Journal of Archaeological Science 69 (2016) 12e20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

Focus article

Let the dead speakcomments on Dibble et al.'s reply to Evidence

supporting an intentional burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints

dric Beauval c, Isabelle Crevecoeur d, Priscilla Bayle d,
William Rendu a, b, *, Ce

raldine Delfour d,
Antoine Balzeau e, Thierry Bismuth f, g, Laurence Bourguignon h, Ge
d
c
re , Xavier Muth i, Sylvain Pasty c,
Jean-Philippe Faivre , Franois Lacrampe-Cuyaube
j
k
Patrick Semal , Carlotta Tavormina , Dominique Todisco l, Alain Turq m, d,
Bruno Maureille d
a

CNRS e New York University, CIRHUS (UMI 3199 CNRS-NYU), 4 Washington Sq N, New York, NY 10003, USA
Department of Anthropology, New York University, 25 Waverly Place, New York, NY 10003, USA
c
Arch

eosph
ere, 2 Rue des Noyers, F-11500 Quirbajou, France
d
Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, MCC, PACEA UMR 5199, F-33400 Talence, France
e

Equipe de Pal

eontologie Humaine, UMR 7194 du CNRS, D

epartement de Pr

ehistoire du Mus

eum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France
f
Minist
ere de la Culture et de la Communication, DRAC-SRA Limousin, 6 Rue Haute de la Com

edie, F-87036 Limoges Cedex, France
g
CNRS, TRACES UMR 5608, Univ. Toulouse Le Mirail, Maison de la Recherche, 5 All

ee A. Machado, F-31058 Toulouse Cedex 9, France
h


INRAP GSO, Les Echoppes,
156 Av. Jean Jaur
es, F-33600 Pessac, France
i
rl, Rue de la gare 7, CH-1091 Grandvaux, Switzerland
Get In Situ Sa
j
Scientic Service Heritage, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, 29 Rue Vautier Brussels, Belgium
k
 de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolucio

Social (IPHES), Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
Institut Catala
l
UMR IDEES 6266, Universit

e de Rouen, D

epartement de G

eographie, Rue Lavoisier, F-76821 Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France
m
Mus

ee National de Pr

ehistoire, 1 Rue du Mus

ee, F-24620 Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 2 February 2015
Received in revised form
23 January 2016
Accepted 26 February 2016
Available online 26 March 2016

In a reply to our paper presenting new evidence supporting an intentional Neanderthal burial at La
ze, France), Dibble et al. (2015) reviewed our data in relation to the original
Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corre
Bouyssonie publications. They conclude that alternative hypotheses can account for the preservation of
the human remains within a pit. Here we present new data from our recent excavations and highlight
several misinterpretations of the Bouyssonie publications, which, when taken together refute most of
their arguments. Moreover, we show that the different hypotheses proposed by Dibble et al. cannot work
together and fail to provide a credible explanation for the deposit, reinforcing our demonstration that the
burial hypothesis remains the most parsimonious explanation for the preservation of the Neanderthal
skeletal material at La Chapelle-aux-Saints.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Neandertal
Burial
Taphonomy
La Chapelle-aux-Saints
Middle Paleolithic
Mousterian
Southwestern France

1. Introduction
New excavations at La Chapelle-aux-Saints (hereafter La Chapelle) focused on collecting new information concerning site formation processes, particularly in terms of shedding light on the

* Corresponding author. CNRS e New York University, CIRHUS (UMI 3199 CNRSNYU), 4 Washington Sq N, New York, NY 10003, USA.
E-mail address: williamrendu@hotmail.fr (W. Rendu).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.02.006
0305-4403/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

nearly complete Neandertal skeleton found in partial anatomical

connection within a layer rich in both lithic and faunal remains
(Bouyssonie et al., 1908a,b, 1913). More specically, our analysis
comprised a two-fold approach incorporating new eldwork
combined with the taphonomic reanalysis of the La Chapelle-auxSaints 1 (LCS 1) skeletal material in order to test the burial hypothesis some hundred years after its original formulation (Beauval
et al., 2007; Rendu et al., 2014). In the original article presenting the
results of our eldwork, we concluded that the pit described in the

W. Rendu et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 69 (2016) 12e20

Bouyssonie publications and re-investigated during our work at the

site was likely of human origin. Additionally, based on the preservation patterns of the human remains, we suggested that the
Neandertal corpse was rapidly protected after its deposition. When
considered in light of the fact that the relatively complete skeleton
included clear anatomical connections, our results argue in favour
of an intentional burial remaining the most parsimonious explanation for the preservation of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1
Neandertal.
Recently, Dibble et al. (2015) reviewed our data based on their
reading of the Bouyssonie publications as well as criteria they
previously established for assessing the Roc-de-Marsal 1 burial
(Sandgathe et al., 2011), concluding that a natural origin for the La
Chapelle deposit is most probable. We welcome Dibble et al.'s
contribution to the debate and share their willingness to keep an
open mind concerning the heavily contested issue of Neanderthal
funerary practices. However, while we adopt an inductive,
contextual approach to evaluate the nature of the deposit, Dibble
et al. choose a different path, arguing that as long as all other hypotheses are not rejected the burial hypothesis remains
unsubstantiated.
For these reasons, it seems essential to address the issues raised
by Dibble et al., providing all the information necessary for researchers to draw their own conclusions on this particular topic.
Our response is organised along the same lines as Dibble et al.'s
reply, analysing their arguments concerning the origin and nature
of the pit, the position of the corpse, the nature of sediment lling
the pit, and potential grave goods. Focussing specic attention on
the criteria mobilised by Dibble et al. and their inadequacy for the
archaeological record, we show that their application would inevitably lead not only to the rejection of any potential Neanderthal
burial but also well-documented burials from both modern and
much more recent prehistoric contexts.
In their paper, Dibble et al. identify three criteria for evaluating
the reliability of a pit in a burial context: 1) the human origin of the
pit should be demonstrated; 2) the body should lie at the bottom of
the feature and 3), the pit ll should be unstratied and easily
distinguishable from the surrounding sediment.
1.1. The pit
The pit documented at La Chapelle during our work at the site is
an elongated feature measuring 140 cm in length, 85 cm in width
and 39 cm in depth, nearly identical to those described by the
Bouyssonies at the end of their excavations (see Bouyssonie et al.,
1908a,b, 1913). Dibble et al. discuss the origin of the pit based on
a comparison of site plans and pit proles from the 1908 Bouyssonie publication with those from our 2014 article. Specically, they
highlight a signicant reduction in the pit's dimensions in one of
the proles. This discrepancy can be explained in two ways. First, as
clearly evident from Fig. 1 of our original publication (Rendu et al.,
2014), the proles were not drawn along the same axis. While we
made ours following the axis of the pit feature, the Bouyssonies
drew theirs following the axis of the cave. As suggested by Dibble
et al., we have provided detailed 3D photogrammetry models of the
cave oor produced at the end of our excavations (https://
sketchfab.com/archeosphere/folders/
5517ce501025484da31775cdf92bc2e1).
Second, several further differences are evident between the
1908 and 2014 site plans. The north orientation of the cave differs
by 43
if they are superimposed following the axis of the cavity or
25
if the edge of the pit is taken into account. The Bouyssonies'
reconstruction of the cave is around 20% smaller compared to our
detailed 3D topographic survey. Furthermore, and as Dibble et al.
themselves point out, the thickness of the sediments is not

13

Fig. 1. Orientation of the proles from Bouyssonie et al., 1908a and Rendu et al., 2014.

consistent in at least one of the proles, suggesting that the 1908

proles should be considered as simple schematic drawings rather
than detailed eld documents. It should also be noted that no
section was excavated in the pit, meaning that the 1908 excavators
never directly observed what is drawn in these illustrations.
Consequently, these different proles should be considered only as
post hoc illustrations.
1.1.1. Origin of the pit
A karstic origin for the pit, as initially suggested by Gargett
(1989), is inconsistent with both the geomorphological context
and evolution of the cavity, leading most researchers (Frayer and
Montet-White, comment to Gargett, 1989; Beauval et al., 2007;
Pettitt, 2011; Rendu et al., 2014), including Dibble et al. (2015), to
reject this possibility. Therefore, three testable hypotheses remain
to explain its origin: 1) a frost-disturbed feature, 2) a bear hibernation nest or 3) the result of anthropogenic activity.
1.1.2. Frost-disturbed features
Frost-disturbed features were identied during our recent excavations (for a complete description see Beauval et al., 2007) and
several similar features were excavated in Boufas 102, 118 and
131e133. Most often characterized by festoons, undulations and
injection structures, the majority of these features are most likely
connected to periglacial involutions (i.e. cryoturbation) formed by
repeated frost action within a seasonally frozen layer (French,
2007). Such periglacial features may have been associated with a
paleo-permafrost active layer altered by periodic deformations and
mechanical stresses possibly related to differential frost heave and/
, 1991; Van Vlietor frost-susceptibility gradients (Van Vliet-Lanoe
et al., 2004). Alternatively, at least some of these features
Lanoe

14

W. Rendu et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 69 (2016) 12e20

These characteristics, as well as the shape, size and spatial

reorganization of the archaeological material, differ considerably
from those found in 1908 when the LCAS 1 skeleton is discovered.
Moreover, the size, geometry and morphology of the pit falls
outside the range recorded for frost-disturbed features identied in
the different cavities of La Chapelle. Taken together, these aspects
provide sound evidence against a periglacial origin for the pit.

Fig. 2. Photo of the cryoturbation feature documented in the Boufa 131e133 in 2007.
The marl appears here in grey.

could be linked with loading (Vandenberghe, 1992, 2007), as

several of the observed features, especially drop structures, clearly
show the downward injection of the overlying sediment into the
marl substrate (Fig. 2). Such features, resulting from supersaturation and soil liquefaction, resemble periglacial loading concomitant
with the thawing of the underlying frozen soil (Vandenberghe,
2007). Evidence consistent with poor drainage conditions and
water-saturated sediments (e.g. vesicular structure, calcite precipitation in voids) is evident in micromorphological samples from
Boufa 118, suggesting signicant loading as a potential postdepositional process.
Archaeological material recovered from features within the
different boufa was found in sediments whose texture and colour
differed signicantly from the marl substrate. Artefacts were oriented vertically and bone surfaces were largely un-weathered, a
pattern that may be linked to either artefacts preserved in
permafrost-affected soil or their post-depositional displacement by
frost heave in a paleo-active layer. Periglacial involutions in the
Boufa Bonneval are evident in the form of archaeological material
trapped in localized cryoturbation features with downward injection structures that cut into the marl substrate. One of these periglacial involutions cut by the pit (stratigraphic unit C5) contained
vertically-oriented reindeer shaft fragments except at its base
where they followed the edge of the cryogenic structure in negrained sediment.

1.1.3. The bear hibernation nest hypothesis

Dibble et al. suggest that the pit might be the product of hibernating bears. However, its dimensions are at the extreme upper
limit of the bear nest variability recorded in the study (Tables 6 and
7 in Fosse et al., 2004) cited by Dibble et al. (Fig. 3). Moreover, the
conformation of the pit lies at the edge of bear structure morphologies (Fig. 3), with a proportionally greater length in relation to
its breadth (Z-score: 0.94502; p < 0,07; n 44), and stands
signicantly outside the known variation of depths for bear nests
(Z-score: 1.29453; p < 0,05; n 44 based on the adjusted Z-score
following Scolan et al., 2012, only nests with specied dimensions
were included).
Apart from the cryoturbation features described above, no intact
archaeological deposits were identied in the vicinity of the pit,
meaning that its depth could only be estimated by measuring its
penetration within the marl. The 2011e2012 excavations documented a cryoturbation feature (SU C5) containing archaeological
material that was cut by the pit feature (Rendu et al., 2014),
demonstrating the previous existence of at least one archaeological
layer when the pit was dug. Therefore, the pit would initially have
been several centimetres deeper, placing it even further outside the
depth range of bear nests reported by Fosse et al. (2004). Nonetheless, in spite of a century's worth of alteration and the pit having
remained exposed several years after its discoveries in 1908 until
backll was spread in the cave, not only do the edges of the pit
appear more vertical than is typical of bear nests (see proles and
3D models) its sub-rectangular morphology is incompatible with
the more oval structures commonly produced by hibernating bears
(Mysterud, 1983).
In a recent paper Camaros et al. (in press) compare the LCAS pit
to a set of cave and brown bear nets from Southwestern France and
Spain. They concluded that while the Bouyssonies' dimensions of
the pit fall out of the variation of bear nets, the ones we published
are compatible with them.
However, instead of using the published dimensions of the pit,
measured on the site, they produce their own measurements by
reanalysing one of our graph and including in the pit edges its

Fig. 3. Depth of the LCAS pit (in red) as a function of its elongation (L/l) compared to the bear nests reported by Fosse et al. (2004). Only nests with precise measurements were used.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

W. Rendu et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 69 (2016) 12e20

15

Fig. 4. Morphology of the Boufa Bonneval and sagittal view as described by the Boyssonies and Bardon, modied from Beauval et al., 2007, after Bouyssonie et al., 1908a and
unpublished documents presented in the Beauval et al. publication.

damaged part (see Camaros et al. in press; SI g S3 and Rendu et al.,

2014, Fig. 2). Our 3D model clearly helps to invalidate their assertions. Indeed, if the proper dimensions are used (whatever are
considered the Bouyssonies or our own measurements), LCAS pit
appears to be out of the recorded variability of cave bear net dimensions, rejecting their arguments and comforting us in our
interpretation.
As further support for the bear nest hypothesis, Dibble et al.
evoke the presence of a second depression discovered in the early
20th century, which they interpret as a second possible nest.
However, its morphology and dimensions are incompatible with
such an interpretation. Unfortunately, the pit described by the
Bouyssonie brothers and Bardon priests (1908a,b, 1909, 1913; see
also Beauval et al., 2007) was not identied during our recent excavations. This small depression measuring 20 by 20 cm (Fig. 4) was
rst drawn on November 15th, 1906 (Beauval et al., 2007) and
 l'entr

subsequently described by the Bouyssonies in 1908 (tout a
ee,
dans une petite fosse creus

ee, semble-t-il, intentionnellement, et sous
des blocs, gisait une corne de grand bovid

e, et, au-dessus ou autour,
^ne et de vert
beaucoup de grands fragments d'os longs, de cra
ebres du
m^
eme animal (un atlas complet, d'apr
es Harl

e) Bouyssonie et al.,
1908a:516. in a small, seemingly intentionally dug pit just at
the entrance of the cave lay a large bovid horn beneath blocks, with
numerous long bone, skull, and vertebrea fragments of the same

).
animal above and below it (a complete atlas according to Harle
(our translation). It is important to note that in this context du
m^
eme animal should be taken as a gure of speech, in this case a
metonymy, with animal meaning species rather than broken elements belonging to the same individual as the rest of their text
makes clear. Importantly, and contrary to Dibble et al.'s assertion,
no elements in the second pit were recorded in anatomical
connection (Bouyssonie et al., 1908a, p. 516).
1.1.4. Anthropogenic origin
Dibble et al. suggest that reliably demonstrating an anthropogenic origin of the pit is insufcient to establish its burial function.
In their view, the pit should be adapted to the size of the body,
which should also be found at its base, since the presence of sediment between the remains and the base indicates some passage of

time between the digging of the pit and the deposition of the hominin
remains (Dibble et al.:651). Basing their observations on one of the
Bouyssonie drawings (1908a,b), they identify a, gap between the
skeleton and the bottom of the depression and also highlight this gap
not to gure in other illustrations. However, the bones were
described as in direct contact with the marl (le reste du corps est
ensuite extrait () du sol compact et humide du fond de la fosse see
Bouyssonie et al., 1908a, p.544. The remains of the body were then
removed () from the compact, humid base of the pit [our translation]). Here it is essential to note that these drawings were made
after the excavations, and, since the Bouyssonies never excavated a
section within the pit, they could not have observed the deposit as
it is drawn. As such, these proles should be considered post-hoc
reconstructions and cannot be used to discuss precise details. On
this point, we agree with Dibble et al.'s conclusion that, these
drawings [are] not reliable sources for providing the level of detail
required for addressing these questions (p. 652), which contradicts
their assertion of a thin level of sediment having existed between
the body and the pit's base depicted in a 1908 drawing.
Concerning the disposition of the individual, while they highlight the inaccuracy of the Bouyssonie illustrations, they nevertheless state that the depression was roughly twice the size of the
individual. Like Gargett (1989, 1999), they nd it surprising that the
Neanderthals dug a pit that was too large for a burial, interpreting
this as evidence against a human origin or, at the very least, that it
was not dug with a burial in mind. According to the Bouyssonie
illustration, a Neandertal in a exed position would have occupied
three-quarters of the pit and not half of it. Unfortunately, the
available data is too limited to discuss the possible t between the
body and pit. Furthermore, excavations of prehistoric, protohistoric
and historic cemeteries have all produced numerous examples of
clearly documented burial pits that are far broader, longer and
deeper than the volume of the body (see examples in Baray and
Boulestin, 2010). Moreover, we disagree with Dibble et al.'s argument that the presence of sediment between the hominin remains
and the base of the pit excludes its funerary function (Garland and
Janaway, 1989; Duday and Guillon, 2006) notwithstanding the
claim that the remains were not at the base of the pit is unsupported by previous publications (Bouyssonie et al., 1908a,b, 1909).

16

W. Rendu et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 69 (2016) 12e20

In terms of the pits origin, there is no direct evidence for bears

having occupied the Boufa Bonneval or any other cavity at La
Chapelle, and the pit dug into the marl substrate does not t with
what we know of bear nests. Numerous occupations within the
cavity are attested by both the lithic artefacts (several hundred
artefacts from the Bouyssonie excavations, 1844 piece plotted objects from our excavations as well as thousands of pieces smaller
than 3 cm), and substantial faunal material (e.g. an MNI of 20
reindeer and 23 bovinea from the heavily biased Bouyssonie material, Beauval et al., 2007) alongside deciduous Neanderthal teeth
lost ante mortem. These elements combined with the fact that
Neandertal pits in archaeological records have already been identied (e.g. Kebara 2: Arensburg et al., 1985; Tillier et al., 1991;
Pettitt, 2011), make the pit's human origin largely more probable.
1.1.5. The pit ll
Dibble et al. suggest that if the Neanderthals were responsible
for the feature dug into the substrate they probably would have
removed a signicant volume of marl and then reused it to ll the
pit. Consequently, they argue that, the ll sediment would undoubtedly have included a large quantity of marl (Dibble et al., 2015:
652) and would have been easily identied by the original excavators. However, although the Bouyssonies state having identied
the summit of a depression even before excavating it (Bouyssonie
et al., 1908a), most evidence points to a rapid excavation of the
burial, as well as a large portion of the cavity, strongly suggesting
that they were unable to identify slight sedimentary variations,
including colour, structure and texture. All the Neandertal bones
exhibit recent breaks and, while several archaeological layers were
present in the cavity, only one was recognized. As pointed out by
Gargett (1999), it is impossible to distinguish any differences between the sedimentary facies in the Bouyssonie proles. Dibble
et al. (2015:652) do recognize, that prole drawings by the original
excavators may be overly schematic and that multiple stratigraphic
units could have been present that were either not recognized or
simply ignored This once again highlights the inadequacy of the
Bouyssonie proles for arguments concerning the nature of the pit
ll.
1.1.6. A rapid burial of the corpse
Dibble et al. assert that the likelihood of a rapid burial of the
body is based primarily on the fact that, the skeletal remains are
complete, articulated, and well-preserved, concentrating their
criticisms on the two latter aspects. However, in our opinion, the
very fact that the well-preserved remains were found in
anatomical connection indicates two different depositional histories for the ll of the pit and surrounding sediments. Contrary to
what Dibble et al. repeat several times in their paper, the only
remains in anatomical connection were found within the burial
pit and not in the second pit (Bouyssonie et al., 1908a,b, 1913).
Thus the relative low disturbance of the deposit (Dibble et al.,
2015, p. 652) holds true only for the burial, which does not, fall
within the range of evidence seen for other faunal elements at the
site (Dibble et al., 2015:652).
To explain the fact that the Neanderthal skeleton preserved
anatomical connections, Dibble et al. suggest that it didn't necessarily require protection to avoid being disturbed, including by
scavengers. They argue instead that the frequency of intact carcasses in a given region is linked to different factors such as
carnivore density, prey and carcass density, seasonality. They
conclude: such a scenario seems possible () in particular in the La
Chapelle case (Dibble et al., 2015: 653) However, they fail to
mention that the La Chapelle site produced penecontemporaneous
carnivore dens only several metres away from the Boufa Bonneval.
Moreover, every stratigraphic unit of the various cavities at La

Fig. 5. The cranio-facial block, as it was when discovered (Bouyssonie et al., 1909,
p.12).

Chapelle contain evidence for carnivore activity, even if moderate

(see Beauval et al., 2007 for a synthesis). As they themselves point
out, even the Boufa Bonneval faunal assemblage exhibits traces of
a carnivore presence. However, they suggest that, with such limited
carnivore activity, it is not at all certain that the Neandertal body
needed to have been covered with sediment to avoid being scavenged
(Dibble et al., 2015:653), implying there was probably enough to eat
from the animal remains. It is, however, tempting to turn their
argument on its head; butchered and fragmented animal bones
were certainly less interesting for carnivores than a complete and
articulated body.
It is difcult to explain the preservation and integrity of labile
articulations without the corpse being buried before decomposition (Duday and Guillon, 2006; Duday et al., 2009). Articulations do
not decompose in a uniform fashion, for example, labile connections, like those of the cervical spine, disarticulate quickly (Duday
et al., 2009). This pattern is particularly important as the original
excavators describe several still intact cervical articulations
(Bouyssonie et al., 1908a, 1909) which are visible in photos taken
shortly after the discovery (Fig. 5).
The second argument rejected by Dibble et al. as support for the
intentional burial of the La Chapelle 1 individual is the differential
preservation of the human remains compared to the associated
faunal assemblage. They correctly point out that a corpse with its
skin and esh still intact will probably exhibit a different taphonomic pattern compared to butchered animal bones. While we
agree with this likelihood, if the body had not been covered with
sediment a similar pattern to that observed for bears who die in
hibernation should be expected. The bones of bears who die during
hibernation exhibit altered cortical bone surfaces in the form of, for
example, rodent gnawing, carnivore toothmarks, polishing due to
 sec) or light weathering (e.g. Koby, 1943;
dry transport (charriage a
Andrews and Turner, 1992; Stiner et al., 1998). This is not the case
with the LCS 1 skeletal material. They also suggest that the differences between the two sets of bones to be less clear than we
described.
However, our taphonomic analysis following the protocol
described in Rendu et al. (2014) of all the archaeological material
found in primary position during both Bouyssonies and our recent
excavations shows clear differences between the faunal material
and Neandertal remains (Table 1 and see Fig. 6 for their provenance). Weathered bones are extremely common (35% of the
bones) in the Bouyssonie faunal material, as are smoothed bones
(21.6%) and cryogenic modications (17.4%) in the form of ssures
of the cortical thickness (Guadelli and Ozouf, 1994; Guadelli, 2008),
while they are absent from the human remains. This pattern once

W. Rendu et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 69 (2016) 12e20

17

Table 1
Taphonomic analysis of the Bouyssonie and recent collections. NRa Number of analysed remains. For the methodology used see Rendu et al., 2014. (C4: in situ deposit at the
entrance of the cavity unexcavated by the Bouyssonies; C2sup: different cryoturbation features from S72, T72, U72 and V75 containing archaeological remains; C5: the
cryoturbation feature cut by the pit in U73 e the exact position of the remains can be found in Rendu et al., 2014; material from C5 not included in the previous publication has
been added to increase the sample size and present all available data; artefacts from the backdirt are not included).
Collections

Assemblages

Nra

Bouyssonie

LCS 1
Total Fauna
Bovine
Reindeer
C4
C2SUP
C5

77
1841
915
529
658
133
35

Recent excavation

Exfoliation

Cryogenic
modications
(Guadelli, 2008)

Smoothed bones

NR

%NR

NR

%NR

NR

%NR

0
642
241
243
100
28
7

0%
34.90%
26.30%
45.90%
15.20%
21.05%
20%

0
349
159
116
66
10
3

0%
19.00%
17.40%
21.90%
10.00%
7.52%
8.50%

0
481
180
196
22
7
1

0%
26.10%
19.70%
37.10%
3.30%
5.26%
2.80%

again reinforces the likelihood of the human remains having been

rapidly buried and protected from alterations.

1.1.7. Grave goods

The last point in Dibble et al.'s reply concerns the lack of ritual
and or symbolic evidence associated with the burial. While the
Bouyssonie et al., (1908a,b, 1913) described bones and lithics in the
pit, which that they interpreted as grave goods, most scholars reject
this (i.e. Gargett, 1989; Klein, 1999; Pettitt, 2002, 2011; Rendu et al.,

2014), arguing that other explanations can explain their presence.

However, it is not clear in Dibble et al.'s (2015) discussion if the
absence of identied ritual evidence constitutes for them the proof
of its absence. If any such grave goods were associated with the
burial, they likely had very little chance of being identied as such.
Firstly, they would have had to be made of non-perishable material
and secondly they would have had to be collected and recognized
by the excavators, which would have been complicated, since the
latter only recognized that they were dealing with a burial after
having partially excavated the pit (see also arguments in BelferCohen and Hovers, 1992). Consequently, this criterion should be
rejected and excluded from discussions of the La Chapelle Neandertal burial.
2. Discussion
The richness and the diversity of Neandertal mortuary practices
and their implications for the cognitive capacities of these populations have largely been documented (Akasawa et al., 2002;
Deeur, 1993; Tillier, 1995; Maureille and Vandermeersch, 2007;
Maureille and Tillier, 2008; Pettitt, 2002, 2011; Tillier, 1995;
2009; Vandermeersch, 1976, 1995) and debated (Gargett, 1989,
1999 contra Tillier, 1990; Pettitt, 2011; Hovers and Belfer-Cohen,
2013; Hovers et al., 2000). Several researchers have established
their own analytical criteria to determine whether the preservation
of human skeletal material could result from intentional burial (e.g.
Gargett, 1999; Pettitt, 2002). When Dibble et al. applied their
criteria to the La Chapelle evidence, they raised several criticisms of
our interpretation of the site (Table 2 summarises their arguments
alongside our counter arguments).
We have shown that most of Dibble et al.'s criticisms are
refutable, as they seem to be primarily due to misunderstandings
(e.g. the dimension of both pits or anatomical connections) or misor over-interpretations of the less than precise Bouyssonie publications. Several counterarguments refute Dibble et al.'s approach,
and their criticisms are largely based on documents whose accuracy they themselves contest. On the other hand, they fail to
consider information in the Bouyssonie publications, such as the
dimension of the pit or the position of the skeleton in its base.
2.1. Criteria for assessing potential burials

Fig. 6. Distribution of the archaeological material. Red: in situ. Grey: material in secondary position. Modied from Rendu et al., 2014. (C4: in situ deposit at the entrance
of the cavity unexcavated by the Bouyssonies; C2sup: different cryoturbation features
from S72, T72, U72 and V75 containing archaeological remains; C5: the cryoturbation
feature cut by the pit in U73 e the exact position of the remains can be found in Rendu
et al., 2014). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

The criteria advanced by Dibble et al. (2015) for establishing an

intentional burial appear largely questionable. These criteria can be
summarized as 1) the origin of the pit, 2) its initial purpose, 3) the
completeness of the skeleton and its anatomical articulation, 4)
proof that the corpse was intentionally covered by sediment and 5),
some evidence of ritual.

18

W. Rendu et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 69 (2016) 12e20

Table 2
Comparison of Dibble et al.'s arguments (quoted from their discussion section) and our counterarguments. In grey: elements from the Bouyssonie publication, modied,
overlooked, or over-interpreted by Dibble et al.
Dibble et al. (2015, p. 655) arguments quoted from their discussion section

Counterargument







 The depression is much larger than necessary to contain the body, and yet the head of 
the individual appears to be leaning up against the side of it rather than contained 
fully inside of it;
 It is not certain that the body was found situated at the base of the depression;



 It is not at all clear that the depression was made by hominins, and given that its
morphology and placement in the cave is consistent with brown bear hibernation
nests, this possibility remains as the most parsimonious interpretation;
 There is no distinctive ll deposit, although the composition of the excavated marl
would have made such an inll easy to recognize, even for amateur archaeologists;

 There was at least one other, albeit smaller, depression found at the site, which 
contained some articulated bison remains but no hominin remains;


 Although the Neandertal skeleton is relatively complete and found largely in
anatomical connection, other faunal elements within the site were also articulated;
 While it appears that the Neandertal bones were better preserved than the other
faunal remains from the site, we can expect a body with intact esh to preserve
differently from butchered prey remains;
 The faunal data available to show differential preservation come from all over the site
without regard to their original location, and therefore we cannot expect them all to
have had comparable post-depositional histories, especially when compared to the
spatially localized Neandertal skeleton;
 At best the statistical tests used to demonstrate a difference between the Neandertal
skeleton and the faunal show only weak relationships;
 The fact that the Neandertal skeleton was in a depression (whether or not placed their
intentionally) may have afforded it some protection against disturbance, as it did for
the articulated bison remains found in a smaller depression;




Not supported by the data.

Morphometry of the pit inconsistent with bear nests.
No evidence of bear occupation in the cavity.
Observations based on a graph, whose accuracy is rejected by Dibble et al.
Opposite description in Bouyssonie et al., 1908a
1908 eld methods inappropriate to make such an observation possible.
Observations based on a graph, whose accuracy is rejected by Dibble et al.
The pit is not as large as Dibble et al. mention: the corpse covers three-quarters of
the surface of the pit not half.
Observations based on a graph, whose accuracy is rejected by Dibble et al.
Argument rejected by the Bouyssonie publication.
Argument inconsistent with known archaeological contexts (e.g the Mesolithic
skull deposits at Hohlenstein-Stadel)
Partially mentioned in publications and eld reports, Beauval et al., 2007
The Bouyssonies clearly describe some fragmented bones and never make any
allusion to articulated bones.
The articulated remains found in another depression are a misinterpretation of
Dibble et al.
According to the Bouyssonies, the only articulated remains were found associated
with the skeleton.
We agree with the remark of the authors.

 We have provided additional information clarifying the taphonomic pattern of the

remains found in primary position.

 New data present here reinforces our initial interpretation, see Table 2.

 Once again, the articulated remains found in another depression are a

misinterpretation of Dibble at al.
 We agree with the fact that the corpse, once placed in a depression, was
theoretically afforded better protection. However, as the head of the Neandertal
is in an unbalanced position, the depression is insufcient to preserve fragile joints
 Finally, there is nothing extraordinary associated with the remains that might serve as  Although Bouyssonie et al. suggested the presence of grave goods, there is no way
evidence for any sort of ritual surrounding the deposition of the body.
to prove this was the case.

The rst major point of contention concerning Dibble et al.'s

criteria is that they have not been tested on any known burial or
funeral deposit (the same criticisms were raised by Belfer-Cohen
and Hovers (1992) to counter arguments against a Middle Palaeolithic Levantine burial). Moreover, their strict application would
inevitably lead to rejecting many well-documented burial deposits
as none of the criteria outlined below appear to be systematically
present in funerary contexts.

buried in topsoil or sandy sediments (e.g. Maureille and Van

Peer, 1998).
 Dibble et al.'s requirement of some form of ritual evidence is
quite surprising. Most funerary practices do not leave any kind
of material (culture) evidence and, even if these practices did
involve material elements, they would need to be of a nonperishable nature as well as being readily recognizable as the
physical expression of a symbolic thought.

 As discussed in our original paper, natural pits were in fact used

for burial (e.g. the Gravettian funerary complex of Cussac,
Aujoulat et al., 2002). This argument was also raised by Pettitt
(2011:102) against Gargett's criteria.
 Similarly the re-use of previous anthropogenic structures is in
fact far from rare in the archaeological record. For instance,
burials in defencive ditches or storage pits in the European
Neolithic and Protohistoric period is extremely common (e.g.
Bradley, 2005).
 The completeness of the skeleton is not a validcriterion for
cremation deposits or secondary burials (e.g. Mesolithic Burial

e Triancourt, Ducrocq and Ketterer, 1995;
F4 at La Chausse
Neolithic site of Colmar Aerodrome, Lefranc et al., 2012).
 The nature of the pit ll is not a sound argument as pit edges
are not always clearly identiable (e.g. Amud VII, Hovers et al.,
2000). Moreover, depending on the stratigraphic context and
the degree of textural and structural homogeneity of the
(natural) substrate, the pit ll can be composed of sediments
that more or less resemble those surrounding the pit. For
example, it is difcult to identify graves when bodies are

One of the many problems these criteria raise is the adoption of

an exclusive approach. Dibble et al. claim that before we can accept
an intentional burial, every other explanation has to be rst
rejected. In archaeological contexts, this position appears complicated to defend given that we have only partial records of the
phenomena at play and we often lack a complete understanding of
taphonomic agents, leading to questions of equinality. That is why,
instead of an exclusive approach, a most parsimonious one is
generally preferred. This can be better explained by considering
Dibble et al.'s argument concerning the pit ll. While they cannot
reject its human origin, they argue that other hypotheses can be
advanced and also suggest that the corpse remained exposed over a
substantial duration. However, they fail to explain and evaluate the
reliability of their own hypothesis. For instance, how do they
explain the preservation of labile anatomical articulations? Even
more difcult to explain is the fact that the ll of the pit was rich in
archaeological material. This would imply that other human groups
entered the cavity without disturbing the skeleton (e.g. by trampling) and discarded their waste on the corpse without disturbing
the position of the skeleton. As Hovers et al. (2000) already stressed

W. Rendu et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 69 (2016) 12e20

for the case of Amud VII, anatomical connections are unlikely to be

preserved without protection while the site was still or subsequently occupied.
Dibble et al.'s refutation of the La Chapelle 1 burial proposes a
succession of alternative explanations that, when considered
together, lead to a highly complex site formation process. In their
model, numerous Mousterian groups would have occupied the
cavity and at some point at least one bear hibernated leaving
behind the hypothetical nest. A short time after, a Neandertal
would have entered the pit (or any previous micro-topographical
depression if not a bear nest) to die. The sediment would then
have progressively covered the body without disturbing it,
including the cervical vertebrae holding the skull against the pit's
edge, or the bison and reindeer remains still in anatomical
connection. This burial would have been sufciently fast as to avoid
any kind of alteration or weathering of the cortical surfaces and of
sufciently low energy to preserve the fragile labile articulations.
Moreover, the carnivores inhabiting the cliff would not have
entered the cavity before the corpse had been completely covered.
This scenario seems considerably less parsimonious than the
intentional burial hypothesis. Furthermore, a late Neanderthal
burial at the end of the Middle Palaeolithic of southwestern Europe
does not seem incompatible with what we know of the cognitive
capacities of these populations as underscored by the development
of complex reduction sequences, the gathering of bird feathers,
coloured shells (Zilhao et al., 2010; Peresani et al., 2011, 2013), the
use of pigments (Soressi and d'Errico, 2007), the development of
standardized bone tools (Soressi et al., 2013) and possible engravings (Rodrigez-Vidal et al., 2014).
A nal criticism concerns methodology. Dibble et al. argue that
specic criteria have to be established in order to study the Middle
Palaeolithic (see counter arguments in Belfer-Cohen and Hovers,
1992) and rightfully question the behavioural modernity of the
Neandertals (although the concept of modernity remains widely
and heavily debated). However, if we approach anatomically
modern and Neanderthal populations with two different sets of
criteria we will inevitably arrive at different conclusions (see Villa
and Roebroeks, 2014 for a discussion). It therefore appears
strange that in their comparison of Neanderthal behaviour with
modern human culture in the context of the Middle-to-Upper
Palaeolithic transition, they do not also question the cultural capacities of Proto-Aurignacian or Early Aurignacian societies to bury
their dead, as no burial has ever been found in a European Early
Upper Palaeolithic context. In the end, we agree with Hovers and
Belfer-Cohen (2013:633) that, Arguments for intentional burial
should be tested inductively, on a contextual basis, rather than through
a deductive, theory-driven process.
Acknowledgements
We thank the editor and the reviewer for their comments on our
paper. We are also grateful to Erella Hovers for her useful advice on
a previous version of this manuscript and Joao Zilhao, Lars Anderson and Randall White for helpful comments on the original paper
we submitted to the PNAS. This work was supported by the French

osphe
re company (Quirbajou), the
ministry of Culture, the Arche
research laboratories of TRACES (Toulouse) and PACEA (Bordeaux),
the UMI-3199 CIRHUS (CNRS-NYU), the municipality of La

de
Chapelle-aux-Saints and its inhabitants, and the Communaute
communes du Sud Correzien. We are also grateful to Fanny Chenal
for providing references for Neolithic burial contexts. WR was
funded by the Fyssen Foundation and supported by the University
of Michigan during part of the project. A portion of this research

Mo e
was carried out as part of a collaborative research project Ne
 la mort (dirs. J.-P Faivre, C. Lahaye & B. Maureille)
Neandertal face a

19

supported by the LaScArBx, research program of the ANR (ANR-10LABX-52). Finally, we are very grateful to Mrs. Bouyt, Decoux and
Levet and Mr. Darnis, owners of the site, and Martine Fabioux, head
of the Limousin regional archaeological service.
References
Akasawa, T., Muhesen, S., Kondo, O., Dodo, Y., Yoneda, M., Griggo, C., Ishida, H., 2002.
Neanderthal burial of the Dederiyeh cave. In: Akasawa, T., Muhesen, S. (Eds.),
Neandertal Burials: Excavation of the Dederiyeh Cave. Afrin, Syria. Studies in
Honour of Hisashi Suzuki. International Research Center for Japanese Studies,
Kyoto, pp. 75e90.
Andrews, P., Turner, A., 1992. Life and death of the Westbury bears. Ann. Zool. Fenn.
28 (3e4), 139e149.
Arensburg, B., Bar Yosef, O., Chech, M., Goldberg, P., Laville, H., Meignen, L., Rak, Y.,

pulture mouste

riTchernov, E., Tillier, A.-M., Vandermeersch, B., 1985. Une se

bara (Israe
l). C. r. Acad. Sc. 300 (II), 227e230.
enne dans la grotte de Ke
Aujoulat, N., Geneste, J.M., Archambeau, C., Delluc, M., Duday, H., Henry
e de Cussac-Le Buisson-de-Cadouin (DorGambier, D., 2002. La grotte orne
res observations. Bull. Soc. Prehist. Franc. 99 (1), 129e137.
dogne): premie

pultures bizarres. Les de

po
^ts
Baray, L., Boulestin, B., 2010. Morts anormaux et se

olithique a
 l'Age du Fer. Collechumains en fosses circulaires et en silos du Ne

ologie et Patrimoine. Editions Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon,
tion Art, Arche
p. 234.
Beauval, C., Bismuth, T., Bruxelles, L., Mallye, J.-B., Berthet, A.-L., 2007. La Chapellecle de recherche. In: Evin, J. (Ed.), Un sie
cle de
aux-Saints: 1905-2004. Un sie

histoire, Congre
s Pre

historique de
construction du discours scientique en Pre
France, Avignon, pp. 197e214.
Belfer-Cohen, A., Hovers, E., 1992. In the eye of the beholder: Mousterian and
Natuan burials in the Levant. Curr. Anthropol. 33 (4), 463e471.

couverte d'un squelette humain
Bouyssonie, A., Bouyssonie, J., Bardon, L., 1908a. De

rien a
 la boufa de La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corre
ze). L'Anthropologie
mouste
19, 513e518.

cembre 1908b. De

couverte d'un
Bouyssonie, A., Bouyssonie, J., Bardon, L., 21 de

rien a
 La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corre
ze). Comptes
squelette humain mouste

mie des Sciences, C.R 1414e1415.
Rendus de l'Acade

pulture mouste

rienne de LaBouyssonie, A., Bouyssonie, J., Bardon, L., 1909. La se
Chapelle-aux-Saints. Le Cosmos 1275, 10e14.

rienne de la
Bouyssonie, A., Bouyssonie, J., Bardon, L., 1913. La Station mouste
boufa Bonneval 
a La Chapelle-aux-Saints. L'Anthropologie 24, 609e634.
Bradley, R., 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. Routledge, p. 256.
Camaros, E., Cueto, M., Teira, L., Mnzel, S.C., Plassard, F., Arias, P., Rivals, R., 2015.
Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications concerning the study of Neanderthal behavior. Quat. Int. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.quaint.2015.11.027.

pultures Mouste

riennes. CNRS e

d., Paris, p. 325.
Deeur, A., 1993. Les Se
Dibble, H.L., Aldeias, V., Goldberg, P., McPherron, S.P., Sandgathe, D., Steele, T.E.,
2015. A critical look at evidence from La Chapelle-aux-Saints supporting an
intentional Neandertal burial. J. Archaeol. Sci. 53, 649e657. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jas.2014.04.019.

solithique du Petit Marais, La
Ducrocq, T., Ketterer, I., 1995. Le gisement me

e-Tirancourt (Somme). Bull. Soc. Prehist. Franc. 92 (2), 249e260.
Chausse
Duday, H., Cipriani, A.M., Pearce, J., 2009. The Archaeology of the Dead. Lectures in
Archaeothanatology Oxbow Books, Oxford, p. 155.
Duday, H., Guillon, M., 2006. Understanding the circumstances of decomposition
when the body is skeletonized. In: Sschmitt, A., Cunha, E., Pinheiro, J. (Eds.),
Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary Sciences from Recovery
to Cause of Death. Humana Press Inc., Totowa, pp. 117e157.
Fosse, P., Besson, J.-P., Laborde, H., Thomas-Cantie, F., Cazenave, G., Delmasure, M.C.,
Leveque, T., Laudet, F., Quiles, J., 2004. Denning behaviour of modern brown
bear (Ursus arctos, L.) in Caves: biological and paleontological considerations
from French Pyrenean sites. In: Cahier des Sciences du Museum d'Histoire
Naturelle de Lyon, vol. 2, pp. 171e182.
French, H.M., 2007. The Periglacial Environment, third ed. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, p. 458.
Gargett, R.H., 1989. Grave shortcomings. Curr. Anthropol. 30 (2), 157e191.
Gargett, R.H., 1999. Middle Palaeolithic burial is not a dead issue: the view from

saire, Kebara, Amud, and Dederiyeh. J. Hum. Evol. 37, 27e90.
Qafzeh, Saint-Ce
Garland, A.N., Janaway, R.C., 1989. The taphonomy of inhumation burials. In:
Roberts, C.A., Lee, F., Bintliff, J. (Eds.), Burial Archaeology: Current Research,
Methods and Developments, pp. 15e37.

lifraction des restes fauniques expe

rimentation et transfert
Guadelli, J.L., 2008. La ge

ontologie 94, 121e165.
au fossile. Ann. Pale

rimentales de l'action du gel sur les restes
Guadelli, J.L., Ozouf, J.C., 1994. Etudes expe

sultats: actions climatique et e

daphique. Artefacts 9,
fauniques: premiers re
47e56.
Hovers, E., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2013. Insights into early mortuary practices of Homo.
In: Tarlow, S., Nilsson-Stutz, L. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology
of Death and Burial. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 631e642.
Hovers, E., Kimbel, W.H., Rak, Y., 2000. The Amud 7 skeleton e still a burial.
Response to Gargett. J. Hum. Evol. 39, 253e260.
Klein, R.G., 1999. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins,
2dedition. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

20

W. Rendu et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 69 (2016) 12e20

olithique alpin et le
Koby, F.E., 1943. Les soi-disant instruments osseux du pale
 sec des os d'ours des cavernes. Verhandlungen der Naturcharriage a
forschenden Gesellschaft Basel 54, 59e94.
Lefranc, P., Arbogast, R.M., Chenal, F., Hildbrand, E., Merkl, M., Strahm, C., Van
rle, M., 2012. Inhumations, de

po
^ts d'animaux et perles en cuivre
Willigen, S., Wo

naire sur le site Ne

olithique de

cent de Colmar Ae

rodrome (Hautdu IVe mille
Rhin). Bull. Soc. Prehist. Franc. 109 (4), 689e730.

partition ge

ographique et chronologique des
Maureille, B., Tillier, A.-M., 2008. Re

pultures ne

andertaliennes. In: Vandermeersch, B., Cleyet-Merle, J.-J.,
se
re humanite

, gestes fune

raires
Jaubert, J., Maureille, B., et Turq, A. (Eds.), Premie

andertaliens. Re

union des Muse

es Nationaux, Paris, pp. 66e74.
des Ne

pultures ne

andertaliennes. In, VanMaureille, B., Vandermeersch, B., 2007. Les se

andertaliens, biologie et cultures.
dermeersch B. and Maureille B. In: Les Ne

historiques 23, Paris: C.T.H.S, pp. 311e322.
Documents pre

e peu connue sur la se

pulture du
Maureille, B., et Van Peer, Ph, 1998. Une donne
premier adulte de La Ferrassie (Savignac-de-Miremont, Dordogne). Paleo (10),
291e302.
Mysterud, I., 1983. Characteristics of summer beds of European brown bears in
Norway. In: Bears: Their Biology and Management Vol. 5, a Selection of Papers
from the Fifth International Conference on Bear Research and Management,
Madison, Wisconsin, USA, February 1980 (1983), pp. 208e222.
Peresani, M., Fiore, I., Gala, M., Romandini, M., Tagliacozzo, A., 2011. Late Neandertals and the intentional removal of feathers as evidenced from bird bone
taphonomy at Fumane Cave 44 ky B.P., Italy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108,
3888e3893.
Peresani, M., Vanhaeren, M., Quaggiotto, E., Queffelec, A., d'Errico, F., 2013. An
Ochered fossil marine shell from the Mousterian of Fumane cave, Italy. PLoS
One 8.
Pettitt, P., 2011. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. Routledge, London, p. 307.
Pettitt, P.B., 2002. The Neanderthal dead: exploring mortuary variability in Middle
Palaeolithic Eurasia. Before Farming 4, 1e26.
Rendu, W., Beauval, C., Crevecoeur, I., Bayle, P., Balzeau, A., Bismuth, T.,
re, F., Tavormina, C.,
Bourguignon, L., Delfour, G., Faivre, J.-P., Lacrampe-Cuyaube
Todisco, D., Turq, A., Maureille, B., 2014. Evidence supporting an intentional
Neandertal burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Correze, France). Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. 111, 81e86.
Rodriguez-Vidal, J., d'Errico, F., Pacheco, F.G., Blasco, R., Rosell, j., Jenning, s R.P.,
Queffelec, A., Finlayson, G., Fa, D.A., Gutierrez-Lopez, J.M., Carrion, J.S., Negro, J.J.,
Finlayson, S., Caceres, L.M., Bernal, M.A., Jimene, S.F., Finlayson, C., 2014. A rock
engraving made by Neanderthals in Gibraltar. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111,
13301e13306.
Sandgathe, D.M., Dibble, H.L., Goldberg, P., McPherron, S.P., 2011. The Roc de Marsal
Neandertal child: a reassessment of its status as a deliberate burial. J. Hum. Evol.
61, 243e253.
Scolan, H., Santos, F., Tillier, A.-M., Maureille, B., Quintard, A., 2012. Des nouveaux

anderthaliens a
 Las Pe

le

nos (Monsempron-Libos, Lot-et-Garonne,
vestiges ne

m. Soc. Anthropol. Paris 24, 69e9.
France). Bull. Me
Soressi, M., d'Errico, F., 2007. Pigments, gravures, parures: Les comportements

s des Ne

andertaliens. In: Vandermeersch, B.,
symboliques controverse

andertaliens. Biologie et cultures. Edition du CTHS,

Maureille, B. (Eds.), Les Ne

historiques 23), Paris, pp. 297e309.
(Documents Pre
Soressi, M., McPherron, S., Lenoir, M., Dogandzic, T., Goldberg, P., Jacobs, Z.,
Maigrot, Y., Martisius, N.L., Miller, C.E., Rendu, W., Richards, M., Skinner, M.M.,
Steele, T.E., Talamo, S., Texier, J.-P., 2013. Neandertals made the rst specialized
bone tools in Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 14186e14190.
Stiner, M.C., Achyuthan, H., Arsebk, G., Howell, F.C., Josephson, S.C., Juell, K.E.,
Pigati, J., Quade, J., 1998. Reconstructing cave bear paleoecology from skeletons:
across-disciplinary study of middle Pleistocene bears from Yarimburgaz Cave,
Turkey. Paleobiology 24 (1), 74e98.

passe

e l'existence de pratiques fune

raires au
Tillier, A.-M., 1990. Une controverse de

olithique moyen. Nouv. l'Arche

ologie 40, 22e24.
Pale

oanthropologie et arche

ologie fune

raire au Levant
Tillier, A.-M., 1995. Pale

diterrane

en durant le Pale

olithique moyen. Le cas des sujets non adultes.
me

orient 21 (2), 63e76.
Pale

pulture durant la
Tillier, A.-M., 2009. L'Homme et la mort. L'invention de la se

histoire. CNRS Edition, Paris, p. 168.
pre
Tillier, A.-M., Arensburg, B., Vandermeersch, B., Rak, Y., 1991. In: Bar-Yosef, O.,

rien de Ke

bara 2. CNRS Edition,
Vandermeersch, B. (Eds.), Le squelette mouste
Paris, pp. 89e95.
Vandenberghe, J., 2007. Cryoturbation structures. In: Elias, S.A. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia
of Quaternary Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 2147e2153.
Vandenberghe, J., 1992. Cryoturbations: a sediment structural analysis. Permafr.
Periglac. Process. 3, 343e352.

pultures ne

andertaliennes. In: de Lumley, H. (Ed.), La
Vandermeersch, B., 1976. Les se

histoire Franaise, Tome I, 1. CNRS Edition, Paris, pp. 725e727.
Pre
me des premie
res se

pultures. In: Cros, J.-P.,
Vandermeersch, B., 1995. Le proble

, Pre

sent, Conditionnel. GVEP, La Roche-surLarge, J.-M. (Eds.), La Mort , Passe
Yon, pp. 17e23.
, B., 1991. Differencial frost heave, load casting and convection:
VanVliet-Lanoe
converging mechanisms ; a discussion of the origin of cryoturbations. Permafr.
Periglac. Process. 2, 123e139.
, B., Magy Ary, A., Mei Lliez, F., 2004. Distinguish between tectonic
Van Vliet eLanoe
and periglacial deformations of quaternary continental deposits in Europe.
Glob. Planet. Change 43, 103e127.
Villa, P., Roebroeks, W., 2014. Neandertal Demise: an archaeological analysis of the
modern human superiority complex. PLoS ONE 9 (4), e96424. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0096424.
~o, J., Angelucci, D.E., Badal-Garca, E., D'Errico, F., Daniel, F., Dayet, L., Douka, K.,
Zilha

nchez, M.J., Montes-Berna

rdez, R., MurciaHigham, T.F.G., Martnez-Sa

s, S., Pe

rez-Sirvent, C., Rold

Mascaro
an-Garca, C., Vanhaeren, M., Villaverde, V.,
Wood, R., Zapata, J., 2010. Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments
by Iberian Neandertals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 1023e1028.

Website:
https://sketchfab.com/archeosphere/folders/5517ce501025484da31775cdf92bc2e1
last access: January the 30th 2015.