapiens and sites associated Leroi-Gourhan(i964) pointed out long ago that for with morphologically modern humans. We concluded each case ofpossible "burial" it is necessaryto take into thatneither archaicH. sapiens norNeandertalsnormor- consideration whole context.Concludinghis review the phologically modern humans demonstratedsymbolic ofMiddle Palaeolithic burials,he foundthe evidenceinbehaviorpriorto theUpperPaleolithicand thatevidence conclusive.He explained,"It appearsthattwo mortuary forsymbolicbehaviorcannot be correlated with homi- situations can be identifiedfor Paleanthropians: denid taxa. In otherwords,thatNeandertalsapparently did voured or buried. The first concerns numerous illnot purposefully burytheirdead has nothingwhatever assortedfragments fromwhich one can establish only to do with the fact that they were Neandertals. Con- that the treatment was the same as for theyunderwent versely, systematic the occurrence thiskindofbehav- animal bones devouredby men or beasts. The second of ior in the Upper Paleolithic is not relatedto the appear- implies thatthe bodies were sheltered, eitherbynatural ance of morphologically modernhumans. causes such as rockfallor by burial or coveringwith A hypothesisof no differences symbolicbehavior heaped-upearthand stones. Since this statisticalstatein between archaic and morphologically modernhumans ment is complementedby few positivefacts,and since priorto the UpperPaleolithiccalls into questionconclu- the Neandertals give us some inklingof non-technical sions such as Gargett'sor at least requirestheirsubstan- concerns.. ., the scale shouldpositively in the directip tial modification. also lends support the positionof tion oftruefunerary It to prepractices,about whichnothing advocates(e.g.,Wolpoff, multiregional-continuity Brace) cise can yet be said" (p. 59, our translation). who arguethatarchaicH. sapiens cannotbe relegated to Neandertalremainsconsist of a fewmore or less well an evolutionary dead end in thebioculturaldevelopment preservedskeletons and numerous dislocated bones in of modernhumans and that therewas substantialgene non-funerary we contexts.Strangely, observeexactlythe flow across the transition. same situationduringthe middle Neolithic in northern In sum, Gargett has presented convincing a reanalysis France and western Germany,where no scholar has ofthe depositionalcontextsin which manywell-known called into question the sapiens sapiens nature of the Neandertal"burials" occurred. We do not disagreewith populationsconcerned.Because he oftenconfusesritual his results.However,the argument thathis studyhelps and burial,Gargett about Neandoes not proveanything to clarify culturaldifferences between Neandertalsand dertalbehavior. modernhumans is unfounded. morphologically Neither Instead of this new descriptionof old studies, one Neandertalsnor pre-UpperPaleolithicmorphologically would have expecteda searchfornew data and new per-

i8o

I CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April I989 that no carnivore would have noticed it? Despite Gargett'sspeculations,the numberof complete Neanderthal skeletons of all ages makes natural burial in everycase incredible. We disagreewith the criteriaGargettproposesforintentionalburial.The act need not be complicatedbythe inclusion of grave goods; disposal of a corpse in a pit (even a natural one) and coveringit with dirtor rocks rite.Burial of this kind does not constitutesa mortuary imply complex belief systems but may reflectsimple, basic feelingsrelatedto fearof the deceased, protection for or fromscavengers, affection the personwho died. of Gargett's reinterpretation the sedimentary sequence of the FrenchMousterian sites is farless probby able than the ones offered the original excavators. is The scheme he proposes forLa Chapelle-aux-Saints perhaps the most questionable. Readers should study of to 3 figure to see ifit conforms his description the pit's being situated "where the slope of Stratum5 changes fromsteep to level to steep again." Also, we know ofno straightexample of a naturallyproduced rectangular, pit walled, flat-bottomed in the middleofa karsticshelter. That such a natural phenomenonwould have ocand a skeletonwould have foundits way into it is curred so unlikely as to make it impossible to considerseriously that the pit sunk into the marl was not the result of deliberatehuman activity.The mannerin which the skeletonlay, on its back, one armfoldedand legs flexed, is a strongindication of intentionalburial. This seems an unlikely position for accidental death and, in any event,is one that is repeatedin numerous otherinterbecomes speculaments.Beyondthis,the interpretation tive. We admit that the nonhuman bones, ochre fragments,and stonetools foundin thefillaroundand above graveofferthe skeletondo not unequivocallyrepresent midden ings. They may well be part of the surrounding thatthe Neanderthalsused to backfillthe burialpit. On these points the excavatorsmay have gone too far.In fact,the Bouyssoniesand Bardonexpressedsome hesitation about this (I908:5 i 8), thoughtheyhad none about the evidenceforintentionalburial (whichtheystatedin italics [p. 5I 6]). Admittedly, the excavations at La Chapelle-auxSaints and La Ferrassielacked the precisionof modern ones,but the excavatorswerenot unawareofthe controversialnatureofthe claim thatthe Neanderthalsburied theirdead. In fact,therewas still at thetime some doubt about the association of humans and fossil mammals, customs had arguedin I 885 thatfuneral and de Mortillet did not beginbeforethe Neolithic (Roche I976: i6). Furexcavatingin the earlyI900Sat Henri-Martin, thermore, La Quina, denied the existence thereof human burials were cau(I936:22). It followsthatFrenchprehistorians of tious in claimingthe discovery a Neanderthalburial. Delporte (I976:II), who reexcavateda portionofLa Ferrassie,has commentedon the "quality of the work" acthis Capitan, and othersduring complishedby Peyrony, formative period of Frencharchaeology.Moreover,in a (I976: review of these old excavations Vandermeersch

spectives.Forinstance,why are late Middle Palaeolithic humanremainsmuch morenumerousthanearlierones? not whydid Gargett deterall In reviewing thesereports, mine the exact or possible position of each skeleton?A seriouslook at bodypositioncan tell us much. The literatureprovidesno unequivocal association with a burial or trenchor any otherstructure with gravegoods; only bodyposition,and skelethe studyofbone articulations, tal taphonomy may help to answer the question of on information the lengthof time the burial,providing we cannot corpse remained exposed. Furthermore, why the new discoveriesfromthe southern understand et Levant (Bar-Yosef al. I986) and fromFrance,such as Kebara,Qafzeh, and St.-Cesaire,have not been reported Tabuin, and whythereis no wordabout La Quina, Skhuil, by or Amud. We are somewhatdisappointed the conclusion, too. "Somethingspecial" happenedin the Middle Palaeolithic fossil records to preservesome complete specimens. Gargettsuggeststhat this "somethingspeburial,buthe failsto cial" maynot have been purposeful tell us what it was.

DAVID

of University Kansas, DepartmentofAnthropology, Lawrence,Kans. 66045, U.S.A. i8 x 88 findingany scientificmeritin this We have difficulty with appearsto have no directfamiliarity paper.Gargett the sites he reviews,is selective in the cases he covers, disand ignoresimportant lacks historicalperspective, coveries that demolish his argument.Recent findsresulting from modem excavation proceduresat SaintI980) and Kebara Cesaire (Leveque and Vandermeersch Roc du Maret al. I986) and earliercases from (Bar-Yosef sal (Bordes and LaFille i962) and Amud (Suzuki and burialofspecimens Takai I970) indicatethe intentional possessing a Neanderthal morphology.Gargettmakes on no mentionof these, concentrating olderfindsmore vulnerableto criticismby modernstandards. thereis reasonably good Regardlessofhis contentions, evidence for intentionalburials in the earlier excavations. The completeness of numerous Neanderthalremains is in itselfan indicationof intentionalburial. In Europe and the Near East priorto the Mousterianthere no are only isolated human finds, articulatedskeletons. With the Mousterian,reasonablycompleteskeletonsof adults, children,and neonates become relativelycommon, at least in WesternEurope and the Levant. Even the without any archaeologicalinformation, change in suggeststhathuman burialbeganat skeletalinventories this time. In addition,we know of no evidence forany carnivoreactivityassociated with the Neanderthalarticulated skeletons. If all these skeletons derivedfrom naturalburials,it is inconceivablethatnone would have been disturbedby carnivores.What kind of sedimentologicalprocessesin a cave or sheltercontext(whatever could so rapidlyhave covereda corpse the temperature)

W. FRAYER

AND

ANTA

MONTET-WHITE

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I i8i

727, our translation)'has summarizedthe evidence for Neanderthalburials as follows: "Despite a certainlack of information-sketchy plans, absence ofphotographs, beyonda etc.-the FrenchMousteriansites demonstrate doubt that burial was practiced by the Neandertals." who have Given the consensus of Frenchprehistorians worked at the sites and the other evidence reviewed here,why should anyone take seriouslythis paperwritten fromthe armchair?

DepartmentofArchaeology, SouthamptonUniversity, SouthamptonS09 5NH, England. io x 88 a Neanderthalburialshave provided richsourceforcomments about ancestralbehaviour.These have included flowerpeople" (Solecki I97I), the remarkson the "first pit "missingbody" in the Combe Grenalfuneral (Bordes and Neanderthalchild care (Rowlettand I972:I34-37), SchneiderI974). The carefulanalyses by Binford (I968) and Harrold(I980) showed what could be done if burial was accepted,thus openingup the data to investigation by the methods of mortuaryanalysis which are commonplace forlaterprehistory. I have always been suspicious of these data, since, as Gargett pointsout, thereis oftena lack ofadequate documentationto support claims foreithergravesorthe the associated with them. Storiesof reexgoods apparently cavationsintendedto re-create momentofdiscovery the forvisitingdignitaries (Binford I968:I40) do not inspire confidence.Why the isolated Grotta Guattari cranium has always should count as a burial (HarroldI980:I99) eluded me. In the case of Shanidar,Gargettis probably rightthat wind accounts formuch of the pollen, aided perhapsby the fact that "two of our workmencarried flowersin theirsash bands. In the I956-57 springseason, one oftheminserted yellownarcissiintothehollow handles of his pneumatic-tiredsteel wheelbarrow, which made an incongruous picture"(Solecki I97I:9394). Turnerand Hannon (I988) have pointedout thatthe analysis ofpollens in cave sedimentsis valueless unless assessed fortaphonomicfactheyhave been thoroughly tors.Gargett'sinsistenceon a rigorous sedimentological approach is welcome and undoubtedly reveals how reconstrucshakyare the data on which some cherished tions rest. I would like to have seen him tackle the Near Eastern for sites,wherethe documentation the skeletons/burials is generallybetter.Since he does not deal with these,I thinkit premature him to conclude that "thereis no for physicalevidenceforburialin the archaeologicalrecord of the Middle Palaeolithic." Moreover,the excavated skeletonfrom St.-Cesairemay,when publishedin detail,

CLIVE

GAMBLE

shed important lighton severalofthequestionshe raises fortheWestern Europeanmaterial.However,even stateof-the-art fieldtechniqueswill neverput us in the position to evaluate such a meaningless concept as "enigmatic purposeful sees behaviour,"which he currently as to theunfavourable alternative "simple and likelyexplanations" obtained fromsedimentsand the sequence of site formation. Consequently,while welcominghis criticalapproach I and advocacyforcave sedimentology, disagreewithhis choice of Neanderthal "burials" to argue his case. In focusingon some possible archaeologicalhowlershe is in dangerof missing the point about the few complete a Neanderthalshe does discuss. Burialis largely redherringin these cases and has more to do with our cultural of preconceptions what we shouldfind.Good excavation will never let the body "speak foritself" and so solve of theseburialissues. Instead,the importance the Neanderthal"burials" is that we have complete skeletonsat of in all. Irrespective whethersedimentsare transformed the course of ritual and ignoringspeculations on the of the significance burying dead, the appearanceofcomplete skeletonsin deposits dated afterthe last interglacial is of considerableinterest. In the firstplace, the European human fossil record priorto the last interglacialis extremely fragmentary. This goes forboth cave and open locations. The most completeskeletonsare Ehringsdorf and 8, described 7 by and child. Even these,however,are extremely fragmentarywhen comparedwith the later Neanderthal"burials," and therest,such as Swanscombe,Biache St. Vaast, and Arago, Petralona,Mauer, Steinheim,Bilzingsleben, are trulybits and pieces (Gamble I986:table 5.3). reSecondly, complete skeletons are geographically strictedto local areas in southwestern Europe (Gamble
i986:fig.
3.I).

and Oakley, Campbell, Molleson(I97I:

2I3)

as juvenile

pina,and Gainovce, Neanderthalremainsfrom caves and open sites are highlyfragmentary. possible reason One for this is the greaternumber of carnivoresfound at these othersites. I have arguedthatthisreflects conthe of tribution topography and continentality the selecto tion of different carnivore coping behaviours within Europe(Gamble I984). Moreover, levels thatcontain the the Neanderthal fragments here have not only large numbersof carnivoreremains but also high species diversity(Gamble i986:tables 7.3, 7.6-7.8), whereas the oppositeholds forthe southwestern sample. It is thereforepossible thatthe distribution completeskeletons of is anotheraspect of these different patterns carnivore of behaviour.The correlationat a regionalscale between complete skeletons and few carnivore remainscan also be seen in the Near East at the same time and in caves and open sites of the European Upper Palaeolithic (Mussi I986; Gamble I986:tables 7.4-7.6). Understanding why completeskeletonsappearduring i. "Malgr6 un certain manque d'information-planstrops the earlylast glacial calls fora wider taphonomicstudy sch6matiques,absence de photographies, etc.-les gisements of moust6riens francaismontrent sans contesteque l'inhumation thanjust the consideration the sediments.Integrating 6taitpratiquee les N6andertaliens." par the lines of evidence suggests that burials/complete

for Elsewhere, example, Hortus, at Kra-

i821

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume Number AprilI989 30, 2,

remediablyintertwinedwith political world views. I would hesitate to characterizethe perspectiveimplicit in the biological account of Middle/UpperPalaeolithic culturechange,exceptto say thatthe humanistaccount seems preferable.
ARLETTE LEROI-GOURHAN

in skeletons are an aspect of regionalsignatures which selectionworkby variationis predicted environmental the ing on all the agencies which act to transform archaeological record.If this is the case, then the enigmatic occurrenceswhich requireexplanationare those which, like the firstcomplete Neanderthal,found in region,contradict I856 in a cave in the north-central this pattern.
ANTONIO GILMAN

Laboratoirede Palynologie,Musee de 1'Homme,Palais de Chaillot, 75II6 Paris, France. 9 x 88 fromShanidarwas publishedin My paperon the flowers on the monograph the cave of I975; I am still waitingfor which the palynologicalwork as a whole should be a part. loamy soil diThe 3 samples fromthe dark-brown rectlybeneath ShanidarIV were unique in the cave in containingnumerous (I45) clustersof anthers.None of the other 5o samples fromoccupational deposits from Mousterian to Mesolithic contained any anthers,even thoughmore than 6,ooo pollens were identified. in Pollens are transported two ways: by wind and by animals (mostly insects, sometimes birds). Windpollens entercaves only if thereis a draft. transported colored pollens come frombrightly Animal-transported flowersand are carriedinto caves on anior perfumed mals' furor feet.Anthersmay be foundin rockshelter sedimentswheretheplantswerenearorwithinthe cave entrance, carried there by rodents along with fruits. Gargettimagines the wind's having blown the flowers just into the Neandertal burial soil and having chosen to genera. flowers belonging fivedifferent bright-colored his without It is a pitythathe has constructed argument the dispersionof pollens and withoutreadconsidering ing my paper on the subject (Leroi-Gourhani975) instead of Solecki's.
M. I. MARTINEZ NAVARRETE

CaliforniaState DepartmentofAnthropology, Calif. 9I330, U.S.A. 2o x 88 Northridge, University, The archaeological record for the Palaeolithic is so sparse and partial and our knowledgeof the processes that it constiso leading to its formation rudimentary tutesa sortofRorschachtest.Nowhereis it clearerhow far prehistoriansimpose their preconceptionson the mute, incomplete,poorlyunderstoodevidence theyinterpret.In the past, humanisticallyoriented scholars in have seen evidence of Neandertalspirituality the articulated skeletal remains found repeatedlyin Middle Palaeolithic deposits (but not in those of earliertimes). Humanists could think of only human agencies as rewhich would have presponsibleforthe rapidinterment to is Gargett right servedcorpsesfromdismemberment. point out that various naturaldepositionalprocessesin It caves could coverbodies up rapidly. is also quite clear thatin all the principalcases of burialsproposedforthe Middle Palaeolithic the excavatorspaid no detailed attention to the process of sedimentation.This should lead Gargettto the conclusion that some doubt must adhereto the claims which have been made fordeliberate human burials in the Middle Palaeolithic, but he He insistsupon goingfarther. arguesthatthe absence of probative evidence of Neandertal burials may reflect theirrelativeculturallimitationscomparedto theirUpperPalaeolithicsuccessors.I can see no evidenceforthis further step. Gargettexamines no Upper Palaeolithic thatthecriticalproceall, burials,after and it is apparent duresused to cast doubt on the evidence fromthe sites he does examine would sweep away the evidence for burials fromvirtuallyall pre-ig60 excavations forperiodspriorto the Neolithic. One can onlyjudge thathis conclusions derive, like those of the humanists he criticizes,fromhis preconceptions.Gargettapparently numerousgroupof scholars belongs to the increasingly who would seek to explain Middle/UpperPalaeolithic in cultural differences biological terms: "Questions of between [Neandertaland anatomigenetic interchange cally modern Homo sapiens] may never be answered, ritualfromthe behavioral but the removal of mortuary of repertoire Neandertalmay make the observeddisconPalaeoin formity materialcultureat the Middle/Upper lithic boundary a little easier to understand." This stance is no more warrantedby the evidence than the argumentsof humanists forMiddle/UpperPalaeolithic continuity.Trigger(I984) and Fowler (I987) have obare servedhow the theoryand practiceof prehistory ir-

Centrode Estudios Departamentode Prehistoria, Historicos,Consejo Superiorde Investigaciones Spain.I4 x 88 Serrano 2800I Madrid, I3, Cientificas, Gargett adequately poses the general methodological questions but fails to apply them to the problem of the understanding Middle/UpperPaleolithic boundary. He claims and gallantlyexercises the rightto criticize findsthathave been the basis forhallowed assumptions about the spiritualbehaviorof Neandertals.He tackles his rereadingof the evidence fromthe perspectiveof processes of geomorphology "the mutually reinforcing and taphonomy," processes which have not been taken into account because of a "pre-ig6os disciplinewidenahis ivete." Unfortunately, abilityto realize his critical goals is severely limited "because original field notes wereunavailableforthisstudyand onlypublisheddistillations could be consulted." Since the evidence is unclear,his evaluation of it is based on the assumptionof an absence of spiritualbehavior among Neandertals,a to posturewhich is contradictory his demandforcritical

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I I83

judgment.It is this assumption that leads him to give posed by the excavators. All the same, only in the greater weightto naturalprocessesin explainingthe ar- Teshik-Tash case does his pleading persuade me that could mimic "no substantial evidence exists for mortuaryritual." chaeologicalrecord:since "human activity then Even here,however,theuse ofMovius's (I 953) summary a naturalprocess. . . , ifthereis no way ofknowing, humans later." instead of Okladnikov's (I949) original publication it is logical to creditnaturefirst, is Gargett'spartisanstance on Neandertalspirituality weakens his position. the evialso evidentin his failureto evaluate critically dence for spiritual behavior among Homo sapiens sapiens and in the manner in which he approaches the PAUL OSSA La studyof the individualsites. He statesthatwith respect DepartmentofArchaeology, Trobe University, Australia 3083. i2 X 88 to the Upper Paleolithic "in the majorityof cases the Bundoora, Victoria, is interments] probably inference deliberate mortuary [of well founded" but forthe Middle Paleolithic "the cri- The evidence forNeanderthalburialsis not well served remains that have been purposely by Gargett'sreview. There are certainlydoubts about teria forrecognizing by disposed of need to be made explicit." Such differential whetherthe elaborateburialpracticesdescribed variexaminationofthe archaeologicalrecordis methodolog- ous authors did occur. Some of the argumentsin this giventhe stateofour paper,though,are biased towarda legalisticreadingof ically inadequate and unjustifiable knowledge concerning the Middle/Upper Paleolithic evidence. Old data are debunked for lacking modern I and There are important gaps in the chronological methodand interpretation, new data are neglected. boundary. and physical anthropologicaldocumentationbetween shall cite only two examples: H. I. Capitan and Peyrony'sexcavations at La Ferrassie thelast Neandertalsand thefirst sapiens sapiens,just links between industriestradi- did not have the advantageof modernsedimentological as thereare significant tionally ascribed to Neandertal and modern men and technique,but the excavatorswere highlyexperienced. are hypothetvice versa (Leveque and VandermeerschI98I, Smith Some of theirinterpretations admittedly I934:36), but these refer should at least have comparedNeandertal ical (Peyrony mainlyto the aci982). Gargett burialswith those of the earliestmodernhumans (mid- tions of the Neanderthalsratherthan to the resultsof dle Aurignacian). theirexcavations. The set of coincidencesnecessaryto givesun- produce La Ferrassieis too extraordinary accept as to Withrespectto the individualsites,Gargett con- accidental. interpretations equal weight to the stratigraphic burialfrom upper2. The Mousterian/Neanderthal the tainedin themonographs. assumes thatobservations He naturalagencies are valid but those concern- most portionof Unit I2 at Kebara (see Valladas et al. concerning et et ing human agencies are not. Because of this,he simply I987, Arensburg al. I985, Bar-Yosef al. I986) is not dismisses the contextualized,firsthand impressionsof mentioned. I cannot accept any review of the evidence forNeanthe archaeological deposits that the excavators were privileged to have. The Bouysonnies, Peyrony,and derthalburials that neglectsthese points. othersperhapsdid not make theirobservations explicit, but it is hard to believe that the contrastbetween the depositsof the presumedgravesand those of the restof ERIK TRINKAUS the site did not play an important partin theirinterpre- DepartmentofAnthropology, University New of tations.Furthermore, approacheshis critiqueof the Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M. 87I3I, U.S.A. iO x 88 he evidence in a decontextualizedmanner,considering the "ritual" structures individuallyand theirtraitsin isola- It is relativelyeasy to claim, on the basis of excavation tion even where,as at La Ferrassieand Regourdou, they reports fromearlyin the 2oth centuryand geologically occur in groups (nine and six, respectively). "The rela- complicated sites like Regourdou and Shanidar, that tive improbability co-occurrence the rightevents" there is no evidence for intentionalburial among the of of in is used to justify presenceof these structures just Neandertals. However, Gargettfails to explain how a the some of the areas within the total space in which they numberofNeandertalmatureand,especially,immature together skeletons(e.g.,Amud I, Kebara I and 2, Kiik-KobaI and mighthave appearedwhen this improbability, with the repetition such "coincidences" at the same 2, La Quina 5, Roc de Marsal I, Saint-Cesaire I, and of sites, would suggest,rather,a human agencyfortheir Tabfun [Suzuki and Takai I970, Smithand Arensburg CI i is occurrence. Kohl(i 985: I I) putsit, "maybe As there a I977, Arensburget al. I985, Bonch-OsmolovskijI940, God who plantedtheseirrelevant fossils. . ., all VIcek I973, Martin I923, Bordes and Lafille i962, Leperverse of this misinformation, to dupe the enemy." just veque and VandermeerschI980, McCown and Keith These commentsdo not mean that I fail to recognize I9391,in additionto La Chapelle-aux-Saints La Ferrasi, positive points in this article. In the firstplace, such sie i-8, Regourdoui, and ShanidarI-7) managedto be studies should encourage a more carefuland objective preservedin highlyaccessible Upper Pleistocene rockexaminationoffuture finds.In sheltersand caves in near-anatomical physicalanthropological positionand overthe second place, Gargettmakes clear the inconsisten- all skeletal-part frequenciesidenticalto those of recent cies in earlierpublicationsand thepossibility deriving cemeterysamples (see Trinkaus i985). These partial of fromthem hypothesesotherthan those originally pro- skeletons retain many fragileelements largelyintact,

I84

| CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April I989

ritualbehaviorin H. despite the ubiquitous presence of carcass-destroying otherthanthosepossiblyindicating (especiallycanids,ursids,hyaenids,and mus- sapiens sapiens,would help to establishrelevantcriteria carnivores telids)and rodentsin the vicinitiesof the sites,the lack forNeanderthalburial. I am not aware of any such atrapid natural tempt.It is unjustifiable, of evidence in most cases forsufficiently then,to draw conclusions for and all the Neanderthalsthat ever lived. Gargetthas examscavengers, ratesto shield themfrom sedimentation nonhominidskele- ined the archaeologicalevidence forNeanderthalburial preserved the absence of comparably Le tons in similarlyaccessible Upper Pleistocene locales. fromLa Chapelle-aux-Saints, Moustier,La Ferrassie, The possiblyquestionable natureof evidence forinten- Teshik-Tash,Regourdou,and Shanidar,and this allows and the com- him to conclude only thatNeanderthaldid not burythe tional gravepits in old excavationreports of plex sedimentology a few Upper Pleistocene sites is dead at these six locations. His approachand methodolevidence ogy leave no room fordoubt,however,on this slightly to insufficient refutethe skeletal-preservation modifiedconclusion. forNeandertalburial. thoughsignificantly This does not mean thatall claimed cases ofNeanderMy criticismstems neitherfromany unsubstantiated or practicesnor fromany tal burialwerein factintentional thattheimaginative beliefin Neanderthalmortuary elaborationssometimesaccordedthem are valid. It does desireto defendNeanderthal's"humanness." I strongly mean that an unusual process, such as intentional believe that if we want to provethat even a rabbitdoes of to burial,is required explainthenatureofpreservation not bury its dead, we must use fullyscientificprocemany,ifnot most,Neandertalpartialskeletons.Gargett dures. has simplyfailed to make a convincingcase that all or even most so-called Neandertal burials are the fortuitous resultsof naturalprocesses.

Reply

State College of Departmentof Sciences, Western Colorado, Gunnison,Colo. 81230 U.S.A.20 x 88 Gargetthas providedus with a verywell foundedand of sound reinterpretation the Neanderthalremainsthat have been claimed to be the oldest examples of Homo the practices.Employing methodsof sapiens's mortuary he and taphonomy, arsedimentology, geomorphology, rives at the conclusion that Neanderthalsdid not bury supportthe way in which the dead. AlthoughI entirely he has scrutinizedthe archaeologicalmaterialfromLa TeshikLe Chapelle-aux-Saints, Moustier,La Ferrassie, and Shanidarand fully agreethatthese Tash, Regourdou, Neanderthalburial,I should like findsdo not represent of to focus on some theoreticalshortcomings his approach and eventuallyquestion his finalconclusion. for processesand criteria NeanIdeally,site formation more or less equally to derthalburial should contribute of the reinterpretation the material in question. Garhowever,cannot employcriteria gett'sreinterpretation, any. forNeanderthalburialbecause he does not identify for What he does is review some criteria H. sapiens sapiens burial,such as position of the body,a dug depression, grave goods, and indicatorsof magical and ritual activities.He concludes this sectionwith the statement createdwhen the gravewas dug,is that"a new stratum, infor criterion recognizing purposeful the fundamental derivedfrom empirical None ofthese criteria, terment." or on data, archaeologicaland ethnographic, prehistoric as H. contemporary sapiens sapiens, can be regarded applying to Neanderthal burials. Reconstructionof the Neanderthalbiological and cultural capacity forritual practices,should precede behavior,includingmortuary of any interpretation archaeologicalmaterialpotentially Such reconthis sortofNeanderthalactivity. indicating struction,based on theoretical assumptions and data

ANDRZEJ

W. WEBER

ROBERT

Calif., U.S.A. Berkeley,

H. GARGETT

ii

xii 88

My thanks to those who commented.This replywill deal with what I see to be the fourissues raised: (i) my otherputativeNeanderto failure include evidencefrom tal burials, (2) my method, (3) my failureto "explain" completeand nearlycompleteNeanderwhat preserved tal skeletons,and (4) my conclusions about behaviorin the Middle Paleolithic and implicationsforour understandingofbioculturalevolutionpriorto ca. 35,000 B.P. The missingcritiques.I leftout severalotherNeandertal partial skeletons originallybecause I thoughtthey added nothingqualitative to the discussion. To answer and Montetthe criticismsof Farizyand Masset, Frayer White, Gamble, Ossa, and Trinkaus,I think it worthwhile to providepared-downanalyses of the remaining Neandertaldiscoveries. Amud i was discoveredat Mount Carmel,in Israel,in unit oflimetheuppermost portionofa poorlystratified stone breakdownsilts and rubble(no pit was described). Burial was simply assumed. Five other individuals at Amud are known only from fragments(Suzuki and

Takai I970:39).

In additionto the child discovereda numberof years givenup an ago, Kebara Cave (also in Israel)has recently adult partial skeleton. Smith and Arensburg important
(I977)

burial" on the basis of the presenceof threerocks near phalanges,and tibia.However, I 3 teeth,skull fragments, Schick and Stekelis (I977) mention nothingto suggest that its burial was intentional.Kebara 2 (the adult) was et foundin a "shallow depression"(Arensburg al. I985, et Bar-Yosef al. I986), but,as I have argued,thatalone is burial. not good evidence forpurposeful said Kiik-Koba i and 2 were discoveredin depressions

i) (Kebara a "deliberate call theseven-month-old

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I I85

to have been dug into the bedrock(Bonch-Osmolovskij and 4 (and 4a). My translationis, however,essentially I940, cited in Klein I966:IO5-6). Given the presenceof the same as his: "refilled with a mixtureof about equal other,deeperverticalpits known to be solutioncavities parts of the black earthof the Mousterianlayer and of this thatthe from gravel."I did not infer (see Bonch-Osmolovskij I940:fig. ii) in proximityto the underlying those claimed to be graves,it seems likely that these "black earth"was placed above the yellowgravel.When depressionsare natural. Such places are natural sedi- I speculatedthatit mighthave occurredin thisposition ment trapsand likely to experiencemore rapid deposi- it was because thereis good reasonto doubtthe observation than elsewhere.Preservation was undoubtedly en- tion ofa "mixture"oftwo stratain the fillofthe alleged hanced by location in such depressions.Even at that, grave.I continue to believe that the excavatorsdid not Kiik-Kobai is represented only by the hands and feet,a recognizea new stratumcreatedwhen the individuals were buried. Logically,a hole dug 30-40 cm into the patella, a tibia, and a fibula. La Quina 5, accordingto Martin(I923), was removed lower,yellow stratum would not have been filledwitha a from unit of sandyclay which had been depositedin a mixtureof equal partsof the lower and uppermaterial some depthofthe overlyIf burial unless it had been dugthrough low-energy fluvialenvironment. so, purposeful it is morethanlikelyprecluded, and the reasonsfor preser- ing sediments.Fromthe description, appearsas ifthe vation are clear. The remainderof the La Quina fossil excavatorsdid not recognizethe "grave" until theyhad dug throughthe level at which the alleged fill and the assemblage is less well preserved. the a The circumstancessurrounding discoveryof Roc overlying sedimentswould have formed contact.After de Marsal i (Bordesand Lafille i962) are not extensively the fact,the panel of expertsconcludedthatthe fillhad reported. profiles descriptions thesedimentsare been composed of equal parts of the lower and upper No or of but one lackinference presented.The alleged grave was a depressiongo cm sediments-an understandable long and 70 cm wide which had been "refilled"with ing a logical premiseand clearlybased on the beliefthat breakdownsediments.The report mentionsa "strange" the hole was a grave.The presenceof limestonebreakof arrangement the bones: femursbent backwards at down particles (the major constituentof the yellow, darker sediI35? relativeto the vertebral column,tibia and fibulaat underlying sediments)in the anthropogenic, right angles,and missingribsand scapula. The investiga- ments of the overlying stratumis to be expected-they torsproposethatthe pressureofoverlying sedimentson formthe parent material fromthe Mousterian levels. the slopingbottomofthe depression and and Montet-White mayhave displaced While I would agreewith Frayer the bones in this manner. I submit that it is equally Bricker for thatthereis no substitute on-siteobservation likely,giventhe absence ofbones ofthe thorax, thatthe or forthe combinedexperienceof a generation, neither bones were the remains of a meal. A hyena mandible necessarilyprecludesweak inference. was present in the "fill" of the grave, suggestingthe I Withdue respectto Mme. Leroi-Gourhan, do not see possibilitythat,at least fora time, Roc de Marsal may how the criticisms I raised regardingthe context of also have been home to carnivores.Since we do not Shanidar4 or ofthe plant macrofossils said to have been know the originof the "depression"and cannotbe sure associatedwithit are diminished the color ornumber by thatthe remainshad been purposely we covered, cannot of flowersthat foundtheirway into the cave. Her I975 rule out the possibilitythat preservation was a natural paperprovidesanotherintimationthatwe may be dealoccurrence.There seems to be no alternative but to add ingwithnaturalprocesses.Shanidaris a perfect example Roc de Marsal i to the list of Neandertal "burials" in- of the axiom that each cave represents unique deposia ferred the basis of insufficient on evidence. tional environment. is a verylarge,south-facing It cave Thereis at presenttoo littleavailable on the specimen with a large,triangular entrance.During periodswhen from Saint-Cesaireto permitassessmentofthe evidence the floorsurfacewas stable, even areas well inside the forpurposeful burial. Fromwhat is published,however, cave would have been sunlit fora good partof the day. thereseems no reason to suspect thatpurposeful the extremesofdiurnaltemperature, mifrom burial Protected was involved. croclimatewithin the cave could veryeasily have supThe fairly complete TabiunCi was foundin unstrati- porteda unique communityof plants,perhapsthe kind i fiedcave breakdownsedimentsapproximately m from found refers nearShanidar Leroi-Gourhan (I975:563) 4. the wall of the cave and about i m below an overhang. to "the soil of the graveon which the skeletonlay" as Location in the cave probablyprotectedit fromdistur- "dark and humic" and not only "richerin pollens" but numerousvegetalelements"and "verysmall bance while naturalburial occurred.Several otherindi- containing viduals, known only fromfragments, were not so lucky pieces of wood." If the sedimentson which Shanidar4 (see Garrodand Bate I937:pls. 37 and 39, facingp. go). as lay were indeed the resultof soil development, their I hope that this briefresume of the remainderof the description implies,thepresenceofplantremainsmight putativeNeandertalburials will be sufficient satisfy be expected. There is really no reason,however,to into the commentators that, even in the case of recentdis- voke uniformitarian laws of ecologyforpotentialplant coveries,evidenceforpurposeful burialamongNeander- growth withinthe cave; therewas insufficient sampling tals is lacking or insufficient. at the same level elsewherein the cave to warrantthe My treatment the evidence. BrickersuggeststhatI assumptionthatflowers of neartheskeletonwerea unique have misreada crucialpassage in Capitan and Peyrony's occurrence. of With reference Martinez Navarrete'scomments,it to (igi2b:439-40) reportof the discovery La Ferrassie3

i86

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April I989 as Frayer Montet-White and suggest, inherently unscien tific.The alternativeis to accept withoutquestion any and all interpretations the archaeologicalrecord. of What is preservingthe Neandertals of Europe anai Asia? I do not believe that we can assume "the ubiquitous presenceofcarcass-destroying carnivores" any ol at the sites Neandertalsoccupied. Nor can we assume that the absence of "comparably preserved nonhominid skeletons in similarlyaccessible Upper Pleistocene locales" (Trinkaus) is indicative of anythingthat might bear on the question of burial. Neandertals may have been the habitualoccupantsofcaves and rockshelters in which their remains are found. This alone may have precludedthe occurrenceof non-hominid remains.Furthermore, behavioralcharacteristics the occupant the of of a cave may inform,in some predictableway, the likelihood of skeletal preservation theirlivingspace. in In any event, carnivoredisturbancedoes not rule out preservation. Teshik-Tashthe remainsare preserved, At although somewhat disarrayed,even though the involvementofa carnivore almostbeyonddoubt.At Roc is de Marsal, a similar situation may have occurredwith less disturbance overall.Simplyto assertthatthepotential fordisturbanceexistedgets us nowhere.It is somethingthatfuture investigation mightelucidate,as Gamble has suggestedin his commentand elsewhere(I984). Gamble and others have noted that the sample of NeandertalfossilsfromEurope containsmore complete Even ifwe specimensthan thatof earlierarchaicforms. do not postulate increased use of caves during the hegemonyof the Neandertals,thereare uniformitarian that can account for the principles of geomorphology in temporaldifferential sample qualitypriorto the late Middle Paleolithic. As with archaeologicalsites in gentimethe destruction of eral,I would expectthatthrough depositsby various agentswould ultimatelyreduce the from earliertimes.Flushthe numberoffossilremnants ing out of cave deposits and settling,forexample, are be known to occur in laterperiodsand mighttherefore expected to have occurred earlier in the Pleistocene. of Time and process alone may reduce the probability an finding equivalent fossil recordin the earlierperiod. There are few Africanexamples of archaic H. sapiens in states of preservationapproachingthat of "classic" Neandertals.Once again, this may have as much to do as with the depositionalenvironment with behavior,alWest Turthoughthe partialadolescentH. erectusfrom kana (WT I50oo) demonstratesthat natural processes to other than burial in caves occasionally contributed the fossil record.In Europe, the discoveriesare almost always in caves and rockshelters.The two variables "Neandertal skeletons" and "caves and rockshelters" when compared are clearlynot statistically independent with non-Europeanpopulations of archaic H. sapiens fossils.There is clear and (to me) inescapable evidence that it is the depositional environmentin caves and behavior rockshelters and not any presumedpurposeful that is protectingand preserving European archaic H. Even if the sapiens, carnivoreecologynotwithstanding. ecological relations of hominids and carnivorespre-

is not my "bias" regarding humanityofNeandertals the that "leads [me] to give greaterweight to natural processes in explainingthe archaeologicalrecord."Natural agencyshould always be ruled out beforeinvokinghuman activityas the cause of "peculiar" arrangements of sediments.Brain's (I98I) work in caves in South Africa illustratesvery well the need for such caution where non-hominid bone collectorsare involved.I merelysuggesta similarwarinesswherephysicalprocessesmay be I responsible.Furthermore, fail to see how a consideration of geomorphology and formation processes in any way constitutesa "decontextualized"appraisal. Before to attempting induce social structures from rockpiles at I Regourdouor moundsat La Ferrassie, would wantto be certainthattheywere not naturalin origin.It is unwarrantedto assume thatthe nine moundsat La Ferrassie or six of anythingat Regourdouwere the result of conscious behaviorsimplybecause theyand Neandertalfossils "coincide." As formy criteriaforburial, I have arguedthat the dispositionof the corpse can tell us nothingby itself. the What,I wonder,do we learnfrom positionof Roc de Marsal, whose legs were bent backwardat an unnatural angle?Or La Ferrassie6, whose head was notfoundwith the rest of the remains?What do the nine vertebrae of Shanidar9 tell us? Do the crushedand twistedskeletons of the other Shanidar Neandertals tell us of strange ritual?The body position of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints individualis not "a strong indication"thatit was buried and Montet-White); fromsuggesting far that its (Frayer deathhad been accidental,I statedthe obvious corollary to Bouyssonie, Bouyssonie, and Bardon's (I908) statement that its position mimicked sleep-that if a given position mimicked sleep, death duringsleep would result in that position. One example froma recent archaeological situation should once and forall refutethe assertionthat body position necessarily reflectsmortuary preparation.At Utqiagvik,Alaska, the remainsof two mummified prehistoricInuit were unearthedin i982. They had been entombedwhen sea ice crushedtheirhouse, the weight of the ice and fallen structuralmaterial having killed them instantly(Newell I984). One, at least, had been when the calamityoccurred. Bothwere asleep or resting at least as flexedas any NeandertalskeletonI have seen reportsof, and clearly neither had been afforded any mortuary treatment-they had remainedfrozenunder the timbersand sod until theywere exhumed six sumthatthe mersago. Likewise,thereis no reasonto suggest other positionsof Neandertalskeletonsreflect anything than theirpositions at death. I have legitimately questionedthe premisesand arguments that underlie the present-day "knowledge" that Neandertals buried their dead. In everycase sufficient doubt is cast on the investigators' conclusions to warrant serious reconsideration conventionalwisdom. I of hope that,lackingrepeatableexperiments (the essential controlin the so-called hard sciences), most archaeologistsconsiderthe criticalexaminationof archaeological fundamental theirscience rather to investigations than,

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I 887

cluded disturbance hominidremainsacross the range remaining of nine (i.e.,about 4.2 5% ofknownNeandertals) of archaic H. sapiens, those exposed to weathering were purposely buried would be seriously weakened. would surely have been less likely to survive. Better The similarity the Shanidarsample to boththeNative of preservation should occurin the special environments of American population and the other nine Neandertals caves and rockshelters. should render conclusion suspect.By the same logic, his I have enumeratedsome of the factors dif- Trinkausmighthave concluded that the nine were prepromoting ferential of preservation skeletal material in caves and servedin the same manneras the Shanidarindividuals. rockshelters. There are no doubtothersabout which we Trinkaus deals with his inabilityto explain why the know nothing.Because each site has a unique deposi- Krapinasample shouldresemblea buriedpopulationless tional environment history, and each discovery fossil thanthatofShanidarand the othernine "buried"Neanof in The dertalsby suggesting materialhas to be understood termsofits setting. that eithernaturalburial or some conditionsthatobtainin each case form set ofcircum- cultural or natural process intermediate between pura stances in which there is but one constant-hominid posefulburial and recovery could have been responsible skeletal materialwas preserved a state that seems to for the degree of preservationat Krapina. But this is in mostofthe commentators that no solution at all. He is leftwith but one conclusionunlikely.The hypothesis burpreservationcan be attributedto purposefulburial is that the individualsat Krapinahad been purposely only one possibility. ied, based on the receivedknowledgethat Neandertals As evidence that well-preserved Neandertal skeletal buriedtheirdead. The "known" burialsthathe cites are material must have been purposely buried, Trinkaus just those thatI have examinedhere.On the basis ofhis cites the resultsofhis I985 workon burialand cannibal- study of "burial" at Krapina,I am not convinced that ism at Krapina. He bases his argumenton similarpat- purposeful burial explains the reallyrathersmall numternsofbone preservation Native Americancemeter- ber of better-preserved in Neandertals. ies and those found in a small sub-populationof the I have suggested some naturalmeans bywhich a numknown Neandertalfossil record.Firsthe divides Nean- ber of specimensmighthave been preserved a nearly in dertalsinto "buried" and "non-buried," the assump- complete state. Burial by catastrophiccollapse (as at on tion thatfragmentary, isolated remainshad to have lain Shanidarand Krapinaor,forthatmatter, Regourdou[the exposedand were thusmoresusceptible naturaldegra- bear]),location in a protected to area of the cave (as at Tadation.He places the vast majority knownNeandertal bun, Teshik-Tash, and Shanidar),or coming to rest in of fossils in the "non-buried"category-representing thatact as sedimenttraps(as at Kiikap- naturaldepressions With Koba, La Chapelle-aux-Saints, La Ferrassie) some proximately individuals, I46 excluding at Krapina. 43 and are the "buried" sample of i6 in hand (about 8% ofthe total likely ways in which preservation may have occurred. numberof known individualsif the remainsfromKra- Of course,it is neverpossible to rule out burialbyNeanpina are included, i.e., i89), he demonstrates that the dertals,since it is illogical to argue fromnegativeevirelativeproportions preservedparts in the "buried" dence.It seems less logical,however, arguefrom of to quessample are virtually identical to those from Native tionable evidence that theydid. Americancemeteries. The stickyproblem of the Middle/UpperPaleolithic To beginwith,it is arbitrary dichotomizethe sam- transition.I have to agree with Clark and Lindly and to ple on the basis ofcompletenessofspecimens.Wheredo Gilman thatworkers'expectations weighheavilyon the we drawthe line? Neandertalsare represented every- way they"see" the fossilrecord.My propensity view by to thingfromsingleteethto nearlycompleteskeletons.Of the evolutionary recordofthis species as havinga single coursea samplecomposedoffragments "non-buried" originultimatelyrequiresme, I think,to searchfordis(the assemblage) is not going to correspond a population conformity, to both morphologicaland behavioral.' It is drawnfroma known cemeteryin proportions parts the latterthat first of me brought to the subject of Neanpreservedor presence of associated skeletal parts. As dertalburial.I was puzzled bythe "fact"thattheyburied Trinkaus argues, differential preservationand distur- theirdead and were believed therefore have had modto bance by all kinds of post-depositional agencies would ern spiritualand emotional capacities even thoughthey work to reduce the skeletal remains to isolated frag- apparently no art (as we would defineit),no worked had ments.I would expecttwo buriedsamples to exhibitthe bone (exceptpossiblyas an analog of stone),no personal same characteristics regardlessof how theycame to be ornamentation, long-distance no exchange (in contrast buried.Nothing in the argumentrequiresus to accept to meretransport raw material), of and no "real" blades. that the i6 were purposelyburied.A hand-picked sam- Clark and Lindlyare rightto point out thatit is dangerple of nearly complete skeletons is naturallygoing to ous to conceive of anything complex as the Middle/ as resemblea cemetery population;I would be surprised if UpperPaleolithictransition simplisticterms. in But it is it did not. The point is thatthe analysisworksonlyifit clearthattheirview ofa multiregional origin modern for begins and ends with the assumptionthat some Nean- H. sapiens requiresthem to look forcontinuity the in dertalswere purposelyburied. fossilrecord.My analysis of Neandertalburial does not If I read Trinkaus correctly, seven of the "buried" necessarilysupporttheirhypothesis. have merelyproI Neandertals used in the analysis were recoveredfrom ShanidarCave. If,as I have argued,the seven were killed i. Mine is by no means a minority position(see, forexample, and buried by ceiling collapse, the argumentthat the Stringer Andrews and i988).

i88

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April I989

le concept Levallois,"in L'hommede Neandertal, 8, La vol. mutation. Edited M. Otte,pp.4I-60. Liege:ERAUL.[GC, JL] by BONCH-OSMOLOVSKIJ, G. A. I940. Grot Kiik-Koba Russian) (in PaleolitKryma I. BONIFAY, E. I962. "Un ensemble rituel moust6rien la grotte a de Regourdou (Montignac, Dordogne)." Proceedings the6thInof ternational Congress Prehistoric Protohistoric of and Sciences, Rome,vol. 2, pp. 136-40. .I964. La grotte Regourdou de (Montignac, Dordogne): et Stratigraphie industrie lithicmousterienne. L'Anthropologie
BONIFAY, E., AND B. VANDERMEERSCH. i962. D6p6tsrituels d'oursdansle gisement d'ossements moust6rien Regourdou du Comptes Rendusdes S6ancesde (Montignac, Dordogne).

posed that we can no longer confidently assume that Neandertalspossessed a spiritualbeingor an emotional complex akin to ours or the sense to burytheirdead to avoid having them ravagedby carnivores(even if these inferences werepossiblefrom "good" archaeologicalevidence of burial).A satisfying explanationforlong stasis in the archaeologicalrecordduring timebefore the modernhumans appearedin Europeis still elusive. The presence of morphologically modern H. sapiens at Qafzeh 92,000 years ago (Valladaset al. i988) leadsto theconclusion that for at least 6o,ooo years Neandertals and modernhumans coexisted,apparently morphologically withoutintercourse, social or other.Far from providing supportforthe multiregional-origin I hypothesis, think thatthe sharedbehavioralcharacteristics thetwo may of onlyargueforthe obvious: thattheystarted at simiout lar points on a continuum of biocultural evolution. is Burial,clearly, a derivedcharacteristic one which, and on the evidence,is manifested onlyby UpperPaleolithic, modernH. sapiens. morphologically I have suggested thatNeandertalsmaynothave shared theirgeneswithus. We mayneverknow theanswer.But if the consensus view of theiremotional,spiritual, and intellectualcapacityis based on the available evidence for burial, the answer may always elude us while we searchforclues to why,in spiteofthefactthatNeandertals presumablyhad thoughtslike ours, theirbehavior and that of theircontemporaries appearsto have stayed the same forso long. This is why,perhapsunwisely,I have said that removingburial fromthe behavioralreof pertoire Neandertalsmighthelp us sortout the muddle in the Middle Paleolithic and, ultimately, questions of the transition "behaviorally"modernhumans. to

68:49-64.

BORDES, BORDES,

l'Acad6mie des Sciences, Paris 255:i635-36. F. I972. A tale oftwocaves. New York:Harper and

F., AND J. LAFILLE. i962. D6couverte d'unsquelette d'enfant moust6rien dansle gisement Roc de Marsal, du communede Campagne-du-Bugue Comptes Rendus (Dordogne). des S6ancesde l'Acad6miedes Sciences, ParisD 254:7I4-I5. [DWF, AM; ET]

Row. [CGJ

B 0 U L E, M. I909. L'homme fossile la Chapelle-aux-Saints de (Cor20:257-7I. r6ze). L'Anthropologie

BOUYSSONIE,

la Chapelle-aux-Saints. L'Anthropologie 24:609-34. B O U Y S S O N I E, J I 9 54. Les s6pultures . moust6riennes. Quaternaria I:I07-I5. BRAIN, C. K. I980. "Some criteria therecognition bonefor of
Behrensmeyerand A. P. Hill,pp. I07-30.

couverte d'un squelette humain moust6riena la Bouffiade la Chapelle-aux-Saints I9:5I3-I8. (Corr6ze). L'Anthropologie moust6rienne la "Bouffia" de .I9I3. La station a Bonneval,

A., J. BOUYSSONIE,

AND L. BARDON.

I908.

De-

BROOKS,

in Edited A. K. collecting agencies," Fossilsin themaking. by Chicago:University ofChicagoPress. or An to .I98I. Thehunters thehunted? introduction African cave taphonomy. of Chicago:University ChicagoPress.
A. I988. New perspectives on western European prehis-

[GC, JLI BUTZER, K. I97I.

tory. at of Paperpresented the 53d annualmeeting theSociety for American Archaeology, Phoenix, Ariz., April27-May I. Environment archaeology. and Chicago:Al-

References Cited
ARENSBURG, H. LAVILLE, LIER, AND B., 0. BAR-YOSEF, M. CHECH, P. GOLDBERG, A. M. TILL. MEIGNAN, Y. RAK,

Rendusdes Comptes talienne dansla grotte K6bara de (Israel). Paris,series2, 300:227S6ancesde 1'Acad6mie Sciences, des
BACHLER,

B. VANDERMEERSCH.

i985. Une s6pulturen6ander-

E. TCHERNOV,

CAPITAN,

Mousterian faciesin Cantabrian Spain.Journal Archaeologof ical Science8:I33-83. as New York:Cam.i982. Archaeology humanecology. Press. bridge University de au milieude foyers l'6poquemoust6rienne. Revuede l'Ecole
d'Anthropologie I9:402-9. de .19I0. Deux squelettes humains au milieu de foyers
L., AND D. PEYRONY.

dine-Atherton. and .I98I. Cave sediments, Upper Pleistocene stratigraphy,

1909. Deux squelettes humaines

im bei Das Drachenloch Vattis Tamintal. der Naturwissenschaftlichen Jahrbuches St. Gallischen Gesellschaft 57(I).
E. i92i.

30. [PO, ET]

BAR-YOSEF,

P. B. ARENSBURG, O., B. VANDERMEERSCH, L. MEIGNEN, H. LAVILLE, Y. RAK, E. TCHERGOLDBERG, of I986. New dataon theorigin NOV, AND A. -M. TILLIER. modemmanin theLevant.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:63-64.

"Spiritualit6 l'hommede N6ande Edited G. H. R. von by in centenary. derthal," Neanderthal Foundation. pp. Koenigswald, I5 i-66. New York:Wenner-Gren myths. BINFORD, L. R. I981 . Bones:Ancient men and modern New York:AcademicPress. at L. R., AND C. K. HO. I985. Taphonomy a distance: BINFORD, "thecave homeofBeijing man"?CURRENT ANZhoukoudian, comparison disposalofthe of S. R. I968. A structural Southwestern deadin theMousterian UpperPaleolithic. and I. Journal Archaeology 24:139-5 of avec et laminaire: Rupture filiation B 0 EDA, E. I988. "Le concept
BINFORD,

[CF, CM; DWF, AM; PO] F. M. I958. BERGOUNIOUX,

torique 6 (5):I29-32. .I91 2a. Station pr6historiquede la Ferrassie. RevueAnthropologique 22:29-50, 76-99. . i9i2b. Trois nouveaux squelettes humains fossiles. Revue Anthropologique II:439-42. d'un sixiemesquelette moust6rien La .I92I. D6couverte a
CHASE. P. I986.

Bulletins M6moires, et l'6poquemoust6rienne. Societed'Ande thropologie Paris,series6, I:48-5 3. humainfossile. RevuePr6his.I9I I. Un nouveausquelette

THROPOLOGY 26:4I3-42.

Paleolithic in Behavioral transition," Thehumanrevolution: and biological on perspectives theorigins modern humans. of Edited P. Mellarsand C. Stringer. by of Chicago:University ChicagoPress.In press.[GC,JL] CHASE, P., AND H. DIBBLE. I987. MiddlePaleolithic symbolism: A review current of evidence andinterpretations. Journal Anof thropological Archaeology 6:263-96. [GC, JLI

logical Reports InternationalSeries 286. [GC, JL] . n.d. "How different was Middle Paleolithic subsistence? A zooarchaeological perspective on the Middle and Upper

Ferrassie RevueAnthropologique (Dordogne). 3I:382-88. Thehunters Combe Grenal. British Archaeoof

GARGETT

Neandertal Burial I I89

de vivait1'homme La Quina The biocultural and HENRI -MART I N, L. 193 6. Comment transition La a 1'epoque mousterienne. Pr6histoire theorigins modemhumansin theLevantandwestern of Asia. 5:7-23. [DWF, AM] I979. ImHENSCHEL, J. R., R. TILSON, AND F. VON BLOTTNITZ. at "Pr6histoire du Paper presented theColloque International hyaenaboneassemblage theNamib in plications a spotted of Levant2," Lyon, June. JL] [GC, desert. South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 34:I27-3I. . n.d. "The case for continuity: Observations thebio-culon Books. man. New York:Time-Life HOWELL, F. C. I965. Early turaltransition Europeandwestern in Asia,"in Thehuman Blackwell. geomorphology. Oxford: JENNINGS, J. N. I985. Karst revolution: Behavioral and biological perspectives theorion Russia. of KLEIN, RICHARD G. I966. The Mousterian European ginsofmodern humans.Edited P. Mellarsand C. Stringer. by of Chicago, Ill. Ph.D. diss.,University Chicago, of Chicago:University ChicagoPress.In press.[GC, JLJ of C L A R K, G ., A N D M. N E E L E Y. I 987. "Social differentiation in implications thenonarchae.I975. Paleoanthropological Cape from Swartklip South-western I, ologicalboneassemblage European Mesolithic burialdata,"in Mesolithic Northwest Quaternary Research 5:275-88. Province, SouthAfrica. Edited P. Rowley-Conwy, ZveleM. Europe:Recenttrends. by of I984. Theanalysis animal KLEIN, R. G., AND K. CRUZ-URIBE. pp. bil,andH. P. Blankholm, I2I-27. Sheffield: Collins. John of sites.Chicago:University Chiarchaeological bonesfrom [GC, JLJ cavesediments. cagoPress. of COLCUTT, S. N. I979. The analysis Quaternary A cognitive archaeology: newloss of KOHL, P. I985. Symbolic World Archaeology IO:290-30I. innocence. Dialectical Anthropology9: I05-I7. moust6riennes la Ferrasde DELPORTE, H. I976. "Les sepultures [MIMI revolutions. Edited B. Vanderof KUHN, THOMAS. I970. Thestructure scientific n6andertaliennes. sie," in Les s6pultures by of Chicago:University ChicagoPress. meersch, 8-uII. Nice: ColloqueUISPP. [DWF, AM] pp. New York:ColumbiaUniD RU C KE R, P. I 972. Stratigraphy archaeology: An introduction. in KURTtN, B. I976. The cave bearstory. Press. versity New York:Addison-Wesley. du FRANK W. I984. Archaeology: cultural A EDDY, evolutionary ap- LAVILLE, H., AND J-P. RIGAUD. I973. L'abriinf6rieur Mouset Cliffs: tier(Dordogne): Pr6cisions stratigraphiqueschronologiques. proach.Englewood Prentice-Hall. DeERLAND SON, JON M. I984. A case study faunalturbation: in Comptes Rendus des S6ances de I'Acad6mie des Sciences, Paris the of on D 276:3097-3100. lineating effects theburrowing pocketgopher thedistribution archaeological of materials. American LAVILLE, H., J-P. RIGAUD, AND J. SACKETT. ig80.Rock shelters Antiquity
C LARK, G., AN D J. L I N D LY. I 988.

" . "Rockshelter cave sediments,in Arand in Edited J. Steinand chaeological sediments context. by K. pp. W. R. Farrand, 21-39. Orono,Maine: Center theStudy for of Man. Early of FORD, T. D. 1976. "The geology caves,"in ThescienceofspeleEdited T. D. Fordand C. H. D. Cullingford, I I-6o. ology. by pp. New York:AcademicPress. scienceofspeleology. New York:Academic Press. FOWLER, DON D. I987. Uses ofthepast:Archaeology theserin vice ofthestate.American Antiquity 52:229-48. [AG] C. S. I984. "Regional variation hunter-gatherer in stratGAMBLE, of in egyin theUpperPleistocene Europe," Hominidevolution and community EditedbyR. Foley, 237-60. Lonecology. pp. don:AcademicPress.[CGJ settlement Europe. . I986. ThePalaeolithic of Cambridge: Press.[CGJ Cambridge University MountCarmel.Vol. I. Excavations theWadyEl-Mughara. at Oxford: Clarendon Press. J-M. I988. "Systemes en GENESTE, d'approvisionnement matieres premieres Pal6olithique au Moyenet au Pal6olithique en in vol. Superieur Aquitaine," L'hommede Neandertal, 8, La mutation. EditedbyM. Otte,pp. 6I-70. Liege:ERAUL.[GC, JL] sionin sitestructure: experiment trampling vertical An in and American dispersal. Antiquity 50:803-I8. GLOVER, I. C. I979. The effects sinkactionon archaeological of in deposits caves: An Indonesian example.World Archaeology
IO:302-i8. GORJANOVI(&KRAMBERGER, D. I906. GIFFORD-GONZALEZ, ROSCH, J. PRYOR, D. P., D. B. DAMROSCH, AND R. L. THUNEN. I985. GARROD, D. A. E., AND D. M. A. BATE. I937. FORD, T. D., AND C. H. D. CULLINGFORD.

49:785-go. FARRAN D, W. R. I 985

and archaeological sucof the Perigord: Geological stratigraphy

Editors. 1976. The

abri du H., AND A. TUFFREAU. I984. "Les d6p6ts grand et de la Ferrassie: signification climatique Stratigraphie, Edited Henri in by chronologie," Le grandabride la Ferrassie. 7. Delporte, 25-50. EtudesQuaternaires pp. de ANDRE. I964. Les religions la prehistoire. LEROI-GOURHAN, de [CF, Paris:Presses Universitaires France. CM] with ARLETTE. 1975. The flowers found LEROI-GOURHAN, burialin Iraq.ScienceI90:562-64. Shanidar a Neanderthal IV,
LAVILLE,
I980. Decouverte des F., AND B. VANDERMEERSCH. a Saint-C6saire restes humainsdansun niveaucastelperronien Rendusdes Seances de Comptes (Charente-Maritime). ParisD 29i:i87-89. [DWF, AM; ET] l'Acad6miedes Sciences, de MundoCientifico .I98I. El neandertalense Saint-Cesaire. 2:i86-88. [MIM| andmodern human LINDLY, J., AND G. CLARK. n.d.Symbolism A to origins: reply Chase andDibble.MS. [GC, JL] MC COWN, T. D., AND A. KEITH. I939. The Stone Age ofMount Carmel. Vol. 2. The fossil human remains fromthe Levalloiso-

cession.New York:AcademicPress.

[ALI LEVEQUE,

The Stone Age of

MC GUIRE, K. R. I980.

Clarendon Press.[ET] Mousterian. Oxford:

The thirddimen-

D. R. DAM-

Doin. [ET] MOvIUS, H. L., JR. I953.

Yearbook of dertal-like fossils fromtheUpperPleistocene. I7:I69-93. Physical Anthropology fossilede La Quina. Paris:Octave MARTIN, H. I923. L'homme

I4:263-68. MANN, ALAN, AND E. TRINKAUS.

Research hunters theGreatBasin:A caution.Quaternary of

I973.

Cave sites, faunal analysis, and big-game

Neandertal and Nean-

vonKrapina Kroatien. in Weisbaden: W. Kreidel C. Verlag. P. W. I975. Rodents: HANNEY, Their lives and habits.New York: Taplinger. E. C. I979. Principles archaeological HARRIS, of stratigraphy. London:AcademicPress. HARROLD, F. B. I980. A comparative analysis Eurasian of Paleolithic burials.World Archaeology I 9 5-2 I I. I.2: HEIM, J-L. I968. Les restes n6anderthaliensde La Ferrassie. I. lettes.Comptes Rendusdes Seancesde l'Academiedes Sciences, Paris D 266:576-78. Nouvelles donn6es sur la stratigraphie inventairedes squeet

Der Diluviale Mensch

man Evolution I:545-55. NEWELL, RAYMOND R. I984.

pology 21(I):5-51.
OAKLEY,

School of PrehistoricResearch I7:II-7I. andMesolithic burials. HuMUSSI, M. I986. ItalianPalaeolithic

southMousterian cave ofTeshik-Tash, eastern Central Asia. Bulletin theAmerican of Uzbekistan,

The archaeological, humanbiologcontexts a catastrophically-terminated of ical,and comparative Arctic Anthrohouseat Utqiagvik, Alaska(BAR-2). Kataligaaq
K. P., B. G. CAMPBELL, AND T. I. MOLLESON. Editors. Pt. London:Brithominids. 2. Europe. I97I . Catalogueoffossil

OKLADNIKOV,

ish Museum(Natural History).

. I976. Les hommes fossiles La Ferrassie. Le gisement. de I. Les squelettes adultes(craneet squelette tronc). du Archives de l'Institut Paleontologie de HumaineM6moire [HMB] 35.

Uzneandertaltsa grotet va Teshik-Tash, iuzhnyi pogrebeniia site of bekistan (Sredniaia Aziia)" (Investigation theMousterian andburialofa Neanderthal thecave ofTeshik-Tash, in Southern Uzbekistan Paleoliticheskii [Central Asia]),in Teshik-Tash:

A. P. I949. "Issledovanie

musterskoi stoianki i

I90

I CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Volume 30, Number 2, April I989

Euof UpperPaleolithic southwestern . n.d."The early perand biological Behavioral rope,"in Thehumanrevolution: by humans.Edited P. Melof on spectives theorigins modern of Chicago:University ChicagoPress.In larsand C. Stringer. press.[GC, JLJ eviandfossil STRINGER, C. B., AND P. ANDREWS. I988. Genetic humans.Science 239: i263-68. of the dencefor origin modern in and SULLIVAN, ALAN P. 1978. Inference evidence archaeology: Advancesin Archaeoproblems. of A discussion theconceptual I: logicalMethodand Theory I 83-222.
SUTCLIFFE,

man),pp. 7-85. Trudy Palaeolithic chelovek (Teshik-Tash: Antropologii. Instituta Nauchno-Issledovatelskogo leur inhumaient-ils morts? PEYRO NY, D. i92I. Les moust6riens du et de Bulletin la Societ6Historique Archaeologique Peripp. gord, I3 2-39. ses ses Ses . I930. Le Moustier: gisements, industries, 40:48-76, I5 5-76. couches geologiques. RevueAnthropologique Aurignacien. Perigordien, Mousterien, . 1934. La Ferrassie: amis et par offerts ses collegues, et prehistoire d'anthropologie pp. CompteH. Begouen, 23 5-41. disciplesau Professeur du Toulouse:Editions Museum.[HMBJ Paris:Alfred de El6ments pr6histoire. . I948. 5thedition. Costes.[HMBJ in G. I97I. "Versune prehistoirede la mort," La vie QUECHON, specialissue.[CF, pp. pr6historique, 85-93. SciencesetAvenir,
CM] et de ROCHE, J. I976. "La d6couverte la Chapelle-aux-Saints son

Prehistoire3:I-92. de . I939. "Le compte Begouen en P6rigord,"in M6langes

SUTCLIFFE, A. J., D. BRAMWELL, A. KING, AND M. WALKER. in and I976. "Cave paleontology archaeology," Thescienceof

Nature 227:II00-I3. andcollector.

A. J. I970.

Spotted hyena: Crusher, gnawer, digester,

pp. EditedbyT. D. Fordand C. H. D. Cullingford, speleology.

495-52o. New York: Academic Press.

le des dansl'evolution ideesconcemant psychisme influence Edited n6andertaliennes. in des N6andertaliens," Les s6pultures pp. byB. Vandermeersch, I3-25. Nice: ColloqueUISPP.[DWF,AM] childcare,"in Thehumanmirror. of expression Neanderthal pp. Edited M. Richardson, 4I-5 8. BatonRouge:Louisiana by Press.[CG] StateUniversity
TAMAR, AND M. STEKELIS. R. M., AND M.

ROWLETT,

J. SCHNEIDER.

I974. "The material

I977. Mousterian assemblages in Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel. EretzIsrael I3:97-I49. New York:Acaarchaeology. M. B. I976. Behavioral SCHIFFER,
SCHICK,

demicPress.

and Alberta British areaoftheRockyMountains, theSunshine 3 Columbia. Arctic 5:4I I-I 6. man. London: Duckworth. M. L. I980. Neanderthal SHACKLEY, in change Perigord SIMEK, J., AND H. PRICE. n.d. "Chronological Behavin diversity," Thehumanrevolution: lithicassemblage huof on perspectives theorigins modern ioral and biological Chicago:University mans.Edited P. Mellarsand C. Stringer. by ofChicagoPress.In press.[GC, JL] SIMEK, J., AND L. SNYDER. n.d. "Pattemsof changein Upper prehisin diversity," ThePleistocene archaeofaunal Paleolithic Eurasia.Edited H. Dibble andA. Montetby of tory western Press.In press. of University Pennsylvania White. Philadelphia:
SMITH,

SCOTTER,

G. W., AND

S. C. ZOLTAI.

i982. Earth hummocks in

demicPress. Journal Huof andburialat Krapina. . I985. Cannibalism man Evolution I4:203-i6. T U RN E R, C ., A N D G. E. H A N N O N. I 988. "Vegetational evidence in in Europe reclimatic changes southwest for late Quaternary Atlantic Ocean,"in The of lationto theinfluence theNorth R. by millionyears.Edited N. J.Shackleton, G. West, past three
Royal Society of London B 3 I8. [CG] VALLADAS, H., J. L. JORON, G. VALLADAS, B. ARENSBURG, 0. P. GOLDBERG, H. LAVILLE, BAR-YOSEF, A. BELFER-COHEN, L. MEIGNEN, Y. RAK, E. TCHERNOV, A. M. TILLIER, AND B. V A N D E R M E E R S C H. I 9 8 7. Thermoluminescence dates forthe Neanderthalburial site at Kebara in Israel. Nature 330:I59-60. [Po] VALLADAS, H., J. L. REYSS, J. L. JORON, G. VALLADAS, 0. BARI988. ThermoluminesYOSEF, AND B. VANDERMEERSCH. cence dating of Mousterian "Proto-Cro-Magnon" remains from man.Nature 33I:6I4-I6. of Israel and theorigin modern B. I965. Position stratigraphique et chronoVANDERMEERSCH,

[GC, JLJ New York: SWEETING, MARJORIE M. I973. Karstlandforms. Columbia University Press. Nationalarchaeologies: TRIGGER, BRUCE G. I984. Alternative Man I9:355-70. [AG] imperialist. ist,colonialist, New York:AcaNeandertals. TRINKAUS, E. I983. The Shanidar

I970. TheAmudman and H., AND F. TAKAI. Editors. of his cave site.Tokyo:University TokyoPress. in industries UpperPaleolithic SVOBODA, j. I988. "Early vol. in Czechoslovakia," L'hommede Neandertal, 8, La mutation.Edited M. Otte,pp. i69-92. Liege:ERAUL.[GC, JLJ by in of . n.d."Origins theUpperPaleolithic Czechoslovakia," perspecand biological Behavioral in Thehumanrevolution: by humans.Edited P. Mellars of tiveson theorigins modern of Chicago:University ChicagoPress.In press. and C. Stringer. SUZUKI,

and D. Q. Bowen, pp. 45 I-8s . Philosophical Transactions of the

SMITH,

P., AND B. ARENSBURG. I977. A Mousterian skeleton fromKebara Cave. EretzIsrael I3:I64-76. [ET]

in evolution hominid F. H. i982. UpperPleistocene of and of south-central Europe:A review theevidence analysis 23:667-702. [MIMI CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY trends. site R. S. I955. Shanidar Cave,a Paleolithic in northem AnnualReport 1954, pp. 389Institution for Iraq.Smithsonian from Shanidar skeletons ThreeadultNeanderthal AnnualReport Institution for Iraq.Smithsonian Cave,northem
I960.
425.

[GC, JL]

SOLECKI,

logique des restes humains du Paleolithique Moyen du sud-

Annalesde Paleontologie 5i:69-i26. ouestde la France.

. I976. "Les s6pultures n6andertaliennes,"

AcademyofSciences em Iraq.Transactions theNew York of

23:690-99. . I963. I39:I79-93. . I97I.
SOLECKI,

I959, pp. 603-25. northat discoveries Shanidar, . I96I. New anthropological

by fran,aise, vol. i. Edited H. de Lumley, pp. 725-27. Paris:

VLCtEKR, E. I973.

in La prehistoire

N. in Valley, Iraq.Science Prehistory theShanidar people.New York:Knopf. Shanidar:Thefirst flower

A. LEROI-GOURHAN. I96I.

in ogyandarchaeology theNearEast.AnnalsoftheNew York AcademyofSciences95:729-39. from Shanremains skeletal STEWART, D. I977. The Neandertal to of of idarCave,Iraq:A summary findings date.Proceedings [CF, CM] Societyi2i:1i2-65. theAmerican Philosophical resource. L. G. 1979. Caves: A paleoanthropological STRAUS, World IO:33I-39. Archaeology 1 Spain.Jourand cave sitesin Cantabrian i982. Carnivores Research 38:75-96. nal ofAnthropological of Spain.Science . i985. StoneAgeprehistory northem
230:50I-7.

R. S., AND

Paleoclimatol-

childfrom skeleton a Neandertal of Postcranial 2:537-44. [ET] U.S.S.R. Journal HumanEvolution of Kiik-Koba, and WARWICK, G. T. I976. "Geomorphology caves,"in ThesciEditedbyT. D. FordandC. H. D. Cullingenceofspeleology. ford, 6I-I26. New York:AcademicPress. pp. woodrat WELLS, P. V., AND C. D. JORGENSEN. I964. Pleistocene and middens climatic changein theMohaveDesert.Science
I43:II7I-74. WHITE, RANDALL.

CNRS.

WOLPOFF, M. H., J. N. SPUHLER, F. H. SMITH, J. RADOVCIC, G. POPE, D. W. FRAYER, R. ECKHARDT, AND G. CLARK. I988. [GC, JL] Modern human origins. Science 24I:772-74. disturbance WOOD, W. R., AND D. L. JOHNSON. I978.Asurveyof processes in archaeological site formation. Advances in Ar1 Methodand Theory :3 I 5-8 I. chaeological age. London:Croom Helm. WYMER, J. J. I982. ThePalaeolithic

Paleothe i982. Rethinking Middle/Upper lithictransition.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 23:I69-92. WOLPOFF, M. H. I980. Paleoanthropology. New York:Knopf.