Burial Practices During the Upper Paleolithic

Hector Castrejon

Anthropology 1030

Professor Jakob Crockett

April 23, 2018

Introduction:

In this paper I will look into the practices used for burials in the Upper Paleolithic period.

Mostly those used by Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and how significant their practices were.

There has been a hotly debated topic about whether the burials found have been done with a

purpose in mind or if it has merely been coincidence.

Through the use of peer-reviewed journals I will try to make the case that the burials that

have been found throughout Europe have not been coincidence but rather they were significant to

the hominids who were performing them. The use of grave artifacts such as necklaces, bracelets,

animal remains, ochre coloring, tools such as blades, among others, and the consistency with

which they have been found in various burials not just a few support the idea that there was a

purpose behind them. Another practice that supports this idea that a purpose was present is the

positioning in which the people who were buried have been found, many of the remains found

have been in either semi-flexed or fully flexed position.

This purpose that is being supported by these findings is called by many as culture, by

saying hominids had culture, you are viewing them with a much higher regard than as in some

simple savages who merely follow their survival instinct. Some argue that the purpose was not a

sign of them having culture however, but rather that it was done for a much simpler purpose.

Some of these simple purposes have been that of using burials as a waste disposal site, if a hole

was already going to be dug then why not use it to get rid of anything that is laying around

serving no purpose at all, this would explain why so many grave artifacts are being found at the

burial sites. In order to try and make sense of the positioning of the remains, why they have been

placed in the way they have, either semi-flexed or fully-flexed, it has been said that they have

been articulated that way because it would allow the people digging up the hole to make a much
smaller hole and still being able to fit the person inside. This would let the diggers conserve

much needed calories by not having such a high energy expenditure for the task at hand. The

presence of red ochre has also been attributed to the ability of red ochre to keep the body from

decomposing at a much slower rate, making the smell coming from the bodies more bearable.

However, this paper will serve to show that such ideas are not accurate and do not have enough

backing to show these people had no culture, and show how the artifacts, body positioning,

burial site in relation to the community place, among other evidence, show that in fact these

people had culture.

Literature Review:

The article, “A Structural Comparison of Disposal of the Dead in the Mousterian and the

Upper Paleolithic”, by Sally R. Binford, compares the ways disposal of the dead was handled in

both Mousterian and the Upper Paleolithic periods. It takes into account both the geographical

and temporal variability found in both cultural periods. The article looks at how different groups

of the dead were treated, they differentiate between age and sex, how treatment was different

between males and females, as well as young and old.

Evidence for this was found by taking well documented burial sites from Europe as well

as the Near East. Sites in which a great amount of undisturbed remains have been found were

taken into account for this research. Sites in which the remains have been disturbed by either the

excavation process or in which the archaeologists themselves have moved the remains and

artifacts have been dropped from this research in order to have a more reliable data to draw from.

A total of 51 sites were taken into account for this research, out of which 13 are from the

Mousterian period, while the remaining 38 are from the Upper Paleolithic period. Our of the
Mousterian sites there were 37 either complete or partial burials coming out of the sites

consisting of however 11-13 were not included for this research due to the damage the bones

have taken to fire, to the point that they would not be helpful towards the research. Out of the

documented sites for the Mousterian period one was found in a multiple individual burial while

the other 34 sites were single burials. The age distribution for the Mousterian individuals was

the following: four infants, 14 children, zero adolescents, 15 adults, four aged, and zero with no

data. Thirteen of the individuals were male, four were female, and the remaining 20 individuals

could not be identified as either male or female. The body positions of the burials are separated

into the position of both the arms and legs. For the legs, 13 individuals were fully flexed, eight

were semi-flexed, zero were extended, and 16 had no data. For the arms, seven were fully flexed,

11 were semi-flexed, zero were extended, and 19 had no data. Out of the burials, in 14 of them

burial furniture was found, in 17 there was no burial furniture, while in four there was no data.

Out of the Upper paleolithic sites there were a total of 42 individuals again either

complete or partial, although 32 of them had to be omitted from the research as the

documentation was not up to par with the research, there was a lack of information on these

individuals. Out of the 24 burials recorded, eight contained multiple individuals, while 16 were

single individual burials. For the age distribution in the upper paleolithic burials, one is an infant,

four are children, ten are adolescents, 20 are adults, nine are aged individuals, and the other two

had no data. For the sex distributions, 21 of the individuals are male, six of them are female, and

the rest of the remains could not be identified as either sex. For the leg positioning, in 14 of the

individuals they were fully flexed, in two of them they were semi-flexed, 11 had extended legs,

and the remaining had no data. For the arms positioning, 20 had fully flexed arms, one had semi-
flexed arms, seven were in extended position, and the remaining 13 had no data as to their

positioning. In all 24 burials there was evidence of burial furniture being present.

The research was performed by the author Sally R. Binford during the summer of 1968.

Binford came to many conclusions during this research regarding the skeletal remains. Binford

states that the reason so many more multiple individual’s burial sites are found in the upper

paleolithic than in the Mousterian period could be because either during this period there was an

increase in simultaneous deaths leading to more multiple individual burials, or it could also be

that simultaneous deaths were singled out more than singular deaths for a need to bury them

instead of just leaving them exposed. Binford also found that in the Upper Paleolithic period sites

you can find a much greater variability in regard to the body positioning than in the Mousterian

period. During the Mousterian period most, buried individuals were placed in fully flexed

position with fewer in semi-flexed position, while none were in an extended position. However,

during the Upper Paleolithic, you find about the same amount between of flexed and extended

positioned remains when in comes to leg position, in regard to arm position you find many more

that are fully flexed but you still find a few that are extended compared to none extended during

the Mousterian period. According to Binford one of the most surprising differences between both

time periods was the presence or absence of grave goods. “Seventeen of the Mousterian burials

were without any kind of grave goods, while all of the Upper Paleolithic burials contained a

rather complex range of items.” (Binford et al.1968, pg.10). You can find a greater range of

goods in the Upper Paleolithic burial sites than you can in the Mousterian burial sites. Some of

the goods you can find in the Upper Paleolithic sites are personal adornments, such as beads,

pendants, and necklaces, some are made from ivory while others are made from fish remains,

mainly from the vertebrae. None of these goods can be found during the Mousterian period, they
only occur during the Upper Paleolithic. The Upper Paleolithic burial rituals took the

involvement of a greater community for them to be carried out, not one single family could do

everything needed for the rituals, for the Mousterian period rituals, they could be completed by

one single family’s contribution.

The second article is called, “Grave Shortcomings: The Evidence for Neanderthal

Burial”, by Robert H. Gargett. Robert H. Gargett states the aim of his article as the following,

“...I shall examine the reports of Neandertal remains most often cited as evidence for purposeful

burial- La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Le Moustier, La Ferrassie, Teshik-Tash, Regourdou, and

Shanidar- in the light of these considerations and draw some general conclusions.” (Gargett et al

1989, pg. 3) Gargett does this by taking into consideration geomorphology, sedimentology, and

taphonomy. To Gargett, all three provide evidence as to the hypothesis that Neanderthals buried

their dead and performed other rituals. The documentation of the cave sites where Neanderthal

remains have been found is not being done by Gargett, but rather has already been done by many

other archaeological teams at different times. Most of the burial excavations were done during

the 20th century. Most famous of these were the sites of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, which was

excavated in 1908, La Ferrassie site, excavated in 1909, and Le Moustier, excavated in 1914, all

three of these sites lead to the discoveries of important Neanderthal skeletal remains. As more

complete or almost complete Neanderthal remains were found at other sites, the hypothesis that

they were being buried gained more momentum leading people to think about whether these

Upper Paleolithic people were more alike to us than we thought before.

Gargett goes on and reexamines the data documented by the original site excavators and

compares them to one another. Gargett gives a detail account as to the effects outside air has on
the caves once they have been opened, as well as to how the sediment can tell us more about the

conditions of the cave before it was sealed. Through the study of the sediment, it is also possible

to determine whether or not the archaeological deposits found were introduced at the same time.

Gargett also notes the impossibilities that he has to face now that some data is no longer possible

to be obtained, either because the originals have been destroyed or lost. Leading them to not

being able to make a clear determination, “We cannot even go to the fossil record to break the

stalemate, since the remains of the infant were lost in World War II.” (Gargett et al 1989, pg. 9).

When looking at the Regourdou site, a site which people have believed that the morphology at

the site has been caused by rituals, Gargett gives compelling explanation as to why this cannot be

the case, “Where slopes existed, linear lags of rubble collected at the bottom; where fissures

were opening, small domes of talus were created; elsewhere, large and small rubble occurred that

disrupted the normal course of transport and deposition and led to anomalous but explicable

morphologies.” (Gargett et al 1989, pg. 19). In other cases, Gargett explains the lack of proper

documentation at some sites such as Shanidar, which makes it impossible to make a conclusion

as to certain aspects of the site. At the Shanidar site, the findings of pollen in the cave led people

to believe the pollen had been taken there by the people whose remains where found there,

Gargett however gives a different point of view, he explains that the method of transportation

could be something much simpler such as the wind. Gargett then goes on to state that even if he

is wrong and other methods of transportation are not acceptable, then it must be questioned how

the pollen samples were collected and documented, “Without having identified a stratum that has

distinct horizontal and vertical boundaries, how can association be inferred?” (Gargett et al 1989,

pg. 21). After examining the archaeological evidence provided by the sites excavators, Gargett

comes to the conclusion that the deposits in question could have been produced by much more
simpler methods other than human behavior. Gargett believes that he need to make the

explanation for such things as deposits being found near skeletal remains so complex rather than

taking into account processes of geomorphology and taphonomy in order to get to a much

simpler answer, is the work of a pre-1960s discipline. Gargett states that it should be the major

opinion that Neanderthals did not bury their dead, that it was rather done through

geomorphological processes like landslides.

The third article which will be considered in this paper is called, “Grave Markers: Middle

and Early Upper Paleolithic Burials and the Use of Chronotypology in Contemporary Paleolithic

Research”, written by Julien Riel-Salvatore and Geoffrey A. Clark. This article is a direct

response to Robert H. Gargett’s article, “Grave Shortcomings: The Evidence for Neandertal

Burial.” Salvatore and Clark believe that in order for Gargett’s theory to be taken into account

then they must use the same principles Gargett presents on his research and apply them to Early

Upper Paleolithic sites and compare whether or not they share any significant patterns that could

prove that Neanderthal burials have indeed been caused by human behavior, or as Gargett

believes, accomplished through mere geomorphological changes. Salvatore and Clark state the

aim of their article as the following, “By trying to discern how burial practices in the Early

Upper Paleolithic differed from or resembled those suggested for the Middle Paleolithic, this

paper will also test the validity of the Upper Paleolithic as an analytical unit, since it will show

whether an unambiguous Middle/Upper Paleolithic division exists in a body of evidence other

than stone tools. By extension, the validity of typological and etic approaches to the dynamic

cultural and biological processes of the Paleolithic will also be assessed.” (Riel-Salvatore and

Clark et al 2001, pg. 3). First, they tackle Gargett’s criticism that the finding of an articulated
skeleton does not immediately mean that it was intentionally buried. Although, Salvatore and

Clark agree with this point, and that geological processes could indeed preserve the skeletal

remains, they also state that researchers who begin their work with a presumption that articulated

skeletons are signs of intentional burial, they all agree that an articulated skeleton by itself is not

enough evidence for the conclusion of an intentional burial, there must be more to its context.

Another problem they found during data analysis was the lack of documented skeletal

positioning when first found. Many of the excavators failed to record the placement and resting

plane of the found remains. The reason why this is a very important factor is that in many

cultures the body positioning is an important component of burial ceremonies. Not only is there a

lack of data on the orientation of the remains themselves, there is also very scarce information on

the orientation of the graves themselves. However, out of the few information that is found we

find that graves were mostly oriented along an east-west axis. There is a big consideration taken

as to what type of skeletal remains are found, whether they belonged to males, females, or

juveniles. It seems to be the case that the found remains consist mainly of males, rather than

females, or juveniles. As we move more into the Upper Paleolithic remains, more documented

data is found regarding the position of the skeletons, most of them are found in a dorsal and fully

extended position. When comparing Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic we find that although

there is a high number of males in both data sets, during the Middle Paleolithic there is a much

higher rate of juveniles than in the Early Upper Paleolithic. When comparing the grave goods

found in sites relating to both periods, Salvatore and Clark say the following, “In any case, even

if the Cro-Magnon burials are excluded from the count, a higher proportion of Early Upper

Paleolithic than Middle Paleolithic burials are associated with relatively unambiguous grave

goods. The proportional difference between the two is significant.” (Riel-Salvatore and Clark et
al 2001, pg. 12). After taken into account all of their research both Riel-Salvatore and Clark

come to the conclusion that, “…categorical rejection of Middle Paleolithic burial is clearly

unwarranted, and the continued use of traditional temporal and conceptual frameworks in

Paleolithic research is in need of serious rethinking.” (Riel-Salvatore and Clark et al 2001, pg.

13).

The last article to be considered in this paper is called, “Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal

Flower Burial in Northern Iraq.” By Ralph S. Solecki. In his article, Solecki recounts the process

that was followed during the excavation of Shanidar. How the skeletons were found, in what

position they were in correlation to one another, and why they are named as they are. Since it

was unclear to determine between both female skeletons which was found first, they were

lumped together and called Shanidar VI-VII. Solecki then went on to get an analysis on the

pollen found at the site. The results that came back from Paris were astounding to Solecki, as it

implied Neanderthals were much more alike to us than we had thought, “The association of

flowers with Neanderthals adds a whole new dimension to our knowledge of his humanness,

indicating that he had “soul”.” (Solecki et al 1975, pg. 2). Out of the eight flowers found at the

site, seven of them have been described as having medicinal properties, which leads Solecki to

believe they were used by Neanderthals in rituals. Solecki then goes on to describe the medicinal

properties each type of flower has. Solecki concludes that this finding gives evidence to the

hypothesis that Neanderthals buried their dead intentionally.

Discussion:

After taken into consideration all four articles, I am led to believe there is much more

evidence supporting the notion that individuals living during the Upper Paleolithic period did

bury their dead intentionally. The first major evidence that supports this notion is the clear

difference between the grave goods found between Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic periods.

You can see the amount of people that would be needed to make a burial site with as many burial

goods as some of the sites had. A single family was not capable of providing all the materials

and labor needed to put together all those goods for a single person’s burial. Some of the goods

found at the sites included: beads, necklaces, blades, bracelets, and other artifacts made from

ivory, or fish vertebrae. The requirements to gather the resources to manufacture these goods

would require the people who were to make them to interact to one another and hold it as a

highly esteemed object to put it with their dead. It signifies that to these people it was very

important for their dead to have something for the afterlife, otherwise they would not simply get

rid of tools that could be use by the living. Another very compelling supporting evidence for the

hypothesis the dead were buried intentionally, is the positioning the bodies are found in. Most of

the bodies found are in either a semi-flexed or fully-flexed position, this means that they were

not just left where they died as they would all be in very different positions from one another.

However, we see that throughout many of the sites were the remains have been found the bodies

are laying in a similar position, even if the two groups may not have had contact with each other.

No accidents, physical struggle, disease, etc. would leave so many remains looking almost

identical, the remains must have been rearranged by others of the same group with a purpose in

mind. A purpose that must have been very similar to one another. In the excavation of Shanidar,

especially when looking more closely at the remains of a male specimen’s remains, Shanidar IV,
Solecki finds evidence of flowers which were put there deliberately by whoever gathered them.

These flowers are not just random flowers that were found on the mountainside, all with the

exception of one type, have medicinal properties, that may have been believed to help the dead

after they had died, or in their final moments to either diminish the pain, or help them recover.

Gargett however, does not believe these flowers were placed there intentionally by others.

Gargett believes that geomorphological changes are exactly how the flowers (pollen), got inside

the cave. According to Gargett, a strong wind could have easily pushed the pollen inside the cave

before it got sealed. Many convincing theories as to how geomorphological changes can explain

very simplistically how “burial goods” are found at sites, or why the shape of the sites are how

they are, instead of following the complex ideas put forth by other researchers when they

excavate and examine a site. To Gargett it seems that researchers do not actually look for the

truth but rather for what could be the most exciting way to explain something, even going as far

as to infer very wild and complex ideas. However, Gargett’s geomorphological hypothesis has

been challenged by many others, including Riel-Salvatore, and Clark. In their article, these two

individuals go on to examine Gargett’s hypothesis and implement them when restudying how

other sites have been interpreted. They believe that in order for Gargett’s hypothesis to hold true,

it would be necessary to exclude many of the data between already known groups of people who

have buried their deceased intentionally, as they have many things in common with Paleolithic

individuals whom Gargett does not believe have buried their dead with a purpose in mind.

Conclusion:

After considering all the information and data I have been able to examine after reading

these four articles. I believe that early Upper Paleolithic people did in fact have a purpose for
burying their death, whether this was related to the afterlife, sanitary conditions, or simply for

aesthetics, it cannot be determined with the information available. However, any of those would

prove that they are capable of much more than thought of before. It must be taken into account

however, that careful consideration needs to be taken to the geography and its processes of the

area surrounding a site. Even if a hypothesis sounds great and might be true, a much simpler

hypothesis cannot be disregarded and taken with as much weight.

References:

Binford, Sally R. "A Structural Comparison of Disposal of the Dead in the Mousterian and the

Upper Paleolithic." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24, no. 2 (1968): 139-54.

Gargett, Robert H., Harvey M. Bricker, Geoffrey Clark, John Lindly, Catherine Farizy, Claude

Masset, David W. Frayer, Anta Montet-White, Clive Gamble, Antonio Gilman, Arlette

Leroi-Gourhan, Paul Ossa, Erik Trinkaus, and Andrzej W. Weber. "Grave Shortcomings:

The Evidence for Neandertal Burial [and Comments and Reply]." Current

Anthropology 30, no. 2 (1989): 157-90.

Riel‐Salvatore, Julien, and Geoffrey A. Clark. "Grave Markers." Current Anthropology 42, no. 4

(2001): 449-79.

Solecki, R. S. "Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal Flower Burial in Northern Iraq." Science 190, no.

4217 (1975): 880-81.