On the evidence for Neandertal burial, comment on R. Gargett

(1)

(2)

Volume 30, Number 3, June I989 1 323

hunt as much as is commonly suggested, relying on

scavenging as far as larger animals were concerned ford I985). A special system of flint logistics, combining curated and expedient technologies in different ways at sites that differed in function and access to raw material, might lie behind the remarkable assemblage variation

(Roebroeks, Kolen, and Rensink I988).

Gargett's contribution makes good sense, but we should extend our lines of reasoning to include the gree of modernity not of Neandertal man alone but of pre-Magdalenian Late Palaeolithic man as well-instead of considering the first Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe

fully modem and contrasting with the poor Neandertals

in every respect.

YURI SMIRNOV

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

The first Neandertal burials were discovered at Spy in

i886 (Mortillet I900, I9I4; Boule and Anthony i9ii;

mediately there were attempts to proclaim them

tic dreams. These attempts gradually became less

quent as the hypothesis of the improbability of Middle Paleolithic intentional burials was virtually buried under a mass of fresh evidence. Yet, sceptics ready to deny the undeniable seem to be found even today.

Gargett's attempt at denying the existence of

ate interments in the Mousterian is made from the point of view of geomorphology and lithology. His article

tains a fairly detailed assessment of the geological

texts of 20 Neandertal (and, to be precise, Neandertaloid)

skeletons, I6 of which are complete or relatively

plete.' It also contains archaeological data (far from full

and not always correct) testifying, in the excavators'

opinion, to the non-natural character of the burials. This

archaeological evidence is practically ignored by

gett, who speculates on the probability of the natural

origin of the contexts and proposes sophisticated

ical scenarios featuring almost every logically possible

agent except human beings. According to him, the

posits (including the cultural horizons, which inevitably

turn out to have been redeposited) have been created

by natural processes, and therefore all the Middle

Paleolithic burials must be physical phenomena,

though their origin is sometimes unclear.

Gargett has a rather vague notion of deliberate human interment. He at once expects extraordinary indications

of intention in burials and ignores such indications

when they occur (e.g., at Regourdou). Intentional burial,

as opposed to intentional exposure (which is the other extreme of the final act of mortuary treatment), is a cess of concealing the body or some of its parts whereby

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

a man-made mortuary structure (a pit and/or mound) is created or a suitable natural structure (a pit or niche) selected, the corpse is placed in it (the body's condition

varying from complete articulation to complete

ticulation, e.g., Teshik-Tash [Ullrich I986]), and the

structure is closed. Thus the major criterion for

tional burial is the existence of an artificially created

and/or artificially closed space containing human

mains. The archaeologist is therefore expected to

criminate between man-made and natural structures2

and between redeposited materials and others. The

cavators actually tried to do so, to the best of their

ties and knowledge, which in tum depended on the

temporary level of research.

Gargett's sedimentological scenarios are based upon

schematic drawings and lithologically useless

tions by the excavators (who were archaeologists, not

geologists). Can the conclusions drawn on the basis of

such poor geological evidence really be valuable? Most

of the sites that he considers have not been examined by

professional geologists,3 and the problems this poses can

hardly be unambiguously solved even with the help of

modern stratigraphic research. On the other hand,

rent research does not contradict the excavators'

vations of certain anthropogenic factors, both

tive and destructive, that demonstrate the deliberate

nature of the burials discovered.

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

i. How can he account for the absence of relatively

complete or anatomically articulated skeletons at

sian Lower Paleolithic sites (with the dubious tions of those at Bourgeois-Delanay, Petralona, and

ning) and their unexpected occurrence in rather large

quantities at Middle Paleolithic sites (22 adult and i 8

children's skeletons, of which 30 are articulated)?

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

3. Why did the natural agents bury men much more

frequently than women (the overall ratio is 2I:9, with 6

or 7 men to 2 women in Europe and I4 men to 7 women

in Asia), and why are adults and children equally

sented in Western Europe (9 or ii adults to 9 children)

while children predominate in the Crimea (5: i) and are

underrepresented in the Near East (io:22)?

4. Why did the natural agents "prefer" to bury bodies

lying flexed on their right sides and oriented transverse to the entrance of the shelter, regardless of the tion of the site and whether it was within the shelter or on the terrace in front of it (Smirnov n.d.)?

2. Even an inexperienced archaeologist such as Solecki, after claiming three adult individuals (Shanidar I-3) rockfall victims,

noticed the absence of rock meal (a sure sign of rockfall) in the stone pile over the Shanidar i remains and came to the obvious conclusion that it was artificial in origin (Solecki i960:6I3, 6i9). 3. Geologists were, however, present during the discovery of the burials at Kebara (Bar-Yosef et al. i986) and did not deny that they were deliberate.