What constitutes intentionality? As it forms the foundation of most discussions surrounding the possibility of Neanderthal burials, a concise definition seems necessary.
‘Intention’ has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result”; “the end or object intended; purpose” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intention, 2013). For the purposes of this research project, the presence or absence of intentionality in potential Neanderthal burials is examined. While it is difficult to know either way, arguments and supporting data from both sides help to form an understanding of what may be considered intentional or unintentional, how possible acts and processes can be explained, and give indicators to look for when examining patterns seen across potential Neanderthal burial sites.
The Debate: Intentional vs. Unintentional
Intentional
While there is skepticism regarding intentionality of Neanderthal burials, a number of academics support its occurrence. Potential acts considered to be carried out with intention have been inferred by the presence of flowers and other important medicinal plants, skeletons found in depressions and in association with other forms of environmental modification, and through skeletons found in association with grave goods and other (potentially) culturally important artifacts.
More specification has been paid to the depressions and pits that have been found to contain Neanderthal skeletons. Paul Pettitt provides a set of actions associated with deliberate disposal of the dead, which he believes to be exemplified by a number of Neanderthal remain sites (Pettitt 2002: 8).
1) The caching of Neanderthal skeletons: Caching is a term that has been used in reference to skeletal remains that have been disposed of in unmodified environments (Pettitt, 2002). While this would seem to be poor evidence in the support of proving intentionality, it is possible in some circumstances that these bones represent the importance of the individual in life. The placement of bones in a commonly used or inhabited area may suggest the importance of the individual, as the area in question may have been avoided for the purpose of housing the skeleton (2002).
2) Simple inhumation in depressed graves: The placement of bodies in excavated features may indicate intentionality in Neanderthal burial. Fully intact Neanderthal skeletons have been found at a number of sites; in several, individuals appeared to be placed in pits or graves on their sides (2002). The careful placement and excellent preservation of such skeletons may well indicate intentionality with the burial.
3) Primary and secondary activity: While it is a rarity, stone tool cuts have been found on Neanderthal skeletons, indicating that Neanderthals were de-fleshing their dead in some instances. Many academics explain these cut marks as cannibalism (2002) - while we may never truly know, the evidence of Neanderthal activity upon the bones of other Neanderthal bodies suggests an interest in the dead. Whether this interest relates to burial practices, or simply as means of subsistence, remains unclear.
4) Burials within pits: The deposition of human remains in large pits have been suggestive of intentionality. Although it is difficult to know whether the pits were dug separate from or for the purpose of burial, unusually excellent preservation supports intentionality in this instance (Pettitt, 2002). The remains of small Neanderthal children have been found in a number of pits - as the preservation of infants and young individuals is known to be poor in comparison to older adults, the unusual quality of preservation may reflect intentionality in burial.
5) Grave goods: Potential grave goods have been found in association with some Neanderthal remains. These grave goods include tools, unusual sediment, and animal remains (amongst others) (2002). Although it is difficult to know with certainty that these are truly grave goods placed with individuals for funerary reasons, their close association with a number of Neanderthal burials allows the possibility to remain. Importantly, it has been acknowledged by academics that grave goods may not be related to funerary importance, but rather for functional purposes (2002). However, this does not discredit intentionality in burial - from what we know about Neanderthals, their lives were fast, vigorous, and short. Cultural and social practices associated with Neanderthal life may not have attached much meaning to social status or other similar motivations for grave goods as it wouldn’t have been of primary importance, but this does not discount the possibility that they intentionally disposed of their dead.
6) Mortuary centres and multiple burials: Sites containing remains of multiple individuals have been considered evidence for intentional burial. The rarity of multiple Neanderthal burials may indicate exclusivity and meaning. Further, the frequency of remains found in caves suggest that caves were used as a centre for remain deposition (2002).
7) Plants found in association with Neanderthal remains may suggest meaningful actions with burial: Some of the plants found in deposition with a Neanderthal burial at the Shanidar caves in Iraq have been linked to medicinal and/or healing qualities (Leroi-Gourhan, 1975). This suggests intentionality through the meanings that Neanderthal communities may have associated with these plants. Intentionality is implied as it seems that these (potentially culturally) meaningful plants were found in very close proximity to Neanderthal remains.
This is a pretty long video, but worth the watch - feel free to check it out if you want to learn more about Neanderthal burial and the debate about intentionality!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWGoB3tLB3A
Unintentional
1) Pits and depressions: The occurrence of pits or depressions housing skeletons may not be indicative of intentional internment of the dead. There is little way to know why any given pit was dug, and it has been suggested that the pits found to contain Neanderthal skeletons were there prior to burial. The presence of bodies and grave goods in these pits could be explained by taphonomic processes, or could be explained as areas where unused or unnecessary remains were placed. The frequent occurrence of infant remains found within small pits suggest that burial may have been unintentional, as the pits resemble hearths and other useful features not pertaining to burial (Pettitt, 2002).
2) Taphonomy: Taphonomic processes have been used as an explanation for most, if not all, potential Neanderthal burials. The placement of individuals considered to have been buried may be in no specific direction, suggesting that it was perhaps an accident such as a rockfall or collapsed cave. The positioning of bodies remains as the central doubt in burial intentionality: most bodies are deposited in (what we today consider to be) meaningless ways, implying little to no preparation (Gargett, 1999). The placement of rocks on and around bodies supports the hypothesis of a collapsed cave as a cause of death. Gargett contends that unless a separate stratigraphical layer is found with Neanderthal remains, purposeful protection of remains and grave goods cannot be assumed.
3) Animal interruption in the making of depressions: The role of animals in the formation of what have been considered pits or graves has been examined, and it has been concluded that a number of animals do both purposefully and accidentally over time excavate areas that resemble pits or graves. Similarly, a large argument has been put forth that the depressions were formed by Neanderthals or humans, but not for funerary or burial purposes (Gargett, 1999).
4) Animal interruption with plants found in association: The plants and flowers present in Neanderthal burials have been studied and used to disprove intentionality. Rodent activity has been studied in an effort to understand how certain plants and animals could have been found in the burials. A particular rodent, the Persian jird, found near some Neanderthal skeletons, have been found to be capable of carrying as many flower heads into the burial site as are indicated by the pollen analysis done at Shanidar IV (Sommer, 1999).
And of course...a TED TALK on Neanderthals. Definitely worth the watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU0ei9ApmsY
No comments:
Post a Comment