Regourdou Redux, All Over Again.

Obi-Wan Kenobi was using a little Force-ful mind control there. Effective, in a fiction. But, in reality, I can't help thinking there's a history of transgenerational mind control in paleoanthropology. How else to explain the persistent fiction that Middle Paleolithic hominids buried their dead?

Everyone knows that to "assume" often results in making asses out of all who make an unwarranted assumption. That's why I'm forced to conclude that many of my peers are, to put it in the vernacular, inadvertent asses. Another way of putting it is that they "drank the Kool-Aid," and are therefore physically incapable of making informed, critical, decisions about even the most egregious examples of unwarranted inference making in the paleoanthropological canon.

Only someone who is thoroughly enchanted by the mind control that exists in paleoanthropology could be bamboozled by the claims that some of their peers have made. Indeed, it seems as if all critical ability flies out the window whenever someone makes a claim about something that Neanderthals could do. No inference is too shaky, or too insufficiently supported, or too preposterous, to go unquestioned.

Unbelievable flights of fancy emanated from La Grotte de Regourdou (Montignac, Dordogne, France) in the 1950s and '60s, thanks to Eugène Bonifay and Bernard Vandermeersch [with whom, by the way, I have, or had, a convivial relationship back in the 1980s]. These included a Neanderthal burial and—hold on to your hat—a purposefully buried bear!

Before you go and get all excited, let me assuage your fears. I'm not bringing this up again just to whine and piss on Grandma's grave . . . again. Rather, I have a scholarly purpose. Somehow or other I missed a recent article presenting a taphonomic examination of the carnivore bones from Regourdou. I'm a couple of years behind the curve here, but, in this business that's the blink of an eye. So, what's the story? Just wait. It's sweet.

"L’OURS QUI A VU L’HOMME ? Étude archéozoologique et taphonomique du site paléolithique moyen de Regourdou (Montignac, Dordogne, France)," by N. Cavanhié. PALEO 21: 39–64, 2009–2010.

So. Let's see. Bonifay and Vandermeersch excavated. Vandermeersch later creates a new journal PALEO in his own image. Cavanhié, decades on, sees a project in the Regourdou carnivore remains. Cavanhié needs access. Bonifay is one of the gods of French archaeology. Whom among the gods would one choose to cheese off if one wished to work on his fauna? Additionally, how near to finished, to say nothing of published, does Cavanhié get if Cavanhié so much as mentions the Subversive Archaeologist's early career attempt to show the discipline the error of Bonifay's ways? And where, if anywhere, would Cavanhié choose to publish? Right you are!

So, a few choice quotes to remind you of how mindless one can become when one's mind is controlled by the likes of Eugène-i-Wan Kenobi.

The excavators ascribed an anthropic origin to the presence of bears at the cave.

Like, bears couldn't get into caves themselves!

According to them, Mousterian people linked the bear to the belief in resurrection because of his capacity for hibernation, and consumed it in the cave during funeral meals.

Never heard that one before. Stunning, ain't it? So reasonable, and yet "Oh, so untestable!"

The Mousterian people would then deposit the skins, the head and the paws in structures (pits and tumuli [piles of rock]).

This is the first I've heard to suggest that the bear 'burial' wasn't a complete skeleton.

In the opinion of the excavators, the relationship between Mousterian people and bears was visible in the Neanderthal grave because two bear shin bones were placed in the same position as the Neandertal shin bones, which were absent.

That's some really, really arcane ritual stuff. O' course, if you look at the Neanderthal remains that were recovered from the putative grave, you'll see that the tibiae weren't the only missing bits. Indeed, most of the lower limbs are absent. Ironic, isn't it? No matter how hard those Neanderthals tried to "protect" the "corpses" of their "kin" they didn't always succeed. Somehow or other those pesky taphonomical thingies succeeded in scuppering their best intentions. Those taphonomicals are even more impressive in this case, since, as you'll see a little further down, they managed to wriggle their way into a "tumulus" forming the 'grave' [read: a collection of rocks containing the bones] and rubbish the skeleton—leaving only what you see in the image below. [By the way, the lower three rib fragment on the left of this image aren't hominid. But, who am I to use an ad hominem argument to discredit somebody who arranged these remains eons ago and took the only photo of them that I could find on the web?]

Regourdou 1. Putatively buried.

Back to the great quotes . . .

In addition, this grave . . . was associated with a pit . . . , which for the excavators, represented an inhumation of a bear after ritual consummation [sic] . . .. For these authors, the bear bone accumulations are wholly anthropic, but for others authors, a natural mortality (during hibernation) can be envisioned . . . .

Wow! That was a brave move—suggesting that there may have been a natural explanation for the bear remains. Alas! Although there was a reference to the proposed natural explanation, Cavanhié somehow overlooked Gargett 1989 [in which I thoroughly defused Bonifay's every claim, including that of bear burial], and instead cites a compatriot, Fosse 2002, of whom, of course, I'd never heard, nor of the paper. Obviously, my review copy of L’ours et l’homme: Colloque d’Auberives 1997 is missing in the mail, and lying in some 'dead letter' office in Mombassa [or similar].

Fosse, P., P. Morel, et J.-P. Brugal. "Taphonomie et éthologie des Ursidés Pléistocènes." In : Tillet, T. and L.R. Binford L.R. (éds), L’ours et l’homme: Colloque d’Auberives 1997, 79-101, 2002.

[Fosse, by the way, is French for hole in the ground—quite a career choice for M., Mlle, or Mme. Fosse!]

As for the natural vs Neanderthal cultural depositional circumstances of Regourdou 1, the image below was taken during its excavation. I can see what's most likely a Neanderthal humeral head and what's likely its dislocated diaphysis casting a shadow in the upper right, a bear's distal tibia poking out and also casting a shadow, and at the same level, what I think must be a partially exposed bear fibula. These remains are clearly disarticulated and disturbed. Ironic, as I mentioned above, considering the trouble Bonifay claims the Neanderthals went to to "protect" the "corpse," as you'll see in a moment.

I'm even more sceptical of Bonifay's claims, now that I've seen these two photo-documents of the remains and the one below showing the demolition excavation of the site.

Regourdou during Bonifay's demolition excavations. Notice the collapsed cave's proximity to the modern-day surface.

Now, let's have a look at Cavanhié's depiction of the pit and the pile that were said to have been the graves of a bear and a Neanderthal [actually this is one of Bonifay's original illustrations, with Cavanhié's embellishments]. 

The "Sépulture humaine" is the Neanderthal 'burial.' "Fosse 4 C" is subtitled "inhumation d'ours." "Inhumation" is a burial, and an "ours" is an bear.

Speaking of bears. Being a bear of little brain, can anyone explain to me how Bonifay  could have distinguished between the artificially darkened rocks he called the "Sépulture humaine" and the rocks of the "Mur Nord" [north wall]? Ouija board? Tarot? Crystal ball? And, just out of curiosity, where did all those rocks come from???

Kay, so, have another look at the demolition excavation photo, above. See the ground level? Regourdou is a collapsed cave. The excavated portion was beneath the final roof collapse, which formed the modern land surface. This is shown beautifully in Bonifay's diagram, below.

Bonifay 

The letter S in the profile above denotes the modern-day surface. The notation "ch" indicates that this infilled limestone feature was what geologists called a chimney—an opening to the surface through which outside sediments made their way into the cave proper. All of the rocks that look like parts of a brick wall are the rubble of repeated major and minor roof collapse that ultimately buried the 'archaeological' strata of this site. I've indicated various bits of cave breakdown material, from the small stuff that's clearly part of the chimney's breakdown, to the middling sized stuff interspersed with the gigantic blocks in the upper middle, to the elongated blocks that are lying conformably on the central talus cone—the slanting surface that's implied by their orientation, even thought there's no symbolic depiction of what they're resting on.

In the complex profile above, please note the scale, and the stratigraphic units labelled IVA, IVB, and IVC, respectively—indicating the Neanderthal burial tumulus [cairn or rock pile], the 'north wall,' shown here as an elongated lens, and the bear burial pit, looking like an empty space in a stratum overlain by IVB. [That, in itself, should set off alarms, since, in the profile below, IVC abuts IVB, which, stratigraphically speaking, indicates contemporaneity, not diachronic episodes—and, where, by the way, is the big flat rock that the bear was found under?] Also note, if you can, that these three features occur along the line between squares G3-4 and B3-4.

The image above is an enlarged cross-section that follows a line parallel to, and less than a metre closer to the observer than the more-complex cross-section above it—i.e. the section line spans G3 and C3. As you can also see, this close-up includes not only the Sépulture humaine—now a burial pit—but also the Mur nord, shown now as an unnatural, vertically oriented accumulation of boulders, and the gigantic [more than 2 tonne] Grande dalle, or 'big flat rock,' which the Neanderthals were said to have placed over the dead bear. Burly folk, the Neanderthals!

K. So, now we've seen the Neanderthal's final resting place depicted as a cairn and a rock-filled depression. Wait. What? Yep. The wall is either a very wall-like vertical structure or an elongated lens—take your pick. And the bear burial, more like a dolmen, really, rather than the lidless stratum depicted in the previous section, or a fosse.

Now have a look at the cross-section below. This one is at right angles to the two up above. IVA is once again shown as a cairn—it's a shape-shifter! Note also that there is no sign of IVB—the wall—or IVC—the bear burial. That's interesting all by itself, since in this view IVA—the lonely tumulus cum sépulture humaine—is depicted as a pile of rock beginning against the cave wall in Row 1, and ending somewhere in Row 3. In other words, not only is IVA shown here as a pile and not a basin, but it's also drawn in a completely different place than it's shown in the detailed profile above.

W.T.F? W.T.F., indeed!

Now for the really subversive bit.

Or, should I say, the really sensible bit.

All of the illustrative material I've shown you here attests to one gigantic reality that seems to have excaped not only Bonifay, but also Cavanhié and EVERYONE ELSE IN THE PALEOANTHROPOLOGICAL COMMUNITY WHO'S EVER REFERRED TO THIS CRAP AS BEING INFERENTIALLY SOUND!

This is a karst landform. This was a subterranean cave. It was developing along the lines of squillions of similar geomorphic formations across the globe. In such places the following can be said, UNEQUIVOCALLY

1. The breakdown products of the vertical and sub-vertical surfaces of the cave [colloquially called walls] will fall vertically and come to rest on the floor of the cave immediately below their previous location.

2. The breakdown products of the upper horizontal and sub-horizontal surfaces of the cave [colloquially called the ceiling] will come to rest on the floor of the cave immediately below their previous location.

UNLESS

The floor of the cave is sloping.

Now, Grasshopper, look at the detailed profiles again. More UNEQUIVOCAL reality.

1. Sediments entering through the chimney will form a cone of talus.

2. Breakdown products of vaults forming in the ceiling will tend to fall in a circumscribed area directly beneath the developing vaults, forming cones of talus, or in the near-term, piles.

3. The sloping surface on which the large flat rocks are resting near IVC are resting on a humungous talus cone that formed beneath a vault or a chimney not shown, at a time when the cave volume was more open.

THIS CAVE CONTAINS SLOPES VARYING FROM HORIZONTAL TO STEEP! 

In such circumstances, it can be stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that on a steep-enough slope

1. Any breakdown products that are sub-round will immediately roll to the bottom, forming murs, 'walls,' at the base of planar slopes, and sépultures in naturally formed basins.

2. Any breakdown products that are laminar will come to rest conformably on the slope, or bridging nearby naturally accumulated tumuli or murs. forming what might appear to be a lid over a fosse, or basin.

We can thus state, UNEQUIVOCALLY, that

1. The inferences of purposeful burial and constructed walls at Regourdou are a very large, steaming pile of . . . it.

Any QUESTIONS?

Frayer's Prayer For The Neanderthal In All Of Us *coughbullshitcough*

I'm just about up to my armpits in preparations for my move north, but of course I couldn't resist seeing what David Frayer had to say yesterday in a New York Times Op-Ed piece, entitittled "Who're you calling a Neanderthal?" 

That's a lie. I didn't have to look at it. I knew in advance what I was going to see---just a litany of the questionable inferences of Neanderthal abilities. So, going there was a little like the mortification of the flesh. 

And since it was the NYT, in spite of the piles of tasks I should be attacking, of course I've spent all morning trying to say something pithy in a letter to the Editor. O' course, the 150 words they give you don't go very far when you're talking about a long list of equivocal inferences presented as if they were written in stone.

It's been sent now. And it'll probly never see the light of day. Nevertheless, I have to be patient and wait a week while they decide not to publish it, at which time I'll put it up here, for posterity's sake.

Half the bloody day's gone! And here I am buggering around, telling you what I'm doing, when it's prolly the last thing you needed to see today.

And just why am I up against the wall preparing for my departure from Surf City? Obvies because my departure has moved up two months to June 30th. *panicked screams heard deep in the CPU*

As it turns out, with no prospect of a job that offers healthcare benefits, and with the blasted U.S. Congress's infernal "sequester" biting, the extended benefits that the POTUS initiated some years back will be reduced by almost 18%. So, when my California benefits run out on June 30, I'd better be somewhere that it doesn't cost as much to live. That 18% will mean the difference between making ends meet and not. Thanks a lot, Repugnican Tea-Bagger Party! May you rot in Hell! [if there is such a place... apparently an Italian archaeologist working in Turkey recently claimed to have found the entrance. For real. The claim, that is, is real, not the claimed entrance to Hell, I must presume.]

*more agonized screams*

Found this on White House dot gov. At least POTUS has his priorities on straight.

ANY TIME IS A GOOD TIME TO GET GOOD STUFF AT THE SUBVERSIVE ARCHAEOLOGIST'S OWN, EXCLUSIVE "A DRINK IS LIKE A HUG" ONLINE BOUTIQUE

SA announces new posts on the Subversive Archaeologist's facebook page (mirrored on Rob Gargett's news feed), on Robert H. Gargett's Academia.edu page, Rob Gargett's twitter account, and his Google+ page. A few of you have already signed up to receive email when I post. Others have subscribed to the blog's RSS feeds. You can also become a 'member' of the blog through Google Friend Connect. Thank you for your continued patronage. You're the reason I do this.

Archaeological Zombies Won't Stay Dead! Neanderthal Burial at Sima de las Palomas, España

I'm tryin' ta figger out whether or not I'm playing a metaphorical game of Whack-a-Mole. I suppose I could be trapped in an endless loop in The Night of the Living Dead. "These things are sent to try us," my agnostic Dad used to say. My gut tells me to scream and run very fast for the nearest exit.

Once again I'm face to face with a bit of archaeological inference-making that I missed whilst wandering in the desert. This bit was gleefully dropped in my email inbox just this morning. The news might be half-a-dozen years old, but this news item is hot off the presses. None other than Iain Davidson was responsible. The subject line read "You're gonna love this!" Love is hardly the word for it!

Published on 10 Jan 2013
Until recently, scientists have encountered scant evidence of Neanderthal ritual or religious practice. A new discovery, though, suggests that Neanderthals—much like today's bear hunters—ceremoniously cut off panther paws and kept them as trophies.

You've all read the 'book' on Sima de los Huesos and the other sites in northern Spain. This latest bit of skull-duggery archaeological myth-making comes to us from the other side of that country, from a locality named the Sima de las Palomas, near Cartagena. The depositional circumstances are clear from the flashy graphic they've made, shown below.

From labrujulazul: Weblog sobre Patrimonio Cultural, Artístico, Arqueológico, Documental

As with the other Sima, this one is what's known as a natural trap. All kinds of animals met their death here, including at least nine Neanderthals. What's strangest of all: I've never heard of this guy or his site. Fact, if I mentioned his name in a room full of my closest archaeology buddies it'd sound like a flock of owls.

So, you've all read the 'book.' Now, thrill to the movie!
Direct from PBS's Nova... [which, as you know, in Spanish means 'it doesn't go'].



I'm convinced. I wonder if it was a black panther. If so, perhaps its proximity to Gibraltar means that these Ns were just like the ones at Gorham's Cave in picking out for reverence [or evening wear] just those animals with black or very dark plumage/pelage. Food for thought.

SA announces new posts on the Subversive Archaeologist's facebook page (mirrored on Rob Gargett's news feed), on Robert H. Gargett's Academia.edu page, Rob Gargett's twitter account, and his Google+ page. A few of you have already signed up to receive email when I post. Others have subscribed to the blog's RSS feeds. You can also become a 'member' of the blog through Google Friend Connect. Thank you for your continued patronage. You're the reason I do this.

A Kick-Ass Scientific Illustration to Illustrate an Ass-Kicker of an Epistemological Dilemma

I'm gonna treasure this.

'Remains of Holocene giant pandas from Jiangdong Mountain (Yunnan, China) and their relevance to the evolution of quaternary environments in south-western China,' Nina G. Jablonski, Ji Xueping, Liu Hong, Li Zheng, Lawrence J. Flynn, and Li Zhicai. Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology 24:527-536, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2011.640400

Thank you Nina Jablonski of the Cal Academy et al. for this beauty of a graphic. I can't wait to erect it the next time I'm forced to comment on the idea of purposeful anything at Sima de los Huesos, Atapuerca, Spain. In fact. I might just say something right now, because this illustrates what I mean when I talk about equifinality.

I suppose we can't altogether rule out purposeful disposal of the panda dead by other pandas. No, wait! That's not true. We can. If today's pandas aren't capable of it, it's unlikely that yesterday's pandas were. And so, if this can happen naturally to a panda it can equally naturally happen to one or more members of the species Homo antecessor. [Take a deep breath before saying the following out loud] You can take Paul Pettitt's* position and say that the Sima de los Huesos bipedal apes could have been cacheing their dead in a depositional environment virtually identical to that of the unfortunate panda's (something that neither Pettitt nor anyone else could ever in a million years verify empirically), or you could take the only truly logical position and say that, while it may have been the case that someone dropped each and every Homo antecessor individual into the Sima de los Huesos, it's equally likely that, panda-like, those Iberian Penisula exponents of Homo heidelbergensis were unfortunate enough to lose their footing at the top of a 13-m deep natural trap. Ergo, there's no power whatsoever in the Pettitt hypothesis, which is merely a restatement of the same claims made by Juan Luis Arsuaga, one of the principles of the Atapuerca projects. [Yep. The guy even has his own Wikipedia entry.]
     A tip o' the hat to Trina MacDonald for first bringing this to my attention, all the way from (near) Melbourne by internet Pony Express.

* You could pay the $115 for the hardcover, or just $7.48 for the Kindle edition. You can probably guess which one I purchased!

Thanks for dropping by! If you like what you see, follow me on Google Friend Connect or Twitter, friend me on Facebook, check out my publications at Academia, or connect on Linkedin. You can also subscribe to receive new posts by email or RSS [scroll to the top and look on the left]. And please don't forget. Oh, and you can always put me on your blogroll! By the way, I get a small commission for anything you purchase from Amazon.com if you go there by clicking through from this site. 

Defending One's Honour in Cyberspace: My Beef with Michael Balter's Science Article on Neanderthal Burial

The Roc de Marsal child skull and facial reconstruction
CREDIT: © PLAILLY/ATELIER DAYNES/EURELIOS

After again reading Michael Balter's September 21, 2012 article in Science I was a bit taken aback by the part where he talks about my work. A friend suggested that I try sending a letter to the editor. It was knocked back. So, aware as I was that Science allowed e-comments on its web journal, I asked the editor to up it there for me. Et voilá, here it is.
     However, assuming it's behind the Science pay wall, I'll save you the trouble. Here's what I wrote.

I fear you may have promulgated a misconception in Michael Balter’s September 21, 2012 article “Did Neandertals Truly Bury Their Dead?” It mentions my 1989 and 1999 contributions, then states that “at the time [of their publication], most archaeologists rejected Gargett’s arguments.” To the great detriment of my work, the article juxtaposes that statement with a quote from one of my detractors, Maureille, who avers that “[Gargett’s arguments] were based on nothing, no data.” Your readers are forgiven if they accept this pronouncement as fact. With your assistance I wish to set the record straight.

My publications were the first, and remain the only, explicit examinations of the 'evidence' of Neanderthal burial. For me, this issue hinges on an archaeological dictum, that one must first rule out natural processes before imputing one’s findings to purposeful (or cutural) behavior. Indeed, no amount of wishful thinking or ‘nothing buttery’ can erase the ambiguity inherent in archaeological traces that could have been the result either of natural or cultural processes.

Contra Maureille, rather than basing my work on “nothing, no data,” I examined the literature, the only public account of the empirical findings that others have claimed as evidence of purposeful burial. Furthermore, my work is grounded on a far broader spectrum of expectable, natural processes than the burial claimants ever considered. In the end I argued that natural processes could not be ruled out as the cause of archaeological traces claimed as evidence of purposeful Neanderthal burial. Thus, my work was based on ‘something,’ and the data I employed are identical with those to which Maureille cleaves.

Ironically, it may be the inferences of purposeful burial that turn out to have been based on “nothing, no data” whatsoever. I live in hope!

That was fun. Next.

Thanks for dropping by! If you like what you see, follow me on Google Friend Connect or Twitter, friend me on Facebook, check out my publications at Academia, or connect on Linkedin. You can also subscribe to receive new posts by email or RSS [scroll to the top and look on the left]. And please don't forget. I get a small commission for anything you purchase from Amazon.com if you go there by clicking on one of the links on this site. 

Questioning Middle Palaeolithic Burial is NOT Like Beating a Dead Horse: Science's Michael Balter Writes About Neanderthal Burial As If It's an Open Question. More Power to Him!

For one of the very few times in my role as the leading subversive archaeologist on the internet I can say that every anthropologist needs to see this article. The subject goes to the heart of the 'debate' [more like a never-ending disagreement] as to whether or not the Neanderthals, their Mousterian contemporaries, and their antecedents had what you and I would recognize as the equivalent of the symbolic behaviour that is the hallmark of us modern humans.
     I am very pleased to point the interested readers of the Subversive Archaeologist to the Michael Balter article in Science to which I alluded in a blurt a few days ago. Kudos to my friends Harold Dibble and Alain Turq [and the whole équipe] for their courage in opening new excavations at the mega-important Middle Palaeolithic site of La Ferrassie (Dordogne, France). And a rousing 'Huzzah!' for Michael Balter for featuring this *cough* ground-breaking work in Science, and for having the good sense to interview me for the piece.
     While you're reading, remember that whenever Alain Turq says that articulated skeletons MUST have been purposefully buried, remember Rule #1 and what I've said previously about how wrong-headed the notion is.
     So, without further ado: Ta-Da!
     'Did Neandertals Truly Bury Their Dead?' by Michael Balter.

Thanks for dropping by! If you like what you see, follow me on Twitter, friend me on Facebook, check out my publications at Academia, or connect on Linkedin. You can also subscribe to receive new posts by email or RSS [scroll to the top and look on the left]. I get a small commission for anything you purchase from Amazon.com if you go there using any link on this site. 

Make a Note on Your Calendar: Check Out the September 21st Issue of Science

It might be nothing. But just the same I'm gonna wanna see the September 21st issue of Science. That's because yesterday I received a request to comment on my feelings about the recent findings from Roc de Marsal--that the Neanderthal child long believed to have been purposefully buried wasn't, whether or not I saw this as a vindication of my ancient efforts, and my assessment of the role of new techniques, such as micromorphology, to document site formation processes in aid of the arguments. The Science writer who did the asking mentioned that he'd just returned from a week at La Ferrassie, where the Roc de Marsal team are presently working with the same goals as their previous project. Add it up. La Ferrassie + Roc de Marsal + Science + the comments of one might be said to have foreseen it all = major story. But I could be wrong. You know... Mind befuddled by years of bitterness, suddenly brought into the spotlight, imagining the glory that never was, and all that. It could be nothing. But what if...?

     For the record, here's my statement to 'the press.'

I'm very proud of Sandgathe, Dibble, Goldberg and the rest for having the audacity to undertake their re-examination of the Roc-de-Marsal burial, and of the French authorities who have shown some flexibility in allowing such a project. I'm especially happy that I can claim to have had a role in paving the way for their work. As for the techniques that have been deployed in support of the new excavations at Roc de Marsal, and now at La Ferrassie, if the palaeoanthropological community is more likely to accept revisions of erroneous claims based on new techniques, I'm all for it. However, the fact remains that there never was sufficient evidence of any kind to support the claim of purposeful burial in any of these cases, a point I thought I'd made forcefully in my two papers on the matter. Unfortunately I was one of the few to have seen it that way and in reality I've been dismissed by the majority of palaeoanthropologists for the past 23 years. I'm afraid that a few ambiguous in-text citations bearing my name in the present is hardly what I'd call a vindication. 

Yep. Bitter. But a justified bitterness. A well-steeped bitterness. Tannic, you might say. Tannins? Wine? brb... That's better. Bitterness goes better with wine. 'A drink is like a hug'® I always say!

Roc de Marsal (Dordogne, France). From oldstoneage.com

Roc de Marsal Neanderthal child

Roc de Marsal contained the partial remains of a Neanderthal youth that was claimed to have been purposefully buried. There never was any good evidence for it, although the remains were found 'in a depression' and they were articulated for the most part. In 1989 and again in 1999 I said as much. One of my major contentions has always been that depressions can occur naturally for a good number of reasons, and that depressions in caves and rockshelters--which already tend to preserve bone well--are places where vertebrate specimens can be expected to preserve extraordinarily well, as compared with those that decayed on a plane surface under the same depositional regime.
     Moreover, the excavators described the 'fill' of the 'grave' as being just like all the rest of the breakdown sediments in the cave--i.e. no new stratum created at the time of the 'burial' which could be seen to be distinct from the sediments into which the 'grave' was dug and from those sediments that accumulated naturally after the 'grave' was filled in. Given the propensity for nature to create depressions, that new stratum is one of the only--if not the only--way that one could be certain that a purposeful burial has occurred. [My colleagues complain that this is rarely the case even in modern burials, and that they shouldn't be held to such a standard. My only response to that is: such thinking has given us the myth to end all myths about the Neanderthals.] Sandgathe et al. excavated at Roc de Marsal expressly to recover as much information about the depositional circumstances of the remains as was possible. It was only good fortune that the original excavators left the cave deposits adjacent the burial for the perspicacious Sandgathe and the rest of the équipe to study.
     Those I'd give anything to call my Champions [sense #3 below*] will no doubt have a far more difficult time at La Ferrassie, where the remaining profile, the témoin, is well away from the area where the skeletal remains were recovered. Nevertheless, their efforts will not go unrewarded, especially since they're attempting to work out the depositional history of the site as a whole, something which has been lacking in previous work at that site.

La Ferrassie, témoin, or 'witness profile.' The Neanderthal remains were found in the lowest levels shown here. From our friends at Wikipedia.

New excavations at La Ferrassie at the close of the 2011 season. From oldstoneage.com

La Ferrassie I

     La Ferrassie is, perhaps, 'ground zero' in the debate about whether or not the Neanderthals buried their dead [if you can call one voice crying in the wilderness a 'debate']. There, in the early twentieth century [and into the later second half] a series of skeletal remains were excavated, beginning with the early discovery of an almost complete skeleton, La Ferrassie I.
     La Ferrassie is also claimed to have been the location of a veritable Neanderthal cemetery, based on the inferences of the early excavators. You may remember the 'nine mounds' from your introductory anthropology courses. I predicted that these would eventually be found to have been the result of cryoturbated sediments, which can take the form of wavy strata when viewed from the side. Indeed, the profile that J.-L. Heim published shows these wavy sediments in profile, presumably redrawn from the original, with the crests of the waves almost a meter above their bases. I look forward to the results of the current excavations with glee.

Early 20th century plan of the La Ferrassie 'cemetery.' From our friends at  Wikipedia

*cham·pi·on noun \ˈcham-pē-ən\
1: warrior, fighter
2: a militant advocate or defender
3: one that does battle for another's rights or honor
4: a winner of first prize or first place in competition; also : one who shows marked superiority

Thanks for dropping by! If you like what you see, follow me on Twitter, or friend me on Facebook. You can also subscribe to receive new posts by email or RSS [scroll to the top and look on the left]. I get a small commission for anything you purchase from Amazon.com if you go there using any link on this site. There's a donate button, too. Your generous gift will always be used to augment the site and its contents.

Laying Some Groundwork by Revisiting Belfer-Cohen and Hovers 1992: 'In the Eye of the beholder: Mousterian and Natufian burials in the Levant.'

Know what? I really hate the way I vacillate. 
Back and forth. 
Should I? Shouldn't I? 
She loves me. She loves me not. 
It's downright upsetting!


I guess I could look on the bright side. 
They say that if you're gonna be wishy-washy, you might as well be consistent about it. Well, if that's the case, I'll make the All-star team with ease! 


Today's oeuvre proves [couldn't resist that lovely bit of assonance] that I'm an inveterate vacillator [nor that aliquot of alliteration]. 


From the reader's perspective I must look like the substance-abuser who can't get that next fix off his mind. 

'Sisyphus'
Franz Ritter von Stuck 1920 

Only. 


I wish I didn't have to. I wish they'd just listen!


Sisyphus, give me all your strength! 


[This rock gets heavier every time I push it up that hill. And, I ain't gettin' any younger.*] 


And now, downward to the past...like any good archaeologist.


'Grave shortcomings: the evidence for Neandertal burial,' [my BA Honors essay] was published in 1989. One of the first major publications that mentioned my then-recent work was 'In the Eye of the beholder: Mousterian and Natufian burials in the Levant' by Anna Belfer-Cohen and Erella Hovers (Current Anthropology 33, 463-471, 1992). Their paper tries to make the case that if one applied the same stringent criteria as that scallywag Gargett does for recognizing purposeful burial in the Middle Palaeolithic, even perfectly good modern human burials wouldn't pass muster. They're right. But that doesn't change a thing. A fact's a fact [as long as your premises are well-warranted, which theirs arent'].

My purpose in writing today is two-fold. I hope to demonstrate just how the authors and everyone else [including Paul Pettitt] were happy to accept the [largely] argumentum ad hominem criticisms published along with 'Grave shortcomings,' and to carry on as if [and in all likelihood] they had never seen my dispositive responses to all of my ur-detractors. After that, I want to tell you what I [still] think of their argument. And all because of that pesky Paul Pettitt. I need to do this to get you ready for what I want to say about his book [which is where the whole vacillation thing comes in].
     In early 1991 Adam Kuper sent me a draft of the Belfer-Cohen and Hovers paper 'for [my] assessment.' At the time he was the editor of Current Anthropology [and there was no doubt in my mind that he would have had a sly smile on his face as he penned his signature on that letter]. I mention this now because I think it would be valuable, finally, for someone other than Kuper, Belfer-Cohen and Hovers to see my remarks. For those of you who've never encountered 'In the eye of the beholder' you need only visit academia.edu and view or download the University of Chicago Press e-document by clicking here. I urge you to have a look. It shouldn't take long to read. And I think it's an exemplum of the programmatic ignorance of my work at that time.
     
Here's what I thought. 

[You'll notice that in places I refer to items that were apparently axed before publication. Nothing major. But if you do your literary archaeology you'll see that my review at least had some effect!]

1991 May 4


Dear Professor Kuper:


I'm put in a difficult position reviewing this paper. Unless I recommend publication (which I don't), the authors will view my comments as prejudiced—both because of what they argue is my bias toward the extant species of the genus Homo, and because I've been vocal in my criticisms of previous attempts to argue for burial in the Middle Paleolithic (specifically among Neanderthals). But comment I must, and I hope that I don't come off sounding shrill.


At the outset, let me say that I think this kind of comparative study is required. Belfer-Cohen and Hovers have demonstrated, quite convincingly, that the criteria often employed by Middle Paleolithic specialists when assessing the question of burial are not germane. I should note that, although they don't restate the criteria I advanced, there are some fairly rigid guidelines in my 1989 CA paper that replace the questionable linkages between behaviour and archaeological remnants so prevalent in the literature (and, I might add, which the authors choose to perpetuate), such as flexion, articulation, so-called grave offerings, and so on. I'm speaking of the necessity of finding a clearly defined new stratum created at the time of burial. If, as Belfer-Cohen and Hovers argue, traditional criteria do nothing to support the archaeological inference of burial among modem populations, what possible use can they be in recognizing perhaps the first instances of burial among other hominid taxa? This is a point I've made before.

Recreation of the excavation of
Teshik-Tash I, a Neanderthal boy

I may as well be straightforward on another subject: I have trouble with much of the argument in this article, because there is no explicit treatment of my 1989 paper. The authors merely stale that "[Gargett's] view has been widely rejected on several grounds." This is not followed by a single reference to a published refutation of my work. I find this to be perhaps the greatest obstacle to their argument. In rejecting, out of hand, my thesis regarding the "burial" of Neandertals, they treat the 1989 paper as a monolith. Thus, my arguments dismantling the laughable inferences of ritual goat horns at Teshik-Tash, for example, are lumped together with my (according to them "unconvincing") arguments about purposeful burial there and elsewhere. As a result, their analysis perpetuates what are very likely myths about Neandertal behavior. Any archaeologist today should look at the Teshik-Tash material and recognize it for what it is, i.e. not a circle of horns placed points down in the sediments surrounding the alleged burial. Yet later, when Belfer-Cohen and Hovers discuss similarities between the Neandertal "burials" and those among the Natufians, they refer to "Certain spatial arrangements," including the case "known from outside the Levant, ... where the skeleton of a child was surrounded by a ring of 5-6 pairs of horn cores of Capra siberica." I could raise equally damaging questions regarding each and every one of the proposed similarities between the MP and UP situations, but that would take far too long. I hope that this example suffices to make my point. By using such questionable "spatial arrangements" in their analysis, the two classes of material (one from the Middle Paleolithic and one from the Upper Paleolithic) are said to appear similar. Yet, I've argued that they're not comparable, and, whether or not I'm right in this, the authors don't dealt with my arguments in any meaningful way.


Rather than labelling us intellectual bigots, perhaps Belfer-Cohen, Hovers and others should examine the implicit beliefs and motivations that lead them to accept very tenuous arguments for what are called symbolic or ritual behaviors on the part of Neanderthals and other Middle Paleolithic hominids. Moreover, when they treat a portion of reindeer backbone or pig manidible as grave offerings, isn't it just a little patronizing, if not paternalistic, to suggest that "the mundane 'grave goods' associated with Middle Paleolithic skeletal remains may reflect the simplicity of the material culture and of the social organization." Is not this tantamount to saying that there's a direct relationship between the presence/absence of 'grave goods,' their 'sophistication,' and the degree of cultural ability? Since this is something that Belfer-Cohen and Hovers would argue against, I find it interesting that they would introduce such a notion at this point in their argument. A pig mandible, if it were in fact shown to be an object placed with a purposely buried individual (and could be demonstrated to have had some symbolic meaning to that hominid, which would be difficult to argue from the archaeological evidence), should not be looked down upon as 'mundane' (or that it represented an incipient kind of symbolic behavior) simply because it does not conform to the investigator's (culturally bound) ideas of what constitutes 'sophisticated' funerary offerings. I would add that the enigmatic structures mentioned in their paper, such as "talking tubes" or "eternal flames" associated with Natufian burials, do not carry such inherent meanings—these are constructions of their excavators and are not self-evident. I'm struck by the ease with which Belfer-Cohen, Hovers and others accept such inferences and speculation as a reasonable construal of the archaeological remains. 


When the authors say that "mental templates as to what a burial should look like ... are projected  onto the past, regardless of contextual background," it's to all my predecessors,' and not to my arguments, that they must be referring. It was to just those contextual backgrounds that I was turning in my 1989 paper, while every other worker has relied on culturally bound assumptions about what burial should look like (including such things as degree of flexion, presence of grave goods, or the presence of a grave). In this regard, Belfer-Cohen and Hovers do not escape criticism. 


I haven't been convinced by their argument about a prejudice on the part of workers like me who seek a better understanding of the behavior of Middle Paleolithic hominids. I strongly suggest that it's their own belief about the humanity of Neandertals and other Middle Paleolithic hominids that leads them to accept questionable evidence about a whole range of behaviors that simply haven't been adequately demonstrated. I'd add that, while there's a necessity to document and compare mortuary treatment in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene with that alleged for the earlier period, I don't find the authors' approach thorough or rigorous. I reiterate that I think it's a mistake to discount my arguments out of hand. And it's equally misguided to repeat the inferences of those who quite obviously carry the same bias as Belfer-Cohen and Hovers. 


Calling three large stones and a rhinoceros tooth a "spatial arrangement" associated with the Kebara infant seems to me to underline what I said above about the paternalistic and inherently biased viewpoint of 'the other side.' Another example: employing Smirnov's arguments is suspect, because he not only accepts (again uncritically) all the earlier inferences of ritual and burial, but he also adds some new ones of his own ("hearths underlying" hominid skeletal material seen as some kind of ritual architecture). That Belfer-Cohen and Hovers refer to secondary and tertiary "evidence" (such as the work of Smirnov) in the construction of their argument, and prefer to ignore the original reports upon which my argument was based is a very big omission. They prefer to rest their out-of-hand rejection of my thesis on some comments of questionable value following my article in CA (none of which were refereed, and all of which were disposed of in my reply). The authors have also failed to cite my later comments (CA 30:326-329) which amplify and further clarify my argument. Indeed, in employing the inferences of Okladnikov regarding the Teshik-Tash goat horns, I have to wonder if they have even read my paper.


My "opinion" about Neanderthals notwithstanding, these authors have simply failed to provide any new "evidence" for the purposeful burial of any Middle Paleolithic hominids. And, though it was not their intention, their argument is all than much weaker for this lacuna. Classifying, as they do, material alleged to be associated with Middle Paleolithic hominids as "grave goods" or "grave structures," and to include them in a comparison with material similarly classified from the later period, is methodologically unsound, at best. Moreover, they have not provided any convincing "evidence" that those who choose to question inferences of modern behavior among Middle Paleolithic hominids are any more biased than are the authors in the opposite direction.


It's probably easy to see that this paper frustrates me. I hope I've managed to achieve a degree of objectivity in my comments. Anna and I have had this conversation before. I don't wish my review to be seen as a personal attack, which it most definitely is not. There are real problems with their presentation of "data" and with the sociopolitical context of their work. Their study represents another recitation of inferences that I've rightly called into question, and so far no one has adequately refuted my arguments. In sum, I'd recommend that Current Anthropology reject this paper in its present form. Perhaps if the authors could mount a credible refutation of my 1989 arguments, and manifest a little self-reflexivity of their own rather than simply accusing others of implicit bias, this paper might stand on its own—especially if it could be argued that both sides owe their inferences to their biases (which I'm not sure is possible). As it is, it wouldn't be suitable for the reports section of CA, either, unless the Middle Paleolithic "data" are left out along with the argument about bias. The perceived lack of regularity in Natufian burials is interesting in itself. But as a contrast to inferred behavior in the Middle Paleolithic, it loses power. At least until further notice, we may be comparing apples and oranges. If the editor chooses to publish this article in the form it now takes, it should indeed be accompanied by comments, and I'd like to have the opportunity to voice my criticisms (especially since I seem to be one of only a few misguided individuals who adopt a "non-human until proven human" stance in this debate).


Sincerely,
Rob Gargett




Now the 2012 Gargett'll fess up. I'm blurting this now because Paul Pettitt refers to this article by Belfer-Cohen and Hovers when he begins his wrestling match with my work. 

'My opinion that Gargett's attempt to deny any Neanderthal burials is largely unconvincing obviously requires justification. Many of his specific and literature-based readings of the data have been questioned by the original excavators (see responses to Gargett 1989) and other specialists (e.g. Belfer-Cohen and Hovers 1992)...'

I should let you know that not one, single, original excavator commented in Current Anthropology alongside my 1989 paper. [Bullshit Score: Pettitt 1, Gargett 0.] And whaddaya think he means by emphasizing that Belfer-Cohen and Hovers are 'specialists'? Wanna know what I think? It's because he thinks that I'm a poor excuse for a specialist. I'm not claiming that excavating for more than 6 weeks at Kebara Cave and 3 weeks at Roc Allan, a French rockshelter makes me one of his remarkable 'specialists.' However, he has no right, and no evidence, to relegate me to the category of 'literature-based know-nothings' who haven't got any right to complain about what the other grown ups are doing. [Bullshit Score: Pettitt 2, Gargett 0.]
     This isn't over.


* [Just so you know. No one is more surprised than I that I'm still bashing away at the edifice more than 20 years on. You'd have thought that by now someone would've mounted a serious challenge, as opposed to the reality--simply dismissing my arguments out of hand.]

Show your support for this blog. Remember that when you purchase from Amazon by clicking any of the links on, you'll be getting great discounts and helping the Subversive Archaeologist at the same time!

I'm Throwin' In the Towel. Hangin' Up My Six-Shooters. Pettitt Claims Victory and I Can't Be Bothered to Respond. Meet Me at the End of the Universe.

Yesterday I mentioned The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial, by Paul Pettitt. As I pointed out, his book spends quite some time dispensing with research that I published in 1989 and 1999, and about which you've heard quite a bit over the course of the past six months.
     I've been reading Pettitt's book, which I was compelled to purchase after I learned of its existence and, especially, of the number of times he finds it necessary to comment in an ill-informed manner on my work. I know. Yesterday I was all fired up, and I was gonna go head to head with Pettitt's mainly erroneous assertions and pettyfogging dismissals.
     Sitting here right now I'm succumbing to ennui. After all, Pettitt is just one more in what's now become a very long line of academics [I won't go so far as to say they're scholars] who've disagreed, and no more, with what I've published about Middle Palaeolithic burial. As with all the rest I find that Pettitt misses, not just one, but numerous points that I've made, and I can only conclude that he and the others either can't read or are so blinkered that they're unable to interpret what it is I've said. So, you see, it doesn't matter what I say; it seems only to matter what they choose to ignore and misunderstand about what I've said.
     Therefore, I've concluded, there's little, if any, point to trying, once again, to explain what I actually said about Middle Palaeolithic burial to someone who's clearly intellectually challenged by my words. I'll simply say this to the Pettitts of this small world of ours: meet me at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. We'll have a drink. And there, when all the data are in, I'll gracefully accept your apologies and your acquiescence to the truth about MP burial. I'll be having a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. Make mine a double.

The Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster is an alcoholic beverage invented by ex-President of the Universe Zaphod Beeblebrox, largely considered to be the best in the Universe. Its effects are similar to having your brains smashed in by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick. Mixing Instructions: Take the juice from one bottle of Ol' Janx Spirit. Pour into it one measure of water from the seas of Santraginus V—Oh, that Santraginean seawater! Oh, those Santraginean fish! Allow three cubes of Arcturan Mega-gin to melt into the mixture (it must be properly iced or the benzine is lost). Allow four litres of Fallian marsh gas to bubble through it, in memory of all those happy hikers who have died of pleasure in the Marshes of Fallia. Over the back of a silver spoon float a measure of Qualactin Hypermint extract, redolent of all the heady odours of the dark Qualactin Zones, subtle, sweet and mystic. Drop in the tooth of an Algolian Suntiger. Watch it dissolve, spreading the fires of the Algolian Suns deep into the heart of the drink. Sprinkle Zamphuor. Add an olive. Drink... but... very carefully... Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

     So. What's next for me? Back to the true work of the subversive archaeologist. It's much more rewarding and successful than my stuff on burial, and I won't be plowing the same ground over and over again! *cough*
     

Show your support for this blog. Remember that when you purchase from Amazon by clicking any of the links on, you'll be getting great discounts and helping the Subversive Archaeologist at the same time!