Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Focus article
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.
13
Fig. 1. Orientation of the proles from Bouyssonie et al., 1908a and Rendu et al., 2014.
14
Fig. 2. Photo of the cryoturbation feature documented in the Boufa 131e133 in 2007.
The marl appears here in grey.
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.)
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.
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
Fig. 5. The cranio-facial block, as it was when discovered (Bouyssonie et al., 1909,
p.12).
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%
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.)
18
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;
New data present here reinforces our initial interpretation, see Table 2.
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., Henrye 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
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
Website:
https://sketchfab.com/archeosphere/folders/5517ce501025484da31775cdf92bc2e1
last access: January the 30th 2015.