Course:ARCL140 Summer2020/TermProject Group20
INTENTIONAL BURIAL PRACTICES
CONTRIBUTORS & ROLES
Simona Oluic wrote site 1
Rosa Oncel wrote site 2
Claire Allen wrote site 3
Henytha Uthayakumar wrote site 4
All members contributed to the introduction, conclusion, map, and editing.
MAP
Sima de los Huesos: 42°21′09" N; 3°31′06" W
Dinaledi Chamber: 26°1′13″ S; 27°42′43″ E
Es-Skhul: 32°40′14.4″N 34°57′58.1″E
La Chapelle-aux-Saints: 44°59′17″N, 1°43′34″E
INTRODUCTION
Intentional burial practices hold an incredible significance in understanding the origins of symbolic thought. Researchers have been able to identify sporadic evidence of mortuary practices across species, which indicates that to bury the dead is to understand the contrast between life and death, and this understanding is the potential foundation for mythologies of the afterlife (Smirnov 1989, 202). Ritualistic behaviors associated with burying the dead require a sense of awareness and connection to the social group, to those alive and deceased (Smirnov 1989, 202). The presence of funerary practices may indicate heightened sociocultural development, where indirectly adaptive activities arose and neocultural types of behavior became more common (Smirnov 1989, 200).
Early examples of intentional burials are of contentious debate, as distinguishing natural burials from intentional burials is critical when making arguments for a Pleistocene emergence of mortuary practices (Gargett 1999, 27). In taphonomy, a natural burial is identified by the organic remains’ transition from the biosphere to the lithosphere (Smirnov 1989, 206), while intentional burials involve the transfer of remains from the initial area to a secondary area (Smirnov 1989, 206). Funerary rituals are not species-specific and vary across geography (Hovers and Belfer-Cohen 2013, 637). Some research suggests that the lack of burials in Africa can be attributed to a strictly practical use of red ochre (Hovers and Belfer-Cohen, 637; Wadley et al. 2009, 9591), due to its wide availability, while the lack of utilitarian ochre use in Eurasia may indicate that ochre has a symbolic meaning related to mortuary practices (Wadley et al. 2009, 9591, Grunberg 2015, 254).
In this wiki post, we will explore four examples of intentional burial sites, detailing how these burial sites point to the evolution of advanced social connections and symbolic thought. The Sima de los Huesos site in Spain may indicate that H. heidelbergensis populations engaged in complex behaviors, such as intentionally depositing a red hand-axe with their dead at a designated burial site. The remains found at the Dinaledi Chamber site are from a newly identified hominin species Homo naledi, whose difficult to access location also points to evidence for an intentional burial. The Qafzeh and Es-Skhul site contained evidence of hearths, human remains, technological artifacts that further supplement the presence of symbolic thought. The remains collected from the site La Chapelle-aux-Saints was the earliest discovery of intentional Neanderthal burial, prompting a reassessment of European Mousterian burials and surrounding symbolic and cultural behaviour.
SITE 1: SIMA DE LOS HUESOS
AUTHOR: Simona Oluic
LOCATION: The Sima de los Huesos cave site is situated within the Sierra de Atapuerca mountain range, 15km east of Burgos, Spain.
42°21′09" N; 3°31′06" W
AGE: Middle Pleistocene, 400,000 BP
Context
The Sima de los Huesos cave site is situated within the Sierra de Atapuerca karst system, 15km east of Burgos, Spain. The Atapuerca mountain range is a karstic highland, 10km long by 2km wide, approximately 1,080m (3,540ft) above sea level (Pares et al. 2013, 4586). The relief consists of upper Cretaceous dolomites and limestones with outcrops of Triassic-Jurassic carbonates and Triassic evaporites (Pares et al. 2013, 4586).
Within the Atapuerca mountain range, there is the Cueva Mayor-Cueva del Silo cave system. Other sites such as the Sima del Elfante and Cueva del Mirador are situated within the two karstic subsystems (Pares et al. 2013, 4587; Arsuaga et al. 1997, 109). The Sima de los Huesos site is a small cavity that leads to a 13m deep pit (Carbonell et al. 2006, 126), which is approximately 0.5km away from the Cueva Mayor entrance (Arsuaga et al. 1997, 109).
The caves were once filled with sediments that were later removed via erosion (Arsuaga et al. 1997, 112). Remnant sediments on rock walls and roof exhibit "basil thin laminated silts, succeeded by a breccia with angular clasts of limestone supported by a red clayish matrix, another bed of laminated silts, succeeded by coarse sand and, at the top of the section, a new reddish breccia" (Arsuaga et al. 1997, 112). Fossils of the bear species Ursus deningeri were found; the absence of fossils from its descendant Ursus spelaeus suggests that the cave system became inaccessible around Middle Pleistocene, 781kya - 126kya (Arsuaga et al. 1997, 112).
History
The Sierra de Atapuerca archaeological site complex was first mapped and described by Sampayo and Zuaznávar in 1868. It was then excavated by F. Jordá in 1965-66, who dug a test trench in El Portalón (Arsuaga et al. 1997, 109). He was followed by G. H. Clark who excavated another test trench in 1971. The site was excavated by J.M. Apellániz for over a decade between 1972 and 1983 (Arsuaga et al. 1997, 109).
In 1976, Sima de los Huesos was excavated by T. Torres, who discovered the first human fossils while sampling sediments in search of bear fossils (Arsuaga et al. 1997, 118). Torres’ Ph.D. advisor E. Aguirre organized a group to study all the Atapuerca Pleistocene sites. In 1983, a small disturbed sediment sample produced human teeth; thus, in 1984 and 1985, archaeologists began to systematically study disturbed sediment. Intermingled bear and human fossils were found in situ in the Sima de los Huesos excavation squares (Arsuaga et al. 1997, 118). The removal of disturbed sediment continued through to 1990, where J. L. Arsuaga, J. M. Bermúdez de Castro and E. Carbonell took over research and jointly directed the excavations. In 1991, 161 human fossils were identified (Arsuaga et al. 1997, 119; Demuro et al. 2019, 76). As of 2019, 6900 fossils have been excavated (Demuro et al. 2019, 77).
Relevance
The 6900 fossils excavated belong to 28 hominids, dated at 400kyr (Demuro et al. 2019, 77; Carbonell et al. 2006, 125). The hominids were classified as H. heidelbergensis (Carbonell et al. 2006, 125). The remains found at the site were of particular interest due to their demographic makeup—nine adolescents, nine prime age adults (18-20yrs), five adults (21-30yrs), and only four over the age of thirty—which puzzled archaeologists as these population segments usually exhibit the lowest mortality rates (Cela-Conde and Ayala 2007, 258). Initial theories posited that there may have been a natural event that brought the remains by way of flooding (Cela-Conde and Ayala 2007, 258). However, the specimens are concentrated within a single stratigraphic layer, which cannot be attributed to a natural catastrophic event, in relation to the age’s profile (Carbonell et al. 2006, 125). There is also no evidence of human occupancy in the pit, only a culturally-biased accumulation of remains (Carbonell et al. 2006, 126).
Evidence of symbolic thinking can be seen at Sima de los Huesos. Studies of mid-ear and hyoid bones found at the site point to the existence of language (Carbonell et al. 2006, 127). Alongside the remains, a red Acheulean hand-axe was found (Grunberg 2015, 253-254; Carbonell et al. 2006, 126). The rock type was a high quality quartzite, which was rarely selected for use at the nearby Gran Dolina occupied site (Carbonell et al. 2006, 127). This may suggest that H. heidelbergensis populations engaged in complex behaviors, such as intentionally depositing a symbolic hand-axe with their dead at a designated burial site.
SITE 2: DINALEDI CHAMBER, RISING STAR CAVE
AUTHOR: Rosa Oncel
LOCATION: Dinaledi Chamber, Rising Star Cave System, Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site, Gauteng Province, South Africa.
Approximately 50 kilometers from Johannesburg.
(26°1′13′′ S; 27°42′43′′ E)
AGE:
Site = Pliocene-Pleistocene, 3MY BP
H. naledi = 236 ka — 335 ka BP
Context
The archeological site is a chamber located approximately 30 meters underground in the Rising Star dolomite cave system, and spanning around 80 meters in length (Berger et al. 2015, 3; Dirks et al. 2015, 4). The cave system itself is about 3 million years old and is situated in the Bloubank River valley, a valley that lies in the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage site in Gauteng Province, South Africa (Dirks et al. 2015, 2; 4; Berger et al. 2015, 3). The Dinaledi chamber is enclosed, only one identified opening through a 15 meter upward climb across the “dragon’s back”— a large dolomite block that seemingly dislodged from the ceiling of the chamber, giving it sharp edges like the scales on a dragon’s back (Dirks et al. 2015, 4). At the peak of the dragon’s back is where the Dinaledi chamber can be entered, through a tight 20 centimeter crevice which is then climbed down vertically for 12 meters (Dirks et al. 2015, 4). The inside of the chamber is almost all made up of flowstone and fine sediment, with two distinct facies that consist of: sericite clay, dolomite grains, mudstone, sand, chert, quartz, and breccia (Dirks et al. 2015, 6; 7).
In the Pleistocene epoch, tropical forests expanded along the equator, which broke into a “mosaic” of small savannas, while a large area of savanna and savanna-woodland groups stretched southward from the equator (Lorenzen et al., 2012; Faith et al., 2016 as cited in Berger et al. 2017, 5). During the Pleistocene, the subequatorial regions that were suitable for hominins were much larger in scale, around 5 to 15 times larger than its counterparts above the equator (Berger et al. 2017, 5). Today, the Gauteng province of South Africa in which the Cradle of Humankind site is situated is described as a grassland biome (Grobler et al. 2006; [1]).
History
The Rising Star cave itself had been a “popular draw” for cavers since the 1960s, but it wasn’t until recreational cavers Steve Tucker and Rick Hunter of the Speleological Exploration Club (SEC) explored a more remote section of the cave system on September 13th 2013, did they find the Dinaledi Chamber and its contents (Shreeve, 2015; [2]). Once in the chamber, the explorers discovered that the floor was littered with— what appeared to be— human remains (Shreeve, 2015). Two months later, paleoanthropologist Lee Berger with his group of six “underground astronauts” (six young women with a background in science and with prior caving experience) and 60 scientists, set off to excavate the site (Shreeve, 2015).
The well-preserved fossils were from approximately 15 different individuals, with varying examples of bones from head-to-toe; approximately 1550 hominin samples were recovered (Berger et al. 2015, 2; 3). What made this discovery unique was that the fossils were recovered from unstratified sediments, and were never lithified throughout their deposition (Kruger et al. 2016, 3).
Relevance
The remains found in the Dinaledi Chamber are all from the newly discovered hominin species Homo naledi, who is believed to have lived between 236,000 and 335,000 years ago (Berger et al. 2015; Dirks et al. 2015; Berger et al. 2017, 2). This means that Homo naledi was a likely “contemporary” to modern Homo sapiens (Paskey and Cisneros 2019, 30), a notable fact considering that H. naledi displays contradicting characteristics. Homo naledi has both australopith characteristics in their primitive shoulders, body size, limb proportions, and brain size; but displays humanlike characteristics in teeth size, lower limbs, and foot morphology suitable for bipedalism— including a blend of these primitive-modern traits such as shoulders and hands being suitable for climbing, but the hand and wrist adaptations being more humanlike (Berger et al. 2015, 2; 23).
Considering Dinaledi Chamber’s difficult to access location, hypotheses have been inferred that H. naledi may have intentionally buried the dead (Val 2016). Other hypotheses that H. naledi had been brought to the chamber through natural causes were contested in that there was no evidence of vertebral damage that may be present from predator attacks, and all the fossils from the 15 different individuals found in the chamber were of hominins (Val 2016, 145).
If intentional burial did occur, this “cultural reaction” to death is something associated with human behaviour (Hovers and Belfer-Cohen 2013, 131). H. naledi’s perplexing morphology and timeline therefore adds to the narrative of human evolution and its variation, although it can be difficult to trace exactly when this ‘human’ culture originated, as there is not enough substantial evidence such as grave goods to prove that H. naledi’s burial was intentional.
SITE 3: QAFZEH AND ES SKHUL
AUTHOR: Claire Allen
LOCATION: Qafzeh cave (Mount Precipice) and Es Skhul cave (Mount Carmel), Israel.
(32°40′14.4″N 34°57′58.1″E)
AGE:
Site: 100-80,000 years ago
Hominins: 130-90 ka B.P
Context
Qafzeh cave, otherwise known as Kedumim cave, is located at the bottom of Mount Precpice, south of Nazareth (Northern district of Israel) (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2009, 308). The site is located in the Yizrael valley of the Lower Galilee region, situated on the slope of Har Qedumim which has an elevation of 820 feet above sea level. Geological observations led to the conclusion that the sediments of layers XXIV-XVII accumulated quickly, then showing a lack of chronological change from the lithic assemblages (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2009, 308). Exposed stratigraphical layers contained deposits from the Holocene and Upper Paleolithic, supported by the evidence of stone tools found in the specific layers (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2009, 307). The cave contains multiple stratigraphic layers, ranging from the Neolithic era onwards. Diverse fauna discovered at the site suggests that there was a wealth in food supplies and ecological diversity. (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2009, 308)
History
Remains found in the Qafzeh caves (Mount Precipice) and Es Skhul caves (Mount Carmel) in Israel are understood to be “the earliest anatomically modern specimens” (Goldberg et al. 1989, 756). The Qafzeh cave was excavated by Rene Neuville, beginning in 1934, which led to the discovery of 5 individual sets of remains in the Mousterian stratigraphic layers. The cave saw destruction in 1936 through civil unrest, but excavations started again in 1965 and continued sporadically until the 1970s (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2009, 307). The remains found in the Skhul cave location were discovered between 1929 and 1935, with evidence of seven adult sets of remains and three sets of child remains, all found and present features that suggest the site was a purposeful burial (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2009, 307).
Relevance
Utilizing thermoluminescence and electron spin resonance (ESR) methods, archaeological evidence supports that the remains found in Qafzeh date to the late Pleistocene, approximately 90,000 years ago (Goldberg et al. 1989, 756). The remains found in Qafzeh and Skhul suggest that there was a period of time of coexistence among anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals in the area, and that purposeful burials occurred. ESR was applied as a method of analysis to bovine teeth from the hominid burial levels, which show that both the Skhul and Qafzeh remains are consistent in age, reinforcing that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals could have coexisted in the same time and place, also implying that modern humans in this area were episodic during the late Pleistocene (Goldberg et al. 1989, 756). Using thermoluminescence dating techniques, researchers were able to confirm that these remains date 80-120 kya (Goldberg et al. 1989, 756).
Pieces of perforated shells were found in the Skhul cave area around the burial site, which would have been brought there by the hominids (as the seashore was approximately 35km away in distance), further supporting that this may have been a purposeful burial as the remains contain artifacts deemed culturally important (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2009, 307). Skhul 5 specifically is a unique piece of evidence, which presented remains of a wild boar (specifically the mandible of the boar) on the individual’s chest. The skull of the individual also presents with both anatomically modern traits, and those of a Neanderthal (supraorbital ridges and larger jaw with a rounded braincase) (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2009, 310)
Lower layers of the Qafzeh cave contained evidence of hearths, human remains, technological artifacts (ie. flint, scrapers and cores), animal remains, and sea shells bearing ochre stains (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2009, 307). These 15 sets of remains were found in total in the Qafzeh excavation, and it is debated that the remains of Qafzeh 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15 were purposeful burials. Qafzeh 9 and 10 specifically were found in 1969 adjacent to one another, both exhibiting traits that align with characteristics of anatomically modern humans (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2009, 311).
Of course, it must be noted that there is still a debate on whether these purposeful burials are indeed just that. In Robert Gargett’s work, he identifies the ways in which these sites may not be pieces of firm evidence of purposeful burial sites, instead describing the ways in which our understanding of past hominids may be mistaken through ecological and geological intervention (Gargett 1999, 27).
SITE 4: LA CHAPELLE-AUX-SAINTS
AUTHOR: Henytha Uthayakumar
LOCATION: The Bouffia Bonneval, La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Corrèze, France. 430 km southwest of Paris. Coordinates: 44°59′17″N, 1°43′34″E.
AGE: ~40,000-60,000 BP, Middle Palaeolithic
Context
The burial site is believed to be approximately 50,000 years old and is located within the Bouffia Bonneval, one of the caves within the La Chapelle-aux-Saints complex of Palaeolithic localities located in southwestern France (Zilhão 2015, 27). The Bouffia Bonneval is a small cave that is 0.3-0.5 m high from base to the ceiling but is originally assumed to have been 2 m high. The cave entrance is 2 m wide and expands to a maximum width of 5 m. The cave is ellipsoid, low, and flat-bottomed suggesting that it was created from a high-energy underground stream, and once the cave opened to air, deposits started to accumulate creating six strata (Gargett et al. 1989, 161). The remains were found situated on the fifth stratum in a rectangular depression 140 cm long, 85 cm wide, and 39 cm deep (Gargett et al. 1989, 161; “Let the dead speak” 2016, 13). Each stratum is composed of different materials such as calcareous marl (white, hard sedimentary rock), yellow clay, scorched soil, rubble, weathered limestone, etc. (Gargett et al. 1989, 161-162). Faunal assemblages and remains at the Bouffia Bonneval exhibit trace amounts of carnivore activity: “The faunal spectrum is dominated by reindeer, followed by bovine, with carnivores being represented by wolf, fox, and badger” (“Evidence Supporting Intentional Burial” 2014, 82). Excavated sediments also revealed Mousterian artifacts composed of Levallois flakes and Quina scrapers made from quartz (“Evidence Supporting Intentional Burial” 2014, 82).
History
One of the earliest known Neanderthal discoveries was the Neanderthal male discovered near the village of La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Trinkaus 2011, 462). The burial site was discovered on August 3, 1908, by A. Bouyssonie and J. Bouyssonie within the deposits of the Bouffia Bonneval (“Evidence Supporting Intentional Burial” 2014, 81). The partial skeleton of the Neanderthal male - called Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 - was later restored by M. Boule, with many of the missing postcranial portions replaced with plaster (Trinkaus 2011, 462). The missing, damaged, or diseased parts of the remains were modelled using elements from other then-known Neanderthal skeletons (Dawson and Trinkaus 1997, 1015). Following the exhumation and restoration of La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1, Boule published his findings and reconstruction of the remains in L’Homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints during 1911-1913 (Dawson and Trinkaus 1997, 1015). Bouffia Bonneval continues to be a site of excavation and a location for paleoanthropological research along with other annexing bouffias.
Relevance
The La Chapelle-aux-Saints skeleton is the earliest discovery of Neanderthal interment of remains however the intentionality of the burial remains contentious to this day. The burial appears to be intentional considering that the skeleton was found in a flexed position (fetal) that is distinct from natural positions - implying that care was put into the positioning of the body (Paskey and Cisneros 2019, 417). Taphonomic analysis ruled out the possibility of geogenic or ecological origins of the burial pit such as periglacial features, endokarstic origin, or bear hibernation nests (“Evidence Supporting Intentional Burial” 2014, 83; “Let the dead speak” 2016, 13-16). Rendu et al. posited that pit was modified for the burial of La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 because accumulated cultural debris and sediment were cleared; an anthropogenic origin is the most parsimonious explanation (“Evidence Supporting Intentional Burial” 2014, 83). One study argued that solely determining anthropogenic origin was insufficient to establish the purpose of the inhumation because one, the burial pit was far too big for the size of the Neanderthal male, and two, there was sediment between the remains (Dibble et al. 2015, 652). However, there have been multiple excavations which have demonstrated that there are burial pits that are larger than the volume of the body (“Let the dead speak” 2016, 15). The well-preserved skeletal material of La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 in comparison to bear skeletons that died during hibernation suggests a funerary context (“Let the dead speak” 2016, 16). The cortical surfaces of the bears were marred by carnivore activity (rodent gnawing, teeth marks, etc.) while the Neanderthal bones were not modified suggesting there was a rapid burial to prevent the alteration of the bones (“Evidence Supporting Intentional Burial” 2014, 83; “Let the dead speak” 2016, 16). The lack of any offerings or goods surrounding the site that would demonstrate ritualistic behaviour or funerary intent, that has been observed in other sites, is not surprising (“Let the dead speak” 2016, 17). Most practices do not leave behind material evidence and even if there were material elements involved, they may have been perishable or may not be easily recognizable as the physical manifestation of symbolic thought (“Let the dead speak” 2016, 17). It is also impossible to determine whether the large amount of Mousterian found in the cave were considered to be grave goods (Pettitt 2011, 111).The evidence presented suggests that Neanderthals had rich and diverse mortuary practices which has implications for the cognitive capacities of Neanderthal populations (“Let the dead speak” 2016, 17).
CONCLUSION
Humans are unique in that they put in a considerable amount of thought and effort into the disposal and inhumation of the dead. Information gathered from the Sima de Los Huesos site, the Qafzeh caves and Es Skhul caves, the Dinaledi Chamber, and La Chapelle-aux-Saints site have provided insight into the palaeolithic origins of intentional burial practices across time and space.
The burial site at Sima de Los Huesos demonstrated that H. heidelbergensis populations were capable of complex, symbolic behaviour such as the existence of language and placing a unique handaxe at the designated burial site. The concentrations of remains in a singular stratigraphic layer infers an anthropogenic origin - there was intent behind the sepulture of the specimens.
Remains found in the Qafzeh and Es-Skhul caves are believed to be the earliest example of anatomically modern species, and the remains found at the sites further supplement the notion of symbolic thought in our human evolution. Burial remains included: pieces of perforated shells (brought by foot as the seashore was far away), remains of animals placed on the deceased, evidence of hearths, and tools. These grave goods are believed to be intentional due to the deliberate nature of their placement.
Fossils from the Danelidi Chamber, in contrast, do not bring with them any grave goods like that of Qafzeh and Es-Skhul. What perplexes anthropologists and leads to discussions of intentional burials is the location of the 1550 hominid samples from Homo naledi recovered. 15 different individuals were found in a chamber in the deepest crevice of the Rising Star cave system, which the entrance to is virtually unreachable if not for the size and ability of the hominids (who show a mixture of australopith and humanlike characteristics). Only thin, small people (6 women) were able to reach the Danelidi Chamber through the 20 centimetre chute. Additionally, there were no signs from the fossils of being brought in by predator animals or other signs that might lead to a natural death. Location alone, and the large size of all hominid fossil samples, give strong evidence to the hypothesis that Homo naledi buried their dead intentionally.
La Chapelle-aux-Saints was the earliest discovery of intentional Neanderthal burial. The specimen was found in a flex position distinct from natural positions that occur after death. Taphonomic analysis substantiated that the remains were buried quickly to prevent alteration to the body posthumously through carnivorous activity. The pit in which the body was buried is thought to be man made because out of all the other explanations, it is the most parsimonious. All of the above suggest that there was some sort of intentionality behind the burial of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints remains.
Hominin funerary practices mediates the interactions between the living and the dead. At one end, burials can be simplistic and have no symbolic input, at the other, burials are rooted in abstruse, nuanced emblematic behaviour. Symbolic mortuary practices have developed over the centuries, evolving and culminating into today’s diverse range of ways of honouring the dead.
REFERENCES
- ↑ "Grassland biome". PlantZAfrica, South African National Biodiversity Institute.
- ↑ Tucker, Steven (2013). "Rising Star Expedition". Speleological Exploration Club.
Arsuaga, Juan Luis, I. Martınez, Ana Gracia, José Miguel Carretero, Carlos Lorenzo, N. Garcıa, and A. I. Ortega. "Sima de los huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). The site." Journal of Human Evolution 33, no. 2-3 (1997): 109-127.
Bar-Yosef Mayer DE, 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(3):307-314.
Berger, Lee R, John Hawks, Darryl J De Ruiter, Steven E Churchill, Peter Schmid, Lucas K Delezene, Tracy L Kivell, et al. “Homo Naledi, a New Species of the Genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa.” eLife 4 (2015). https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.09560.
Berger, Lee R, John Hawks, Paul Hgm Dirks, Marina Elliott, and Eric M Roberts. “Homo Naledi and Pleistocene Hominin Evolution in Subequatorial Africa.” eLife 6 (2017). https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.24234.
Carbonell, Eudald, and Marina Mosquera. "The emergence of a symbolic behaviour: the sepulchral pit of Sima de los Huesos, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain." Comptes Rendus Palevol 5, no. 1-2 (2006): 155-160.
Cela-Conde, Camilo J., and Francisco J. Ayala. Human evolution: trails from the past. Oxford University Press, 2007.
Dawson, James E. and Erik Trinkaus. 1997. "Vertebral Osteoarthritis of the La Chapelle-Aux-Saints 1 Neanderthal." Journal of Archaeological Science 24 (11): 1015-1021.
Demuro, Martina, Lee J. Arnold, Arantza Aranburu, Nohemi Sala, and Juan-Luis Arsuaga. "New bracketing luminescence ages constrain the Sima de los Huesos hominin fossils (Atapuerca, Spain) to MIS 12." Journal of human evolution 131 (2019): 76-95.
Dibble, Harold L., Vera Aldeias, Paul Goldberg, Shannon P. McPherron, Dennis Sandgathe, and Teresa E. Steele. 2015. "A Critical Look at Evidence from La Chapelle-Aux-Saints Supporting an Intentional Neandertal Burial." Journal of Archaeological Science 53: 649-657.
Dirks, Paul Hgm, Lee R Berger, Eric M Roberts, Jan D Kramers, John Hawks, Patrick S Randolph-Quinney, Marina Elliott, et al. “Geological and Taphonomic Context for the New Hominin Species Homo Naledi from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa.” eLife 4 (2015). https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.09561.
Fiorenza, Luca and Ottmar Kullmer. 2013. "Dental Wear and Cultural Behavior in Middle Paleolithic Humans from the Near East." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152 (1): 107-117.
Gargett, Robert H., Harvey M. Bricker, Geoffrey Clark, John Lindly, Catherine Farizy, Claude Masset, David W. Frayer, et al. 1989. "Grave Shortcomings: The Evidence for Neandertal Burial [and Comments and Reply]." Current Anthropology 30 (2): 157-190.
Gargett, Robert H. "Middle Palaeolithic burial is not a dead issue: the view from Qafzeh, Saint-Césaire, Kebara, Amud, and Dederiyeh." Journal of human evolution 37, no. 1 (1999): 27-90.
Goldberg, P., C. B. Stringer, R. Grün, and H. P. Schwarcz. 1989. "ESR Dates for the Hominid Burial Site of Es Skhul in Israel." Nature 338 (6218): 756-758.
Grobler, C.h., G.j. Bredenkamp, and L.r. Brown. “Primary Grassland Communities of Urban Open Spaces in Gauteng, South Africa.” South African Journal of Botany 72, no. 3 (2006): 367–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2005.10.008.
Grunberg, Judith M. "Red Colour in Mesolithic burial sites." Muge 150th: The 150th Anniversary of the Discovery of Mesolithic Shellmiddens—Volume 2 2 (2015): 253-254.
Hovers, Erella, and Anna Belfer-Cohen. “Insights into Early Mortuary Practices of Homo.” Essay. In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial, edited by Sarah Tarlow and Liv Nilsson Stutz, 631–42. Oxford, ENG: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Kruger, Ashley, Patrick Randolph-Quinney, and Marina Elliott. “Multimodal Spatial Mapping and Visualisation of Dinaledi Chamber and Rising Star Cave.” South African Journal of Science Volume 112, no. Number 1/2 (2016). https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20160032.
Parés, Josep María, L. Arnold, Mathieu Duval, Martina Demuro, Alfredo Pérez-González, JM Bermúdez de Castro, Eudald Carbonell, and Juan Luis Arsuaga. "Reassessing the age of Atapuerca-TD6 (Spain): new paleomagnetic results." Journal of Archaeological Science 40, no. 12 (2013): 4586-4595.
Paskey, Amanda W. and AnnMarie Beasley Cisneros, “Archaic Homo” in Explorations: An Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology, 405-445, ed. Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera and Lara Braff (Arlington: American Anthropological Association, 2019)
Pettitt, Paul. 2011. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York; Routledge.
Rendu, William, Cédric Beauval, Isabelle Crevecoeur, Priscilla Bayle, Antoine Balzeau, Thierry Bismuth, Laurence Bourguignon, et al. 2014. "Evidence Supporting an Intentional Neandertal Burial at La Chapelle-Aux-Saints." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (1): 81-86.
Rendu, William, Cédric Beauval, Isabelle Crevecoeur, Priscilla Bayle, Antoine Balzeau, Thierry Bismuth, Laurence Bourguignon, et al. 2016. "Let the Dead speak…comments on Dibble et al.'s Reply to “Evidence Supporting an Intentional Burial at La Chapelle-Aux-Saints”." Journal of Archaeological Science 69: 12-20.
Shreeve, Jamie. “This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?” National Georgraphics, September 10, 2015. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/.
Smirnov, Yuri. "Intentional human burial: Middle Paleolithic (last glaciation) beginnings." Journal of World Prehistory 3, no. 2 (1989): 199-233.
Tillier, Anne-Marie, Baruch Arensburg, Anna Belfer-Cohen, and Bernard Vandermeersch. 2011. "Early Hominid Remains from Hayonim Cave (Israel) in the Context of the Late Middle and Upper Pleistocene Record from the Near East." Paléorient 37 (2): 47-63.
Trinkaus, Erik. 2011. "The Postcranial Dimensions of the La Chapelle‐aux‐saints 1 Neandertal." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145 (3): 461-468.
Val, Aurore. “Deliberate Body Disposal by Hominins in the Dinaledi Chamber, Cradle of Humankind, South Africa?” Journal of Human Evolution 96 (2016): 145–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.02.004.
Wadley, Lyn, Tamaryn Hodgskiss, and Michael Grant. "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 106, no. 24 (2009): 9590-9594.
Zilhão, João. 2015. "Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Mortuary Behaviours and the Origins of Ritual Burial." In, 27-44: Cambridge University Press.