Neanderthal Burials
Introduction



Majority of scholars believe that “some” Neanderthals received deliberate
burials and none were buried with elaborate goods or decorations. One
scholar in particular, Gargett, rejects that claim and argues there is no one
convincing example of burial.
Mortuary belief, among Anatomically Modern Humans, is very complex and
varied across different populations and it’s asserted there is no reason why
the same cannot be applied to Neanderthals.
Some have argued that Neanderthals’ bodies played an important process in
social roles, and if that’s the case, then deceased bodies could also have had a
social role.
Context: Remains
Oxygen Isotope Stages:
OIS1 - 11,600
OIS2 - 24,000
OIS3 - 60,000
OIS4 - 74,000
OIS5 - 85,000 to 130,000
OIS6 - 190,000
OIS7 - 244,000
Dating
 Skhul 9 is considered to be the oldest known burial, Tabun C1 is also
considered to be among the oldest but the dating is controversial.
 OIS5 is considered to be the farthest back that near complete human remains
are found in enclosed sites and around OIS2 and OIS3 they are found in open
sites
 All known Neanderthal burials are from OIS3
 By OIS5 humans were engaged in a new depositional phenomenon that
Neanderthals later picked up in OIS3. These phenomena are typically
recorded as signs of burial.
Arguments against burial
 Gargett’s critiques:
“double standards” - the assumption that human remains found in an
archeological context were placed there purposely.
 The large variation in types of burials led to vague criteria for identifying
them.


Since there were more fragmentary remains in the Upper Pleistocene of
Neanderthals than Modern Humans, it is assumed that the few complete
skeletons were deliberately buried.
More recent burial interpretations have been more conservative due to
dubious sites being eliminated from a larger critique.
Ex. Krapina site - Cannibalism
Estimates of burials
 34 to 36 over 16 sites
 More inclusive number at 60
 12-14 in Europe, 20 in Western Asia
 20 in Europe, 12 in Near East
 Overall, number varies from 32-60 among scholars
Rebuttal to Gargett
 Gargett has been criticized for questionable readings of data
 Critique of five questions asked:
1. What constitutes evidence of purposeful protection of the corpse?
- Gargett criticizes criteria for recognizing burial when looking at Neanderthal
remains - unless there is a new stratum, there is no way to know if burial took
place.
- However, graves are dug into and covered with the same pre existing strata
-
2. What is the probability of natural burial in caves and rock shelters?
Gargett asserts that, at certain sites, materials could have accumulated against
cave walls and rock shelters, and under those circumstances, bones could have
been better preserved.
This explanation doesn’t take into account extreme weather (floods, mud flows)
or carnivores that dig or burrow.
Data from actual sites does not indicate the dense accumulation of debris.
Denning carnivore remains do not show up as frequently as one would expect if
accumulated materials aided in preservation.
Burials in central locations
1. Roc de Marsal - child near center of cave 3m from mouth
2. Amud 1 - near complete skeleton 4m from wall, directly below cave underhang
3. Kebara 2 - adult male in central area named decapage, where the evidence of
clusters of hearths was most dense. There were large amounts of mammal
bones.
3. What is the prior probability of preservation under any circumstances?
-
Gargett suggests that out-of-the-way places such as natural depressions in caves
should carry equal weight in explaining the preservation of Neanderthal
-
-
remains, and that unless these places were artificially designed for the sole
purpose of burying a body, they are not convincing evidence for burial.
Argument ignores the practicality of using natural depressions for burial and
the fact that areas originally serving another purpose, such as storage of food,
may also eventually function as a grave.
4. What is the importance of articulation?
All things being equal, the species dying more in enclosed sites would preserve
more skeletons.
The large amount of skeletal remains of earlier hominids suggests that later
ones simply spent less time in caves than Neanderthals.
Enclosed sites dating back to before OIS5 contain evidence of lithic and fauna
activity, which indicate the presence of hominids.
Depositional factors have remained similar in enclosed sites in Lower, Middle,
and Upper Paleolithic.
Humans do not always bury their dead on habitation sites.
Little to no evidence of Upper Paleolithic communities, who used caves far more
than Neanderthals, ending up being preserved in natural features.
5. What is the variability in the rates of decomposition, disarticulation
sequences, and the likelihood of disturbance?
- Majority of Middle Paleolithic hominid remains succumbed to physical
disturbance. Attempts to account for missing anatomical elements.
La Chapelle-aux-Saints
- Near complete adult skeleton in roughly rectangular depression.
- Gargett rejects example because at the time of the burial, the ceiling was very
low and would have required crawling, a carnivore’s den seems more likely.
- Many examples of low spaces containing activity such as art, so low ceiling is
likely not a problem.
- In the stratum containing the remains, there was evidence of Neanderthal
activity.
- Likelihood of naturally formed rectangular pit under karstic shelter is
incredibly low.
La Ferrassie rockshelter
- Seven Neanderthal skeletons, two are almost complete located near back of
shelter
- Gargett suggests that the remains being located near the back was most
likely the reason for preservation
- At least two of the pits are likely to have been artificially excavated by
Neanderthals
- The mounds under the rock shelter are very likely natural formations rather
than funeral markers.
Shanidar, Iraq
- About as far back as 45-60ka BP, over the span of 15ka, about ten
Neanderthal remains were deposited in a cave.
- Unlikely due to ceiling collapse as Gargett has argued.
- Flowers originally thought to be purposely placed over one corpse for
ceremonial reasons
- Markers such as limestone or group memory of the location may have been
in operation when depositing the bodies in the cave over the long period of
time.



If there were burials of Neanderthals, they were rare and varied, and it
would be incorrect to view these activities as one type of “burial”
phenomenon.
Assuming removing dead from occupied sites was an important activity,
probably because it reduced attracting predators and bacteria, then the
presence or absence of remains tells us how much control over the situation
Neanderthals had at the time.
When in control, Neanderthals carefully removed bodies from sites, but
burials was very likely not their main means of disposal.
The dead of the Paleolithic
Six deliberate mechanisms for disposal of human bodies (5 may be relevant to
Neanderthals):
1. Non-burial means of disposal - burial is not always the typical means of
burying a corpse in the ground. This type does no preserve bones well and is
not relevant to Neanderthals.
2. Caching of bodies or body parts - deliberate placement of bodies or parts of
them in unmodified locations in environment with little to no effort in
modifying the environment. Potentially includes remains at Sima de los
Huesos at Atapuerca Spain, Pontnewydd in Wales, and Krapina in Croatia.
3. Simple inhumation, apparently without grave goods (OIS5) - placement of
body in excavated feature such as a grave. Includes some Neanderthal as well
as AMH burials in Taramsa Egypt, Skhul and Qafzeh Israel, and Lake Mungo 3
in Australia.
4. Elaborated primary activity - placement of body in excavated feature, with
addition of attitude towards body (tight flexion) and/or grave goods. Also
marking of grave with either information (tradition) or physical marker.
5. Elaborated secondary activity - defleshing activities and/or subsequent
burial. This can also be re-excavation and removal of bodies.
6. Ritualized burial - more formalized version of elaborated primary activity
involving formalized placement of goods, bodily ornamentation, marking of
grave, and emplacement of later individuals in pre-existing grave cuts. No
evidence of this category until 27ka BP (mid/upper Paleolithic).
Caching the dead: origins of mortuary ritual
Sima de los Huesos
 >32 individuals from 200-300 ka BP recovered from shaft deposits
 Comprised mostly adult Homo heidelbergensis with physical features
foreshadowing European Neanderthal
 Breakages on bones too great to account for fall down shaft, possible postdepositional movement and carnivore activity.
 Accumulation materials could be man-made and suggests placement of
bodies in a cave close to shaft.
 However, shaft could have opened up to light and would have had different
depositional phenomenon than what is seen now and age distribution of
remains cannot rule out natural deposition.
Pontnewydd Cave, Wales
 5-15 Neanderthals remains before 225 ka BP in OIS7
 Mostly males under age of 20
 Unlikely for carnivores to deposit such a large amount
La Quina
 Excavation of mostly cranial elements
 One contains many bones of the upper body and lacks carnivore marks
 Could have been a cache around mid OIS3
Krapina, Croatia
 Most compelling evidence for secondary processing (defleshing) and caching.
 Proliferation of high fragmentary bones
 Cut marks on many bones indicates defleshing
Simple Inhumation
Kebara Cave, Israel
 Excavation of a grave cutting of an adult Neanderthal
 The body decomposed in a filled grave based on evidence from the strata.
The sediment of the pit was easily distinguishable from the sediment into
which the pit was dug.
 The skeleton was lying on its back and the cranium was absent. Carnivore
removal was ruled out because other relevant parts were in correct
anatomical position. The purposeful removal of the cranium appears to be
the fist case, in a Mousterian context, for later human intervention in a burial.
This indicates elaborated secondary activity.
Amud Cave
 Complete adult Neanderthal skeleton in central position of cave lying on its
left side. High animal and hominid activity, including hominid excavation of
pits.
When spatial information on remains is available, looking at potential burials can be
questionable, especially if remains are in an unnaturally tight cluster:
Le Moustier
- Adolescent found in lower shelter, possibly buried.
- Body was lying on right side, but confined space makes burial open to
question.
Teshik Tash, Uzbekistan
- Adolescent boy’s partial remains found in restricted spatial area formed
along with small limestone eboulis. Unconvincing indication of burial.
La Quina
- 22 individuals in total, only 4 teeth were in articulation
Primary and Secondary Activity
 Stone tool cut marks found on numerous Neanderthal bones indicate that, on
occasion, Neanderthals processed soft tissues of the dead.
 Most claims for cannibalism have now been interpreted as de-fleshing.
Moula Guercy Cave
- Signs of cannibalism in many of the bone fragments recovered
- Cut marks and impact scars, indicative of de-fleshing before smashing with a
hammer stone and anvil.
- Treatment of the bodies parallel de-fleshing in many ways aside from the
smashing of the bones.
- Cut marks reveal severing of tendon and temporalis muscle, which are
consistent with de-fleshing.
- More convincing evidence of cannibalism involve removal of tongue, removal
of thigh musculature, and possible disarticulation of shoulder on other
individuals.
- Conflicting evidence has yet to be resolved.



Kebara 2 - potential secondary removal of head after it decayed.
La Ferrassie - evidence suggests that infant buried in pit was decapitated and
had its face removed.
Remains at Krapina and Engis, Belgium also show cut marks and signs of defleshing.

Pits

Regardless of reasoning behind the removal of soft tissue, evidence shows
that at least some Neanderthals showed interest in the dead.
In La Ferrassie, three bowl shaped pits containing one individual each were
excavated. Another natural pit contained the partial skeleton of a child,
covered with a limestone block with circular impressions, probably made by
a Neanderthal.
Pit burial has been suggested on poor evidence:
 Irregular pit in La Quina, only two human teeth recovered on edge of pit
suggested as burial.
 A pit dug into at Combe Grenal was suggested as being a grave even though
there were no remains in it. The reasoning was that it must have contained a
small child and that children’s bones are more delicate thus being more
susceptible to decay, although this doesn’t explain why tougher bones such
as teeth were not present.
 Le Moustier - near complete remains of an infant in a small pit, one of three,
the other two pits were empty. Evidence shows pit was purposely dug but
not if the pit was dug solely for the purpose of containing a body.
Dederiyeh Cave
- Two infant burials (OIS3), the first was in excellent condition, with high
degree of articulation, the second was filled with fine grain sediment and
buried with numerous flints, stone flakes, and animal fragments.
Three hypotheses to explain this feature:
Hypothesis A - the pit was excavated and an infant, at some stage, was laid in it.
Geological or animal activity disturbed the body and some parts were removed.
Stone tools and fragments may have been grave goods or ended up in pit by
accident.
Hypothesis B - A pit was excavated and at some point the remaining parts of a
corpse originally laid elsewhere were laid within it with some respect for
anatomical positioning.
Hypothesis C - the pit was used to remove things from the floor of the cave such
as stone tools and animal parts. A Neanderthal corpse happened to be among the
things.

Assuming the first hypothesis would seem implausible because of the
missing parts. Entire thorax is missing while leaving behind rib and vertebral
parts. The inclusion of animal bones and stone fragments as ceremonial is
also unlikely.


Hypothesis B seems most likely correct due to somewhat correct anatomical
positioning. It may have been that the infant was deposited with some
concern in a shallow pit that may have already had animal bones and stone
shards in it, and there was no concern to remove the materials.
If hypothesis C were correct, one would expect more disarticulation of the
bones.
Mezmaiskaya Cave
- 24 cranial fragments of 1-2 year old Neanderthal found in shallow pit
covered by limestone block. Uncertain if artificial or natural in origin.
- Despite high amount of skull fragmentation, it seems unlikely that a block of
limestone could have created a pit naturally, pointing to deliberate
deposition.

The high number of infants found in small semi-circle shaped pits it not
surprising, because the number of uses these pits likely served (hearths,
storage, etc.) may have also been convenient for burying small bodies.
Mortuary centres
 A small number of sites were exceptional at preserving multiple inhumations
such as Skhul.
Three categories of multiple individual recovery:
1. Human bodies were being cached in or by entrances to caves as early as
OIS7.
2. From OIS5, a small number of sites preserve highly fragmentary remains of
large numbers of Neanderthals. These sites could have been were bodies
were processed in mortuary ritual. Cut-marked Neanderthal bones are
extremely rare and that may indicate that Neanderthals were not simply
engaging in mundane de-fleshing activities.
3. From late OIS5, a small number of sites have preserved near complete
remains of several individuals.
- Nine in Shanidar, five of which were buried, speculation that limestone
blocks over the graves are markers.
Other examples:
- L’Hortus site contained at least 20 individuals, young adult age
- At Krapina site at least 25 individuals represented by fragmentary remains
- At least 22 fragmentary individuals at La Quina
- Seven at La Ferressie, three newborns, two children, and two adults



Regardless of the type, its clear that these caves served a mortuary function
that extended past the life of a single individual.
At Shanidar, the cave was used continuously over a long period of time.
This evidence suggests that some transmission of mortuary tradition was
passed on through generations, focusing on suitable locations to process and
bury the dead.
Grave offerings and mortuary variability
 Although scholars have forwarded many examples of grave goods, none are
convincing because the objects inside the grave cuts never differ from the
objects found in the sediment above the graves.
Examples:
La Ferrassie 5 - supposed placement of three flints, but too many similar artifacts
around site to assert deliberate offerings.
La Chapelle-aux-Saints - long bovid bones, several flint artifacts, and articulated
reindeer vertebrae found in graves proximity. These items were found above head
and the area in general contained a plethora of fauna and lithic remains, which
indicates these were not deliberately placed.




Currently, there are no convincing examples of grave good placement.
The lack of goods doesn’t deter the notion that the dead played a social role
in Neanderthal society.
Grave goods typically indicate notions of self-expression and ownership.
The lack of any goods suggests that objects were only important for their
immediate physical function.
Implications and conclusion
 Some scholars have suggested that pre OIS5 humans have used areas of the
landscape to dispose of the dead without artificial modification.
 Up to 30 indications of simple inhumation exist for Eurasian Neanderthals.
 All examples of the inclusion of grave goods for Neanderthal burials are open
to simpler explanations and there is currently no convincing example of
grave goods.
 Occasional secondary processing occurred at certain sites, but was not
common.
 While there is certainly some evidence of Neanderthal burial, it’s important
not to make broad statements like “Neanderthals buried their dead”.
Neanderthal burial may have been just a brief phenomenon in the course of
their history of dealing with the living and the dead.
Questions:
1. What are Pettitt’s responses to Gargett’s five questions about Neanderthal
burials?
2. What does the cave in Shanidar, Iraq tell us about Neanderthal burials?
3. Pettitt lists six types of burials, which ones did he believe Neanderthals engaged
in? Give an example of each.
4. When discussing a pit containing an infant at Dederiyeh Cave, Pettitt comes up
with three hypotheses in explaining their origins. Which hypothesis does he find
most plausible and why?
5. Cannibalism among Neanderthals is a controversial issue. Discuss the evidence
for and against cannibalism and include the role de-fleshing might have played in
the interpretation of the evidence.