Trends in Neanderthal Burials

Strange Sedimentation and Dubious Depressions: Are they enough to infer Neanderthal burial?

Upon finding Neanderthal remains, archaeologists have historically tried to determine whether the individual(s) were intentionally buried by their social group who survived them, or whether the individual(s) simply died preserved over time. One of the primary points of contention from those who believe that Neanderthals did bury their dead (at least sometimes) is that these Neanderthal skeletons would not be so well-preserved if they weren’t placed in an especially protective sedimentary environment after their death. In other words, some argue that the very fact we can recover a well-preserved Neanderthal skeleton is itself evidence of some kind of intentional burial (Peyrony, as cited in Gargett, 1989). Others contend that a ‘burial’ can only be considered intentional if it cannot be explained by taphonomic processes—it must show clear evidence that Neanderthals modified the land around the skeleton (Gargett, 1989).  The archaeological sites La Moustier and La Ferrassie in France highlight this debate, as both contain Neanderthal skeletons in shallow ground depressions.

La Moustier

At La Moustier, a site in the Dordogne region in France, there is a rockshelter with two circular ground depressions. Archaeologists know these depressions existed by studying the stratigraphy of the site. The first depression is about 60-70 centimeters in diameter, and 60 centimeters deep. There are three slabs of limestone in this depression. The second depression, however, is much more intriguing. It is located beside the first depression, and measures 50 centimeters in diameter and 40 centimeters deep. In it are the ancient remains of a Neanderthal infant. Because the individual is found in a shallow ground depression, the Peyrony believed it was evidence of an intentional Neanderthal burial. Initially, it does appear to be an intentional burial. First, the individual is found in a hole in the ground. It cannot be known whether the hole was dug by Neanderthals or formed naturally, but either way the infant was found inside of it. Second, the fact that the small infant bones were preserved is itself striking, and seems to suggest the individual was buried in modified sedimentary environment. Indeed, our affiliation to burying the dead in the ground compels us to believe this is an example of Neanderthals doing the same.

The critics, however, have good reason to be skeptical. The initial research at this site by Peyrony is stratigraphically problematic, according to Gargett (1989), who says the stratums around the depression are indistinguishable. He questions the reliability of Peyrony’s stratigraphic ‘evidence’, and believes that only by examining the infant’s bones can we learn more about the supposed intentionality of its burial. Unfortunately, these remains were destroyed during World War II, and so the debate regarding La Moustier as a site of a Neanderthal burial will continue on.

http://hoopermuseum.earthsci.carleton.ca/neanderthal/neanderthal.jpg

La Ferrassie

La Ferrassie is another site with Neanderthal remains found in depressions in the ground. Two immature Neanderthal skeletons were found in pits 30-40 centimeters deep (Capitan & Peyrony, 1914, as cited in Gargett, 1989). The bones are found at the same depth as a “pavement” of calcareous blocks. This ‘pavement’ is an anomaly, as it separates two, virtually identical stratums. This has been interpreted by researchers as an indicator of intentional burial. Proponents of this theory believe the blocks were ceremoniously placed with the bodies at the time of death. Our imagination wants us to accept this proposition, but critics have raised some cautionary red flags. Most compelling is Gargett’s (1989) counterargument, which is that the bodies are not lying flat—they are found at different depths in the pit. He argues that, instead of being intentionally buried in this pit, the individuals were more likely deposited in it; the infilling of the pit is explained as a combination of the surrounding walls slumping in and gradual accumulation of surrounding sediments. The positioning of the body at different depths is more understandable in this scenario. In any case, Gargett contends that there is nothing extraordinary about the ‘burial’ at Le Ferrassie, and nothing that cannot be explained as the result of taphonomic processes.

La Moustier and La Ferrassie are two important sites in the discourse around Neanderthal burial practices. Both sites are characterized by Neanderthal skeletons found in shallow pits or depressions. It is unclear whether these depressions were created by Neanderthals or if they formed naturally; nevertheless, the Neanderthal infant (La Moustier) and adolescents (La Ferrassie) were deposited in them, and somehow preserved despite great odds. I tend to err on the side of caution, and not jump to any conclusions that are not supported by strong evidence. In my opinion Gargett provides the most convincing argument, which contends that neither of these sites provides substantial evidence to support the claim that Neanderthals intentionally buried their dead.

Neanderthals Buried with Animals: Evidence of Ritualized Mortuary Practices?

Instances of Neanderthal remains being found with animal bones have been mobilized by some researchers as evidence not only for intentional Neanderthal burial, but also for ritualistic burial practices (Oklsdnikov, 1949, summarized by Movius, 1953); Teshik-Tash, a site in eastern Uzbekistan, and Regourdou, a cave in the Dordogne region of France, are two critical examples that will be discussed. Both sites contain burials that captivate the imagination, and raise far more questions than they answer. 

Teshik-Tash

Teshik-Tash is an archaeological site best known for a well-preserved Neanderthal skeleton, which is surrounded by multiple pairs of goat horns. The horns, as well as the Neanderthal bones, are much better preserved than other remains at the site, which has spurred debate as to whether they were intentionally buried by Neanderthals. If the goat horns were buried with the body at death, Teshik-Tash would unequivocally demonstrate that Neanderthals, at least sometimes, buried dead individuals. Furthermore, it would support the notion that Neanderthals may have had specific ritualized practices for death and burial. Indeed, the first excavators of the site came to this conclusion (Oklsdnikov, 1949). However, it is not exactly clear whether the horns were in fact placed with the body at death, or whether their appearance is the result of some natural process. 

 

Gargett (1989) once again opposes the assertion that this site provides evidence of intentional Neanderthal burial. He notes that goats make up 85% of the faunal assemblage at this site, so the fact that some are well-preserved, and others not, is not all that surprising. Furthermore, because the site is characterized by such an overwhelming number of goat remains, the goat horns found near the Neanderthal skeleton should not be considered to be unique or unusual—rather it is characteristic of this site more generally. This evidence works against the claim that the goat horns were intentionally placed with the body at death in some kind of ritualized burial. If the horns were not intentionally buried, then we must examine whether the individual was intentionally buried. According to Gargett, there is no evidence that supports this claim either. He argues that, “neither the horns nor the sedimentary matrix nor the bones themselves support the inference of purposeful burial. No substantial evidence exists for mortuary ritual at this site” (1989, p. 169). While he is not alone, Gargett is the primary opponent to the notion of intentional Neanderthal burials. He believes that our affiliation to the concept of burial has caused archaeologists to accept this interpretation on insufficient evidence (1999). Either we want to believe that they buried their dead, or it is simply easier to interpret the archaeological remains in this way. Gargett resists this interpretation, and provides a critical voice against these theories.

Regourdou

The second site containing both Neanderthal and animal remains is Regourdou, a cave in the Dordogne region of France. The site is characterized by depositional irregularities, which Bonifay (1964, as cited in Gargett, 1989) believes are evidence of graves. One such grave, which is most intriguing in this debate, contains the skeleton of an adult Neanderthal as well as a full skeleton of a black bear. In addition to the bear skeleton, excavators also found ‘offerings’ such as stone tools and other bear remains in the rubble. The presence of the bear remains led the initial researchers to believe this was an intentional burial (1964). Although it is not clear whether they are correct or not, Gargett (1989) firmly believes this is yet another instance of naturally occurring events being mistaken for intentional Neanderthal behavior. He points again to the fact that several fragmentary remains of bears are found in the cave. He suggests that these remains indicate that the cave was a recurring site of bear hibernation, more so than a site of ritualized or ceremonial mortuary behaviours. He argues further that the positioning of the skeletal remains near the wall of the cave makes them more likely to be protected from falling debris and stones (1989). The astonishingly well-preserved bones can thus be explained as a result of skeletal positioning, rather than an intentional burial.

Neither Teshik-Tash nor Regourdou provide conclusive evidence supporting the notion that Neanderthals intentionally buried their dead. The presence of animal bones with Neanderthal skeletons appears to indicate a kind of ritualized mortuary practice, but Gargett convincingly argues that the presence of the goat horns (Teshik-Tash) and the black bear (Regourdou) can be explained as a result of natural processes. While we are inclined to interpret these remains as an intentional burial, given our own affiliation to burying the dead, it is important to critically examine the reasons that support this claim. Unfortunately, neither site conclusively shows signs of a burial. They capture our imagination, but in doing so raise far more questions than they answer. The debate will rage on, but in my opinion Gargett is right to be skeptical.