Sei sulla pagina 1di 35

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 3, No.

2, 1989

IntentionalHuman Burial: Middle Paleolithic (Last


Glaciation) Beginnings
Yuri Smirnov1

This paper analyzes intentional burial as a historical phenomenon. Mortuary


practices are viewed as a particular sphere of human activity, involving the
transfer of thephysical remainsfrom one natural environment to another. The
general and specific laws governing mortuary treatmentand itsdevelopment are
discussed, and the earliest known deliberate burials?those of theMiddle
Paleolithic?are examined against this theoretical background. Middle Paleo
lithicgroups inventedalmost all thebasic ways of treatinga corpse before burial
and almost all theways of burial itself.They seem to have developed a "cult of
the dead,91 based upon dualities such as concealment vs exposure of the body,
burial of the body intact vs disarticulated, burial of thewhole body vsparts of
itonly, and so on. It is shown that, in theMiddle Paleolithic, therewere centers
of taphological activity, that inhumation was selectively practiced on only a
small minority of thepopulation, thatmen were buried much more often than
women, and that the patterns of burial seem to have been independent of
identifiablefactors such as human physical type or level of technology.

KEY WORDS: deliberateburial;Mousterian; Middle Paleolithic;EarlyWurm; Eurasia;


taphology; mortuary complex.

INTRODUCTION

"Death seems to be a harsh victory of the species over the particular


individual and to contradict their unity. But the particular individual is only
a particular species-being, and, as such, mortal" (Marx, 1982, p. 93). As soon
as human beings became aware of this apparent contradiction, they tried to
resolve it by, among other things, showing a special concern for the dead

1
Department of the Stone Age, Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of the USSR,
Dmitri Ulyanov str., 19,Moscow 117036, USSR.
199

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
200 Smirnov

as expressed in their burial. Deliberate interment was one of the most


significant, progressive contributions of early man to human culture; its
appearance resolved not only the fundamental contradiction between the
species and the individual, but also, to some degree, the contradiction between
life and death. While death, according to Goethe, puts an end to the
individual's existence, interment grants him an afterlife. In other words, the
beginning of intentional burial may be seen as a kind of victory of the genus
Homo over death.
The earliest definite traces of such disposal of the dead appear about
70,000 years ago, in the Middle Paleolithic. They mark the beginning of
mortuary practice in one of its basic forms?inhumation.
Middle Paleolithic burials were first discovered over a century ago and
have been of great interest to prehistorians ever since, because they are a very
particular source of information about man and various aspects of his way
of life.They enable us to study the initial forms and development of interment
and of the "cult of the dead," phenomena which were rare in the Paleolithic,
became more common in theMesolithic, were customary by the time of the
Bronze Age, and were practiced by a majority of mankind throughout later
history.
Before the introduction of mortuary practices, human behavior was
essentially restricted to purely utilitarian activities (Fig. 1) and may be seen
as made up of two complementary types of adaptation: natural and cultural
(specifically, paleocultural). The natural adaptations involved the control of
materials (in this case, the quest for food, including gathering, the occasional
hunting of small animals, and perhaps scavenging) and the control of space,
both vertical (the transition to full bipedalism) and horizontal (control of the
primary ecological niche and settlement beyond it). It also comprised the
stabilization and regulation of reproduction and the raising of offspring, and
so on. The cultural adaptations (that is, adaptations that are not inherent in
our very species) included further control over materials (the hunting of large
animals as part of the food quest, and the obtaining of raw materials both
for tool making and for the construction of shelter), additional control over
space (themaking and use of tools), and control over energy (fire).However,
the archaeological record suggests that cultural adaptations hardly went
beyond these basics. Thus, human activities during early prehistory were
concerned primarily with satisfying man's basic needs, that is, with coping
with the environment so as to preserve the species and to provide for the
individual.
In view of the above, we may assume that the beginning of intentional
burial marks a new stage in the development of human society,when activities
that were not directly adaptive came into being and there was a transition
from the paleocultural to the neocultural type of behavior. I believe that the

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Burial:Middle PaleolithicBeginnings
Intentional 201

Fortification of settlements
00081 Domestication of animals and plants
Pottery
Skis, sledges and boats
0D1 6 Bow and arrows
-UP L Sewing needle
0021 L
DOS!A ARTISTIC ACTIVITY
U Settlement of Autralia and America
0M B
"SANCTUARIES" {BEAR CAVES)
005; L
0
006| y TAPHOLOGICAL ACTIVITY
00718
0081R
m J
A
Si w
02 "c "ZOOLATBIA"
u "RITUAL" CANNIBALISM
DRAWING ACTIVITY

Occupation of caves and


construction of shelters

Exodus from the eubtropics and settlement


of the temperate zone of the Old World
"Domestication" of fire
Living sites
Tool activity

Upright walking

Emergence of hominids

Fig. 1. Chronology of adaptive and nonadaptive human activities in the Stone Age.

beginning of deliberate burial was an epochal event. Mortuary practices


appeared within the context of thewidespread Mousterian industries, of the
greatest geographical distribution of Neandertal man, Homo sapiens neander
thalensis, and of the domination of theNeandertals over members of the
genus Homo within Eurasia. AH of these may be dated to the initial phases
of the Last Glaciation. In fact, the appearance of deliberate burials could
serve to settlethedisputeas towhethertheMiddle Paleolithicshould be
treated as a separate stage inhuman history (e.g.,Wreschner, 1982, pp. 35-39),
since theMiddle Paleolithic should be distinguished on criteria comparable
to those conventionally used for theUpper Paleolithic: the spread of modern
man (Homo sapiens sapiens and "Homo sapiens fossilis") and his domination
over other forms, the universal distribution of Upper Paleolithic industries,
and the emergence of art.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
202 Smirnov

There are reasons to suppose that early man would have adopted a new
type of behavior only after the primary, self-conscious, social group had
developed sufficiently strong and stable social ties. Those ties must have
become so strong that they were extended even to dead members of the
group. We may infer from the forms ofMiddle Paleolithic mortuary ritual
that, by that period, the dichotomy was already recognized between the
world of livingbeings and theworld of thedead. It is very likelythat
mortuary practices had also led to the emergence of one of the earliest, and
most fundamental, cosmological models: thatman had invented theworld of
the dead and begun to create his own mythological history.
The beginnings of human history now reach back to at least 2.5-3
million years ago, but there is not a single deliberate burial known from
almost all of this enormous stretch of time. This does not necessarily mean
that until a certain moment humanity had wholly ignored their dead. Some
rituals, apart from cannibalistic ones, could have been performed during
earlier periods, but either they took forms other than burial, such as a "skull
cult" (Wernet, 1948; Bouyssonie, 1954; Bergounioux, 1958), or they leftno
evidence recoverable by modern archaeology.
There is circumstantial evidence for the existence of both skull and
mandible cults in theLower Paleolithic. It isdifficult to explain taphonomically
the facts that cranial remains of fossil hominids (> 50% of the total) far
outnumber postcranial remains (<15% of the total) and that finds of
mandibles may be 20% less common than skulls (although sometimes tjiey
are equally represented). Similarly, in Lower and Middle Paleolithic sites in
Africa and inUpper Paleolithic sites inAsia, mandibles of children under 14
are > 30% more common than adult mandibles and > 20% more common
than adult and juvenile cranial remains (Oakley et aL, 1971, 1975, 1977).
These discrepancies cannot be explained by taphonomy, or by the excavators'
explicit preference for crania and mandibles, or even by an osteodontokeratic
hypothesis such as that of Dart (1957). The most likely explanation lies in
early man's concern for the cranium and for themandible, particularly those
of children. Such a concern could have resulted in their being specially
preserved in habitation areas, instead of being consigned to the rubbish,
where, mixed with other organic debris, theywould have decayed relatively
rapidly (Smirnov, 1987a).
In any case, no intentional burials are known before theMiddle Paleo
lithic.Nevertheless, even the earliest examples already show the full complexity
of structural and other characteristic features, so thatwe should not think in
terms of an "evolution" of interment, as some scholars suggest. Many aspects
of inhumation are inevitably predetermined by the shape and size of the
human body, by general and specific laws of nature, and, equally importantly,
by the logic of themortuary ritual itself. Patterns of burial have been the

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Banal: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 203

same from ancient times to the present, and from the very beginning,
we find almost the full repertoire of basic variations. This is in accord
with the common observation that different patterns of social organ
ization can give rise to similar patterns of burials and, conversely,
that similar social organizations may lie behind different mortuary
practices.
The first interments appear in the Mousterian, but at present, only
a few instances can be confidently termed intentional burials. In Europe
and Asia, there are just over 60 such cases of disposal of the dead for
the last 30,000 years of the Mousterian: an average of two burials per
millennium!
Only Middle Paleolithic interments from Eurasia are considered in this
paper, since there are none known from elsewhere except forAfrica, where
thereare fourpossibilities:
Omo 1-Kibish(KHS) (Oakleyetal, 1977,p. 22),
Border Cave 3 (Oakley et al, 1977, pp. 96-97), Fish Hoek 1 (Oakley et al,
1977, p. 101), and Boskop 1 (Oakley et al, 1977, pp. 97-98). [The catalogue
numbers used in this paper are from Oakley et al (1971, 1975, 1977), except
for Shanidar 7-9, Kebara 1-3, Zaskalnaya Vla-c, and La Ferrassie 7.] The
African specimens are difficult to compare with the Eurasian material
(Grigoryev, 1977). In addition, the Border Cave and Fish Hoek interments
are probably more recent, and the contexts of the skeletons found at Omo
Kibish and Boskop are not clear.
Chronologically, none of the burials under study is earlier than the Last
Glaciation, orWurm in theAlpine scheme, and all are restricted to the first
two stages, Wurm I and Wurm II, and the intervening interstadial, Wurm
I-II. In absolute dates, this corresponds to theperiod between 70,000-60,000
and 35,000-30,000 years ago (Butzer, 1971; Horowitz, 1979; Gerasimov and
Velichko, 1982).
Taxonomically, all the burials fall into two major groups. The first
comprises theWest European Neandertalers of theChapelle-aux-Saints type
and some more variable Neandertaloids from the Crimea, Central Asia, and
theNear East. The second group ismade up of the sapiens forms from Skhul,
Qafzeh, and Staroselye.
The sample is restricted to burials associated with the diverse typological
and technological variations of theMousterian industrial tradition (Table I).
Thus, the Neandertal skeleton from the Chatelperronian layer of Saint
Cesaire (Leveque and Vandermeersch, 1981) is excluded from the study. It
should be noted that the sample could be enlarged ifadditional information
were to become available on individuals such as La Masque 1 (Oakley et al.,
1971, pp. 140-141), Rene Simard 1-3 (Oakley et al, 1971, pp. 165-166), and
Caminero 1 (Oakley et al, 1971, p. 90) in France and Subalyuk 1 and 2
(Oakley et al, 1971, pp. 226-227) inHungary.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
204 Smirnov

Table I. Mousterian Burials

Site Year of
No. Site discovery Excavator(s)

Belgium

Spy (2, 3)* 1886 M. Lohest, M. Puydt

France

2 Arcy-sur-Cure (1, 3?) 1946 A. Leroi-Gourhan


3 La Quina (1, 1) 1911 H. Martin
4 Roc deMarsal (1, 1) 1961 J. Lafille
5 La Chapelle-aux-Saints (1,1) 1908 A. Bouyssonie, J. Bouyssonie,
L. Bardon
6 Le Moustier (1, 1) 1908 O. Hauser
Le Moustier (1,1) 1914 D. Peyrony
7 La Ferrassie (6, 7) 1909-1921 L. Capitan, D. Peyrony
La Ferrassie (1,1) 1973 H. Delporte
8 Regourdou (1, 1) 1957 R. Constant
1961 E. Bonifay

USSR
9 Zaskalnaya VI (1?, 3) 1973 Yu. G. Kolosov
10 Kiik-Koba (2, 2) 1924 G. A. Bonch-Osmolovskii
11 Staroselye(1, 1) 1953 A. A. Formozov
12 Teshik-Tash (1, I) 1938 A. P. Okladnikov

Iraq
13 Shanidar (6?, 9) 1953-1960 R. Solecki

Israel

14 Mugharet et-Tabun (1, 1) 1932? D. Garrod


15 Mugharet es-Skhul(10, 10) 1931-1932 T. McCown
16 Kebara (2, 2)c 1964-1965 M. Stekelis
Kebara (1, 1) 1983 French-Israeli team
17 JebelQafzeh (2?, 3) 1934-1935 R. Neuville, M. Stekelis
JebelQafzeh (4, 5) 1965-1973 B. Vandermeersch
18 Amud (1, 1) 1961 H. Suzuki

'See Fig. 4.
6The firstnumber in parentheses is the number of burials; the second is the number of individuals
found so far.
c includedin thissample;itismen
A juvenileskeletonfoundatKebara Cave in 1964is tentatively
tioned only by Oakley et al. (1975, p. 137) and is not confirmed by the references which they cite.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

ThefirstMousterian burials were found at Spy, Belgium, in 1886


(Fraipont and Lohest, 1887). The existence of deliberate interments in the
Middle Paleolithic was suggested 22 years later, after the discovery of La
Chapelle-aux-Saints in France (Bouyssonie et al, 1908a, b, 1913). It was the

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 205

findwhichalso led to thefirstseriousformulation


latter of thepossibilityof
a link between intentional burial and religious beliefs. The hypothesis of
deliberate Neanderthal burial aroused a storm of controversy among pre
historians. Discoveries made in the 1920s and 1930s, such as at La Ferrassie,
Skhul, and elsewhere (Peyrony, 1921, 1934; Breuil, 1921; Hrdlicka, 1930;
Garrod and Bate, 1937), supported the existence of Middle Paleolithic
mortuary practices, and most Western scholars acknowledged thatMousterian
burials had a religious aspect.
Some Soviet historiographers tried to prove that therewere no deliberate
Mousterian burials (Plisetskii, 1952), while others referred to their"unevolved"
character (Efimenko, 1953). Several scholars not only admitted their existence
(Nikolskii,1923;Zamyatnin,1961)but also pointedout thattheburialshad
both social and religious roots (Okladnikov, 1952). However, Mousterian
religion was usually supposed to have been "unevolved."
Studies of the early burials fall into two broad groups. The firstconsists
primarily of general surveys, often with an emphasis on the religious aspects
(Bouyssonie, 1954; Bergounioux, 1958; Tokarev, 1964; Semyonov, 1966).
The second group tended to ignore the religious aspects and was concerned
with detailed descriptions of particular finds (Hrdlicka, 1930; Zamyatnin,
1961; Vandermeersch, 1965,1982; Binford, 1968; Grigoryev, 1968; Harrold,
1974, 1980;Korobkov, 1978;Tillier, 1982;Defleur-Tanoux,1982).
The last two decades have witnessed major advances in this field: sites
have been more precisely dated, burials have been linked to specificMousterian
industries, and the stratigraphic positions of remains uncovered at the turn
of the century have been determined with greater accuracy. Nevertheless, the
ritual aspect of the burials remains very poorly known, and this has led to
confusion within the field (Smirnov, 1979a, 1979b, 1981, 1983,1985), as well
as to divergent opinions concerning particular burials, disagreement on the
number of deliberate interments known, assertions of the "unevolved" nature
of the burials, and even attempts to deny the existence of mortuary practices
in theMiddle Paleolithic. The last would greatly distort our view of the
general level of cultural development during theMiddle Paleolithic.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Taphonomy and Taphology

Treatment of the dead should be seen as a sphere of human activity


which is, inmany respects, independent of other areas. Like other spheres, it
is characterized by particular means and ends that determine the course of
activity and its results. For these reasons, I use a special term, taphology, to

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
206 Smirnov

denote both the sum of traditional knowledge about mortuary treatment in


a particular community and the study of this activity.
Disposal of the dead is governed by certain laws, which we must under
stand ifwe are to explain the apparent anomaly that the first deliberate
burials appeared as fully formed as Athena from the head of Zeus. Another
important issue is that the forms of deliberate interment do not seem to have
evolved. First, the positions inwhich bodies were buried have been the same
from ancient times to the present and almost all of the basic variations were
already known in theMiddle Paleolithic. Second, since theMiddle Paleolithic,
all burial structures,whether natural or artificial, have been based upon two
morphological archetypes, the pit and themound (which, topologically, may
be seen as the lower and upper halves of a sphere truncated by the surface of
the earth). Third, grave goods, when present, are usually objects (manmade
or not) used by the decreased during life (some things can be specially
produced for interment) and belonging to no more than three categories?
artifact manufacture, subsistence, and ideology; Mousterian burials exhibit
an assortment of these. Itmay be noted in passing that elements in different
categories may perform different functions, that their functions may change
through time, and that elements pass from one category to another.
Study of the general laws in operation also enables us to understand how
dissimilar patterns of social relations or religious beliefs can lead to identical
patterns of interment. For this purpose, we must first distinguish between
manmade and natural burials. A burial can be seen as the transfer of organic
remains from their primary environment to a secondary one, or from one
geosphere to another; as a result of this, the remains can no longer easily react
with the elements of other geospheres. The term "geosphere" is used here in
the Russian sense and denotes the Earth's interconnected and interacting
coverings?the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, and the
biosphere?which together make up the geosystem of our planet. We may
also define another component of the system: the anthroposphere?the sphere
of human activity, which is intrinsically different from other elements in the
geosystem in that it deliberately interfereswith them and, ideally, strives to
create a new suprasphere, the noosphere (Fig. 2).
The basic laws of natural burial were formulated in the 1930s by Efremov
(1950), the founder of taphonomy. In taphonomy, the process of natural
burial is viewed as a transition of organic remains from the biosphere to the
lithosphere. This includes natural burials of remains of flora and fauna but
also human remains predating the first systematic mortuary practices, as well
as some later examples.
Before suggesting a definition of intentional burial, it is relevant to
consider the moment of physical death, which is a transition from vital
activity to a qualitatively new relationship with the environment. It is also a

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Burial:Middle PaleolithicBeginnings
Intentional 207

Fig. 2. Model of the geosystem.

transition from the biosphere, where processes of integration predominate


over those of dissolution, to a sphere where the relation between these
processes is reversed. This suggests that our model of the geosystem needs
another component, which would be the opposite of the biosphere and could
be named themorosphere (from theGreek ptogocr)or thanatosphere, that is,
the sphere of death, where organic compositions are posthumously located
and where they undergo decay. Many forms of animal and plant life feed
upon dead organisms or, in other words, draw energy from themorosphere.
The term "morosphere" suggests two derivatives, morotope and moro
coenosis. The notion ofmorocoenosis is broader than that of thanatocoenosis
(Efremov, 1950, p. 118), which iswidely used to denote an association of dead
animals lingering in the biosphere. Thanatocoenosis includes associations of
remains that eventually became buried but takes no account of the anthro
pogenic factor. The latter may be of minor importance among processes
contributing to the geological record but has, in the end, acquired a much
greater significance. From all of this,we may define themoment of death of
any organism as its transition from the biosphere to the morosphere, a
transition that can be violent or nonviolent, seasonable or premature.
The morosphere may be viewed either as an independent part of the
biosphere or, in light of the continuous exchange of substance and energy

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Smirnov

Fig. 3. Model of the anthroposphere from the taphological


point of view.

within the organic world, as part of a twofold system, the biomorosphere


(Fig. 3). In the circulation of organic matter, themorosphere is an inter
mediate stage for dead organisms between the biosphere and the taphosphere,
or sphere of burial. Here, organic materials are sorted and partially destroyed
before burial (or even completely destroyed, inwhich case commemoration
ispossible, although not physical burial). It should be remembered, however,
that even in the taphosphere, destroyed organic matter still plays a significant
part in the nutritive and metabolic systems of the biosphere, by nourishing
the soil's flora and fauna.
Figure 3 shows the anthroposphere from the taphological point of view.
It is composed of three large blocks, which we term the sociobiosphere, the
sociomorosphere, and the sociotaphosphere; this emphasizes their relative
independence and the predominance of the social factor within this sphere.
The sociomorosphere, which may be located in any part of the anthro
posphere, includes both the activity of living beings (the various ways of
treating the deceased and, particularly, preparations for the interment) and
the area where the body is kept prior to burial. The sociotaphosphere
includes primarily the activity of living beings, whereby they create structures

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 209

for isolating or preserving the remains, formaintaining theirmemory, and


for keeping up the traditions and educating the young in those traditions. The
sociotaphosphere also includes the ultimate place of burial.
The blocks in Fig. 3 are connected both directly and by feedback. The
direct linksmanifest themselves inmortuary practices. The feedback can be
observed in nutrition (up to and including cannibalism), in economic activities
(the extraction of valuables from interment sites, such as jewelery or precious
metals frommanmade structures, and ivory or construction materials from
natural burials), in the socioideological sphere (the dead as an ancestor,
potential newborn child, mediator), and in field research (archaeology,
anthropology, criminology).

Mortuary Treatment

Preliminary ritual treatment of the dead follows one of two opposing


paths: it can be aimed at the best possible preservation of the corpse, for
which later procedures would include embalming and mummification as the
extreme forms, or it can be directed at the fullest destruction of the body,
which can result in reducing bone tissue to fragments or complete cremation.
After death, the body may be subjected to intermediate rituals such as
washing, dressing, and painting. These actions can be either autonomous and
followed by the burial or exposure of the body or subordinate and leading on
to either preservation or destruction. Procedures taken along one of these
two paths can always be halted, and the remains of the dead, inwhatever
condition they then are, can be subjected to directly opposite treatment. For
instance, a disarticulated body may be mummified and an embalmed one
cremated. In addition, any activity may affect only parts of the body and not
the whole.
After the body has undergone the preliminary rituals, the final ritual
activities constitute another starting point. One of the alternative paths leads
to the corpse's concealment, whereby the body is transferred to the socio
taphosphere and isolated; this course ends in burial. On the other path, the
remains are preserved in the sociomorosphere or transferred to the socio
biosphere; this course ends in exposure. In the latter case, even if the body
is not removed from the place of death, the dead and some of his surroundings
may be formally transferred to themorosphere or the taphosphere. This is
done by rituals, such as making taboo the body and the dwelling inwhich it
is kept.
As before, in any specific case the process can be stopped at any point
and the remains, inwhatever condition they then are, may be subjected to the
opposite treatment. Thus, the unburied may be buried, while the buried may

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
210 Smirnov

be exhumed and either reburied or transferred to the sociobiosphere for


exposure. Again, all these procedures may affect only parts of the body.
Burial and exposure themselves may be only parts of a series of preliminary
rituals. Such include temporary burial in the ground or inwater to separate
the bones from the flesh before exposure and temporary exposure to deflesh
the bones before burial.
In addition, there are other actions performed to produce or select
components of the burial complex (for example, the construction or rear
rangement of a burial structure and the selection of grave goods) and to
instruct the living in the mortuary rituals which precede, accompany, or
follow the burial.
Thus, deliberate intermentmay be defined as a purposeful transfer of a
body from the sociomorosphere to the sociotaphosphere. When the remains
are confined in an enclosure, a mortuary complex comes into being within
one of the basic spheres of the geosystem or on the borderline between two
or more spheres; the place where this occurs acquires the status of the
taphosphere. (It isworthy of note that with man's breakthrough into space,
burial complexes may now also be created outside the geosystem.) The two
most important factors in the process of intentional burial are the deliberate
and final transfer of the corpse to the taphosphere and its fullest possible
isolation from its original surroundings.

Mortuary Complex

The principal element of a mortuary complex is themortuary structure:


its greatest functional role is in actual burial and it is also significant for
commemorative purposes.
Taken as a whole, a mortuary complex is a system of closely related and
regularly arranged parts. The remains of the dead make up the internal
construction, or core, of the burial complex, while the burial structure is its
external construction, or shell. By "burial structure," we mean any receptacle
specially created or used for accommodating the dead. Receptacles vary in
shape and materials, and may be iterative (patterned like the Russian
"matryoshka" dolls or Chinese boxes). Such interments have been common
since theNeolithic but may have emerged as early as the Paleolithic.
Human remains are sometimes accompanied by grave goods, which may
be buried with the corpse or separately. The goods are sometimes subjected
to the same treatment as the deceased.
The burial complex may also include associated or additional features:
places of worship, tombstones and other monuments, both within the burial
structure and outside it, as well as hearths, pits, and so forth, which are

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 211

indirectly related to the burial and are made before, at the same time as, or
later than the burial (Leonova and Smirnov, 1977).
Associated features and grave goods may be differentiated on the basis
of their location and relationship to themortuary structure, as well as the
latter's basic form and degree of complexity.
Thus, adjacent burial goods are found within the grave, very close to the
body; accompanying goods are found outside the grave but still within a
relatively elaborate mortuary structure, such as a grave mound; contiguous
goods occur directly outside the grave and themound, such as on the old
surface of themound, at its foot, or in the burial trench; and attendant grave
goods are those outside the burial complex but known to have been used in
arranging the burial or performing, for example, commemorative rituals.
Similarly, adjacent features are within the grave but not constituents of
the burial structure (such as a receptacle containing human remains, a hearth
or a pit). Accompanying features are located outside the grave but within the
inner limits of the burial mound (and vary from a hearth to a funeral temple).
Contiguous features are situated outside themortuary structure (such as a
funeral temple, a road to the burial ground, or a ditch encircling the burial
complex). Finally, attendant features are located outside themortuary complex
(such as a monument to those fallen in battle, erected away from their place
of burial).
Hence, themortuary complex is a system consisting of two constants (a
burial structure and human remains) and two variables (grave goods and
associated features). Such complexes appeared as early as theMiddle Paleo
lithic and have not evolved any fundamentally new features or designs since
then.

METHODOLOGY

Selection of the Sample

The process of intentional burial may be defined as a series of actions to


transfer the corpse from theprimary, or natural, environment to the secondary,
or nonnatural, one. This results in the isolation of all or part of the body,
which may eventually lead to its preservation. In the geosystem, preservation
can be accomplished only by creating or using a special space that is subse
quently closed, thus turning it into a mortuary structure. Sometimes, it is
precisely this "locking up" of the dead that provides evidence for the
deliberateness of the burial.
In the sample studied here, human remains are characteristically dis
posed of by being put in the ground and covered over with earth or stones.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
212 Smirnov

Cases of exposure not accompanied by a complete isolation of all or part of


the body are not analyzed here, although they are often misinterpreted as
burials. The skull found atMonte Circeo (Blanc, 1958) is a probable example
of ritual exposure in theMiddle Paleolithic.
In material terms, deliberate burial consists of an artificially ordered
system of two related constructions: externally, the burial structure and,
internally, the remains of the dead. The presence of an artificially created or
closed structure containing human remains is therefore a prerequisite of
intentional burial. In view of this,Combe Grenal (Bordes, 1972, pp. 134-137)
is not considered to represent deliberate burial.
As an object of research, intentional burial is the transformed fragment
of reality remaining to us in the archaeological record, both material
and written. It results from the transformations of the original components
of themortuary complex over time,which can lead to the complete or partial
destruction of that complex. Let us examine the two constants of themortuary
complex in this light.
When the internal construction has been completely destroyed but the
external one is intact, the researcher has no objective criteria for interpreting
this as a burial complex, because there is no stereotype ofmortuary structures
in the Paleolithic in the absence of human remains. In the Paleolithic,
there are quite a lot of structures which could have been defined as mortu
ary, if human remains had been found in them?for instance, Combe
Grenal.

When the internal construction is preserved but the external one is


destroyed or not recorded during excavation (it can be very difficult to
recognize earthern structures, particularly if thematrix and the fill are the
same), additional criteria are needed to ascertain the deliberate nature of the
burial. Since the very use of a burial structure tends to result in the better
preservation of human remains (Cartailhac, 1912; Okladnikov, 1952;
Quechon, 1976), the well-preserved condition of remains at the time of
discovery may serve as an indication of deliberate burial. This criterion was
formulated ingeneral terms by de Mortillet in 1903 and has been substantiated
by the present author (Smirnov, 1988) in a comparative study of some 2000
Paleolithic remains listed by Oakley and others (1971, 1975, 1977). This
analysis confirms that,when there is no evidence of an accident (such as an
avalanche, roof-fall, or landslide), the completeness of the remains can
indicate the deliberate nature of human burial, even for the Mousterian.
Thus, ifcomplete human remains are discovered in the living area of a site,
where anthropogenic destruction was significant, it is highly likely that they
come from an intentional burial. The absence of an occupation layer from the
Feldhoffer Cave makes this criterion inapplicable to the complete skeleton of
the first-discovered Neandertaler, Neandertal 1.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 213

However, the greatest problem is the assessment of isolated complete or


nearly complete skulls, especially those from layers which also yielded
deliberately buried individuals, such as the unnumbered skull from Le
Moustier (Heim, 1976b, p. 582) and Qafzeh 4, 5, and 12-14 (Vandermeersch,
1981). There are also numerous skulls from deposits which did not yield
intentional burials, such as La Quina 18, Pech de FAze 1, Broken Hill, and
Zuttiyeh 1. Finds of this kind have never, to my knowledge, been recorded
in structures that could be interpreted as mortuary (the only exception is the
Monte 1 skull). Therefore, isolated crania are not included in the
Circeo
present study, and isolated mandibles and postcranial fragments are omitted
for the same reason.

Body Position and Arrangement as a Criterion of Intentional Burial

This criterion is used in most papers on Mousterian burials. Binford


formulates it as "an arrangement of the body or body parts which seem[s] to
preclude natural agency" (1968, pp. 140-141), although it is not clear what
sort of arrangement shemeans. Some claim that flexedbodies must have been
deliberately interred, such as Bouyssonie (1954, pp. 112-113) and Harrold,
who states that "in most burials the body is arranged in a position (tightly
flexed, for instance) which implies intentional postmortem disposition"
(1974, p. 5). I consider this criterion inapplicable or, at least, highly dubious
when the body parts are found in their proper anatomical relations. On the
other hand, when the body has been, for example, intentionally taken apart
at the spine(Roc deMarsal 1),defleshed(Teshik-Tash1), reburied(Skhul
2?),2 or interredwith the skull separate from the body (La Ferrassie 6) or only
part of ithas been buried (Arcy-sur-Cure 5-7), we may exclude the possibility
of unintentional burial and the criterion of a "particular arrangement" is
correct.

Another issue concerning body positions is the relationship between the


original position of the body and that recorded at the time of discovery. For
example, human remains found in "transitional" positions, usually between
being on their sides and being prone or supine, may have had the trunk or
limbs twisted by, say, the pressure of the overlying deposits (as with Tabun
Cl), or theremay be a divergence between the positions of the trunk and the
limbs, such as the trunk being supine and the legs turned to the side (La
Chapelle 1, Skhul 5). This problem appears insoluble, for we cannot offer
verifiable reconstructions of the original disposition or even suggest ways of

2
Question marks are placed behind the names or numbers of burials when it is not clear from
the published data whether or not a particular feature is applicable to this individual.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
214 Smirnov

making such reconstructions. Therefore, thispaper is based upon the positions


recorded by excavators (recognizing that theymay not be perfect), except in
the following cases: Le Moustier 1 [a prone posture ismore likely than "on
the right side" as recorded (Klaatsch and Hauser, 1909, p. 290)], Staroselye 1
[should be on the right side, instead of the recorded "on the back" (Formozov,
1958, p. 63)], Skhul 1 [recorded as "on the left side" (Garrod and Bate, 1937,
pp. 97-98; McCown and Keith, 1939, pp. 2-3, 299-302) but was actually
either reburied or defleshed before burial], and Skhul 4 [recorded as "on the
right side" (Garrod and Bate, 1937, p. 99) but was prone].

Grave Goods and Assessing Their Intended Association with the Burial

When considering the possibility of grave goods in a burial within a


cultural layer, almost all scholars very properly consider the element of
chance, since objects can get into a grave by accident during the process of
arranging themortuary structure and during the burial proper, particularly
at the closure stage.Most authors are therefore skeptical about the possibility
of distinguishing between intentional grave furniture and random objects in
Mousterian assemblages. However, some criteria are helpful in this respect.
Middle Paleolithic burials are known both with and without associated
goods, which makes itmost likely that goods were sometimes deliberately
placed in the grave. We may evaluate how intentional this was on the
following grounds.

(a) The size of an object compared with the size of themortuary structure:
large objects, such as side scrapers and points, being less likely to fall
into a child's burial in a small trench (La Ferrassie 3-6) than is a
small flake into a spacious grave pit.
(b) The condition of an object, such as unburned flints found in the
hearth fill of a burial pit (La Ferrassie 3-4 a, b).
(c) The location of an object: for example, next to the trunk in the angle
formedby the rightupper arm and the leftforearm(Skhul 5); or
between the hands (Skhul 4); or aligned with the bones [La Ferrassie
1, 6, and 5 (in the last case three side scrapers lay in the same plane
and along the same axis)]; or under the skeleton, mixed with objects
from a different cultural horizon that was disturbed by the pit (La
Ferrassie 2); or in a closed complex [in a grave covered with limestone
slabs (Roc de Marsal 1) or beneath and within a pile of stones
(Regourdou 1)].
(d) The placing of an object in the sterile layer of the pit fill (Arcy 5-7,
Teshik-Tash 1,Zaskalnaya Vla-c).

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 215

(e) The nature of an object: many of the animal bones associated


with burials cannot be considered as "food stores" or "funeral
feast debris," since most of them are horns, teeth, mandibles,
and other bones with very little flesh, like avian tarsometatarsals
(Roc de Marsal 1, Regourdou 1, Shanidar 1 and 5, Skhul 5,
Qafzeh 11, Teshik-Tash 1, La Chapelle 1?). Such bones, pro
visionally referred to below as "fetishes," might be hunting
trophies or somehow related to the ideology of mortuary
disposal.

In addition to the existence of burials with and without associated grave


goods, thematerial under consideration has another peculiarity: some burial
sites are rich in lithics or bones, but others are not. For instance, therewere
many bones associated with La Ferrassie 1 and Kiik-Koba 1 but not with the
neighboring burials of La Ferrassie 2 and Kiik-Koba 2. Also, there are
occasionally accumulations of bones alone (La Chapelle 1,Kiik-Koba 1,
Shanidar 1, 4, 5, and 6-8) or of stone artifacts alone [La Ferrassie 2, Amud 1,
and La Quina H5 (the last in a layer otherwise relatively poor in archaeological
material)]. In some cases, numerous flakes have been found, as with Le
Moustier 1(64pieces),La Ferrassie2 (50),Kiik-Koba 1 (40, intheintactpart
of the pit?two-thirds of ithaving been destroyed), Kiik-Koba 2 (48), Skhul 1
(> 21), and Kebara 3 (numerous). This can hardly be coincidental, particu
larlywhen compared with the single flake associated with La Ferrassie 3 (that
burial, like the neighboring La Ferrassie 2, did contain some tools), the 2
flakes accompanying Shanidar 1 (with no tools but numerous bones, including
and the 10flakesintheAmud 1burial (witha singlebone and a few
fetishes),
tools).
Further, Middle Paleolithic burials frequently contain certain classes of
artifacts, such as points (12 or 13 cases) and side scrapers (13 cases), which
are often found together, while other classes are rare: knives (4 or 5 cases),
end scrapers (3), blades and and blade tools (3), borers (2), burins (1), and
disks (2). Such differentiation is not accidental and probably indicates a
preference for some tools in mortuary assemblages. Unfortunately, the
hypothesis of preferred grave furniture cannot be tested because the cultural
layers in which the burials occurred have very rarely been fully excavated,
and because precise counts of objects discovered have hardly ever been
published, so we cannot assess the relative frequencies of artifact classes
within particular occupation levels.
In order tomake the analysis more rigorous, we must divide the cases
of mortuary goods in or associated with Middle Paleolithic burials into
definite and probable examples. Further, among the probable cases, we
should distinguish between "offerings" found either in close contact with

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
216 Smirnov

the human remains or within the burial structure (Spy 1 and 2; Le Moustier
1 and 2; La Chapelle 1; La Ferrassie 1, 2, and 7; La Quina H5; Kiik
Koba 1 and 2; Shanidar 1;Amud 1;Tabun Cl; Qafzeh 8?; and Kebara
2 and 3?) and those located outside the mortuary structures, both in
close contact with them ("contiguous goods," like the numerous bones,
including some fetishes, on the surface of the stone mound in the Shanidar
1 burial) and in their vicinity ("attendant goods," like the finds associ
ated with the Zaskalnaya VI a, b, and c burials, discovered in a sterile
horizon).

Associated Features

The sample under examination includes two recurrent types of


features, pits and hearths, and two nonrecurrent types, mounds and
stonework. However, as Vandermeersch has noted (1976, p. 727), it is
difficult to establish the contemporaneity of the recorded feature and
of the burial proper. There are only a few cases for which such contempo
raneity is firmly established: Regourdou 1, where the hearth occurred
on top of the mortuary structure; Shanidar 2, where the hearth above
the burial was probably covered with earth while still burning; La Ferrassie
1 and 2, Kebara 3, possibly Skhul 3, Shanidar 1, and possibly Shanidar 9,
where the bodies may have been placed directly on the hearths; La Ferrassie
5, where the earth mound over the pit was identical in shape and size
to other mounds under which no mortuary structures were discovered;
and the Regourdou burial, which was located between the cave wall
and various features containing chiefly bear bones. On the basis of these
observations, it is likely that some of the hearths recorded in the vicinity
of burials may also be considered as associated features, namely, the
two fireplaces near each of La Chapelle 1,Zaskalnaya Vla-c, and Shanidar
1 and the single hearths with each of the Shanidar 2, 3(?), Teshik-Tash 1, and
Kebara 2 burials.
There is no obvious solution to the problem of the relationship between
burials and pits filled either with sterile deposits (such as those found in
connection with La Ferrassie 3, 4a, and 4b and Zaskalnaya Vla-c) or with
cultural deposits, i.e., containing tools and bones, including fetishes (such as
La Ferrassie 3, 4a, 4b, and 6, Zaskalnaya Vla-c, Kiik-Koba 1,La Chapelle
1, and Le Moustier 2). (In the last two cases, the pits were covered with
limestone blocks.) However, the recurrence of such finds, which has been
remarked on by several scholars (Bouyssonie et aL, 1913; Peyrony, 1930;
Bonch-Osmolovskii, 1940), supports the association of such pits with the
mortuary ritual.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
a with
burials
Boundary
of
ylaciathn | |Sites
V~\ ISites without
burials OI of tapholoifical
\Centens J
1 1 L^Li BotMty
Fig. 4. Distribution ofMousterian sites with human remains inEurope, Central Asia and
theNear East: (1) Spy; (2) Arcy-sur-Cure;(3) La Quina; (4) Roc de Marsal; (5) La
Chapelle-aux-Saints; (6) Le Moustier; (7) La Ferrassie; (8) Regourdou; (9) Zaskalnaya VI;
(10)Kiik-Koba; (11) Staroselye;(12)Teshik-Tash;(13) Shanidar;(14)Mugharet et-Tabun;
(15)Mugharet es-Skhul;(16)Kebara; (17) JebelQafzeh; (18)Amud.

ANALYSIS OF EURASIAN MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC BURIALS

Based on the above criteria, we appear to have at least 18 sites (Fig. 4)


that have yielded the remains of at least 59 deliberately buried individuals
(Table I). These are Spy 1-3 (Fraipont and Lohest, 1887; Genoves, 1954);
Le Moustier 1 and 2 (Klaatsch and Hauser, 1909; Peyrony, 1930, 1934);
La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 (Bouyssonie et al.9 1908a, b, 1913; Boule, 1909);

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
218 Smirnov

La Ferrassie 1-3, 4a, 4b, and 5-7 (Peyrony, 1934; Heim, 1976a, b; Delporte,
1981);La Quina H5 (Martin, 1911;Hrdlicka, 1930;Vandermeersch,1965,
1976); Arcy-sur-Cure 5-7 (Leroi-Gourhan, 1950); Regourdou 1 (Bonifay,
1962, 1964);Roc de Marsal 1 (Bordesand Lafille, 1962;Van Campo and
Bouchud, 1962; Vandermeersch, 1982; Defleur-Tanoux, 1982); Kiik-Koba 1
and 2 (Bonch-Osmolovskii,1940;Vlcek, 1976;Gladilin, 1979; Smirnov,
1987b);Teshik-Tash 1 (Okladnikov, 1949;Ullrich, 1986); Staroselye 1
(Formozov, 1958; Alexeyev, 1976; Tillier, 1982); Zaskalnaya Vla-c (Kolosov,
1986);Tabun Cl and Skhul 1-10 (Garrod and Bate, 1937;McCown and
Keith, 1939);Qafzeh 3, 6-11, and 15 (Vandermeersch,1970, 1981, 1982;
Tillier, 1982);Amud 1 (Suzuki and Takai, 1970);Kebara 1-3 (Schickand
Stekelis, 1977; Stekelis, 1977; Arensburg et al9 1985; Bar-Yosef et aL9 1989);
and Shanidar 1-9 (Solecki, 1971; Leroi-Gourhan, 1975; Stewart, 1977;
Trinkaus, 1983). [Only the most important publications are mentioned
above; Smirnov (1988) gives a full reference list.]
This sample can be geographically divided into two major groups. The
European sample includes 11 sites with the remains of 26 individuals: 14
children and 12 adults (6 men and 2 women). The Asiatic group consists of
seven sites with the remains of 33 individuals: 11 children and 22 adults (14
men and 7 women). (Children are, as a rule, not sexed, nor has the sex of five
adults been determined.) The distribution of the sites across Eurasia is
uneven, with much greater concentrations in certain regions. However, this
cannot be accounted for simply by the higher level of exploration in, for
example, France or Israel, as Harrold has suggested (1974, p. 6). Investigations
inCentral and Eastern Europe sinceWorld War II have been equally intensive,
but not one burial has yet been discovered (apart from a small area in the
Crimea). Similarly, theMiddle and Far East have yielded numbers of isolated
human remains referable to theMiddle Paleolithic but no deliberate burials.
Further, despite intensive research in both France and Israel during the last
50 years, only 13more burials have been found (four in France and nine in
Israel), and 6 of those were at sites which had previously yielded burials
(1 at La Ferrassie and 5 at Qafzeh).
The number of sites yielding burials, their dating, the habitat, and
the frequency of roughly contemporaneous interments at each site
all indicate the existence of what we may call centers of taphological
activity for early man, which account for about 75% of all Mousterian
burials; chief among them are the Dordogne, the Crimea, and the Levant.
The concept of centers of taphological activity is comparable to that
of centers of primitive art (Formozov, 1983): both reflect the irregular
distribution of particular kinds of sites but do not exclude the possi
bility of similar activities taking other forms, which are archaeologically
undetectable.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 219

Recent paleoanthropological studies (Suzuki and Takai, 1970; Howells,


1973; Alexeyev, 1976; Heim, 1976a, b; Vandermeersch, 1981; Trinkaus, 1983)
show that Middle Paleolithic Eurasia was inhabited by morphologically
varied populations. Western Europe was dominated by the "classic"
Neandertal, while Neandertaloid and sapiens forms coexisted in the Crimea
and the Near East. All these, however, were equally familiar with the
inhumation ritual. In other words, Middle Paleolithic groups, irrespective of
their physical type, all buried their dead; this indicates the stadial nature of
this cultural phenomenon.
The earliest inhumations seem to be those at La Ferrassie [probably
dating to 68,000-76,000 B.P. (Mellars, 1988)], the Shanidar 9 "child" [which
probably dates to ca. 70,000 B.P. (Stewart, 1977, p. 122)], and Qafzeh 11
[probably dating to 68,000-78,000 B.P. (Masters, 1982, p. 49)]. These indicate
that classic Neandertals, Neandertaloids, and the sapiens form all began the
practice of intentional burial at about the same time. There are absolute dates
for the following burials:

Le Moustier 1?either 40,300 B.P. ? 2600 years, or between


42,500 B.P. ? 2000 years and 46,000 B.P. ? 3000 years;
Le Moustier 2-40,300 B.P. ? 2600 years (Valladas et al., 1988);
La Ferrassie 1-7?before 35,000 B.P. (Gif-4584?contaminated?);
La Quina H5?before 35,250 B.P. ? 530 years (GrN-2526);
Regourdou 1-45,500 B.P. ? 1800 years (GrN-4308);
Zaskalnaya Vla-c?before 45,000 B.P. (Kiev-856);
Shanidar1-46,900 B.P. ? 1500 years (GrN-2527);
Shanidar 5?50,600 B.P. ? 3000 years (GrN-1459);
Amud 1?between 35,000 and 27,000 B.P. ? 5000 years (Suzuki and
Takai, 1970);
Tabun Cl?53,000 B.P. (Masters, 1982) and 40,900 B.P. ? 1000 years
(GrN-2729);
Kebara 1-3?42,000 B.P. ? 1000 years (GrN-2552), 41,000 B.P. ?
1000 years (GrN-2561), and 35,300 B.P. ? 500 years (GrN-2551);
Skhul 5?39,000-40,000 B.P.;
Skhul 6?52,000-54,000 B.P.;
Skhul 7?45,000-46,000 B.P.;
Skhul 9?53,000-55,000 B.P.;
Qafzeh 3?39,000-45,000 B.P.;
Qafzeh 6?40,000-46,000 B.P.; and
Qafzeh 11?68,000-78,000 B.P. (Masters, 1982).

If we assume that the sex and age of buried individuals have been
correctly determined, then we find thatmen were interred twice as often as

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
220 Smirnov

women, 1.5 times as often as children. [This pattern persisted


and adults
throughout the Neolithic forestland of Eastern Europe at least up to the
Bronze Age (Smirnov, 1972).] This may indicate the leading role in society of
middle-aged people, particularly men, if the mortuary practices reflect
historical reality. It is also interesting to note that while the sapiens groups
buried adults more frequently than children (the ratio is 1.5:1), Neandertals
and Neandertaloids showed no such preference, although theydid usually bury
more men than women. We do not know the sex ratio among juvenile burials.
The available classifications of lithic industries permit us to assign the
burials only at the facies level. There are roughly equal numbers of burials
from sites or layers associated with the Levallois and non-Levallois traditions
(Boutie, 1979; Bordes, 1981). This means that we cannot link burials either
to particular types of Mousterian industries or to the advances in stone
technology in general, which, again, supports the idea that burials mark a
certain stage in human development. However, taking into account that
there is no correlation between morphological and technological progress
(Grigoryev, 1972; Vandermeersch, 1981; Arensburg et al, 1985), we may
either regard burial as a supercultural phenomenon or conclude that there are
no causal relationships among the three integral parts of the historical
process: human physical type, technology, and culture.
All Mousterian burials are associated with living floors, except Regour
dou, where the burial was placed in a sort of bear sanctuary in Layer IV,
which was very elaborately constructed but showed no traces of regular
habitation (Bonifay, 1964).
Neandertal
While and Neandertaloid interments are more frequently
located in caves and rockshelters, sapiens burials are equally distributed
between shelters and the terraces in front of them. There is no distinction in
placement on the basis of sex or age, although Binford has concluded
otherwise (1968, p. 144). Burials are most commonly oriented transverse
to the entrance of the shelter, regardless of the orientation of the site itself
(Fig. 5).
The placing of bodies with their heads toward one of the cardinal points
seems to be independent of all other recognizable characteristics (Fig. 6). The
available data suggest some preference for northerly (Roc de Marsal 1,
Amud 1, Shanidar 9, and Qafzeh 9, 11) and westerly (La Ferrassie 1,
Regourdou 1?,Tabun Cl, Shanidar 1,and Staroselye 1) orientations. Other
burials are oriented as follows:

northeast?La Quina H5?, Kiik-Koba 1, Shanidar 2?, Skhul 9?, and


Qafzeh 8;
east?Spy 1?,La Ferrassie 2, 6?, Shanidar 3?, Skhul 7?, Qafzeh 10, and
Kebara 3;

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 221

f) fermss'ie 5 fterfourdou.~Q>
DC

'Pock Shelter^
Qafzeh3
?Ooa.-fzeh7?6
Qa.?zeh8
T /Rafael
Tl?
flafloehrl
^

/ ZaskaLnaya Via/b/C ^Skh^t1


laHtn

errace IFerraWieii

tskhuU

/_ _
]
?cn precise location as>d orietfta.'tion
'vO,l /Jf^ determined o
r\ orierit&tion ofihe body towards
\J? the hock of the rock
\a/<zLL
shatter
shotvn hypotlietfaiUY
Qy_orieritzitian
orientation of the <fr&v& G&X Hot ,
?-ffy\ ^ (5)
determined

Fig. 5. Locations of burials in relation to living areas.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222 Smirnov

Qafzeh H/35; Shanidar 9/t7?

(^\Klik-ICoba1/6oe

:errassie2/Hi?
skhul

Qafzeh Shamdar-!T/?<1360

Kiik-Koba
2/185?
O mate
unknown
??azirnutri -female
(f) sex notdetermined ? cniU
Fig. 6. Orientation of bodies (along the pelvic-cranial axis).

southeast?Shanidar 4 and Skhul 1, 3?, and 4;


south?Le Moustier 1?,Zaskalnaya Via?, Shanidar 6?, and Kiik-Koba
2; and
southwest?La Chapelle 1,Teshik-Tash 1?, Skhul 5, and Qafzeh 15.

It isworthy of note that Shanidar 4, the only case for which we know
the season of burial, probably pointed toward the summer position of the
risingmoon (the site's coordinates are 36?50/N and 44? 13'E, the approximate
burial date is 60,000 B.P., and the orientation angle, along the pelvic-cranial
axis, is 135?). No other correlation has been found between the orientation
of the bodies and any other variable.
Middle Paleolithic burials may be single, double (Spy 2? and 3, La
Ferrassie 4a and 4b, Qafzeh 6 and 7?, Qafzeh 9 and 10), triple (Zaskalnaya
Vla-c? and Arcy 5-7?), or multiple (Shanidar 4 and 6-8). Most of the cases
with more than one individual include at least one body which was intention
ally disarticulated before burial (La Ferrassie 4a, Zaskalnaya Vla-c?, Qafzeh
6 and 10, Shanidar 7 and 8).

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 223

The actualskeletal remains found in the burials differ in degree of


completeness in some characteristic injuries, such as the pathologies
and
of the occipital aperture in the Qafzeh 6 and Amud 1 skulls. The con
dition of the skeletons suggests such kinds of mortuary treatment as
various forms of decapitation (La Ferrassie 6, Regourdou 1, Shanidar
8?, Amud 1, Qafzeh 6, and Kebara 3), defleshing (Teshik-Tash 1 and
Skhul 1?), reburial (Skhul 2?), and so forth. It also indicates that there
were two types of burials: of the whole body and of only parts of the
body (Arcy5-7, La Quina H5, Regourdou 1, Shanidar 7 and 8, Skhul 2
and 6?, Qafzeh 6, 10, and 15, and Kebara 3). Several individuals lack
their lower jaws (La Ferrassie 6, Shanidar 5, Skhul 9?, and Qafzeh 3?
and 6), and there are grounds to believe that Mousterians also ritually
substituted isolated teeth for the cranium or themandible (La Ferrassie 2?
and 4b, Shanidar 3 and 6, Kebara 3, and Qafzeh 3). These varieties of
mortuary treatments and burials were known by early in the Last Glaciation
and were practiced by anthropologically different populations on individuals
of both sexes and all ages. Interpretations of this phenomenon are untestable,
but I emphasize that the existence of such burials, requiring greater?at
times considerably greater?energy expenditure than the simple act of
putting the body into the ground, shows that rather intricate patterns
of burial treatment developed in theMiddle Paleolithic, and this, in turn,
presupposes a relatively complex system of social relations and religious
conception.
Bodies were buried in a wide variety of positions (Fig. 7). Some were
interred lying on their backs (extended in the cases of Shanidar 1and Kebara
3?; flexed in the cases of La Chapelle 1,La Ferrassie 1,Tabun Cl, Skhul 5,
and Qafzeh 11); others on their stomachs [Le Moustier 1? and Skhul 4 (the
latterwas also flexed)], on the right side (Spy 1; extended?La Quina H5?,
Kiik-Koba 1?, Staroselye 1; flexed?La Ferrassie 2 and 6, Roc de Marsal 1,
Shanidar 9, Skhul 7, and Qafzeh 15? and 8), or on the left side (extended
?Qafzeh 3?; flexed?Regourdou 1,Kiik-Koba 2, Amud 1, Shanidar 4 and
5, and Qafzeh 9 and 10).
As noted above, two types of mortuary structures occurred in the
Middle Paleolithic: pits and earthern or stone mounds. Both of these, some
times in combination, were used even in themost ancient burials (irrespective
ofage and sex)byallMiddle Paleolithicpopulations.Typicalburialpitshave
been recorded in the following cases:

(1) La Chapelle 1 (subrectangular?1.45 x 1 x 0.3 m);


(2) Le Moustier 2 (truncated cone?top diameter 0.5 m, depth 0.4 m);
(3) La Ferrassie 3, 4a and 4b (hemispherical?diameter 0.7 m, depth
0.3-0.4 m);

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
224 Smirnov

Qafzeh9 Q?fzeMo QafzehVI Qaf2ehl5

2jOY

- Ghap&LLe ?ecnourtlou

>
i/V'

vioai>Y"
^ *8m
so-45 / 55-50
y
l/\f

Teshtk -"lash

Ferr&$&\cZ V&rra&vzb StaroseUH Amud i

J9 ^ ? ~iy 9
$
0 v J ~\t

a,
SkhuL 1
b
Skk?L4
^ul7
<<:'
ft
Tabu"

tA1
^ f
2V
Mounter 4 MarsaL

5 y
t

withoutflbcisl part
I Sfrtftf
\/[/] position precise I
\/y I Position hypothetical Sfc/tf
withoutmvelihit
|Q[e]
disarticulated
3oo(k
j^j
a. , yfr.Qmirnov's reconstruction
(? I without Basal part b. T3? flicCows recor^iruct/oo

Fig. 7. Positions in which individuals were buried (reconstructed by the


author).

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 225

(4) La Ferrassie 6 (trapeziform?length 1.45m, maximum width 1.2m,


minimum width 0.4 m, bottom sloping down to 0.35 m; partially
covered by a limestone plaque with bowl-shaped depressions);
(5) Roc de Marsal 1 [suboval(?)?0.9 x 0.7 m, depth unknown, com
pletely^) covered by limestone block or blocks];
(6) Arcy 5-7 [subrectangular(?)?ca. 1 x 0.5 x 0.35 m];
(7) Kiik-Koba 1 (suboval?2.1 x 0.8 x 0.45 m);
(8) Zaskalnaya Vla-c [subrectangular(?)?ca. 1.75 x 0.75 x 0.25 m];
(9) Qafzeh 11 [suboval(?>-1 x 0.55 x 0.25m];
(10) Kebara 2 (size unknown?covered by three rocks); and
(11) Kebara 3 (0.20?0.25m deep, 1.2m long, and 0.6m wide in the
trunk area).

Burial pits associated with mounds occurred in the following cases: La


Ferrassie 1?, La Ferrassie 5 (the depression was 0.40 x 0.32 m, with a
recorded depth of only 0.05 m, and was completely covered by a mound of
cultural deposits with a diameter at the base of ca. 1.3m and a height of ca.
0.6 m), and Regourdoul (a mound of rocks, sand, and ashes, ca. 2.7 x 1.5m
and 0.5 m high, was raised inside a wide, shallow depression lined with flat
stones). Sometimes a natural recess in a rock wall was used for burial [Qafzeh
8, Skhul 3, Shanidar 3 (ca. 0.7 x 0.55 m)]. Bodies were also placed between
blocks of stone or in a trench excavated into a cultural layer [Shanidar 4 and
6-8 (ca. 1.2 x 0.8 m)]. In two cases, a stone mound was erected over bodies
laid on the occupation horizon [Shanidar 1 (ca. 2.5 x 1.5m) and Shanidar
2]. Mounds of cultural deposits were probably built over the La Ferrassie 2
and Staroselye 1 burials.
The coexistence of burials with grave goods and those without, and of
rich and varied assemblages of grave goods and of impoverished assemblages
(sometimes only a single object), indicates differentiation within this aspect
of mortuary ritual. The differentiation, however, is independent of the sex
and age of the dead, which suggests that not only social but also ideological
factors operated here. On the basis of available data, we may regard the
following as confirmed cases of burials associated with grave goods:

(1) La Ferrassie 5 (three scrapers);


(2) La Ferrasie 6 [a point, two scrapers; powdered ocher(?)];
(3) Arcy 5-7 [flakes and animal bone(s)];
(4) Regourdou 1 (a scraper, a core, flakes, bear bones, and a deer
antler);
(5) Roc de Marsal 1 (artifacts and bones including teeth of reindeer
and horses, the lower jaw and long bones of hyena, and the tar
sometatarsus of Alectoris barbara);

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
226 SmirnoY

(6) Skhul 5 (a wild boarmandible);


(7) Qafzeh 11 [antlers and tibial epiphysis of Dama mesopotamica,
burnedostricheggshelland piece(s) of ocher];
(8) Shanidar 4 (flowers and branches, which probably served as bed
ding or covering rather than grave goods; the presence of Ephedra,
an equivalent of the later "soma," is particularly remarkable
here);
(9) Teshik-Tash 1 [a bone borer, flakes, animal bones, and five or six
pairs of the wild goat horns (Capra sibiricd)?perhaps part of the
structure]; and
(10) Kebara 2 (stone artifacts and a rhinoceros tooth).

There are also the following cases of possible grave goods:


(1) Spy 1-3 (tools,flakesand a bone);
(2) La Chapelle 1 (tools, flakes, pebbles, bones, and pieces of
ocher);
(3) Le Moustier 1 (tools, flakes, bones, and a concentration of flint
flakes lyingunder the skull,likea pillow);
(4) Le Moustier 2 (stone artifacts and bones);
(5) La Ferrassie 1 [tools, flakes, a core, pebbles, bones, a piece of bone
with patterned engravings; powdered ocher(?)];
(6) La Ferrassie 2 (tools, flakes, cores, and bones);
(7) La Ferrassie 3 [toolsand a flake;powderedocher(?)];
(8) La Ferrassie4a and 4b [toolsand powderedocher(?)];
(9) La Ferrassie7 [tools(?)and bones];
(10) La Quina H5 [tools, bones, a pecked spheroid; powdered
ocher(?)];
(11) Kiik-Koba 1 (a blade-tool, flakes, and bones);
(12) Kiik-Koba 2 [a tool(?) and flakes];
(13) Zaskalnaya Vla-c (tools, flakes, pebbles, split pebbles, a borer with
irregular scratches, a small shovel-shaped bone blade fragment,
bones, and a piece of ocher);
(14) Shanidar 1 (twoflakes,bones);
(15) Shanidar 2 (tools and bones);
(16) Shanidar 5 (a tool, flakes, and a deer mandible);
(17) Shanidar 9 (a tool, two bones, a concretion);
(18) Amud 1 [tools, flakes, a core(?), and a bone];
(19) Tabun Cl (bones);
(20) Skhul 1 (flakes);
(21) Skhul4 (a tool);
(22) Qafzeh 8 (tools, two pieces of ocher?one used); and
(23) Kebara 3 (flakes).

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 227

Staroselye 1,Qafzeh 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 15,Kebara 1 and 3, and Skhul


2,3, and 6-10 seem to be relatively clear cases of burials without grave goods.
However, the place of the Skhul assemblages in this context is open to
question, since McCown paid little attention to objects which might have
accompanied the burials. According to him, the things found in association
with the burials were those common in the layer?fragments of bones,
artifacts, flakes, and cores (Garrod and Bate, 1937, p. 104); that is, they
belonged to the layer rather than to the burials. The only extraordinary finds
were a scraper between the hands of Skhul 4 and a wild boar mandible
clasped by Skhul 5. It should also be remembered that the archaeological
contexts of the Qafzeh and Kebara burials are not yet fully published,
although even ifgrave goods were present at Qafzeh and Kebara, thiswould
not disprove the existence ofMiddle Paleolithic burials without grave goods.
Middle Paleolithic burials are occasionally associated with features such
as hearths (La Chapelle 1?,Le Moustier 1,La Ferrassie 1 and 2, Regourdou
1,Zaskalnaya Vla-c, Shanidar 1, 2, 3?, and 9, Teshik-Tash 1, and Kebara 2
and 3), pits (La Chapelle 1, Le Moustier 2, La Ferrassie 3, 4a, 4b, and 6?,
Regourdou 1, Kiik-Koba 1, and Zaskalnaya Vla-c), and mounds (La
Ferrassie 5 and Regourdou 1), which often contain cultural debris of the
same kind as grave goods. These associated features accompany both
Neandertal and Neandertaloid interments, independent of the sex and age of
those buried, and testify to the complexity of conceptual life among those
populations. [The lack of features associated with sapiens burials (with the
possible exception of the Skhul 3 hearth) may be accounted for by the
homogeneity of the Skhul deposits, on the one had, and by the lack of
documentation for Qafzeh, on the other.] Such features have traditionally
been interpreted as commemorative structures. However, since the pits and
mounds contain faunal remains and occasional tools, theymight be related
tomortuary offerings.
In summary, the sample studied appears to indicate that stereotypes had
not yet become established in theMiddle Paleolithic, but therewere, never
theless, considerable elaboration and variability of themortuary rituals. The
latter is particularly significant since much of the variability is often recorded
within a more or less contemporaneous group of burials (within one center
of taphological activity) or even within a single burial ground.

CONCLUSIONS

Restrictions of space prevent my making extensive comparisons between


my own conclusions and those of other scholars, so I confine comparison to
only a few of themore recent publications.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
228 Smirnov

My observations confirm Quechon's hypothesis of the preservative effects


of burial, and some of my estimates of the numbers of individuals buried
(Smirnov, 1987a) are also in agreement with his figures (Quechon, 1976,
p. 731, Fig. 3).
My research also supports the general conclusions reached by Binford
(1968) and by Harrold (1974,1980), concerning the relative frequencies ofmale
and female burials and thepredominance of flexed burials. Like Binford, I have
found regional differences between Europe and Asia inMiddle Paleolithic
burial patterns, the same frequencies of adult and juvenile burials inWestern
Europe, and different frequencies of particular body parts inEurope and Asia.
However, in other respects our conclusions differ, in part because of different
methods of analysis but primarily because both Binford and Harrold have
sometimes taken a rather uncritical approach to thematerial (Smirnov, 1983).
Middle Paleolithic people invented and, to a great extent, already
practiced almost all the basic patterns and ways of treating a corpse before
burial and almost all the patterns and ways of actual burial in the lithosphere.
In other words, they developed a "cult of the dead," which seems to have
been based on pairs of opposites, or dualities, apparent in even the earliest
burials: concealment or exposure of the body, burial of the body intact or
disarticulated, burial of thewhole body or only parts of it,burial of the body
in an extended or a flexed position (lying on the back or on the stomach, on
the right or on the leftside,with the lower limbs extended and the upper limbs
flexed or with one limb flexed and another extended, etc.), burial in a
depression or under an elevation, burial with grave goods or without, burial
with associated features or without, and so on. All these traits can be
observed within one period, one population, one site, or one burial ground
or, sometimes, even within one grave. Middle Paleolithic burials also exhibit
a marked divergence in the treatment of male and female adults.
The dualities expressed in themortuary practices ofMiddle Paleolithic
groups lead us to conclude that they already had the dualistic perception of
theworld which later became the foundation of almost all culture. This and
the very practice of deliberate burial suggests thatMiddle Paleolithic popu
lations (or, at least, some of the socially more advanced groups) were passing
from paleocultural to neocultural patterns of behavior. This transition was
a stadial development, occurring independently and more or less simul
taneously among physically different populations. It took place against a
background of technological continuity and assumed roughly the same form
everywhere, being generally not related to geographical, chronological or
other factors.
Finally, we should not forget that the conduciveness of mortuary
structures toward preservation enabled their creators to grant a sort of
immortality to these first people to be buried. This immortality is further

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 229

promoted by the research of scholars in those ancient sites 60,000 years later.
Thus, the appearance of deliberate burial, indicating the emergence of a new
pattern of behavior, shows that theMiddle Paleolithic was a crucial stage in
the evolution of humanity, when people were gradually becoming more
humanized and were already creating things of everlasting value.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As is inevitable with a paper of this type, I am indebted to so many


colleagues and organizations, both in the Soviet Union and abroad (over 50,
in fact), that I am, regrettably, forced merely to acknowledge their kind
assistance as a group and thank them all without individual mention.

REFERENCES

Alexeyev, V. P. (1976). Position of the Staroselye find in the hominid system. Journal ofHuman
Evolution 5: 413-421.
Arensburg, B., Bar-Yosef, O., Chech, M., Goldberg, P., Laville, H., Meignen, L., Rak, Y.,
Tchernov, E., Tillier, A.-M., and Vandermeersch, B. (1985). Une sepulture neander
talienne dans la grotte de Kebara (Israel). Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de
VAcademie des Sciences 300: 227-230.
Bar-Yosef, O., Laville, H.s
Meignen, L., Tillier, A.-M., Vandermeersh, B., Arensberg, B.,
Belfer-Cohen, A., Goldberg, P., Rak, Y., and Tchernov, E. (1989). La sepulture de Kebara,
Mont Carmel, Israel. In Otte, M. (ed.), L'homme de Neandertal5. La Pensee, Universite de
Liege, Liege.
Bergounioux, F. M. (1958). "Spiritualite" de rhomme de Neandertal. In von Koenigswald,
G. H. R. (ed.), Hundert Jahre Neanderthaler, Kemink en Zoon, Utrecht, pp. 151-166.
Binford, S. R. (1968). A structural comparison of disposal of the dead in theMousterian and
the Upper Paleolithic. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24: 139-154.
Blanc, A. C. (1958). Torre in Pietra, Saccopastore, Monte Circeo: On the position of the
Mousterian in the Pleistocene sequence of the Rome area. In von Koenigswald, G. H. R.
(ed.), Hundert Jahre Neanderthaler, Kemink en Zoon, Utrecht, pp. 167-174.
Bonch-Osmolovskii, G. A. (1940). Grot Kiik-Koba (Kiik-Koba cave). Paleolit Krima, 1,AN
SSSR, Moscow-Leningrad.
Bonifay, E. (1962). Une ensemble rituel mousterien a la grotte du Regourdou (Montignac,
Dordogne). In Atti del VI Congresso Internazionale delle Scienze Preistoriche e Protostoriche,
Vol. II, Rome, pp. 136-140.
Bonifay, E. (1964). La grotte du Regourdou (Montignac, Dordogne): stratigraphie et industrie
lithique mousterienne. L'Anthropologie 68: 49-64.
Bordes, F. (1972). A Tale of Two Caves, Harper, Row, New York.
Bordes, F. (1981). Vingt-cinq ans apres: Le complexe mousterien revisite. Bulletin de la Societe
Prehistorique Francaise 78(3): 77-87.
Bordes, F., and Lafille, J. (1962). Decouverte d'un squelette d'enfant mousterien dans le
gisement du Roc de Marsal, commune de Campagne-du-Bugue (Dordogne). Comptes
Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de VAcademie des Sciences 254: 714-715.
Boule, M. (1909). L'homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Saints (Correze). L'Anthropologie 20:
257-271.
Boutie, P. (1979). Les gisements mousteriens de Palestine. Paleorient 5: 17-65.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
250 Smirnov

Bouyssonie, A., Bouyssonie, J., and Bardon, L. (1908a). Decouverte d'un squelette humain
mousterien a la Bouffia de la Chapelle-aux-Saints (Correze). L'Anthropologie 19:
513-518.
Bouyssonie, A., Bouyssonie, J., and Bardon, L. (1908b). Decouverte d'un squelette humain
mousterien a la Chapelle-aux-Saints (Correze). Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances
de VAcademie des Sciences 147: 1411-1415.
Bouyssonie, A., Bouyssonie, J., and Bardon, L. (1913). La station mousterienne de la "Bouffia"
Bonneval a la Chapelle-aux-Saints. L'Anthropologie 24: 609-634.
Bouyssonie, J, (1954). Les sepultures mousteriennes. Quaternaria 1: 107-115.
Breuil, H. (1921). Les observations sur les sepultures mousteriennes. L'Anthropologie 31:
342-345.
Butzer, K. W. (1971). Environment and Archeology, Aldine, Chicago.
Cartailhac, E. (1912). Archeologie: les grottes de Grimaldi, Vol, II, Impr. de Monaco, Monaco.
Dart, R. A. (1957). The Osteodontokeratic Culture of Australopithecus prometheus, Transvaal
Museum, Pretoria.
Defleur-Tanoux, A. (1982). Nouvel inventaire des sepultures neandertaliennes francaises.
Travaux du Laboratoire d'Anthropologie et Prehistoire des Pays de la Mediterranee
Occidentale, 1,Universite de Provence, Aix-en-Provence.
Delporte, H. (1981). Le Grand Abri de la Ferrassie: Fouilles 1969-1973. Etudes Quaternaires, 7.
Efimenko, P. P. (1953). Pervobytnoye obshchestvo (Primitive Society), AN USSR, Kiev.
Efremov, I. A. (1950). Tafonornia i geologicheskaya letopis' (Taphonomy and the geological
record). Trudy Paleontologicheskogo instituta, 24, AN SSSR, Moscow-Leningrad.
Formozov, A. A. (1958). Peshcheraaya stoyanka Staroselye i eyo mesto v paleolite (The
Staroselye cave site and its place in the Paleolithic). Materialy i issledovaniyapo arkheologii,
71, ANSSSR, Moscow.
Formozov, A. A. (1983). K probleme "ochagov pervobytnogo iskusstva" (Concerning the
problem of "centers of primitive art**). Sovetskaya arkheologia 3: 5-13.
Fraipont, J., and Lohest, M. (1987). La race humaine de Neanderthal ou de Canstadt en
Belgique: Recherches ethnographiques sur des ossements humains, decouverts dans des
depots quaternaires d'une grotte a Spy et determination de leur age geologique. Archives de
Biologie 7: 587-757.
Garrod, D. A. E., and Bate, D. M. A. (1937). The Stone Age of Mount Carmel Vol. I,
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Genoves, S. (1954). The problem of the sex of certain fossil hominids, with special reference to
theNeandertal skeletons from Spy. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland 84: 131-144.
Gerasimov, I. P., and Velichko, A. A. (eds.) (1982). Paleogeografiya Evropy za posledniye sto
tysyach let (Paleogeography of Europe in the last one hundred thousand years), Nauka,
Moscow.
Gladilin, V. N. (1979). O kulturno-khronologicheskoi prinadlezhnosti neandertalskikh pogre
benii v grote Kiik-Koba (On the cultural and chronological attribution of Neandertal
burials in Kiik-Koba cave). In Kolosov, Yu. G. (ed.), Issledovaniye paleolita v Krymu
(Paleolithic Research in the Crimea), Naukova dumka, Kiev, pp. 67-76.
Grigoryev, G. P. (1968). Nachalo verkhnego paleolita i proiskhozhdeniye Homo sapiens (The
Beginning of the Upper Paleolithic and the Origins of Homo sapiens), Nauka, Leningrad.
Grigoryev, G. P. (1972). Vzaimootnosheniya fizicheskogo tipa cheloveka s progressom ego
materialnoi kultury (The relationship between human physical type and advances in
material culture). Voprosy antropologii 41: 152-153.
Grigoryev, G. P. (1977). Paleolit Afriki (The Paleolithic of Africa). In Boriskovskii, P. I. (ed.),
Paleolit mira (The Paleolithic of theWorld), Nauka, Leningrad, pp. 43-209.
Harrold, F. B. (1974). A Survey and Formal Analysis ofMiddle and Upper Paleolithic Burials
from Europe and Southwest Asia, M.A. thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago.
Harrold, F. B. (1980). A comparative analysis of Eurasian Palaeolithic burials. World Archaeology
12: 195-211.
Heim, J.-L. (1976a). Les hommes fossiies de la Ferrassie (Vol. 1). Archives de Tlnstitut de
Pateontologie Humaine, 35, Masson, Paris.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Burial:Middle PaleolithicBeginnings 231
Intentional

Heim, J.-L. (1976b). Les Neandertaliens en Perigord. In de Lumley, H. (ed.), La Prehistoire


Francaise, Vol. I, CNRS, Paris, pp. 578-583.
Horowitz, A. (1979). The Quaternary of Israel, Academic Press, London.
Howells, W. W. (1973). Evolution of the Genus Homo, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Hrdlicka, A. (1930). The skeletal remains of early man. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections,
83, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Klaatsch, H., and Hauser, O. (1909). Homo mousteriensis hauseri. Archiv fur Anthropologie 7:
287-297.
Kolosov, Yu, G. (1986). Akkaiskaya mustyershaya kultura (The Ak-kaya Mousterian Culture),
Naukova dumka, Kiev.
Korobkov, 1.1. (1978). Paleolit Vostochnogo Sredizemnomorya (The Paleolithic of the Eastern
Mediterranean). In Boriskovskii, P. I. (ed.), Paleolit Blizhnego i Srednego Vostoka (The
Paleolithic of theNear and Middle East), Nauka, Leningrad, pp. 9-185.
Leonova, N. B., and Smirnov, Yu. A. (1977). Pogrebeniye kak obyekt formalnogo analiza
(Interment as an object of formal analysis). Kratkiye soobshcheniya Instituta arkheologii
148: 16-23.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1950). La Grotte du Loup, Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Bulletin de la Societe
Prehisiorique Francaise 47: 268-280.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1975). The flowers found with Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal burial in Iraq.
Science 190: 562-564.
Leveque, F.,and Vandermeersch, B. (1981). Les restes humains de Saint-Cesaire (Charente
Maritime). Bulletins etMemoires de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris 8: 103-104.
McCown, T. D., and Keith, A. (1939). The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, Vol. II, Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Martin, A. (1911). Presentation d'un crane humain trouve avec le squelette a la base du mous
terien de La Quina (Charente). Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 8: 615-626.
Marx, K. (1982). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, 7th ed., Progress, Moscow.
Masters, P. M. (1982). An amino acid racemization chronology for Tabun. In Ronen, A. (ed.),
The Transition from Lower toMiddle Palaeolithic and the Origin of Modern Man. BAR
International Series, 151, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 43-56,
Mellars, P, (1988). The chronology of the South-West French Mousterian: a review of the
current debate. In Otte, M. (ed.) L'homme de Neandertal 4. La technique, Universite de
Liege, Liege, pp. 97-119.
Nikolskii,V. K. (1923). Ocherkpervobytnoi
kultury(A Studyof PrimitiveCulture),Frenkel,
Moscow-Petrograd.
Oakley, K, P., Campbell, B. G., and Molleson, T. I. (eds.) (1971). Catalogue of Fossil Hominids,
Part II. Europe, Trustees of the British Museum, London.
Oakley, K. P., Campbell, B. G., and Molleson, T. I. (eds.) (1975). Catalogue of Fossil Hominids,
Part III, Americas, Asia, Australasia, Trustees of the British Museum, London.
Oakley, K. P., Campbell, B. G., and Molleson, T. I. (eds.) (1977). Catalogue of Fossil Hominids,
Part I. Africa, 2nd ed., Trustees of the British Museum, London.
Okladnikov, A. P. (1949). Issledovaniya mustyerskoi stoyanki i pogrebeniya neandertaltsa v
grote Teshik-Tash, Yuzhnyi Uzbekistan (Srednaya Aziya) [Studies of theMousterian site
and Neandertal burial in Teshik-Tash cave, Southern Uzbekistan (Central Asia)]. In
Gremyatskii, M. A., and Nestrukh, M. F. (eds.), Teshik-Tash: Paleoliticheskii chelovek,
MGU, Moscow, pp. 7-85.
Okladnikov, A. P. (1952). O znachenii zakhoronenii neandertaltsev dlya istorii pervobytnoi
kultury (On the significance of Neandertal burials for the history of primitive culture).
Sovetskaya etnografiya 3: 159-180.
Peyrony, D. (1921). Les mousteriens, inhumaient-ils leurs morts? Bulletin de la Societe His
torique et Archeologique de Perigord 48: 132-139.
Peyrony, D. (1930). Le Moustier: ses gisements, ses industries, ses couches geologiques. Revue
Anthropologique 40: 48-76, 155-176.
Peyrony, D. (1934). La Ferrassie. Prehistoire 3: 1-92.
Plisetskii, M. S. (1952). O tak nazyvayemykh neandertalskikh pogrebeniyakh (On the so-called
Neandertal burials). Sovetskaya etnografiya 2: 138-157.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
232 Smirnov

Quechon, G. (1976). Les sepultures des hommes du Paleolithique superieur. In de Lumley, H.


(ed.) La Prehistoire Francaise, Vol. I, CNRS, Paris, pp. 728-733.
Schick, T., and Stekelis, M. (1977). Mousterian assemblages inKebara cave, Mount Carmel.
Eretz-Israel, Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 13: 97-149.
Semyonov, Yu. I. (1966). Kak vozniklo chelovechestvo (How Mankind Arose), Nauka, Moscow.
Smirnov, Yu. A. (1972). Pogrebeniya epokhi neolita i rannego metalla lesnoi polosy Vostochnoi
Evropy: Opyt kolichestvennogo analiza (Neolithic and early metal-age burials of the forest
land of Eastern Europe: An experimental quantitative analysis). In Tezisy dokladov na
sektsiyakh, posvyashchyonnykh itogam polevykh issledovanii, Znaniye, Moscow, pp. 348
352.
Smirnov, Yu. A. (1979a). Pogrebeniye v La Chapelle-aux-Saints i problema "informatsionnogo
shuma" v arkheologii (The La Chapelle-aux-Saints burial and the problem of "noise" in
archaeological information). Voprosy antropologii 61: 164-170.
Smirnov, Yu. A. (1979b). Review of "Les sepultures neandertaliennes, Actes du IXC Congres
de TUnion des Sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques, Colloque XII. Nice, 1976."
Sovetskaya arkheologiya 4: 286-294.
Smirnov, Yu. A. (1981). Mustyerskiye pogrebeniya: Variant postanovki voprosa (Mousterian
burials: A different way of posing the question). Kratkiye soobshcheniya Instituta arkheologii
165: 17-23.
Smirnov, Yu. A. (1983). Review of S. R. Binford (1968), "A structural comparison of disposal
of the dead in theMousterian and theUpper Paleolithic" (Southwestern Journal of Anthro
pology) and F. B. Harrold (1974), A Survey and Formal Analysis ofMiddle and Upper
Paleolithic Burials from Europe and Southwest Asia, and (1980), "A comparative analysis
of Eurasian Palaeolithic burials" (World Archaeology). Sovetskaya arkheologiya 3:
246-255.
Smirnov, Yu. A. (1985). Tafologiya: Popytka sistemnogo podkhoda (Taphology: An experiment
in systematics). In Stanukovich, A. K. (ed.), Chelovek i okruzhayushchaya sreda v drevnosti
i srednevekovye (Man and Environment in Antiquity and the Middle Ages), Nauka,
Moscow, pp. 17-23.
Smirnov, Yu. A. (1987a). K voprosu o kulte cherepa i nizhnei chelusti v rannem paleolite
(Concerning the problem of skull and mandible cults in the early Paleolithic). Problemy
interpretatsii arkheologicheskikh istochnikov (Problems in Interpreting Archaeological
Evidence), SOGU, Ordzhonikidze, pp. 50-69.
Smirnov, Yu. A. (1987b). K voprosu o stratigraficheskoi pozitsii detskogo pogrebeniya Kiik
Koba 2 (Concerningtheproblemof the stratigraphic
positionof theKiik-Koba 2 child
burial). Kratkiye soobshcheniya Instituta arkheologii 189: 17-21.
Smirnov, Yu. A. (1988). Mustyerskiye pogrebeniya Starogo Svela: Vozniknoveniye pogrebalnoi
praktiki i osnovy tafologii (The Mousterian Burials of the Old World: The Emergence of
Mortuary Practices and Basic Taphology), Nauka, Moscow (in press).
Solecki, R. S. (1971). Shanidar: The First Flower People, Knopf, New York.
Stekelis, M. (1977). Kebara cave. In Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in theHoly
Land, Vol. Ill, Ji-N, Oxford, pp. 699-702.
Stewart, T. D. (1977). The Neanderthal skeletal remains from Shanidar cave, Iraq: A
summary of findings to date. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 121:
121-165.
Suzuki, H., and Takai, F. (eds.) (1970). The Amud Man and his Cave Site, Academic Press of
Japan, Tokyo.
Tillier, A.-M. (1982). Les inhumations d'enfants en paleolithique ancien et moyen. Histoire et
Archeologie 66: 19-22.
Tokarev, S. A. (1964). Ranniye formy religii (Early Patterns of Religion), Nauka, Moscow.
Trinkaus, E. (1983). The Shanidar Neanderthals, Academic Press, New York.
Ullrich, H. (1986). Manipulations on human corpses, mortuary practices and burial rites in
Paleolithic times. Anthropos (Brno) 23: 227-236.
Valladas, H., Geneste, J.M., Meignen, L., and Texier, P. J. (1988). Datations par la thermo
luminescence de gisements mousteriens du sud de la France. In Otte, M. (ed.) L 'homme de
Neandertal I. La chronologie, Universite de Liege, Liege, pp. 121-124.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Intentional Burial: Middle Paleolithic Beginnings 233

Van Campo, M., and Bouchud, J. (1962). Flore accompagnant le squelette d'enfant mousterien
decouvert au Roc de Marsal, commune du Bugue (Dordogne) et premiere etude de la faune
du gisement. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de VAcademie des Sciences 254:
897-899.
Vandermeersch, B. (1965). Position stratigraphique et chronologie relative des restes humains
du paleolithique moyen du sud-ouest de la France. Annales de Paleontologie 51: 68-126.
Vandermeersch, B. (1970). Une sepulture mousterienne avec offrandes decouverte dans le grotte
de Qafzeh. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de VAcademie des Sciences 270:
298-301.
Vandermeersch, B. (1976). Les sepultures neandertaliennes. In de Lumley, H. (ed.), La Prehistoire
Francaise, Vol. I, CNRS, Paris, pp. 725-727.
Vandermeersch, B. (1981). Les Hommes Fossiles de Qafzeh (Israel), CNRS, Paris.
Vandermeersch, B. (1982). Les premieres sepultures. Histoire et Archeologie 66: 10-14.
Vlcek, E. (1976). Remains of a Neanderthal child from Kiik-Koba in the Crimea. Anthropologia
22: 293-300.
Wernert, P. (1948). Le culte des cranes a 1'epoque paleolithique. Histoire Generate des Religions,
Vol. I, Quillet, Paris.
Wreschner, E. E. (1982). Red ochre, the transition between Lower and Middle Palaeolithic and
the origin of modern man. In Ronen, A. (ed.) The Transition from Lower to Middle
Paleolithic and the Origin of Modern Man. BAR International Series, 151, British
Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 35-39.
Zamyatnin, S. N. (1961). Mustyerskiye pogrebeniya (Mousterian burials). In Boriskovskii, P. I.,
and Vekilova, E. A. (eds.), Ocherki po paleolitu (Studies on the Paleolithic), AN SSSR,
Moscow-Leningrad, pp. 35-42.

This content downloaded from 200.37.4.184 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:40:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Potrebbero piacerti anche