on the evidence for neandertal burial

On the Evidence for Neandertal BurialAuthor(s): L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, Yuri Smirnov, Ralph S. Solecki, Paola Villa, Thomas Weberand Robert H. GargettSource: Current Anthropology, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Jun., 1989), pp. 322-330Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation forAnthropological ResearchStable 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaboratingwith 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 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2743526?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

3221 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

RENDELL, H. M., E. HAILWOOD, AND R. W. DENNELL. I987. Palaeomagnetic dating of a two-million-year-old artefact-bear- ing horizon at Riwat, northern Pakistan. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 85:488-96.

ROEBROEKS, W., AND D. STAPERT. I986. On the "Lower Palaeolithic" site La Belle Roche: An alternative interpretation. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:369-71.

SALVATORI, N. 1984. Un Italiano di 700 000 anni fa. Airone 40:78-IOI.

STAPERT, D. I976. Some natural surface modifications on flint in the Netherlands. Palaeohistoria I8:7-4I.

. I98I. Archaeological research in the Kwintelooijen Pit, municipality of Rhenen, the Netherlands. Mededelingen Rijks Geologische Dienst, n.s., 24: I 39-5 6.

. n.d. A progress report on the Rhenen industry (central Netherlands) and its stratigraphical context. Palaeohistoria. In press.

STEKELIS, M. I966. Archaeological excavations at 'Ubeidiya I960-63. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

STEKELIS, M., 0. BAR-YOSEF, AND T. SCHICK. I969. Ar- chaeological excavations at 'Ubeidiya I964-66. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities.

On the Evidence for Neandertal Burial

L. P. LOUWE KOOIJMANS Institut voor Prehistorie, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, Postbus 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands. 24 x 88

Gargett (CA 30:I57-77) gives plausible alternative taphonomic explanations for the major cases tradi- tionally presented as proof of-be it incidental- purposeful burial of Neandertal man by his fellow human beings. We were prepared for his conclusion by the paper of Chase and Dibble (i 987 ) on the totality of Nean- dertal symbolic behaviour, and it is this broader view that one misses here, especially in this anthropological journal.

For one thing, we should try to discriminate between the burial or covering of corpses for very practical, for example, hygienic, reasons and burial with ideational motivation. Burial in itself does not say very much about Palaeolithic man's ideas or level of abstract thinking, and it is precisely here that some of the basic and most challenging questions lie. One should first distinguish intentional burials and then try to identify burials with "symbolic meaning," and, while it is difficult to identify sound archaeological correlates for the latter that work in the Palaeolithic, one should try. Intentionally placed grave goods (other than adornment) seem to be the best; considerable quantities of red ochre rank second, while specific, traditional body postures could be a clue, too.

Gargett's critical approach to Neandertal burials tends to overstress the Middle/Late Palaeolithic contrast when Late Palaeolithic burials are not given similar attention. Quite a number of Late Palaeolithic "burials" might need to be rejected as such or treated more cautiously as a

result of more critical analysis. I am especially thinking of multiple burials and burials at various levels in a single cave. Adornment is no criterion, since this can become fossilized by accident as well. If some of the Nean- dertal "graves" were to withstand the present critique and some of the early Upper Palaeolithic "graves" were to be explained away by referring to taphonomic processes, then the Middle/Late Palaeolithic transition would be more gradual. A major difference is not so much the symbolic behaviour reflected in burial itself but the presence of adornment, absent with Neandertal man and present in Late Palaeolithic burials from the Aurignacian onward (for instance, Grotte des Enfants, Menton) concurrent with the appearance of rock art as another expression of symbolic thinking.

Chase and Dibble (i987) state that "it appears that the actual number of cases where intentional burial is more or less certain is small compared to the total number of burials found to date" (p. 272). Perhaps the number is even zero and it is all pure taphonomy, just like "can- nibalism" and the "cave bear cult." After a period of upgrading, Neandertal man is now being downgraded on the modernity scale. In respect to burial it would, however, be interesting to investigate whether other animals are also accidentally fossilized more or less complete and articulated and in what numbers. The cave bear (Ur- sus spelaeus) might rank first because of its use of deep caves as winter sleeping dens. Are there any other animals on this list, and, if not, can this be explained by man's living and/or sleeping in caves, in contrast to animals? Perhaps some arguments for the purposeful covering of bodies could be found along this line.

Since "the evidence from Middle Palaeolithic burials does not demonstrate the presence of symbolism or culturally defined values" (Chase and Dibble i987:276), we should look to other fields, and I would like to point to the sometimes very careful and sophisticated shaping of handaxes, far beyond the practical requirements for a ready-made, transportable cutting edge and raw-material supply. There is no contextual evidence pointing in this direction, but one should not exclude the possibility that handaxes as such or especially carefully made specimens had special meanings in Middle Palaeolithic society. There are artifacts showing a beginning of regionalisa- tion of material culture in the later Middle Palaeo- lithic-the differentiation of a Central European province with Blattspitzen and a Western European one lacking them. This is a process that becomes more marked in the Upper Palaeolithic-again, a gradual rather than an abrupt transition.

I think that we are confronted with Neandertals as essentially non-modern and that this is of great impor- tance for our study of their cultural remains. This view is corroborated by the fact that Mousterian interassem- blage variation cannot be well understood in terms of ethnoarchaeological analogy. The organisational and be- havioural system of Neandertals must have been quite different from those of modern hunter-gatherers. The solution to the Mousterian problem calls for "independent" prehistoric reasoning. Perhaps Neandertals did not


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Volume 30, Number 3, June I989 1 323

hunt as much as is commonly suggested, relying on scavenging as far as larger animals were concerned (Bin- ford I985). A special system of flint logistics, combining curated and expedient technologies in different ways at sites that differed in function and access to raw material, might lie behind the remarkable assemblage variation (Roebroeks, Kolen, and Rensink I988).

Gargett's contribution makes good sense, but we should extend our lines of reasoning to include the de- gree of modernity not of Neandertal man alone but of pre-Magdalenian Late Palaeolithic man as well-instead of considering the first Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe fully modem and contrasting with the poor Neandertals in every respect.

YURI SMIRNOV Institute of Archaeology, U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, Dm. Ulianov I9, Moscow II9036, U.S.S.R. 2i XI 88

The first Neandertal burials were discovered at Spy in i886 (Mortillet I900, I9I4; Boule and Anthony i9ii; see also Bouyssonie and Bouyssonie I909), and immediately there were attempts to proclaim them roman- tic dreams. These attempts gradually became less fre- quent as the hypothesis of the improbability of Middle Paleolithic intentional burials was virtually buried under a mass of fresh evidence. Yet, sceptics ready to deny the undeniable seem to be found even today.

Gargett's attempt at denying the existence of deliberate interments in the Mousterian is made from the point of view of geomorphology and lithology. His article contains a fairly detailed assessment of the geological contexts of 20 Neandertal (and, to be precise, Neandertaloid) skeletons, I6 of which are complete or relatively complete.' It also contains archaeological data (far from full and not always correct) testifying, in the excavators' opinion, to the non-natural character of the burials. This archaeological evidence is practically ignored by Gar- gett, who speculates on the probability of the natural origin of the contexts and proposes sophisticated geological scenarios featuring almost every logically possible agent except human beings. According to him, the deposits (including the cultural horizons, which inevitably turn out to have been redeposited) have been created by natural processes, and therefore all the Middle Paleolithic burials must be physical phenomena, although their origin is sometimes unclear.

Gargett has a rather vague notion of deliberate human interment. He at once expects extraordinary indications of intention in burials and ignores such indications when they occur (e.g., at Regourdou). Intentional burial, as opposed to intentional exposure (which is the other extreme of the final act of mortuary treatment), is a process of concealing the body or some of its parts whereby

i. He does not mention at least i 6 other skeletons of the same species and i9 of fossil Homo sapiens sapiens that are also commonly treated as intentional Middle Paleolithic burials.

a man-made mortuary structure (a pit and/or mound) is created or a suitable natural structure (a pit or niche) selected, the corpse is placed in it (the body's condition varying from complete articulation to complete disarticulation, e.g., Teshik-Tash [Ullrich I986]), and the structure is closed. Thus the major criterion for intentional burial is the existence of an artificially created and/or artificially closed space containing human remains. The archaeologist is therefore expected to discriminate between man-made and natural structures2 and between redeposited materials and others. The excavators actually tried to do so, to the best of their abilities and knowledge, which in tum depended on the contemporary level of research.

Gargett's sedimentological scenarios are based upon schematic drawings and lithologically useless descrip- tions by the excavators (who were archaeologists, not geologists). Can the conclusions drawn on the basis of such poor geological evidence really be valuable? Most of the sites that he considers have not been examined by professional geologists,3 and the problems this poses can hardly be unambiguously solved even with the help of modern stratigraphic research. On the other hand, current research does not contradict the excavators' observations of certain anthropogenic factors, both construc- tive and destructive, that demonstrate the deliberate nature of the burials discovered.

Unable to argue with Gargett's speculations in detail, I should like to ask him a few general questions:

i. How can he account for the absence of relatively complete or anatomically articulated skeletons at Eura- sian Lower Paleolithic sites (with the dubious excep- tions of those at Bourgeois-Delanay, Petralona, and Liao- ning) and their unexpected occurrence in rather large quantities at Middle Paleolithic sites (22 adult and i 8 children's skeletons, of which 30 are articulated)?

2. What natural causes can be responsible for the con- centration of 75% of Mousterian burials in three relatively small and geologically different areas: southwest- ern France, the Crimea, and the Levant?

3. Why did the natural agents bury men much more frequently than women (the overall ratio is 2I:9, with 6 or 7 men to 2 women in Europe and I4 men to 7 women in Asia), and why are adults and children equally represented in Western Europe (9 or ii adults to 9 children) while children predominate in the Crimea (5: i) and are underrepresented in the Near East (io:22)?

4. Why did the natural agents "prefer" to bury bodies lying flexed on their right sides and oriented transverse to the entrance of the shelter, regardless of the orienta- tion of the site and whether it was within the shelter or on the terrace in front of it (Smirnov n.d.)?

2. Even an inexperienced archaeologist such as Solecki, after pro- claiming three adult individuals (Shanidar I-3) rockfall victims, noticed the absence of rock meal (a sure sign of rockfall) in the stone pile over the Shanidar i remains and came to the obvious conclusion that it was artificial in origin (Solecki i960:6I3, 6i9). 3. Geologists were, however, present during the discovery of the burials at Kebara (Bar-Yosef et al. i986) and did not deny that they were deliberate.



324 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

I think that both these general questions and more specific questions that could be asked about particular burials might prove difficult for Gargett to answer.

RALPH S. SOLECKI Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 10027, U.S.A. 8 xi 88

I am not sure how to critique Gargett's paper, because a number of key reports directly associated with the Shanidar Cave fieldwork have evidently not been con- sulted. I find particularly disturbing that the publica- tions of T. Dale Stewart, our Smithsonian Institution colleague and physical anthropologist, who accom- panied the I960 expedition and took part in the exhumation of a number of the Neanderthal skeletons, and Ar- lette Leroi-Gourhan, of the Musee de l'Homme, our palynologist, have been omitted.

Because Gargett makes most of Shanidar IV (the flower burial), I think that he would find Leroi- Gourhan's (I975) article on the flower pollens especially instructive. (For his information, she has an earlier ver- sion in French.) She concluded from her studies that at least seven species of complete flowers had been introduced into the cave at the same time. The samples were found at a distance of more than I5 m from the cave entrance, and she believes that neither birds nor rodents nor the presence of mammalian coprolites can explain the presence of the assemblage of flowers- unique among her samples. It would have taken a hur- ricane wind to blow bouquets of flowers (not single pollens) and very accurately pinpoint the site of Shanidar IV. Moreover, the plants represented were in flower between the end of May and the beginning of July according to Leroi-Gourhan, and Shanidar IV was excavated on August 6.

The sediment around the skeleton seemed to be lighter in weight and looser above and around the Shanidar IV skeleton than the sediment below, which was loamy and tough. This would indicate disturbance. The sediment on which the skeleton lay was dark and humic. Under Leroi-Gourhan's microscope, it not only was richer in pollens but contained numerous small wood fragments. Although some of the wood was car- bonized, the majority of the specimens were not. In one of her slides was identified the scale of a butterfly wing. It is supposed that a butterfly perhaps 6o,ooo years ago or more had alighted on a flower that was subsequently introduced into the cave. More than 2,000 pollen grains were identified by Leroi-Gourhan in the collections of three of the samples, and "the majority of these pollens came from those species which were present in clusters, that is, those which arrived at their position in the cave as actual flowers" (Leroi-Gourhan I975:563).

After rechecking the evidence, I changed my mind about the nature of the death of Shanidar IV, judging that it had not been killed in situ by a rockfall. My notes of August 6, I960, say in part, "There were no large stones over the skeleton, but it was evidently crushed-it could

have been redeposited in the present position, we cannot be certain." Bone breakage due to the weight of overlying sediment burden is not unusual. After interment, the site was infested with rodents, whose bones were found in close proximity to the skeleton. I must add here that rodent infestation around Neanderthal skeletal remains was a normal occurrence. Stewart (I977), whose hands were full with the exhumation of Shanidar II and later III, personally took over the task of exposing Shanidar IV. It was during this time that the long bones of Shanidar VI were found at the side of Shanidar IV, as though pushed aside to make room for the latter. Con- trary to what Gargett says, Shanidar II, III, V, and others with Shanidar IV were not "virtually complete." Shanidar I was documented with still and movie cam- eras and diagrammed in a number of views. A collection of broken animal bones was associated with the remains as food refuse. Over the middle of the skeleton was an unnatural heap of portable-sized stones, unlike any rockfall feature I had seen in the cave. Our only conclusion was that the stones had been purposely placed over the remains of the dead. I must add here that my soil samplings were routine, something I had learned from earlier experience in the excavation of an Adena mound in West Virginia. Shanidar III, contrary to what Gargett thinks, was probably alive and recuperating when he was killed by a rockfall.

Shanidar Cave lies in a very remote and difficult area of northern Iraq, and it has for a long time been impossi- ble to resume work at the site. (We made one abortive try ten years ago.) The report of our investigations there has been delayed as a consequence. We have determined that despite the lack of critical geological information (our French Pleistocene geologist could not get a visa) we shall publish the state of our information at present on the work at Shanidar Cave. In it will be the details that we hope will satisfy Gargett's criticisms. It is unneces- sary to belabor the point that excavation and retrieval techniques have improved since the time the Shanidar Neanderthals were recovered. For instance, flotation of sediments as a general practice was then unknown.

I will leave it to my colleagues to discuss the merits of Gargett's proposal to deny the Neanderthals outside Iraq any human feelings for their dead. For Shanidar Cave, the evidence appears to make this argument hard to swallow.

PAOLA VILLA

Museum, Campus Box 315, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo. 80309-03 5, U.S.A. 20 x 88

It is always useful to question widely accepted scenarios and to point out problems in their documentation and supporting evidence. Gargett's paper presents a provoca- tive argument, but it is less useful than it could have been.

First of all, it omits the I983 discovery of a Neandertal burial at Kebara, where, according to the excavators, the skeleton lay in a shallow pit the margins of which were



Volume 30, Number 3, June 1989 1 325

clearly visible in the area behind the shoulders though indistinct elsewhere. Several lines of evidence indicate that the grave had been left open and the body allowed to decompose undisturbed and protected in situ until the cranium (not found) was removed without displacing the other bones in any way (this is shown by the correct anatomical position of the jaw and of the right upper molar found to the side of the lower one). The right leg (also missing) was probably removed in a similar fash- ion. Only then, apparently, was the pit covered with earth ( Arensburg et al. I985; Bar-Yosef et al. I986a, b). It is probably not a coincidence that other Middle Paleolithic burials in undisturbed context (e.g., Qafzeh I0 and I 5, perhaps La Ferrassie 6) show a similar absence of some body parts (Vandermeersch I969, Tillier I982, Defleur I987). The same phenomenon has been observed in some Upper Paleolithic burials (e.g., Grotta Paglicci [Mezzena and Palma di Cesnola I972; for a French summary, see May I987:8I-83]), while isolated bones have also been found in pristine situations (e.g., the Proto- Magdalenian female cranium at Abri Pataud [Movius I975, I9771. The unexpected complexities of Paleolithic mortuary practices have certainly contributed to the in- tepretive controversies reflected in the literature and in this paper.

There is no doubt that the documentation of Neander- tal burials excavated between i908 and I960 is ex- tremely inadequate; it is easy to agree with Gargett on this point, and we may be tempted to accept his analysis if not his conclusions. However, I find several state- ments disconcerting or misleading.

According to Gargett, the essential criterion for purposeful interment is "a new stratum," i.e., a well- defined grave fill and grave walls, with a "visible contact" between the fill and the overlying sediments. By this criterion, 22 of 28 Upper Paleolithic burials in France and Italy would not qualify as burials, including the double burial at Grotte des Enfants (Enfants I and III) and the Grotta Paglicci burial of a boy whose body did not rest in a pit but was nonetheless covered with ochre. Likewise, no pit margins were seen for the Qafzeh 9 and io double burial of a woman and a child.

Absence of visible pit cannot be equated with absence of purposeful inhumation. According to Gargett's own scenario, graves are features dug in preexisting sediments that remained open for a very short time and were often filled with the same dug-out sediments. Even an experienced and meticulous excavator would have difficulty identifying short-lived features on the basis of sediment observations alone. At Fontbregoua Cave, excavations directed by Jean Courtin have uncovered many shallow hollows that contained bone piles (including human bones) and had remained open for a very short time. Feature margins were difficult to see and often absent, yet horizontal and vertical plots of materials and of their refitting links prove that such features existed (Villa, Helmer, and Courtin I985; Villa et al. I986a, b). I am not saying that vertical plots and refitting links

are useful techniques for studying burials. The point

here is that there is more than one way to reconstruct human activities and more to burial archaeology than grave walls and layer boundaries. Associational data and the relative position of bones can provide crucial information. In this respect, some of the observations of the old-time archaelogists carry more weight than this paper suggests. For instance, according to Garrett "nothing about the disposition of La Ferrassie 2 is suggestive of purposeful burial." In fact, the body of La Ferrassie 2 was strongly flexed (more so than La Ferrassie I), the right knee being only i 6 cm from the head of the humerus (Capitan and Peyrony i iI). The legs of the La Chapelle Neandertal were also strongly flexed, the knees being close to the chest ("les rotules etaient au niveau de la poitrine" [Bouyssonie, Bouyssonie, and Bardon I9I31). The heels of the Amud Neandertal were about i 0-I5 cm from the buttocks (see the drawing in Suzuki and Takai I970). As far as I know, rigor mortis should cause an extension of the legs. If so, a strongly flexed position is an argument in favor of body handling and burial, especially in cases such as La Chapelle, where the pit was larger then the space occupied by the body and could not have dictated the body position.

As he himself makes clear, Gargett offers us no new observations, only reinterpretations of observations done by others decades ago, without the benefit of direct examination of the sites and their materials. Thus his interpretations appear no less speculative and undocumented than those he wishes to reject. For instance, the pit at La Chapelle might be a solution basin by an under- ground stream, but we are given no concrete reason for choosing this interpretation over Bouyssonie's. And why should the cave entrance at La Chapelle have been only 50 cm high at the time of the Neandertal burial? In the published sections the cave ceiling is about 2 m above the base of Stratum i, where the pit opened; the cave floor and Stratum i show a dip downward and away from the cave interior, not upward as required by Gargett's scenario. Again, the information from Shanidar is certainly inadequate, but Gargett's interpretation 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 naturally in exactly the same spot, separated by io (not I9) cm of sediments. I find the argument against Regourdou unnecessarily long-drawn. In other words, I object not so much to Gargett's aim as to the way he argues his case.

For historical or contingent reasons, the evidence from most of these sites has been very poorly reported. There are no detailed plans and sections, no precise provenience records, very few photographs, only some very schematic, impressionistic drawings; there is no strong link between observations and reconstructions. These deficiencies are good enough reason to doubt the excavators' interpretations; this comes out very well in Gargett's review. To inject into the discussion other elaborate and undocumented scenarios does not help the cause, which is to advance burial archaeology.

It may be interesting to note that some French scholars of the past did not wait for advances in geoarchaeology




to express doubts about the reality of Neandertal burials and to formulate alternative interpretations. In I914 de Mortillet suggested that rock breakdown and natural burial were the cause of the death and preservation of La Ferrassie i and 2, not trusting the evidence of a burial "found by two priests who must naturally believe that even early man had religious feelings" (Roche 1976). Boule doubted the man-made nature of the La Chapelle pit because of disbelief like Gargett's in the Neandertals' capacity for culture and the fact that he had not seen the Bouyssonies' excavation with his own eyes. This goes to show that pre-Ig60s archaeologists could be as sceptical and argumentative as we are.

THOMAS WEBER Landesmuseum fAir Vorgeschichte, Richard-Wagner-Strasse 9-10, 4020 Halle (Saale), German Democratic Republic. io xi 88

It seems a "natural" phenomenon that we find fewer and fewer burials as we go deeper and deeper into the past. Fischer (I956) argued that Mesolithic people did not bury their dead on the basis of the absence of "real" Mesolithic graves in Central Europe compared with the large number of Neolithic ones beginning with the early Linear Pottery period. Subsequently, however, "real" Mesolithic burials were found, and it was no longer necessary to explain their absence.

With the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic, of course, we have a different situation. The question of Neanderthal burials is not only one of the nature of these people's rituals in connection with the dead but one of the evolution of ritual behaviour in this connection in general. It is, however, difficult to discuss it ex silentio. It is important to remember that the regular use of bone and antler was once considered a characteristic distinguishing the Upper from the Middle Palaeolithic, whereas today we know that there is a dis- tinction only in the techniques of boneworking-the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic technology being bor- rowed from stoneworking (flaking) and the Upper Palaeolithic seeing the rise of specialized technologies including sawing and polishing. Thus we ought to recog- nize that burial rituals also evolved and that the clear Upper Palaeolithic finds are the final stages in a long process of development of methods of dealing with the dead.

Ullrich (I988) has attempted a scheme for this development beginning with various postmortem manipulations (perhaps artificial disarticulation) of the body during the time of late Homo erectus, evidenced by cut marks on the often isolated bones (e.g., at Zhoukoudian). A number of finds of early H. sapiens (e.g., H. sapiens praesapiens) are only partial (often isolated skulls), but in most of these cases this may be a result of geological circumstances (redeposition during the Pleistocene, etc.). Therefore we can expect to find complete skeletons, especially in caves, with their protected sediments. Ullrich describes a large number of modifications of

Neanderthal bones (some of the evidence is unclear) but suggests a gradual increase in burial (including the Le Moustier adolescent [Drossler i988]). In this light the large number of relatively complete skeletons in different stratigraphic positions (and therefore not the result of a single rockfall) at Shanidar and the evidence from La Ferrassie i, Le Moustier, and Teshik-Tash can be better understood as burials than as randomly preserved bodies in caves with rapid sedimentation. (Under such circumstances we would normally expect signs of "bioturba- tion" or "bioredeposition" by hyaenas, etc.) This explanation seems to me the more probable in that there are-in my opinion-no definite differences between the sediments observed within the grave pits and outside them. It has to be taken into account that the only material available for filling the pit would have been the cave sediments that were there before and that structural differences are not easy to observe under the changing sedimentation conditions of a cave. In the future we must excavate such finds with extreme care 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 paper I criticized the evidence that has been used to argue that Neandertals buried the dead. Of necessity, I used published reports-flaws, shortcomings, and all- to develop alternative explanations for what are viewed as intentionally buried Neandertal remains. I proposed expectable sedimentological and taphonomic processes that logically should have been ruled out before hominid behaviour was invoked to explain the relatively rare occurrence of articulated partial or nearly complete Nean- dertal skeletons in the fossil record. Because nature could not be ruled out in any of the cases I examined, I argued that we should no longer assume that purposeful disposal of the dead occurred in the Middle Paleolithic. In what follows I will address only specific complaints that I did not cover in my first reply. It will be necessary, however, to repeat some of the same themes adequately to answer the questions raised by these latest comments.

Smirnov criticizes me for using the available schematic profiles and rudimentary sedimentary descrip- tions of the original investigators and yet is willing to accept inferences of burial based on the same information. I have to ask the question that he does: "Can the conclusions [of the original workers] drawn on the basis of such poor geological evidence really be valuable?" On what does Smimov, or anyone else, for that matter, base his faith in Neandertal burial if not the conclusions of the original investigators? And on what did they base their conclusions if not the sediments they recovered and described in their reports, which Smirnov maintains are inadequate to form the basis of valid criticisms?



Volume 30, Number 3, June 1989 I 327

He asserts that I practically ignore the archaeological evidence (or that I have it wrong) and that I treat it, too, as having been deposited naturally, not by hominids. On the contrary, I consider the archaeological sediments a given, and nowhere in my paper (except where it is war- ranted) do I suggest that they were deposited by non- hominid agents. The sites were undoubtedly living places for Neandertals (which explains the presence of unmistakable evidence for occupation over long periods) and, not coincidentally, dying places, too.

I do not know what Smirnov is alluding to when he suggests that I "at once [expect] extraordinary indications of intention in burials and [ignore] such indications when they occur (e.g., at Regourdou)." It would have been better if he had been more specific about the evidence he refers to; if he had pointed to evidence that any of the rock features at Regourdou were produced by hominids and not the result of natural cave breakdown, I would have been much interested.

He is correct in saying that archaeologists should be expected to discriminate between artificially created and natural structures. His contention that the original investigators attempted "to the best of their abilities and knowledge" to distinguish between natural and cultural sediments given the "contemporary level of research" does little to persuade me that they went far enough. Smirnov considers that my "sophisticated geological scenarios" include every "logically possible agent except human beings." If the alternatives I propose are logical and possible (as I believe them to be), why were they not in all cases explicitly ruled out? And why should natural process, if capable of producing seemingly anomalous features in archaeological contexts, be accorded less re- sponsibility than assumed hominid behavior?

Solecki reasserts his original position that the sediments above the remains of Shanidar i looked "unlike any rockfall feature [he] had seen in the cave." Cave sediments are more variable than those of any other depositional environment. This is demonstrable even at Shanidar Cave, where huge blocks of rubble are jux- taposed with "rock meal" and finer particles throughout the deposits. In spite of Smirnov's belief that "rock meal" is the sure sign of a rockfall, catastrophic ceiling collapse need not have been the only pattern of breakdown in the cave. Stones forming part of the covering of Shanidar i could easily have been added after the individual was buried and might have been the result of processes that I argue created some of the rock piles at Regourdou-a fissure opening in the ceiling can produce similar features. As to the low probability of such a situation's occurring above the skeleton of a Neandertal, the likelihood of any remains preservation in a less condu- cive environment would be even lower.

For the nine Shanidar specimens (or, for that matter, any of the claimed Neandertal burials) to have been preserved required the coincidence of skeletal remains and the sedimentary conditions necessary for preservation, whether those conditions were natural or intentional burial. A corollary of this must be used to explain the predominance of unarticulated, fragmentary Neandertal

remains-unless we are to believe that individual parts were differentially buried, an explanation I find wholly unsatisfying. The vast majority of known Neandertals were probably not buried as corpses but left lying exposed. This does not seem to have been the case for the few articulated, practical or nearly complete specimens whose deposition is in question.

The Shanidar Neandertals were probably not the only inhabitants of the cave through tens of thousands of years. Fossilization is a rare occurrence-the nine preserved are rarities, there is little doubt. But their preservation is clearly the result of special circumstances that Villa and others call "coincidence," with the implica- tion that they could not have occurred naturally. With no way of predicting the probability of preservation based on considerations of expectable taphonomic and sedimentary processes, and on the unwarranted assumption that such coincidences must have been nearly im- possible, previous workers have seen no alternative but that intentional Neandertal behavior was responsible. In contrast to what has gone before, I would contend that, within certain limits, it is possible to predict the likelihood of even a seemingly high rate of preservation such as that observed at Shanidar. Caves and rockshelters that are breaking down rapidly because of their lithological characteristics and active tectonism are likely to en- tomb more individuals. At Krapina the remains of 43 individuals were sealed in the sandstone rubble (although it seems none qualify as "burials" for Smirnov). Thus, although post-depositional processes were obvi- ously kinder to the Shanidar Neandertals than to those at Krapina (Russell I987), the occurrence of nine ir -,.he deposits at Shanidar need not be viewed as improbabk;le.

Villa raises the question of the "coincidence" of Shanidar 4, 6, 8, and 9 in proximity to one another. While it is no doubt a coincidence, there is no reason to accept that it could not have occurred naturally. The area of the cave that yielded all nine sets of Neandertal remains is directly beneath a huge shaft developing in the ceiling. It is responsible for the relatively rapid rate of sedimentation (at times including catastrophic roof collapse) in evidence in the cave and no doubt for the preservation of the nine Neandertals. (I never suggested that one rockfall sealed all of the Shanidar specimens, as Weber mistakenly writes.) The microenvironment in the natural rockfall niche in which the remains were found can account for the preservation of the four-it provided a protective environment for bones that might have been trampled or otherwise disturbed by subsequent occupants, thus reducing the chances of preservation.

Of the four individuals in this "multiple burial," 8 and 9 are represented only by a few bone fragments, hardly what one would expect if they had been intentionally buried as corpses (nine vertebrae of the infant and a maxillary fragment, two humeral fragments, a portion of the right radius, and a portion of the right fibula of the adult are all that remain). If they had been buried at the same time as either 4 or 6, they should have been much better preserved. Furthermore, the "long bones of




Shanidar 6 were found at the side of Shanidar 4, as though pushed aside to make room" (Solecki). If Shanidar 6 had been previously buried, it seems unlikely that the long bones would have been "pushed aside" to make room for Shanidar 4; it is much more probable that the skeleton of a previously buried individual would have been truncated in the process of preparing a grave.

Finally, there seems to be no logical reason to infer that the remains of the four were contemporary, whether Shanidar 4 and the rest were separated by 9 or I9 cm (the latter figure is a mistake, as Villa points out). The superposition of the remains argues against contemporary deposition, and their different states of preservation (8 and 9 highly fragmentary, 6 less so, and 4 in relatively good condition and still articulated) support the contention that 6, 8, and 9 may have been deposited at different times and buried gradually, followed by 4, which was buried in a roof collapse and thus protected from further disturbance.

Solecki reiterates Leroi-Gourhan's (I975) conclusion that "at least seven species of complete flowers had been introduced into the cave at the same time" (emphasis mine). Leroi-Gourhan's conclusion, however, must be based as much on the assumption that Shanidar 4 had been intentionally buried as on the "belief" that the flowers could not have entered the cave but by hominid hands. It is a conclusion for which we are not adequately prepared by the evidence proffered in Solecki's original reports or, for that matter, any of the subsequent publi- cations (e.g., Stewart I977) that he mentions. As I have argued, the deposition of Shanidar 4 and the flowers discovered in the vicinity could have taken place without the aid of the Neandertal's contemporaries, and not necessarily at the same time. It would take a com- prehensive sampling program, however, undertaken at the same level in the cave, to ascertain if the flowers in the sediments beneath Shanidar 4 were unique to the area of cave floor on which the skeleton rested, and even this might tell us nothing more than that the rock niche offered better protection for bone, delicate flower parts, and butterfly wings than other places on the cave floor.

Perhaps it was not made clear in my paper, but my suggestion that the ceiling at La Chapelle-aux-Saints may not always have been 2 m above the floor was based on the presence of blocky ceiling-breakdown rubble in the cave fill. This indication that the ceiling had been de- grading at some unknown rate throughout the period of occupation, coupled wih the "cave earth" and clay in the fill, characteristic of limestone breakdown sediments, led me to suspect that as the ceiling retreated upwards the floor followed. Logically, this would have tended to keep the space between the two relatively constant, whether at the cave entrance or several meters inside. There is the possibility, however, that aeolian or other fine allochthonous sediments contributed to the cave fill, which would have built up the cave floor more rapidly than the ceiling broke down. In any case, it seems logical to suggest that the vertical space in most of the cave was something less than 2 m at any time during the period of occupation.

I am not certain why body position should be held up as evidence of mortuary treatment, except by analogy to well-understood recent human practices. It is logically insufficient by itself even when dealing with modern humans, except in the presence of other evidence such as a new stratum created at the time of burial. I have previously provided evidence that a flexed position can occur naturally and that death in a flexed position re- sults in a flexed corpse (which I have observed, rigor mortis and all). Thus the position of the corpse cannot be used alone as evidence for purposeful disposal of the dead. Contra Villa, that the bedrock depression at La Chapelle-aux-Saints was considerably larger than the space taken by the skeleton is better evidence that it was not a case of mortuary treatment than that the position of the skeleton is evidence that it was flexed for burial. I am not convinced that there is any but a fortuitous com- bination of Neandertal skeleton and natural depression at La Chapelle-aux-Saints producing what has been considered a Neandertal burial.

Villa writes of the "unexpected complexities of Paleolithic mortuary practices." She points to a per- ceived pattern of absence of skeletal parts in the Kebara 2 individual and other Middle and Upper Paleolithic remains as possible evidence of purposeful treatment of the dead. What about the expectable complexities of Paleolithic cave and rockshelter taphonomy (about which we could still learn a great deal) that have been all but ignored in excavations of putative Neandertal burials? Surely archaeologists should attempt to control for taphonomic consequences before inferring enigmatic hominid behavior as the explanation for what they see as anomalous sediments. That Kebara 2 lay exposed for a period of time before it was buried is beyond question- the cranium is missing, but a maxillary molar remains close by the mandible. What should compel us to accept that the process of burial was not natural and gradual? Indeed, how could we distinguish between a skeleton that had simply lain exposed long enough for the cranium to become dissociated and one that had been purposely left exposed for an equal period and then had parts removed for some unknown reason, except by in- voking unwarranted assumptions about Neandertal behavior? Under the circumstances, I am more inclined to accept taphonomic processes than Neandertal mortuary practices (about which we can only speculate) to explain missing skeletal parts.

Because we are dealing with much longer periods and because environmental reworking of sediments and site destruction mean fewer sites and poorer preservation, we should expect to find fewer remains of the precursors of Neandertals. The absence of archaic H. sapiens in similar condition is not a mystery as Smirnov implies. And, although Smirnov sees the 30 articulated Neander- tal specimens as uncharacteristic relative to the Lower Paleolithic, that they represent only a fraction of the total number of known Neandertals belies the suggestion of behaviorally meaningful patterning. Moreover, that 75% of the inferred burials (or approximately io% of the total) occur in three regions probably has to do



Volume 30, Number 3, June I989 | 329

with, among other things, (i) regional population den- sity, (2) the length of time each region or site was in- habited by Neandertals, (3) Pleistocene geomorphology, and (4) the sedimentary history of each site. If all these and more are taken into account, the picture becomes blurred, and rather than culturally specific patterns (the recognition of which supports the thesis of Neandertal burial), the relatively few "burials" in relatively few places look more like stochastic events.

Trinkaus (i983:43-53) outlines the difficulties of de- termining sex in so robust a species as Neandertals. His solution is to create a regional reference collection and, using rarely preserved pelvic material as a good indicator of sex, to construct sexing criteria for the rest of the ~skeleton using relative robusticity. The ratio of males to females at Shanidar is nearly as high as that reported by Smirnov (i.e., about 70%), although, as Trinkaus admits, if these things are random, a preponderance of males can be expected as often as not. This of course does not pre- clude systematic error in favor of male determinations, especially where no good regional reference sample is available. As to the variable age ratios in different geo- graphic areas, I would expect more adults in every case because their bones are more resistant to destruction by all kinds of processes. In the Crimea (Kiik-Koba?) the preponderance of children may relate to the manner in which they were included in the deposits (i.e., preda- tors). At least in the case of Kiik-Koba, the fragmentary state of the adult suggests that factors other than purposeful burial may have been responsible.

La Ferrassie i, Shanidar 4, and Kebara 2 immediately come to mind in response to Smirnov's cryptic comment on the "preference" for right-side-lying, flexed skeletons-none are on their right sides and two are on their backs. I have already said enough about flexion-it cannot be used as a criterion for purposeful burial. All of Smirnov's suggestions about the non-random nature of body position, age distributions, and geographical den- sity of partial or nearly complete articulated Neandertal fossils ignore the overwhelming majority of known Neandertals in less well-preserved states. Unless it can be effectively argued that the 30 or so were intentionally buried, which I have legitimately questioned, any suggestion that observed patterning in their deposition is non-random must be backed up by statistical tests for independence (including the "non-buried" sample) and full examination of the various behavioral, sedimentological, and taphonomic processes that combined to form the archaeological record of the Middle Paleolithic. It is simply not logical to base analyses on a few specimens in the belief that they were buried.

Villa is disconcerted that on the basis of the criteria I propose for recognition of burial in the Middle Paleolithic most Upper Paleolithic burials could not be recognized as such. So be it. I merely point out that the evidence for purposeful burial in the Middle Paleolithic is insufficient to permit strong inferences and that we should no longer unquestioningly accept that the behavior occurred. My "elaborate and undocumented scenarios" (Villa), which are in fact hypotheses, are ex-

plicitly aimed at elucidating, within the range of known natural processes, conditions that could have resulted in the sample of Neandertal skeletal material attributed to purposeful burial. Although Villa sees no "concrete reason for choosing [my] interpretation" over that of the investigators whose inferences I criticize, I call attention to sedimentary and taphononic processes in caves and rockshelters that should be considered if we are to produce stronger behavioral inferences (i.e., inferences that demonstrate logical congruence between the evidence and the conclusions) either from earlier excavations or from those yet to come.

I cannot overstress that archaeologists must first rule out natural causes for the sediments they recover before concluding that hominids produced them. This is only logical; it does not rely on a priori assumptions. At least in the cases I criticize, this exercise was not always adequately performed. Instead, as was the case at La Ferras- sie, elaborate scenarios were constructed in the belief that the corpses could not have been left exposed without disturbance, even when only parts of individuals remained. Likewise, there was no new stratum recognized at La Chapelle-aux-Saints that was created at the time of burial, overlying the burial and itself overlain by naturally occurring sediments and distinguishable from those beneath and those above. Instead, the excavators recognized a continuous deposition above the remains, including the fill of the depression in which the skeleton lay-evidence that it had filled in gradually. And the inference of burial at La Chapelle relied on other criteria that I have argued are insufficient evidence for purposeful burial (e.g., position of the corpse and animal remains and stone tools not clearly in association).

Inferences of burial in the Middle Paleolithic have been made without adequate consideration of sedimentary and taphonomic processes and have been accepted in the absence of logical arguments to support them. As Louwe Kooijmans suggests, archaeologists need to develop independent means of reconstructing Neandertal or any past behavior, without relying on analogies to modern humans. This will require casting off unwarranted assumptions about what constitutes evidence for certain categories of behavior such as purposeful disposal of the dead and will necessitate a better understanding of the formation of the archaeological record. While the criteria for evaluating inferences from the archaeological record can be a quicksand of shifting theo- retical frameworks, I am hopeful that by using evidence sufficient to the task it will yet be possible to improve our understanding of Neandertals' behavior and past behavior in general.

References Cited ARENSBURG, B., 0. BAR-YOSEF, M. CHECH, P. GOLDBERG, H.

LAVILLE, L. MEIGNEN, Y. RAK, E. TCHERNOV, A.-M. TILLIER, AND B. VANDERMEERSCH. I985. Une sepulture n6ander- talienne dans la grotte de Kebara (Israel). Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences 300, series 2:227-30.

BAR-YOSEF, O., B. VANDERMEERSCH, B. ARENSBURG, P. GOLDBERG, H. LAVILLE, L. MEIGNEN, Y. RAK, E. TCHERNOV,




AND A. -M. TILLIER. I986a. New data on the origin of modem man in the Levant. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:63-64.

BAR-YOSEF, O., H. LAVILLE, L. MEIGNEN, A.-M. TILLIER, B. VANDERMEERSCH, A. BELFER-COHEN, P. GOLDBERG, Y. RAK, AND E. TCHERNOV. i986b. "La s6pulture de Kebara, Mont Carmel, Israel." Colloque international sur l'homme de Neandertal, Liege, pp. 135-37.

B I N F O R D, L E W I S R. I 9 8 5. Human ancestors: Changing views of their behavior. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4:292- 327.

BOULE, M., AND R. ANTHONY. I9II. L'enc6phale de l'homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Saints. L'Anthropologie 22:I29-96.

BOUYSSONIE, A., AND J. BOUYSSONIE. I909. La s6pulture moust6rienne de la Chapelle-aux-Saints. Cosmos I275: IO-I4.

BOUYSSONIE, A., J. BOUYSSONIE, AND L. BARDON. I9I3. La station moust6rienne de la "Bouffia" Bonneval a la Chapelle- aux-Saints. L'Anthropologie 24:609-36.

CAPITAN, L., AND D. PEYRONY. i9I1. Un nouveau squelette hu- main fossile. Revue Anthropologique 2I:I48-50.

CHASE, PHILIP G., AND HAROLD L. DIBBLE. I987. Middle Paleolithic symbolism: A review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:263-96.

DEFLEUR, A. I987. Les s6pultures moust6riennes. These de doc- torat, Universit6 de Provence (Aix-Marseille I), France.

DROSSLER, R. I988. Flucht aus dem Paradies. Halle-Leipzig. FISCHER, U. I956. Die Graber der Steinzeit im Saalegebiet. Ber-

lin. LEROI-GOURHAN, ARLETTE. I975. The flowers found with

Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal burial in Iraq. Science Igo: 562-64. MAY, F. I986. Les sepultures prehistoriques. Paris: Editions

CNRS. MEZZENA, F., AND A. PALMA DI CESNOLA. I972. Scoperta di

una sepultura gravettiana nella Grotta Paglicci (Rignano Gar- ganico). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 27:27-50.

MORTILLET, G., AND A. MORTILLET. I900. Leprehistorique, origine et antiquite de l'homme. Paris.

M O R T I L L E T, P . I 9 I 4. Origine du culte des morts: Les sepultures pr6historiques. Paris: Gamber.

MOVIUS, H. L., JR. Editor. I975. Excavations of theAbri Pataud. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 30.

. I 977. Excavations of the Abri Pataud: Stratigraphy. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 3 I.

ROCHE, J. I976. "La d6couverte de la Chapelle-aux-Saints et son influence sur l'6volution des id6es concemant le psychisme des N6andertaliens," in Les s6pultures neandertaliennes. Edited by B. Vandermeersch, pp. I3-25. Colloque XII, UISPP Congress, Nice.

ROEBROEKS, WIL, JAN KOLEN, AND EELCO RENSINK. I988. Planning depth, anticipation, and the organization of Middle Palaeolithic technology: The "archaic natives" meet Eve's de- scendants. Helinium 28:I7-34.

R U S S E L L, M A R Y D. I 9 8 7. Bone breakage in the Krapina hominid collection. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 72:373-79.

SMIRNOV, YU. n.d. Intentional human burial: Middle Paleolithic beginnings. Journal of World Prehistory. In press.

SOLECKI, R. S. I960. Three adult Neandertal skeletons from Shanidar Cave, northern Iraq. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1959, pp. 603-3 5.

STEWART, T. DALE. I977. The Neanderthal skeletal remains from Shanidar Cave, Iraq: A summary of the findings to date. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society I2i:I2 i-6 5.

SUZUKI, H., AND F. TAKAI. I970. The Amud man and his cave site. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.

T I L L I E R, A. - M. I 9 8.2. Les inhumations d'enfants au Pal6olithique ancien et moyen. Dossiers Histoire et Archeologie 66:I9-22.

TRINKAUS, ERIK. I983. The Shanidar Neandertals. New York: Academic Press.

ULLRICH, H. I986. Manipulations of human corpses, mortuary practice, and burial rites in Palaeolithic times. Anthropos 23:227-36.

. I988. Kontinuitat und Wandel in den Totenriten und Jen- seitsvorstellungen des paliiolithischen Menschen. Paper pre-

sented at the intemational conference "Kontinuitat und Diskontinuitat in der Evolution des Menschen bis zur Herausbildung der Urgesellschaft, " Lutherstadt Wittenberg, October i6-22.

VANDERMEERSCH, B. I969. Les nouveaux squelettes moust6- riens d6couverts a Qafzeh (Israel) et leur signification. Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences D 262:1434-36.

VILLA, P., D. HELMER, AND J. COURTIN. i985. Restes osseux et structures d'habitat en grotte. Bulletin de la Societ6 Pr6histo- rique Fran,aise 82:389-42I.

VILLA, P., C. BOUVILLE, J. COURTIN, D. HELMER, E. MAHIEU, P. SHIPMAN, G. BELLUOMINI, AND M. BRANCA. I986a. Can- nibalism in the Neolithic. Science 233:43I-47.

VILLA, P., J. COURTIN, D. HELMER, P. SHIPMAN, C. BOUVILLE, AND E. MAHIEU. I986b. Un cas de cannibalisme au N6oli- thique. Gallia Prehistoire 29:I43-72.

On Depiction and Language

HAROLD L. DIBBLE Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. I9104, U.S.A. 24 X 88

I have only three comments to make on Davidson and Noble's (CA 30:125-37) article. First, the paper written by Chase and myself (Chase and Dibble i987) appears in several places to have been misrepresented. One reference to it (p. 128) suggests that we concluded that there was good evidence for symbolic behavior in Neandertals. In fact, we stated (p. 284) that during this time "there is a general lack of clear archaeological evidence for the presence of symbolism." We also argued that many of the interpretations of symbolism in early scratch marks and the like are really only assumptions about and not con- clusive demonstrations of the nature of those marks. One of the most important criteria, as stressed by us and by Davidson and Noble, is repeated patterning. Any single set of marks on a bone or other material, however elaborate or intentional, can only be assumed to be individual and idiosyncratic until examples are found that demonstrate the presence of a shared meaning or understanding.

Second, I agree that the early lithic industries (i.e., Lower and Middle Paleolithic) do not show any arbitrary patterns that can be linked unequivocally to language or shared "mental templates" (for a more thorough review, see Dibble i988). To be fair, however, others, such as Sackett (i988), point out that some unquestionably lin- guistically competent groups have made and still do make lithic industries with perhaps as little arbitrary patterning. Thus, the negative evidence based on stone tools does not give positive answers one way or the other. On the other hand, the complete absence of any such patterning preceding modern Homo sapiens does make one wonder whether Neandertals and their forebears used symbols even in other domains.

Finally, I would like to emphasize the rather subtle point made at the end of the paper that there is a difference between potential behavior and behavior that is an integral part of a species's adaptation. While we may



Article Contentsp. 322p. 323p. 324p. 325p. 326p. 327p. 328p. 329p. 330

Issue Table of ContentsCurrent Anthropology, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Jun., 1989), pp. 267-411Front Matter [pp. ]Colombian Conversations: The Strength of the Earth [and Comments and Replies] [pp. 267-281]Calendar [pp. 282]Diversity, Organization, and Behavior in the Material Record: Ethnographic and Archaeological Examples [and Comments and Replies] [pp. 283-315]Discussion and CriticismEarly Artefacts from Pakistan? Some Questions for the Excavators [pp. 317-322]On the Evidence for Neandertal Burial [pp. 322-330]On Depiction and Language [pp. 330-342]On Issues in Treponemal Epidemiology [pp. 342-343]On Irrigation and the Conflict Myth [pp. 343-344]On Gaming Pieces and Culture Contact [pp. 345]On Research Methodology for Ethnomedicine [pp. 345-348]

Research Grants [pp. 348]Serials [pp. 348]ReportsMajor Issues in the Emergence of Modern Humans [pp. 349-385]Changes in Activities with the Shift to Agriculture in the Southeastern United States [pp. 385-394]Fossil Remains of 28,000-Year-Old Hominids from Sri Lanka [pp. 394-399]The Mediterranean as a Category of Regional Comparison: A Critical View [pp. 399-406]The Unkel Symposia: The Beginnings of a Debate in West German Archaeology? [pp. 406-410]Rock-Art Research: World Congress in Australia [pp. 410-411]

Back Matter [pp. ]

on the evidence for neandertal burial

Documents

jstor terms

jstor archive

collaboratingwith jstor

current anthropology

terms conditions of

university of chicago

pmall use subject

wennergren foundation