On the Evidence for Neandertal Burial

Author(s): L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, Yuri Smirnov, Ralph S. Solecki, Paola Villa, Thomas Weber
and Robert H. Gargett
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Jun., 1989), pp. 322-330
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743526 .

Accessed: 08/02/2015 17:30
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

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

3221 CURRENT

RENDELL,

H. M.,

ANTHROPOLOGY

E. HAILWOOD,

AND

R. W. DENNELL.

I987.

resultof more criticalanalysis.I am especiallythinking

artefact-bear- ofmultipleburialsand burialsat variouslevels in a sindatingofa two-million-year-old

Palaeomagnetic
Pakistan.Earthand Planetary
inghorizonat Riwat,northern
gle cave. Adornmentis no criterion,since this can beScience Letters 85:488-96.

come fossilizedbyaccidentas well. Ifsome oftheNeanI986. On the"Lower

W., AND D. STAPERT.
interpretation. dertal "graves" were to withstandthe presentcritique
Palaeolithic"siteLa Belle Roche:An alternative

ROEBROEKS,

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:369-71.

N. 1984.

SALVATORI,

Un Italianodi 700

000

annifa.Airone

40:78-IOI.

on flintin
modifications
D. I976. Somenaturalsurface
Palaeohistoria I8:7-4I.
theNetherlands.
Pit,
researchin theKwintelooijen
. I98I. Archaeological
MededelingenRijks
ofRhenen,theNetherlands.
municipality
GeologischeDienst,n.s.,24: I 39-5 6.
. n.d.A progress
reporton theRhenenindustry
(central
andits stratigraphical
context.Palaeohistoria.In
Netherlands)
press.
excavationsat 'Ubeidiya
M. I966. Archaeological
STEKELIS,
IsraelAcademyofSciencesand
I960-63. Jerusalem:
Humanities.
STAPERT,

STEKELIS,

M.,

0.

BAR-YOSEF,

AND

T. SCHICK.

I969. Ar-

chaeologicalexcavationsat 'UbeidiyaI964-66. Jerusalem:

IsraelAcademyofScienceandHumanities.

On theEvidencefor
NeandertalBurial
L. P. LOUWE

KOOIJMANS

InstitutvoorPrehistorie,RijksuniversiteitLeiden,
Postbus 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.
24 x 88

gives plausible alternative

Gargett (CA 30:I57-77)
taphonomic explanations for the major cases traditionally presented as proof of-be it incidentalpurposefulburial of Neandertal man by his fellow human beings.We were preparedforhis conclusionby the
paperofChase and Dibble (i 987) on thetotalityofNeandertal symbolic behaviour,and it is this broaderview
that one misses here,especially in this anthropological
journal.
For one thing,we should tryto discriminatebetween
the burial or coveringof corpses forverypractical,for
example, hygienic,reasons and burial with ideational
motivation.Burialin itselfdoes not sayverymuch about
Palaeolithic man's ideas or level of abstractthinking,
and it is preciselyhere that some of the basic and most
challengingquestions lie. One should firstdistinguish
intentionalburials and then tryto identifyburialswith
to identify
"symbolicmeaning,"and, while it is difficult
sound archaeologicalcorrelatesforthe latterthat work
in the Palaeolithic,one should try.Intentionallyplaced
gravegoods (otherthan adornment)seem to be the best;
considerablequantitiesof red ochre rank second,while
specific,traditionalbody posturescould be a clue, too.
Gargett'scriticalapproachto Neandertalburialstends
to overstresstheMiddle/LatePalaeolithiccontrastwhen
Late Palaeolithic burialsare not givensimilarattention.
Quite a numberofLate Palaeolithic"burials"mightneed
to be rejected as such or treatedmore cautiously as a

and some of the earlyUpper Palaeolithic "graves"were

to taphonomicproto be explained away by referring
cesses, then the Middle/Late Palaeolithic transition
would be more gradual. A major differenceis not so
much the symbolic behaviourreflectedin burial itself
but the presenceof adornment,absent with Neandertal
man and presentin Late Palaeolithic burials fromthe
Aurignacianonward (forinstance, Grotte des Enfants,
Menton) concurrentwith the appearanceof rock art as
anotherexpressionof symbolicthinking.
Chase and Dibble (i987) state that"it appearsthatthe
actual numberof cases whereintentionalburialis more
or less certainis small comparedto the total numberof
burials found to date" (p. 272). Perhaps the numberis
even zero and it is all pure taphonomy,just like "cannibalism" and the "cave bear cult." Aftera period of
upgrading,Neandertalman is now beingdowngradedon
the modernityscale. In respectto burial it would, however,be interestingto investigatewhetherotheranimals
are also accidentallyfossilized more or less complete
and articulatedand in what numbers.The cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) mightrankfirstbecause of its use of deep
caves as wintersleeping dens. Are thereany otheranimals on this list, and, if not, can this be explained by
man's livingand/orsleepingin caves, in contrastto animals? Perhapssome argumentsforthepurposefulcovering of bodies could be foundalong this line.
Since "the evidence fromMiddle Palaeolithic burials
does not demonstratethe presenceof symbolismor culturallydefinedvalues" (Chase and Dibble i987:276), we
should look to otherfields,and I would like to point to
the sometimesverycarefuland sophisticatedshapingof
handaxes, far beyond the practical requirementsfor a
cuttingedgeand raw-material
ready-made,transportable
supply.There is no contextualevidencepointingin this
direction,but one should not exclude thepossibilitythat
handaxesas such or especiallycarefullymade specimens
had special meanings in Middle Palaeolithic society.
There are artifactsshowing a beginningof regionalisation of material culture in the later Middle Palaeoofa CentralEuropeanprovince
lithic-the differentiation
with Blattspitzenand a WesternEuropean one lacking
them. This is a process that becomes more marked
in the Upper Palaeolithic-again, a gradualratherthan
an abrupttransition.
I think that we are confrontedwith Neandertals as
essentiallynon-modernand that this is of greatimportance forour studyof theirculturalremains.This view
is corroboratedby the factthat Mousterianinterassemblage variation cannot be well understoodin termsof
ethnoarchaeologicalanalogy.The organisationaland behavioural systemof Neandertalsmust have been quite
The sofromthose ofmodernhunter-gatherers.
different
lution to the Mousterian problem calls for "independent"prehistoricreasoning.PerhapsNeandertalsdid not

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Volume30, Number3, JuneI989

hunt as much as is commonly suggested,relyingon
scavengingas faras largeranimals were concerned(BinfordI985). A special systemofflintlogistics,combining
curatedand expedienttechnologiesin different
ways at
sites thatdiffered
in functionand access to raw material,
mightlie behind the remarkableassemblage variation
(Roebroeks,Kolen, and Rensink I988).
Gargett's contributionmakes good sense, but we
should extend our lines of reasoningto include the degree of modernitynot of Neandertal man alone but of
pre-MagdalenianLate Palaeolithicman as well-instead
of consideringthe firstHomo sapiens sapiens in Europe
fullymodem and contrastingwith the poor Neandertals
in everyrespect.
YURI

SMIRNOV

InstituteofArchaeology,U.S.S.R. Academy of
Sciences,Dm. Ulianov I9, Moscow II9036, U.S.S.R.
2i XI 88

The firstNeandertal burials were discoveredat Spy in

i886 (Mortillet I900, I9I4; Boule and Anthonyi9ii;

see also Bouyssonieand BouyssonieI909),

and im-

1 323

a man-mademortuarystructure(a pit and/ormound) is

created or a suitable natural structure(a pit or niche)
selected,the corpse is placed in it (the body's condition
varyingfromcomplete articulationto complete disarticulation, e.g., Teshik-Tash [Ullrich I986]), and the
structureis closed. Thus the major criterionforintentional burial is the existence of an artificiallycreated
and/orartificiallyclosed space containinghuman remains. The archaeologistis thereforeexpected to discriminatebetween man-made and natural structures2
and between redepositedmaterialsand others.The excavatorsactuallytriedto do so, to the best oftheirabilities and knowledge,which in tum dependedon the contemporarylevel of research.
Gargett'ssedimentologicalscenarios are based upon
schematic drawingsand lithologicallyuseless descriptions by the excavators (who were archaeologists,not
geologists).Can the conclusions drawn on the basis of
such poor geological evidence reallybe valuable? Most
ofthe sites thathe considershave not been examinedby
professionalgeologists,3and theproblemsthisposes can
hardlybe unambiguouslysolved even with the help of
modernstratigraphicresearch.On the otherhand, currentresearchdoes not contradictthe excavators'observations of certainanthropogenicfactors,both constructive and destructive,that demonstratethe deliberate
natureof the burials discovered.
Unable to arguewithGargett'sspeculationsin detail,I
should like to ask him a fewgeneralquestions:
i. How can he account forthe absence of relatively
completeor anatomicallyarticulatedskeletonsat Eurasian Lower Paleolithic sites (with the dubious exceptionsofthoseat Bourgeois-Delanay,Petralona,and Liaoning) and their unexpected occurrencein ratherlarge
quantities at Middle Paleolithic sites (22 adult and i 8
children'sskeletons,of which 30 are articulated)?
2. What naturalcauses can be responsibleforthe concentrationof 75% of Mousterian burials in threerelaareas: southwesttivelysmall and geologicallydifferent
ern France,the Crimea, and the Levant?
3. Why did the natural agents burymen much more
frequentlythan women (the overallratiois 2I:9, with 6
or 7 men to 2 women in Europeand I4 men to 7 women
in Asia), and why are adults and childrenequally represented in WesternEurope (9 or ii adults to 9 children)
while childrenpredominatein the Crimea (5: i) and are
in the Near East (io:22)?
underrepresented
4. Whydid the naturalagents "prefer"to burybodies
lyingflexedon theirrightsides and orientedtransverse
to the entranceof the shelter,regardlessof the orientation of the site and whetherit was withinthe shelteror
on the terracein frontof it (Smirnovn.d.)?

mediatelytherewere attemptsto proclaimthemromantic dreams. These attemptsgraduallybecame less frequent as the hypothesisof the improbabilityof Middle
Paleolithic intentional burials was virtually buried
under a mass of freshevidence. Yet, sceptics readyto
denythe undeniable seem to be foundeven today.
Gargett'sattemptat denyingthe existenceof deliberate intermentsin the Mousterianis made fromthepoint
ofview ofgeomorphologyand lithology.His articlecontains a fairlydetailed assessment of the geological contextsof20 Neandertal(and,to be precise,Neandertaloid)
skeletons,I6 of which are complete or relativelycomplete.' It also containsarchaeologicaldata (farfromfull
and not always correct)testifying,in the excavators'
opinion,to the non-naturalcharacteroftheburials.This
archaeological evidence is practicallyignoredby Gargett,who speculates on the probabilityof the natural
originofthe contextsand proposessophisticatedgeological scenarios featuringalmost everylogically possible
agent except human beings. Accordingto him, the deposits (includingthe culturalhorizons,which inevitably
turn out to have been redeposited)have been created
by natural processes, and thereforeall the Middle
Paleolithic burials must be physical phenomena, althoughtheiroriginis sometimesunclear.
Gargetthas a rathervague notionofdeliberatehuman
interment.He at once expectsextraordinary
indications
of intention in burials and ignores such indications
when theyoccur (e.g.,at Regourdou).Intentionalburial,
as opposed to intentionalexposure (which is the other 2. Even an inexperienced
such as Solecki,afterproarchaeologist
extremeofthe finalact ofmortuarytreatment),
is a pro- claimingthreeadult individuals(ShanidarI-3) rockfallvictims,
cess ofconcealingthe bodyor some ofits partswhereby noticedthe absence of rockmeal (a sure signof rockfall)in the
stonepile overthe Shanidari remainsand came to the obvious
6i9).
conclusionthatit was artificial
in origin(Soleckii960:6I3,
i. He doesnotmention
at leasti 6 otherskeletons
ofthesame 3. Geologistswere,however,presentduringthe discoveryof the
et al. i986) and didnotdenythatthey
speciesand i9 offossilHomo sapienssapiensthatare also com- burialsat Kebara(Bar-Yosef
weredeliberate.
monlytreated
as intentional
MiddlePaleolithic
burials.

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

324

1 CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

I think that both these general questions and more have been redepositedin thepresentposition,we cannot
specificquestions that could be asked about particular be certain."Bone breakagedue to the weightof overlyburialsmightprove difficultforGargettto answer.
ing sediment burden is not unusual. Afterinterment,
the site was infestedwith rodents,whose bones were
foundin close proximityto the skeleton.I mustadd here
RALPH
S. SOLECKI
that rodentinfestationaroundNeanderthalskeletal reColumbia University,
DepartmentofAnthropology,
mains was a normal occurrence. Stewart (I977), whose
New York,N. Y. 10027, U.S.A. 8 xi 88
hands were fullwith the exhumationof ShanidarII and
later III, personally took over the task of exposing
I am not sure how to critiqueGargett'spaper,because a ShanidarIV. It was duringthis time thatthe long bones
number of key reports directly associated with the of ShanidarVI were foundat the side of ShanidarIV, as
Shanidar Cave fieldworkhave evidentlynot been con- thoughpushed aside to make room forthe latter.Consulted. I find particularlydisturbingthat the publica- traryto what Gargettsays, ShanidarII, III, V, and others
tions of T. Dale Stewart,our SmithsonianInstitution with Shanidar IV were not "virtually complete."
colleague and physical anthropologist,who accom- ShanidarI was documentedwith still and movie campaniedthe I960 expeditionand tookpartin theexhuma- eras and diagrammedin a number of views. A collection of a numberof the Neanderthalskeletons,and Ar- tion of broken animal bones was associated with the
lette Leroi-Gourhan,of the Musee de l'Homme, our remainsas foodrefuse.Over the middle of the skeleton
palynologist,have been omitted.
was an unnaturalheap of portable-sizedstones,unlike
Because Gargett makes most of Shanidar IV (the any rockfallfeatureI had seen in the cave. Our only
flower burial), I think that he would find Leroi- conclusion was that the stones had been purposely
Gourhan's(I975) articleon theflowerpollens especially placed overthe remainsofthe dead. I must add herethat
instructive.(Forhis information,
she has an earlierver- mysoil samplingswereroutine,somethingI had learned
sion in French.)She concluded fromher studies that at fromearlierexperiencein the excavation of an Adena
least seven species of complete flowershad been in- mound in West Virginia.ShanidarIII, contraryto what
troducedinto the cave at the same time. The samples Gargett thinks, was probably alive and recuperating
were found at a distance of more than I5 m fromthe when he was killed by a rockfall.
cave entrance,and she believes that neitherbirds nor
ShanidarCave lies in a veryremoteand difficultarea
rodentsnor the presence of mammalian coprolitescan ofnorthernIraq,and it has fora long timebeen impossiexplain the presence of the assemblage of flowers- ble to resume work at the site. (We made one abortive
unique among her samples. It would have taken a hur- tryten yearsago.) The reportof our investigationsthere
ricanewind to blow bouquets offlowers(not singlepol- has been delayedas a consequence.We have determined
lens) and veryaccuratelypinpointthe site of Shanidar that despite the lack of criticalgeological information
IV. Moreover,the plants representedwere in flowerbe- (ourFrenchPleistocenegeologistcould notgeta visa) we
tween the end of May and the beginningof Julyaccord- shall publish the state of our informationat presenton
ing to Leroi-Gourhan,and ShanidarIV was excavatedon the work at ShanidarCave. In it will be the details that
we hope will satisfyGargett'scriticisms.It is unnecesAugust 6.
The sediment around the skeleton seemed to be sary to belabor the point that excavation and retrieval
lighter in weight and looser above and around the techniques have improvedsince the time the Shanidar
ShanidarIV skeleton than the sedimentbelow, which Neanderthalswere recovered.For instance,flotationof
was loamy and tough.This would indicatedisturbance. sedimentsas a generalpracticewas thenunknown.
I will leave it to my colleagues to discuss themeritsof
The sedimenton which the skeleton lay was dark and
humic. Under Leroi-Gourhan'smicroscope,it not only Gargett'sproposalto denythe NeanderthalsoutsideIraq
was richer in pollens but contained numerous small any human feelingsfortheirdead. For ShanidarCave,
wood fragments.Althoughsome of the wood was car- the evidence appears to make this argumenthard to
bonized,the majorityof the specimenswere not. In one swallow.
ofher slides was identifiedthe scale of a butterfly
wing.
It is supposedthata butterfly
perhaps6o,ooo yearsago or
more had alighted on a flowerthat was subsequently PAOLA VILLA
introducedinto the cave. More than 2,000 pollen grains Museum, Campus Box 315, Universityof Colorado,
were identifiedby Leroi-Gourhanin the collections of Boulder, Colo. 80309-03 5, U.S.A. 20 x 88
threeof the samples, and "the majorityofthese pollens
came fromthose species which were presentin clusters, It is always usefulto questionwidelyacceptedscenarios
thatis, those which arrivedat theirpositionin the cave and to point out problemsin theirdocumentationand
as actualflowers"(Leroi-Gourhan
supportingevidence.Gargett'spaperpresentsa provocaI975:563).
Afterrecheckingthe evidence, I changed my mind tive argument,but it is less useful than it could have
about thenatureofthe deathofShanidarIV, judgingthat been.
Firstofall, it omitsthe I983 discoveryofa Neandertal
it had not been killed in situ by a rockfall.My notes of
August6, I960, say in part,"There were no largestones burialat Kebara,where,accordingto the excavators,the
overtheskeleton,but it was evidentlycrushed-it could skeletonlay in a shallow pit the marginsofwhich were

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Volume 30, Number 3, June1989

clearlyvisible in the area behind the shouldersthough
indistinctelsewhere. Several lines of evidence indicate
thatthegravehad been leftopen and thebodyallowed to
decompose undisturbedand protectedin situ until the
cranium(notfound)was removedwithoutdisplacingthe
other bones in any way (this is shown by the correct
anatomical position of the jaw and of the rightupper
molar foundto the side of the lower one). The rightleg
(also missing)was probablyremovedin a similarfashion. Only then, apparently,was the pit covered with
earth( Arensburget al. I985; Bar-Yosefet al. I986a, b). It
is probably not a coincidence that other Middle
Paleolithic burials in undisturbedcontext(e.g., Qafzeh
I0 and I 5, perhapsLa Ferrassie6) show a similarabsence
of some body parts (VandermeerschI969, Tillier I982,
DefleurI987). The same phenomenonhas been observed
in some Upper Paleolithic burials (e.g., GrottaPaglicci
[Mezzena and Palma di Cesnola I972; fora Frenchsumwhile isolated bones have
mary,see May I987:8I-83]),
also been found in pristinesituations (e.g., the ProtoMagdalenian female cranium at Abri Pataud [Movius
I975, I9771. The unexpectedcomplexitiesofPaleolithic
mortuarypracticeshave certainlycontributedto the intepretivecontroversiesreflectedin the literatureand in
this paper.
There is no doubtthatthe documentationofNeandertal burials excavated between i908 and I960 is extremelyinadequate; it is easy to agreewith Gargetton
this point,and we may be temptedto accept his analysis if not his conclusions. However,I findseveral statements disconcertingor misleading.
Accordingto Gargett,the essential criterionforpurposeful intermentis "a new stratum," i.e., a welldefinedgrave fill and grave walls, with a "visible contact" between the fill and the overlyingsediments.By
this criterion,22 of 28 Upper Paleolithic burials in
Franceand Italy would not qualifyas burials,including
the double burialat Grottedes Enfants(EnfantsI and III)
and the GrottaPaglicci burial of a boy whose body did
not restin a pit but was nonethelesscoveredwithochre.
Likewise,no pit marginswere seen forthe Qafzeh 9 and
io double burial of a woman and a child.
Absence ofvisible pit cannotbe equated with absence
of purposefulinhumation.Accordingto Gargett'sown
scenario, graves are features dug in preexistingsedimentsthatremainedopen fora veryshorttimeand were
oftenfilledwith the same dug-outsediments.Even an
experienced and meticulous excavator would have
difficulty
identifying
short-livedfeatureson the basis of
sedimentobservationsalone. At FontbregouaCave, excavations directed by Jean Courtin have uncovered
manyshallow hollows thatcontainedbone piles (including human bones) and had remained open for a very
short time. Feature marginswere difficultto see and
oftenabsent,yethorizontaland verticalplots ofmaterials and of theirrefittinglinks prove that such features
existed (Villa, Helmer, and Courtin I985; Villa et al.
I986a, b).
I am not sayingthat verticalplots and refitting
links
are useful techniques for studyingburials. The point

1 325

here is that thereis more than one way to reconstruct

human activities and more to burial archaeologythan
gravewalls and layerboundaries.Associationaldata and
the relativeposition of bones can providecrucial information. In this respect,some of the observationsof the
old-timearchaelogistscarrymoreweightthanthispaper
suggests. For instance, according to Garrett"nothing
about the dispositionof La Ferrassie2 is suggestiveof
purposefulburial." In fact,the bodyofLa Ferrassie2 was
stronglyflexed(more so than La FerrassieI), the right
knee being only i 6 cm fromthe head of the humerus
i
(CapitanandPeyrony

iI).

The legsoftheLa Chapelle

Neandertal were also stronglyflexed,the knees being

close to the chest ("les rotules etaient au niveau de la
poitrine"[Bouyssonie,
Bouyssonie,and BardonI9I31). The

heels of the AmudNeandertalwere about i 0-I5

cm

fromthe buttocks(see the drawingin Suzuki and Takai

I970).
As far as I know, rigormortis should cause an
extensionof the legs. If so, a stronglyflexedpositionis
an argumentin favorof bodyhandlingand burial,especially in cases such as La Chapelle, where the pit was
largerthenthe space occupied by thebodyand could not
have dictatedthe body position.
As he himselfmakes clear, Gargettoffersus no new
observations, only reinterpretationsof observations
done by othersdecades ago,withoutthebenefitofdirect
examinationof the sites and theirmaterials.Thus his
interpretations
appear no less speculative and undocumentedthan those he wishes to reject.Forinstance,the
pit at La Chapelle mightbe a solutionbasin by an undergroundstream,but we are given no concretereason for
overBouyssonie's.And why
choosingthisinterpretation
should the cave entranceat La Chapelle have been only
50 cm high at the time of the Neandertalburial?In the
published sections the cave ceiling is about 2 m above
the base of Stratum i, where the pit opened; the cave
floorand Stratumi show a dip downwardand away from
the cave interior,not upward as requiredby Gargett's
scenario. Again, the informationfromShanidaris certainlyinadequate, but Gargett'sinterpretation
requires
us to believe that in a cave 53 m wide and 40 m long
four individuals (Shanidar 4, 6, 8, and the infant)
died naturallyin exactly the same spot, separatedby
io (not I9) cm of sediments. I find the argument
against Regourdouunnecessarilylong-drawn.In other
words,I object not so much to Gargett'saim as to the
way he argueshis case.
Forhistoricalor contingentreasons,the evidencefrom
most of these sites has been verypoorlyreported.There
are no detailed plans and sections, no precise
proveniencerecords,veryfew photographs,only some
very schematic, impressionisticdrawings;there is no
stronglink between observationsand reconstructions.
These deficienciesare good enoughreason to doubtthe
excavators'interpretations;
this comes out verywell in
Gargett's review. To inject into the discussion other
elaborateand undocumentedscenariosdoes not help the
cause, which is to advance burial archaeology.
It may be interestingto note that some Frenchscholarsofthepast didnotwait foradvancesin geoarchaeology

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

326 1 CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

to expressdoubtsabout the realityofNeandertalburials

In I914 de
and to formulatealternativeinterpretations.
Mortillet suggested that rock breakdown and natural
burialwere the cause ofthe deathand preservationofLa
Ferrassie i and 2, not trustingthe evidence of a burial
"foundby two priestswho must naturallybelieve that
even early man had religious feelings" (Roche 1976).
Boule doubtedthe man-madenatureof the La Chapelle
pit because ofdisbelieflike Gargett'sin theNeandertals'
capacityforcultureand the factthathe had not seen the
Bouyssonies'excavationwith his own eyes. This goes to
show thatpre-Ig60s archaeologistscould be as sceptical
and argumentativeas we are.
THOMAS

WEBER

Vorgeschichte,
LandesmuseumfAir
9-10, 4020 Halle (Saale),
Richard-Wagner-Strasse
GermanDemocratic Republic. io xi 88
It seems a "natural"phenomenonthatwe findfewerand
fewerburials as we go deeper and deeperinto the past.
Fischer (I956) argued that Mesolithic people did not
bury their dead on the basis of the absence of "real"
Mesolithic gravesin CentralEurope comparedwith the
largenumberofNeolithic ones beginningwith the early
Linear Potteryperiod. Subsequently,however, "real"
Mesolithicburialswere found,and it was no longernecessaryto explain theirabsence.
With the transitionfrom the Middle to the Upper
Palaeolithic, of course, we have a differentsituation.
The question of Neanderthalburials is not only one of
the nature of these people's rituals in connectionwith
the dead but one of the evolutionof ritualbehaviourin
this connection in general. It is, however,difficultto
discuss it ex silentio. It is importantto rememberthat
the regularuse ofbone and antlerwas once considereda
characteristicdistinguishingthe Upperfromthe Middle
Palaeolithic,whereas todaywe know thatthereis a distinction only in the techniques of boneworking-the
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic technologybeing borrowed from stoneworking (flaking) and the Upper
Palaeolithic seeing the rise of specialized technologies
includingsawingand polishing.Thus we oughtto recognize that burial rituals also evolved and that the clear
Upper Palaeolithic findsare the final stages in a long
process of developmentof methodsof dealingwith the
dead.
Ullrich (I988) has attempteda scheme forthis developmentbeginningwith various postmortemmanipulations (perhapsartificialdisarticulation)of the bodyduring the time of late Homo erectus, evidenced by cut
markson the oftenisolatedbones (e.g.,at Zhoukoudian).
A numberof findsof earlyH. sapiens (e.g.,H. sapiens
praesapiens) are only partial (oftenisolated skulls),but
in most of these cases this may be a resultofgeological
circumstances (redeposition during the Pleistocene,
etc.). Thereforewe can expect to findcomplete skeletons,especiallyin caves, withtheirprotectedsediments.
Ullrich describes a large number of modificationsof

Neanderthalbones (some ofthe evidenceis unclear)but

suggestsa gradual increase in burial (includingthe Le
Moustier adolescent [Drossler i988]). In this light the
large numberof relativelycompleteskeletonsin different stratigraphic
positions (and thereforenot the result
ofa singlerockfall)at Shanidarand the evidencefromLa
Ferrassiei, Le Moustier,and Teshik-Tash can be better
understoodas burialsthan as randomlypreservedbodies
in caves with rapidsedimentation.(Undersuch circumstances we would normallyexpect signs of "bioturbation" or "bioredeposition"by hyaenas,etc.) This explanation seems to me the more probable in that there
are-in my opinion-no definitedifferencesbetween
thesedimentsobservedwithinthegravepitsand outside
them.It has to be takeninto account thatthe onlymaterial available forfillingthe pit would have been the cave
sedimentsthatwere therebeforeand thatstructuraldifferencesare not easy to observe under the changing
sedimentationconditions of a cave. In the futurewe
must excavate such findswith extremecare if we are
to find a clear answer to the question of Neanderthal
burial.

Reply
ROBERT

H. GARGETT

Berkeley,Calif., U.S.A.

II89

In my paperI criticizedthe evidencethathas been used

to arguethatNeandertalsburiedthe dead. Of necessity,I
used publishedreports-flaws, shortcomings,and allto develop alternativeexplanationsforwhat are viewed
as intentionallyburied Neandertal remains.I proposed
expectable sedimentologicaland taphonomicprocesses
thatlogicallyshouldhave been ruledout beforehominid
behaviourwas invokedto explain the relativelyrareoccurrenceof articulatedpartialor nearlycompleteNeandertal skeletons in the fossil record. Because nature
could not be ruled out in any of the cases I examined,I
arguedthatwe should no longerassume thatpurposeful
disposal of the dead occurredin the Middle Paleolithic.
In what follows I will address only specificcomplaints
thatI did not coverin myfirstreply.It will be necessary,
however,to repeatsome of the same themesadequately
to answer the questions raised by these latest comments.
Smirnov criticizes me for using the available schematic profiles and rudimentarysedimentarydescriptions of the originalinvestigatorsand yet is willing to
accept inferencesof burial based on the same information. I have to ask the question that he does: "Can the
conclusions [ofthe originalworkers]drawnon the basis
ofsuch poorgeologicalevidencereallybe valuable?" On
what does Smimov,or anyoneelse, forthatmatter,base
his faithin Neandertalburial if not the conclusions of
the originalinvestigators?And on what did they base
their conclusions if not the sediments they recovered
and describedin theirreports,which Smirnovmaintains
are inadequate to formthe basis of valid criticisms?

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Volume 30, Number 3, June1989 I 327

He assertsthat I practicallyignorethe archaeological
evidence (or thatI have it wrong)and thatI treatit, too,
as havingbeen depositednaturally,not byhominids.On
the contrary,I considerthe archaeologicalsedimentsa
given,and nowherein my paper (exceptwhereit is warranted)do I suggest that they were deposited by nonhominid agents. The sites were undoubtedly living
places forNeandertals (which explains the presence of
unmistakableevidenceforoccupationoverlongperiods)
and, not coincidentally,dyingplaces, too.
I do notknowwhatSmirnovis alludingto whenhe sugindicationsof
geststhatI "at once [expect]extraordinary
intentionin burials and [ignore]such indicationswhen
theyoccur (e.g.,at Regourdou)."It would have been better if he had been more specificabout the evidence he
refersto; if he had pointed to evidence that any of the
rockfeaturesat Regourdouwere producedby hominids
and not the result of natural cave breakdown,I would
have been much interested.
He is correctin sayingthat archaeologistsshould be
createdand
expectedto discriminatebetweenartificially
natural structures.His contentionthat the originalinvestigatorsattempted"to the best of theirabilities and
knowledge"to distinguishbetweennaturaland cultural
sedimentsgiven the "contemporarylevel of research"
does little to persuade me that they went far enough.
Smirnov considers that my "sophisticated geological
scenarios"include every"logicallypossibleagentexcept
human beings." If the alternativesI proposeare logical
and possible (as I believe themto be), whywere theynot
in all cases explicitlyruledout? And whyshouldnatural
process, if capable of producingseeminglyanomalous
featuresin archaeologicalcontexts,be accordedless responsibilitythan assumed hominidbehavior?
Solecki reassertshis originalposition that the sediments above the remains of Shanidar i looked "unlike
any rockfallfeature[he] had seen in the cave." Cave
sediments are more variable than those of any other
depositionalenvironment.This is demonstrableeven at
Shanidar Cave, where huge blocks of rubble are juxtaposedwith "rockmeal" and finerparticlesthroughout
the deposits. In spite of Smirnov's belief that "rock
meal" is the sure sign of a rockfall,catastrophicceiling
collapse need not have been the only patternof breakdown in the cave. Stones formingpartofthe coveringof
Shanidar i could easily have been added afterthe individual was buried and might have been the result of
processes that I argue createdsome of the rock piles at
Regourdou-a fissureopeningin the ceilingcan produce
similarfeatures.As to the low probabilityofsuch a situation's occurringabove the skeletonofa Neandertal,the
likelihood of any remainspreservationin a less conducive environmentwould be even lower.
For the nine Shanidarspecimens (or,forthat matter,
any ofthe claimed Neandertalburials)to have been preservedrequiredthe coincidenceof skeletal remainsand
the sedimentaryconditionsnecessaryforpreservation,
whetherthose conditions were natural or intentional
burial. A corollaryof this must be used to explain the
Neandertal
predominanceofunarticulated,fragmentary

remains-unless we are to believe thatindividualparts

buried,an explanationI findwholly
were differentially
unsatisfying.The vast majorityof known Neandertals
were probablynot buried as corpses but left lyingexposed. This does not seem to have been the case forthe
few articulated,practicalor nearlycompletespecimens
whose depositionis in question.
The ShanidarNeandertalswere probablynot the only
inhabitantsof the cave throughtens of thousands of
years. Fossilization is a rare occurrence-the nine preservedare rarities,thereis littledoubt.But theirpreservation is clearlythe resultof special circumstancesthat
Villa and others call "coincidence," with the implication that theycould not have occurrednaturally.With
no way of predictingthe probabilityof preservation
based on considerationsof expectable taphonomicand
sedimentaryprocesses,and on the unwarrantedassumption that such coincidencesmust have been nearlyimpossible,previousworkershave seen no alternativebut
thatintentionalNeandertalbehaviorwas responsible.In
contrastto what has gone before,I would contendthat,
withincertainlimits,it is possible to predictthe likelihood of even a seeminglyhighrate ofpreservationsuch
as thatobservedat Shanidar.Caves and rocksheltersthat
are breakingdown rapidlybecause of theirlithological
characteristicsand active tectonism are likely to entomb more individuals. At Krapina the remains of 43
individuals were sealed in the sandstone rubble (althoughit seems none qualifyas "burials" forSmirnov).
Thus, although post-depositionalprocesses were obviously kinderto the ShanidarNeandertalsthan to those
at Krapina (Russell I987), the occurrenceof nine ir -,.he
depositsat Shanidarneed not be viewed as improbabk;le.
Villa raises the question of the "coincidence" of
Shanidar 4, 6, 8, and 9 in proximityto one another.
While it is no doubta coincidence,thereis no reasonto
accept that it could not have occurrednaturally.The
area of the cave that yieldedall nine sets of Neandertal
remains is directlybeneath a huge shaftdevelopingin
the ceiling.It is responsibleforthe relativelyrapidrate
of sedimentation(at times including catastrophicroof
collapse) in evidence in the cave and no doubt forthe
preservationof the nine Neandertals.(I neversuggested
thatone rockfallsealed all ofthe Shanidarspecimens,as
Weber mistakenlywrites.) The microenvironmentin
the natural rockfallniche in which the remains were
found can account forthe preservationof the four-it
provideda protectiveenvironmentforbones thatmight
have been trampledor otherwise disturbedby subsequent occupants,thus reducingthe chances ofpreservation.
Of thefourindividualsin this "multipleburial,"8 and
hardly
9 are representedonly by a few bone fragments,
what one would expect if they had been intentionally
buried as corpses (nine vertebraeof the infantand a
a portionof
two humeralfragments,
maxillaryfragment,
the rightradius,and a portionof the rightfibulaof the
adult are all thatremain).Iftheyhad been buriedat the
same time as either4 or 6, theyshould have been much
better preserved. Furthermore,the "long bones of

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

328 1 CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Shanidar 6 were found at the side of Shanidar 4, as

I am not certainwhy bodypositionshould be held up
though pushed aside to make room" (Solecki). If as evidenceofmortuarytreatment,exceptby analogyto
Shanidar6 had been previouslyburied,it seems unlikely well-understoodrecenthuman practices.It is logically
that the long bones would have been "pushed aside" to insufficientby itself even when dealing with modern
make roomforShanidar4; it is much moreprobablethat humans, except in the presenceof otherevidence such
the skeleton of a previouslyburied individual would as a new stratumcreated at the time of burial. I have
have been truncatedin the process ofpreparinga grave. previouslyprovidedevidence that a flexedposition can
Finally,there seems to be no logical reason to infer occur naturallyand that death in a flexedposition rethat the remains of the four were contemporary, sults in a flexed corpse (which I have observed,rigor
whetherShanidar4 and the restwere separatedby 9 or mortisand all). Thus thepositionofthe corpsecannotbe
I9 cm (thelatterfigureis a mistake,as Villa pointsout). used alone as evidence for purposefuldisposal of the
The superpositionoftheremainsarguesagainstcontem- dead. Contra Villa, that the bedrock depressionat La
porarydeposition,and theirdifferent
states of preserva- Chapelle-aux-Saintswas considerablylarger than the
tion (8 and 9 highlyfragmentary,
6 less so, and 4 in space takenbythe skeletonis betterevidencethatit was
relativelygood condition and still articulated)support not a case of mortuarytreatmentthan thatthe position
the contentionthat 6, 8, and 9 may have been deposited ofthe skeletonis evidencethatit was flexedforburial.I
at different
times and buried gradually,followedby 4, am not convincedthatthereis anybut a fortuitouscomwhich was buriedin a roofcollapse and thus protected bination of Neandertal skeleton and naturaldepression
at La Chapelle-aux-Saintsproducingwhat has been confromfurtherdisturbance.
Solecki reiteratesLeroi-Gourhan's(I975) conclusion sidereda Neandertalburial.
that"at least seven species ofcompleteflowershad been
Villa writes of the "unexpected complexities of
introducedinto the cave at the same time" (emphasis Paleolithic mortuarypractices." She points to a permine). Leroi-Gourhan'sconclusion, however,must be ceived patternof absence of skeletal partsin the Kebara
based as much on the assumptionthat Shanidar4 had 2 individualand otherMiddle and Upper Paleolithicrebeen intentionallyburied as on the "belief" that the mains as possible evidence of purposefultreatmentof
flowerscould not have enteredthe cave but byhominid the dead. What about the expectable complexities of
hands.It is a conclusionforwhichwe are not adequately Paleolithic cave and rockshelter taphonomy (about
in Solecki's original which we could still learn a greatdeal) that have been
preparedby the evidence proffered
reportsor,forthat matter,any of the subsequentpubli- all but ignoredin excavations of putative Neandertal
cations (e.g.,StewartI977) thathe mentions.As I have burials?Surelyarchaeologistsshould attemptto control
enigmatic
argued,the depositionof Shanidar4 and the flowersdis- fortaphonomicconsequences beforeinferring
coveredin the vicinitycould have taken place without hominidbehavioras the explanationforwhat theysee as
the aid of the Neandertal's contemporaries,and not anomalous sediments.That Kebara 2 lay exposed fora
necessarily at the same time. It would take a com- periodoftime beforeit was buriedis beyondquestionprehensivesampling program,however,undertakenat the craniumis missing,but a maxillarymolar remains
the same level in the cave, to ascertainif the flowersin close by the mandible.What should compel us to accept
the sediments beneath Shanidar 4 were unique to the that the process of burial was not natural and gradual?
area ofcave flooron which the skeletonrested,and even Indeed, how could we distinguishbetween a skeleton
thismighttell us nothingmorethanthatthe rockniche that had simply lain exposed long enough for the
offeredbetterprotectionforbone, delicate flowerparts, cranium to become dissociated and one that had been
and butterfly
wings than otherplaces on the cave floor. purposelyleftexposed foran equal periodand thenhad
Perhaps it was not made clear in my paper,but my partsremovedforsome unknown reason,except by insuggestionthatthe ceilingat La Chapelle-aux-Saints
may vokingunwarrantedassumptionsabout Neandertalbenot always have been 2 m above the floorwas based on havior?Under the circumstances,I am more inclinedto
rubblein the accept taphonomicprocessesthan Neandertalmortuary
the presenceof blocky ceiling-breakdown
cave fill. This indication that the ceiling had been de- practices(aboutwhich we can onlyspeculate)to explain
gradingat some unknownrate throughoutthe periodof missingskeletal parts.
Because we are dealingwith much longerperiodsand
occupation,coupledwih the "cave earth"and clay in the
fill, characteristicof limestone breakdownsediments, because environmentalreworkingof sedimentsand site
led me to suspect that as the ceilingretreatedupwards destructionmean fewersites and poorerpreservation,
the floorfollowed.Logically,this would have tendedto we should expectto findfewerremainsoftheprecursors
keep the space between the two relativelyconstant, of Neandertals. The absence of archaic H. sapiens in
whetherat the cave entranceor several metersinside. similar conditionis not a mysteryas Smirnovimplies.
There is the possibility,however,that aeolian or other And, althoughSmirnovsees the 30 articulatedNeanderfine allochthonous sediments contributedto the cave tal specimens as uncharacteristicrelativeto the Lower
fill,which would have built up the cave floormorerap- Paleolithic, that they representonly a fractionof the
idly than the ceiling broke down. In any case, it seems total numberof known Neandertals belies the suggeslogical to suggestthat the verticalspace in most of the tion of behaviorallymeaningfulpatterning.Moreover,
cave was somethingless than2 m at anytime duringthe that 75% of the inferredburials (or approximatelyio%
of the total) occur in three regionsprobablyhas to do
periodof occupation.

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Volume 30, Number 3, JuneI989

| 329

with, among other things,(i) regionalpopulation den- plicitlyaimed at elucidating,withinthe rangeofknown

sity,(2) the length of time each regionor site was in- naturalprocesses,conditionsthatcould have resultedin
habitedby Neandertals,(3) Pleistocenegeomorphology, the sample ofNeandertalskeletal materialattributedto
and (4) the sedimentaryhistoryof each site. If all these purposefulburial.AlthoughVilla sees no "concretereaand more are taken into account, the picturebecomes son for choosing [my]interpretation"over that of the
blurred,and ratherthan culturallyspecificpatterns(the investigators
whose inferencesI criticize,I call attention
recognitionof which supportsthe thesis of Neandertal to sedimentaryand taphononic processes in caves and
burial), the relativelyfew "burials" in relativelyfew rocksheltersthat should be consideredif we are to proplaces look more like stochasticevents.
duce strongerbehavioralinferences(i.e., inferencesthat
Trinkaus (i983:43-53) outlines the difficultiesof de- demonstratelogical congruencebetween the evidence
terminingsex in so robusta species as Neandertals.His and the conclusions) eitherfromearlierexcavationsor
solution is to create a regionalreferencecollectionand, fromthose yet to come.
I cannot overstressthat archaeologistsmust firstrule
usingrarelypreservedpelvic materialas a good indicator
of sex, to constructsexing criteriafor the rest of the out naturalcauses forthe sedimentstheyrecoverbefore
~skeletonusing relativerobusticity.The ratioofmales to concludingthat hominids producedthem. This is only
femalesat Shanidaris nearlyas highas thatreportedby logical; it does not relyon a prioriassumptions.At least
Smirnov(i.e., about 70%), although,as Trinkausadmits, in the cases I criticize,this exercisewas not always adeifthesethingsare random,a preponderanceofmales can quatelyperformed.
Instead,as was the case at La Ferrasbe expectedas oftenas not. This of course does not pre- sie, elaborate scenarios were constructedin the belief
clude systematicerrorin favorof male determinations, that the corpses could not have been leftexposed withespecially where no good regional referencesample is out disturbance,even when onlypartsofindividualsreavailable. As to the variable age ratios in different
geo- mained. Likewise,therewas no new stratumrecognized
graphicareas, I would expect more adults in everycase at La Chapelle-aux-Saintsthatwas createdat the timeof
because theirbones are moreresistantto destructionby burial,overlyingthe burial and itselfoverlainby natuall kinds of processes. In the Crimea (Kiik-Koba?)the rally occurring sediments and distinguishable from
preponderanceof childrenmay relate to the mannerin those beneath and those above. Instead,the excavators
which they were included in the deposits (i.e., preda- recognizeda continuousdepositionabove the remains,
tors).At least in the case of Kiik-Koba,the fragmentary includingthe fillofthe depressionin which theskeleton
state of the adult suggeststhat factorsotherthan pur- lay-evidence that it had filled in gradually.And the
posefulburial may have been responsible.
inferenceofburialat La Chapelle reliedon othercriteria
La Ferrassiei, Shanidar4, and Kebara 2 immediately thatI have arguedare insufficient
evidenceforpurposecome to mindin responseto Smirnov'scrypticcomment fulburial(e.g.,positionofthe corpseand animal remains
on the "preference"for right-side-lying,
flexed skele- and stone tools not clearlyin association).
tons-none are on theirrightsides and two are on their
Inferencesof burial in the Middle Paleolithic have
backs. I have alreadysaid enoughabout flexion-it can- been made withoutadequate considerationof sedimennot be used as a criterionforpurposefulburial. All of taryand taphonomicprocesses and have been accepted
Smirnov'ssuggestionsabout the non-randomnatureof in the absence of logical argumentsto supportthem.As
body position,age distributions,and geographicalden- Louwe Kooijmans suggests,archaeologistsneed to desityofpartialor nearlycompletearticulatedNeandertal velop independentmeans of reconstructing
Neandertal
fossils ignore the overwhelmingmajority of known or any past behavior,without relyingon analogies to
Neandertalsin less well-preservedstates. Unless it can modern humans. This will require casting offunwarbe effectively
arguedthatthe 30 or so wereintentionally rantedassumptionsabout what constitutesevidencefor
buried,which I have legitimatelyquestioned,any sug- certain categories of behavior such as purposefuldisgestion that observedpatterningin theirdepositionis posal of the dead and will necessitate a betterundernon-randommust be backed up by statisticaltests for standingof the formationof the archaeologicalrecord.
independence(includingthe "non-buried"sample) and While the criteriaforevaluatinginferencesfromthe arfull examination of the various behavioral, sedimen- chaeological recordcan be a quicksand of shiftingtheotological, and taphonomicprocesses that combined to reticalframeworks,
I am hopefulthatby using evidence
formthe archaeologicalrecordofthe Middle Paleolithic. sufficientto the task it will yet be possible to improve
It is simplynot logical to base analyses on a few speci- our understandingofNeandertals'behaviorand past bemens in the beliefthat theywere buried.
haviorin general.
Villa is disconcertedthat on the basis of the criteriaI
propose for recognition of burial in the Middle
Paleolithic most Upper Paleolithic burials could not be ReferencesCited
recognizedas such. So be it. I merelypoint out thatthe ARENSBURG,
P. GOLDBERG,
H.
B., 0. BAR-YOSEF,
M. CHECH,
L. MEIGNEN,
Y. RAK, E. TCHERNOV,
A.-M. TILLIER,
LAVILLE,
evidenceforpurposefulburialin the Middle Paleolithic
AND B. VANDERMEERSCH.
n6anderI985. Une sepulture
is insufficientto permit strong inferencesand that
taliennedansla grottede Kebara(Israel).ComptesRendusde
we should no longer unquestioninglyaccept that the
l'Academiedes Sciences300, series2:227-30.
behavior occurred. My "elaborate and undocumented BAR-YOSEF, O., B. VANDERMEERSCH,
P.
B. ARENSBURG,
H. LAVILLE,
L. MEIGNEN,
GOLDBERG,
Y. RAK, E. TCHERNOV,
scenarios" (Villa), which are in facthypotheses,are ex-

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

330 1 CURRENT

AND

ANTHROPOLOGY

A. -M. TILLIER.

I986a. New dataon theoriginofmodem

manin theLevant.CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY
27:63-64.
B.
A.-M. TILLIER,
L. MEIGNEN,
BAR-YOSEF,
O., H. LAVILLE,
Y.
P. GOLDBERG,
A. BELFER-COHEN,
VANDERMEERSCH,
RAK, AND E. TCHERNOV.
i986b. "La s6pulturede Kebara,

surl'hommede
MontCarmel,Israel."Colloqueinternational
Neandertal,Liege,pp. 135-37.
viewsof
B I N FO R D, L E W I S R. I 9 8 5. Humanancestors:Changing
4:292Archaeology
ofAnthropological
theirbehavior.Journal
327.

L'enc6phalede l'homme
I9II.
M., AND R. ANTHONY.
L'Anthropologie22:I29-96.
fossilede la Chapelle-aux-Saints.
I909. La s6pulture
A., AND J. BOUYSSONIE.
BOUYSSONIE,
Cosmos I275: IO-I4.
de la Chapelle-aux-Saints.
moust6rienne
La
I9I3.
AND L. BARDON.
A., J. BOUYSSONIE,
BOUYSSONIE,
de la "Bouffia"Bonnevala la Chapellestationmoust6rienne
24:609-36.
aux-Saints.L'Anthropologie
i9I1. Un nouveau squelette huCAPITAN,
L., AND D. PEYRONY.
BOULE,

main fossile. Revue Anthropologique 2I:I48-50.

I987. Middle
L. DIBBLE.
G., AND HAROLD
PHILIP
evidenceandinterPaleolithicsymbolism:A reviewofcurrent
6:263-96.
Archaeology
ofAnthropological
Journal
pretations.
These de docmoust6riennes.
A. I987. Les s6pultures
DEFLEUR,
I), France.
de Provence(Aix-Marseille
torat,Universit6
DROSSLER, R. I988. Fluchtaus demParadies.Halle-Leipzig.
FISCHER, U. I956. Die GraberderSteinzeitim Saalegebiet.Berlin.
foundwith
ARLETTE.
I975. The flowers
LEROI-GOURHAN,
burialin Iraq.ScienceIgo:562-64.
ShanidarIV,a Neanderthal
Paris:Editions
prehistoriques.
MAY, F. I986. Les sepultures
CNRS.
di
DI CESNOLA.
I972. Scoperta
MEZZENA,
F., AND A. PALMA
nella GrottaPaglicci(RignanoGaruna sepulturagravettiana
27:27-50.
ganico).Rivistadi ScienzePreistoriche
CHASE,

I900. Leprehistorique,
G., AND A. MORTILLET.
origine et antiquite de l'homme. Paris.
M O RT I L L E T, P . I 9 I 4. Originedu cultedes morts:Les sepultures
pr6historiques. Paris: Gamber.
MOVIUS, H. L., JR. Editor.I975. ExcavationsoftheAbriPataud.
ResearchBulletin30.
AmericanSchoolofPrehistoric
. I 977. ExcavationsoftheAbriPataud: Stratigraphy.
MORTILLET,

ResearchBulletin3I.
AmericanSchoolofPrehistoric
et son
de la Chapelle-aux-Saints
J. I976. "La d6couverte
influencesurl'6volutiondes id6esconcemantle psychismedes
Editedby
in Les s6pultures
neandertaliennes.
N6andertaliens,"
pp. I3-25. ColloqueXII,UISPP Congress,
B. Vandermeersch,
Nice.

ROCHE,

ROEBROEKS,

WIL,

JAN KOLEN,

AND

EELCO

RENSINK.

I988.

ofMiddle
and theorganization
Planningdepth,anticipation,
The "archaicnatives"meetEve's dePalaeolithictechnology:
scendants.Helinium28:I7-34.
R U S S E L L, M A RY D. I 9 8 7. Bonebreakagein theKrapinahominid
ofPhysicalAnthropology
collection.AmericanJournal
72:373-79.

humanburial:MiddlePaleolithic
YU. n.d.Intentional
In press.
Journal
ofWorldPrehistory.
beginnings.
skeletonsfrom
R. S. I960. ThreeadultNeandertal
SOLECKI,
Annual
Institution
ShanidarCave,northern
Iraq.Smithsonian
SMIRNOV,

Reportfor 1959, pp. 603-3 5.

skeletalremains
T. DALE.
I977. The Neanderthal
to date.
fromShanidarCave,Iraq:A summaryofthefindings
Proceedings
oftheAmericanPhilosophicalSocietyI2i:I2 i-6 5.

STEWART,

SUZUKI,

H., AND F. TAKAI. I970. The Amud man and his cave

ofTokyo.
site.Tokyo:University
au Pal6olithique
d'enfants
T I L L I E R, A. - M. I 9 8.2. Les inhumations
ancienet moyen.DossiersHistoireetArcheologie66:I9-22.
ERIK. I983. The Shanidar Neandertals. New York:
TRINKAUS,
AcademicPress.
ofhumancorpses,mortuary
H. I986. Manipulations
ULLRICH,
practice,andburialritesin Palaeolithictimes.Anthropos
23:227-36.
. I988.

undJenKontinuitat
undWandelin denTotenriten
Menschen.Paperpredes paliiolithischen
seitsvorstellungen

sentedat theintemationalconference
"Kontinuitat
und
Diskontinuitat
in derEvolutiondes Menschenbis zur
" Lutherstadt
derUrgesellschaft,
Herausbildung
Wittenberg,
Octoberi6-22.
VANDERMEERSCH,
B. I969. Les nouveauxsquelettes
moust6riensd6couverts
Comptes
a Qafzeh(Israel)et leursignification.
Rendusde l'Academiedes SciencesD 262:1434-36.
VILLA,
P., D. HELMER,
AND J. COURTIN.
i985. Restes osseuxet
d'habitaten grotte.Bulletinde la Societ6Pr6histostructures
riqueFran,aise82:389-42I.
D. HELMER,
E. MAHIEU,
VILLA,
P., C. BOUVILLE,
J. COURTIN,
P. SHIPMAN,
G. BELLUOMINI,
AND M. BRANCA.
I986a. Cannibalismin theNeolithic.Science 233:43I-47.
D. HELMER,
P. SHIPMAN,
C. BOUVILLE,
VILLA, P., J. COURTIN,
AND E. MAHIEU.
I986b. Un cas de cannibalisme au N6oli-

thique.Gallia Prehistoire29:I43-72.

On Depiction and Language

HAROLD

L. DIBBLE

DepartmentofAnthropology,Universityof
Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,Pa. I9104, U.S.A. 24

88

I have only threecommentsto make on Davidson and

Noble's(CA 30:125-37)

article.First,thepaperwritten

by Chase and myself(Chase and Dibble i987) appearsin

several places to have been misrepresented.One reference to it (p. 128) suggeststhatwe concludedthatthere
was good evidenceforsymbolicbehaviorin Neandertals.
In fact,we stated(p. 284) thatduringthistime"thereis a
generallack ofclear archaeologicalevidenceforthepresence of symbolism."We also arguedthat many of the
of symbolismin earlyscratchmarksand
interpretations
the like are reallyonly assumptionsabout and not conclusive demonstrationsof the nature of those marks.
One ofthe most importantcriteria,as stressedbyus and
byDavidson and Noble, is repeatedpatterning.Anysingle set of marks on a bone or othermaterial,however
elaborateor intentional,can onlybe assumed to be individual and idiosyncraticuntil examples are foundthat
demonstratethe presenceof a shared meaningor understanding.
Second, I agree that the early lithic industries(i.e.,
Lowerand Middle Paleolithic)do not show anyarbitrary
patternsthatcan be linkedunequivocallyto languageor
shared"mental templates"(fora morethoroughreview,
see Dibble i988). To be fair,however,others,such as
Sackett (i988), point out that some unquestionablylinguistically competent groups have made and still do
make lithic industrieswith perhaps as little arbitrary
patterning.Thus, the negativeevidence based on stone
tools does not give positive answers one way or the
other.On the otherhand, the complete absence of any
such patterningprecedingmodernHomo sapiens does
make one wonder whether Neandertals and their
forebearsused symbolseven in otherdomains.
Finally,I would like to emphasize the rathersubtle
point made at the end of the paper thatthereis a difference betweenpotentialbehaviorand behaviorthatis an
integralpart of a species's adaptation. While we may

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions