Grave Markers Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Burials and The Use of Chronotypology in

Grave Markers: Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Burials and the Use of Chronotypology in Contemporary Paleolithic Research
Author(s): Julien RielSalvatore and GeoffreyA. Clark Reviewed work(s): Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 42, No. 4 (August/October 2001), pp. 449-479 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/321801 . Accessed: 21/11/2011 07:19
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
C u r r e n t A n t h r o p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

2001 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2001/4204-0001$3.00
Grave Markers
Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Burials and the Use of Chronotypology in Contemporary Paleolithic Research1 by Julien Riel-Salvatore and Geoffrey A. Clark
Comparison of mortuary data from the Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic archaeological record shows that, contrary to previous assessments, there is much evidence for continuity between the two periods. This suggests that if R. H. Gargetts critique of alleged Middle Paleolithic burials is to be given credence, it should also be applied to the burials of the Early Upper Paleolithic. Evidence for continuity reinforces conclusions derived from lithic and faunal analyses and site locations that the Upper Paleolithic as a reied category masks much variation in the archaeological record and is therefore not an appropriate analytical tool. Dividing the Upper Paleolithic into Early and Late phases might be helpful for understanding the cultural and biological processes at work. j u l i e n r i e l - s a l v a t o r e is currently a graduate research fellow at the Archaeological Research Institute, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University (Tempe, Ariz. 85287-2402, U.S.A. [julienrs@asu.edu]). Born in 1977, he was educated at McGill University (B.A., Honours, 1999) and at Arizona State University (M.A., 2001). He has conducted eldwork in Spain and Italy, and his research interests include the symbolic capacities of Eurasian Paleolithic hominids, lithic technology and classication, rock art, and research frameworks and traditions. g e o f f r e y a . c l a r k is Distinguished Research Professor of Anthropology at Arizona State University. Born in 1944, he was educated at the University of Arizona (B.A., 1966; M.A., 1967) and the University of Chicago (Ph.D., 1971). His recent publications deal with the logic of inference in modern-humanorigins research (e.g., with John Lindly, Modern Human Origins in the Levant and Western Asia, American Anthropologist 91: 96285, and Symbolism and Modern Human Origins, current anthropology 31:23361) and applications of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory in archaeology and human paleontology (e.g., with coeditor Mike Barton, Rediscovering Darwin [Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1997]). The present paper was submitted 20 iii 00 and accepted 2 i 01. 1. We are grateful to many friends and colleagues for helping us bring this work to fruition. We thank Bill Kimbel (Institute of Human Origins, Arizona State University) for incisive comments on an earlier draft; we have tried to incorporate his suggestions whenever possible. We also acknowledge the useful remarks of two anon-
Since it was recognized in the early 20th century that Upper Paleolithic humans buried their dead (Deeur 1993:1718), debate has raged over whether the practice also existed in the Middle Paleolithic. Although often implicit, this controversy is linked to perceptions of the respective cognitive capacities of Middle and Upper Paleolithic hominids and thus deeply imbedded in the controversy over the origins of modern humans. Although many archaeologists and physical anthropologists working with Paleolithic material have come to accept the existence of Middle Paleolithic burials, their meaning in behavioral terms is still much discussed (Chase and Dibble 1987, Hayden 1993). In 1989, Robert Gargett proposed that all of what had typically been accepted as evidence of Middle Paleolithic burials could be explained in terms of natural processes. For him, burials rst appeared in the Upper Paleolithic, presumably as part of a symbolic explosion heralding modern behavior claimed by some archaeologists to have taken place at the MiddleUpper Paleolithic transition, roughly 35,000 years b.p. (see, e.g., White 1989a, b). Although his view was met with much skepticism (e.g., Belfer-Cohen and Hovers 1992, Hayden 1993, Deeur 1993, Gargett 1989, Louwe Kooijmans et al. 1989), Gargett has recently published another paper on the issue (1999). In this latest salvo he attributes more cases, including some recent ones that were excavated more scientically, to natural depositional and taphonomic processes. While his call for a more rigorous examination of alternative explanations for Middle Paleolithic burials is welcome, we suggest that his view is too extreme. BelferCohen and Hovers (1992) have convincingly argued that if Gargetts criteria for Middle Paleolithic burials were to be applied to the Natuan burials of the Near East, we would still fall short of conclusive evidence of purposeful burial in that region. This suggests that Gargett is selective in the application of his principlesan approach that he never adequately justies. We argue here that the only way in which his approach could be justied would be to submit the earliest, if not all, Upper Paleolithic burials to the same critical scrutiny. We propose to test some of the implications of Gargetts position by comparing the Middle Paleolithic evidence with that for the Early Upper Paleolithic. If, as Gargett (1999: 30) argues, burial practices developed only in the Upper Paleolithic, no Upper Paleolithic burials from any period should share any signicant patterns with putative burials from the Middle Paleolithic.
ymous referees. Filippo Salvatore (Concordia University) and Steve Schmich (Arizona State University) read earlier versions of the manuscript and provided useful comments. We thank Alexandra de Sousa (George Washington University) for stimulating discussions on the nature of Paleolithic burial, the subject of her B.A. honors thesis at Arizona State University. We are, of course, responsible for all errors of fact or omission.
449
450 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001
The Question of the Early Upper Paleolithic

Recent work in various areas of the Old World has provided scholars with hard evidence that what is often interpreted as typically Middle Paleolithic behavior, notably subsistence strategies and tool making, shifted to typically Upper Paleolithic patterns only after about 20,000 years ago (Lindly and Clark 1990, Duff, Clark, and Chadderdon 1992, Stiner 1994, Kuhn 1995). In fact, observable patterns often show a great deal of continuity across cultures and over time (Clark 1992). Recent claims of a possible Neanderthal/Homo sapiens sapiens hybrid dating to the latter part of the Early Upper Paleolithic (Duarte et al. 1999, Trinkaus, Zilhao, and Duarte 1999) also suggest that the simplistic equation of cultures with hominid types, a correlate of traditional interpretive frameworks of Paleolithic research, is seriously awed and probably counterproductive for an understanding of the transition. Recognition of distinct Early and Late Upper Paleolithic periods has not been unanimously accepted. Some scholars have insisted that the Upper Paleolithic is a coherent temporal and cultural unit (see White 1989b and various papers in Knecht, Pike-Tay, and White 1993). This period, they claim, was associated exclusively with modern humans and a very few acculturated Neanderthals and was dened by an unmistakable symbolic explosion that included as a single package art, symbolism (including burials), bone and antler technology, complex social structures, and perhaps even language (Noble and Davidson 1991, 1993, 1996). This point of view, which ignores much of the evidence for Middle Paleolithic symbolism (e.g., Marshack 1989), agrees well with Gargetts perception of the differences between the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic. Indeed, his view effectively dehumanizes Neanderthals and implies that they were, for all intents and purposes, evolutionary dead ends. Both positions, however, appear to accept that cultural diversity intensied in the course of the Upper Paleolithic. This being the case, we can assume that the earliest phases of that chronotypologically dened period would be characterized by simpler forms of the same behavior found in its later phases. Thus, if we are to take some fraction of the Upper Paleolithic as a basis for potential behavioral comparisons with the Middle Paleolithic, it appears sensible to take the allegedly behaviorally incipient portion of that period as that baseline. The rst three Upper Paleolithic technocomplexes (Chatelperronian, Aurignacian, and Gravettian) will be the ones characterized by the earliest and presumably simplest manifestations of symbolic behavior, including purposeful burial. If Gargett is right and intentional interment begins only with the earliest Upper Paleolithic, the patterns derived from this limited sample should show no qualitative similarities whatsoever to those derived from a sample of alleged graves from the Middle Paleolithic. By trying to discern how burial practices in the Early Upper Paleolithic differed from or resembled those sug-
gested for the Middle Paleolithic, this paper will also test the validity of the Upper Paleolithic as an analytical unit, since it will show whether an unambiguous Middle/Upper Paleolithic division exists in a body of evidence other than stone tools. By extension, the validity of typological and etic approaches to the dynamic cultural and biological processes of the Paleolithic will also be assessed.
Burials and Modern Human Origins

Almost everyone involved in modern-human-origins research accepts that humans had started to bury their dead by the earliest phases of the Upper Paleolithic. The issue before us, then, is whether purposeful burial also existed in the Middle Paleolithic. One group of researchers, spearheaded by Gargett (1989, 1996, 1999), argues that geological or nonhuman natural processes alone can account for all apparent Middle Paleolithic hominid burials recovered so far. This implies that they view Upper Paleolithic graves in general as radically different from all the material claimed in support of intentional burial in the Middle Paleolithic. A major difculty with this point of view is the unlikelihood that the geological processes at work in Middle Paleolithic sites would not also have affected those of the Upper Paleolithic. The presence of proportionally greater numbers of Upper Paleolithic graves should be perfectly explicable by such processes. Indeed, besides the fact that Early Upper Paleolithic sites were more numerous and widespread than Middle Paleolithic ones (White 1985:57), bodies buried 100,000 years ago are much less likely to have been preserved to the present than those buried a mere 25,000 years ago. This perspective suggests that modern humans, who were, after all, present for most of the Middle Paleolithic, eventually crossed some kind of cognitive threshold beyond the reach of the symbolically challenged Neanderthals, who were destined to be replaced. It is not surprising, therefore, to see proponents of this interpretation invoking the extreme replacement scenario of Stringer (Stringer, Hublin, and Vandermeersch 1984, Stringer and Andrews 1988; but cf. Clark and Willermet 1995) and Mellars (1989, 1996; but cf. Clark and Lindly 1989a, Clark 1997b). Another group of researchers accepts the existence of Middle Paleolithic graves but sees them as different from those of the Upper Paleolithic. Chase and Dibble (1987; Chase 1991) argue that Middle Paleolithic burial is evidence of a level of caring and emotional attachment well above that of any other higher primates but that there are no other obvious signs of ritual (Chase and Dibble 1987:276). In other words, Middle Paleolithic hominids were gregarious, emotional, socially complex, and adept at hunting but had no ritual or symbolic behavior to organize their sociality. (Exactly how emotion is detached from humanness is never made clear.) This position has the notable advantage of being able to account for the very limited number of apparent graves recovered from Middle Paleolithic contexts, since it implies that
r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 451
burial was not a regular part of the Neanderthal behavioral repertoire and was, therefore, likely to have been sporadic. It is handicapped, however, by evidence that Middle Paleolithic modern humans also sporadically buried their dead for no symbolic reason. This observation can be interpreted as suggesting that modern humans and Neanderthals were the same species and shared a behavioral repertoirea view that is supported by lithic (Boeda 1988) and faunal (Chase 1989) evidence strongly suggesting that the two hominids had similar lifeways for an interval of at least 60,000 years (Lindly and Clark 1990). The alternative interpretation preferred by Chase and Dibble (1987:285) is that Neanderthals and modern humans were two distinct species and that only modern humans would eventually develop the capacity for symbolic behavior, or neoculture, giving them a competitive advantage over paleocultural Neanderthals, who were driven to extinction. Despite a lack of concrete evidence, most of the proponents of the nonsymbolic-burial interpretation adhere to this view. Others in this group see both kinds of Middle Paleolithic hominids as having the capacity for symbolic behavior, but what this means is debated. Some researchers argue that despite their ability to act symbolically, Neanderthals apparently never rened this capacity to the same degree as modern humans and were therefore condemned to be replaced by them (Deeur 1993; Mellars 1996). A broadly similar expression of this view based on the analysis of stone and bone tools and personal ornaments has recently been proposed by some European workers (dErrico et al. 1998, Zilhao and dErrico 1999a; see Clark 1997a, 1999a). Others argue, however, that the embryonic ritual behavior embodied in burials postdating 100,000 years b.p. provides support for the hypothesis that the two hominid groups were simply regional variants within a single, wide-ranging, polytypic species (Brose and Wolpoff 1971, Wolpoff, Wu, and Thorne 1984, Clark and Lindly 1989a, Wolpoff 1989). In their view, the Middle Paleolithic archaeological record provides evidence of a fair degree of social complexity that increased at a different rate from that of biological evolution (Marshack 1989, Hayden 1993). May (1986: 157, translation ours)2 sums up this position when she states that the Upper Paleolithic is in continuity with the Middle Paleolithic, developing further what it contained in germinal form. . . . It is the very principle of evolution. This position has the advantage of being able to indicate some of the elements that should or could be found in Early Upper Paleolithic burials, thereby providing the test implications for Early Upper Paleolithic burial that the other approaches have studiously avoided. In fact, the multiregional hypothesis predicts that extremely robust modern humans showing some Neanderthal features will be the earliest buried hominids of the Upper Paleolithic. It happens that many of the earliest recovered hominids from the Upper Paleolithic
2. Le Paleolithique superieur est en continuite avec le Paleoli thique moyen, developpe ce quil contenait en germe. . . . Cest le principe meme de levolution.
have, in fact, been described as very robust and showing Neanderthal afnities (see Wolfpoff 1997:74658; 1999: 76169). The problem is that it is impossible to compare them with Neanderthals as a whole because, despite claims to the contrary (see Stringer, Hublin, and Vandermeersch 1984), we do not have a list of traits that unambiguously characterizes Upper Pleistocene hominids as Neanderthal or modern (Willermet 1993, Willermet and Clark 1995, Clark 1997a). This renders the classication of limitrophe specimens difcult if not impossible, resulting in a conceptual impasse in which players from multiregional and replacement camps cite the same evidence but interpret it differently. It is interesting, however, that the robust modern humans present in the earliest Upper Paleolithic (see descriptions of Combe Capelle, Les Cottes, and Predmost in May 1986) are precisely what is expected by continuity advocates and can be accommodated only with difculty by the replacement model. The recently discovered Lagar Velho Neanderthal/modern hybrid (Duarte et al. 1999, Trinkaus, Zilhao, and Duarte 1999) is another aberration that can be explained more adequately from a continuity than from a replacement perspective (but see Brauer 1984, 1989). We take the position that burials are crucial for understanding both the biological and the cultural transition and that, like stone tools, they can serve as important sources of information about the origins of what is seen as typically modern behavior. As with stone tools, however, it is quite unwarranted to link burials with specic hominid taxa. It is very unlikely that interment was the only way our Paleolithic forebears had of disposing of the dead (Ucko 1969), and their mortuary practices may not always have left traces in the archaeological record (e.g., Le Mort 1988). Therefore, while burials can certainly be used as a source of evidence in inferring past lifeways, if we are ever to resolve the issues surrounding our origins they cannot be studied in isolation from other lines of evidence (e.g., tool technologies, settlement and subsistence patterns, etc.).
Some Comments on Burial Analysis

In analyzing mortuary data, regularities or patterns must be identied in grave contexts. Following Binford (1971), patterns in the mortuary record can be assumed to reect some of the various social personae (statuses occupied or activated in life) of the deceased (see also Clark and Neeley 1987). This suggests that, if we can control for taphonomy and diagenesis, at least some of the patterns in the Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic record could represent or index the social personae recognized by the societies in which purposefully interred individuals once participated. As is pointed out by Harrold (1980:196), however, this approach is based on cross-cultural observations derived from fully modern populations that typically use formal cemeteries to dispose of their dead. Paleolithic burials are much fewer and much more widely distributed in space and time than those of any
anthropological culture. We may also be dealing with two different species (or, more likely, populations of the same species), with the result that anthropologically derived principles are probably not applicable to the period under scrutiny. Therefore, while patterns may be visible in the mortuary record of the later phases of the Paleolithic, one must be extremely careful in interpreting them and wary of generalizing them to archaeologically dened analytical units, which are by denition fairly static and of very long duration and therefore quite different from cultures in the purely anthropological sense of the term (Clark 1997a).
Selection of Data
The geographical area under scrutiny consists of most of Western Eurasia and Western Russia, that is, the whole area in which typologically dened Middle and Upper Paleolithic tool assemblages have been identied. This is an area of several million square kilometers. Although many sites there have yielded human remains, only those considered to have been purposefully buried are examined here. One of Gargetts major criticisms of research on Middle Paleolithic burials is that the mere presence of an articulated skeleton in an archaeological context is often taken as evidence for purposeful burial (1989:16061; 1999:3133, 4142). This criticism is a valid one. Although is it true that skeletons are rarely so preserved (1989:15758), nonhuman processes can and sometimes do result in the preservation of articulated skeletal parts. Many researchers (May 1986, Smirnov 1989, Deeur 1993) do in fact start their analyses of Middle Paleolithic burials with the presumption that an articulated skeleton represents intentional burial (but see Vandermeersch 1993 for an alternative approach). All agree, however, that an articulated skeleton by itself is never sufcient evidence of a burial. A common solution is to look for other elements that may indicate purposeful interment. These include a skeletons position, the presence of a pit or some other type of burial structure, and the presence of grave goodsobjects unambiguously associated with the remains and therefore assumed to have been intentionally placed in a grave (Deeur 1993:5758). As concerns the identication of burial inclusions as grave goods in Middle Paleolithic contexts, we refer the reader to Deeurs (1993) thorough and competent discussion of the matter and to the original sources in which they were reported as such in recently discovered burials (i.e., Dederiyeh 1 [Akazawa et al. 1995] and Amud 7 [Hovers et al. 1995, Hovers, Kimbel, and Rak 2000, Rak, Kimbel, and Hovers 1994]). May (1986:4) also suggests that attention be paid to the total area in which the remains are found, and Smirnov (1989:216) proposes that the presence of associated features be taken into account. When one or more of these elements co-occurs with an articulated skeleton, it seems likely that we are dealing with a purposeful inhumation.
Technically, the number of supposed Middle Paleolithic burials included in this study should be of no importance, since, if they do not carry a symbolic loading, they should not show any patterns similar to those derived from Early Upper Paleolithic burials (Gargett 1999: 30). Nevertheless, we classied the apparent Middle Paleolithic burials as certain, probable, or possible (Deeur 1993) and omitted the possible burials from our sample. When possible, reference was also made to the original publications for the older sites reviewed by Deeur (e.g., Solecki 1971; Heim 1976, 1982) to increase the accuracy of our interpretations. Additional data from recently discovered Middle Paleolithic burials were gathered from articles or excavation reports and included in the sample (Bar-Yosef et al. 1992, Rak, Kimbel, and Hovers 1994, Akazawa et al. 1995, Hovers et al. 1995, Tillier 1995, Vermeersch et al. 1998). A number of criteria were used to determine if a burial belonged to the Middle Paleolithic. First and foremost, given that typological approaches have repeatedly been shown to be seriously awed (Dibble 1984, 1987; Dibble and Rolland 1992; Bisson 2000), we looked instead for a Middle Paleolithic or Mousterian technological signaturethe dominance of ake-based retouched tools in lithic assemblages (except in the Levant, where bladebased tools appear to be the norm for that period [see e.g., Bar-Yosef and Kuhn 1999]). This denition roughly parallels the traditional typology-based one and makes identication of Middle Paleolithic archaeological strata possible even in a survey that must depend on secondhand sources. If a proposed burial associated with an assemblage of Middle Paleolithic signature was recorded, it was assumed to date to the Middle Paleolithic. (The use of this concept of signature is proposed simply as a tool for classifying burials for the purposes of this study.) In the rare instances when dates were available, if the burial was dated to over 40,000 b.p.3 it was also included in the Middle Paleolithic sample. A big problem here is that the various dates available were obtained by different methods applied to different materials across the sites (for a very detailed discussion of dating methods applied to the Paleolithic period, see Zilhao and dErrico 1999a). Effectively, this means that the dates cannot be directly compared with each other. Since there are no temporally distinct Middle Paleolithic tool traditions (but see Mellars 1996), dates never contradicted the attribution of a grave to the Middle Paleolithic based on assemblage signature. The Early Upper Paleolithic burials considered here were compiled from a variety of sources, including syntheses (Oakley, Campbell, and Molleson 1971, May 1986, Palma di Cesnola 1993) and detailed journal articles (Klima 1987a, b; Svoboda 1989; Svoboda and Vlcek 1991). There were, however, signicant problems in identifying
3. The date of 40,000 b.p. is not typically associated with the end of the Middle Paleolithic but is used here because it excludes even the earliest recorded manifestation of the so-called MiddleUpper Paleolithic transition, characterized by the development of Upper Paleolithic tool types.
the sites to be included in the sample. Very few sites are securely dated, and, although the cultures included in the time interval chosen, 40,00020,000 years b.p., are only the Chatelperronian, the Aurignacian, and the Gravettian, these denominations are not valid over the whole geographical area under investigation. For example, the Gravettian in Moravia is called the Pavlovian, dened as a unique and distinctive Moravian variation on the Gravettian theme (Svoboda 1994). This lack of a unied terminology points to the need for revision of the conceptual frameworks used for dealing with Upper Paleolithic industries (see Barton, Olszewski, and Coinman 1996 for a lithic-based example). Furthermore, the cultural sequence is not necessarily the same in the various parts of the area under scrutiny. This often makes it difcult to understand precisely what researchers mean in temporal terms when they use similar chronotypological designations in different areas. If nothing else, this fundamental problem should cast serious doubt on the unilineal cultural evolution implied in the Upper Paleolithic typology devised by de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot (1953, 1954, 1955, 1956). Another problem was the signicant discrepancies between typological designations and absolute dates. For example, while Palma di Cesnola (1993:40610) assigns all the Barma Grande graves to the earliest part of the Upper Paleolithic, recent 14C dates (Bisson, Tisnerat, and White 1996) show that they really postdate 20,000 years b.p. and therefore fall outside of our time range. This is a major problem, since most Early Upper Paleolithic sites have been classied chronotypologically but never dated. It can be hoped, however, that renewed interest in this material, most of it excavated in the late 19th or early 20th century, will eventually result in a more adequate radiometric chronology. In sum, most of the material in the Early Upper Paleolithic sample was either supported by absolute dates or assigned to the Chatelperronian, the Aurignacian, or (more rarely) the Gravettian. The compilation of the data resulted in a sample of 45 alleged Middle Paleolithic and 32 alleged Early Upper Paleolithic burials (excluding the 18 individuals from the Predmost mass grave, for which secure information is lacking). The variables selected for study include sex, age, body position, grave orientation, grave features, and grave goods, all of which are fairly standard in the study of Paleolithic burials4 (Binford 1968, Harrold 1980, Smirnov 1989, Deeur 1993). In addition, the hominid type of recovered skeletons was also recorded on the chance that species- or population-specic mortuary practices might be identied. Finally, evidence of pathology on the recovered skeletons was also noted, following Deeurs (1993:225) suggestion that it may have been a signicant
4. Most of these criteria are far from unambiguously identied. Besides those characteristics of skeletons which can often be misinterpreted in incomplete individuals (age and sex), the question of burial orientation is also difcult, since burials may have been oriented according to nearby features of the landscape that have long since disappeared (rivers, trees, etc.) rather than according to the eight cardinal directions of Western geography. Beyond that, orientation relative to a specic spatial referent is rarely evident.
determinant of who was buried in the Middle Paleolithic. The relevant information is tabulated in tables 1 and 2. It might have been interesting here to generate and use a diversity index like that employed by Harrold (1980: 200) in his comparative study of Paleolithic burials. However, since we do not know the relative cultural value of various types of grave goods or whether the absence of grave goods could be mitigated by more elaborate ritual ceremonies that left no archaeological traces, we considered it risky to do so.
Data Analysis
middle paleolithic burials Analysis of the Middle Paleolithic sample (table 3) allows the following general observations. First, juveniles comprise the largest part of the sample. Most recovered juveniles appear to be under 10 years of age, while most males belong to the 1630 and 4150 age brackets.5 Females are underrepresented. Roughly one in ve Middle Paleolithic burials contained an individual who showed signs of pathology. Two out of seven identied females (disproportionately high for this period) exhibited pathology. The vast majority of inhumed individuals were Neanderthals. That the three sites that yielded modern human burials produced roughly 30% of the burials might be interpreted as evidence that modern humans showed a higher propensity to bury their dead, but this would be a risky assertion. Two of these sites (Qafzeh and Skhul) are among the oldest in our sample, while the third, Taramsa, yielded a single rather plain grave and dates to between roughly 80,000 and 50,000 years b.p. (Vermeersch et al. 1998). Following the same dubious line of reasoning, one could conclude that modern human behavior actually became simpler rather than more complex over time. In most cases, the placement and resting plane of the recovered individuals were not reported by the excavators. This is unfortunate, since in many ethnographic cultures body position is a signicant part of the mortuary program (Carr 1995). Those bodies for which information was available show that roughly equal numbers rested on their backs or right sides and proportionally fewer of them on their left. This period has the only evidence for kneeling and seated positions. Most of the skeletons were found in a contracted or tightly exed position. Data on grave orientation are also scarce, but most burials for which information is available were oriented one way or another along an east-west axis. The only sites where bodies were consistently oriented along a particular axis are La Ferrassie and Qafzeh, and the sites
5. Most paleodemographic studies rely on ve-year age-brackets, but we are using the brackets proposed by Deeur not to reconstruct a life table but to compare patterns between Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic groups. This use should not mask much of the variability in the mortuary record.
table 1 Middle Paleolithic Mortuary Data

Sexa M M J M F J J J J J J F ? J Age Class 4150 1630? 210 4150 1630 210 Foetus 01 Foetus 210 210 1630 3140 3 210 Pathologyb N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N Physical Body Typec Positiond Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne D/C R/F? ? D/F R/C ? ? ? ? ? ? R/? L/C L/F? Orientatione WE ? ? WE EW ? ? ? ? EW ? ? WE NS Featuresf P P P P P P P P/M P P/M/H P
Burial La Chapelle-auxSaints Le Moustier 1 Le Moustier 2 La Ferrassie 1 La Ferrassie 2 La Ferrassie 3 La Ferrassie 4a La Ferrassie 4b La Ferrassie 5 La Ferrassie 6 La Ferrassie 8 La Quina Le Regourdou Le Roc-de-Marsal
Status Certain Probable Probable Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain Probable Certain Certain Certain
Age 50 Young adult Child 4045 2530 10 Foetus 1 mo. Foetus 3 2 ? ?
Grave Goods Bones, lithics?, nearby pits (lithics, bone shards) Bone shard lithic pillow Lithics?, nearby pits (lithics, bone shards) Bone shards, rocks Lithics, nearby pits (lithics, bone shards) Lithics, rock over grave Lithics, rock over grave, three nearby pits Lithics Lithics, rock over grave Spheroid, bone shards, sediment covering? Lithics, bear bones, rock over skeleton Sandstones, bone shard pillow, antlers, sediment covering? Lithics? Boar mandible Lithics?, ochre, stones over skeleton, double grave Ochre?, bone shards, trophies, rocks over skeleton Sediment covering? Lithics? Flowers, sediment covering? Large mammal bones? Red deer maxilla on pelvis Limestone slab over head, triangular int ake over heart
Spy 1 Spy 2 Tabun Skhul 1 Skhul 4 Skhul 5 Skhul 6 Skhul 7 Skhul 9 Qafzeh 3 Qafzeh 8 Qafzeh 9 Qafzeh 10 Qafzeh 11
Certain Probable Certain Certain Certain Certain Probable Certain Probable Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain Probable Certain Probable Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain Certain Probable Certain Certain
M F F J M M M F M F M F J J J M M M M M J M J J M J
? ? 30 Child 4050 3040 ? 35 ? ? Adult Young adult 6 1314 810 3040 2030 40 3040 40 9 mos. Adult 10 mos. 7 mos. Adult 13
3140 1630 1630 210 4150 3140 3140 3140 4150 4150 3140 1630 210 1115 210 3140 1630 4150 3140 4150 01 1630 01 01 1630 210
N N N Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Y N Y N Y N N N N N N
Ne Ne Ne AMH AMH AMH AMH AMH AMH AMH AMH AMH AMH AMH AMH Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne
? ? D/F K R/C D/C ? R/C ? L/E? R/F L/F L/C D/C ? D/? ? R/? L/C ?/C R/C R/C R/E ? D/? D/E
EW ? WE ? SENW WE ? ? ? ? EW NS EW NS ? WE ? EW SENW ? NS NS NWSE ? EW SN
P P P P P P P P P P/M M/H P/M P/M M/H H P P/H P
Qafzeh 15 Shanidar 1 Shanidar 2 Shanidar 3 Shanidar 4 Shanidar 5 Shanidar 7 Amud 1 Amud 7 Kebara 1 Kebara 2 Dederiyeh 1
Taramsa 1
Certain
810
210
AMH
S/C
EW
P/M
table 1 (Continued)
Burial Kiik-Koba 12 Kiik-Koba 2 Teshik-Tash Staroselje Status Probable Probable Certain Probable Sexa M J J J Age Adult 1 810 2 Age Class 3140 01 210 210 Pathologyb N N N Y Physical Body Typec Positiond Ne Ne Ne Ne ? ? ? D/E Orientatione ? ? ? WE Featuresf P P P P Grave Goods Circle of goat horns
Multiple burial. a M, male; F, female; J, juvenile (impossible to determine sex). b Y, present (injury, disease, malformation); N, absent. c Ne, Neanderthal; AMH, anatomically modern human. d D, dorsal; L, lying on left side; R, lying on right side; V, ventral; F, exed; C, contracted; K, kneeling; E, extended (based on headfeet axis); S, seated. e W, west; E, east; N, north; S, south; SE, southeast; NW, northwest. f P, pit (visible or deduced); M, mound; H, hearth.
which contained the most burials, Skhul and Shanidar, show a lack of standardization in grave orientation. This may be signicant, since one would assume that a coherent mortuary program represented by multiple successive inhumations would consistently orient bodies in the same or similar directions. Slightly more than three-quarters of the burials had associated features (pits, hearths, mounds, stone casings). Most were associated with pits. Mounds and hearths were also reported with some burials but were rare. Most graves had a single associated feature. This implies that at least some effort and energy was expended in disposing of most Middle Paleolithic bodies in graves. A little more than half the burials contained grave goods. Most of these appear to have been stone tools (although no use-wear studies appear to have been conducted to see whether they were used prior to being buried), but animal bones, oddly shaped rocks, and sediments of distinctive color or texture were all also found in graves (Deeur 1993:257). Only two graves contained ochre, and when present this material was found only in pebble form. Striae show that these pebbles had been rubbed repeatedly across relatively hard surfaces prior to their inclusion in the graves. If one thing characterizes putative Middle Paleolithic grave goods, it is that they are not extremely variable in nature and that, except perhaps for the associated animal bones, most do not appear to have been exceptional items. The problem, of course, is that we have no way of knowing what, if anything, was symbolized by the inclusion of these items. Vandermeersch (1976) is of the opinion that many of the so-called grave goods could have become associated with the skeletons as a result of the lling of the pits. This may be true, but the fact that some bodies were found with unambiguous grave goodsdespite Gargetts claims to the contrary suggests that the practice was present (see Hovers et al. 1995, Hovers, Kimbel, and Rak 2000). Subtlety is demanded in assessing whether items recovered with graves represent intentional inclusions, as it has been shown that the criteria used by researchers may often be
too strict when it comes to Middle Paleolithic burials (Belfer-Cohen and Hovers 1992). early upper paleolithic burials For the Early Upper Paleolithic, it appears that males were buried more often than both females and juveniles. Adults appear to have accounted for at least three-quarters of the burials, but females were half as numerous as males. Burial seems to have been reserved mostly for individuals in age-brackets 1630 and 3140. Pathology is rare and distributed evenly between adult males and females. This suggests that pathology may not have been a signicant consideration in the selection of individuals for burial, although Doln Vestonice XV (the female of the triple burial) exhibits pathology (Klima 1987a, b). The overwhelming majority of burials were modern humans; only one Neanderthal (Saint-Cesaire 1) and a supposed Neanderthal/modern hybrid (Lagar Velho 1) were recovered. In the absence of clear criteria for distinguishing Neanderthals from modern humans, it was impossible to determine whether extremely robust individuals represented a signicant part of the sample. Interesting insights regarding the biological processes at work during the Early Upper Paleolithic might well be derived from isolating such a group and analyzing it along with Lagar Velho 1. The preferred body position appears to have been a dorsal and fully extended one, although some tightly exed (contracted) and semiexed burials account for a fair share of the reported graves. Interestingly, this period is the only one to show evidence of skeletons buried face down (two cases). These observations would tend to support the notion of a widespread mortuary program, although the high frequency of burials with unknown body positions precludes any statistical assessment. Grave orientation does not appear to be patterned in any remarkable way. Only bodies found in multiple burials were found oriented either in the same way or, as is the case for Sungir 3 and 4, in complementary ways.
table 2 Early Upper Paleolithic Mortuary Data

Sexa M Age Class 1630 Pathologyb N Physical Body OrienTypec Positiond tatione Featuresf AMH D/E NWSE
Burial Balzo della Torre I
Status Certain
Age 2530
Grave Goods Headdress, necklace, bracelet, armband, ochre cover, bone point, ochred split bear canine, animal hide? Necklace, armband, kneecap, at unifacial blade, ochred int pebble Headdress, kneecap, ochre cover, 2 blades, ochre-lled canal, animal hide? Ochre cover (thick on skull), blade, headdress Ochred bracelets, 2 scrapers, 2 serpentine pebbles on forehead Headdress, necklace, bracelet, anklet, ochre cover (thick on head), many good lithics Two diverse ll types, ochre cover (thick on head) and bed, chunks of ochred stone over grave, lithics, diadem Ochred pebble, headdress, ochre over head Ochre, headdress, bracelet Ochre, 2 incised mammoth shoulder blades as cover, 10 fox canines Ochre on head, mammoth ivory stake through pelvis, diadem, mammoth ivory pendant Ochre on head, diadem Ochre on head and between thighs, diadem, piece of deer or horse rib in mouth Ochre on head, chest and pelvis, 4 pierced canines, belt? Incised mammoth shoulder blade as cover
Balzo della Torre II
Certain
Adult
1630
AMH
D/E
NWSE
Balzo della Torre III Grotta del Caviglione I
Certain Certain
J M
15 Adult
1115 1630
N N
AMH AMH
V/E L/F
NWSE NS
S, H
Grotta dei Fanciulli I Grotta dei Fanciulli II Paglicci II
Certain Certain
M F
Young 1630 adult/17 Older 3140 adult/40 Teen/13 1115
N N
AMH AMH
R/C R/C
? ?
P, S P
Certain
AMH
D/E
SWNE
Paglicci III
Certain
1820
1630
AMH
D/E
SN
Veneri Parabitta I Veneri Parabitta II Agnano Doln Vestonice III
Certain Certain Certain Certain
M F F F
125 125
1630? 1630? 1630 3040
N N N N
AMH AMH AMH AMH
F/L D/E ?/C R/F
? ? ? ?
P P P
20 3842
Doln Vestonice XIII
Certain
1723
1630
AMH
D/E
SN
Doln Vestonice XIV Doln Vestonice XV
Certain Certain
M F?
1723 1723
1630 1630
N Y
AMH AMH
V/E D/E
SN SN
P P
Doln Vestonice XVI
Certain
4050
4150
AMH
R/F
EW
P, H
Pavlov I
Certain
4050
4150
AMH
?/C
table 2 (Continued)
Burial Brno II Status Probable Sexa M Age Middleaged Middleaged 910 Adult n.a. 5565 79 Age Class 3140 Pathologyb N Physical Body OrienTypec Positiond tatione Featuresf AMH ? ? P Grave Goods Ochre, necklace, bone/ivory discs and rings, various bone/stone tools Ochre Hare teeth on forehead Traces of deeshing Multiple grave (different times) Headdress, lithics, necklace, bracelets, armbands, suit Ochre bed, medium mammoth tusk spear, 8 javelins, 2 knives, disc near right temple, beaded clothes, headdress, bracelets, pins, rings, 2 bone ornaments on chest, 2 batons de commandement Ochre bed, long mammoth task spear, 3 javelins, 1 knife, disc near right temple, beaded clothes, headdress, bracelets, pins, rings Pierced shells, tooth on right wrist Shells? Pendant? Shells? Shells? Shells? Ochre, wrap, stones and red deer bones lining, single pierced shell
Brno III Predmost 22 Predmost 27 Predmost 118 Sungir 2 Sungir 3
Probable Probable
F J
3140 210 ? n.a. 50 210
N N N n.a. N N
AMH AMH AMH n.a. AMH AMH
R/C ? D/E n.a. D/E D/E
? ? ? n.a. NESW SWNE
P P P
Probable ? Certain n.a. Certain Certain M J
Sungir 4
Certain
1213
1115
AMH
D/E
NESW
Combe Capelle Les Cottes Saint-Cesaire Cro-Magnon 1 Cro-Magnon 2 Cro-Magnon 3 Cro-Magnon 5 Lagar Velho 1
Certain
Adult 5060 Adult 50 2030 3040 1 mo. 3
? 50 50 1630 3140 01 210
N Y N N Y N N N
AMH AMH Ne AMH AMH AMH AMH Hybrid
D/E ? SB? ? ? ? ? D/E
NS ? ? ? ? ? ? EW
P P, H
Probable M? Probable M Probable M Probable F Probable M Probable I Certain J
Multiple burial. a M, male; F, female; J, juvenile (impossible to determine sex). b Y, present (injury, disease, malformation); N, absent. c Ne, Neanderthal; AMH, anatomically modern human. d D, dorsal; L, lying on left side; R, lying on right side; V, ventral; F, exed; C, contracted; K, kneeling; E, extended (based on headfeet axis); S, seated. e W, west; E, east; N, north; S, south; SE, southeast; NW, northwest. f P, pit (visible or deduced); M, mound; H, hearth.
A signicant number of graves were found with no associated features, although most showed traces of a pit. A few exhibited hearths or stone casings over their heads and/or feet. No mounds were reported for any burial of this period. Only a handful of burials had as many as two associated features. Finally, the vast majority of Early Upper Paleolithic burials appear to have contained grave goods of some kind. This pattern may be more apparent than real. It is
based on gures that include the four Cro-Magnon burials claimed by May (1986:3738) to be associated with over 300 shells and a single pendant. The association of this material with any of the Cro-Magnon skeletons is far from unambiguous, and some writers discount it altogether (Oakley, Campbell, and Molleson 1971:1045; Harrold 1980:205). If this were done here, the proportion of Early Upper Paleolithic graves unambiguously associated with grave goods would fall to three-quarters.
table 3 Characteristics of Middle (N p 45) and Early Upper (N p 32) Paleolithic Burials Compared
Characteristic Sex Male Female Juvenile Unknown Age 01 210 1115 1630 3140 4150 50 Unknown Pathology Present Absent Physical type Neanderthal Modern Hybrid Placement Extended Flexed Contracted Unknown Resting plane Dorsal Ventral Left Right Seated Kneeling Unknown Grave orientation N NE E SE S SW W NW Unknown Grave features Pit Hearth Mound Stone casing Number of features 0 1 2 3 Grave goods Present Absent Middle Upper
17 7 20 1 7 12 1 9 9 7 0 0 8 37 32 13 0 4 6 14 21 9 0 6 10 1 1 18 4 0 6 2 1 0 7 1 21 31 5 8 0 11 26 8 1 23 22
16 8 6 2 1 3 3 12 5 2 3 3 4 28 1 30 1 13 4 6 9 12 2 2 5 0 0 11 3 2 2 0 4 2 0 3 16 17 4 0 3 12 16 4 0 28 4
The Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Compared

Despite claims that both periods display denite regional burial groups with fundamental similarities (Binford 1968, Deeur 1993), the case for such clustering is shaky. While concentrations of Middle Paleolithic graves have been found in the French Perigord as well as in northern Israel, these graves are not contemporaneous within the limits of dating techniques and do not exhibit standard-
ized sets of mortuary practices. In fact, except for the probably insignicant recurrence of grave orientation, these clusters do not appear to be internally consistent in the distribution of the variables analyzed in this study. This suggests that they represent random accumulations of burials over long periods of time and that they were not used as formal cemeteries by specic hominid groups with different customs in the Middle Paleolithic. Similarly, for the Early Upper Paleolithic, although most graves were found clustered in the Grimaldi Caves in Italy (Balzo della Torre, Grotta del Caviglione, Grotta dei Fanciulli) or near Pavlov Hill in Moravia (Doln Vesto nice, Brno, Pavlov, Predmost), the burial practices re ected in individual graves in these clusters are quite variable. In fact, most of the observable within-cluster similarities are derived from multiple burials. Multiple burials do appear, however, to be much more frequent in the Early Upper Paleolithic than in the Middle Paleolithic, perhaps because increased population density made multiple simultaneous deaths a more frequent occurrence. Both samples have many more males than females, but the proportion of juveniles is much higher in the Middle Paleolithic than in the Early Upper Paleolithic. Purposefully buried individuals do not constitute an adequate basis for reconstructing the population of which they were part, since it is likely that certain individuals were accorded preferential treatment as a result of status and prestige derived from other aspects of their social personae (Ubelaker 1978). Therefore it is hazardous to try to interpret this patterning, especially across time. The large number of buried juveniles in the Middle Paleolithic may reect an emphasis on the value of young individuals or a higher juvenile death rate, but it would be dangerous to accept either of these interpretations given the extremely small and almost certainly nonrepresentative sample available. Doing so would also imply acceptance of the reied interpretation of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic derived from typological systematics that portray them as distinct by denition (Bordes 1961; Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot 1954, 1955, 1956). Nothing reliable can be said of the position of the bodies or of grave orientation because for many graves from both periods these data are unrecorded. We can, however, say something about the prevalence of particular hominid taxa in the two periods; it is interesting that a Neanderthal and a hybrid are present in contexts that, dened typologically and chronometrically, are unquestionable Early Upper Paleolithic. Lagar Velho 1 is especially interesting in this regard. Indeed, the presence of this hybrid in a Gravettian or proto-Solutrean context dated to roughly 24,500 b.p. (Duarte et al. 1999, Trinkaus, Zilhao, and Duarte 1999) underscores the realization that rst emerged with the discovery of the Saint-Cesaire Neanderthal in a Chatel perronian context (Leveque and Vandermeersch 1980, 1981)that cultures as dened by typological systematics cannot be equated with specic hominid types (Clark, cited in Norris 1999:46). Typological interpretations are based on retouched stone tools, but the habit
of linking modern humans with symbolic behavior or burials inferred from the Upper Paleolithic archaeological record is simply an extension of that traditional typological framework. Comparing the number and kinds of features associated with burials also results in interesting patterns. Proportionally more Middle Paleolithic than Early Upper Paleolithic burials have associated features, and Middle Paleolithic burials have more of them. Except for Taramsa 1, which was covered by a mound, none of the Middle Paleolithic modern human burials was associated with more than a pit. The presence of pits is noteworthy here, since it is one of Gargetts criteria for purposeful burial and he sees pits as absent in the Middle Paleolithic. Roughly 70% of Middle Paleolithic graves were reported as associated with a pit that either was visible to the excavators or could be inferred from the skeletons position. This is substantially more than the roughly 50% of Early Upper Paleolithic burials claimed to have included pitspits that in all probability were detected in much the same ways as in Middle Paleolithic contexts. Mounds were reported only from Middle Paleolithic contexts, while stone casings were found associated exclusively with the Early Upper Paleolithic. Mounds were, however, somewhat more frequent. A number of possible interpretations of this clear-cut pattern could be offered, but they would be of little utility because the meaning attached to each is likely to be culture-specic. The one variable that has repeatedly been argued to show a strong dichotomy between Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic burials is grave goods (Binford 1968, Harrold 1980), although some believe they provide convincing evidence of continuity (e.g., May 1986). The only supposedly empirical treatment to which grave goods have been subjected is Harrolds diversity index. What should in fact be measured, however, is not so much the difference between the two periods as variation within them. If grave goods are consistently the same within each period, then we cannot use them to monitor change in mortuary behavior. The differences in the nature of the grave goods characteristic of each period could be explained in a number of ways. For example, recent work by Stiner in Italy and Israel has shown that small game and shellsh were increasingly incorporated into Upper Paleolithic diets but were virtually absent in some areas during the Middle Paleolithic (Stiner 1994, Stiner, Munro, and Surovell 2000). If this was indeed the case, the presence of discarded shells and the bones of small animals in Early Upper Paleolithic burials would surely constitute little evidence for a signicant cognitive leap over the Middle Paleolithic pattern of including the discarded bones of large mammals in graves. A similar argument could be made about the incised mammoth scapulae reported from a number of Eastern European Early Upper Paleolithic burials. Similarly, ochre, which becomes relatively common in Early Upper Paleolithic graves, can be explained in functional rather than symbolic terms. It could have provided better insulation against cold and humidity, pro-
duced smoother surfaces on ground and polished bone beads, served as an astringent or antiseptic, or even slowed down putrefaction (Wreschner 1980; May 1986: 2034). Therefore its presence in graves may simply indicate knowledge of a useful substance that was gradually invested with aesthetic and/or ritual properties over the course of the Upper Paleolithic. Its occurrence in some of the Qafzeh burials shows that it was known (and probably used) in the Middle Paleolithic. This suggests that it may have come into widespread use only later, perhaps after 20,000 years b.p. In any case, even if the Cro-Magnon burials are excluded from the count, a higher proportion of Early Upper Paleolithic than Middle Paleolithic burials are associated with relatively unambiguous grave goods. The proportional difference between the two is signicant. Rather than suggesting a radical behavioral departure in the Early Upper Paleolithic, however, what this pattern suggests to us is the emergence of a behavior that appears to have been already well established in the Middle Paleolithic. Although Early Upper Paleolithic grave goods tend to include bracelets, headdresses, necklaces, armbands, and other ornaments in contrast to the animal bones found in Middle Paleolithic contexts, it is now clear that Middle Paleolithic Neanderthals did manufacture some ornaments (see dErrico et al. 1998 for a review of some of the evidence). Given the evidence of continuity suggested by the inclusion of stone tools in many burials of both periods, this suggests that the meaning originally associated with unworked bones or bone fragments may gradually have come to be embodied by ornaments. The gradual nature of this phenomenon is supported by the co-occurrence of animal bones and ornaments at Early Upper Paleolithic sites such as Pavlov, Doln Vestonice, and Lagar Velho. Perhaps the higher incidence of grave features in the Middle Paleolithic sample also reects this phenomenon. It is, of course, impossible to know the precise meanings these grave goods had for the extinct societies of which they were once part. Their time/ space distributions are orders of magnitude beyond those of any real or imaginable foraging society or group of societies known to us from ethnography (Clark 1993). It is indisputable, however, that grave goods were an integral part of mortuary practices starting in the Middle Paleolithic and increased in frequency in later periodsslowly during the Early Upper Paleolithic and more rapidly in the Late Upper Paleolithic (Duff, Clark, and Chadderdon 1992).
Discussion and Conclusions

Comparing the Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic evidence for burial proves to be an illuminating exercise. Gargetts assumption that the Upper Paleolithic evidence reveals differences that obviate the need for a comparison between the two (1999:30) is wrong. Indeed, the picture that emerges is one of broad continuity between the two periods. That said, there is also little doubt that
analyzing burials from the Upper Paleolithic en bloc would show a quite different picture, as is suggested by the pioneering studies of Binford (1968) and Harrold (1980). This is largely because of the numerical dominance of Late Upper Paleolithic, especially Magdalenian, burials that postdate 20,000 years b.p. (Duff, Clark, and Chadderdon 1992). However, the continuity clearly visible in the mortuary data of the Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic suggests that the Upper Paleolithic taken as a whole is not an appropriate unit of comparison. A comparison of the patterns derived from an analysis of Late Upper Paleolithic burials with the patterns here identied for the Early Upper Paleolithic is under way. The continuity documented across the MiddleUpper Paleolithic transition, at least as far as burials are concerned, cannot be reconciled with the radical culture change at the onset of the Early Upper Paleolithic envisioned by most replacement advocates (e.g., Mellars 1989, 1996). It also contrasts sharply with Gargetts expectations about the Upper Paleolithic as a whole. It would appear from all this that the Upper Paleolithic as a category is not a very useful analytical tool (see also Lindly and Clark 1990, Straus 1990, Stiner 1994, Kuhn 1995). Subdivision into early (40,00020,000 years b.p.) and late (20,00010,000 years b.p.) phases would make it a much better framework for examining the behavioral and biological processes that were taking place in Western Eurasia at the time (Duff, Clark, and Chadderdon 1992). The results of the work reported here reinforce those of studies of lithic and faunal assemblages and of site settings and context in underscoring the problems associated with uncritical use of temporal constructs derived from typological systematics (Clark and Lindly 1991, Dibble and Rolland 1992, Bisson 2000). While useful as a descriptive tool and a lingua franca for scholars, la methode Bordes, besides masking much variability in the archaeological record, is based on unsupported assumptions about qualitative differences between more or less arbitrary phases of the Paleolithic. The ndings presented here call into question the basis for this traditional approach to the interpretation of Upper Pleistocene assemblages. In sum, categorical rejection of Middle Paleolithic burial is clearly unwarranted, and the continued use of traditional temporal and conceptual frameworks in Paleolithic research is in need of serious rethinking. Such rethinking should not be undertaken in the spirit of defending entrenched positions in the modern-human-origins debate, although it will likely have a signicant impact on them. Rather, it should be part of an effort to increase the credibility of our interpretations, an objective often sidelined in scholarly disputes despite its central importance in afrming the signicance and uniqueness of archaeology as a form of scientic inquiry.
Comments
iain davidson and william noble School of Human and Environmental Studies/School of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351, Australia (Iain.Davidson@une.edu.au). 31 iii 01 Riel-Salvatore and Clark do not address what Gargett (1999) demonstrated. Gargetts point was that the good taphonomic information from well-excavated Neandertal skeletons allows discussion of the taphonomic histories of the bodies. He showed that among the remains of Neandertals claimed as burials, two processes seem to have operated. On the one hand are bodies crushed by rockfall like beer cans that someone has stomped on. These tend to be complete but broken collections of bones, as at Shanidar and Saint-Cesaire. This process is also evident in the bodies of early modern humans, contemporary with Neandertals, from Qafzeh. On the other hand are bodies that had lain in natural depressions in the sediment such as might have been formed by cryoturbation at La Ferrassie. Natural processes of sediment formation had generally covered these bodies slowly; the typical absence of signicant limb segments strongly suggested that the meat had rotted before interment of the bodies. This taphonomic history would explain the absence of the skull from the Kebara 2 skeleton. There will be modern human bodies in caves for the same two reasons as for Neandertals. That people were wandering around in dangerous landscapes long after the emergence of modern human morphology is shown by Otzi, the Neolithic body found in the Austrian/Italian Alps (Spindler 1994). The inclusion of Saint-Cesaire in table 2 conrms our expectation that beer cans/rockfall victims occurred after 40,000 years ago, and we have no doubt that some bodies from this period would have been found with missing parts just like the rotten meat Neandertals. The numbers of bodies subject to the Neandertal taphonomy will be much smaller because the time period is shorter. If there were about 12 beer cans in the 100,000 years of table 1, in the 20,000 years of table 2 there should be about 2. This in itself suggests that there is something rather different about the Early Upper Palaeolithic sample that would account for the larger numbers of bodies per thousand years, and indeed there is something different. Many of the burials are in the opencertainly Doln Vestonice, Pavlov, Brno, Pred most, and Sungir areand there are none in the open for the sample in table 1. We have commented elsewhere (Noble and Davidson 1996) that a single open-air burial of a Neandertal would do more to conrm the hypothesis of Neandertal deliberate burial than any manipulation of the currently available (and not very reliable) evidence. The presence of burials of modern humans in the open, of course, is not unexpected, as the earliest (and earlier) burials of modern humans in Australia are also in the
open (Davidson 1999a). Nothing could be a clearer indication of the danger of ignoring taphonomic histories. That there are more bodies per thousand years in the sample in table 2 is itself suggestive of different occurrences affecting the items in the two tables, and further analysis of the samples reveals what that difference ismodern humans were and Neandertals were not deliberately buried. It comes as a surprise, therefore, that Riel-Salvatore and Clark argue that there is a similarity between table 1 and table 2. Inspection of the data in table 2 shows the extent to which they have been willing to overlook evidence that they present. A x2 test on the frequencies of grave goods in the two sets of data gives a value (x2 p 9.5), which is highly signicant (p ! 0.01). Further inspection of the nature of the grave goods conrms a substantial difference between table 1 and table 2all of the things claimed as grave goods in table 1 occur as part of the debris left in caves used by Neandertals and might have washed into natural hollows as part of the normal sedimentation process. This has been pointed out before by Harrold (1980). The grave goods in table 2 are different from what is found in the earlier sample and would be easier to associate with symbolic structuring of the world (albeit we acknowledge the need for caution pointed out by Riel-Salvatore and Clark). We have classied the specimens from table 1 according to Gargetts (1999: g. 9) analysis of beer cans (Qafzeh, Shanidar, Dederiyeh) and rotten meat (La Chapelle-aux-Saints, La Ferrassie, Le Roc de Marsal, Amud, Kebara, and Kiik-Koba). We omit Teshik Tash because it is so clearly ravaged that little can be said about the original state of deposition of the body except that it was not buried. Grave goods are rare with the beer cans, and those with the rotten meat are mostly lithics. There are two possible scenarios that do not require these nds to be grave goods. Either the rotten meat had their gear with them, like Otzi, and died in their beds, or the lithics washed into the natural hollows where they died. The fact that most of those in the sample were the juveniles from La Ferrassie suggests that these are washins, as it may be less likely that very young infants were carrying their gear. The beer cans did not generally have grave goods (except for the owersand these have been dismissed many times [Gamble 1989; Gargett 1989; Noble and Davidson 1989, 1996]). We might be tempted to go farther and suggest that Neandertals may not have carried gear with them in the manner of Otzi anyway, but carrying seems to have been the distinctive hominine adaptation since 2.5 million years ago. It is more likely that they did not sleep with their gear. Overall, then, the data in tables 1, 2, and 3 show that there was a substantial difference between the bodies that date earlier than the Early Upper Palaeolithic and the sample of later ones. Riel-Salvatore and Clark have elegantly conrmed the importance of Gargetts (1999) analysis. Neandertals (and contemporary early modern people) were not buried; people from the Upper Palaeolithic (and contemporary people in other parts of the world) often were. This is a separate matter from the
issue of variation in symbolic behaviour during the Upper Palaeolithic (Davidson 1997, 1999b). f. derrico and m. vanhaeren Institut de Prehistoire et de Geologie du Quaternaire, CNRS, and Universite Bordeaux I, Talence, France (f.derrico@iquat.u-bordeaux.fr). 3 iv 01 The potential of Palaeolithic burials for the debate on the origin of symbolism and, by extension, of articulated oral language and cultural modernity has been often underestimated, and the literature on the subject is mainly composed of surveys, mostly of old nds, and osteologically based descriptions. Therefore, we welcome RielSalvatore and Clarks attempt to use burials as an independent means of evaluating processes of biological and cultural change during the Upper Pleistocene. That said, we nd that their attempt has some major weaknesses. The assumption on which they base their analysisthat the earliest phases of a cultural phenomenon must necessarily be characterized by simpler forms of behaviourshould certainly be substantiated before being accepted as a reliable theoretical framework. Not only have many cultural anthropologists already criticized this faith in the continuous and inexorable progress of mankind (e.g., Kuper 1988) but also one can wonder whether mortuary practices are the best place to apply such a model. As is shown by the ethnography of traditional societies, complex cultural systems may be characterized by simple burials with high archaeological visibility or, alternatively, complex mortuary practices that leave little or no archaeological evidence. Also, durable grave goods may be absent in burials produced by highly complex societies. We see, in principle, no reason this should have been different in Upper and even Middle Palaeolithic societies. If we are right, the pattern that Riel-Salvatore and Clark try to read as a process may instead represent snapshots of behaviours from different societies with equivalent cognitive abilities. It would, in this case, be only the presence or absence of funerary practices rather than their apparent variability that matters for identifying evolutionary trends. We see a major epistemological problem in Riel-Salvatore and Clarks way of testing Gargetts natural interpretation. It is not by comparing and looking for differences between Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic burials that one can establish whether the former are natural or anthropic in origin. We need natural analogies to test natural interpretations, and it is precisely the lack of these analogies that, in our view, keeps the debate on Neandertal burial practices open and eventually weakens Gargetts position. The inadequacy of Riel-Salvatore and Clarks approach is demonstrated by the fact that, according to their model, they would have considered the Middle Palaeolithic burials natural in origin if they had found signicant differences between them and the Upper Paleolithic burials. Still, given the variability of mortuary practices in traditional societies
(see Pearson 1999), differences between Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic burials do not imply the natural origin of the former and may, in the absence of a natural analogue, simply reect cultural changes with no evolutionary implications. In other words, we cannot oblige Middle Palaeolithic people to bury their dead in the same way Upper Palaeolithic people did to grant them the right to be incorporated into modern humanity while at the same time claiming diversity of mortuary practices to be a hallmark of cultural modernity. We also have reservations about the criteria used here to separate the Middle from the Upper Palaeolithic and subdivide the latter. The chronological criterionbefore and after 40,000 b.p.is of little value considering the uncertainty of the dating methods of this period and the fact that most of the burials are not directly dated. The blade/ake ratio is even more inadequate. Blade-based industries occur in the Middle Palaeolithic, and not just in the Near East (Bar-Yosef and Kuhn 1999), and akebased industries occur in the Upper Palaeolithic. The use of this last criterion seems to overlook the contribution to the characterization of Palaeolithic industries of recent technological studies (see Zilhao and dErrico 1999a:357 for an extensive discussion). These studies have shown that Upper Palaeolithic technocomplexes, seen as chronologically and spatially dened technical systems, are useful analytical entities for exploring cultural variability, including changes in mortuary practices, and the ecological adaptation of European huntergatherers during oxygen-isotope stages 32. Independent of their views on the transition, most of our colleagues share with us the opinion that insight into this time period will not be reached without a better characterization of these entities. Riel-Salvatore and Clarks crusade against the Upper Palaeolithic technocomplexes is even more surprising given that they use chronological limits between technocomplexes (Gravettian/Solutrean) to establish an arbitrary frontier within the Upper Palaeolithic. Why not, instead, get rid of all chronological barriers and look for signicant clusters in the available data? This would be more coherent and avoid the impression that boundaries are being chosen to t the model. Criticisms can also be leveled at their database. Given that many scholars believe that the placing of grave goods in Neandertal burials has not been unambiguously proven, a thorough examination of the evidence, including observations on site taphonomy, should have been their rst concern. This does not appear in their list, which incorporates almost all of the claimed evidence, sometimes dubious, for symbolic behaviour associated with Middle Palaeolithic burials. Incidentally, Riel-Salvatore and Clark group Zilhao and dErrico with researchers such as Mellars who argue that despite their ability to act symbolically, Neanderthals apparently never rened this capacity to the same degree as modern humans and were therefore condemned to be replaced by them. From the debate on this topic (see dErrico et al. 1998; Zilhao and dErrico 1999a, b; Mellars 1999) it is clear that they defend a quite
opposite viewthat Neandertals were fully capable of symbolic behaviours and may even have produced them before contact with anatomically modern humans, as is suggested by archaeological evidence, notably from Arcy, and a critical reappraisal of relevant sites and C14 dates. Riel-Salvatore and Clarks attempt to examine the empirical evidence without any wishful thinking about a human types cognitive abilities in fact complements Zilhao and dErricos effort, which was, however, carried out in a quite different theoretical framework. ro b e r t h . g a r g e t t Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, School of Human and Environmental Studies, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351, Australia (gargett@paciclegacy.com). 1 iv 01 Riel-Salvatore and Clark caricature my recent contributions (see also Gargett 2000) by implying that Gargett (1999) is nothing more than a replay of Gargett (1989) when in fact it examines a wide range of processes that determine the preservation of skeletons in caves and rock-shelters. Furthermore, instead of grappling with the issues I raise they defer to Binford (1968), Harrold (1980), and Deeur (1993), none of whom has adequately examined the variables with which I deal in my recent article. Their unwillingness to acknowledge my misgivings about what they treat as evidence for burial severely hobbles their argument. Beyond this, their paper has other serious failings. First, their argument begs the question whether purposeful burial occurred in the Middle Paleolithic. Their sample of Middle Paleolithic burials includes only those specimens that conform to criteria they say allow one to infer purposeful burial. If this is truly a test of what they claim is my position (i.e., that purposeful burial rst occurred in the Upper Paleolithic), why do they ignore the many fragmentary Middle Paleolithic remains? The relatively few more-or-less-intact specimens claimed as burials represent only a small subset of a sample that describes a continuum of preservation including, for example, single fragments, disarticulated, fragmented, and incomplete skeletons, articulated portions of skeletons, articulated complete or nearly complete skeletons, and everything in between. The vast majority of Middle Paleolithic specimens fall into the rst two of these categories, and the vast majority of putative burials fall into the third; only a few could be considered complete or nearly so. Riel-Salvatore and Clark draw the line opportunistically at various places along that continuum. Clearly, this is stacking the deck in favor of their hoped-for outcome. Furthermore, they contend that they began by selecting articulated specimens and included only those for which other archaeological discoveries supported the inference of purposeful burial. Yet their sample includes a number of specimens that are anything but articulated (to say nothing of those for which the degree of articulation is a matter of interpretation)for example, Teshik-
Tash, Regourdou, La Ferrassie 4a, and Saint-Cesaire. These specimens were apparently included because of a belief that they had been purposefully buried based on fragments of bone or chipped stone interpreted as funeral offerings and inferences of invisible pits and other socalled ritual structures. Thus, Riel-Salvatore and Clarks sampling technique has the effect of skewing the data on which their test is to be conducted. Perhaps most damaging to their argument, the evidence that Riel-Salvatore and Clark employ is at best equivocal. For example, in the absence of articulation as a sign of purposeful burial, interpreting Teshik-Tashs goat horns as a ritual structure depends on the belief that the individual had been purposefully buried (or at least that Neandertals were capable of burying their dead). In much the same category is the claim that the mounds at La Ferrassie are ritual structures, which fails to take into account the obvious, abundant evidence of cryoturbation in stratum c/d (from which all of the remains at La Ferrassie derive). The mounds that Peyrony (1934) describes are in all probability sediments that have been distorted and convoluted by cryoturbation. Laville and Tuffreaus (1984) photograph of the witness prole at La Ferrassie clearly shows the result of cryoturbation in stratum c/d, and Heim (1968) includes a prole that clearly and unequivocally illustrates the convoluted sediments. Four of these convolutions are on the order of 50 cm high. However, in Heims diagram the tops of at least two of them are leaning to one side and have the shape of cresting waves. Such a prole could not have occurred if the mounds had been articially created and later covered naturally with sediment (unless they were then subjected to cryoturbationa coincidence that I would nd it hard to imagine, although it is impossible to rule it out). Here, then, are the present-day remnants of mounds like the nine so often considered mortuary structures. With clear evidence for cryoturbation just a few meters away from the putative burial mounds, must one go on believing that they were created with a ritual purpose in mind? Finally, Riel-Salvatore and Clarks criteria for assessing behavioral continuity are only weakly justied. On the face of it, comparing the Middle Paleolithic with the Upper Paleolithic is a reasonable test of what they call my hypothesis. But is it reasonable to suggest that signicant patterns will be observable on both sides of the Middle/Upper Paleolithic boundary? The answer seems to depend on ones denition of signicant and ones choice of pattern. There is, rst of all, the straightforward kind of pattern that one can read off the skeletonssex, age, pathological lesions. But sex and age are straightforward only if one overlooks the difculty of, for example, determining sex in skeletons that are, more often than not, missing the telltale pubic architecture, requiring a determination based on robusticity and comparison with present-day human sexual dimorphism. Assessing relative robusticity is in no way straightforward in a very robust, biogeographically widespread morphospecies such as the Neandertals, which have an unknown degree
of sexual dimorphism. What this means for Riel-Salvatore and Clarks data on differential mortuary treatment is an open question, but one can certainly be skeptical about their conclusions. They seem unconcerned that many of these patterns are reied categories that have their origin in the questionable interpretations of other archaeologists. Next there is the kind of pattern that one needs to argue more strenuously for. For example, Riel-Salvatore and Clark aver that fragments of bone might just represent the beginning of a trajectory of cultural transformation that sees them as the meaningfully constituted Middle Paleolithic equivalent of the carved images and ornaments of the Early Upper Paleolithic. Although this is a plausible scenario, it is by no means the basis for an unequivocal inference of continuity. The most egregious misuse of the notion of pattern is in their so-called burial features (primarily pits and mounds). We are told that there are 31 pits associated with Middle Paleolithic remains, and these are presented as support for claims of purposeful burial. In all cases of unobservable pits, the inference that the pit once existed depends on the a priori assumption that the individual had been purposefully buriedmore circular argument. Moreover, such pits could just as easily be seen as prerequisite for natural burial. Low spots (regardless of how they were created, and there are many natural ways) promote natural burial. Under the circumstances it is hard to see such evidence as compelling, especially given that the very few observable depressions were lled not with the same sediments into which they were dug, which would be expected in a purposeful burial, but with the same sediments that overlie those into which they were dug, which is strongly suggestive of natural in-lling and in any case precludes the use of the pit or low spot as unequivocal support for the claim of purposeful burial. All of Riel-Salvatore and Clarks conclusions rest on arguments from want of evident alternatives. Ultimately their argument is fallacious and their analysis unconvincing because both rest on the a priori acceptance of shakily supported claims of purposeful Middle Paleolithic burial. I am resigned to the reality that most paleoanthropologists will never be persuaded by my position, but I hope that readers will see that my skepticism is rigorously empirical and grounded in a nuanced understanding of archaeological site formation. Moreover, I hope that they will see this paper for what it isa wholesale recycling of dubious archaeological claims in the pursuit of evidence for the regional continuity model of modern human origins. erella hovers and anna belfer-cohen Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel (hovers@ h2.hum.huji.ac.il). 30 iii 01 Tracing uniquely human behaviors has always been a focal point of prehistoric research. Riel-Salvatore and
Clark are to be congratulated for bringing to the forefront of contemporary discussion the complexities of the archaeological record concerning intentional human burial in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. They achieve this by confronting the available data instead of accepting Gargetts (1999:30) premise that the Upper Paleolithic evidence reveals differences [in burial behavior] that obviate the need for a comparison between these two periods. Indeed, in the Paleolithic we are dealing with time and space distribution orders of magnitude greater than those of any real or imaginable foraging society or group of societies known to us from ethnography. Another important point made by Riel-Salvatore and Clark is that the simplistic equation of culture with hominid type is counterproductive to attempts to understand culture change at the Middle/Upper Paleolithic boundary. With these points taken, a caveat is called for: human behavior is multifaceted, encompassing as it does constituents which are variably and not always understandably interrelated. Dealing with the Paleolithic, we rest assured that the unfolding record is one of mosaic cultural evolution rather than of a linear trajectory of change. Understanding the Paleolithic story depends on the scale of ones observations and insights as it does on the data themselves. Unquestionably, human behavior becomes more complex through time, but when observed in more restricted time spans the Paleolithic pattern of culture change is clearly not linear. At any given time and place, some behaviors may change gradually while others remain static and yet others may undergo dramatic modications. The European Middle and Upper Paleolithic record is a case in point. Much of the recent anthropological literature epitomizes intentional burial as the marker of a plethora of symbolic capacities (see Gargett 1999 and references therein). But the existence of intentional burial in the Middle Paleolithic record speaks only to the presence of this particular behavior as part of the cultural package of hominids at this time. Intentional burial is not associated exclusively with any one of the hominid taxa known from this time span (Belfer-Cohen and Hovers 1992, Schepartz 1993, Tillier 1990) and may well be an expression of a shared, pleisiomorphic capacity for symbolic behavior (Hayden 1993, Hovers et al. 1995). From the perspective of mosaic cultural evolution, the occurrence of intentional burial need not be taken a priori as an indication of the existence of other symbolic behaviors, nor is it a yardstick against which the intensity of other symbolic behaviors can be measured. By extension, where change through time is patterned as mosaic evolution, the rate of change in mortuary behavior cannot be used as a proxy for the tempo and mode of cultural evolution. It is for this reason that, even if one accepts that mortuary behavior changed gradually from the Middle Paleolithic to the Early Upper Paleolithic, the occurrence of large-scale parietal art in the Early Upper Paleolithic, ca. 30,000 years ago, at Chauvet and Cosquer Caves (Bahn and Vertut 1997) remains unaccounted for. Other mechanisms need to be invoked in
order to explain rst the revolutionary and dramatic appearance of such art and second its coexistence with the relatively conservative mortuary behavior. Moreover, gradual shift in burial practices does not appear to be an all-inclusive pattern of change through time between the Middle and the Early Upper Paleolithic. Gradualism is more apparent than real for some characteristics of burials, as is clearly seen from RielSalvatore and Clarks table 3. For instance, at Sungir, an Early Upper Paleolithic site dated to 30,00025,000 years ago (Bader 1998:217), the sheer numbers (over 13,000 beads) and variety of grave goods are overwhelming (Bader 1998:7273, 77; Gamble 1994:18687). Certainly this site resembles more the nds known from the Late Upper Paleolithic than it does accepted instances of intentional burial in the Middle Paleolithic. Gradual transformation as the main explanatory mechanism of culture change masks the boundaries between cultures. The differences among the Chatelperronian (considered to be a Mousterian-based tradition), the Aurignacian (believed to be intrusive into Western Europe), and the regional variants of the Gravettian (dErrico et al. 1998, Otte and Keeley 1990) are obliterated when burial data are used to treat the Early Upper Paleolithic as a whole. These classications and cultural subdivisions of the entities of the Early Upper Paleolithic rely mainly on lithic techno-typological criteria and certainly have their problems. Nevertheless, classications of this type are more consistent with the dynamics of the period, including population movements and inux into Europe during the time span of the Early Upper Paleolithic (e.g., Semino et al. 2001). While the article deals with a particular phenomenon of human behavior, it relates to a profound analytical issuethe measure of the phenomena observed in the archaeological record. It seems that whenever we succeed in obtaining an answer that has eluded us for years (in the case, the validity of Middle Paleolithic burials), we have to face the consequences of that answer. These are rarely, if ever, simple or clear-cut. One way to come to terms with this unsettling reality is by remembering that this is, in fact, the normative procedure of scientic inquiry. g ro v e r s . k r a n t z 363 Gunn Rd., Port Angeles, Wash. 98362, U.S.A. (krantz@olypen.com). 2 ii 01 Riel-Salvatore and Clark have done rather well in following the modern rules of successful publication: (1) keep the subject as narrow as possible to minimize the number of people who are qualied or likely to criticize it; (2) quantify all data for at least arithmetic manipulation (statistics is better and computer analysis is best); (3) follow Established Doctrine wherever possible; and (4) provide an impressive bibliography that proves that you did your homework. Their biggest failing is in rule 1, where they have included both Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) and Early
Upper Paleolithic interments and covered the fairly large area of Europe and the Near East; there are simply too many people who are or believe they are familiar with this subject. Still, they have managed to keep their database down to just 77 examples. Their major opponent, Gargett, did somewhat better with rule 1 by covering only the earlier time zone and using far fewer examples, but at least they avoid the Later Upper Paleolithic and stay out of the rest of the world. The quantication of data (rule 2) is a bit looser than might be desirable because so much information is missing or unclear, but the arithmetic treatment is as detailed as the data allow. At least they are able to make a fairly good case, given these data, for a less-than-dramatic change of interment circumstances at the Middle-toEarly-Upper Paleolithic boundary. They follow rule 3 in accepting without question that the Skhul and Qafzeh burials are of Mousterian date. I disagree, however, and hope soon to publish some information showing that the Skhul burials were almost certainly about 35,000 years old and those at Qafzeh perhaps a bit more recent. What bothers me most is their acceptance of La Ferrassie as denite burials when the excavators themselves (Capitan and Peyrony in 1909, cited in Boule and Vallois 1952:215) stated quite clearly that there was no evidence to this effect. Without them Riel-Salvatore and Clarks picture of a gradual transition from Middle through Upper Paleolithic would be greatly altered. Their conclusion is an apparent requirement of the multiregional-evolution theory. An alternative view would be of a remarkably rapid in-place transition. For this to have been the case, the reason for that transition would have to be correctly identied. My inclusion of rule 4 will annoy some of my good friends. For students papers, the bigger the bibliography the betterit shows that they have read all the pertinent material. For a professional paper the practice ought to be to cite only enough sources to avoid plagiarism and those that the usual readers might want to consult. Despite all of the above, I nd some useful contributions here. The need to decouple Early from Late Upper Paleolithic is not sufciently appreciated, and yes, there is clear continuity from Mousterian to their immediate successors in Europe in terms of lithic techniques and skeletal remains, while in the Levant this seems not to be the case. Until the appearance of the Chatelperronian there was no change in the Mousterian Neandertals other than the beginning of tooth-size reduction (Brace 1995). It was gratifying to learn that the rare occurrences of Mousterian red ochre had been rubbed on hard surfaces, not on soft bodies. What is most conspicuously missing is any successful explanation of why the earliest Upper Paleolithic in Europe included Neandertals whereas the Mousterian in the Levant included some skeletons of more modern anatomy. What was the nature of the cultural transition, and how did it relate to human anatomy?
lars larsson Institute of Archaeology, University of Lund, S-223 50 Lund, Sweden (Lars.Larsson@ark.lu.se). 31 iii 01 There are good arguments both for and against the existence of deliberate burials in the Middle Palaeolithic. Let us hope that the debate over natural processes versus culturally based activities will continue. What tends to receive less consideration is the fact that burial is an act rooted in a mental conceptual world. It is not just a question of the criteria for regarding a collection of human bones as a grave but also what variations within a criterion one is prepared to accept. We project our own conceptions of symbolic acts onto a culture borne by Neanderthal mana species seemingly different from our own, with a conceptual world which may have differed signicantly from that represented by Homo sapiens sapiens. This is why Riel-Salvatore and Clarks claim to be able to distinguish clear similarities in the treatment of human bodies during the Middle Palaeolithic and Early Upper Palaeolithic is so important. Certain differences are suggested between burials in this period and those in the later Upper Palaeolithic. Further interesting aspects of mortuary practice could also have been considered. One of these is the preservation of the skeleton. If only complete, articulated skeletons are accepted as evidence of burial (Gargett 1999), many nds will probably be excluded. At the end of the Upper Palaeolithic and the beginning of the Mesolithic, there are several instances in which considerable handling and circulation of skeletal parts occurred both peri- and postmortem (Cauwe 1998, Cook 1991). Articulated skeletons are rarely found here, which means that these cases are not included among burials. Yet there are strong indications that human bones were used in rituals associated with conceptions about the special status of humans, and there is no doubt that they represent traces of actions with symbolic value. This means that the identication of collections of human bones as graves is not really such an important issue. Is it not more important to try to discover the preconditions for the deliberate handling and deposition of skeletal parts, using arguments for or against some form of symbolic act? In this context the assessment of the Early Palaeolithic hominid remains from Atapuerca assumes signicance (Bahn 1996). The same applies to the interpretation of the distribution of hominid remains and other bones at the Early Palaeolithic site of Bilzingslebenwhether as a form of symbolic handling (Mania 1998:5155) or the result of natural taphonomic processes (Gamble 1999:172). If it is possible to distinguish special patterns in the distribution and composition of these skeletal parts, then they are of more signicance for abstract thinking about ideas on the treatment of the body after death than complete skeletons in cave deposits. The discussion of grave goods in conjunction with skeletons can scarcely be left as a simple matter of presence versus absence. This is clear from observations from Mesolithic burials (Larsson 1993)admittedly much
later than those studied here but nevertheless capable of providing important insights into human behaviour over time and space. Here deliberately deposited objects occur not just alongside the interred but, in several cases, in the grave ll a few centimetres above it. This makes the question of grave goods more complicated. It has not been possible to determine whether such deposits can be compared to the real grave goods in the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic graves discussed here. If, with Gargett, one assumes that some deaths were caused by rockfalls, one may wonder why similar occurrences are not found in southern Africa, where numerous caves were inhabited during the Middle Palaeolithicalthough it should be pointed out that relatively few have been studied in detail. That rockfalls really did occur is clear from the pieces of cliff found in the stratigraphies. If they were a common cause of death, not only humans but also other cave-dwelling animals, such as hyenas, would be found in more or less undisturbed positions. This aspect does not appear to have been considered. Gargett argues ad absurdum in cases where a natural death on account of natural processes cannot be ruled out. It would be more rewarding to learn his criteria for accepting something as a grave. Riel-Salvatore and Clark have adopted more creative approach. We must keep in mind that we are not going to arrive at an unambiguous view of the occurrence of burials during the Middle Palaeolithic or even, in certain cases, the Upper Palaeolithic. It is important, however, that the phenomenon continue to be critically studied, chiey with arguments for and against the criteria for interpreting remains as the result of a conscious act of symbolic relevance. alexander marshack Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 02138, U.S.A. 1 iv 01 Riel-Salvatore and Clark have evaluated the aws in Gargetts arguments and data concerning Middle Paleolithic burial and symboling capacity. I agree with much of their presentation and will not dwell on the details. However, having for years argued for a broad and diverse range of pre- and early Upper Paleolithic symboling and problemsolving capacities, I present some data and pose some questions concerning the presence or absence of Paleolithic burial data that may have relevance to the issues they raise. Riel-Salvatore and Clark note that the dating and signicance of the beads and imagery found in the multiple burial at Cro-Magnon have been questioned. There are data at Cro-Magnon that raise issues of a different type. The left temple of the female interred in the same cave of Cro-Magnon has a hole the size and the shape of a spear point. When Paul Broca, the neuroanatomist who had recently found that language could be disabled by injury to the left frontal lobe, examined it, in the 19th century, he wrote that a int instrument had appar-
ently produced the hole and that the width of the opening shows that the brain must have been injured . . . but the skull shows that she survived some 15 days (Broca 1873). The woman would probably have had some loss of language or cognition. When I reported Brocas description (Marshack 1985) I was informed by numerous colleagues that there was no evidence of interpersonal violence or intergroup aggression in the Upper Paleolithic. An argument against Brocas interpretation of the hole was, in fact, published some years later, suggesting that it had probably been caused by the pickaxe of a worker during the excavation (Delluc and Delluc 1989). A macrophoto of the hole, prepared for me by M. Sakka of the Musee de lHomme, documents a rounding of the edge in a process of healing rather than the jagged edge that would occur if a pickaxe had struck an ancient skull. A dozen years later an arrowhead was discovered in the thigh of a late Upper Paleolithic female buried at San Teodora Cave in Sicily (Bachechi, Fabri, and Mallegni 1997), with the comment that new bone growth . . . indicate(s) that the individual under study survived the wound for some time. Broca had also noted that the old man buried at Cro-Magnon had a hollow similar to that produced in our day by a spent ball in one of his femurs. It is not the fact of such injury that is relevant but that such injuries may have been more common than is indicated in our rare Paleolithic burials. Paleolithic hunter-gatherers were seasonally mobile, and so deaths would periodically have occurred during a groups seasonal round. Would accidental death at a seasonal camp have invited a burial that was different from that found at longer-term sites or shelters or in their nearby caves? Would the pragmatics of burial at a temporary habitation have led to a simple burial, probably in a shallow pit, have grave goods or criteria indicating status or rank as noted by the Binfords, or have contained at most the momentary weapon or tool of that individual? Such simple burials would not have persisted archeologically, not only because of taphonomic processes but also because of their seasonal locale and context. The old man at Cro-Magnon had survived till his burial at the apparently long-term seasonal site at Les Eyzies; the female, with an injury to skull and brain, would not have been highly mobile and was probably able to survive for some weeks because of a seasonal encampment at Les Eyzies. There is a sense in Cro-Magnon that there had been separate recurrent burials. The cave is at the foot of the high cliff shelf and overhang of the Abri Pataud, which overlooks the Vezere River and its ood ` plain. Hallam Movius excavated many levels at Pataud extending from the Aurignacian and Perigordian to the Proto-Magdalenian and Solutrean, a period encompassing some 15,000 years. Where, except for the four skeletons in Cro-Magnon a few yards below, were all the burials? Did their absence mean that no one had died near there, that there were no burials, or that taphonomical processes had destroyed thousands of years of evidence? Would those who died while the group was camped on the shelf have been buried on that shelf, on the oodplain below, or, depending on the season, on the
plateau a few yards above the overhang? If interred on the plateau in winter when the ground was frozen, would a burial have been under a lattice of antlers or branches? Such a plateau burial would not have lasted for centuries, but it might have lasted long enough to mark that territory and place for some generations of a cultural group using the shelter. The pragmatics of context, as much as the symbolism of burial, may always have been part of burial behavior. The Neanderthals, like anatomically modern humans of the early Upper Paleolithic, were seasonally mobile. Their close-encounter hunting of big game was often dangerous. Would the pragmatics of a Neanderthal burial at a transitory hunting site or encampment have differed from more formal burials at long-term seasonal shelters such as those at La Ferrassie? The well-known burial at Shanidar may not, as some argue, have been a ower burial, but it was certainly a seasonal burial at a seasonal place. What type of burial would have occurred when a Neanderthal group was on the road? At the other end of our chronology, by the later Upper Paleolithic not only had there been an increase in population, social complexity, and intensive exploitation of resources within a territory but longer-term sites had increasingly become embedded in a more complex symbolic cultural surround. The Franco-Cantabrian sanctuary caves regionally document this generic process. Would burials at culturally embedded sites have differed from burials at transitory ones? Would the grave goods found or absent in different burials have often been contextual and seasonal? There is inferential evidence in
some late Upper Paleolithic imagery that childbirth may have occurred at some remove from a sites hearth, craft, and sleeping areas. Would the death of a woman or infant at such a time have invoked a simple burial near the birthing place? Would such a contextual burial, which might skew the available record, indicate a cultural discrimination of women? This is simply a set of questions concerning the possible variability of early burial behavior and its dependence on context and circumstance. The available data are, of course, crucial, but can one adequately argue pro or con degrees of early species capacity for symboling behavior from the nature, quantity, or presence/absence of a particular class of data at a particular time or place? m. mussi Dipartimento di Scienze dellAntichita, Universita di ` ` Roma La Sapienza, Rome, Italy (M.Mussi@caspur.it). 2 iv 01 To comment on a review paper such as this, two questions must be answered rst: (1) Is the assembled data base adequate? and (2) Is the chronology correctly assessed? As far as the data base is concerned, I will focus on the Italian sample of Upper Palaeolithic burials, including adjacent south-eastern France. As my table 1 shows, in the time range considered there are approximately twice as many specimens from Italy as are presented by Riel-Salvatore and Clark. Six were discovered at Barma
table 1 Mid Upper Palaeolithic (30,00020,000 years b.p.) Burials from Italy and Adjacent South-Eastern France
Specimen Grotta du Marronier Grotta du Figuier Grotta dei Fanciulli 4 Grotta dei Fanciulli 5 Grotta dei Fanciulli 6 Grotta del Caviglione Barma Grande 1 Barma Grande 2 Barma Grande 3 Barma Grande 4 Barma Grande 5 Barma Grande 6 Baousso da Torre 1 Baousso da Torre 2 Baousso da Torre 3 Arene Candide 1 Paglicci 2 Paglicci 25 Ostuni 1 Ostuni 1 bis Ostuni 2 Veneri 1 Veneri 2 Sex ? ? M F F? M M M F? F? M M M M ? M M F F ? ? M F Age ca. 8 23 adult old 1315 adult adult 3335 1213 1415 adult adult adult 2530 ca. 15 1415 1314 1820 ca. 20 fetus not child ! 3035 ! 3035 Positiona ? ? E F F E/F E E E E E F E E EV E E E E/F E/F E/F E/F Orientation ? SE-NW N-S N-S N-S S-N N-S E-W E-W E-W N-S N-S NW-SE NW-SE NW-SE S-N SW-NE N-S S-N S-N S-N S-N Ochre yes yes yes ? yes yes yes yes yes yes no ? yes yes no yes yes yes ? ? yes yes Featuresb P D P, St P, St P, St P? St P? St P P P ? ? ? ? ? P, St St P P, St ? P P Grave Goods yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes ? yes yes
sources: Onoratini and Combier (1996), Mussi (2001). a E, extended; F, tightly exed; E/F, extended with exed legs; EV, extended on the abdomen. b P, burial pit; D, use of a natural depression; St, stones variously arranged.
Grande, one of several Ligurian sites at which C14 determinations on human remains are currently under way (V. Formicola, personal communication, 2000). The preliminary results do not contradict previously suggested archaeological correlations (Mussi 1986, 1996, 2001). While state-of-the-art knowledge cannot be expected of authors working with secondhand inventories (including May 1986, notorious for both incompleteness and duplication [Mussi 1989]), there should be at least some critical assessment of the literature. Bisson, Tisnerat, and White (1996), instead, are quoted at face value to claim that the Barma Grande burials postdate 20,000 years b.p. The so-called new dates for Barma Grande have already been discussed elsewhere (Bolduc, Cinq-Mars, and Mussi 1996). Sufce it to say that Bisson, Tisnerat, and White make use of three bone samples, one without any known depth and a second belonging to a rodent; the third was apparently found at 8 m, where an Aurignacian level once existed: the resulting age is 19,000 years, while an age in excess of 30,000 years would be expected if this futile exercise in paleostratigraphy had any scientic meaning at all. At a general European level, Riel-Salvatore and Clark do not mention the Red Lady of Paviland, redated by Aldhouse-Green and Pettit (1998), and omit most of the evidence on Predmost that is easily available in Jelnek (1991). Combe Capelle and Les Cottes are included, but, according to Gambiers revision (1990), they do not belong to the Palaeolithic. Then, much emphasis is given to the proposal of subdividing the Upper Palaeolithic into early (40,00020,000 years b.p.) and late (20,00010,000 years b.p.) to allow a better understanding of changes through time. Not only has such a subdivision long been standard among both archaeologists and physical anthropologistsand obviously in the study of burial practicesbut it has already been further rened: at an international symposium held in Moravia in 1995, the need for the identication of a Mid Upper Palaeolithic, between 30,000 and 20,000 years ago, was discussed by a group of 27 specialists from 11 European countries and substantiated by an even wider number of scientic contributions (Mussi and Roebroeks 1996, Roebroeks et al. 2000). If this more detailed subdivision is used, not only all the specimens assembled in my table but practically all those of Riel-Salvatore and Clark fall within the Mid Upper Palaeolithic time range: they are Cro-Magnon burials related either to the nal Aurignacian or to the Upper Perigordian (Bouchud 1966, Movius 1969), with Combe Capelle and Les Cottes best dismissed and only one Early Upper Palaeolithic grave left, Saint-Cesaire, the only Up per Palaeolithic burial of a Neandertal. It is quite clear that, all over the middle latitudes of Eurasia, from the Atlantic coast to Siberia, the Mid Upper Palaeolithic burials are the rst uncontroversial evidence of anatomically modern humans burying their dead. Their age clusters in the millennia around 25,000 years b.p., while the Neandertal graves span 50,000 years or more, with the latest, Saint-Cesaire, some 10,000 years earlier than the Mid Upper Palaeolithic burial.
The time gap and some recurrent characteristics of the Mid Upper Palaeolithic burials such as a mostly extended position, stones and other arrangements, generalized use of ochre, and elaborate grave goods all argue against the hypothesis of continuity in mortuary practices. Furthermore, the many robust and tall adolescents and adults of the Mid Upper Palaeolithic burials are linked by recent studies not to hybrids but to anatomically modern human groups interconnected by signicant gene ow and enjoying high nutritional standards (Formicola and Giannecchini 1999, Churchill et al. 2000). To sum up, this poorly researched paper fails to provide either a new methodological approach or circumstantial evidence allowing a better understanding of Palaeolithic graves or of the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition. lawrence g. straus Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M. 87131, U.S.A. (lstraus@unm.edu). 23 iii 01 The time-honored and deeply ingrained but ultimately arbitrary categories of Middle and Upper Paleolithic mask long-lasting processes of biocultural evolution in Western Eurasia. Reifying them has forced prehistorians to support an essentially punctuationist model of change that is increasingly indefensible. Riel-Salvatore and Clarks analysis adds to the evidence indicating considerable continuity in many aspects of human adaptation across the latter half of the Upper Pleistocene and supports an analytical distinction between earlier and later Upper Paleolithic time. This is not a new idea; it was clearly enunciated by John Campbell (1977) in his study of the Upper Paleolithic of Britainwhich is not surprising, since the two periods of human occupation were separated by a hiatus in settlement of this northerly region of Europe due to abandonment during the Last Glacial Maximum. Among many others seeing such a distinction in the record, Freeman (1973) and then I (e.g., Straus 1977) suggested that there was major intensication in human subsistence in the later Upper Paleolithic in Cantabrian Spain, with more similarities in terms of hunting and gathering between the Middle and the earlier Upper Paleolithic than between the Early and the Late Upper Paleolithic. The notion of the Upper Paleolithic as a monolithic stage in human evolution is highly debatable. Human culture and even anatomy were not the same under, for example, the interstadial conditions of Hengelo or Arcy, the pleniglacial ones of the Last Glacial Maximum, the nearly interglacial ones of Bolling/Allerod, or the Dryas III crisis. The distinction between Early and Late Upper Paleolithic is of proven signicance in the study of biological stress and functional anatomy, as linked with behavioral changes including technology and subsistence (e.g., Brennan 1991, Churchill, Weaver, and Niewoehner 1996). There are major differences in technology, subsistence, art, and human settlement between the
Mousterian and the Magdalenian (e.g., Straus 1983), but there are no absolute breaks in all aspects of culture from one intervening Mortilletian period to the next. At the same time, it is now undeniable that Neandertals (not just Cro-Magnons) were capable of change (see dErrico et al. 1998, but with caveats in the comments) and that there were regional developments in subsistence (e.g., Stiners 1994 evidence for increased hunting in west-central Italy after ca. 55,000 b.p. and possibly Farizy, David, and Jauberts 1994 suggestion of specialized bison hunting in southern France), in technology made by Neandertals (e.g., the Chatelperronian of France and Spain [e.g., Pelegrin 1995; Arrizabalaga and Altuna 2000], the Olchevian of Croatia [Karavanic 1995], and possibly the Uluzzian of Italy [Kuhn and Bietti 2000] and the Szeletian sensu lato of Central Europe [e.g., Allsworth-Jones 1986]), and even in representation (e.g., the ca. 54,000-year-old engraving on a int nodule at Quneitra on the Golan Heights [Goren-Inbar 1990]). In fact, as has been pointed out (most recently by Bar-Yosef and Kuhn 1999), Neandertals had repeatedly invented prismatic blade manufacturing sometime early in the time range of the Middle Paleolithic, and this was only one aspect of the variability and exibility that characterized the technology of this stage (e.g., Kuhn 1995). In short, the story can be seen as a play in three acts: Prologue: The Neandertals change (whether on their own or as a result of contacts with Cro-Magnons or both). Act 1: Certain useful inventions (e.g., Aurignacian split-base antler points) diffuse widely via a network of social relations or via human movementsor bothbut with considerable regional variation in content and timing under often relatively benign environmental conditions. Act 2: With a climatic downturn, humans create a yet more elaborate set of regionally specic cultural responses (e.g., the Pavlovian, the Font-Robert Gravettian, the Perigordian) and then abandon northern Europe for refugia in the south, where there are dramatic developments in weapons-related technology, subsistence intensication, settlement systems, regional population density and territorialism, and symbol systems and ideology (e.g., the Solutrean, the early Epigravettian). Act 3: Gradual but irregular amelioration of climate brings expansion of the human range into upland and montane areas and eventually recolonization of northern Europe by Magdalenian bands equipped with complex, specialized lithic and osseous technologies and a widespread network of symbols and social relationships made manifest by portable art styles and exotic objects such as marine and fossil shells, amber, and special nonlocal ints. Epilogue: Dramatic environmental changes, with generalized reforestation, glacial retreat, sea-level rise, and extinction of Pleistocene faunas, lead to radical simplication of technologies, termination of the old symbol system, and a variety of strategies for survival ranging from (momentarily) clinging to old ways to rapid mesolithization.
Overall, the story is one of mosaic evolution (see, e.g., Straus 1996, 1997). Human burial appears among Neandertals in some regions (Belgium, Germany, southwestern France, and Israel), and some of those regions also tend to be rich in Cro-Magnon burials, while other equally archaeologically rich regions (e.g., Cantabrian Spain) have none. Some regions (Liguria, Moravia) have many Upper Paleolithic burials but few or no demonstrable Neandertal ones. In the critical period between 40,000 and 27,000 b.p. (uncalibrated), some regions see the early appearance of so-called Aurignacian assemblages, others have particular transitional industries of their own, and yet others (notably southern Iberia) witness the long survival of Mousterian technology (sometimes associated with Neandertals). The burial evidence highlighted by Riel-Salvatore and Clark thus makes sense in a murky situation. The so-called Middleto-Upper Paleolithic transition can be characterized as a punctuation event only from the perspective of a geological time scale. When we want to approach an understanding of processes we must look at things more closely, and then they get complex. In many respects, the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition may amount to a trait-frequency distribution shift, ultimately part of continuum of change that we call evolution. Finally, I would note that Riel-Salvatore and Clark mistakenly classify the Starosele child burial as a Neandertal when the latter attribution was convincingly disproven in the pages of this journal by Marks and colleagues (1997) as a very likely intrusive Muslim interment. anne-marie tillier UMR5809 Laboratoire dAnthropologie des Populations du Passe, Universite Bordeaux 1, Avenue des Facultes, 33405 Talence, France (am.tillier@ anthropologie.u-bordeaux.fr). 6 iv 01 Riel-Salvatore and Clark address the question of the validity of Gargetts rejection (1989, 1999) of the present archaeological evidence for purposeful burial of a few Middle Paleolithic hominids. According to Gargett, most reports of such discoveries have failed to recognize the role of natural depositional events. As a member of the Kebara team, I was quite surprised to learn (Gargett 1999: 64) that if the right hipbone of the Kebara 2 hominid was better preserved than the left it was because it was nearest the caves entrance and therefore nearer the source of wind-blown and colluvial sediments. In fact the Kebara 2 skeleton was oriented generally west-east and both hipbones had the same orientation with regard to the cave entrance. Riel-Salvatore and Clark tend to accept a view already expressed by others (e.g., Tillier 1990, Belfer-Cohen and Hovers 1992, Hayden 1993, Hovers et al. 2000, Bar-Yosef 2000) that Gargetts approach to the criteria that appear to be primarily of behavioral relevance in the Middle Paleolithic hominid sample is rather subjective. Indeed, the view that, in contrast to Upper Paleolithic hominids,
Middle Paleolithic hominids (either Neandertals or early modern humans) lacked the capacity for innovative behavior beyond their quest for food seems to be less common among scholars trained in the Old World. Riel-Salvatore and Clark compare Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic sites on several categories of mortuary data. Their aim is to submit both samples of hominid skeletal remains currently considered as the results of purposeful burials to the same critical scrutiny, and they deserve credit for this approach. Their analyses are based on the examination of distributions of variation within and between the two hominid samples of biological (age at death, sex, bone lesions, phylogenetic afliation) and taphonomic (body position, pit, archaeological deposits) data. While they make some cautious remarks in their introduction, we expect them to express more uncertainties in their analysis before adopting any interpretation. Yet the data presented are not always appropriate and/or up-to-date. Although I cannot discuss the paper in detail, I have a few comments to offer. In table 1, the mention of a probable burial for La Ferrassie 8 is quite surprising in the light of its original description (Heim 1982:13). It is Qafzeh 11 instead of Qafzeh 9 that exhibits a bone lesion, as does the Qafzeh 10 immature specimen (Vandermeersch 1981; Tillier 1984, 1999). There is no reason to consider the Staroselye child a probable Neanderthal burial; this specimen is fully modern in its skeletal morphology (Howell 1957, Alekseev 1976, Tillier in Ronen 1982:315) and absolute dating (Marks et al. 1997). Discussing the sex distribution of the burials, RielSalvatore and Clark assert that more males were recovered than females. However, they should recognize that sex estimation based on invalid criteria is questionable. For instance, among Middle Paleolithic hominids in Europe, the low frequency of female skeletons can be explained by the choice of the discriminant variable employed in sex estimation, cranial capacity (La Quina 5, Spy 2). Finally, I wonder why there is no analysis of the chronological aspects inferred in both the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic. For each time period all the sites are treated as a sample. The available dates for the Middle Paleolithic sites provide evidence of a long human occupation, and consequently the data come from sites separated by tens of thousands of years. Moreover, regarding the Upper Paleolithic sites listed in table 2, there are major problems in chronology, as most of the sites have never been accurately dated. Thus, Combe-Capelle can no longer be considered part of the Upper Paleolithic sample (see esp. Gambier 1989:19596). Examining the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition, Riel-Salvatore and Clark argue that it is possible to recognize a certain continuity in mortuary behavior. From my personal experience I am condent that this is the case and that it is one more argument for the humanness of Middle Paleolithic hominids.
Reply
g. a. clark and j. riel-salvatore Tempe, Ariz., U.S.A. 25 v 01 Although we do not necessarily agree with all of them, we very much appreciate the thoughtful comments on our essay. Our position is that, if Gargetts criteria for evaluating the intentionality of Middle Paleolithic burials are to have general applicability, they should also be applied to burials claimed for the Early and Late Upper Paleolithic. As does Straus, we think it advantageous to divide the Upper Paleolithic into early and late phases in pattern searches of all kinds that seek to compare it with the Middle Paleolithic. This is because human adaptations to the middle latitudes of western Eurasiavariable from one geographical region to the nextwere also very different before and after 20,000 years ago, given that the rst 20,000 years of the Upper Paleolithic correspond to the relatively mild, although deteriorating, paleoclimates of oxygen-isotope stage 3 (57,00024,000), whereas those of the 24,00011,000years interval (oxygen-isotope stage 2) correspond to the pleniglacial maximum and subsequent recovery. The divisions of the Paleolithic (and, indeed, the Paleolithic itself) were created (not discovered) by several generations of French prehistorians in order to erect a temporal grid that would bring order to Stone Age archaeology in the years before the development of radiometric chronologies (Sackett 1981). They embody all kinds of implicit preconceptions and assumptions about biological and cultural evolution and their material correlates that have no intrinsic meaning apart from the conceptual frameworks that dene and contextualize them. These conceptual frameworks are accidents of history, ultimately arbitrary, always vague, and seldom made explicit, producing miscommunication as scholars dene and use differently terms and concepts thought to be held in common (Clark 1991). Davidson and Noble claim that we dont address Gargetts argument that consideration of taphonomic processes allows for more nuanced assessments of the intentionality involved in claimed human burials. We disagree. In fact, one of us (GAC) has explicitly defended Gargetts approach, describing it as commendable and, in fact, essential if the discipline is ever to overcome the nave and anachronistic expectation that rst-hand knowledge of data is a sine qua non for credible research conclusions (Duff, Clark, and Chadderdon 1992:222). Instead, we take issue with what he concludes from his research (that all Middle Paleolithic burials can be accounted for by taphonomic processes). And we are certainly not advocating a disregard for taphonomy. Quite the contrary (although taphonomic research is still very much a work in progressstill in the pattern-searching stages). All we claim is that something might be gained by taking into consideration the rsthand observations of the original excavators. A more accurate restatement
of their nal paragraph and one that squares better with our pattern search would be that some Neandertals were intentionally buried (and some were not), some Early Upper Paleolithic hominids were buried (and some were not), and some Late Upper Paleolithic hominids were buried (and some were not). This pattern continues into the Mesolithic and beyond (Newell, Constandse-Westermann, and Meiklejohn 1979, Newell et al. 1990, Clark and Neeley 1987). Frequency shifts over time are due to the combined effects of better preservation and demographic factors resulting from the compression of human populations into southern European refugia during the pleniglacial maximum (clearly a Late Upper Paleolithic phenomenon). We do not doubt the importance of Gargetts research. If we had thought it trivial we would not have bothered to write the article in the rst place. Davidson and Noble also point to the contextual dichotomy of Early Upper Paleolithic open-air burial and Middle Paleolithic burial in caves and assert that a single Middle Paleolithic burial in an open-air context would do more to conrm the hypothesis of Neandertal deliberate burial than any manipulation of currently available (and not very reliable) evidence. This statement is puzzling because table 1 does include an open-air Middle Paleolithic burial, Taramsa 1, in Egypts Nile Valley (Vermeersch et al. 1998). Gargett also acknowledges the existence of this alleged burial but does not discuss it in detail, preferring instead to leave it up to the reader to scrutinize Vermeersch et al.s argument in light of the criteria [RG] brings to bear in this paper (Gargett 1999: 30). In other words, he dismisses the one case that has the greatest potential to undermine his argument. There are, indeed, proportionately more Early Upper Paleolithic open-air burials than Middle Paleolithic ones. However, most of them (10/13, or 76.9%) are clustered in Moravia, where no Middle Paleolithic burials are reported. With the exception of Sungir, all the others (19/ 32, or 59.4%) are located in caves or rock sheltersthe same contexts from which claimed Middle Paleolithic burials in those areas are reported. Interestingly, this applies to all the sites mentioned in Mussis table, which she claims are so evidently linked to the central European sample. To us, this bimodal pattern in burial contexts suggests different land-use strategies rather than a qualitative shift in behavior. It might be linked to topography, bedrock, and geomorphological processes preceding and subsequent to the Early Upper Paleolithic, which in turn affected the prevalence of caves and rock shelters in the landscape in the various regions of western Eurasia. Northern Egypt is a good example. In addition to Taramsa 1, three open-air Early Upper Paleolithic burials (Nazlet Khater 1 and 2, Kubbaniya) are known from the area (Vermeersch et al. 1984, Wendorf and Schild 1986). In fact, all Upper Pleistocene burials in northern Egypt are in the open air, just as all western European burials are located in caves, irrespective of period. These observations lend support to our argument that the context of burial had much more to do with the kinds of physiogeographical features available for human use in a given region than with any hypothetical behav-
ioral changes associated with the MiddleUpper Paleolithic transition. DErrico and Vanhaeren misconstrue our interpretation of the frequency data (and our view of evolution) when they claim that we expect progressive changes in the material correlates of social complexity over time. Evolution is directionless, shaped only by context and history (Clark 1999a). Arguing for vectored changes in particular aspects of adaptation is not the same thing as arguing for progress in any global or universal sense. The question is why the incidence of intentional burial apparently increases over time, not whether it was present at all in the Middle Paleolithic. While we acknowledge the possibility that our pattern searches might represent behavioral snapshots (i.e., sampling errorthis is true of any pattern search using archaeological data), we contend that the key to understanding what intentional burial means is precisely whether Middle and Upper Paleolithic hominids had equivalent cognitive abilities. There is no consensus on this. One monitor of cognitive development is whether, and to what extent, hominids practiced intentional burial. The divisions of the Paleolithic, the Paleolithic itself, and the biological taxonomic units Neandertals and modern humans are essentialized, reied, typological categories the behavioral signicance of which is by no means clear. As originally conceptualized, they were just arbitrary ways of dividing up time and morphological variation. Hominids living in western Eurasia during the later phases of the Middle Paleolithic might have interred their dead with greater frequency than those of the early phases of the Middle Paleolithic not because of progressive increases in cognitive development (which, nevertheless, undoubtedly occurred over evolutionary time), but because of changes in adaptation to strictly local environments that might have selected for treating dead bodies differently over time. It isnt clear to us what dErrico and Vanhaeren mean by natural analogies or natural interpretations. We acknowledge that modern mortuary practices are extremely variable and add that, for the same reasons, they were probably extremely variable in the past. We used the conventional MiddleUpper Paleolithic boundary at 40,000 years ago while acknowledging its arbitrary nature and do not dispute the many conicting criteria used to dene it (see, e.g., Clark 1999b). We do dispute the utility of the Upper Paleolithic technocomplexes (e.g., Aurignacian) as analytical units. For one thing, it is by no means clear what they represent behaviorally. It is our opinion that technocomplexes exhibit little or no time-space discreteness, are useless for exploring cultural variation, are not demonstrably cultural at all (i.e., do not correspond to identity-conscious social units), and, despite a commendable shift in emphasis from typology to technology, are often interpreted in exactly the same ways as typological constructs (i.e., as due to identity-consciousness manifest in social units like the tribes, nations, and peoples of history). Finally, we did not intend to suggest that Mellars (1999) and Zilhao and dErrico (1999a) have sim ilar views of human origins. For Mellars, moderns re-
placed Neandertals without admixture because they were cognitively (hence technologically) more advanced and therefore able to outcompete Neandertals and displace them from their traditional homelands. For Zilhao and dErrico, moderns and Neandertals were cognitively equivalent and Neandertals underwent a MiddleUpper Paleolithic transition independent of and earlier than that involving moderns and the Aurignacian; to the extent to which the latter replaced the former it was because of genetic swamping (allowing for admixture and an arguable inux of moderns after 40,000 years ago). We are somewhat taken aback by Gargetts critical reaction to our paper, given our general endorsement of his approach. We reiterate that we disagree with Gargetts conclusions (which are the same in the 1989 and 1999 essays) and with some of the criteria he uses to evaluate pattern rather than questioning the appropriateness of examining the question in the rst place (see Clark and Lindly 1989b). Everything in archaeology is more or (usually) less secure inference. It is impossible to address any issue or problem in science without making a priori judgments about the variables considered signicant to measure, the methods deemed appropriate to measure them, and, ultimately, the meaning assigned to pattern. How we go about doing this is what makes our inferences weak or strong, nave or sophisticated. As is Gargetts, our entire argument is circumstantial; neither he nor we regard a single criterion in and of itself as sufcient to lead to secure inference. We were curious to see what pattern would look like if we employed a standardized set of criteria to monitor intentionality in human burial over the Middle and the Early Upper Paleolithic and if we divided up time differently than he does. He accuses us of stacking the deck in favor of behavioral continuity over the transition by using novel criteria for dividing up time (which, it should be noted, is a reference variable used to measure change attributed to other causes) and by selective use of both burial data and criteria designed to support the anticipated outcome of our pattern search. We could turn that accusation around and suggest that Gargett displays only an outdated, typological understanding of pattern variation in the Paleolithic archaeological record, compounded by a variety-minimizing, essentialist view of Upper Pleistocene biological variation. But we dont do that. We simply suggest that, until we have a tighter, more reliable chronometric framework for assessing variability in the relevant sites and areas, subdividing the Upper Paleolithic into early and late phases might provide us with a better analytical tool for studying the full range of hominid behavior and morphological variability over the course of the Upper Pleistocene than the conventional bipartite subdivision. On the question of fragmentary remains, Gargett seems oblivious to the fact that crucial bits and pieces of humans show up in archaeological contexts throughout the Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and even Neolithic in many areas of western Eurasia. What does that say about fragmentation as a criterion for inferring intentionality? We also dispute Gargetts contention that
we have caricatured his argument. As he points out, the importance of taphonomy in Paleolithic archaeology is seldom adequately recognized, and the role of geoarchaeology in contemporary archaeological research can hardly be overemphasized. However, by depicting it as an arbitrary approach that seeks to eliminate human agency altogether, Gargett misrepresents the aim of geoarchaeology, which is the careful study of all site formation processes and agents, including those associated uniquely with hominids. To imply that hominids could have had no role in the preservation of human remains at sites that are dened rst and foremost by their presence courts absurdity. We explicitly state that we give the original excavators reports the benet of the doubt with respect to their capacity to monitor intentionality. While we acknowledge that our understanding of site formation processes has advanced considerably over the past 30 years and that Gargett is right to be skeptical, second-guessing people who were fully competent professionals in their era seems to introduce as many problems as it solves. We suggest that we know as much about Neandertal sexual dimorphism as we do about sexual dimorphism during the Early Upper Paleolithic and that there are many criteria for determining sex (e.g., gonial angle, cranial bossing, characteristics of the orbits, distal humerus, etc.) other than gracility and pubic architecture. Having excavated about 50 human burials (albeit from recent time frames), Clark can testify that in many contexts pits are relatively obvious, clear-cut features and not something that is easily confounded with the action of natural processes. Unequivocal pits are well-documented from Paleolithic contexts (e.g., Freeman and Gonzalez-Echegaray 1973). It is with some relief, then, that we turn to Hovers and Belfer-Cohens sympathetic comment. Gargetts assertion that the Upper Paleolithic evidence reveals differences [in burial behavior] that obviate the need for a comparison (1999:30) between the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic is probably the most unfortunate sentence he has ever written! We can only agree with Hovers and Belfer-Cohen that our construal of pattern over the transition is a complex picture of changing monitors of human adaptation. It is this temporal-spatial mosaic that calls into question the relatively abrupt and comprehensive replacement scenarios for the appearance of modern humans in western Europe (Straus 1997, Clark 1997a). Hovers and Belfer-Cohen remark on the evidence for Early Upper Paleolithic parietal art and the number of beads and variety of grave goods at Sungir as Early Upper Paleolithic examples that mirror patterns more common in the Late Upper Paleolithic. We do not argue that there are no Early Upper Paleolithic burials as complex as some Late Upper Paleolithic burials or that there are no Early Upper Paleolithic examples of fully developed parietal art. However, it is clear that art, ornaments, organic technologies, and burials are much more common when scaled to unit time and space in the Late Upper Paleolithic than in the Early Upper Paleolithic, and it is no coincidence that burials and art are concen-
trated when and where they are. Their time-space distributions can be explained as the material consequences of the demographic compression that was such a conspicuous feature of the Pleniglacial and Tardiglacial in the west (Barton, Clark, and Cohen 1994, Clark, Barton, and Cohen 1996) and the relative prevalence of caves in these regions. We do not dispute Hovers and Belfer-Cohens claim that even if intentional burial is shown to exist in the Middle Paleolithic this behavior need not have been symbolic or linked to other forms of symbolic behavior (Chase and Dibble 1987). At the same time, our study does suggest that at least some of the Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic burials are directly comparable, with the implication that if we elect to attribute symbolic loading to all Early Upper Paleolithic inhumations we must also extend this interpretation to comparable Middle Paleolithic burials. It is also possible that what had originated as an essentially utilitarian form of behavior (getting rid of a dead body) might eventually have taken on a symbolic loading, although this possibility lacks any clear-cut test implications. Our goal was not so much to try to demonstrate that Middle Paleolithic hominids had symbolic behavior as to show that we must be careful to avoid interpretive double standards when dealing with comparable data sets (Roebroeks and Corbey 2000, Gaudinski and Roebroeks 1999). Tongue in cheek, Krantz chastises us for covering too large an area and time span and thereby inviting criticism. The intent of the paper was to compare the Middle with the Early Upper Paleolithic rather than with the Upper Paleolithic en bloc, where, we argue, Late patterns likely swamp Early ones and thus give the impression of less continuity than may in fact be the case. Human origins research is not for the faint of heart; we certainly were not trying to avoid criticism. Along with the rest of the profession, we will be interested to see evidence for very young dates for Skhul and Qafzeh. At present, and depending on the method used, Skhul is dated from 81,000 to 119,000 years ago, Qafzeh from 92,000 to 115,000 years ago (Bar-Yosef 1998:47). The Levantine Mousterian now extends back to ca. 270,000 years ago (Mercier et al. 1995). By using the available dates for Skhul and Qafzeh we were not subscribing to what Krantz calls established doctrine. Although he acknowledges archaeological evidence for continuity in adaptation in Europe, he appears to think the situation is different for the Levant. There is, however, abundant evidence for archaeological continuity in the Levant, acknowledged even by staunch advocates of biological replacement (e.g., Bar-Yosef 1998). On a global scale, there are no correlations whatsoever between kinds of hominids and kinds of archaeological assemblages. Larssons observations regarding the tricky business of inferring subtle differences in cognition are points well taken. We tried to take skeletal preservation into account but were often limited by the nature of the published accounts and the lack of a taphonomic focus among many early workers. Having said that, the whole point of the exercise (and an important subtext of the modern-
human-origins debate in general) is that documented intentionality in human burial tells us something interesting and important about human cognitive evolution (although clearly it is not the only monitor of cognition). Regarding rockfalls and fragmented but complete skeletons (Gargetts beer cans), Larsson remarks that if rockfalls were a common cause of death we might expect to nd evidence of other cave-dwelling animals with beer can signatures. While we acknowledge that rockfalls occurred in caves and rock shelters throughout geological time and that they were episodic and occasionally cataclysmic, to invoke them to explain complete but crushed human skeletons appears to us to be reaching. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence that hyenas and cave bears were ever killed by rockfalls, and, given the very sporadic human use of caves and rock shelters throughout prehistory, the probability is practically nil that the two events would ever have coincided. Marshack raises a number of interesting questions about skeletal evidence for interpersonal violence (better documented in the Mesolithic, when unambiguous cemeteries show up for the rst time), the possible effects of mobility on whether people were buried, and sociodemographic factors that might have selected for increasingly frequent burial (hence improved archaeological visibility) during the Late Upper Paleolithic. Although we used all the data available to us and acknowledged that they almost certainly do not represent the full range of mortuary practices over the relevant time and space intervals, unless there is systematic bias due to contextual factors (e.g., caves versus open sites, short-term versus long-term sites, etc.) there is no reason to think that the sample we analyzed would be biased in any particular direction (although, of course, it is dominated by remains recovered from caves and rock shelters). Perhaps our most acerbic critic is Mussi, who sees little redemptive value in the paper. She claims that we have the chronology of the Italian sites wrong (and in consequence omitted some cases under the mistaken impression that they were late), evidently giving greater weight to typological criteria for assemblage denition than to hard radiometric evidence. This theoretical stance is problematic in a number of respects. For one thing, the Italian Upper Paleolithic industries have traditionally been classied according to Laplaces analytical framework, which differs markedly from that of Bordes. Second, not all Italian workers adopt a chronotypological approach. Bietti (1991) points out that many of the so-called Upper Paleolithic index-fossil tool types occur in varying frequencies outside the prehistoriandened analytical units to which they are supposedly conned (see also Kuhn and Bietti 2000). Italy also apparently lacks a Solutrean. Clearly, radiometric dates and paleoenvironmental data are the only secure foundations upon which to erect any kind of prehistoric chronology. Mussi advocates dividing the Upper Paleolithic into three stages, including a Mid Upper Paleolithic dated between 30,000 and 20,000 years ago into which most
of our Early Upper Paleolithic cases would fall. No basis for this subdivision is offered. While it is clearly a good idea to divide the Upper Paleolithic into more meaningful units, the division we use makes more sense than the one proposed by Mussi, since the Late Upper Paleolithic marks the beginning of the last glacial downturn (i.e., it has paleoclimatic correlates that were likely to have affected human behavior throughout western Eurasia). That our subdivision has long been standard among both archaeologists and physical anthropologists is news to us, since practically all publications by replacement advocates use the more conventional MiddleUpper Paleolithic division at ca. 40,000 years ago. In our view, the conventional schema is favored by most replacement advocates precisely because of the expectation that the archaeological and the biological transitions should coincide. They have this preconception about pattern because one population (moderns making Aurignacian tools) is thought to be replacing another one (Neandertals making Mousterian and/or Chatelperron ian, Uluzzian, etc., tools). However, as mentioned above, there is no empirical support for a correlation between hominid biological types and archaeological assemblage types. Biology and culture can and do vary independently of one another. Since we agree with him, there is little we can add to Strauss remarks except that we must nd a way to break the connes of the normative, typological thinking that dominates most discussion of pattern in biological and cultural variation over the last half of the Upper Pleistocene. In particular, the basic analytical units (e.g., Aurignacian, Chatelperronian, Neandertal) have become naturalized and so are seldom subjected to critical scrutiny. Many workers treat them as if they were objectively real, intrinsically meaningful, and unproblematic, with the implication that the systematics used to generate them are themselves unproblematic. We suggest that this is rather nave. In default of a concern with epistemology (notably lacking in this type of research), we have no way to determine whether workers in different research traditions are dening and using these analytical units in the same ways or to justify them as behaviorally meaningful (i.e., as appropriate for addressing transition questions). In other words, it is simply taken for granted that the analytical units and the systematics that underlie them are adequate to address transition questions. We strongly suspect that they are not (Clark 1997a). We assure Tillier that we are painfully aware of the empirical insufciencies of our data and of the difculties in inferring the age and sex of incompletely preserved human remains (see Giles 1970 for a useful summary) but had to proceed on the basis of published accounts. Isolated human remains are the norm throughout the Pleistocene, and it is only with the appearance of cemeteries late in the Mesolithic that samples demonstrably representative of the range of variation within a biological population become available (Clark and Neeley 1987). Uncertainties about dating have always gured prominently in transition research, pri-
marily because the interval of interest lies at the limits of the most widely used and reliable radiometric dating method in Europe, radiocarbon. And there are those (e.g., Mussi) who put more faith in typology than in absolute dates. We acknowledge the probable error, also noted by Straus, in regard to the Staroselye child (Marks et al. 1997). In the years since its discovery in 1953, the phylogenetic status of the Staroselye child (an infant of 1819 months) has been much debated (see Marks et al. 1997:116, 117 for a useful summary). It is interesting that it has changed in concert with prevailing views of what constitutes a modern human, underscoring the difculties attendant on assigning very young (albeit complete) individuals to biological taxonomic units. Whether Paleolithic humans buried their dead has been debated for well over a century and will doubtless continue to be debated for the foreseeable future. We hope to have shown here that, if we are to develop a better understanding of this phenomenon, it is imperative that we look at Upper Pleistocene burial as a process and try to place it in the context of the changing regional adaptations of which it was once a part. Our research casts doubt on the utility of conventional chronotypological conceptual frameworks as organizing devices, as has a complementary study based on the totality of preMesolithic human interments (Riel-Salvatore 2001). The range of commentary shows that, intellectually, Paleolithic archaeology is alive and well and that its practitioners, despite diverse theoretical perspectives, nonetheless contribute to intelligent discourse about key issues of the remote human past. A plurality of perspectives is essential to the development of the discipline as a rigorous scientic endeavor capable of generating new knowledge about the human career. The assumptions, biases, and preconceptions that underlie the logic of inference in the various intellectual traditions involved in the research must also be subjected to critical scrutiny if we are to avoid the miscommunication that often results when workers differ among themselves with respect to what constitutes data, what questions are important to ask of data, and how data should be analyzed.
References Cited
a k a z a w a , t . , s . m u h e s e n , y. d o d o , o . k o n d o , y. m i z o g u c h i , y. a b e , y. n i s h i a k i , s . o h t a , t . o g u c h i , a n d j . h a y d a l . 1995. Neanderthal infant burial from the Dederiyeh Cave in Syria. Paleorient 2122:7786. a l d h o u s e - g r e e n , s . , a n d p . p e t t i t . 1998. Paviland Cave: Contextualizing the Red Lady. Antiquity 72:75672. [mm] a l e k s e e v, v. p . 1976. Position of the Staroselye nd in the hominid system. Journal of Human Evolution 5:41321. [at] a l l s w o r t h - j o n e s , p . 1986. The Szeletian. Oxford: Clarendon. [lgs] a r r i z a b a l a g a , a . , a n d j . a l t u n a . 2000. Labeko Koba (Pas Vasco): Hienas y humanos en los albores del Paleoltico superior. Munibe 52. [lgs] b a c h e c h i , k . , p - f . f a b r i , a n d f . m a l l e g n i . 1987. An
arrow-caused lesion in a Late Upper Palaeolithic human pelvis. current anthropology 38:13640. [am] b a d e r , n . 1998. The Paleolithic site of Sungir: The graves and environment. Moscow: Scientic World. [eh, ab] b a h n , p a u l g . 1996. Treasure of the Sierra Atapuerca: A mountain range in northern Spain yields a cornucopia of human remains, including the worlds oldest known burials. Archaeology 49:45. [ll] b a h n , p . g . , a n d j . v e r t u t . 1997. Journey through the Ice Age. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. [eh, ab] barton, c. michael, geoffrey a. clark, and allis o n c o h e n . 1994. Art as information: Explaining Upper Paleolithic art in western Europe. World Archaeology 26: 185207. b a r t o n , c . m i c h a e l , d e b o r a h i . o l s z e w s k y, a n d n a n c y r . c o i n m a n . 1996. Beyond the graver: Reconsidering burin function. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:11125. b a r - y o s e f , o . 1998. The chronology of the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant, in Neandertals and modern humans in western Asia. Edited by T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and O. BarYosef, pp. 3956. New York: Plenum. . 2000. The Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic in Southwest Asia and neighboring regions, in The geography of Neandertals and modern humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Editor by O. Bar-Yosef and D. Pilbeam, pp. 10756. Peabody Museum Bulletin 8. [at] b a r - y o s e f , o . , a n d s . l . k u h n . 1999. The big deal about blades: Laminar technologies and human evolution. American Anthropologist 101:32238. bar-yosef, o., b. vandermeersch, b. arensburg, a. belfer-cohen, p. goldberg, h. laville, l. meign e n , y. r a k , j . d . s p e t h , e . t c h e r n o v, a - m . t i l l i e r , a n d s . w e i n e r . 1992. The excavations in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel. current anthropology 33:497550. b e l f e r - c o h e n , a n n a , a n d e r e l l a h o v e r s . 1992. In the eye of the beholder: Mousterian and Natuan burials in the Levant. current anthropology 33:46371. b i e t t i , a m i l c a r e . 1991. Normal science and paradigmatic biases in Italian hunter-gatherer prehistory, in Perspectives on the past: Theoretical biases in Mediterranean hunter-gatherer research. Edited by G. A. Clark, pp. 25881. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. b i n f o r d , l e w i s r . 1971. Mortuary practices: Their study and their potential, in Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuary practices. Edited by J. A. Brown, pp. 629. Society for American Archaeology Memoirs 25. b i n f o r d , s a l l y r . 1968. A structural comparison of disposal of the dead in the Mousterian and the Upper Paleolithic. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24:13953. b i s s o n , m i c h a e l s . 2000. Nineteenth-century tools for twenty-rst-century archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic typology of Francois Bordes must be replaced. Journal of Ar chaeological Method and Theory 7:148. b i s s o n , m . s . , n . t i s n e r a t , a n d r . w h i t e . 1996. Radiocarbon dates from the Upper Paleolithic of the Barma Grande. current anthropology 37:15662. b o e d a , e r i c . 1988. Le concept laminaire: Rupture et liation avec le concept Levallois, in Lhomme de Neandertal, vol. 8, La mutation. Edited by J. K. Kozlowski, pp. 4159. Liege: ` Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de lUniversite de Liege. ` b o l d u c , p . , j . c i n q - m a r s , a n d m . m u s s i . 1996. Les gurines des Balzi Rossi (Italie): Une collection perdue et retrouvee. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique de lAriege 51:1553. ` [mm] b o r d e s , f r a n c o i s . 1961. Typologie du Paleolithique infer ieur et moyen. Bordeaux: Imprimerie Delmas. b o u c h u d , j . 1966. Remarques sur les fouilles de L. Lartet a ` labri de Cro-Magnon (Dordogne). Bulletin de la Societe des Etudes et Recherches Prehistoriques Les Eyzies 15: 2836. [mm] b o u l e , m a r c e l l i n , a n d h e n r i v a l l o i s . 1952. 4th edition. Les hommes fossiles: Elements de paleontologie hu maine. Paris: Masson. [gsk] b r a c e , c . l o r i n g . 1995. Biocultural interaction and the
mechanism of mosaic evolution in the emergence of modern humans. American Anthropologist 97:71121. [gsk] b r a u e r , g u n t e r . 1984. The Afro-European sapiens hypoth esis and hominid evolution in East Asia during the late Middle and Upper Pleistocene, in The early evolution of man. Edited by P. Andrews and J. Franzen, pp. 14565. Frankfurt: Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft. . 1989. The evolution of modern humans: A comparison of the African and non-African evidence, in The human revolution. Edited by P. A. Mellars and C. Stringer, pp. 12354. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. b r e n n a n , m . u . 1991. Health and disease in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic of southwestern Europe: A bioarcheological study. Ph.D. diss., New York University, New York, N.Y. b r o c a , p . 1873. The Troglodytes, or cave-dwellers, of the Valley of the Vezere. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report, ` pp. 31047. [am] b r o s e , d . s . , a n d m . h . w o l p o f f . 1971. Early Upper Paleolithic man and late Middle Paleolithic tools. American Anthropologist 73:115694. c a m p b e l l , j . b . 1977. The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain. Oxford: Clarendon. [lgs] c a r r , c h r i s t o p h e r . 1995. Mortuary practices: Their social, philosophical-religious, circumstantial, and physical determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:10595. c a u w e , n i c o l a s . 1998. La Grotte Margaux a Anseremme` Dinant: Etude dune sepulture collective du Mesolithique an cien. Liege: ERAUL. [ll] ` c h a s e , p h i l i p . 1989. How different was Middle Paleolithic subsistence? A zooarchaeological perspective on the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition, in The human revolution. Edited by P. A. Mellars and C. Stringer, pp. 32137. Princeton: Princeton University Press. . 1991. Symbols and Paleolithic artifacts: Style, standardization, and the imposition of arbitrary form. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:193214. c h a s e , p . , a n d h . d i b b l e . 1987. Middle Paleolithic symbolism: A review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:26396. c h u r c h i l l , s . e . , v. f o r m i c o l a , t . h . h o l l i d a y, a n d b . a . s c h u m a n n . 2000. The Upper Palaeolithic population of Europe in an evolutionary perspective, in Hunters of the Golden Age: The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia (30,00020,000 b.p.). Edited by W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda, and K. Fennema, pp. 3157. Leiden: Leiden University Press. [mm] c h u r c h i l l , s . , a . w e a v e r , a n d w. n i e w o e h n e r . 1996. Late Pleistocene human technological and subsistence behavior. Quaternaria Nova 6:41347. [lgs] c l a r k , g e o f f r e y a . Editor. 1991. Perspectives on the past: Theoretical biases in Mediterranean hunter-gatherer research. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. . 1992. Continuity or replacement? Putting modern human origins in evolutionary context, in The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, behavior, and variability. Edited by H. L. Dibble and P. A. Mellars, pp. 183205. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. . 1993. Paradigms in science and archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 1:20334. . 1997a. Through a glass darkly: Conceptual issues in modern human origins research, in Conceptual issues in modern human origins research. Edited by G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, pp. 6076. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. . 1997b. The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe: An American perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 30:2553. . 1999a. Modern human origins: Highly visible, curiously intangible. Science 283:202932; 284:917. . 1999b. Review of: Sociocultural evolution, by Bruce Trigger (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). American Antiquity 64:54748. c l a r k , g e o f f r e y, a . , c . m i c h a e l b a r t o n , a n d a l l i s o n c o h e n . 1996. Explaining art in the Franco-Cantabrian
refugium: An information exchange model, in Debating complexity. Edited by D. Meyer, P. Dawson, and D. Hanna, pp. 24153. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. c l a r k , g . a . , a n d j . m . l i n d l y. 1989a. Modern human origins in the Levant and Western Asia: The fossil and archaeological evidence. American Anthropologist 91:96285. . 1989b. Comment on: Grave shortcomings, by Robert H. Gargett. current anthropology 30:7879. . 1991. On paradigmatic biases and Paleolithic research traditions. current anthropology 32:57787. c l a r k , g . a . , a n d m . n e e l e y. 1987. Social differentiation in European Mesolithic burial data, in Mesolithic Western Europe: Recent trends. Edited by P. Rowley-Conwy, M. Zvelebil, and H. P. Blankholm, pp. 12127. Shefeld: John R. Collis. c l a r k , g . a . , a n d c . m . w i l l e r m e t . 1995. In search of the Neanderthals: Some conceptual issues with specic reference to the Levant. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 5: 15356. c o o k , j i l l . 1991. Preliminary report on marked human bones from the 19861987 excavations at Goughs Cave, Somerset, England, in The Late Glacial in north-west Europe: Human adaptation and environmental change at the end of the Pleistocene. Edited by N. Barton, A. J. Roberts, and D. A. Roe, pp. 16068. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 77. [ll] d a v i d s o n , i . 1997. The power of pictures, in Beyond art: Pleistocene image and symbol. Edited by M. Conkey, O. Soffer, D. Stratmann, and N. G. Jablonski, pp. 12560. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 23. [id, wn] . 1999a. First people becoming Australian. Anthropologie (Brno) 37(1):12541. [id, wn] . 1999b. Symbols by Nature: Animal frequencies in the Upper Palaeolithic of Western Europe and the nature of symbolic representation. Archaeology in Oceania 34:12131. [id, wn] d e e u r , a l b a n . 1993. Les sepultures mousteriennes. Paris: CNRS. d e l l u c , g . , a n d b . d e l l u c . 1989. Le sang, la souffrance et la mort dans lart paleolithique. LAnthropologie 93:389406. [am] derrico, f., j. zilhao, m. julien, d. bafer, and j . p e l e g r i n . 1998. Neanderthal acculturation in Western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. current anthropology 39:S144. d i b b l e , h a r o l d l . 1984. Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: Function, style, or sequence of reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11:43136. . 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52:10917. d i b b l e , h . l . , a n d n . r o l l a n d . 1992. On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of Western Europe: History, perspectives, and a new synthesis, in The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, behavior, and variability. Edited by H. L. Dibble and P. A. Mellars, pp. 128. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. duarte, c., j. maurcio, p. b. pettitt, p. souto, e. t r i n k a u s , h . v a n d e r p l i c h t , a n d j . z i l h a o . 1999. The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 96:76049. d u f f , a . i . , g . a . c l a r k , a n d t . j . c h a d d e r d o n . 1992. Symbolism in the Early Palaeolithic: A conceptual odyssey. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2:21129. f a r i z y, c . , f . d a v i d , a n d j . j a u b e r t . 1994. Hommes et bisons du Paleolithique moyen a Mauran. Paris: CNRS. [lgs] ` f o r m i c o l a , v. , a n d m . g i a n n e c c h i n i . 1999. Evolutionary trends of stature in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 36:31933. [mm] f r e e m a n , l . g . 1973. The signicance of mammalian faunas from Paleolithic occupations in Cantabrian Spain. American
Antiquity 38:34. [lgs] freeman, leslie g., and joaqun gonzalez eche g a r a y. 1973. Hallazgo de enterramientos paleolticos y su localizacion en la estratigrafa de Cueva Morn, in Cueva Morn: Excavaciones 1969. Edited by J. Gonzalez Echegaray and Leslie G. Freeman, pp. 21954. Santander: Patronato de Cuevas Prehistoricas. g a m b i e r , d . 1989. Fossil hominids from the Early Upper Paleolithic (Aurignacian) of France, in The human revolution. Edited by P. Mellars and C. Stringer, pp. 194211. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [at] . 1990. Pratiques funeraires au Paleolithique superieur en France: Les sepultures primaires. Bulletins de Memoires de la Societe dAnthropologie de Paris, n.s., 2(34):1928. [mm] g a m b l e , c l i v e . 1989. Comment on: Grave shortcomings: The evidence for Neandertal burial, by Robert H. Gargett. current anthropology 30:18182. [id, wn] . 1994. Timewalkers: The prehistory of global colonization. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [eh, ab] . 1999. The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ll] g a r g e t t , r o b e r t h . 1989. Grave shortcomings: The evidence for Neandertal burial. current anthropology 30: 15790. . 1996. Cave bears and modern human origins: The spatial taphonomy of Pod Hradem Cave, Czech Republic. New York: University Press of America. . 1999. Middle Palaeolithic burial is not a dead issue: The view from Qafzeh, Saint-Cesaire, Kebara, Amud, and Dederi yeh. Journal of Human Evolution 37:2790. . 2000. A response to Hovers, Kimbel, and Raks argument for the purposeful burial of Amud 7. Journal of Human Evolution 39:26166. [rhg] g a u d z i n s k i , s a b i n e , a n d w i l r o e b r o e k s . 1999. Adults only: Reindeer hunting at the Middle Paleolithic site of Salzgitter Lebenstedt, northern Germany. Journal of Human Evolution 38:497521. g i l e s , e u g e n e . 1970. Discriminant function sexing of the human skeleton, in Personal identication in mass disasters. Edited by T. D. Stewart, pp. 99109. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. g o r e n - i n b a r , n . 1990. Quneitra: A Mousterian site on the Golan Heights. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. [lgs] h a r r o l d , f r a n c i s b . 1980. A comparative analysis of Eurasian Palaeolithic burials. World Archaeology 12:195211. h a y d e n , b r i a n . 1993. The cultural capacities of Neandertals: A review and re-evaluation. Journal of Human Evolution 24: 11346. h e i m , j e a n - l o u i s . 1968. Les restes neandertaliens de La Fer rassie: Nouvelles donnees sur la stratigraphie et inventaire des squelettes. Comptes Rendus de lAcademie des Sciences, Paris 266 D:576-78. [rhg] . 1976. Les hommes fossiles de La Ferrassie. Paris: Masson. . 1982. Les enfants Neandertaliens de La Ferrassie. Paris: Masson. h o v e r s , e . , w. h . k i m b e l , a n d y. r a k . 2000. The Amud 7 skeleton, still a burial: Response to Gargett. Journal of Human Evolution 39:25360. h o v e r s , e . , y. r a k , r . l a v i , a n d w. h . k i m b e l . 1995. Hominid remains from Amud Cave in the context of the Levantine Middle Paleolithic. Paleorient 2122:4761. h o w e l l , f . c . 1957. The evolutionary signicance of variation and varieties of Neanderthal man. Quarterly Review of Biology 32:33047. [at] j e l n e k , j . 1991. Decouverte dossements de la population gravettienne de Moravie. LAnthropologie 95:13754. [mm] k a r a v a n i c , i . 1995. Upper Paleolithic occupation levels and late-occurring Neandertal at Vindija Cave (Croatia) in the context of Central Europe and the Balkans. Journal of Anthropological Research 51:935. [lgs] k l i m a , b o h u s l a v. 1987a. Une triple sepulture du Pavlovien
a Doln Vestonice, Tchecoslovaquie. LAnthropologie 91: ` 32934. . 1987b. A triple burial from the Upper Paleolithic of Doln Vestonice, Czechoslovakia. Journal of Human Evolution 16:83135. k n e c h t , h e i d i , a . p i k e - t a y, a n d r . w h i t e . Editors. 1993. Before Lascaux: The complex record of the Early Upper Paleolithic. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. k u h n , s t e v e n l . 1995. Mousterian lithic technology: An ecological perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press. k u h n , s . , a n d a . b i e t t i . 2000. The late Middle and early Upper Paleolithic in Italy, in The geography of Neandertals and modern humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and D. Pilbeam, pp. 49105. Peabody Museum Bulletin 8. [lgs] k u p e r , a . 1988. The invention of primitive society. London: Routledge. [fd, mv] l a r s s o n , l a r s . 1993. The Skateholm Project: Late Mesolithic coastal settlement in southern Sweden, in Case studies in European prehistory. Edited by P. Bogucki, pp. 3162. Ann Arbor: CRC Press. [ll] l a v i l l e , h . , a n d a . t u f f r e a u . 1984. Les depots du grand abri de la Ferrassie: Stratigraphie, signication climatique et chronologie, in Le grand abri de la Ferrassie, Edited by H. Delporte, pp. 2550. Etudes Quaternaires 7. [rhg] l e m o r t , f r a n c o i s e . 1988. Le decharnement du cadavre chez les Neandertaliens: Quelques exemples, in Lhomme de Neandertal, vol. 5, La pensee. Edited by O. Bar-Yosef, pp. 4353. Liege: Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de ` lUniversite de Liege. ` l e v e q u e , f . , a n d b . v a n d e r m e e r s c h . 1980. Decouverte de restes humains dans un niveau castelperronien a Saint-Ce` saire (Charente-Maritime). Compte Rendu de lAcademie des Sciences, Paris 291:18789. . 1981. Le Neandertalien de Saint-Cesaire. La Recherche 119:24244. l i n d l y, j . m . , a n d g . a . c l a r k . 1990. Symbolism and modern human origins. current anthropology 31:23361. l o u w e k o o i j m a n s , l . p . , y u r i s m i r n o v, r a l p h s . s o l e c k i , p a o l a v i l l a , t h o m a s w e b e r , a n d ro b e r t h . g a r g e t t . 1989. On the evidence for Neandertal burial. current anthropology 30:32230. m a n i a , d i e t r i c h . 1998. Die esten Menschen in Europa. Stuttgart: Theiss. [ll] m a r k s , a . , y. d e m i d e n k o , k . m o n i g a l , v. u s i k , c . r . f e r r i n g , a . b u r k e , j . r i n k , a n d c . m c k i n n e y. 1997. Starosele and the Starosele child: New excavations, new results. current anthropology 38:11223. [lgs, at] m a r s h a c k , a l e x a n d e r . 1985. Hierarchical evolution of the human capacity: The Paleolithic evidence. (Fifty-fourth James Arthur Lecture on the Evolution of the Human Brain.) New York: American Museum of Natural History. [am] . 1989. Evolution of the human capacity: The symbolic evidence. Yearbook of Physical Anthroplogy 32:134. m a y, f a b i e n n e . 1986. Les sepultures prehistoriques: Etude critique. Paris: CNRS. m e l l a r s , p a u l . 1989. Major issues in the emergence of modern humans. current anthropology 30:34985. . 1996. The Neanderthal legacy: An archaeological perspective from Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press. . 1999. The Neanderthal problem continued. current anthropology 40:34150. [fd, mv] m e r c i e r , n . , e t a l . 1995. TL dates on burnt ints from Jelineks excavations at Tabun and their implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 22:496509. m o v i u s , h . l . 1969. The Abri de Cro-Magnon, Les Eyzies (Dordogne), and the probable age of the contained burials on the basis of the evidence of the nearby Abri Pataud. Anuario de Estudios Atlanticos 15:32343. [mm] m u s s i , m . 1986. On the chronology of the burials found in the Grimaldi Caves. Antropologa Contemporanea 9:95104. [mm]
. 1989. Review of: Les sepultures prehistoriques: Etude cri tique, by Fabienne May (Paris: CNRS, 1986). Les Nouvelles de lArcheologie 35:53. [mm] . 1996. Rituels funeraires dans les sepultures gravettien nes des Grottes de Grimaldi et de la Gr. delle Arene Candide: Une mise au point, in Nature et culture. Edited by M. Otte, pp. 83346. ERAUL 68. [mm] . 2001. Earliest Italy: An overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. In press. [mm] m u s s i , m . , a n d w. r o e b r o e k s . 1996. The big mosaic. current anthropology 37:69799. [mm] newell, raymond, trinette constandse-westerm a n n , a n d c h r i s t o p h e r m e i k l e j o h n . 1979. The skeletal remains of Mesolithic man in western Europe: An evaluative catalogue. Journal of Human Evolution 8:1228. n e w e l l , r a y m o n d , e t a l . 1990. An inquiry into the ethnic resolution of Mesolithic regional groups. Leiden: Brill. n o b l e , w i l l i a m , a n d i a i n d a v i d s o n . 1989. On depiction and language: Reply. current anthropology 30:33740. [id, wn] . 1991. The evolutionary emergence of modern human behaviour: Language and its archaeology. Man 26:22354. . 1993. Tracing the emergence of modern human behavior: Methodological pitfalls and a theoretical path. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12:12149. . 1996. Human evolution, language, and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. n o r r i s , s c o t t . 1999. Family secrets. New Scientist 2191: 4246. o a k l e y, k . p . , b . g . c a m p b e l l , a n d t . i . m o l l e s o n . Editors. 1971. Catalogue of fossil hominids. Pt. 2. Europe. Ketterings, England: Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History). o n o r a t i n i , g . , a n d j . c o m b i e r . 1996. Restes denfant et parure de coquillages du site gravettien du Marronnier (SaintRemeze-Ardeche): Temoins de lexpansion occidentale de la ` ` culture de tradition noaillienne mediterraneenne, in Nature et culture. Edited by M. Otte, pp. 25971. ERAUL 68. [mm] o t t e , m . , a n d l . h . k e e l e y. 1990. The impact of regionalism on Palaeolithic studies. current anthropology 31: 57782. [eh, ab] p a l m a d i c e s n o l a , a r t u r o . 1993. Il Paleolitico superiore in Italia. Florence: Garlatti e Razzai. p e a r s o n , m . p . 1999. The archaeology of death and burial. Phoenix Mill: Sutton. [fd, mv] p e l e g r i n , j . 1995. Technologie lithique: Le Chatelperronien de Roc-de-Combe et de La Cote. Paris: CNRS. [lgs] p e y r o n y, d . 1934. La Ferrassie: Mousterien, Perigordien, Au rignacian. Prehistoire 3:192. [rhg] r a k , y. , w. h . k i m b e l , a n d e . h o v e r s . 1994. A Neandertal infant from Amud Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 26:31324. r i e l - s a l v a t o r e , j u l i e n . 2001. A critical reevaluation of the evidence for Paleolithic intentional burial. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz. r o e b r o e k s , w i l , a n d r o b e r t c o r b e y. 2000. Periodisations and double standards in the study of the Paleolithic, in Hunters of the Golden Age. Edited by W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, S. Svoboda, and K. Fennema, pp. 4976. Leiden: Leiden University Press. r o e b r o e k s , w. , m . m u s s i , j . s v o b o d a , a n d k . f e n n e m a . Editors. 2000. Hunters of the Golden Age: The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia (30,00020,000 b.p.). Leiden: Leiden University Press. [mm] r o n e n , a . Editor. 1998. The transition from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the origin of modern humans. British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. [at] s a c k e t t , j a m e s . 1981. From de Mortillet to Bordes: A century of French Paleolithic research, in Towards a history of
archaeology. Edited by G. Daniels, pp. 8599. London: Thames and Hudson. s c h e p a r t z , l . a . 1993. Language and modern human origins. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:91124. [eh, ab] semino, o., g. passarino, p. j. oefner, a. a. lin, s. arbuzova, l. e. beckman, g. de benedictis, p. francalacci, a. kouvatsi, s. kimborska, m. marcikiae, a. mika, b. mika, d. primorac, s. sanctachiara-benerecetti, l. l. cavalli-sforza, and p . a . u n d e r h i l l . 2001. The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: A Y chromosome perspective. Science 290:1155. [eh, ab] s m i r n o v, y u r i . 1989. Intentional human burial: Middle Paleolithic (Last Glaciation) beginnings. Journal of World Prehistory 3:199233. s o l e c k i , r a l p h s . 1971. Shanidar: The rst ower people. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. s o n n e v i l l e - b o r d e s , d . d e , a n d j . p e r r o t . 1953. Essai dadaptation des methodes statistiques au Paleolithique super ieur: Premiers resultats. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 50:32333. . 1954. Lexique typologique du Paleolithique superieur, outillage lithique. 1. Grattoirs. 2. Outils solutreens. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 51:32735. . 1955. Lexique typologique du Paleolithique superieur, outillage lithique. 3. Outils composites, percoirs. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 52:7679. . 1956. Lexique typologique du Paleolithique superieur, outillage lithique. 4. Burins. Bulletin de la Societe Prehisto rique Francaise 53:40812, 54759. s p i n d l e r , k . 1994. The man in the ice: The preserved body of a Neolithic man reveals the secrets of the Stone Age. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. [id, wn] s t i n e r , m a r y c . 1994. Honor among thieves: A zooarchaeological study of Neandertal ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. s t i n e r , m a ry c . , n a t a l i e d . m u n ro , a n d t o d d a . s u r o v e l l . 2000. The tortoise and the hare: Small-game use, the broad-spectrum revolution, and Paleolithic demography. current anthropology 41:3973. s t r a u s , l . g . 1977. Of deerslayers and mountain men: Paleolithic faunal exploitation in Cantabrian Spain, in For theory building in archaeology. Edited by L. R. Binford, pp. 4176. New York: Academic Press. [lgs] . 1983. From Mousterian to Magdalenian: Cultural evolution viewed from Vasco-Cantabrian Spain and Pyrenean France, in The Mousterian legacy. Edited by E. Trinkaus, pp. 73111. British Archaeological Reports International Series S164. [lgs] . 1990. The early Upper Paleolithic of southwest Europe, in The emergence of modern humans. Edited by P. A. Mellars, pp. 276302. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. . 1996. Continuity or rupture; convergence or invasion; adaptation or catastrophe; mosaic or monolith: Views on the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Iberia, in The last Neandertals, the rst anatomically modern humans. Edited by E. Carbonell and M. Vaquero, pp. 20318. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. [lgs] . 1997. The Iberian situation between 40,000 and 30,000 b.p. in light of European models of migration and convergence, in Conceptual issues in modern human origins research. Edited by G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, pp. 23552. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. [lgs] s t r i n g e r , c . , a n d p . a n d r e w s . 1988. Genetic and fossil evidence for the origin of modern humans. Science 239: 126368. stringer, c., j. hublin, and b. vandermeersch. 1984. The origin of anatomically modern humans in Europe, in The origins of modern humans. Edited by F. Smith and F. Spencer, pp. 51136. New York: Alan Liss. s v o b o d a , j i r . 1989. A new male burial from Doln Veston
ice. Journal of Human Evolution 16:82730. . 1994. The Pavlov site, Czech Republic: Lithic evidence from the Upper Paleolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 21: 6981. s v o b o d a , j i r , a n d e m a n u e l v l c e k . 1991. La nouvelle sepulture de Doln Vestonice (DV XVI), Tchecoslavaquie. LAnthropologie 95:32328. t i l l i e r , a - m . 1984. Lenfant Homo 11 de Qafzeh (Israel) et son apport a la comprehension des modalites de croissance des ` squellettes mousteriens. Paleorient 10(1):749. [at] . 1990. Une controverse depassee: Lexistence de pratiques funeraires au Paleolithique moyen. Les Nouvelles de lArcheologie 40:2224. [eh, ab, at] . 1995. Paleoanthropologie et pratiques funeraires au Le vant mediterraneen durant le Paleolithique moyen: Le cas des sujets non-adultes. Paleorient 2122:6376. . 1999. Les enfants mousteriens de Qafzeh: Interpretation phylogenetique et paleoauxologique. Paris: CNRS. [at] t r i n k a u s , e . , j . z i l h a o , a n d c . d u a r t e . 1999. The La pedo child: Lagar Velho 1 and our perception of the Neandertals. Mediterranean Prehistory Online. http://www.med.abacomac.it. u b e l a k e r , d o u g l a s . 1978. Human skeletal remains, excavation, analysis, and interpretation. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. u c k o , p e t e r j . 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains. World Archaeology 1:26280. v a n d e r m e e r s c h , b e r n a r d . 1976. Les sepultures neander taliennes, in La prehistoire francaise, vol. 1, Civilisations pa leolithiques et mesolithiques. Edited by H. de Lumley, pp. 72527. Paris: CNRS. . 1981. Les hommes fossiles de Qafzeh (Israel). Paris: CNRS. [at] . 1993. Was the Saint-Cesaire discovery a burial? in Context of a late Neandertal. Edited by F. Leveque, A. M. Backer, and M. Guilbaud, pp. 12931. Madison: Prehistory Press. vermeersch, p., e. paulissen, g. giselings, m. o t t e , a . t h o m a s , a n d c . c h a r l i e r . 1984. Une miniere de silex et un squelette du Paleolithique superieur ancien a ` ` Nazlet Khater, Haute Egypte. LAnthropologie 88:23144. vermeersch, p. m., e. paulissen, s. stokes, c. c h a r l i e r , p . v a n p e e r , c . s t r i n g e r , a n d w. l i n d s a y. 1998. A Middle Paleolithic burial of a modern human at Taramsa Hill, Egypt. Antiquity 72:47584. w e n d o r f , f . , a n d r . s c h i l d . 1986. The Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton: A Late Paleolithic burial from southern Egypt. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. w h i t e , r a n d a l l . 1985. Upper Paleolithic land-use in the Perigord: A topographic approach to subsistence and settle ment. British Archaeological Reports International Series 25. . 1989a. Toward a contextual understanding of the earliest body ornaments, in The emergence of modern humans. Edited by Erik Trinkaus, pp. 21131. New York: Cambridge University Press. . 1989b. Production, complexity, and standardization in early Aurignacian bead and pendant manufacture, in The human revolution. Edited by P. Mellars and C. Stringer, pp. 36690. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. w i l l e r m e t , c a t h e r i n e m . 1993. The debate over modern human origins: A scientic tug-of-war. M.A. thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz. w i l l e r m e t , c . m . , a n d g . a . c l a r k . 1995. Paradigm crisis in modern human origins research. Journal of Human Evolution 29:48790. w o l p o f f , m i l f o r d h . 1989. Multiregional evolution: The fossil alternative to Eden, in The human revolution. Edited by P. Mellars and C. Stringer, pp. 62108. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
. 1997. Human evolution. New York: McGraw-Hill. . 1999. 2d edition. Paleoanthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill. w o l p o f f , m . , x . w u , a n d a . t h o r n e . 1984. Modern Homo sapiens origins: A general theory of hominid evolution involving evidence from East Asia, in Modern human origins. Edited by F. Smith and F. Spencer, pp. 41184. New York: Alan Liss.
w r e s c h n e r , e . 1980. Red ochre and human evolution: A case for discussion. current anthropology 21:63144. z i l h a o , j . , a n d f . d e r r i c o . 1999a. The chronology and taphonomy of the earliest Aurignacian and its implications for the understanding of Neanderthal extinction. Journal of World Prehistory 13:168. . 1999b. The Neanderthal problem continued: Reply. current anthropology 40:35564. [fd, mv]

Grave Markers Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Burials and The Use of Chronotypology in

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Grave Markers Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Burials and The Use of Chronotypology in

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Grave Markers: Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Burials and the Use of Chronotypology in Contemporary Paleolithic Research

C u r r e n t A n t h r o p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

450 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

The Question of the Early Upper Paleolithic

Burials and Modern Human Origins

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 451

Some Comments on Burial Analysis

452 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 453

454 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

table 1 Middle Paleolithic Mortuary Data

Age 50 Young adult Child 4045 2530 10 Foetus 1 mo. Foetus 3 2 ? ?

EW ? WE ? SENW WE ? ? ? ? EW NS EW NS ? WE ? EW SENW ? NS NS NWSE ? EW SN

P P P P P P P P P P/M M/H P/M P/M M/H H P P/H P

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 455

456 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

table 2 Early Upper Paleolithic Mortuary Data

Burial Balzo della Torre I

Balzo della Torre II

Balzo della Torre III Grotta del Caviglione I

Grotta dei Fanciulli I Grotta dei Fanciulli II Paglicci II

Young 1630 adult/17 Older 3140 adult/40 Teen/13 1115

Veneri Parabitta I Veneri Parabitta II Agnano Doln Vestonice III

Certain Certain Certain Certain

1630? 1630? 1630 3040

AMH AMH AMH AMH

F/L D/E ?/C R/F

Doln Vestonice XIII

Doln Vestonice XIV Doln Vestonice XV

Doln Vestonice XVI

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 457

Brno III Predmost 22 Predmost 27 Predmost 118 Sungir 2 Sungir 3

3140 210 ? n.a. 50 210

AMH AMH AMH n.a. AMH AMH

R/C ? D/E n.a. D/E D/E

? ? ? n.a. NESW SWNE

Probable ? Certain n.a. Certain Certain M J

Adult 5060 Adult 50 2030 3040 1 mo. 3

? 50 50 1630 3140 01 210

AMH AMH Ne AMH AMH AMH AMH Hybrid

D/E ? SB? ? ? ? ? D/E

Probable M? Probable M Probable M Probable F Probable M Probable I Certain J

458 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

The Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Compared

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 459

Discussion and Conclusions

460 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 461

462 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 463

464 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 465

466 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 467

468 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 469

470 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 471

472 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 473

474 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y Volume 42, Number 4, AugustOctober 2001

r i e l - s a l v a t o r e a n d c l a r k Grave Markers F 475