In the Eye of the Beholder: Mousterian and Natufian Burials in the Levant Author(s): Anna Belfer-Cohen and Erella Hovers Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Aug. - Oct., 1992), pp. 463-471 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743875 Accessed: 17-03-2016 16:04 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743875?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 192.104.39.2 on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:04:00 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Volume 33, Number 4, August-October 1992 1 463 I 1990. Representing kinship: Simple models of elemen- to reinvigorate an evaluation of what has been learned tary structures. Leiden: Faculty of Social Science, Leiden Uniethnographically and theoretically (as in Levi-Strauss versity. I949 or H6ritier I976, 198I) about kinship and marriage TUFTE, EDWARD. I983. The visual display of quantitative in- systems. It reconnects the approaches of two worldsformation. Cheshire, Conn.: Graphics Press. French and Anglo-Saxon-whose very different perspec- I i990. Envisioning information. Cheshire, Conn.: Graph- ics Press. tives on the study of kinship have to date precluded con- WEIL, ANDRE. 1949. Sur l'etude algebrique de certains types de sensus on theories and on the relation between lois de mariage," in Les structures elementaires de la parent6, theoretical models and empirical data. by C. Levi-Strauss, pp. 279-85. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Tufte (I983, I990) and others have shown the imporFrance. WHITE, DOUGLAS R. I985. User's manual for statistical en- tance of visualization in communication. The same is tailment analysis. MS, University of California, Irvine, Calif. true in the development of scientific specialties. Klov- . I990. Ordering structures in kinship avoidances. MS. dahl (I98I) argues that network analysis and its con- WHITE, DOUGLAS R., AND VINCENT DUQUENNE. I99I. Lat- cepts-centrality, reachability, role position, clique, tice and entailment analysis of network structure. Paper pre- flow, etc.-would not have developed as they did with- sented at the 2eme Conference Europeenne sur l'Analyse des Reseaux Sociaux, Paris. out graph theoretic images and measures. Conceptually, WHITE, DOUGLAS R., AND PAUL JORION. I99I. Marriage and it is no small matter that kinship nets can be repre- kinship networks: Computation and application. MS. sented as graphs. Perhaps we are in a better position WHITE, DOUGLAS R., AND KARL P. REITZ. I983. Graph and than before for a foundational reconceptualization in the semigroup homomorphisms on networks of relations. Social Networks 3:193-235. analysis of kinship. . I984. REGGE: A regular graph equivalence algorithm for computing role distances prior to blockmodeling. MS, Univer- sity of California, Irvine, Calif. References Cited DUQUENNE, VINCENT. I99I. Program: General lattice analysis and design. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Soci- ales. FORSYTH, DAN W. 1991. Sibling rivalry, aesthetic sensibility, In the Eye of the Beholder: and social structure in Genesis. Ethos 19:453-510. FREEMAN, LINTON C., AND BRUCE MAC EVOY. I987. UCI- Mousterian and Natufian NET version 3.0 user's manual. Irvine: School of Social Sci- Burials in the Levant' ence, University of California, Irvine. FREEMAN, LINTON C., AND DOUGLAS R. WHITE. I992. Rep- resentation of social networks. MS. FREEMAN, LINTON C., DOUGLAS R. WHITE, AND A. KIM- ANNA BELFER-COHEN AND ERELLA HOVERS BALL ROMNEY. Editors. I989. Research methods in social Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Mt. network analysis. Fairfax, Va.: George Mason Press. GUILBAUD, G. TH. 1970. Systeme parental et matrimonial au Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. 22 IV 92 Nord Ambrym. Journal de la Societe des Oceanistes 26:9-32. HERITIER, FRAN ,COISE. 1976. "L'enquete genealogique et le The issue of intentional burial in the Middle Palaeo- traitement des donnees," in Outiles d'enquete et d'analyse an- lithic is a subject that has lately received much attenthropologiques. Edited by R. Creswell and M. Godelier, pp. tion in the literature. In considering this question here, 223-65. Paris: Maspero. . I98I. L'exercice de la parent6. Paris: Gallimard. it is not our intention to suggest new or better criteria JORION, PAUL. I982. Matrilateral cross-cousin marriage on mifor identifying intentional burials. Rather, we attempt crocomputers. MS, Department of Anthropology, Cambridge to demonstrate that application of the existing criteria University, Cambridge, England. is biased by preconceptions and differential treatment of . I984. L'inscription dans la structure de parente: Ornicar? Revue du Champ Freudean 31:56-97. biological and cultural variables. JORION, PAUL, AND GISELE DE MEUR. I980. La question The recent controversy regarding behavioural and bio- Murngin, un artefact de la litterature anthropologique. logical changes in Upper Pleistocene hominids involves L'Homme 20(2):39-70. a number of distinct issues (summarized by Dibble and JORION, PAUL, GISELE DE MEUR, AND TRUDEKE VUYK. I982. Le mariage Pende. L'Homme 22:53-72. Chase I990), of which the most important for our dis- JORION, PAUL, AND E. LALLY. I983. An algorithm for the cussion is the problem of symbolic behaviour in Middle analysis of genealogies as to prior kin connection between Palaeolithic hominids (Bar-Yosef I989, Chase i99i, spouses. MS, Department of Anthropology, Cambridge Univer- Chase and Dibble I987, Lindly and Clark I990) and essity, Cambridge, England. pecially the practice of burial (Binford I968, Chase and KLOVDAHL, ALDEN S. I98I. A note on images of networks. So- cial Networks 3:197-2 14. LEVI-STRAUSS, CLAUDE. 1949. Les structures elementaires de la parent6. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 1 962. La pensee sauvage. Paris: Librarie Plon. MALINOWSKI, BRONISLAW. 1930. Kinship. Man 30:19-29. ROMNEY, A. KIMBALL. 1971. "Measuring endogamy," in Ex- plorations in mathematical anthropology. Edited by P. Kay. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. TJON SIE FAT, FRANKLIN E. I983. Age metrics and twisted cyl- inders: Predictions from a structural model. American Ethnol- ogist I0:585-604. i. ? I992 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved OO11-3204/92/3304-0008$i.oo. The authors' names appear in alphabetical order. We thank Ofer Bar- Yosef, Isaac Gilead, Naama Goren-Inbar, Nigel Goring-Morris, and John Speth, as well as anonymous referees, for their critical reading of the manuscript and their various suggestions. Special thanks go to Yehuda Cohen for his extensive help in editing the manuscript. Needless to say, responsibility for the ideas expressed here is ours alone. This content downloaded from 192.104.39.2 on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:04:00 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 464 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Dibble I987, Gargett I989, Smirnov I989, to name but dle Palaeolithic and the Natufian is somewhat problem- a few). Most of the excavators of Levantine Middle atic, as there is little or no inherent chronological or Palaeolithic sites have identified intentional burials on contextual continuity between them. Most scholars agree that the earliest human remains the basis of field observations (see Gargett I989 for refer- ences and Bar-Yosef et al. I986, Rightmire I984, Vander- recovered anywhere in the world do not represent inten- meersch I98I). However, later overviews of this issue tional burial. At some point in time, however, inten- have stressed the need for more exacting criteria for such tional burial evidently entered the human behavioural identification. repertoire. Several scholars have attempted to establish As Binford (I 9 7 I: I 6) has noted, mortuary behaviour is criteria for the recognition of this mortuary behaviour. both spiritual and material in nature. The ethnographic literature (Binford I97I, Huntington and Metcalf I979 The original excavators of the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic sites routinely used the skeleton's state of and references therein) amply demonstrates the exis- articulation as the criterion for identifying burials (e.g., tence of nonmaterial mortuary rites (songs, music, McCown I937). They never elaborated on the point, ap- dances, etc.) as well as of a class of rituals related to the parently because it seemed self-evident. Later research- actual treatment of the body and its immediate sur- ers have carried this attitude even farther, often neglect- roundings. In most instances the latter culminate in ei- ing the state of articulation. Binford (i968:I40-4I), for ther primary or secondary burials which are potentially one, proposes the very broad criterion of "the presence visible archaeologically (O'Shea I984:2). It is for this rea- of an excavated grave and/or an arrangement of the body son that we concentrate on the material criteria for the or body parts which seem to preclude natural agency." identification of intentional burials. Presumably, the last part of this sentence also relates to In order to examine the attitudes of current research to the problem of Middle Palaeolithic burials, we have articulation. Harrold (i98o:I97), in contrast, regards as intentional burials only those cases furnishing chosen to compare interpretations of Epi-Palaeolithic "some strong positive indication to the effect, such as Natufian burials with interpretations of the controver- strongly-flexed body position or unequivocal association sial Levantine Mousterian ones. This choice is based on with a burial trench or grave goods. " It should be several considerations: i. The Natufian is chronologically well defined and stressed that isolated skeletal fragments may represent remains both of disturbed intentional burials and of ran- its core area readily recognized (Belfer-Cohen I989). It dom, natural deposition. Archaeologically, distinction is a relatively recent phenomenon (i2,500-i0,200 years between the two may be difficult if not impossible. Thus B.P.) the cultural complexity of which is easily discerned skeletal articulation remains the single unchallenged in the archaeological record. Its population consists of criterion for intentional burial. In a recent summary of the subject, Smirnov Homo sapiens sapiens, and the burials attributed to it are unquestionably recognized as intentional. Conse- (i989a:2i2) proposes "the presence of an artificially cre- quently, treatment of Natufian material is conceptually ated or closed structure [as] . . . a prerequisite of inten- easier than that of earlier material. tional burial." He maintains that since the use of a 2. The Natufian and the Levantine Middle Palaeo- burial structure (e.g., pits and hearths or mounds and lithic are separated by at least 30,000 years (Marks I983; stoneworks) frequently results in better preservation of see Mellars and Tixier I989 for possible early dates of the remains, a relatively well-preserved condition may the Middle-to-Upper-Palaeolithic transition). The gap, be taken to indicate an intentional burial. Smirnov re- however, is not merely chronological. Only a few gards body position-whether a skeleton is found in a burials, besides isolated skeletal fragments, are known flexed, semiflexed, or extended position-as a signifi- from Upper Palaeolithic and Epi-Palaeolithic occupa- cant criterion, albeit difficult to apply (Smirnov I98ga,b; tions. These burials include the Atlitian female skeleton see Villa i989 for an emphasis on the significance of from Nahal Ein-Gev I (without radiometric dates and strongly flexed skeletal remains). He points out that culturally dated to the late Upper Palaeolithic [Arens- most researchers are skeptical about the possibility of burg I9771), the skeleton of a male from the early Ke- distinguishing intentional grave goods from other ob- baran at Ohalo II (i9,000 years B.P. [Nadel and Hershko- vitz I99I]), the burial of a woman in a Kebaran hut at Ein Gev I (ca. i6,ooo years B.P. [Arensburg and Bar-Yosef I973]), and two fragmentary skeletons from the Geomet- ric Kebaran at Neve David (ca. I5,000 years B.P. ]Kauf- man I989]). Several burnt skeletons were reported from jects merely forming part of the assemblage (see Chase and Dibble I987:272-75; Lindly and Clark I990:235- 37) but nevertheless considers grave goods as an indica- tion of (although not a prerequisite for) intentional burial. The proponents of these criteria admit to some prob- the Kebaran occupation at Kebara Cave, but no further lems in their application in archaeological fieldwork, to information was provided (Turville-Petre I932). say nothing of the fact that some of the relevant vari- Although H. sapiens sapiens inhabited the Levant ables may be interpreted in several ways. Thus, Gargett during the Upper Palaeolithic and Epi-Palaeolithic, very (I989) suggests that the pits in which remains of Middle few items of a symbolic nature have been discovered Palaeolithic European Neanderthals have been found from this time-span, none of them associated with should be interpreted as resulting from natural phenom- burials (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef I98I, Hovers I990 ena. While this view has been widely rejected on several and references therein). Thus a comparison of the Mid- grounds, it serves to illustrate the problematic nature of This content downloaded from 192.104.39.2 on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:04:00 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Volume 33, Number 4, August-October 1992 1 465 Carmel-Judean Hills regions and, to a lesser extent, the Eyna F v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. z|'. '.. <... .. . .. . .. .. . .. . Jordan Rift Valley (see Belfer-Cohen i989, Byrd i989). Some 4 I 7 individuals have been recovered from the vari- Z ttiye ous sites (Belfer-Cohen, Shepartz, and Arensburg n.d.), providing a rare opportunity to study a pre-agricultural -Hayorim prehistoric population and investigate the ways in Nahal Oren OA MALM I cc which it dealt with its dead. Most of the data presented ~Tab nA below are, unless indicated otherwise, derived from the IE-Wad cjQ h site reports of a few core-area campsites, including el- Wad (Garrod and Bate I937), Nahal Oren (Stekelis and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ Kebara . Q/ afzeh ..... . ..... ..W .2 Yizraeli I963), Hayonim Cave (Belfer-Cohen I988a, b) and Eynan (Perrot, Ladiray, and Solviers-Massei i988). In general it is evident that human remains were de- posited apart from or adjacent to living areas. Thus at any given point in time the dead and the living did not mingle. The scattered human bones found in occupa- T'EL AV tional deposits probably represent previous, disturbed graves. The graves consisted of pits, either shallow or NA''.'1' ' Shukba deep, only rarely revetted with stones or slabs. Occa- Hatula sionally the outline of a burial pit was preserved, but sometimes even that was obscured by on-going digging. JE eM- Since there was considerable building activity in the Na- tufian, there has been a natural temptation to assume grave construction. Most of the architecture that at one time was attributed to burials has, however, eventually been shown to have either post- or predated them. For BEERSHEVA example, most of the Late Natufian burials at Eynan were recovered from pits dug in between the various constructed features. Perrot, Ladiray, and Solviers- Massei (i989) speculate that these pits were originally designated for some domestic purpose and their use as burial places was secondary. The considerable number of similar pits left empty seems to support this view. Only very rarely were tombs constructed of limestone 0 500km slabs or such slabs used to cover graves (e.g., Hayonim Cave, graves I, III, V, and IX; el-Wad, H.i12 and 2i; Erq el-Ahmar [Neuville I 9 5 I ]). On rare occasions, the FIG. i. The Levant, showing sites mentioned in the burials themselves were covered (el-Wad, H.62; Eynan, text. Triangles, Mousterian sites; circles, Natufian H.I5 and 25). Stones were found placed under the body sites; W.H. 27, Wadi Hammeh 27. Elevation contours or head at several sites (el-Wad, Eynan, Nahal Oren, in 300-m intervals. Hayonim Cave, Shukba, and Kebara), but the number of burials in which stones undoubtedly formed part of the the criteria: they appear both too nebulous and too spe- cific and are by no means unequivocal. The various cri- tiques, however, have never offered any alternatives. Be- cause these criteria are claimed to be cross-cultural physical attributes (Smirnov I989a), they may legiti- mately be employed to examine both Natufian and Le- vantine Middle Palaeolithic skeletal remains. Considered a transitional archaeological entity, the Natufian links Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer groups and Neolithic agricultural societies. Although it existed for only ca. 2,ooo years, a short time-span compared with that of the preceding Palaeolithic cultures, the Natufian is characterized by many unique features, prominent among which are communal burial grounds (Bar-Yosef I983, Henry I989, Belfer-Cohen i99i). Natufian human remains have been found almost exclusively in base camps located in the classical core area of the Natufian geographical distribution (fig. I), i.e., the Galilee-Mt. burial itself rather than of the grave fill is very small (a dozen or so). It has been suggested that the Natufians held down their dead by placing stones on top of them; according to Garrod this represented a special ceremony which had not taken place in children's burials. It seems, however, that at least at el-Wad the stones crush- ing the skeletons originated in the eventual reopening and refilling of the graves. That children were always found in primary contexts implies that their graves had never been reopened. All other graves were, as a rule, packed with cobbles or simply with earth, to the great detriment of the skeletons. Rarely, stone circles were erected around the graves to mark and/or to protect them (e.g., graves III and IV, Hayonim Cave). At Eynan, grave 23 was marked by four big stones found at the bottom of the pit. According to Perrot, one of these stones had been placed vertically in the grave and could be seen above the surface. Sealed This content downloaded from 192.104.39.2 on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:04:00 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 466 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY graves were marked at Nahal Oren and el-Wad (H.6o and group H. 57) by deep "stonepipes," regarded by Garrod (I957) as totem poles and by Stekelis and Yizraeli (i963) TABLE I Distribution of Decorations Directly Associated with Burials as a means of communication with the dead. At Nahal Oren and Hayonim Cave, small cup marks were drilled Site Total Children Adolescents Males Females in one of the stones above or beside the grave. Special installations in cemeteries or burial grounds are scarce. It has been claimed that the large fireplace (I.2 m in el-Wad 9(6)a I - 8 - Eynan Io 2 2 3 3 diameter) encircled by limestone slabs at Nahal Oren Hayonim Cave 4 - 3 I represents the remains of an"eternal flame" associated Erq el-Ahmar I - - - I with the surrounding inhumations (Stekelis and Yizraeli i963). Five basins found at el-Wad were, according to Garrod, associated with mortuary practices, and offer- aGarrod (I936-37) describes six decorated individuals; three addi- tional cases were identified in the Harvard Peabody Museum colings of some kind may have been placed in them. At the lections. same time, in most sites new graves were dug without bPerrot, Ladiray, and Solviers-Massei (i988) view the H43 foetus regard to earlier ones, often disturbing and in some cases decorated with a Dentalium string as a grave offering. totally destroying them. The burials themselves show considerable diversity, both in burial patterns and in grave goods. Body position varies in primary burials from extended through semi- flexed or loosely flexed to tightly flexed. Skeletons were thigh bone which may have formed part of a garment (Garrod and Bate I937). Decorated burials were recov- ered from only three other sites (ten at Eynan, four at discovered lying on either side, on the back, in a kneel- Hayonim Cave, and one from Erq el-Ahmar), though or- ing position, with heads facing east, west, south, or naments were retrieved also from disturbed graves at north, and with hands stretched along the body, folded Wadi Hammeh 27 (Edwards et al. I988) and at Hayonim on the chest, placed in front of the face, resting on the Cave (Belfer-Cohen i988b). No correlation between age pelvis, etc. No correlations were found between age or or gender and presence or type of decoration was found gender and time period or burial position other than a in any of the sites which have yielded decorated burials constant positive correlation between extended burial (see table I). The only consistent observation concerning position and Early Natufian date (as in el-Wad and Hayo- the decorated burials is that they all belong to the Early nim Cave). Towards the later stages of the Natufian se- Natufian, even though ornaments were recovered also quence a novel practice seems to have been introduced, from Late Natufian sites. The direct relationships of other items, possibly grave namely, the separation of the skull from the rest of the skeleton-a custom better documented and more com- goods, to the burials is rarely clear, but at Hayonim Cave mon in the succeeding Neolithic cultures. Burials are a bone dagger ca. 30 cm long was found under the right single as well as multiple, the latter containing from arm of a woman lying in a supine position. Other possi- three to seven individuals. The communal burials con- ble grave goods include a limestone human head and a tained every possible combination of males, females, turtle carapace from el-Wad (Garrod and Bate I937) and and children. The skeletons were placed either side by some gazelle horn cores from Eynan (Perrot, Ladiray, and side (grave VII, Hayonim Cave) or one on top of the other (H.25 and 27 in grave IX, Hayonim Cave). Secondary burials were either separated from primary ones or mixed with them. It is practically impossible to charac- terize the typical Natufian burial. For instance, while it Solviers-Massei I988). Ochre lumps were recovered from graves at Eynan and in association with the dis- turbed skeleton at Wadi Hammeh 27 (Edwards et al. I988). Seven horse teeth recovered from the communal grave in Erq el-Ahmar were likewise considered burial seems that Garrod and Neuville were correct in claim- offerings (Neuville I95I). However, less than io% of all ing that single burials were as a rule more numerous Natufian burials contain any kind of grave offering during the Late Natufian, the situation at Eynan, where (Belfer-Cohen, Shepartz, and Arensburg n.d.). Another outstanding phenomenon observed in the more communal graves were unearthed from the Late Natufian (Perrot, Ladiray, and Solviers-Massei I988), is obviously the reverse. Grave goods are rather rare, the common ones being ornaments (head decorations, necklaces, bracelets, and belts), mostly composed of Dentalium shells and bone pendants and occasionally of partridge tibio-tarsus beads Natufian burials is the joint interment of humans and dogs, though only three such instances have been re- ported to date-from Eynan (Davis and Valla I978) and from the Hayonim Terrace (F. Valla, personal communi- cation). All the Middle Palaeolithic human remains in the Le- and perforated wolf canines (Hayonim Cave, el-Wad, Erq vant were associated with Mousterian lithic assem- el-Ahmar). At el-Wad, where nine decorated burials were blages originating in cave sites (table 2). Morphologi- recovered (Belfer-Cohen, Shepartz, and Arensburg n.d.), cally, these remains include both an archaic type the principal adornments were Dentalium head-dresses and necklaces. The head-dresses were differently styled and obviously individual. In one case, the skeleton had strings of shells on the right upper arm and the right (bearing a resemblance to the contemporaneous Western European Neanderthal population) and anatomically modern humans (Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen n.d.). Skeletons of anatomically modern humans are dated at This content downloaded from 192.104.39.2 on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:04:00 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Volume 33, Number 4, August-October 1992 1 467 TABLE 2 one other case should be so considered-Qafzeh I3, a Distribution of Middle Palaeolithic Human Remains fetus, found unrelated to any other skeletal remains. The in Levantine Sites number of burials found at this site should therefore be revised to seven. Several articulated skeletons were reported from Site N N "Burials" Source Shanidar Cave, but additional evidence suggests that some of them may actually have been covered by rock- Amud 4 I Suzuki and Takal (I970) fall (which was, presumably, also the cause of death). Kebara 2 2 Bar-Yosef et al. (I986, Where this was the case (e'.g., Shanidar I), no claim could I988), Smith and Arens- be made for intentional burial (Trinkaus I983:I9; So- burg (I977) lecki i989; for a review of the status of the Shanidar Qafzeh I5 7 Vandermeersch (I98 i), Smirnov (i989), Tillier et remains see Tillier et al. I988:I3I). al. (i988) Mortuary treatment of a sort has been implied in two Skhul i6 6 McCown (I937), Smirnov additional cases: McCown (I937:98) states that the re- (i989) mains of Skhiul II "might well be ascribed to their having Tabun 3 I Tillier et al. (i988), Garrod been dropped in a small heap, to be gradually buried by and Bate (I937) Shanidar (early) 6 I Trinkaus (I983), Solecki the accumulating terrace," implicitly suggesting some (i989), Tillier et al. (i988) deliberate handling of the corpse although not necessar- Shanidar (late) 3 I Trinkaus (I983), Solecki ily its interment. Another case in which such treatment (i989), Tillier et al. (i988) may be inferred is Kebara 2 (Bar-Yosef et al. i986; see also Weiner and Goldberg I990). In all but one case single individuals were encoun- Qafzeh Cave (Vandermeersch I98I and references therein) to ca. 92,000-ii5,000 years B.P. (Schwarcz et al. I988, Valladas et al. I988) and at Skh-ul Cave (Garrod tered, the exception being Qafzeh 9 + iO, found in a position suggesting communal internment-possibly of mother and child (Vandermeersch I969; 198I:3 2, fig. 8). Orientations of the skeletons and their locations and Bate I937) to 8i,000 + I5,000 years B.P.. (Stringer et al. I989). The morphologically archaic remains from within the caves vary considerably and suggest no par- the Levant are dated to 60,000-48,ooo years B.P. (Bar- ticular preferred direction (for a summary see Smirnov Yosef et al. I986; Schwarcz et al. I989; Valladas et al. I987) or as yet undated (Amud [Suzuki and Takai I970], Shanidar [Solecki I97i, Trinkaus I983]). Recent dates for Tabilun Cave (Gruin, Stringer, and Schwarcz I99I) sug- i989a, in particular figs. 5 and 6). The same is true of body positions: some of the skeletons were lying on their sides (right or left) while others were positioned on their backs; they were generally either semiflexed or gest an age of i66,ooo years B.P. for the earliest Mouste- strongly flexed, but extended positions have also been rian layer. Accordingly, the Middle Palaeolithic of the noted (Smirnov I989a:fig. 7). Levant may be taken to encompass at least I20,000 years II66,000-45,000 years B.P.) taking into account the Certain spatial arrangements have been taken for many years to be associated with burial rites. Such may dates of the transitional occurrences at Boker Tachtit be the case with Kebara i (Smith and Arensburg I977), and at Ksar Akil in Lebanon [Mellars and Tixier I989]). near which were recovered three large stones and a rhi- The number of burials suggested to have occurred at each site was inferred by us from the original site reports noceros tooth (Schick and Stekelis I977:I03*). Unfortu- nately, no detailed sections or plans of the burial were and later syntheses, the principal criterion being the de- ever presented. Smirnov (I989:e2I6) suggests that Skh-ul gree of articulation (Tillier et al. I988, Tillier I990). In III and Shanidar i, 2, and 9 also display burial features, some cases the remains recovered were too fragmentary namely, the hearths located beneath them. to suggest intentional burials. For example, at Skhiul (McCown I937:I03-5) ten instances were described as Clearly recognizable burial pits have rarely been re- ported from Levantine Middle Palaeolithic sites, Kebara skeletons in various states of preservation, while other 2 being an exception (Bar-Yosef et al. i988: fig. i). How- bones were simply identified as isolated remains of six ever, the mere absence of stratigraphic evidence for pits individuals. In only seven of the ten skeletons, however, does not necessarily denote their nonexistence (see Villa was there any evidence of natural articulation, and i989). Thus, McCown (I937) suggested that Skh-ul IV McCown suggested that intentional burial could be and V had been interred in shallow pits the contours of strongly argued for only in the case of Skh-ul I, IV, V, and which were difficult to follow during excavation. The VII. These reservations have not always been heeded in burial of Shanidar 4 may also be an example of a pit succeeding syntheses. Thus, Harrold (i980:200, table i) occurrence (Solecki i989). The brecciated nature of the observes only the former reservation and refers to seven Qafzeh sediments would render impossible the recogni- burials there, whereas Smirnov (i989a:2I8) completely tion of pits even if any existed (Tillier I990:23), while disregards McCown's remarks and considers all ten in- the description of Amud I is confined to the skeleton stances burials. itself (Sakura I970). At Qafzeh, in contrast, only those skeletons men- tioned as burials by the excavator (8, II, I5, 25, and 9 + Io) have been included in later syntheses, but at least Grave goods are proposed to have occurred in two cases: Skhiul V, which had the mandible of a wild boar in its hands (McCown Ig37:Io4), and Qafzeh II, with This content downloaded from 192.104.39.2 on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:04:00 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 468 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY which fallow deer antlers were associated (Vander- TABLE 3 meersch I970). Accepting Leroi-Gourhan's (I975) pollen Worldwide Distribution of Middle Palaeolithic Burials analysis for Shanidar 4, the flowers assumed to accom- pany it should also be considered as a grave offering. Region N of Sites N of Burials While Chase and Dibble (I987:275) have accepted the former two instances as genuine offerings, Lindly and Clark (I990:235) have argued for intrusion by post- Southwest France 6 I7 Israel 5 22 depositional processes in the first case and claimed that Iraq I 9 in both caves the faunal remains may well have formed Soviet Union 3 7 part of the occupants' dietary residue rather than actual Belgium I 3 grave offerings. The latter two arguments have been reSouth Africa I I jected by Bar-Yosef, Lieberman, and Shea (I990; see also Stringer I990). Stone tools placed in the grave with the SOURCES:Smirnov (i989a), Lindly and Clark (i990), and refer- deceased (e.g., Skhiul IV) may be another type of offering. ences therein. This phenomenon, however, has not been reported from anywhere else in the Levant. In the cases of Amud I (Sakura I970:II8-22, fig. VII-2) and Kebara i and 2 male lying on its left side in a flexed position, with no (Smith and Arensburg I977, Bar-Yosef et al. I986) it is evident that whatever flint tools were retrieved near the skeleton were indeed merely incidental finds rather than genuine grave goods. The data presented above demonstrate the differential accompanying objects except for a few flint artefacts probably unrelated to the burial (Sakura I970). This de- scription fits almost exactly that of the burial of an ado- lescent female from the Natufian site of Hatula (Ronen and Lechevallier I985), but while the latter is unhesi- approach in the current literature to the issue of inten- tantly considered an intentional burial, not all scholars tional burials in the Natufian and the Mousterian. While view Amud I as such. Natufian interments are unquestionably referred to as burials, indicative of complex symbolic behaviour, the Natufian skeletal remains seem to be considered a priori as intentional burials, often despite the caution of notion of intentional burials in the Middle Palaeolithic the excavators themselves. Thus, Garrard, Betts, and continues to be controversial. Admittedly, most of the Byrd (I 987:2 I) note that the human skeletons discovered arguments for natural as opposed to intentional inhuma- tion rest on the geomorphological data presented in the various site reports. It seems to us, however, that the rejection of the notion of Mousterian burials is symp- at Azraq I8 "were not contained in any obvious burial pit, and if such had existed, it was disrupted by later occupation." However, Byrd (I989), citing these authors, refers to these remains as "burials in the desert tomatic of a more general tendency towards "dehuman- oasis"-in fact the only ones reported outside the Na- ization" of the Middle Palaeolithic hominids. This atti- tufian core area. tude reflects a refusal to accept the possibility that Given the evidence for complexity in other facets of hominids other than H. sapiens sapiens reached the the Natufian (e.g., settlement patterns, art), it is highly level of symbolic sophistication expressed, among other plausible that human remains from this period do in- things, in intentional burials. We believe that what deed represent intentional burials. Above all, the notion amounts to an unconscious bias against Middle Palaeo- lithic hominids in general and morphologically archaic humans in particular is a "prime mover" in the debate over the validity of Middle Palaeolithic burials. This is clearly manifested when both Natufian and Mousterian data sets are examined with the same criteria. The Natufian data demonstrate a surprising absence of Natufian intentional burials draws on the sheer force of numbers: 4I7 skeletons originating from a time-span of 2,000 years form an impressive data base. Admittedly, a very different situation is seen in the Mousterian, where 59 cases of "would-be burials" are distributed across a relatively large geographical area (table 3) and a time-span of at least some 6o,ooo years. of patterning with regard to burial practices-a lack of correlation between relevant variables (e.g., gender, age, number of individuals per grave, body position, or pres- ence of grave goods) and only a few time-correlated trends. Decorated burials are found only in the Early Natufian, and skull separation is clearly a Late Natufian phenomenon, but these phenomena appear only sporadi- cally and are therefore less significant for cross-cultural comparison. We are of the opinion that new behavioural patterns cannot be expected necessarily to occur in great num- bers. The development of burial practices might have followed a pattern analogous to that of mosaic evolu- tion: some traits evolved and changed over time because of certain "selective" forces (e.g., intergroup competi- tion) while others persisted in their archaic form. Thus, the impressive Natufian cemeteries are claimed to have evolved gradually (Perrot, Ladiray, and Solviers-Massei In summary, the most that can be said about the com- mon Natufian burial is that it consists of a flexed skele- ton lying in a shallow pit, without grave goods or decora- tions. Such a description perfectly fits many of the Mousterian inhumations that inspire such intense de- bate. For example, Amud I is the skeleton of an adult I988), burials in large numbers being quite a late phe- nomenon reflecting the specific social needs of the popu- lation at particular sites. The fact that Middle Palaeo- lithic "burials" appear in small numbers is insufficient to disqualify them as intentional burials (contra Gargett I989). This content downloaded from 192.104.39.2 on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:04:00 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Volume 33, Number 4, August-October 1992 | 469 We have no doubt that the human remains of Na- animal activities, those of hyenas in particular (e.g., Ke- tufian times are indeed intentional burials. Neverthe- bara [J. Speth, personal communication]). There is also less, it seems that their recognition as such seldom de- evidence for other, severe post-depositional disturbances pends on the analysis of the specific above-mentioned (P. Goldberg and H. Laville, personal communication). criteria. Rather, it appears to rely on the physical- (Indeed, many of the human bone fragments found in anthropological and cultural context. The same is true these sites [Arensburg et al. I990] may represent dis- for the Mousterian human remains, but in this case the turbed intentional burials. However, as we have said, material culture is found wanting in complexity and so- such fragments are not here considered burials.) Had hu- phistication. Intentional burials are recognized only man remains not been intentionally buried, their when Middle Palaeolithic human remains are of ana- chances of being found in skeletal articulation would tomically modern individuals, since on the basis of their have been very small. The preservation of the fragile biological resemblance to modern humans they are remains of neonates and infants (e.g., Qafzeh I3, Kebara granted the capacity for complex behaviour such as mor- tuary practices and intentional burials. A case in point i) is difficult to explain in such depositional contexts unless they are perceived as intentional burials. is the paper by Chase and Dibble (I987), written at a Interpreting intentional burial as hygienic-as op- time when the morphologically modern humans from posed to symbolic-behaviour (e.g., Kooijmans I989) is Qafzeh and Skhiul were still believed to be later than not a satisfactory explanation for such a time- and the morphologically archaic hominids of Kebara, Amud, energy-consuming activity, because mere disposal of the Tabun, and Shanidar. According to these authors, "delib- dead could have been achieved simply by dumping erate burials are clearly present [at the two former sites], but there are no other obvious signs of ritual." Never- corpses some distance away from the living areas. The unlikelihood of such a claim is amplified in light of the theless, they conclude that "the evidence from Middle discard of dietary remains (i.e., animal bones) in habita- Palaeolithic burials-except those of anatomically tion areas, which shows no concern for hygiene. There- modern H. sapiens-does not demonstrate the presence fore, once Middle Palaeolithic burials are accepted as of symbolism or of culturally defined values during that intentional, it is difficult to deny their symbolic signifi- time" (Chase and Dibble I987:276, our emphasis). Their cance. conclusion, then, implicitly suggests that the Qafzeh/ Skhiul hominids may be accredited with some symbolic Following Flannery (I973) and Hodder (I986:II8-46; I987), "contextual archaeology" advocates a flexible ap- behaviour (e.g., intentional burial) simply because of proach in which particular relationships can be taken their allegedly later age and their classification as H. into account, among them the "historical content of the sapiens sapiens. changing ideas and associations of the object" (Hodder However, a distinction with respect to mortuary be- I987:I). We believe that Natufian burials (a cultural "ar- haviour between morphologically archaic and morpho- tefact") are indeed understood within their proper con- logically modern humans of the same period is unwar- text, namely, that of a society undergoing major social ranted when the individual burials are considered. This is amply demonstrated in Harrold's (I980) and Smir- change. It is this consideration of the entire data com- plex that permits acceptance of those burials as inten- nov's (I989) reviews of the human interments from the tional even when the relevant characteristics are rather Middle Palaeolithic as well as in our treatment of the ambiguous. For example, the burials in Natufian ceme- data. Moreover, no other cultural differences can be de- tected between the two groups (Lindly and Clark I990, teries have been interpreted as indicating population growth (Perrot, Ladiray, and Solviers-Massei I988:97) Bar-Yosef et al. 1990). Klein (I990) too has recently and as possible expressions of group cohesion and land- claimed that the morphological differences between the ownership (Gilead I989), resulting in continuous use of European Neanderthals and the contemporaneous H. sa- the same burial grounds and reopening of the graves. piens sapiens were of little significance; the two types supposedly had very much the same cultural capacities Similarly, the single burials which seem to have been the rule in the Mousterian should perhaps be viewed until H. sapiens sapiens developed new neurological as indicating a similar group-land relationship within structures which were to support more complex cultural smaller social reference units. The rarity of burials in abilities. Indeed, recent finds and renewed analyses of the intervening time-span has been interpreted as stem- Mousterian occupations support the view that Neander- ming from differences in mortuary practices, for exam- thals were capable of symbolic expression (e.g., Mar- shack I989, I990), although the rarity of such occur- rences suggests that symbolic behaviour was uncommon among Middle Palaeolithic groups (Chase and Dibble I987, Bar-Yosef I988). It is difficult to accept the skeletal finds from the Le- ple, burial outside the habitation area and/or cremation of the dead, as seen in the Epi-Palaeolithic at Kebara Cave (Turville-Petre I932). In the same vein, ethnographic evidence suggests that the presence of special grave goods may vary among so- cieties with similar levels of social complexity. Hence, vantine Middle Palaeolithic as accidental, "natural" their absence does not necessarily reflect a lower level of burial by accumulating sediments. All of these remains material or social organization. However, special grave were found in caves, in which human occupation during the Middle Palaeolithic was intermittent. When not in- habited by humans, the caves were at times left open to goods, when present, reflect a relatively high degree of social complexity (O'Shea i984:255; see also Binford I97I on mortuary practices as reflecting social features This content downloaded from 192.104.39.2 on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:04:00 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 470 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY nim Cave: A hunter-gatherer band on the threshold of agricul- of a given society). In their synthesis, Chase and Dibble ture. Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. (i987:274) reject the idea that the objects found in asso- . I988b. The Natufian graveyard at Hayonim Cave. Paleor- ciation with Middle Palaeolithic human remains (except ient I4:297-308. at Qafzeh and Skhiiul) are grave goods on the grounds that . Ig8g."The Natufian issue: A suggestion," in Investiga- such items should be clearly distinguishable from other tions in South Levantine prehistory. Edited by 0. Bar-Yosef and B. Vandermeersch, pp. 297-308. British Archaeological Re- objects found in the surrounding sediments. It is our ports International Series 497. claim that the lack of special items neither reflects by .I 99I. The Natufian in the Levant. Annual Review of An- definition a lower level of complexity nor proves the thropology 20:I67-86. absence of intentional burial. Alternatively, the munBELFER-COHEN, A., AND 0. BAR-YOSEF. I98I. The Aurigna- dane objects associated with Middle Palaeolithic skele- cian at Hayonim Cave. Paleorient 7:I9-42. BELFER-COHEN, A., L. SHEPARTZ, AND B. ARENSBURG. n.d. tal remains may reflect the relative simplicity of the "Cultural behavioural continuities in the Levant." Third Sym- material culture. When viewed against the contextual posium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Pop- background, the unspectacular nature of Mousterian ulations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, 3-7 Septem- burials is better understood. ber i99o, Budapest. In press. It seems that many scholars still possess "mental BINFORD, L. R. I971. "Mortuary practices: Their study and their potential," in Approaches to the social dimensions of templates" as to what a burial should look like. These mortuary practices. Edited by J. A. Brown, pp. 6-20. Memoirs templates, based on ethnographic models of recent com- of the Society for American Archaeology 25. plex societies (in the sense of Price and Brown I985), BINFORD, S. R. I968. A structural comparison of disposal of the dead in the Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic. Southwestem are projected onto the past and influence attitudes with Journal of Anthropology 24:I39-5 I. regard to intentional burial in the Mousterian. Incorpo- BYRD, B. F. I989. The Natufian: Settlement variability and eco- rated in these attitudes is a bias against Middle Palaeo- nomic adaptations in the Levant at the end of the Pleistocene. lithic hominids other than H. sapiens sapiens as "poor Joumal of World Prehistory 3:I59-97. relations who did not make it" evolutionarily and must therefore have been inferior to their H. sapiens sapiens CHASE, P. G. 1991. Symbols and Paleolithic artifacts: Style, standardization, and the imposition of arbitrary form. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology IO: I93-2I4. contemporaries. Obviously, when their cultural remains CHASE, P. G., AND H. L. DIBBLE. I987. Middle Palaeolithic are examined by "objective" criteria (stemming from be- symbolism: A review of current evidence and interpretations. havioural models based on complex societies), they do Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:263-96. not stand up to them, ergo these hominids were really DAVIS, S. J. M., AND F. R. VALLA. I978. Evidence for the do- mestication of the dog 12, 000 years ago in the Natufian of Isinferior. As is the case with other objectives of scientific rael. Nature 276:608-i0. inquiry, the status of Middle Palaeolithic mortuary be- DIBBLE, H. L., AND P. G. CHASE. I990. Comment on: Symbol- haviour seems to be affected by "values . . . read into ism and modern human origins, by J. M. Lindly and G. A. the record and then read right back out again, as though Clark. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 3I:24I-43. EDWARDS, P. M., S. BOURKE, S. COLEDGE, J. HEAD, AND P. they existed objectively" (Ruse I988:66). MACUMBER. I988. "Late Pleistocene prehistory in the Wadi el-Hammeh, Jordan Valley," in The prehistory of Jordan. Ed- ited by A. Garrard and H. G. Gebel, pp. 525-65. British ArReferences Cited chaeological Reports International Series 396. ARENSBURG, B. I977. New Upper Palaeolithic human remains from Israel. Eretz Israel I3:208-i5. ARENSBURG, B., AND 0. BAR-YOSEF. I973. Human remains from Ein Gev I, Jordan Valley, Israel. Paleorient I:20I-6. ARENSBURG, B., 0. BAR-YOSEF, A. BELFER-COHEN, AND Y. RAK. I990. Mousterian and Aurignacian human remains from Hayonim Cave, Israel. Paleorient i6: I07-9. BAR-YOSEF, O. I983. "The Natufian in the southern Levant," in The hilly flanks and beyond: Essays on the prehistory of southwestern Asia. Edited by T. Cuyler Young, Jr., P. E. L. Smith, and P. Mortensen, pp. II-42. Studies in Ancient Orien- FLANNERY, K. V. I973. "Archaeology with a capital S," in Research and theory in current archaeology. Edited by C. Redman, pp. 47-53. New York: Wiley. GARGETT, R. H. I989. Grave shortcomings: The evidence for Neanderthal burial. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:I57-90. GARRARD, A. N., A. BETTS, AND B. BYRD. I987. Prehistoric environment and settlement in the Azraq Basin: An interim report on the I985 season. Levant I9:5-25. GARROD, D. A. E. I936-37. Notes on some decorated skeletons from the Mesolithic of Palestine. Annual Report of the British School, Athens 37:I23-27. tal Civilization 62. .I957. The Natufian culture: The life and economy of a . I988. "Evidence for Middle Palaeolithic symbolic behav- iour: A cautionary note," in L'homme de NMandertal, vol. 5, La pensee. Edited by 0. Bar-Yosef, pp. ii-i6. Liege: ERAUL. BAR-YOSEF, 0., B. VANDERMEERSCH, B. ARENSBURG, P. GOLDBERG, H. LAVILLE, L. MEIGNEN, E. TCHERNOV, AND Mesolithic people in the Near East. Proceedings of the British Academy 43:2II-27. GARROD, D. A. E., AND D. M. A. BATE. I937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. GILEAD, I. I989. Review of: Les hommes de Mallaha (Eynan), A - M. TI LLI ER. I 986. New data on the origins of modern man Israel, by J. Perrot, D. Ladiray, and 0. Solviers-Massei (Paris: in the Levant. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:63-64. Association Paleorient, i988). Mitekufat Haeven 22:I32-38. BAR-YOSEF, 0., H. LAVILLE, L. MEIGNEN, A-M. TILLIER, B. VANDERMEERSCH, B. ARENSBURG, A. BELFER-COHEN, P. GOLDBERG, Y. RAK, AND E. TCHERNOV,. I988. "La s6pul- ture neandertalienne de Kebara (unite XII)," in L'homme de NMandertal, vol. 5, La pensee. Edited by 0. Bar-Yosef, pp. I7-24. Liege: ERAUL. BAR-YOSEF, 0., D. LIEBERMAN, AND J. SHEA. I990. Com- ment on: Symbolism and modern human origins, by J. M. Lindly and G. A. Clark. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 3I:240-41. BELFER-COHEN, A. I988a. The Natufian settlement at Hayo- GRUN, R., C. B. STRINGER, AND H. P. SCHWARCZ. I99I. ESR dating of teeth from Garrod's Tabiun collection. Journal of Hu- man Evolution I0:23I-48. HARROLD, F. B. I980. A comparative analysis of Euroasian Palaeolithic burials. World Archaeology I2: I95-2II. HENRY, D. O. I989. From foraging to agriculture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. HODDER, I. I986. Reading the past: Current approaches to in- terpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This content downloaded from 192.104.39.2 on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:04:00 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Volume 33, Number 4, August-October 1992 | 47I 1 987. Editor. The archaeology of contextual meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HOVERS, E. 1990. Art in the Levantine Epi-Palaeolithic: An en- graved pebble from a Kebaran site in the Lower Jordan Valley. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 3 I:3 I 7-22. HUNTINGTON, R., AND P. METCALF. I979. Celebrations of death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KAUFMAN, D. I989. "Observations on the Geometric Kebaran: A view from Neve David," in Investigations in South Le- for the hominid burial site of Qafzeh in Israel. Journal of Hu- man Evolution I7:733-37. SCHWARCZ, H. P., W. M. BUHAY, R. GRUN, H. VALLADAS, E. TCHERNOV, 0. BAR-YOSEF, AND B. VANDERMEERSCH. i989. ESR dating of the Neanderthal site, Kebara Cave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science I6:653-59. SMIRNOV, Y. A. I989a. Intentional human burial: Middle Palaeolithic (Last Glaciation) beginnings. Journal of World Pre- history 3:I99-233. vantine prehistory. Edited by 0. Bar-Yosef and B. Vander- meersch, pp. 275-86. British Archaeological Reports Interna- tional Series 497. . I989b. On the evidence for Neandertal burial. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:323-24. SMITH, P., AND B. ARENSBURG. I977. A Mousterian skeleton KOOIJMANS, L. P. L. I989. On the evidence for Neandertal burial. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30 322-23. LEROI-GOURHAN, A. I975. The flowers found with Shanidar from Kebara Cave. Eretz Israel I3:I64-76. SOLECKI, R. I97I. Shanidar: The first flower people. New York: Knopf. IV, a Neanderthal burial in Iraq. Science I90:562-64. LINDLY, J. M., AND G. A. CLARK. I990. Symbolism and mod- ern human origins. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 3I:233-6I. MCCOWN, T. I937. "Mugharet es-Skh-ul: Description and exca- vations," in The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Edited by D. A. E. Garrod and D. Bate, pp. 9I-I07. Oxford: Clarendon Press. MARKS, A. E. I983. "The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transi- tion in the Levant," in Advances in world archaeology, vol. 2. Edited by F. Wendorf and A. E. Close, pp. 5I-98. Orlando: Ac- ademic Press. . i989. On the evidence for Neandertal burial. CURRENT AN- THROPOLOGY 30:324. STEKELIS, M., AND T. YIZRAELI. i963. Excavations at Nahal Oren. Israel Exploration Journal I2:I-I2. STRINGER, C. B. I990. Comment on: Symbolism and modern human origins, by J. M. Lindly and G. A. Clark. CURRENT AN- THROPOLOGY 3I:248-49. STRINGER, C. B., R. GRUN, H. P. SCHWARCZ, AND P. GOLD- BERG. i989. ESR dates for the hominid burial site at es-Skh-ul in Israel. Nature 338:756-58. MARSHACK, A. I989. Evolution of the human capacity: The symbolic evidence. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology SUZUKI, H., AND F. TAKAI. I970. The Amud man and his cave site. Tokyo: University of Tokyo. TILLIER, A-M. i989."Les enfants Proto-Cro-Magnons de Qafzeh 33:I-34. . I990. "Early hominid symbols and evolution of human capacity," in The emergence of modern humans: An archaeo- logical perspective. Edited by P. Mellars, pp. 457-98. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. (Israel) mise au point," in Investigations in South Levantine prehistory. Edited by 0. Bar-Yosef and B. Vandermeersch, pp. 343-5o. British Archaeological Reports International Series 497. .1990. Une controverse depass6e: L'existence de pratiques MELLARS, P., AND J. TIXIER. I989. Radio-carbon accelerator dating of Ksar Akil (Lebanon) and the chronology of the Upper Palaeolithic sequence in the Middle East. Antiquity 63:76I-68. NADEL, D., AND I. HERSHKOVITZ. I99I. New subsistence data and human remains from the earliest Levantine Epipalaeo- lithic. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 32:63I-35. NEUVILLE, R. I95 I. Le Pal6olithique et le Mesolithique du Desert de fud6e. Archives de l'Institut de Pal6ontologie Humaine 24. O'SHEA, J. M. I984. Mortuary variability: An archaeological in- vestigation. Orlando: Academic Press. PERROT, J., D. LADIRAY, AND 0. SOLVIERS-MASSEI. I988. Les hommes de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel. Paris: Association Pal6orient. PRICE, T. D., AND J. A. BROWN. I985. "Aspects of hunter- gatherer complexity," in The emergence of cultural complex- ity. Edited by T. D. Price and J. A. Brown, pp. 3-20. Orlando: Academic Press. RIGHTMIRE, G. P. I984. "Homo sapiens in sub-Saharan Africa," in The origins of modern humans: A world survey of the fossil evidence. Edited by F. Smith and F. Spencer, pp. 295-325. New York: Alan R. Liss. RONEN, A., AND M. LECHEVALLIER. I985. The Natufian- fun6raires au Pal6olithique moyen. Les Nouvelles de L'Archeo- logie 40:22-24. TILLIER, A-M., B. ARENSBURG, Y. RAK, AND B. VANDER- MEERS CH. i988. Les sepultures n6andertaliennes du Proche Orient: Etat de la question. Paleorient I4:I30-34. TRINKAUS, E. i983. The Shanidar Neanderthals. New York: Ac- ademic Press. TURVILLE-PETRE, F. I932. Excavations at the Mugharet al-Ke- barah. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 62:27I-76. VALLADAS, H., J. L. JORON, G. VALLADAS, B. ARENSBURG, 0. BAR-YOSEF, A. BELFER-COHEN, P. GOLDBERG, H. LA- VILLE, L. MEIGNEN, Y. RAK, E. TCHERNOV, A-M. TILLIER, AND B. VANDERMEERSCH. I987. Thermoluminescence dates from the Neanderthal burial site at Kebara in Israel. Nature 330: I 59-60. VALLADAS, H., J. L. REYSS, J. L. JORON, G. VALLADAS, 0. BAR-YOSEF, AND B. VANDERMEERSCH. i988. Thermolumi- nescence dating of Mousterian "Proto-Cro-Magnon" remains from Israel and the origin of modern man. Nature 33i:6I4-I6. VANDERMEERSCH, B. I969. Les nouveaux skelettes moust6- riens d6couverts a Qafzeh (Israel) et leur signification. Comptes Rendus de 1 Academie des Sciences 268:2562-65. Early Neolithic site of Hatula, near Latrun, Israel. Quartdr 35-36:I4I-64. RUSE, M. I988. Philosophy of biology today. Albany: State Uni- I970. Une s6pulture moust6rienne avec offrandes d6cou- verte dans la grotte de Qafzeh. Comptes Rendus Academie des Sciences 270:298-30I. versity of New York Press. SAKURA, H. I970. "State of the skeleton of the Amud man in situ," in The Amud man and his cave site. Edited by H. Su- zuki and F. Takai, pp. II7-22. Tokyo: University of Tokyo. SCHICK, T., AND M. STEKELIS. I977. Mousterian assemblages in Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel. Eretz Israel I3:97*-I49*. SCHWARCZ, H. P., R. GRUN, B. VANDERMEERSCH, 0. BAR- . i98i. Les hommes fossiles de Qafzeh (Israel). Paris: Edi- tions CNRS. VILLA, P. i989. On the evidence for Neanderthal burial. CUR- RENT ANTHROPOLOGY 30:324-26. WEINER, S., AND P. GOLDBERG. I990. On-site Fourier transform-infrared spectrometry at an archaeological excava- tion. Spectroscopy International 2(2):39-42. YOSEF, H. VALLADAS, AND E. TCHERNOV. I988. ESR dates This content downloaded from 192.104.39.2 on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:04:00 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions