Insights into Early Mortuary Practices of Homo Erella Hovers and Anna Belfer-Cohen The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Edited by Liv Nilsson Stutz and Sarah Tarlow

Print Publication Date: May 2013 Subject: Archaeology, Life and Death Online Publication Date: Aug 2013 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199569069.013.0035

Among modern , mortuary behaviours conform to established conventions of the particular society enacting them, yet they are present in all societies, thus providing a basis for analogies between the present and the past. The caveats for the use of such analogies are reviewed in the context of understanding early prehistoric mortuary practices. Taking these into consideration, the chapter speculates on the origins and diversification of mortuary practices as social phenomena, in relation to hominin taxonomy, on geographic and temporal scales. The chapter suggests that mortuary behaviours differ between Eurasia and Africa and are not necessarily a single-origin phenomenon. Exhibiting material simplicity, , and other mortuary practices in the Middle Palaeolithic are best understood within the emotional realm and symbolic context.

Keywords: burials, ritual cannibalism, symbolic behaviour, social organization, Middle Palaeolithic Introduction

Burial is perceived as one of the cultural reactions to the phenomenon of death. As is the case with other practices related to the social realm, mortuary practices (including interment) conform to established conventions of the particular society enacting those practices. Among recent humans, mortuary practices are related to religious beliefs, cosmologies, and the social and economic status of the dead and of those burying them. Such insights are gained from observations on, and the documentation of, cross-cultural patterns of behaviour. Indeed, inferences can be drawn from behavioural patterns shared by extant humans and other non-human primates (see Pettitt 2011). As archaeologists, however, we retrieve evidence of only those past behaviours—including mortuary practices—that resulted in material remains. It is from these that we need to identify, interpret, and evaluate the social norms and beliefs of prehistoric human groups. Our interpretative framework—i.e. the middle range theory with which the issue of prehistoric mortuary practices is approached—hinges on cross-cultural ethnographic studies, which reveal the rules of observable behaviours. It is from this starting point that we may draw analogies between the present and the past.

Given this constraint, interpretations and insights into prehistoric mortuary behaviours are as robust as the analogies used in the process (e.g. Wylie 1985, Gifford-Gonzalez 1991, Juthe 2005, Roux 2007). Indeed, many archaeologists who are interested in the question of mortuary behaviours are constantly and painfully aware that the archaeological record likely reflects only part of a broader repertoire of practices related to the treatment of the dead, which are not documented in the archaeological record (e.g. chanting, dancing, body painting, use of perishables, etc.). In these circumstances, maintaining a system of checks and balances when interpreting the archaeological data is both crucial and very difficult to sustain. Additionally, the challenge grows as we go back in time, with diminishing quantities and (normally) deteriorating quality of the material evidence, combined with the growing evolutionary distance between us (the modern analogues) and the makers of the pertinent archaeological records.

(p. 632) The Middle Palaeolithic in Eurasia and the Middle in Africa (both referred to hereafter as MP) are a case in point. This chapter reviews the evidence of mortuary behaviours from this period, dated c.250– 50,000 years ago. Isolated occurrences such as the Bodo , Arago and Sima de los Huesos remains, of a Middle Pleistocene age, may be early instances of such practices (White 1986, Arsuaga et al. 1990, Rightmire 1996, Bischoff et al. 2007, de Lumley 2009), yet the MP archaeological record, based on current evidence, represents a more substantial occurrence of mortuary behaviour. In the European record burials are associated with while in the Levant they pertain to both Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans (AMH) (e.g. Tillier 1990, Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch 1991, Bar-Yosef et al. 1992, Belfer-Cohen and Hovers 1992, Defleur 1993, Rak et al. 1994, Hovers et al. 1995, Golovanova et al. 1999, Delson et al. 2000, Akazawa and Muhesen 2002, Demarsin and Otte 2006). Penecontemporaneous skeletal remains from Africa are ascribed to variable forms of Homo sapiens (Day 1969, de Villiers 1973, 1976, Mehlman 1987, Bräuer 1989, Rightmire and Deacon 1991, Pearson and Grine 1996, White et al. 2003, Dominguez-Rodrigo et al. 2008, Fleagle et al. 2008).

We discuss first the epistemological issue of recognizing burials in the prehistoric record, illustrating it by specific cases. We then address the question of whether the observed variants of mortuary behaviour are related to cultural or biological diversity known from the MP record. Finally, we will attempt to tie our interpretation of the record of mortuary practices with more abstract notions of human responses to the phenomenon of death. Recognizing Intentional Burials

In a pioneering study of Palaeolithic burials, S. Binford (1968) suggested that the human practice of burial evidences ‘new forms of social organization’. Still, since the archaeological record consists by definition of buried phenomena, it is the archaeologist's first order of business to distinguish between ‘burials’, due to natural preservation, and deliberate interments. This very issue has been debated at length in the literature, with regard to both the general notion of symbolic behaviour on the part of MP hominins as well as critiques of specific claims for burials in MP contexts. We have argued (Belfer-Cohen and Hovers 1992) that MP burials in general, and those of Neanderthals in particular, had been judged—and mostly rejected as burials—against a rigid standard derived from overextended modern analogies. Moreover, our comparison of MP with Epipalaeolithic Natufian burials demonstrated that the former were evaluated on the basis of much stricter criteria than those applied to interments of sub- recent and extant humans. We maintained that there was a need to create archaeological criteria for identifying burials, for the sake of avoiding biases stemming from overstretched or prejudiced analogies. MP hominins likely lived in groups that lacked formal social stratification or elaborate social networks. Inasmuch as lavish decorations, funerary architecture, and exotic grave goods are the material correlates of such social complexities, they did not exist in the world of MP humans (e.g. Szynkiewicz 1990) and therefore should not be expected in their interments. The application of archaeological criteria also serves as part of the system of checks and balances against an undiscriminating acceptance of all MP human remains as burials.

A basic criterion, without which the discussion of intentionality of burial would be moot, is a considerable degree of skeletal articulation. Other criteria to be taken into account are (p. 633) stratigraphic integrity and body position. Whether these criteria indeed indicate intentional burial should be assessed by a careful evaluation of the pertinent context, for example, physical features of the immediate area of the burial, characteristics of deposition of the body and its treatment, as well as post-depositional processes that may have affected the skeletal remains and surrounding sediments (Nilsson 1998). In the parlance of formal science, identification of intentional burials rests on a case-by-case critical examination of predictions derived from general laws of biological and earth sciences.

For example, Gargett (1989, and especially 1999) diligently elaborated on the taphonomy of hominin burials, focusing on natural processes that might have played a role in incidental preservation of MP skeletal remains at the sites of Dederiyeh, Kebara, Qafzeh, Amud, and St Césaire (Vandermeersch 1970, 1981, 1993, Tiller 1990, Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch 1991, Bar- Yosef et al. 1992, Akazawa 1995). When the test implications of the hypothesized processes were examined minutely with regard to the burial of the Amud 7 infant, it became clear that hominin burials did not come in standard taphonomic packages. Variables such as skeletal completeness, anatomical position of all bones, or clearly visible burial pits, were highly dependent on particular sedimentological and depositional circumstances, and could not be relied upon unconditionally as differential criteria. Arguments for intentional burial should be tested inductively, on a contextual basis, rather than through a deductive, theory-driven process. With these specifics taken into account in the case of Amud 7, hypotheses of natural agency were examined and refuted (Hovers et al. 2000; see also Pettitt 2002). We conclude that intentional burial can be recognized based on situationally nuanced archaeological criteria. These criteria are stricter than some others used elsewhere (e.g. Pettitt 2002, d’Errico 2003: 196). Accordingly, most MP hominin remains have been excluded from the category of intentional burials (see Hublin 2000 for a global review). ‘Burial paraphernalia’ constitute a separate issue of inquiry, which nonetheless has much bearing on our discussion of the potential behavioural meanings of burials. Other Mortuary Practices

Post-mortem manipulation of hominin corpses, which typically constitutes cut marks and fragmentation, as well as rarer occurrences of percussion marks and possibly decapitation, is relevant to the present discussion. Such modifications have been observed in Eurasia and Africa on remains of Lower Palaeolithic , Middle Palaeolithic H. neanderthalensis and Upper Palaeolithic H. sapiens (summarized and referenced in Ullrich 2005), let alone in later Neolithic contexts (Villa et al. 1986). Detailed contextual analyses combined with close scrutiny indicated that in some cases the marks resulted from post-mortem carnivore activity (e.g. White and Toth 1991) or sedimentological damage (e.g. Russell 1987), unrelated to mortuary behaviour. In other instances post- mortem defleshing of human bones was evidenced by unambiguous cut marks on long bones and crania (e.g. White 1986, Defleur et al. 1999, Ullrich 2005). When these are similar in placement and characteristics to the marks seen on faunal material in the same layers, they are parsimoniously attributed to nutritional cannibalism rather than ritual behaviours (e.g. Villa et al. 1986, Defleur et al. 1999, Fernandez-Jalvo et al. 1999, Rosas et al. 2006).

(p. 634) When identified in MP European sites, cut marks and percussion marks are consistent with nutritional cannibalism. This is not the case in the African record. Cut marks on the Bodo cranium are said to be the ‘earliest evidence of non-utilitarian mortuary practices’ (White 1986, Clark et al. 2003: 751). One of the crania of H. sapiens idaltu from Herto bears bone surface modifications of a type that is almost never present in faunal remains processed for consumption, and is therefore unlikely to represent evidence of nutritional cannibalism. Another skull shows defleshing marks as well as polishing, both of which are comparable to marks known from ethnographic ritual contexts (White and Toth 1991, Clark et al. 2003).

To date there are no reports of modifications of human bones from the Levantine MP record, in marked contrast to both the African and European evidence. The absence of the skull of the specimen was once thought to be the result of intentional removal, but additional taphonomic analyses indicated that the absence of the skull can be attributed to natural post-depositional processes (O. Bar-Yosef, personal communication). Discussion

This broad overview underlines some intriguing patterns. To begin with, mortuary behaviour is not associated exclusively with any MP hominin species. Moreover, the archaeologically visible variants of such behaviour do not appear to have been species-specific. In Africa, non-utilitarian post- mortem anthropogenic modifications of human bones seem to have been made by H. heidelbergensis as well as H. sapiens idaltu. To date there is no convincing evidence of this behaviour in MP Europe. The Levant does not conform to any of these two regional varieties. MP local H. sapiens and Neanderthals buried at least some of their dead, some of the time, like the European Neanderthals, and neither appears to have practised post-mortem bone modifications of the dead, for either ritual or nutritional purposes.

The Eurasian dataset of mortuary practices appears to consist exclusively of burials. In contrast, the scantier African evidence, with the possible exception of the Taramsa burial in the Nile Valley (Vermeersch et al. 1998), presents treatment of crania. It is unlikely to result from differential preservation of skeletal remains in the African MP.

Temporal patterns of mortuary practices are not clear-cut. Cut marks on a maxilla from (Stw 53), of a Plio-Pleistocene age, are not related to mortuary practices (Pickering et al. 2000) and therefore are not discussed here. The Bodo cranium, which constitutes the first African evidence for mortuary behaviour, may date to as early as around 600,000 years ago. The earliest European record of mortuary practices is that of the Sima de los Huesos, dated to earlier than 500,000 years ago (Arsuaga et al. 1990, Andrews and Fernández-Jalvo 1997, Bischoff et al. 2007). In this case, the arguably anthropogenic accumulation of hominin remains is sometimes attributed to caching of hominin dead in a focal place, interpreted by some as funerary rites (Pettitt 2002).

Cranial modifications associated with skeletal remains of Homo sapiens first occur at around 170,000 years ago in Africa and are believed to be similar to those seen on the Bodo cranium (Clark et al. 2003, White et al. 2003), notwithstanding the temporal lag. Burials of AMH appear in the Levant at Skhul (c.120,000 years ago) and Qafzeh (c.92,000 years ago), whereas Neanderthal burials in Eurasia mostly post-date 70,000 years ago. The Levantine (p. 635) Tabun 1 Neanderthal may be somewhat older and thus an exception to this rule (for a recent discussion, with references, of the problematic dating of this specimen see Hovers 2009).

It is possible that the concept of treating the bodies of dead conspecifics was ingrained in the behavioural repertoire of Middle Pleistocene ancestors of both Neanderthals and AMH (Hayden 1993, Hovers et al. 1995). The fact that bone modifications—albeit of a ‘utilitarian’ cannibalistic nature—do occur among early European Neanderthals (e.g. at Moula-Guercy—Defleur et al. 1999) as well as later Neanderthals (e.g. at el Sidron—Rosas et al. 2006) is suggestive in this respect. If this scenario is accepted, it would appear that the physical expressions of funerary behaviours have diverged; first towards caching of the dead in central sites within the settlement system, with a yet more ‘derived’ behaviour of individual burial evolving later on. Another possibility is that the burial practices of Neanderthals are a case of parallel evolution, unrelated to mortuary behaviours that had emerged in the African record.

Each of these two ‘evolutionary’ models incorporates the notion that burials among Neanderthals were not a behaviour that they adopted by learning from, or through imitation of, modern humans when the latter reached Europe during OIS (Oxygen Isotope Stage) 3 (57,000–24,000 bp) (d’Errico 2003). Pending the date of Tabun 1, one could speculate that AMH who reached the Levant during an earlier dispersal event out of Africa (i.e. the Skhul and Qafzeh hominins) buried their dead imitating the local Neanderthals.

Acknowledging that burials as well as other types of archaeologically recognized mortuary practices were intentional, we should discuss the possible meaning and implications of such behaviour. The issue of non- nutritional post-mortem manipulation of hominin crania has not been explored beyond assignment to ‘funerary practices’, based mostly on analogies with ethnographic cases of ritual cannibalism (e.g. Travis- Henikoff 2008). On the other hand there has been considerable discussion about the meaning of burials, presumably due to their relatively large number and thus higher visibility in the archaeological record.

Having said that, the small absolute number of burials is pivotal to interpreting the meaning of burials in the lives of MP hominins. There are no more than 58 cases of accepted MP burials in Eurasia over several tens of thousands of years. Of these, 35 are of Neanderthals and the rest of modern humans, the latter all from sites in (Belfer-Cohen and Hovers 1992: 467, d’Errico 2003: 196). If this number is perceived as a valid approximation of prehistoric reality rather than research bias, the paucity of burials may reflect some fundamental organizational principles of MP social relations. Neanderthals are said to have existed in harsh conditions and led extremely physical, stressed, and short lives (e.g. Berger and Trinkaus 1995, 2012), with high and costly brain growth rates at childhood and high- maintenance large bodies in later life, especially for females (Aiello 2003, Ramirez-Rozzi and Bermudaz da Castro 2004, Leigh and Blomquist 2007, Ponce de Leon et al. 2008). Pettitt (2000) argued that under such conditions Neanderthal populations put a high premium on their immediate physical well-being at any given moment, with a time perception focused on the ‘here and now’. Given their mobile lifeways, most Neanderthals would have died away from (i.e. the archaeologically visible sites) and presumably were left where they fell. Caves did not serve as cemeteries or designated burial grounds. In Pettitt's opinion, this explains the meagre number of known Neanderthal burials, as funerary practices were a direct extension of Neanderthal attitudes toward place and time.

Such a narrow perception of time is uncommon, but not unheard of, among recent humans. The Pirahã of the Amazonian forest are one recently publicized example (though not unanimously accepted; see comments in Everett 2005). Pirahã language lacks words for any (p. 636) abstract concept (e.g. time perceptions, colour, and number terms) beyond immediate experience. It has been argued that this unique language is shaped and constrained by the Pirahã cultural system that places a high premium on immediacy. When something can no longer be perceived, it ceases to exist. Pirahã lack creation myths and individual or collective memory of more than two generations past (Gordon 2004, Everett 2005, Davies 2006).

Yet the Pirahã do practise burial, apparently for emotional reasons. As a rule burial takes place in graves that are no more than 6 feet deep (depending on the size of the body). The deceased is placed at the bottom of the hole in a sitting position (presumably because it requires a smaller hole) and some of his/her belongings are thrown in with them. Then a rack is made of a few sticks embedded crosswise above the body and banana leaves are placed over it. The hole is then filled with dirt. There is no ritual associated with the burial, and no period of mourning (D. Everett, personal communication, June 2009). Consistent with the Pirahã's focused time perception, the graves are dug near the river bank, which is susceptible to erosion, and are washed away within a year or two.

The Pirahã are by no means analogous to MP hominins. Yet their case does show an intriguing resemblance to Pettitt's scenario of Neanderthal social and cultural context. This ethnographic example illustrates that characteristics of MP burials—of both Neanderthals and moderns—fall within a range of behavioural variability shared with extant modern humans.

A parsimonious interpretation of MP (as well as the Pirahã) burial practices would attribute them to emotional responses to the death of kin (e.g. Mellars 1996: 381). Such reactions are embedded within the limbic system that is shared by modern human and many non-human primates. Analyses of skeletal remains of Neanderthals (as well as earlier hominins) show that individuals with severe congenital impairments or injuries survived longer than might be expected, presumably due to the care and compassion of their conspecifics (Hublin 2009, with references therein). In this respect, too, one could argue that burial practices simply reflect the social practices of the living. Consistent with the view that physiological, biological emotion cannot be separated from its cultural meaning (Tarlow 2000), we do identify a symbolic component in MP burial practices, not merely in the act of the burial per se, but in the context of the sites and their association with other finds.

MP burials are often placed in natural features of caves, which has promoted their preservation. This is most evident in cases where burials were placed repeatedly in the same place (e.g. at Amud —Hovers et al. 1995). In almost all cases burials were covered in order to protect the corpse.

The physical proximity of objects to buried skeletal remains cannot in itself substantiate an interpretation as grave/burial gifts (Vandermeersch 1976, Chase and Dibble 1987, Hovers et al. 2000); but such interpretations seem justified when proximity is combined with the rarity or uniqueness of the supposed ‘goods’. Faunal remains associated with human burials at Qafzeh, Skhul, and Amud caves should be considered burial goods because such anatomical elements and/or their exceptional state of preservation are in each case rare in the faunal background. This suggests that their spatial proximity to the buried individuals was not a mere coincidence (Hovers et al. 1995). We refrain from applying this argument to lithics, since those may be part of the cluttered depositional background or an artefact of taphonomic processes (Chase and Dibble 1987).

In most extant societies, carefully chosen colours—usually, black, white, and red—play a significant role in symbolic associations. Red, in particular, has symbolic meanings that cross-cut cultural boundaries (e.g. Turner 1966, 1970, Sagona 1994, and see discussion in Hovers et al. 2003). For instance, colour contrasts (red and white) are used among some Australian tribes to express different kinship relationships of the living to the dead as they stand over the body of the deceased (Levi-Strauss 1966: 64). In the prehistoric record, colourants—mostly red ochre—are often associated with burials, an association that is well-documented from the Upper Palaeolithic onwards. In contrast, in the Eurasian MP ochre is not known in the form of powder sprinkled over the skeleton, but only as lumps (Wreschner 1982) that are not in direct association with the skeletal remains. Notably, most of the European MP sites containing pigments date to OIS 3 (d’Errico 2003), namely the time span of most MP burials.

In some instances the association between burial and pigments is more telling. For example, at the site of Pech de l’Aze I there are more pigments and burials compared with Pech de l’Aze IV (Soressi and d’Errico 2007). A more specific relationship between burials and pigments is found at Qafzeh, where both are encountered exclusively in the lower part of the sequence, and are open to symbolic interpretations (Hovers et al. 2003). Moreover, these finds are associated with shell beads (Taborin 2003, Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2009) and an engraved lithic artefact (Hovers et al. 1997); again, similar associations are not found in the upper part of the sequence.

It is of interest to note the difference between the African and European MP records in terms of pigment presence. In Africa the pigment record consists of red ochre, whereas in Europe the pigments are mainly of dark colours, with only some ochre (Soressi and d’Errico 2007). Based on available data, the Levant is ‘African’ in this respect.

Mortuary practices may have their roots in the Middle Pleistocene records of both Africa (e.g. Bodo) and Eurasia (e.g. Sima de los Huesos). Based on current data, those are sporadic occurrences, which become more common during the Upper Pleistocene, in the MP period. Mortuary practices vary geographically already from these humble beginnings, but the variation is not species-specific, for example, Neanderthals vs modern humans. Burials as such do not exist in the African record. It is tempting to speculate that this absence is tied in with claims for a mainly utilitarian use of ochre in MP Africa (e.g. Wadley et al. 2009), with its symbolic significance being an ‘added value’ (Lombard 2007). Conversely, the lack of evidence for utilitarian ochre use in the Levant speaks of its symbolic place and strengthens the suggestions that the appearance of ochre with MP burials (e.g. Qafzeh) may portray a symbolic relationship. The choice of colour and pigment use in the European MP differ from both the African and Levantine records, albeit some association with burials (similar to that seen in the Levant) is noted.

Situated in deep time, the geographically unbalanced record of MP mortuary behaviours raises some interesting speculations about their evolutionary origins and diversification as a cultural phenomenon. The social and organizational responses of prehistoric humans to the ever-present phenomenon of death are not easy to decipher. The record of early funerary practices, however, is a constant ‘work in progress’. We hope that future reviews of the mortuary behaviours of our ancestors will have at their disposal a larger database and new theoretical insights into the emergence of one of the most common and compelling human behaviours. Acknowledgements

We thank Liv Nilsson Stutz and Sarah Tarlow for inviting us to contribute to this volume. Dan Everett kindly shared with us his observations of Pirahã burial practices, for which we are grateful. We thank Paul Pettitt for his thought-provoking comments on an earlier draft.

Suggestions for Further Reading

Suggestions for Further Reading

Belfer-Cohen, A., and Hovers, E. 1992. In the Eye of the Beholder: and Natufian Burials in the Levant. Current Anthropology 33: 463–71.

Find this resource: A critical review of the epistemological approaches to the issue of burial in the Middle Palaeolithic, in general, and to the treatment of Neanderthal burial in particular.

Binford, S. R. 1968. A Structural Comparison of Disposal of the Dead in the Mousterian and the Upper . Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24: 139–54.

Find this resource: One of the earliest treatments of the MP-UP burial comparison.

Chase, P. G., and Dibble, H. L. 1987. Middle Paleolithic Symbolism: A Review of Current Evidence and Interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6: 263–96.

Find this resource: A thought-provoking discussion of the question of symbolic behaviour in the MP.

Defleur, A. 1993. Les Sépultures Mousteriénnes. Paris: Editions CNRS.

Find this resource: Summary and critical discussion of MP burials. d’Errico, F. 2003. The Invisible Frontier: A Multiple Species Model for the Origin of Behavioral Modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12: 188–202.

Find this resource: A review of the rival theories of the origins of modern behaviour and pertinent archaeological data, supporting a multiple species rather than a single species origin.

Gargett, R. H. 1989. Grave Shortcomings: The Evidence for Burial. Current Anthropology 30:157–90. Find this resource: —— 1999. Middle Paleolithic burial is Not a Dead Issue: The View from Qafzeh, Saint-Cesaire, Kebara, Amud and Dederiyeh. Journal of 37: 27–90.

Find this resource: Two papers that question the existence of MP burial and ascribe them to site formation processes, based on a site-by-site analysis, emphasizing the need to apply rigorous methodologies in order to refute the role of natural agents in burial.

Hovers, E., Ilani, S., Bar-Yosef, O., and Vandermeersch, B. 2003. An Early Case of Color Symbolism: Ochre Use by Early Modern Humans in . Current Anthropology 44: 491–522.

Find this resource: A detailed case study that links pigment use, burial, and symbolic behaviour on the basis of contextual archaeological evidence.

Hovers, E., Rak, Y., Lavi, R., and Kimbel, W. H. 1995. Hominid Remains from in the Context of the Levantine Middle Paleolithic. Paléorient 21: 47–61.

Find this resource: In addition to describing the human remains from Amud Cave, this paper hypothesizes about the role of burials in the broad settlement and territorial behaviours during the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic.

Hublin, J.-J. 2009. The Prehistory of Compassion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA106: 6429–30.

Find this resource: A brief review of compassionate behaviours of Middle and Upper Pleistocene hominins as perceived from the osteological evidence. Mellars, P. 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy: An Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Find this resource: A comprehensive review (to the date of publication) of the European evidence, inclusive of burials.

Nilsson, L. 1998. Dynamic Cadavers: A ‘Field-Anthropological’ Analysis of the Skateholm II Burials. Lund Archaeological Review 4: 5–17.

Find this resource: A paper that explains the principles of a combined taphonomic, osteological, and archaeological approach to the empirical study of burials.

Pettit, P. B. 2010. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London: Routledge.

Find this resource: (p. 639) Traces the evolution of mortuary practices, inclusive of a detailed review of the palaeoanthropological evidence.

Tarlow, S. 2000. Emotion in Archaeology. Current Anthropology 41: 713–46.

Find this resource: A review of the archaeological approaches to emotion and the ways to incorporate it into archaeological research, emphasizing emotions as historically specific phenomena defined by both biological and social factors.

Travis-Henikoff, C. A. 2008. Dinner with a Cannibal: The Complete History of Mankind's Oldest Taboo. Santa Monica, Calif.: Santa Monica Press.

Find this resource: As suggested by the name, it is a review of cannibalism in human history, using ethnographic and biological data and anecdotes and emphasizing the variety of contexts of cannibalistic behaviours. Additional References

Aiello, L. C. 2003. Neanderthal Thermo-regulation and the Glacial Climate. In: T. H. van Andel and W. Davies (eds) Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Europe during the Last Glaciation. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: 147–56.

Find this resource: Akazawa, T., and Muhesen, S. (eds) 2002. Neanderthal Burials: Excavations of the Dederiyeh Cave, Efrin, Syria. Studies in Honor of Hisashi Suzuki. Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies.

Find this resource: —— —— Dodo, Y., Kondo, O., Mixoguchi, Y., Abe, Y., Nishiaki, Y., Ohta, S., Oguchi, T., and Haydal, J. 1995. Neanderthal Infant Burial from the Dederiyeh Cave in Syria. Paléorient 21: 77–86.

Find this resource: Andrews, P., and Fernández-Jalvo, Y. 1997. Surface Modifications of the Sima de los Huesos Humans. Journal of Human Evolution 33: 191– 217.

Find this resource: Arsuaga, J. L., Carretero, J. M., Gracia, A., and Martínez, I. 1990. Taphonomical Analysis of the Human Sample from the Sima de los Huesos Middle Pleistocene Site (Atapuerca/Ibeas, ). Human Evolution 39: 179–85.

Find this resource: Bar-Yosef, O., and Vandermeersch, B. (eds) 1991. Le Squelette Moustérien de Kebara 2. Paris: Editions CNRS.

Find this resource: —— —— Arensburg, B., Belfer-Cohen, A., Goldberg, P., Laville, H., Meignen, L., Rak, Y., Speth, J. D., Tchernov, E., Tillier, A.-M., and S. Weiner. 1992. The Excavations in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel. Current Anthropology 33: 497–550.

Find this resource: Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., Vandermeersch, B., and Bar-Yosef, O. 2009. Shells and Ochre in Middle Paleolithic Qafzeh Cave, Israel: Indications for Modern Behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 56: 307–14.

Find this resource: Berger, T., and Trinkaus, E. 1995. Patterns of Trauma among the Neandertals. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 841–52.

Find this resource: Bischoff, J. L., Williams, R.W., Rosenbauer, R. J., Aramburu, A., Arsuaga, J. L., García, N., and Cuenca-Bescós, G. 2007. High-Resolution U-series Dates from the Sima de los Huesos Hominids Yields 600-66 kyrs: Implications for the Evolution of the Early Neanderthal Lineage. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 763–70.

Find this resource: Bräuer, G. 1989. The Evolution of Modern Humans: A Comparison of the African and Non-African Evidence. In: P. Mellars and C. B. Stringer (eds) The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspective on the Origins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press: 123–54.

Find this resource: (p. 640) Clark, D. J., Beyene, Y., WoldeGabriel, G., Hart, W., Renne, P. R., Gilbert, H., Defleur, A., Suwa, G., Katoh, S., Ludwig, K. R., Boisserie, J.-R., Asfaw, B., and White, T. D. 2003. Stratigraphic, Chronological and Behavioral Contexts of Pleistocene Homo sapiens from the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423: 747–52. Find this resource: Davies, E. 2006. Unlocking the Secret Sounds of Language: Life without Time or Numbers. The Independent6 May.

Find this resource: Day, M. H. 1969. Early Homo sapiens Remains from the Omo River Region of South-West Ethiopia. Nature222: 1132–8.

Find this resource: de Lumley, H. 2009. The Emergence of Symbolic Thought: The Principal Steps in Hominisation Leading towards Greater Complexity. In: C. Renfrew and I. Morley (eds) Becoming Human: Innovation in Prehistoric Material and Spiritual Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 10–25.

Find this resource: de Villiers, H. 1973. Human Skeletal Remains from , Ingwavuma District, KwaZulu, . Annuals of the Transvaal Museum 28: 229–56.

Find this resource: —— 1976. A Second Adult Human Mandible from Border Cave, Ingwavuma District, KwaZulu, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 72: 121–5.

Find this resource: Defleur, A., White, T., Valensi, P., Slimak, L., and Cregut-Bonoure, E. 1999. Neanderthal Cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, Ardèche, . Science 286: 128–31.

Find this resource: Delson, E., Tattersall, I., Van Couvering, J. A., and Brooks, A. S. (eds) 2000. Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory. New York: Garland.

Find this resource: Demarsin, B., and Otte, M. (eds) 2006. Neanderthals in Europe: Proceedings of the International Conference held in the Gallo-Roman Museum in Tongeren (September 17–19th 2004). Liège: Université de Liège.

Find this resource: Domînguez-Rodrigo, M., Mabulla, A., Luque, L., Thompson, J. W., Rink, J., Bushozi, P., Díez-Martin, F. and Alcala, L. 2008. A New Archaic Homo Sapiens Fossil from Lake Eyasi, . Journal of Human Evolution54: 899–903.

Find this resource: Everett, D. L. 2005. Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language. Current Anthropology 46: 621–46.

Find this resource: Fernandez-Jalvo, Y., Diez, J. C., Caceres, I., and Rosell, J. 1999. Human Cannibalism in the Early Pleistocene of Europe (Gran Dolina, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 37: 591–622.

Find this resource: Fleagle, J. G., Assefa, Z., Brown, F. H., and Shea, J. J. 2008. Paleoanthorpology of the Kibish Formation, Southern Ethiopia: Introduction. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 360–5.

Find this resource: Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 1991. Bones are Not Enough: Analogues, Knowledge, and Interpretative Strategies in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 215–54.

Find this resource: Golovanova, L. V., Hoffecker, J. F., Kharitonov, V. M., and Romanova, G. P. 1999. : A Neandertal Occupation in the Northern Caucasus. Current Anthropology 40: 77–86.

Find this resource: Gordon, P. 2004. Numerical Cognition without Words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science 306: 496–9.

Find this resource: Hayden, B. 1993. The Cultural Capacities of Neanderthals: A Review and Re-evaluation. Journal of Human Evolution 24: 113–46.

Find this resource: Hovers, E. 2009. The Lithic Assemblages of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Find this resource: —— Kimbel, W. H., and Rak, Y. 2000. Amud 7—Still, a Burial: Response to Gargett. Journal of Human Evolution 39: 253–60.

Find this resource: —— Vandermeersch, B., and Bar-Yosef, O. 1997. A Middle Palaeolithic Engraved Artefact from Qafzeh Cave, Israel. Rock Art Research 14: 79–87.

Find this resource: (p. 641) Hublin, J.-J. 2000. Modern/Non-Modern Human Interactions: A Mediterranean Perspective. In: O. Bar-Yosef and D. Pilbeam (eds) The Geography of Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Peabody Museum Bulletin 8. Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography: 157–82.

Find this resource: Juthe, A. 2005. Argument by Analogy. Argumentation 19: 1–27.

Find this resource: Leigh, S. R., and Blomquist, G. E. 2007. Life History. In: C. Campbell, K. C. MacKinnon, M. Panger, S. K. Bearder, and M. Panger (eds) Primates in Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 396–407.

Find this resource: Levi-Strauss, C. 1966. The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Find this resource: Lombard, M. 2007. The Gripping Nature of Ochre: The Association of Ochre with Howiesons Poort Adhesives and Later Stone Age Mastics from South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 53: 406–19.

Find this resource: Mehlman, M. J. 1987. Provenience, Age and Associations of Archaic Homo sapiens Crania from Lake Eyasi, Tanzania. Journal of Archaeological Science 14: 133–62.

Find this resource: Pearson, O. M., and Grine, F. F. 1996. Morphology of the Border Cave Hominid Ulna and Humerus. South African Journal of Science 9: 231–6.

Find this resource: Pettitt, P. B. 2000. Neanderthal Lifecycles: Developmental and Social Phases in the Lives of the Last Archaics. World Archaeology 31: 351–66.

Find this resource: —— 2002. The Neanderthal Dead: Exploring Mortuary Variability in Middle Palaeolithic Eurasia. Before Farming 1(4): 1–17.

Find this resource: Pickering, T. R., White, T. D., and Toth, N. 2000. Cutmarks on a Plio- Pleistocene Hominid from Sterkfontein, South Africa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 111: 579–84.

Find this resource: Ponce de Leon, M. S., Golovanova, L., Doronichev, V., Romanova, G., Akazawa, T., Kondo, O., Ishida, H., and Zollikofer, C. P. E. 2008. Neanderthal Brain Size at Birth Provides Insights into the Evolution of Human Life History. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 13764–8.

Find this resource: Rak, Y., Kimbel, W. H., and Hovers, E. 1994. A Neandertal Infant from Amud Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 26: 313–24.

Find this resource: Ramirez Rozzi, F. V., and Bermudaz de Castro, J. M. 2004. Surprisingly Rapid Growth in Neanderthals. Nature 428: 936–9.

Find this resource: Rightmire, G. P. 1996. The Human Cranium from Bodo, Ethiopia: Evidence for Speciation in the Middle Pleistocene? Journal of Human Evolution 31: 21–39.

Find this resource: —— and Deacon, H. J. 1991. Comparative Studies of Late Pleistocene Human Remains from Klasies River Mouth, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 20: 131–56.

Find this resource: Rosas, A., Martinez-Maza, C., Bastir, M., Garcia-Tabernero, A., Lalueza-Fox, C., Huguet, R., Ortiz, J. E., Julia, R., Soler, V., de Torres, T., Martinez, E., Canaveras, J. C., Sanchez-Moral, S., Cuezva, S., Lario, J., Santamaria, D., de la Rasilla, M., and Fortea, J. 2006. Paleobiology and Comparative Morphology of a late Neandertal Sample from El Sidron, Asturias, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA103: 19266– 71.

Find this resource: Roux, V. 2007. Ethnoarchaeology: A Non-Historical Science of Reference Necessary for Interpreting the Past. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 153–78.

Find this resource: Russell, M. D. 1987. Bone Breakage in the Hominid Collection. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 72: 373–9.

Find this resource: Sagona, A. (ed.) 1994. Bruising the Red Earth: Ochre Mining and Ritual in Aboriginal Tasmania. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Find this resource: (p. 642) Soressi, M., and d’Errico, F. 2007. Pigments, gravures, parures: les comportements symboliques controversés des Néandertaliens. In: B. Vandermeersch and B. Maureille (eds) Les Néandertaliens, biologie et cultures. Paris: C. T. H. S. Documents préhistoriques 23: 283–96.

Find this resource: Szynkiewicz, S. 1990. Philosophy of the Corpse: Modes of Disposal and their Cultural Correlates. In: M. Lecron Foster and L. J. Botscharow (eds) The Life of Symbols. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press: 113–39.

Find this resource: Taborin, Y. 2003. La mer et les premièrs hommes modernes. In: B. Vandermeerch (ed.) Échanges et Diffusion dans la préhistoire Méditerranéenne. Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques: 113–22.

Find this resource: Tillier, A. M. 1990. Une controverse dépasseé: l’existence de pratiques funéraires au Paléolithique moyen. Les Nouvelles de l’archéologie 40: 22–4.

Find this resource: Trinkaus, E. 2012. Neandertals, Early Modern Humans, and Rodeo Riders. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 3691–3. Turner, V. 1966. Color Classification in Ndembu Ritual: A Problem in Primitive Classification. In: B. Marton (ed.) Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion. London: Tavistock: 47–84.

Find this resource: —— 1970. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Find this resource: Ullrich, H. 2005. Cut Marks and other Bone Modifications on the 1 Remains. In: H. Ullrich (ed.) The Neandertal Adolescent of Le Moustier 1: New Aspects, New Results. Berlin: Saatliche Museen zu Berlin—Preußicher Kulturbesitz: 293–307.

Find this resource: Vandermeersch, B. 1970. Une sépulture moustérienne avec offrandes decouverte dans la grotte de Qafzeh. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences 268: 298–301.

Find this resource: —— 1976. Les sépultures néandertaliennes. In: H. de Lumley (ed.) La préhistoire Française. Paris: Editions CNRS: 725–7.

Find this resource: —— 1981. Les Hommes Fossiles de Qafzeh (Israël): Cahiers de Paléontologie. Paris: Editions CNRS.

Find this resource: —— 1993. Was the Saint-Césaire Discovery a Burial? In: F. Lévêque, A. M. Backer, and M. Guilbaud (eds) Context of a Late Neandertal: Implications of Multidisciplinary Research for the Transition to Upper Paleolithic Adaptations in Saint-Césaire, Charente-Maritime, France. Madison, Wis.: Prehistory Press: 129–31.

Find this resource: Vermeersch, P. M., Paulissen, E. P., Stokes, S., Charlier, C., Van Peer, P., Stringer, C., and Lindsay, W. 1998. A Middle Paleolithic Burial of a Modern Human at Taramsa Hill, . Antiquity 72: 475–84.

Find this resource: Villa, P., Bouville, C., Courtin, J., Helmer, D., Mahieu, E., Shipman, P., Belluomini, G., and Branca, M. 1986. Cannibalism in the Neolithic. Science 233: 431–7.

Find this resource: Wadley, L., Hodgskiss, T., and Grant, M. 2009. Implications for Complex Cognition from the Hafting of Tools with Compound Adhesives in the Middle Stone Age, South Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 9590–4.

Find this resource: White, T. D. 1986. Cut Marks on the Bodo Cranium: A Case of Prehistoric Defleshing. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 69: 503–9.

Find this resource: —— Asfaw, B., DeGusta, D., Gilbert, H., Richards, G. D., Suwa, G., and Howell, F. C. 2003. Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423: 742–7.

Find this resource: —— and Toth, N. 1991. The Question of Cannibalism at Grotta Guattari. Current Anthropology 32: 118–38.

Find this resource: Wreschner, E. 1982. Red Ochre: The Transition between the Lower and Middle Palaeoltihic and the Origin of Modern Man. In: A. Ronen (ed.) The Transition between the Lower and Middle Palaeoltihic and the Origin of Modern Man. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 151: 35–9.

Find this resource: Wylie, A. 1985. The Reaction against Analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 63–111.

Find this resource: Erella Hovers Erella Hovers is an associate professor at the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Her research focuses on the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic and the Middle Stone Age in the Horn of Africa, the emergence and evolution of symbolic culture as a material manifestation of cognitive and demographic changes She is involved in interdisciplinary multinational field projects in Israel (Amud Cave) and in Ethiopia, where she studies Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene Oldowan sites in the Hadar site and MSA caves in eastern Ethiopia.

Anna Belfer-Cohen Anna Belfer-Cohen is a full professor at the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Her main interest lies in the domain of exploring prehistoric beginnings. She has researched extensively the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic which represents the flourishing and spread of modern humans on the one hand and the change-over from extractive to productive economies during the later part of that period (the Epipalaeolithic) on the other hand. She has participated in multidisciplinary and multinational excavation projects such as the excavations of Kebara and Hayonim caves in Israel and the Dzudzuana cave and Kotias Klde rockshelter in the Republic of .