OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
chapter 17
u pper pa l a eolithic
mort ua ry pr actice s
i n eu r asi a
A critical look at the burial record
j ulien r iel-salvatore and
c laudine g ravel-miguel
Introduction
Prehistoric burials excite the imagination of both lay and scholarly audiences. As culturally
structured capstone events in the lives of people in the past, they ofer a tantalizing if
obstructed window into the psyche of our Palaeolithic forebears, and they resonate with
human life histories even today. While Middle Palaeolithic interments are known, it is oten
said that burials only became a ubiquitous feature of human behaviour during the Upper
Palaeolithic, when they became more numerous, elaborate, and widely distributed. Here, we
present a detailed overview of the variability in Upper Palaeolithic burial among other mortuary practices. We conclude that the mainstream view is oversimplistic because it presents
unusually lavish inhumations as the norm for the Upper Palaeolithic. We synthesize the
available evidence for Upper Palaeolithic burial practices, and highlight tentative regional
patterns of dis/continuity in mortuary practices.
Such a review is timely: recent discoveries have considerably expanded the corpus of
known Upper Palaeolithic burials, which has broadened the range of behaviours associated with the disposal of the dead at that time. This new information articulates with a
large body of evidence of uneven quality in their reporting accumulated over more than
a century. Incorporating this new evidence helps provide an up-to-date register of
known Upper Palaeolithic burials and permits a shift away from the interpretive weight
given to poorly documented finds. Doing so also helps determine how well these new
data agree with the trends in Upper Palaeolithic mortuary practices highlighted in earlier studies.
0001823556.INDD 303
12/17/2012 2:24:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
304
human experience across cultural contexts
We begin by presenting a short overview of previous research on Upper Palaeolithic burials, and follow this with a detailed review of the available evidence to highlight trends in the
record. We close with a discussion of the broader implications of our indings for the study of
Upper Palaeolithic interments as a whole.
Review of Previous Research
Discussions of Upper Palaeolithic (UP) interments have oten looked at them mainly in contrast with Middle Palaeolithic ones (e.g. Binford 1968, Harrold 1980, Riel-Salvatore and Clark
2001, Zilhão 2005). his means that Upper Palaeolithic mortuary behaviour has rarely been
considered on its own, if we exclude general reviews that have described burials without
really putting them in context (e.g. May 1986, Binant 1991). he few studies that have looked
only at Upper Palaeolithic burials have tended to focus on patterns at a regional level (Palma
di Cesnola 1993, 2006, Giacobini 2006b, 2007, Trinkaus and Svoboda 2006). his body of
research nonetheless provides a number of test hypotheses that can be evaluated using a
database that comprises several newly reported Upper Palaeolithic burials.
Harrold (1980) observed that, in the UP, males were more frequently buried than females,
but that there was little diference in how they were buried. He documented a wide range of
body positions and of burial goods, as well as the fact that multiple burials appear to have
been relatively common (cf. Formicola 2007). hese trends are also visible in the Italian
Gravettian (Mussi 1986), though, in this region, women and children were more frequently
interred during the later phases of the Epigravettian, when burial goods in general also
became scarcer and less elaborate. he Italian data underscore that UP burials were highly
clustered in time and space, being constrained to narrow time spans (e.g. the Gravettian)
and regions (e.g. Liguria). he patchiness of the UP funerary record is also supported by the
Central European evidence, which is largely restricted to the Pavlovian, a local variant of the
Gravettian (Trinkaus and Svoboda 2006).
Building on this recognition, however, Giacobini (2007: 19–20) recently remarked that
while ‘the observed variability of burial forms during the Upper Paleolithic remains very
great, and each case reveals its own particular characteristics . . . to bury a deceased individual at that time still represented an exceptional event, and was probably limited to those who
held a special position within their group’ and that the speciic features and history of individual interments mean that ‘each burial appears unique and tells a diferent story.’ his perspective rightly emphasizes that there are fewer than ive preserved UP burials per
millennium in Eurasia. It also recognizes that the rarity of burials is likely to relect at least in
part some socially meaningful decisions by UP foragers.
A more burial-speciic perspective also underpins much recent work on UP burials, which
focuses on individual burials and/or sites (e.g. Pettitt et al. 2003; Formicola et al. 2004, 2005;
Oliva 2000; Svoboda 2008). hat said, the fact that burials are clustered in space and time is
likely to relect important dimensions of UP funerary behaviour (Giacobini 2006b, 2007).
his means that particularistic studies are problematic since it remains unclear whether the
burials they describe are representative of UP burials as a whole. For instance, the Sungir
burials give a very diferent image of what UP burial practices were like than do the ones
0001823556.INDD 304
12/17/2012 2:24:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
upper palaeolithic eurasia
305
from Baousso da Torre. his is evident in statements that ‘the Upper Paleolithic evidence
reveals diferences that obviate the need for a comparison between the two [Middle and
Upper Paleolithic interments]’ (Gargett 1999: 30), or that ‘Upper Paleolithic burials were not
only deliberate, they were also accompanied by sophisticated material and culturally important remains’ (Sayer 2009: 122).
In sum, earlier work on UP burials reveals some tensions between generalist and particularistic approaches to interments. One of the principal unresolved debates centres on
whether generalized dimensions of UP culture and behaviour can legitimately be inferred
from their mortuary record, or whether burials are best considered as anecdotal evidence
about social norms among groups tightly bound in space and time. Our view is that there is
something to be gleaned from integrating the results of both scales of analysis, provided that
research questions are framed properly.
Sample Selection
As discussed above, sample selection in any study of Palaeolithic interments can condition
its ultimate outcome, so we explicitly indicate the criteria used to include burials in our
sample.
1. Coverage: Temporally, we limit ourselves to the interval 45–10,000 bp, which is generally agreed to correspond to the Upper Palaeolithic sensu stricto. Geographically, we restrict
our coverage to Eurasia, excluding southeast and southwest Asia. he latter region has a welldeined Upper Palaeolithic sequence, but the absence of Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP)
interments there might skew the pattern, as might its rich record of Late Upper Palaeolithic
(LUP) interments, oten associated with evidence of early food production (cf. Maher et al.
2011). hese factors lead us to exclude the region for the purposes of this analysis.
2. Context: We only include burials that have yielded a fairly complete set of diagnostic
human remains in general anatomical connection suggestive of primary contexts in deposits
clearly associated with Upper Palaeolithic industries. his means that we disregard the
Aurignacian ‘pseudomorphs’ from Cueva Morìn (Freeman and Gonzalez Echegaray 1970)
and the Final Pleistocene grave from Ushki 6 (Dikov 1968), since neither of these cases
has yielded undisputable skeletal evidence. his also means that we exclude isolated wellpreserved human remains and concentration of bones that could represent secondary burials or fortuitous associations of human remains with elements oten associated with burial.
his includes the remains from St-Césaire (Vandermeersch 1993) and Le Marronnier
(Onoratini and Combier 1995; cf. Henry-Gambier 2008). Excluding the St-Césaire remains
(also because of its problematic attribution to the Upper Palaeolithic (Bar-Yosef and Bordes
2010)) also allows us to focus only on Homo sapiens, in spite of evidence that Neanderthals
inhabited parts of Eurasia until about 28,000 bp (Finlayson et al. 2006).
3. Burials: We consider only interments. here is good evidence that the range of UP mortuary practices was much broader and likely also included secondary interments, relic use,
ritual deleshing and/or cannibalism, and the refashioning of body parts into ornaments or
vessels (Orschiedt 2002, Martini 2007, Pettitt 2010, Le Mort and Gambier 1991, Gambier and
Le Mort 1996, Henry-Gambier and White 2006, White 2007). Our focus on burials is based
0001823556.INDD 305
12/17/2012 2:24:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
306
human experience across cultural contexts
largely on the fact that they remain the most abundant class of evidence about UP mortuary
practices. Because burials are oten associated with archaeological material, they also provide a window into correlations between these two facets of the palaeoanthropological
record. Focusing on the materiality of the body and its context allows us to glean insights
into the social norms guiding the use of interments as one way to dispose of the dead (Nilsson
Stutz 2008).
hese criteria led to the identiication of a total of 109 burials comprising 151 individuals,
which indicates a fairly high incidence of multiple interments. However, only 85 of those
burials were retained as truly credible, dropping our sample to 117 individuals (Table 17.1).
Given the prevailing idea that Gravettian burials somehow difer qualitatively from more
recent ones, we also divided our sample into an ‘early’ (30–20 ky bp) subset of 35 burials and a
‘late’ (20–10 ky bp) subset of 50 burials (Tables 17.1 and 17.2). hese numbers of burials translate into 61 individuals for the Early sample and 56 individuals for the Late sample. his indicates that burials containing more than one individual were notably more common in the
Early sample.
Analysis
General observations
Geographically, the distribution of our Early and Late samples shows that the latitudinal distribution of burials is comparable across the two samples. In contrast, the longitudinal distribution of Early burials is much greater, extending west-east from Portugal (Lagar Velho)
to Siberia (Mal’ta), whereas the Late sample is restricted to France, Germany, and Italy.
Figure 17.1 also highlights that only southwest France and the Italian regions of Liguria and
Puglia have yielded burials attributed to the two periods. Since most of Italy has yielded Late
but not Early burials, this pattern is unlikely simply to be an artefact of regional research histories, a point reinforced by the fact that countries with rich histories of research (e.g. Spain)
have yielded no UP burials despite having a rich Mesolithic burial record (Arias et al. 2009).
Figure 17.1 therefore suggests that there was a dramatic contraction of the area in which
burial was practised ater the end of the Gravettian. he Late sample also becomes considerably denser over the more limited area over which it is distributed, with areas of Western
Europe devoid of Early burials looking as though they were somehow ‘backilled’ by burialpractising populations (e.g. central and northwestern Italy, parts of Germany).
Chronologically, Figure 17.2 shows that burials are present at least at low frequencies for
the entire Upper Palaeolithic ater the Aurignacian. More noteworthy is the fact that burials
are clearly clustered in the Gravettian (c.28–20 ky bp) and the terminal UP (14–10 ky bp). At
a continental scale, this echoes the suggestion that a similar clustering can be seen in the
Italian record, where very few inhumations date to the c.7,000-year interval separating the
clusters (Palma di Cesnola 1993, 2006). he continental trend, however, is very likely driven
by the numerical dominance of Italian burials in our sample (Tables 17.1 and 17.2), meaning
that this convergence is unlikely to be a coincidence. Based on Figure 17.2, it is warranted to
characterize burial as a behaviour documented throughout the Upper Palaeolithic, although
0001823556.INDD 306
12/17/2012 2:24:37 PM
0001823556.INDD 307
Table 17.1 Upper Palaeolithic burials considered in this study, along with basic contextual information
Status
burial
Barma Grande 2*
Certain
Barma Grande 3*
Certain
Barma Grande 4*
Certain
Barma Grande 5
Barma Grande 6
Certain
Certain
Brno 2
Certain
Brno 3
Cavillon 1
Cro-Magnon 1*
Certain
Certain
Uncertain
Cro-Magnon 2*
Uncertain
Cro-Magnon 3*
Uncertain
Cro-Magnon 4*
Uncertain
Cro-Magnon 5*
Uncertain
Ochre
Position
Direction
(head)
X
X
B
E
29, 30, 94,
95, 97.
C
X
X
L
E
29, 94, 95,
97.
Gravettian
C
X
X
L
E
29, 94, 95,
97.
Gravettian
Gravettian
C
C
?
?
L
L
S
29, 89, 95.
30, 96.
Pavlovian
O
?
X
NC
Pavlovian
Gravettian
Gravettian
O
C
R
X
?
X
X
X
L
NC
Gravettian
R
?
X
NC
45, 56, 101.
Gravettian
R
?
X
NC
45, 56, 101.
Gravettian
R
?
X
NC
45, 56, 101.
Gravettian
R
?
X
NC
45, 56, 101.
Age uncal
Period
Site
Pit
14,990 ± 80
(Beta-63510/
CMAS-7641)
14,990 ± 80
(Beta-63510/
CMAS-7641)
14,990 ± 80
(Beta-63510/
CMAS-7641)
Gravettian
C
Gravettian
24,800 ± 800
(OxA-10093)
23,680 ± 200
(OxA-8293)
27,680 ± 270
(Beta-157439)
27,680 ± 270
(Beta-157439)
27,680 ± 270
(Beta-157439)
27,680 ± 270
(Beta-157439)
27,680 ± 270
(Beta-157439)
Association art
References
1, 16, 73.
N
1.
77, 97.
45, 56, 101.
12/17/2012 2:24:37 PM
(continued )
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
Early Upper
Palaeolithic
Early Upper
Palaeolithic
Status
burial
Cussac 1
Uncertain
Cussac 2
Uncertain
Cussac 3
Uncertain
Cussac 4
Uncertain
Cussac 5
Uncertain
Dolni Vestonice 3
Certain
Dolni Vestonice 4
Certain
Dolni Vestonice 13* Certain
Dolni Vestonice 14* Certain
Dolni Vestonice 15* Certain
Age uncal
Period
Site
25,120 ± 120
BP (Beta-156643)
25,120 ± 120 BP
(Beta-156643)
25,120 ± 120 BP
(Beta-156643)
25,120 ± 120 BP
(Beta-156643)
25,120 ± 120 BP
(Beta-156643)
25,950 + 630/580 (GrN-18189)
Gravettian
C
Gravettian
Direction
(head)
12/17/2012 2:24:38 PM
Association art
Ochre
Position
X
?
NC
5.
C
F
5.
Gravettian
C
NC
5.
Gravettian
C
NC
5.
Gravettian
C
NC
5.
Pavlovian
O
X
X
R
N-W
Pavlovian
26,640 ± 110
Pavlovian
(GrN-14831) 24,000
± 900 (ISGS-1616)
24,970 ± 920
(ISGS-1617)
26,640 ± 110
Pavlovian
(GrN-14831) 24,000 ±
900 (ISGS-1616)
24,970 ± 920
(ISGS-1617)
O
O
?
X
X
X
B
S-S-E
51, 53, 60,
88.
1.
54, 86, 88.
O
X
X
F
S
54, 86, 88.
26,640 ± 110
(GrN-14831) 24,000
± 900 (ISGS-1616)
24,970 ± 920
(ISGS-1617)
O
X
X
B
S
54, 86, 88.
Pavlovian
Pit
References
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
0001823556.INDD 308
Table 17.1 Continued
0001823556.INDD 309
Dolni Vestonice 16
Certain
Pavlovian
O
X
X
R
E
53, 85, 86,
88, 89.
Gravettian
C
X
X
B
S
21, 71.
Gravettian
C
X
X
B
46, 70.
Gravettian
C
X
X
B
46, 70.
Gravettian
C
X
B
N-W
46, 70.
Gravettian
C
X
L
N-W
23, 46, 97.
Gravettian
C
F
N-W
15.
24,720 ± 420 (F-55)
Gravettian
C
X
B
S-W
23,470 ± 370 (F-57)
23,040 ± 380 (F-58)
Gravettian
C
X
X
B
S
13, 32, 46,
63, 64.
32, 46, 64.
?
Grotta Paglicci 25
Certain
Grotte des
Enfants 4
Grotte des
Enfants 5*
Grotte des
Enfants 6*
Certain
Gravettian
C
X
X
B
S-W
70, 97.
Certain
Gravettian
C
X
X
F
N-E
70, 97.
Certain
Gravettian
C
X
X
B
N-E
70, 97.
(continued )
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
Grotta delle Arene Certain
Candide Il Principe
Grotta delle Veneri Certain
a Parabita 1*
Grotta delle Veneri Certain
a Parabita 2*
Grotta di Baousso da Certain
Torre 1
Grotta di Baousso da Certain
Torre 2
Grotta di Baousso da Certain
Torre 3
Grotta Paglicci 15 Certain
26,390 ± 270
(ISGS-1744) 25,570
± 280 (GrN-15276)
25,740 ± 210
(GrN-15277)
23,440 ± 190
(OxA-10700)
12/17/2012 2:24:38 PM
Early Upper
Palaeolithic
Status
burial
Kostenki 2
Certain
Kostenki 14
Certain
Kostenki 15
Certain
Kostenki 18
Certain
Krems-Wachtberg
1A*
Certain
Krems-Wachtberg
1B*
Certain
Krems-Wachtberg 2 Certain
12/17/2012 2:24:38 PM
Age uncal
Period
Site
Pit
Association art
Ochre
Position
23,880 ± 150
(GIN-7992)
14,300 ± 460
(GIN-79) 28,370 ±
140 (GrA-15960
29,320 ± 140
(GrA-15955)
30,080 + 590/-550
(GrN-21802)
31,760 + 430/-410
(GrA-13288
21,720 ± 570
(LE-1430)
21,020 ± 180
(OxA-7128) 20,600
± 140 (GIN-8032)
26,580 ± 160
(Poz-1290) 26,520 +
210/-200 (VERA3819)
Gravettian
O
Gravettian
O
X
X
L
Gravettian
O
X
?
S
Gravettian
O
X
Gravettian
O
X
26,580 ± 160
Gravettian
(Poz-1290) 26,520 +
210/-200 (VERA3819)
26,580 ± 160
Gravettian
(Poz-1290) 26,520 +
210/-200 (VERA3819)
O
O
Direction
(head)
References
W
12, 62, 79,
80.
4, 62, 79, 80.
S
62, 80.
L
S-W
62, 76, 80.
X
L
N
26, 27.
X
X
L
N
26, 27.
?
X
R
S
26, 27.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
0001823556.INDD 310
Table 17.1 Continued
0001823556.INDD 311
Certain
Mal’ta 1*
Certain
Mal’ta 2*
Certain
Mladec 1
Uncertain
Mladec 2
Uncertain
Mladec 8
Uncertain
Ostuni 1
Certain
Ostuni 2
Certain
24,860 ± 200
(GrA-13310)
24,660 ± 260
(OxA-8421)
23,920 ± 220
(OxA-8422)
24,520 ± 240
(OxA-8423)
19,880 ± 160
(OxA-7129)
19,880 ± 160
(OxA-7129)
31,190 + 400/-390
(VERA-3073)
31,320 + 410/-390
(VERA-3074)
30,680 + 380/-360
(VERA-3075)
Gravettian
R
X
X
B
W-N-W
74, 100.
Gravettian
O
X
X
L
N
33, 76, 93.
Gravettian
O
X
X
L
N
76, 93.
Aurignacian
C
?
?
NC
99, 101.
Aurignacian
C
?
?
NC
99, 101.
Aurignacian
C
?
?
NC
99, 101.
24,410 ± 320
(Gif-9247)
24,410 ± 320
(Gif-9247)
Gravettian
C
X
X
B-L
S
24, 32.
Gravettian
C
?
X
B
S-W
24, 32.
(continued )
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
Lagar Velho 1
12/17/2012 2:24:38 PM
12/17/2012 2:24:38 PM
Early Upper
Palaeolithic
Status
burial
Paviland 1
Certain
Pavlov 1
Certain
Predmosti 1*
Certain
Predmosti 2*
Certain
Predmosti 3*
Certain
Predmosti 4*
Certain
Predmosti 5*
Certain
Predmosti 6*
Certain
Predmosti 7*
Certain
Association art
Ochre
Position
Direction
(head)
References
X
B
N-E
3, 50.
R
S
53, 86.
Age uncal
Period
Site
Pit
28,870 ± 180
(OxA-16412)
28,400 ± 320
(OxA-16502)
29,490 ± 210
(OxA-16413)
28,820 ± 340
(OxA-16503)
25,840 ± 280
(OxA-8025)
26,350 ± 550
(OxA-1815)
26,170 ± 450
(GrN-20391)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
Gravettian
C
X
Gravettian
O
?
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
Pavlovian
O
X
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
N
52, 53, 67.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
0001823556.INDD 312
Table 17.1 Continued
0001823556.INDD 313
Certain
Predmosti 9*
Certain
Predmosti 10*
Certain
Predmosti 11*
Certain
Predmosti 12*
Certain
Predmosti 13*
Certain
Predmosti 14*
Certain
Predmosti 15*
Certain
Predmosti 16*
Certain
Predmosti 17*
Certain
Predmosti 18*
Certain
Predmosti 22
Predmosti 27
Sungir 1
Uncertain
Certain
Certain
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
25,820 ± 170
(GrN-1286)
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Pavlovian
O
X
52, 53, 67.
Gravettian
Pavlovian
Gravettian
O
O
O
?
?
X
67.
1
6, 55, 72.
22,930 ± 200
(OxA-9036)
19,160 ± 270
(AA-36473)
X
B
N-E
(continued )
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
Predmosti 8*
12/17/2012 2:24:38 PM
Late Upper
Palaeolithic
Status
burial
Sungir 2*
Certain
Sungir 3*
Certain
Late Upper
Palaeolithic
Status burial Age uncal
Abri du Cap Blanc 1 Certain
Abri Lafaye 1*
Certain
Abri Lafaye 2*
Uncertain
Brillenhohle
Uncertain
Chancelade 1
Duruthy 1
Duruthy 2
Gough’s C 1
(Cheddar Man)
Certain
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
Grotta Continenza ? Uncertain
12/17/2012 2:24:38 PM
Grotta Continenza ? Uncertain
Age uncal
Ochre
Position
Direction
(head)
References
X
X
B
S-W
6, 55, 72.
O
X
X
B
N-E
6, 55, 72.
Period
Site
Pit
Ochre
Position
Direction
(head)
References
Magdalenian
Magdalenian
R
R
?
L
R
E
N-W
20, 62.
18, 48, 49.
Magdalenian
R
?
NC
18, 42, 48.
Magdalenian
C
NC
69, 82.
Magdalenian
Final Magdalenian
Magdalenian
Creswellian
C
C
C
C
L
NC
NC
39, 42.
42, 57.
42, 57.
78, 84.
Final
Epigravettian
Final
Epigravettian
R
?
R
?
Period
23,830 ± 220
Gravettian
(OxA-9037) 27,210
± 710 (AA-36474)
26,200 ± 640
(AA-36475)
24,100 ± 240
Gravettian
(OxA-9038) 26,190
± 640 (AA-36476)
15,290 + 150
(GifA-95047)
15,290 ± 150
(GifA-95047)
12,470 ± 65
(OxA-11054)
9,080 ± 150
(BM-525) 9,100 ±
100 (OxA-814)
9,680 ± 110
(Rome-556)
9,885 ± 75
(Rome-1196)
Site
Pit
O
Association art
Association art
X
?
X
?
?
35, 36.
NC
35, 36.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
0001823556.INDD 314
Table 17.1 Continued
0001823556.INDD 315
Grotta Continenza ? Uncertain
Grotta Continenza 7 Certain
Grotta del Romito 1* Certain
Grotta del Romito 2* Certain
Grotta del Romito 3 Certain
Grotta del Romito 5* Certain
Grotta del Romito 6* Certain
Grotta del Romito 7 Certain
Grotta del Romito 8 Certain
Grotta del Romito 9 Certain
Grotta della Mura 1 Certain
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 1
Certain
11,380 + 70
(Beta-160297)
11,340 + 90
(LTL-3032A)
11,380 + 70
(Beta-160297)
11,340 + 90
(LTL-3032A)
10,862 ± 70
(LTL-3033A)
10,862 ± 70
(LTL-3033A)
12,060 ± 90
(Beta-160302)
13,915 ± 70
(LTL-3034A)
11,420 ± 100
(Beta-142778)
Final
Epigravettian
Epigravettian
R
X
L
N
35, 36.
R
X
F
S-E
32, 35, 36.
Epigravettian
Epigravettian
Epigravettian
R
R
C
X
X
X
B
B
B
N-W
N-W
N-W
28, 59.
28, 59.
28, 59.
Epigravettian
C
X
B
N-W
28, 59.
Epigravettian
R
X
X
B
N-W
25, 28, 59.
Epigravettian
R
X
X
B
N-W
25, 28, 59.
Epigravettian
C
X
X
B
N-W
59.
Epigravettian
Epigravettian
C
C
X
X
?
X
B
B
N-W
59.
25.
Epigravettian
C
B
N-W
19.
Epigravettian
C
?
X
X
?
NC
22, 31.
(continued )
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
Grotta del Romito 4 Certain
10,280 ± 110
(Rome-557)
10,230 ± 100
(Rome-558)
12/17/2012 2:24:38 PM
12/17/2012 2:24:38 PM
Late Upper
Palaeolithic
Status
burial
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 2
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 3
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 4
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 5A*
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 5B*
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 6A*
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 6B*
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 7
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 8
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 9
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 10
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 11
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 12
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 13
Certain
Certain
Age uncal
Period
Site
Pit
Epigravettian
C
X
Epigravettian
C
?
Epigravettian
C
?
Epigravettian
C
Epigravettian
Association art
Ochre
Position
Direction
(head)
References
X
B
S-E
22, 46.
NC
22, 31.
?
NC
22, 31.
X
X
B
E
22, 46.
C
X
X
B
E
22, 46.
Epigravettian
C
X
X
B
22, 46.
Epigravettian
C
X
X
B
22, 46.
Epigravettian
C
X
Epigravettian
C
X
Certain
Epigravettian
C
Certain
Epigravettian
Certain
10,065 ± 55
(OxA-10998)
Certain
Certain
Certain
Certain
Certain
9,925 ± 50
(OxA-10999)
9,925 ± 50
(OxA-10999)
10,585 ± 55
(OxA-11000)
10,585 ± 55
(OxA-11000)
Certain
Certain
Certain
Certain
10,655 ± 55
(OxA-11001)
10,720 ± 55
(OxA-11002)
B
Axis SE-NO
22, 46.
X
B
S-W
22, 46.
X
X
B
C
X
X
B
N-W
22, 46.
Epigravettian
C
X
X
B
N-W
22, 46.
Epigravettian
C
?
?
NC
22, 31.
Epigravettian
C
?
?
NC
22, 31.
22, 46.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
0001823556.INDD 316
Table 17.1 Continued
0001823556.INDD 317
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 14
Grotta delle Arene
Candide 15
Certain
10,735 ± 55
(OxA-11003)
Certain
Grotte des Enfants 2* Certain
11,130 ± 100
(GifA-94197)
11,130 ± 100
(GifA-94197)
C
?
?
NC
22, 31.
Epigravettian
C
X
X
B
W
22, 46.
Epigravettian
C
X
X
L
S
34, 61.
Epigravettian
C
X
X
B
N
34, 61.
Epigravettian
C
?
X
NC
Epigravettian
C
X
X
B
Epigravettian
C
Epigravettian
C
?
Epigravettian
C
Epigravettian
Epigravettian
Epigravettian
Epigravettian
Epigravettian
Epigravettian
Epigravettian
Epigravettian
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Epigravettian
C
?
61.
W
10, 34, 61.
NC
34.
?
NC
2.
?
X
NC
2.
X
X
X
X
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
NC
B
B
NC
B
B
N-E
58.
58.
37, 46.
13, 32.
81.
81.
81.
43, 44, 70.
B
N-E
43, 44, 70.
S
S-E
(continued )
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
Grotta di San
Certain
Teodoro 1
Grotta di San
Certain
Teodoro 2
Grotta di San
Certain
Teodoro 3
Grotta di San
Certain
Teodoro 4
Grotta di San
Uncertain
Teodoro 5
Grotta di San
Certain
Teodoro 6
Grotta di San
Certain
Teodoro 7
Grotta d’Oriente A Uncertain
Grotta d’Oriente C Certain
Grotta Maritza 1
Certain
Grotta Maritza 2
Certain
Grotta Romanelli 1 Certain
Grotta Romanelli 2 Certain
Grotta Romanelli 3 Certain
Grotte des Enfants 1* Certain
Epigravettian
12/17/2012 2:24:38 PM
Late Upper
Palaeolithic
Status
burial
Grotte des Enfants 3 Certain
La Madeleine 4
Certain
Laugerie-Basse 4
Uncertain
Les Hoteaux
Mittlere Klause 1
Certain
Certain
Neuwied-Irlich ?
Uncertain
Neuwied-Irlich ?
Uncertain
Oberkassel 1*
Certain
Oberkassel 2*
Certain
Riparo Tagliente 1
Certain
Riparo Villabruna 1 Certain
Age uncal
10,190 ± 100
(GifA-95457)
15,700 ± 150
(GifA-94204)
12/17/2012 2:24:38 PM
18,200 ± 200
(UCLA-1869)
18,590 ± 260
(OxA-9856)
11,910 ± 70
(OxA-9847) 12,310
± 120 (OxA-9736)
12,110 ± 90
(UtC-9221) 11,965
± 65 (OxA-9848)
11,570 ± 100
(OxA-4790)
12,180 ± 110
(OxA-4792)
13,270 ± 170
(OxA-3532) 13,070 ±
170 (OxA-3531)
12,140 ± 70
(KIA-27004)
12,040 ± 150
(R-2023)
Association art
Ochre
Position
Direction
(head)
References
X
B
B
S-W
S
46, 70, 97.
41, 91.
L
N-E
38, 48, 66.
Period
Site
Pit
Epigravettian
Magdalenian
C
R
X
Magdalenian
R
Magdalenian
Solutrean
R
C
Magdalenian
O
?
?
82.
Magdalenian
O
?
?
82.
Magdalenian
O
?
X
40, 62.
Magdalenian
O
?
X
40, 62.
Epigravettian
R
X
X
?
B
N-E
7, 17, 32.
Epigravettian
R
X
X
X
B
N-E
17.
X
X
B
B
87, 90.
9, 62, 75, 83.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
0001823556.INDD 318
Table 17.1 Continued
0001823556.INDD 319
Rond-du-Barry 8
Uncertain
Saint-Germain-laRivière 1
Saint-Germain-laRivière 2
Vado all’Arancio 1
Vado all’Arancio 2
Uncertain
Certain
Certain
Certain
17,100 ± 450
(Gif-3038)
Final Magdalenian C
NC
8.
Magdalenian
R
?
?
92.
15,780 ± 200
Magdalenian
(GifA-95456)
11,330 ± 50 (R-1333) Epigravettian
11,330 ± 50 (R-1333) Epigravettian
R
?
X
L
E
11, 48, 91.
C
C
X
X
B
B
N
W
32, 46, 65.
32, 46, 65.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
Notes: * Multiple burials. Key for radiocarbon dates: Bold: direct dates; Italic: unreliable dates. Key for site: C: Cave; R: Rockshelter; O: Open air site. Key for position:
B: Back; L: Left side; R: Right side; F: Front; S: Sitting; NC: Not in anatomical connection. Reference key: 1: Absolon 1929; 2: Aimar and Giacobini 1989; 3: AldhouseGreen and Pettitt 1998; 4: Anikovich 1992; 5: Aujoulat et al. 2002; 6: Bader 1964; 7: Bartolomei et al. 1974; 8: de Bayle des Hermens and Heim 1989; 9: Bednarik
2009; 10: Binant 1991; 11: Blanchard et al. 1972; 12: Boriskovski 1965; 13: Borgognini Tarli 1969; 14: Borgognini Tarli et al. 1980; 15: Boyle 1925; 16: Breuil 1924;
17: Broglio 1995; 18: Brun 1867; 19: Calattini 2002; 20: Capitan and Peyrony 1912; 21: Cardini 1942; 22: Cardini 1980; 23: Carthailac 1912; 24: Coppola and Vacca
1995; 25: Craig et al. 2010; 26: Einwögerer et al. 2006; 27: Einwögerer et al. 2009; 28: Fabbri et al. 1989; 29: Formicola 1989; 30: Formicola et al. 2004; 31: Formicola
et al. 2005; 32: Giacobini 2006a; 33: Golomshtok 1933; 34: Graziosi 1947; 35: Grifoni Cremonesi 1998; 36: Grifoni Cremonesi et al. 1995; 37: Grifoni Cremonesi and
Radmilli 1964; 38: Hamy 1874; 39: Hardy 1891; 40: Hedges et al. 1998; 41: Heim 1991; 42: Henry-Gambier 1990; 43: Henry-Gambier 1995; 44: Henry-Gambier 2001;
45: Henry-Gambier 2002; 46: Henry-Gambier 2005; 47: Henry-Gambier 2008; 48: Henry-Gambier et al. 2000; 49: Holt and Formicola 2008; 50: Jacobi and Higham
2008; 51: Jelinek 1953; 52: Jelinek 1989; 53: Jelinek 1991; 54: Klíma 1988; 55: Kuzmin et al. 2004; 56: Lartet 1868; 57: Lartet and Chaplain-Duparc 1874; 58: Lo Vetro
and Martini 2006; 59: Martini 2006; 60: Mauduit 1949; 61: Maviglia 1941; 62: May 1986; 63: Mezzena and Palma di Cesnola 1972; 64: Mezzena and Palma di Cesnola
1993; 65: Minellono 1980; 66: de Mortillet 1872; 67: Obermaier 1905; 68: Onoratini and Combier 1995; 69: Orschiedt 2002; 70: Palma di Cesnola 2001; 71: Pettitt et
al. 2003; 72: Pettitt and Bader 2000; 73: Pettitt and Trinkaus 2000; 74: Pettitt et al. 2002; 75: Protsch and Glowatzki 1974; 76: Richards et al. 2001; 77: Rivière 1872;
78: Seligman and Parsons 1914; 79: Sinitsyn and Hoffecker 2006; 80: Soffer 1985; 81: Stasi and Regàlia 1904; 82: Street et al. 2006; 83: Street and Terberger 2002;
84: Stringer 2000; 85: Svoboda 1988; 86: Svoboda et al. 2002; 87: Tournier and Guillon 1895; 88: Trinkaus and Jelinek 1997; 89: Trinkaus and Svoboda 2006; 90:
Vallois 1972; 91: Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2001; 92: Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2003; 93: Vasil’ev 2000; 94: Verneau 1892; 95: Verneau 1894; 96: Verneau 1899; 97:
Verneau 1906; 98: Veyrier et al. 1953; 99: Wild et al. 2005; 100: Zilhão and Almeida 2002; 101: Zilhão and Trinkaus 2002.
12/17/2012 2:24:39 PM
12/17/2012 2:24:39 PM
Early Upper Palaeolithic
Age
Sex
Association tools
Association fauna
Barma Grande 2*
Barma Grande 3*
Adult
Teen
Male
?
X
X
X
Barma Grande 4*
Teen
?
X
Barma Grande 5
Barma Grande 6
Brno 2
Brno 3
Cavillon 1
Dolni Vestonice 3
Dolni Vestonice 4
Dolni Vestonice 13*
Dolni Vestonice 14*
Dolni Vestonice 15*
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Child
Adult
Adult
Adult
Male
Male
Male
Female
?
Female
?
Male
Male
?
Dolni Vestonice 16
Grotta delle Arene Candide Il
Principe
Grotta delle Veneri a Parabita 1*
Grotta delle Veneri a Parabita 2*
Grotta di Baousso da Torre 1
Grotta di Baousso da Torre 2
Grotta di Baousso da Torre 3
Grotta Paglicci 15
Grotta Paglicci 25
Grotte des Enfants 4
Grotte des Enfants 5*
Adult
Teen
Male
Male
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Teen
Teen
Adult
Adult
Adult
Male
?
Male
Male
?
?
Female
Male
Female
Other grave goods
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
?
X
References
X
X
10, 17, 24, 25, 76, 79.
10, 17, 24, 25, 76, 77,
79.
10, 17, 24, 25, 76, 77,
79.
25, 77.
25, 28.
1, 11, 45.
1.
59, 61, 78.
43, 45, 50.
1, 45.
45, 46, 47, 68.
40, 45, 46, 47, 68.
26, 27, 45, 46, 47, 68,
70.
45, 67.
15, 31, 85.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ornaments
X
X
?
X
X
X
X
X
?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
?
X
29, 30, 59.
29, 30, 59, 60.
10, 39, 52, 62, 81.
10, 17, 39.
10, 81.
29, 39, 53.
29, 39, 54.
59.
59, 78, 79.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
0001823556.INDD 320
Table 17.2 Demographic and artefactual information for the Upper Palaeolithic burials considered in this study
0001823556.INDD 321
Teen
Adult
Adult
Child
Child
Baby
Baby
Baby
Child
Child
Child
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Child
Adult
Adult
Adult
Baby
Teen
Child
Adult
Adult
Baby
Baby
Baby
Adult
Child
Male
Male
Male
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Female
?
Male
Male
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
59, 79.
52, 65.
4, 52, 65.
4, 52, 65.
52, 65.
20.
20.
20, 21.
56, 73, 84.
32.
75.
18, 29, 60.
18, 29, 38.
3, 42.
45.
43, 56, 84.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
(continued )
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
Grotte des Enfants 6*
Kostenki 2
Kostenki 14
Kostenki 15
Kostenki 18
Krems-Wachtberg 1A*
Krems-Wachtberg 1B*
Krems-Wachtberg 2
Lagar Velho 1
Mal’ta 1*
Mal’ta 2*
Ostuni 1
Ostuni 2
Paviland 1
Pavlov 1
Predmosti 1*
Predmosti 2*
Predmosti 3*
Predmosti 4*
Predmosti 5*
Predmosti 6*
Predmosti 7*
Predmosti 8*
Predmosti 9*
Predmosti 10*
Predmosti 11*
Predmosti 12*
Predmosti 13*
Predmosti 14*
Predmosti 15*
12/17/2012 2:24:39 PM
Early Upper Palaeolithic
Age
Sex
Predmosti 16*
Predmosti 17*
Predmosti 18*
Predmosti 27
Sungir 1
Sungir 2*
Sungir 3*
Child
Child
Adult
Adult
Adult
Teen
Child
?
?
?
?
Male
Male
?
Late Upper Palaeolithic
Abri du Cap Blanc 1
Abri Lafaye 1*
Chancelade 1
Grotta Continenza 7
Grotta del Romito 1*
Grotta del Romito 2*
Grotta del Romito 3
Grotta del Romito 4
Grotta del Romito 5*
Grotta del Romito 6*
Grotta del Romito 7
Grotta del Romito 8
Grotta del Romito 9
Grotta della Mura 1
Grotta delle Arene Candide 1
Grotta delle Arene Candide 2
Grotta delle Arene Candide 3
Grotta delle Arene Candide 4
Grotta delle Arene Candide 5A*
Age
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Teen
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Child
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Sex
Female
Female
Male
Male
Female
?
Male
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
?
?
Male
?
Female
Male
Male
Association tools
Association fauna
Other grave goods
Ornaments
References
X
X
X
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
44, 57, 85.
1, 85.
5, 82.
51, 82, 83.
51, 82, 83.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Association tools
Association fauna Other grave goods Ornaments
X
X
?
X
X
X
X
X
X
?
?
X
?
?
X
X
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
References
41.
13, 41.
41.
29, 30, 34.
19, 23, 49.
19, 23, 49.
19, 23, 49.
19, 23, 49.
19, 23, 49.
19, 23, 49.
19, 49.
19, 49.
19, 63.
14.
16.
16, 39.
16.
16.
16, 39.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
0001823556.INDD 322
Table 17.2 Continued
12/17/2012 2:24:39 PM
0001823556.INDD 323
Child
Adult
Child
Baby
Child
Baby
Adult
Child
Adult
Teen
Adult
?
?
?
?
?
?
Male
?
Male
Female
Female
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
?
?
?
?
?
?
Grotta delle Arene Candide 15
Teen
?
X
X
Grotta di San Teodoro 1
Grotta di San Teodoro 2
Grotta di San Teodoro 3
Grotta di San Teodoro 4
Grotta di San Teodoro 6
Grotta di San Teodoro 7
Grotta d’Oriente C
Grotta Maritza 1
Grotta Maritza 2
Grotta Romanelli 1
Grotta Romanelli 2
Grotta Romanelli 3
Grotte des Enfants 1*
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Child
Adult
Adult
Child
Child
Child
Female
?
?
Female
?
Male
?
?
Male
Male
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
X
?
?
X
X
?
?
X
X
X
X
X
X
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
X
X
X
X
X
X
?
?
?
16, 39.
16, 39.
16, 39.
16, 39.
16, 39.
16, 39.
16, 39.
16, 39.
16.
16.
16.
X
16, 39.
X
?
?
22, 33, 51.
51.
51.
7, 22, 33, 51.
2.
2.
48.
29, 30, 35, 39.
9, 29, 30, 39.
66.
66.
66.
37, 38, 59.
?
?
?
?
?
?
X
(continued )
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
Grotta delle Arene Candide 5B*
Grotta delle Arene Candide 6A*
Grotta delle Arene Candide 6B*
Grotta delle Arene Candide 7
Grotta delle Arene Candide 8
Grotta delle Arene Candide 9
Grotta delle Arene Candide 10
Grotta delle Arene Candide 11
Grotta delle Arene Candide 12
Grotta delle Arene Candide 13
Grotta delle Arene Candide 14
12/17/2012 2:24:39 PM
Late Upper Palaeolithic
Age
Sex
Grotte des Enfants 2*
Grotte des Enfants 3
La Madeleine 4
Les Hoteaux
Mittlere Klause 1
Oberkassel 1*
Oberkassel 2*
Riparo Tagliente 1
Child
Adult
Child
Teen
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
?
Female
?
?
Male
Male
Female
Male
Riparo Villabruna 1
Saint-Germain-la-Rivière 2
Vado all’Arancio 1
Vado all’Arancio 2
Adult
Adult
Adult
Child
Male
Female
Male
?
Association tools
Association fauna
Other grave goods
?
?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
?
Ornaments
References
X
X
?
X
X
X
X
X
?
37, 38, 59.
59.
36, 72.
69, 71.
41.
7, 41.
7, 41.
6, 12.
X
X
?
12.
8, 41, 74.
29, 39.
29, 39, 55.
X
?
?
?
Notes: Reference key: 1: Absolon 1929; 2: Aimar and Giacobini 1989; 3: Aldhouse-Green 2000; 4: Anikovich 1992; 5: Bader 1964; 6: Bartolomei et al. 1974; 7:
Binant 1991; 8: Blanchard et al. 1972; 9: Borgognini 1969; 10: Boyle 1925; 11: Breuil 1924; 12: Broglio 1995; 13: Brun 1867; 14: Calattini 2002; 15: Cardini 1942;
16: Cardini 1980; 17: Carthailac 1912; 18: Coppola and Vacca 1995; 19: Craig et al. 2010; 20: Einwögerer et al. 2006; 21: Einwögerer et al. 2009; 22: Fabbri 1993;
23: Fabbri et al. 1989; 24: Formicola 1988; 25: Formicola 1989; 26: Formicola 2007; 27: Formicola et al. 2001; 28: Formicola et al. 2004; 29: Giacobini 2006a; 30:
Giacobini 2006b; 31: Giacobini and Malerba 1992; 32: Golomshtok 1933; 33: Graziosi 1947; 34: Grifoni et al. 1995; 35: Grifoni and Radmili 1964; 36: Heim 1991;
37: Henry-Gambier 1995; 38: Henry-Gambier 2001; 39: Henry-Gambier 2005; 40: Hillson et al. 2006; 41: Holt and Formicola 2008; 42: Jacobi and Highham 2008;
43: Jelinek 1953; 44: Jelinek 1989; 45: Jelinek 1991; 46: Klima 1987; 47: Klima 1988; 48: Lo Vetro and Martini 2006; 49: Martini 2006; 50: Mauduit 1949; 51:
Maviglia 1941; 52: May 1986; 53: Mezzena and Palma di Cesnola 1972; 54: Mezzena and Palma di Cesnola 1993; 55: Minellono 1980; 56: Moreno-Garcia 2002;
57: Obermaier 1905; 58: Onoratini and Combier 1995; 59: Palma di Cesnola 2001; 60: Palma di Cesnola 2006; 61: Rivière 1872; 62: Rivière 1873; 63: Ruffo 2010;
64:Slimak and Plisson 2008; 65: Soffer 1985; 66: Stasi and Regalia 1904; 67: Svoboda 1988; 68: Trinkaus and Svoboda 2006; 69: Tournier and Guillon 1895; 70:
Ullrich 1995; 71: Vallois 1972; 72: Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2001; 73: Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2002; 74: Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2003; 75: Vasil’ev 2000; 76: Verneau
1892; 77: Verneau 1899; 78: Verneau 1906; 79: Verneau 1908; 80:Veyrier et al. 1953; 81: Villotte and Henry-Gambier 2010; 82: White 1993; 83: White 1999; 84:
Zilhão and Almeida 2002; 85: Zilhão and Trinkaus 2002.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
0001823556.INDD 324
Table 17.2 Continued
12/17/2012 2:24:39 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
upper palaeolithic eurasia
325
Early Upper Paleolithic
Late Upper Paleolithic
fig. 17.1 Distribution of early (circles) and late Upper Palaeolithic (triangles) burials in
Eurasia
its conspicuous absence during the Aurignacian requires explanation by proponents of the
‘human revolution’ model (Mellars 2005).
he variation in the graphs that comprise Figure 17.2 also reveals that the term ‘burial’ can
be somewhat vague. Comparing the total number of buried individuals (Fig. 17.2(a) as
opposed to the number of sites with burials (Fig. 17.2(b)) shows that many sites have yielded
more than a single burial. Although not graphed, the total number of inhumations (i.e. individual graves) also results in a slightly diferent pattern. It is therefore important to highlight
what is meant by the term ‘burial’ in any given context, as diferent igures can tell us diferent things about Upper Palaeolithic mortuary practices.
We have already mentioned that the number of interments show two peaks, the main one
during the 31,250–28,750 cal. bp interval, and a slightly more modest one between 13,750–
11,250 cal. bp.1 hey are separated by over 15,000 calendar years which suggests the pattern is
not simply an artefact of time-vectored diferential preservation where we would expect to
see a continuous increase in the frequency of burials as we move towards the present
(Surovell and Brantingham 2007, Surovell et al. 2009). While the absence of corroborating
palaeontological and geological data prevents us from ascertaining this (cf. Surovell et al.
2009), some very unusual preservation biases would have had to be at play to exclude human
intentionality as the driving factor.
he fact that both graphs show that sites containing burials and especially the number of
buried individuals are highest in the Gravettian suggests that burial was an important facet
of social life at that time. Combined with the geographical extent of EUP burials seen in
Figure 17.1, one might even be tempted to argue that burials represent a common cultural
feature of a far-lung population sharing certain social norms (Mussi et al. 2000).
Some interesting discrepancies emerge when the graphs are compared, however. First,
it is obvious that the number of sites containing burials severely underestimates the
number of buried individuals. his simply relects the fact that burial sites oten contain
1
Unless otherwise mentioned, all calibrated dates used in this chapter were obtained using OxCal
4.01 IntCal09.
0001823556.INDD 325
12/17/2012 2:24:39 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
326
human experience across cultural contexts
A)
–40
–45
30
n sites with burials
d18O
–35
25
20
15
10
5
0
10000
15000
20000
25000
Calibrated years BP
30000
B)
–40
–45
30
n buried individuals
d18O
–35
25
20
15
10
5
0
10000
15000
20000
25000
Calibrated years BP
30000
fig. 17.2 Distribution of burials over time
Notes: (a) Number of sites containing burials; (b) number of buried individuals.
more than a single buried individual. hat said, the two igures do not co-vary directly.
Most obviously, the Gravettian is associated with many more buried individuals than the
Final Epigravettian, even though the number of early Gravettian burial sites is much
smaller. his indicates that multiple inhumations were more common in the Gravettian
than at the tail-end of the Palaeolithic, which may relect changing views of personhood
and social relations as the Pleistocene was drawing to a close. he presence of these peaks
does, however, indicate that burial acquired greater prominence as a way to underscore
some of these norms.
0001823556.INDD 326
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
upper palaeolithic eurasia
327
Some scholars have argued that the incidence of UP symbolic behaviour, especially
parietal and mobiliary art, was strongly related to climatic variability (Barton et al. 1994).
In this view, symbolic behaviour acted as a ‘social lubricant’ to facilitate interactions
between people as they aggregated in refugia during the Last Glacial Maximum (Gamble
1986, 1999).
Since UP burials are usually agreed to be eminently symbolic in nature, a irst step to
explain the peaks seen in Figure 17.2 would be to address this possibility. However, regressions between the number of buried individuals and burial sites and variance in climatic
conditions show only statistically insigniicant relationships2 (climate data drawn from the
GRIP Ice Core; Blunier and Brook 2001). his allows us to rule out ‘symbolic lubrication’ as
an explanation for the changing incidence in burials over the course of the UP, in notable
contrast to Palaeolithic art.
In a way, this is completely unsurprising. Ater all, not all symbolic behaviours are the
same, and while parietal and mobiliary art was meant to publically broadcast social cues,
burials are starkly diferent in terms of their long-term visibility. On the one hand, depictions could remain visible for millennia and, in the case of mobiliary art, they could also be
moved considerable distances. On the other, burials were inextricably associated with very
speciic places and they were visible and recognizable for comparatively short periods of
time. In a way, burials can even be considered the ‘anti-Palaeolithic art’ since they were probably created and socially ‘consumed’ over comparatively short periods of time, dictated as
much by the need to dispose of bodies in short order as by the fact that their static nature
would have been at odds with the inherent mobility of Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers.
Lastly, to the extent that an UP grave would/could have stayed visible for more than a generation, the direct knowledge of a buried individual’s identity and/or personal familiarity with
him or her would have rapidly disappeared from the collective memory that is essential to
give that grave its full meaning.
In fact, it is very rare to ind burials associated with parietal art, and only 12.5% of LUP
graves may have been. his is in contrast to mobiliary art, which is fairly frequent in the burial context and would have disappeared from the public domain following burial. his reinforces the patterns discussed earlier, and then suggests that, as in contrast to Palaeolithic art,
one might even expect there to be a disconnect between climatic variability and burial frequency. his therefore forces a revision of positions that interpret variation in the complexity
and frequency of burials in the Upper Palaeolithic as largely a response to climatic pressures
(Riel-Salvatore 2001).
Demographic Trends
We begin this section with a perfunctory analysis of the age and sex proiles of buried individuals in both periods to evaluate whether the conclusions of earlier studies are borne out
with our more complete data set. In terms of sex, individuals for whom a determination is
available indicate a 3.6 (18:5) male-to-female ratio in the EUP, compared with only 1.46 (19:13)
he statistics for the regressions between number of ‘burials’ and variance in temperature are as
follow: for individuals, r = 0.20, p = 0.55; and for sites, r = 0.21, p = 0.53. Running comparable regressions
for the EUP and LUP samples independently yields similarly statistically insigniicant relationships.
2
0001823556.INDD 327
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
328
human experience across cultural contexts
in the LUP. his conirms the view that females were almost as likely to be buried as males in
the LUP, but almost three times less so in the EUP.
Turning to age, the individuals were categorized as infants (0–2 years), juveniles (2–12
years), teens (12–18 years), and adults (18+ years). While the EUP and LUP samples contain
comparable numbers of individuals, they show some clear diferences. Although it is clear
that adults were buried more oten than other age groups, a more thorough inspection reveals
that non-adults are much more frequent in the EUP than in the LUP (45% vs 32%, respectively). If the Predmosti data are excluded (due to their unusual accumulation history), nonadults account for almost half (48.9%) of all EUP interred individuals. Most strikingly,
however, the adult-to-infant ratio in the EUP is 4.27 (or 8, if Predmosti is excluded), while in
the LUP the ratio is of 19 adults for every infant, a dramatic diference indeed.
Proportionally, many more infants were buried in the EUP than in the LUP. he meaning
of this pattern needs to be contextualized. Before stating that infants were only very rarely
selected for burial in the LUP, other potential explanations for a lack of deceased infants
must be irst be ruled out. For instance, while several authors have noted that Mousterian
burials include proportionally many more infants than Gravettian burials, what this means
continues to be debated (Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001, Zilhão and Trinkaus 2002, Zilhão
2005). Some see this diference as indicating a diference in the age at which an individual
was considered a person and, therefore, an integral part of the social group (Zilhão 2005).
On the other hand, we tend to see the discrepancy in dead infants between the two periods
as most likely to result from decreased infant mortality in the Gravettian as a result of a
greater dependence on plant foods and small game (Riel-Salvatore 2010). At the risk of
sounding gruesome, our view is that you can’t bury dead babies if you don’t have dead
babies to bury in the irst place. Considering the increased reliance on plants and small
game in the LUP relative to the EUP (e.g. Stiner and Kuhn 2006), we feel that this more prosaic perspective is a more parsimonious explanation for the diference in infant-to-adult
ratios in the burials of the two periods.
Of course, other interpretations of the high frequency of infants in the EUP record cannot
be dismissed out of hand. heir relevance needs to be evaluated against the record, however.
In other words, while it is certainly possible that EUP infants entered the burial record as
part of rites relecting infanticide or concerns about puriication etc., we prefer for the
moment to remain wary of inferring too much about such considerations in the absence of
solid supporting data. Ater all, it is also possible that their prevalence relects situational
decisions that bear little to no resemblance to ethnographically documented practices, even
if we could feel safe in reconstructing social norms on such a small, patchily distributed, and
heterogeneous sample of interments. hus, at this time, taking a materialist perspective on
the issue seems to be the safest starting point for a critical evaluation of that unquestionably
distinctive facet of the EUP mortuary record.
hat said, regardless of the ultimate explanation for the low number of infants in our sample, the fact that they were at least occasionally buried in both periods does indicate that the
death of a young child would have been traumatic enough to some Palaeolithic societies to
warrant burying them, much like older members of their societies. he fact that, in most
cases (except Predmosti for which details are sadly lacking), UP infants were buried with
ornaments suggests to us that they were deinitely considered to be, if not members of the
societies into which they were born (discussed later), at least socially important enough for
parents to feel the need to mark their loss with such socially signiicant objects.
0001823556.INDD 328
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
upper palaeolithic eurasia
329
Burial Context
Multiple burials are found in both periods. But while the EUP is associated with 26 individual as opposed to 8 multiple burials, the LUP is associated with 43 individual and only 7 multiple burials. his dimension again indicates a very clear distinction between the two periods,
with multiple burials being relatively twice as common in the EUP. As for the age and sex
patterns discussed above, this can’t be explained as a result of diferential survival. It therefore is possible that the prevalence of multiple burials in the EUP relects signiicant diferences in the social norms that structured burial practices between the early and later phases
of the Upper Palaeolithic.
Formicola (2007) has cogently argued that multiple deaths are unlikely to have been common enough in the UP for these occurrences to be completely natural. his means either that
speciic people were put to death to accompany some deceased individuals, or that burials
‘lived’ in the collective social mind long enough for individuals to be buried alongside
already dead relatives, however deined. Anthropologie de terrain has much to ofer to resolve
some of these questions (Duday et al. 1990). However, since ine-grained contextual information is lacking for most UP burials, it is currently hard if not impossible adequately to
address this question. Nonetheless, the preponderance of pathological individuals (and perhaps juveniles) included in many multiple burials and also noted by Formicola (2007) needs
to be accounted for in any future consideration of multiple UP burials.
As concerns the context of UP burials, our sample indicates that 49/61 EUP and 28/56
LUP buried individuals are associated with evidence of a burial pit. Given the standards of
documentation at the time most burials were found, it is likely that some of this evidence has
been inferred indirectly from the inclusion of multiple individuals within a single grave. his
is especially true for the Predmosti mass grave.
As for the type of sites in which burials were found, 42/61 of EUP individuals were found
in open-air contexts (23/42 if Predmosti is excluded), compared to only 4/56 in the LUP.
While this might appear to be a signiicant and behaviourally meaningful diference, in reality, it is a relection of the geology of the diferent regions in which EUP and LUP interments
are concentrated. For example, EUP open-air burials come mainly from Moravia and the
Russian Plain, where extensive karstic systems are rare or non-existent. In contrast, LUP
burials are concentrated in Italy and France, where caves and rockshelters are common.
However, Italy also comprises a large number of open-air UP sites (Palma di Cesnola 1993).
his suggests that, where caves exist, sepulchral activity may have been concentrated preferentially in those settings. As a result, it is impossible to attribute any signiicance to the diferences in site-setting preference between the two phases of the UP. If anything, the high
frequency of open-air EUP burial sites raises the question of why Moravia and the Russian
Plain have not yielded any LUP burials.
Grave Goods: Ochre, Ornaments, and Other hings
he presence of ochre and grave goods is oten argued to be a diagnostic feature of UP burials. Our sample vindicates this, though they are less frequent in the LUP. Given how diicult
it can be to attribute ornaments to individuals in multiple interments, for this section we use
inhumations as our unit of analysis. Ornaments are present in 25/35 (~71%) of EUP burials
and 16/50 (~32%) of LUP burials, while ochre is associated with 26/35 (~74%) of EUP burials
0001823556.INDD 329
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
330
human experience across cultural contexts
and 25/50 (~50%) of LUP burials. hus, ornaments and ochre are notably more frequent in
the EUP than in the LUP, even if they are not present in all EUP burials. his means that
equating UP burials with lots of ochre and ornaments is an overstatement of the evidence,
especially for the LUP. Even in the EUP, Table 17.1 indicates that burials from a single site can
be extremely variable in terms of their association with ochre and ornaments.
Turning to the symbolic nature of these grave goods, while ochre can be fairly securely
associated with mortuary ritual, whether ornaments are de facto grave goods has never been
demonstrated. In other words, while some the ornaments associated with some UP burials
(speciically the ones from Sungir) likely represent grave goods, it also is possible that many
ornaments found in graves were actually worn in daily life rather than being oferings manufactured speciically for the deceased. Ornaments can still be meaningful grave inclusions
even if they do not represent grave goods per se, for instance if they were meant to be taken
out of social circulation from the society in which they were worn in life. Determining this,
however, requires an assessment of whether they were used as ornaments during the life of a
buried individual.
Ornaments are most abundant—and therefore most likely to represent grave goods—in
Gravettian burials, and they can help answer whether the ornaments found in burials clearly
difer from those most likely to have been worn in daily life. Table 17.3 synthesizes the available data about the number of beads and their placement on the body. Figure 17.3 (let) shows
the proportional importance of adornments on given anatomical regions, and demonstrates
that most ornaments were worn on the upper part of the body, especially on the head (38%),
neck/torso (17%), and arms (14%). he shading relecting presence/absence of ornaments on
given adorned body part (ABP) in Table 17.3 shows the same overall trend (see also Fig. 17.3
(right)). here is in fact a very strong and statistically signiicant relationship between the
proportional frequency of an ABP and the proportion of total beads associated with that
ABP (r2 = 0.90, p = 0.046).
here is, however, a disparity between the proportion of all beads found on given ABPs
and how frequently these body parts were decorated. For instance, while the head accounts
for 37.3% of all ABPs, fully 69.8% of all beads in our sample are found on that body part. In
contrast, the neck/torso accounts for 16.9% of all ABPs and 17% of all beads. his means that,
on average, head ornamentation was almost twice as elaborate as that for the torso, and much
more so than any other ABP (Table 17.3). his observation stands in sharp contrast to the
general Western tendency of conining our interpretation of bead use as part of ornaments
draped around the neck (Dubin 1987: 17). his, then, lends empirical support to prior arguments that Gravettian ornaments were preferentially located on the upper body (Gamble
1999, Mussi 2001, Henry-Gambier 2008). It also supports the idea that ornaments were preferentially located on parts of the body that were easiest to see at a distance, and thus best
suited to efectively visually broadcasting social information in an emblemic manner (cf.
Wiessner 1983, Barton et al. 1994). Other considerations, such as climate, certainly afected
the prevalence of headwear in the Upper Palaeolithic. However, the fact that such ornaments
are found from the Russian Plain to southern Italy throughout that interval suggests to us
that we are, in fact, dealing with an intentional selection of the upper body as a preferred
location for ornamentation during that time.
hat said, most buried Gravettian individuals were wearing few (usually one) ornaments, which varied considerably in terms of their richness. In fact, 23 of the 27 buried
individuals wearing ornaments had beads associated with the head or the neck/torso
0001823556.INDD 330
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
0001823556.INDD 331
Table 17.3 Bead counts per body area for adorned Gravettian individuals
Burials
head
neck/torso
11*
5*
15*
10*
24*
1
33*
5*
arms
Wrists
pelvis
legs
2
164*
48
1
8*
150
4*
123
6
21.
2
216
6
7.
9
8
150
30
6
3
1
1
1
2
19, 27, 28.
19, 28.
3, 16, 22.
9.
24, 29.
2
4*
30
1
4
1
4, 7, 25, 28.
4, 7, 25, 26, 28.
4, 7, 25, 26, 28.
26.
26.
5, 13.
20, 27.
13.
13, 14, 15, 23.
13, 14, 15, 23.
13, 14, 15, 23.
23.
6.
47
2
2*
3
2
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
5
16
41
57
References
2
600
223
42
22
5
4
3
Min ABP
18*
1
36*
Total beads
37
6
49
15
2
600
264
42
22
5
4
4
353
2*
297*
ankles
(continued )
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
Barma Grande 2
Barma Grande 3
Barma Grande 4
Barma Grande 5
Barma Grande 6
Brno 2
Cavillon 1
Dolni Vestonice 4
Dolni Vestonice 13
Dolni Vestonice 14
Dolni Vestonice 15
Dolni Vestonice 16
Grotta delle Arene
Candide Il Principe
Grotta di Baousso
da Torre 1
Grotta di Baousso da
Torre 2
Grotte des Enfants 5
Grotte des Enfants 6
Kostenki 15
Krems-Wachtberg 1A
Lagar Velho 1
Around body
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
Burials
Around body
head
neck/torso
arms
Wrists
Mal’ta 1
Ostuni 1
1
102
115*
1
5*
4
Ostuni 2
Paglicci 15
Paglicci 25
Paviland 1
Veneri a Parabita 1
4*
28
7
1
pelvis
1
ankles
1
5
29
legs
Total beads
Min ABP
References
117
111
3
3
10.
8.
4
31
7
5
29
1
4
1
1
1
8.
11, 17.
11, 18.
1, 2, 12.
11, 19.
Notes: * Count obtained through our analysis of photos and drawings. Reference key: 1: Aldhouse-Green 2000; 2: Aldhouse-Green and Pettitt 1998; 3: Anikovich
1992; 4: Boyle 1925; 5: Breuil 1924; 6: Cardini 1942; 7: Carthailac 1912; 8: Coppola and Vacca 1995; 9: Einwögerer et al. 2006; 10: Golomshtok 1933; 11: HenryGambier 2005; 12: Jacobi and Higham 2008; 13: Jelinek 1991; 14: Klima 1987; 15: Klima 1988; 16: May 1986; 17: Mezzena and Palma di Cesnola 1972; 18: Mezzena
and Palma di Cesnola 1993; 19: Palma di Cesnola 2001; 20: Rivière 1872; 21: Rivière 1873; 22: Soffer 1985; 23: Trinkaus and Svoboda 2006; 24: Vanhaeren and
d’Errico 2002; 25: Verneau 1892; 26: Verneau 1899; 27: Verneau 1906; 28: Verneau 1908; 29: Zilhão and Almeida 2002.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
0001823556.INDD 332
Table 17.3 Continued
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
upper palaeolithic eurasia
legs
14%
ankles
2%
arms
5%
pelvis
5%
wrists
2%
pelvis
2%
333
legs
4%
head
38%
torso
17%
wrists
10%
head
70%
arms
14%
torso
17%
fig. 17.3 Frequency charts of all adorned body parts (let) and total proportion of beads on
each body part (right)
area. On one level, this pattern provides circumstantial support for the idea that these
ornaments were used in Gravettian daily life. hat is because buried individuals had certainly inished with broadcasting social information at a distance, which means that there
was no necessary reason to position grave ornaments the same way as during life. In fact,
it is perhaps not a coincidence that, of the four individuals found with no ornaments on
the head or neck/torso, three are also the only ones to have been found with ornaments
on the pelvis (i.e. Dolni Vestonice 16, Krems-Wachtberg 1A, and Paviland 1). It is likely
that these represent ‘true’ grave goods, unlikely to have been used in more prosaic contexts. he Epigravettian double burial from Grotte des Enfants found with a ‘blanket’ of
shells over the pelvic area of the deceased may represent a LUP analogue (Henry-Gambier
2001). Importantly, this idea is amenable to direct testing by looking at the wear patterns
of beads found in burials.
Of course, many of the burials discussed here were excavated over a century ago using
fairly coarse recovery methods. However, the bead count and ABP patterns for burials excavated before and ater 1970 are broadly similar (Fig. 17.4), which suggests that our conclusions about the nature of ornamentation in UP burials are likely correct.
In sum, it is clear that the widespread idea that the majority of Gravettian burials were
richly adorned distorts reality, based as it is on rare but striking instances of sumptuous
ornamentation (e.g. Sungir, Brno). The rarity and overall sobriety of most ornaments,
and the fact that most were likely worn by interred individuals before their death, suffice to undermine that received wisdom. Additionally, the data indicate that many individuals left the world of the living with few if any durable ornaments made by members
of their society to mark that departure, a situation that was is in fact the norm in the
LUP.
Other possible grave goods are also oten claimed to be common in UP burials. In this
case, bone and stone tools are much more frequent in the EUP (48.6% of burials) than in the
0001823556.INDD 333
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
334
human experience across cultural contexts
arms
6%
pelvis legs
wrists
0% 5%
2%
legs
21%
head
31%
pelvis
3%
torso
21%
wrists
10%
head
66%
arms
15%
Beads (n = 1215)
pelvis
wrists
8%
1%
arms
2%
torso
1%
torso
20%
ABP (n = 40)
ankles
0%
pelvis
11%
ankles
5%
wrists
11%
head
53%
arms
10%
head
88%
Beads (n = 351)
torso
10%
ABP (n = 19)
fig. 17.4 ABP and bead count per body part for burials found before (top) and ater
(bottom) 1970
Notes: Before 1970 (top): n = 15; ater 1970 (bottom): n = 12.
LUP (22%), though it is oten hard to establish whether their inclusion was intentional or
fortuitous (e.g. as part of the ill). he same applies to many faunal remains, which are found
in about a third of all burials throughout the UP (34.3% of EUP burials, 34% of LUP). Other
types of potential grave goods (including ivory spears, bone discs, and bâtons de commandement among many others) are associated with just over one-quarter of all burials in both
periods (28.6% EUP, 26% LUP). Such objects are therefore rare occurrences in UP burials
(especially as compared to ochre and ornaments), which again stands in contrast to onesize-its-all descriptions of UP burials.
0001823556.INDD 334
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
upper palaeolithic eurasia
335
Discussion and Conclusions
It should be clear at this point that, contrary to widespread perception, it is almost impossible to deine a ‘typical’ UP burial, or even one from the EUP or LUP. his is all the more noteworthy given the small sample size under consideration. his diiculty stems from three
main causes. First, the patchy spatio-temporal distribution of burials makes it hard to compare them directly as manifestations of a common behaviour. Second, several sites and
regions dominate both the EUP and LUP samples. his means that any trends in the UP
funerary record are unlikely to relect widespread cultural conventions as opposed to patterns limited to speciic points in time and space. hird, even multiple burials from a single
site show a great deal of internal variability. hat is, there was little in the way of stereotyped
burial norms that can be identiied at most of these sites.
Since, as we have argued, many of the personal ornaments found in UP burials are likely to
represent items worn in life, even regions such as Liguria, characterized by an apparent mortuary cannon revolving around personal ornaments, become analytically fuzzier when other
dimensions of the record need to be emphasized. Likewise, empirical data now strongly
undermine the common assumption that UP burials represent simply another form of symbolic behaviour whose expression and intensity luctuated in response to climatic variation
before, during, and ater the Last Glacial Maximum.
We think that underscoring the peculiarities of the UP burial record is crucial to iguring
out how best to analyse that class of evidence. Speciically, the observations derived from
our sample can be used as baseline empirical parameters to develop questions most likely to
yield new insights about the place and signiicance of burials in the lives of UP foragers. For
one thing, they should encourage future research on burials to be based on more regionally
focused approaches. Likewise, since burials operate symbolically at visual and social scales
quite distinct from those of other forms of UP symbolism, another focus of study should be
what made burial-rich loci signiicant for their inhabitants, and how that social signiicance
articulates with others spheres of life, such as subsistence and land-use strategies. his
would help us move beyond describing regional mortuary conventions, and towards
attempting to reconstruct the belief system implicit in grave-speciic features.
An example of this might be to ask what led people to select the Grotta delle Arene
Candide as a burial ground used for over 1,000 years in two discrete phases during the Final
Epigravettian (Cardini 1980, Formicola et al. 2005). his site is striking for having yielded the
remains of over 15 individuals, many of which were recovered in elaborate graves (Cardini
1980), and for having been within sight of the coast throughout the UP and lanked by a large
dune of white sand that made it conspicuously visible from a distance (Bietti and Molari
1994, Cassoli 1980). In terms of the ritual evidence, there is strong evidence that later burials
showed a measure of respect for the skeletons from disturbed earlier burials (Cardini 1980,
Formicola et al. 2005). he use of the site as a burial locality played out against a background
of decreased health and stature of its occupants relative to earlier periods (Formicola and
Holt 2007), and of the fact that Liguria is associated with clear evidence for subsistence stress
in the LUP (Stiner et al. 2000, Stiner and Kuhn 2006). Taken together, these factors suggest
the site was very probably a key point on a landscape peopled by a growing population of
decreasingly mobile hunter-gatherers who put considerable pressure on both coastal and
0001823556.INDD 335
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
336
human experience across cultural contexts
inland resources (Francalacci 1989). As such, maybe it is an early example of a group’s social
investment in a landmark to reinforce its long-standing attachment and privileged access to
that area and the resources within it (Saxe 1970, 1971, Goldstein 1981, Charles and Buikstra
1983, Littleton and Allen 2007). In that sense, it may have echoed some of the behaviour
documented in the cemeteries of some other complex hunter-gatherer groups (e.g. Carr
1995, Schulting 1995). Even if this interpretation proves to be unsupported by future research,
it at least provides a coherent framework within which to study the site itself as a component
of Epigravettian settlement dynamics and to assign meaning to the variability documented
between the individual burials it has yielded.
In conclusion, we propose that studies of UP burials as an en bloc phenomenon are
unlikely to shed much useful light on forager lifeways between c.30–10,000 bp. If anything, the available data suggest that, overall, the average UP burial was a fairly sober
afair, a far cry from the exceptional cases like Sungir that nonetheless continue to dominate the narrative, both in the scientiic and lay literature. It is diicult to draw irm conclusions about the nature, form, and meaning of UP burials because the total sample is
extremely small, especially considering the area and time they span. Add to that the fact
that many burials are clustered in speciic sites dating to very narrow time intervals, and
it becomes clear that individual sites drive many of the patterns that can be gleaned from
the record. Of course, it is necessary to periodically review and update the corpus of
known interments so that researchers can discuss the issue with accurate information.
However, at this point in the history of Palaeolithic research, we think the impetus of current studies of the UP funerary record should not be to try to identify general trends in
the record. Instead, we should be focusing on teasing out information about the socioritual and economic contexts of burials; trying to understand how they articulate with
other forms of mortuary ritual; and reconstructing what they and the sites/landscapes
they were embedded in represent in terms of the lived realities of the groups that buried,
consumed, and remembered them.
Acknowledgements
hank you to Liv Nilsson Stutz and Sarah Tarlow for encouraging us to contribute this chapter, for their patience while we delivered it, and for their constructive feedback! Very thoughtful comment by Aaron Stutz also helped strengthen the chapter. Of course, any errors of fact,
logic, or omission are ours alone.
Suggested Further Reading
Binant, P. 1991. Les sépultures du Paléolithique. Paris: Éditions Errance [in French].
In this book, Binant compiles general characteristics of all Upper Palaeolithic burials found
before 1991. Each burial is covered separately, with basic information such as the presence/
absence of ornaments, ochre, etc.
Formicola, V. 2007. From the Sunghir Children to the Romito Dwarf, Aspects of the Upper
Paleolithic Funerary Landscape. Current Anthropology 48(3): 446–53.
0001823556.INDD 336
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
upper palaeolithic eurasia
337
his paper focuses on multiple burials found in the European Upper Palaeolithic and suggests
that certain pathological individuals might have been treated diferently from the rest of
society during life and death, maybe being preferentially targeted for burial over others. It
provides a provocative take on multiple burials in that period.
Formicola, V., Pettitt, P. B., Maggi, R., and Hedges, R. 2005. Tempo and Mode of Formation of
the Late Epigravettian Necropolis of Arene Candide Cave (Italy): Direct Radiocarbon
Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1598–602.
An analysis presenting dates for multiple individuals buried in the Epigravettian ‘necropolis’ of
the Arene Candide. he authors show that the cave was used during two distinct phases, but
that even over that c.1,000-year span, burial conventions changed little, lending credence to
ideas about long-term cultural norms in this facet of life at the end of the Palaeolithic.
Giacobini, G., 2007. Richness and Diversity of Burial Rituals in the Upper Paleolithic. Diogenes
54(2): 19–39.
A review of the evidence for Upper Palaeolithic burials in Italy. It provides an overview of the
burials and what they contain, along with generalizations about regional patterns.
Harrold, F. B. 1980. A Comparative Analysis of Eurasian Paleolithic Burials. World Archaeology
12: 195–211.
his is one of the irst comprehensive surveys of Palaeolithic burials. He uses general characteristics to infer the presence of general ritual practices across time and space, emphasizing
diferences between the Mousterian and the Upper Palaeolithic as a whole.
May, F. 1986. Les sépultures préhistoriques: étude critique. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de
la Recherche Scientiique [in French].
In this book-length review, May quotes and translates important information given on burials
found before the 1980s. She also draws some links based on similarities and diferences
found in certain burials.
Pettitt, P. B. 2010. he Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. New York: Routledge.
A book-length review of the evidence for mortuary behaviour from the Lower to the Upper
Palaeolithic. It provides a general introduction to the evidence for burial, which is complemented with that for other potential types of pre-agricultural mortuary evidence.
Riel-Salvatore, J., and Clark, G. A. 2001. Grave Markers: Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic
Burials and the Use of Chronotypology in Contemporary Paleolithic Research. Current
Anthropology 42(4): 449–79.
A comparison of the evidence for burial in the Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic, which
emphasizes that if the same criteria are applied to both periods, we must conclude that
intentional burial was either present or absent in both periods.
Zilhão, J. 2005. Burial Evidence for the Social Diferentiation of Age Classes in the Early Upper
Palaeolithic. In: D. Vialou, J. Renault-Miskovsky, and M. Patou-Mathis (eds.) Comportements
des Hommes du Paléolithique Moyen et Supérieur en Europe: Territoires et Milieux : Actes du
Colloque du GDR 1945 du CNRS, Paris, 8–10 janvier 2003. Liège: Études et Recherches
Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 111: 231–41.
A review of Early Mousterian, Late Mousterian, and Gravettian burials that focuses on the
demographic dimension of the buried. he study shows that fewer infants were buried in the
Gravettian than in earlier periods, suggesting that a diferent conception of personhood
might have characterized that period relative to that found in the Mousterian.
Zilhão, J., and E. Trinkaus. 2002. Social Implications. In: J. Zilhão and E. Trinkaus (eds.)
Portrait of the Artist as a Child, the Gravettian Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do
Lagar Velho and its Archaeological Context. Lisbon: Instituto Português de Arqueologia:
519–41.
0001823556.INDD 337
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
338
human experience across cultural contexts
his book provides extensive coverage of the archaeological context in which the child of Lagar
Velho was buried. It also places this burial in its prehistoric context with a quick reviewing
of other contemporaneous burials.
Additional References
Absolon, K. 1929. New Finds of Fossil Human Skeletons in Moravia. Anthropologie 7: 79–89.
Aimar, A., and Giacobini, G. 1989. A New Upper Paleolithic Human Skull from the Cave of
San Teodoro (Messina, Sicily). In: G. Giacobini (ed.) Hominidae. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Congress of Human Paleontology, Turin, 28 September–3 October 1987.
Milano: Jaca Book: 495–9.
Aldhouse-Green, S. 2000. Artefacts of Ivory, Bone and Shell from Paviland. In: S. AldhouseGreen (ed.) Paviland Cave and the ‘Red Lady.’ Bristol: Western Academic & Specialist Press
Limited: 115–32.
—— and Pettitt, P. 1998. Paviland Cave: Contextualizing the ‘Red Lady’. Antiquity 72(278):
756–72.
Anikovich, M. 1992. Early Upper Paleolithic Industries of Eastern Europe. Journal of World
Prehistory 6(2): 205–45.
Arias, P., Armendariz, A., Fano, M. A., Fernandez-Tresguerres, A., González Morales, M. R.,
Iriarte, M. J., Ontañon, R., Álvarez Fernández, E., Etxeberria, F., and Garralda, M. D. 2009.
Burials in the Cave: New Evidence on Mortuary Practices during the Mesolithic of
Cantabrian Spain. In: S. B. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren, and P. Woodman (eds.)
Mesolithic Horizons: Papers presented.at the Seventh International Conference on the
Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 650–6.
Aujoulat, N., Geneste, J.-M., Archambeau, C., Delluc, M., Duday, H., and Henry-Gambier, D.
2002. La grotte ornée de Cussac, Le Buisson-de-Cadouin (Dordogne). Bulletin de la Société
préhistorique française 99(1): 129–37.
Bader, O. 1964. Nouvelles sépultures du Paléolithique en URSS. Archeologia: préhistoire &
archéologie 4: 61–4.
Bartolomei, G., Broglio A., Guerreschi, A. Leonardi, P., Peretto, C., and B. Sala. 1974. Una
sepoltura epigravettiana nel deposito pleistocenico del Riparo Tagliente in Valpantena
(Verona). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 29(1): 101–52.
Bar-Yosef, O., and Bordes, J. G. 2010. Who were the Makers of the Châtelperronian Culture?
Journal of Human Evolution 59: 586–93.
Barton, C. M., Clark, G. A., and Cohen, A. 1994. Art as Information: Explaining Paleolithic
Art in Europe. World Archaeology 26(2): 184–206.
de Bayle des Hermens, R., and Heim, J.-L. 1989. Découverte d’un crâne humain dans une
sépulture secondaire du Magdalénien I de la grotte du Rond-du-Barry, Polignac, HauteLoire. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, Paris 309, Série II: 1349–52.
Bednarik, R. G. 2009. he Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition Revisited. In: M. Camps and P.
Chauhan (eds.) Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions. New York: Springer Science: 273–81.
Bietti, A., and Molari, C. 1994. he Upper Pleistocene Deposit of the Arene Candide Cave
(Savona, Italy): General Introduction and Stratigraphy. Quaternaria Nova 4: 9–41.
Binford, S. R. 1968. Structural Comparison of Disposal of the Dead in the Mousterian and
Upper Paleolithic. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24: 139–54.
Blanchard, R., Peyrony, D., and Vallois, H.-V. 1972. Le gisement et le squelette de Saint-Germainla-Rivière. Paris: Masson et Cie.
0001823556.INDD 338
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
upper palaeolithic eurasia
339
Blunier, T., and Brook, E. J. 2001. Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica
and Greenland during the Last Glacial Period. Science 291(5501) (5 January): 109–12.
Borgognini Tarli, S. M. 1969. Studio antropologico di uno scheletro di epoca mesolitica rinvenuto nella grotta Maritza presso Avezzano (Abruzzo). Rivista di Antropologia 56: 135–56.
—— Fornaciari, G., and Palma di Cesnola, A. 1980. Restes humains des niveaux Gravettiens de
la Grotte Paglicci (Rignano Garganico): contexte archéologique, étude anthropologique et
notes de paléopathologie. Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 7(13):
125–52.
Boriskovski, J. 1965. A propos des récents progrès des études paléolithiques en URSS.
L’Anthropologie 69(1): 5–30.
Boyle, M. E. 1925. Barma Grande the Great Cave and its Inhabitants. Ventimiglia: ABBO Frêres
& Cie.
Breuil, H. 1924. Voyage paléolithique en Europe centrale. L’Anthropologie 34: 548–52.
Broglio, A. 1995. Les sépultures Épigravetiennes de la Vénétie (abri Tagliente et abri Villabruna).
In: M. Otte (ed.) Actes du Colloque International de Liège, 13–17 décembre 1993. Liège: Études
et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 68: 847–69.
Brun, V. 1867. Notice sur les Fouilles Paléontologiques de l’Âge de Pierre, Exécutées à Bruniquel
et St-Antonin. Montauban: Imprimerie Forestié.
Calattini, M. 2002. Scoperta di una sepoltura paleolitica a grotta della Mura. Rassegna di
Archeologica. A. Preistorica e protostorica 19A: 37–45.
Capitan, L., and Peyrony, D. 1912. Trois nouveaux squelettes humains fossiles. Comptes-rendus
des séances de l’année—Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 6: 449–54.
Cardini, L. 1942. Nuovi documenti sull’ antichità dell’ uomo in Italia: Reperto umano del
Paleolitico superiore nella ‘Grotta delle Arene Candide’. Razza e civilta 3: 5–25.
—— 1980. La necropoli Mesolitica delle Arene Candide (Liguria). In: Studi di Paletnologia
Paleoantropologia, Paleontologia e geologia del Quaternario, III: Memorie dell’Istituto
Italiano di Paleontologia Umana. Rome: Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana:
9–32.
Carr, C. 1995. Mortuary Practices: heir Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial, and
Physical Determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and heory 2(2): 105–200.
Carthailac, É. 1912. Les grottes de Grimaldi (Baoussé-Roussé). Vol. II. Monaco: Imprimerie de
Monaco.
Cassoli, P. F. 1980. L’avifauna del Pleistocene superiore delle Arene Candide (Liguria). Memorie
dell’Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana 3: 155–234.
Charles, D. K., and Buikstra, J. E. 1983. Archaic Mortuary Sites in the Central Mississippi
Drainage: Distribution, Structure, and Behavioral Implications. In: J. L. Phillips and
J. A. Brown (eds.) Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest. New York:
Academic Press: 117–45.
Coppola, D., and Vacca, E. 1995. Les sépultures Paléolithiques de la Grotte de Sainte Marie
d’Agnano à Ostuni (Italie). In: M. Otte (ed.) Nature et Culture: Actes du Colloque International
de Liège, 13–17 décembre 1993. Liège: Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de
Liège 68: 795–808.
Craig, O. E., Biazzo, M., Colonese, A. C., Di Giuseppe, Z., Martinez-Labarga, C., Lo Vetro, D.,
Lelli, R., Martini, F., and Rickards, O. 2010. Stable Isotope Analysis of Late Upper Palaeolithic
Human and Faunal Remains from Grotta del Romito (Cosenza), Italy. Journal of
Archaeological Science 37: 2504–12.
de Mortillet, G. 1872. Les hommes des cavernes à l’époque de la Madeleine. Bulletins de la
Société d’anthropologie de Paris 7(7): 489–95.
0001823556.INDD 339
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
340
human experience across cultural contexts
Dikov, N. N. 1968. he Discovery of the Palaeolithic in Kamchatka and the Problem of the
Initial Occupation of America. Arctic Anthropology 5: 191–203.
Dubin, L. S. 1987. he History of Beads: From 30,000 BC to the Present. New York: Harry N.
Abrams.
Duday, H., Courtaud, P., Crubezy, E., Sellier, P., and Tillier, A.-M. 1990. L’anthropologie de
terrain: reconnaissance et interprétation des gestes funéraires. Bulletins et Mémoires de la
Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 2(3–4): 29–50.
Einwögerer, T., Friesinger, H., Händel, M., Neugebauer-Maresch, C., Simon, U., and TeschlerNicola, M. 2006. Upper Palaeolithic Infant Burials. Nature 444: 285.
—— Händel, M., Neugebauer-Maresch, C., Simon, U., Steier, P., Teschler-Nicola, M., and
Wild, E. M. 2009. 14C dating of the Upper Paleolithic site at Krems-Wachtberg, Austria.
Radiocarbon 51(2): 847–55.
Fabbri, P. F. 1993. Nuove determinazioni del sesso e della statura degli individui. Rivista di
Scienze Preistoriche 45: 219–32.
—— Graziosi, P., Guerri, M., and Mallegni, F. 1989. Les hommes des sépultures de la Grotte du
Romito à Papasidero (Cosenza, Italie). In: G. Giacobini (ed.) Hominidae. Proceedings of
the 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology, Turin, 28 September–3 October
1987. Milan: Jaca Book: 487–94.
Finlayson, C., Pacheco, F. G., Rodriguez-Vidal, J., Fa, D. A., López, J. M. G., Pérez, A. S., Allue,
E., Preysler, J. B., Cáceres, I., Carrión, J. S., Jalvo, Y. F., Gleed-Owen, C. P., Espejo, F. J. J.,
López, P., Saez, J. A. L., Cantal, J. A. R., Marco, A. S., Guzman, F. G., Brown, K., Fuentes, N.,
Valarino, C. A., Villalpando, A., Stringer, C. B., Ruiz, F. M., and Sakamoto, T. 2006. Late
Survival of Neanderthals at the Southernmost Extreme of Europe. Nature 443(7113):
850–3.
Formicola, V. 1988. he Triplex Burial of Barma Grande (Grimaldi Italy). Homo 39(3–4):
130–43.
—— 1989. he Upper Paleolithic burials of Barma Grande, Grimaldi, Italy. In: G. Giacobini
(ed.) Hominidae. Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology,
Turin, 28 September–3 October 1987. Milan: Jaca Book: 483–6.
—— and Holt, B. M. 2007. Resource Availability and Stature Decrease in Upper Paleolithic
Europe. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 85: 153–64.
—— Pettitt, P. B., and del Lucchese, A. 2004. A Direct AMS Radiocarbon Date on the Barma
Grande 6 Upper Paleolithic Skeleton. Current Anthropology 45(1): 114–18.
—— Pontrandoli, A., and Svoboda, J. 2001. he Upper Paleolithic Triple Burial of Dolní
Vĕstonice: Pathology and Funerary Behavior. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
115: 372–9.
Francalacci, P. 1989. Dietary Reconstruction at Arene Candide Cave (Liguria, Italy) by Means
of Trace Element Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 16(2): 109–24.
Freeman, L. G., and González Echegaray, J. 1970. Aurignacian Structural Features and Burials
at Cueva Morin (Santander, Spain). Nature 226(5247): 722–6.
Gambier, D., and Le Mort, F. 1996. Modiications artiicielles et séries anciennes possibilités
et limites de l’interprétation palethnologique. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société
d’Anthropologie de Paris 8(3–4): 245–60.
Gamble, C. 1986. he Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
—— 1999. he Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gargett, R. H. 1999. Middle Palaeolithic Burial is not a Dead Issue: he View from Qafzeh,
Saint-Césaire, Kebara, Amud, and Dederiyeh. Journal of Human Evolution 37: 27–90.
0001823556.INDD 340
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
upper palaeolithic eurasia
341
Giacobini, G. 2006a. Les sépultures du Paléolithique supérieur: la documentation italienne.
Comptes Rendus Palevol 5: 169–76.
—— 2006b. Richesse et diversité du rituel funéraire au paléolithique supérieur. L’exemple des
sépultures italiennes. Diogène 2(214): 24–46.
—— and Malerba, G. 1992. Les pendeloques en ivoire de la sépulture paléolithique du ‘Jeune
Prince’ (Grotte des Arene Candide, Finale Ligure, Italie). In: J. Hahn, M. Menu, Y. Taborin,
P. Walter, and F. Widemann (eds.) Le travail et l’usage de l’ivoire au Paléolithique supérieur.
Actes de la Table Ronde, Ravello 29–31 mai 1992. Rome: Istituto Poligraico e Zecca dello
Stato: 173–88.
Goldstein, L. 1981. One-Dimensional Archaeology And Multi-dimensional People: Spatial
Organization and Mortuary Analysis. In: J. Chapman, I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg (eds.)
he Archaeology of Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 53–69.
Golomshtok, E. A. 1933. Trois gisements du Paléolithique supérieur Russe et Sibérien.
L’Anthropologie 43: 333–46.
Graziosi, P. 1947. Gli uomini Paleolitici della grotta di San Teodoro (Messina) ‘Antropologia’.
Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 2: 123–223.
Grifoni Cremonesi, R. 1998. Alcune considerazioni sul rituale funerario nel Paleolitico superiore della grotta Continenza. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 49: 395–407.
—— Borgognini Tarli, S. M., Formicola, V., and Paoli, G. 1995. La sepoltura epigravettiana
scoperta nel 1993 nella Grotta Continenza di Trasacco (l’Aquila). Rivista di Antropologia 73:
225–36.
—— and Radmilli, A. M. 1964. La Grotta Maritza e il Fucino prima dell’età romana. Rivista di
Scienze Preistoriche 19: 56–112.
Hamy, E.-T. 1874. Description d’un squelette humain fossile de Laugerie-Basse. Bulletins de la
Société d’anthropologie de Paris IIe Série (9): 652–8.
Hardy, M. 1891. Découverte d’une sépulture de l’époque quaternaire, à Chancelade (Dordogne).
In: Congrès international d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie préhistoriques : Compte rendu de la
dixième session à Paris. Paris: Kraus Reprint: 398–404.
Hedges, R., Pettitt, P. B., Bronk Ramsey, C., and Van Klinken, G. J. 1998. Radiocarbon Dates
from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 25. Archaeometry 40(1): 227–39.
Heim, J.-L. 1991. L’enfant Magdalénien de La Madeleine. L’Anthropologie 95(2–3): 611–38.
Henry-Gambier, D. 1990. Pratiques funéraires au Paléolithique supérieur en France: les sépultures primaires. Bulletins de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris 2(3–4): 19–28.
—— 1995. Pratiques funéraires au Paléolithique supérieur, l’exemple de la sépulture des enfants
de la Grotte des Enfants (site de Grimaldi-Italie). In: M. Otte (ed.) Nature et Culture: Actes
du Colloque International de Liège, 13–17 décembre 1993. Liège: Études et Recherches
Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 68: 811–31.
—— 2001. La sépulture des enfants de Grimaldi (Baoussé-Roussé, Italie): Anthropologie et
palethnologie funéraire des populations de la in du Paléolithique supérieur. Paris: Éditions
du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientiiques, Réunion des Musées, Documents
Préhistoriques 14.
—— 2002. Les fossiles de Cro-Magnon (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne). Bulletins et Mémoires
de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris 14(1–2): 89–112.
—— 2005. Évolution des pratiques funéraires en Italie au Paléolithique Supérieur. In: D. Vialou,
J. Renault-Mikosky, and M. Pathou-Mathis (eds.) Comportements des Hommes du Paléolithique
Moyen et Supérieur en Europe: Territoires et Milieux. Paris: ERAUL 111, Liège: 213–99.
—— 2008. Comportement des populations d’Europe au Gravettien: pratiques funéraires et
interprétations. Paléo 20: 165–204.
0001823556.INDD 341
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
342
human experience across cultural contexts
—— Valladas, H., Tisnérat-Labordes, N., Arnold, M., and Bresson, F. 2000. Datation de vestiges humains présumés du Paléolithiques supérieur par la méthode du Carbone 14 en
spectrométrie de masse par accélérateur. Paléo 12: 201–12.
—— and White, R. 2006. Modiications artiicielles des vestiges humains aurignaciens de la
grotte des Hyènes et de la galerie Dubalen. Quelle signiication? In: V. Cabrera and
F. Bernaldo de Quiros (eds.) El centenario de la cueva de El Castillo: el ocaso de los
Neandertales. Madrid: Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia.
Hillson, S. W., Franciscus, R. G., Holliday, T. W., and Trinkaus, E. 2006. he Ages at Death. In:
E. Trinkaus and J. Svoboda (eds.) Early Modern Human Evolution in Central Europe: he
People of Dolní Vĕstonice and Pavlov. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 31–62.
Holt, B. M., and Formicola, V. 2008. Hunters of the Ice Age: he Biology of Upper Paleolithic
People. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 51: 70–99.
Jacobi, R. M., and Higham, T. F. G. 2008. he ‘Red Lady’ Ages Gracefully: New Ultrailtration
AMS Determinations from Paviland. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 898–907.
Jelinek, J. 1953. Nalez fosilniho cloveka Dolni Vestonice III (L’homme fossile de Dolní Vĕstonice
III, Tchecoslovaquie). Anthropozoikum 3: 37–92.
—— 1989. Upper Paleolithic Gravettian Population in Moravia. In: G. Giacobini (ed.)
Hominidae. Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology, Turin,
28 September–3 October 1987. Milan: Jaca Book: 443–8.
—— 1991. Découvertes d’ossements de la population gravettienne de Moravie. L’Anthropologie
95(1): 137–54.
Klíma, B. 1987. Une triple sépulture du Pavlovien à Dolní Vĕstonice, Tchécoslovaquie.
L’Anthropologie 91(1): 329–34.
—— 1988. A Triple Burial from the Upper Paleolithic of Dolní Vĕstonice, Czechoslovakia.
Journal of Human Evolution 16: 831–5.
Kuzmin, Y. V., Burr, G. S., Jull, A. J. T., and Sulerzhitsky, L. D. 2004. AMS 14C age of the Upper
Palaeolithic Skeletons from Sungir Site, Central Russian Plain. Nuclear Instruments and
Methods in Physics Research B 223–4: 731–4.
Lartet, L. 1868. Une sépulture des troglodytes du Périgord (crâne des Eyzies). Bulletins de la
Société d’anthropologie de Paris 3(3): 335–49.
—— and Chaplain-Duparc, G. 1874. Une sépulture des anciens Troglodytes des Pyrénées,
superposée à un foyer contenant des débris humains associés à des dents sculptées de lion
et d’ours. Bulletins de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris 9: 516–25.
Le Mort, F., and Gambier, D. 1991. Cutmarks and Breakage on the Human Bones from Le
Placard (France): An Example of Special Mortuary Practice during the Upper Palaeolithic.
Anthropos 29: 189–94.
Littleton, J., and Allen, H. 2007. Hunter-Gatherer Burials and the Creation of Persistent Places
in Southeastern Australia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 283–98.
Lo Vetro, D., and Martini, F. 2006. La nuova sepoltura Epigravettiana di Grotta d’Oriente
(Favignana, Trapani). In: F. Martini (ed.) La Cultura del Morire nelle Società Preistoriche e
Protostoriche Italiane. Florence: Istituto italiano di preistoria e protostoria: 58–66.
Maher, L. A., Stock, J. T., Finney, S., Heywood, J. J. N., Miracle, P. T., and Banning, E. B. 2011.
A Unique Human-Fox Burial from a Pre-Natuian Cemetery in the Levant (Jordan). PLoS
ONE 6(1): e15815. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0015815.
Martini, F. 2006. Le evidenze funerarie nella Grotta e nel Riparo del Romito (Papasidero,
Cosenza). In: F. Martini (ed.) La cultura del morire nelle società preistoriche e protostoriche.
Studio interdisciplinare dei dati e loro trattamento informatico. Dal Paleolitico all Età del
Rame. Origines. Florence: Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: 46–57.
0001823556.INDD 342
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
upper palaeolithic eurasia
343
—— 2007. Archeologia del Paleolitico. Storia e culture dei popoli cacciatori-raccoglitori. Rome:
Carocci.
Mauduit, M. J. 1949. Découverte d’une sépulture à Vestonice. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 46(11–12): 388.
Maviglia, C. 1941. Scheletri umani del Paleolitico Superiore rinvenuti nella Grotta di S. Teodoro
(Messina). Archivio per l’Antropologia e la Etnologia 70: 94–104.
Mellars, P. 2005. he Impossible Coincidence: A Single-Species Model for the Origins of
Modern Human Behaviour in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews
14: 12–27.
Mezzena, F., and Palma di Cesnola, A. 1972. Scoperta di una sepoltura gravettiana nella Grotta
Paglicci (Rignano Garganico). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 27: 27–50.
—— —— 1993. Nuova sepoltura gravettiana nella Grotta Paglicci (Promontorio del Gargano).
Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 45: 3–29.
Minellono, F. 1980. Le sepolture epigravettiane di Vado all’Arancio (Grosseto). Rivista di
Scienze Preistoriche 35(1–2): 3–44.
Moreno-García, M. 2002. he Faunal Elements in the Burial. In: J. Zilhão and E. Trinkaus
(eds.) Portrait of the Artist as a Child: he Gravettian Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do
Lagar Velho and its Archaeological Context. Lisbon: Instituto Português de Arqueologia:
139–51.
Mussi, M. 1986. Italian Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Burials. Human Evolution 1(6): 545–56.
—— 2001. Earliest Italy: An Overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic. New York:
Kluwer.
—— Cinq-Mars, J., and Bolduc, P. 2000. Echoes from the Mammoth Steppe: he Case of the
Balzi Rossi. In: W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svodoba, and K. Fennema (eds.) Hunters of the
Golden Age: he Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000–20,000 BP. Leiden: University of
Leiden: 105–24.
Nilsson Stutz, L. 2008. More than Metaphor: Approaching the Human Cadaver in Archaeology.
In: F. Fahlander and T. Oestigaard (eds.) he Materiality of Death: Bodies, Burials and Belief.
Oxford: Archaeopress: 19–28.
Obermaier, H. 1905. Restes humains quaternaires. L’Anthropologie 16: 385–410.
Oliva, M. 2000. he Brno II Upper Palaeolithic Burial. In: W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svodoba,
and K. Fennema (eds.) Hunters of the Golden Age: he Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia
30,000–20,000 BP. Leiden: University of Leiden: 143–54.
Onoratini, G., and Combier, J. 1995. Restes d’enfant et parure de coquillage du site gravettien
du Marronnier (Saint-Remeze-Ardèche): Témoins de l’expansion occidentale de la culture
de tradition Noaillienne Méditérannéenne. In: M. Otte (ed.) Nature et Culture: Actes du
Colloque International de Liège, 13–17 décembre 1993. Liège: Études et Recherches
Archéologiques de l’université de Liège 68: 261–71.
Orschiedt, J. 2002. Secondary Burial in the Magdalenian: he Brillenhöhle (Blaubeuren,
Southwest Germany). Paléo 14: 241–56.
Palma di Cesnola, A. 1993. Il Paleolitico superiore in Italia: Introduction allo studio. Florence:
Garlatti e Razzai.
—— 2001. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Italie. Préhistoire d’Europe. Grenoble: Éditions Jérôme
Million.
—— 2006. L’Aurignacien et le Gravettien de la grotte Paglicci au Mont Gargano. L’Anthropologie
110(3): 355–70.
Pettitt, P. B., and Bader, O. N. 2000. Direct AMS Radiocarbon Dates for the Sungir Mid Upper
Palaeolithic Burials. Antiquity 74: 269–70.
0001823556.INDD 343
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
344
human experience across cultural contexts
—— and Trinkaus, E. 2000. Direct Radiocarbon Dating of the Brno 2 Gravettian Human
Remains. Anthropologie 38(2): 149–50.
—— Richards, M. P., Maggi, R., and Formicola, V. 2003. he Gravettian Burial Known as the
Prince (‘Il Principe’): New Evidence for his Age and Diet. Antiquity 77: 15–19.
—— van der Plicht, H., Bronk Ramsey, C., Monge Soares, A. M., and Zilhão, J. 2002. he
Radiocarbon Chronology. In: J. Zilhão and E. Trinkaus (eds.) Portrait of the Artist as a
Child: he Gravettian Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its Archaeological
Context. Lisbon: Instituto Português de Arqueologia: 132–8.
Protsch, R., and Glowatzki, G. 1974. Das absolute Alter des paläolithischen Skeletts aus der
Mittleren Klause bei Neuessing, Kreis Kelheim in Bayern. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 34(2):
140–4.
Richards, M. P., Pettitt, P. B., Stiner, M. C., and Trinkaus, E. 2001. Stable Isotope Evidence for
Increasing Dietary Breadth in the European Mid-Upper Paleolithic. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98(11): 6528–32.
Riel-Salvatore, J. 2001. A Critical Reevaluation of the Evidence for Paleolithic Intentional
Burial. Master’s Paper, Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University.
—— 2010. A Niche Construction Perspective on the Middle–Upper Paleolithic Transition in
Italy. Journal of Archaeological Method and heory 17(4): 323–55.
Rivière, É. 1872. Sur le squelette humain trouvé dans les cavernes de Baoussé-Roussé (Italie), dites
Grottes de Menton. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires de l’Académie des Sciences. 74: 1204–7.
—— 1873. Découverte d’un nouveau squelette humain de l’époque paléolithique dans les cavernes des Baoussé-Roussé (Italie), dites Grottes de Menton. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires
des séances de l’Académie des sciences 76: 1027–31.
Rufo, T. 2010. Gazzetta del Sud online. Messina: Società Editrice Siciliana. Available at: <http://
www.pro-locopapasidero.org/images/17mila_anni%20fa_nel_%20paleolitico%20nacque_
la_solidariet%C3%A0_sociale_Grotta_%20del_Romito_PAPASIDERO.pdf>.
Saxe, A. A. 1970. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. PhD dissertation, Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan.
—— 1971. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices in Mesolithic Populations from Wade
Halfa, Sudan. In: J. A. Brown (ed.) Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices.
Washington, DC: Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25: 39–56.
Sayer, D. 2009. Burial, Paleolithic. In: C. D. Bryant and D. L. Peck (eds.) Encyclopedia of Death
and the Human Experience. London: Sage Publications: 120–3.
Schulting, R. J. 1995. Mortuary Variability and Status Diferentiation on the Columbia-Fraser
Plateau. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University.
Seligman, C. G., and Parsons, F. G. 1914. he Cheddar Man: A Skeleton of Late Palaeolithic
Date. he Journal of the Royal Anthropology Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 44:
241–63.
Sinitsyn, A. A., and Hofecker, J. F. 2006. Radiocarbon Dating and Chronology of the Early
Upper Paleolithic at Kostenki. Quaternary International 152–3: 164–74.
Slimak, L., and Plisson, H. 2008. La sépulture paléolithique de l’enfant du Figuier (Ardèche,
France). Préhistoire Méditerranéennes 14: 29–38.
Sofer, O. 1985. he Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. Orlando, Fla.: Academic
Press.
Stasi, P. E., and Regàlia, E. 1904. Grotta Romanelli (Castre, Terra d’Otrante). Archivio per
l’Antropologia e la Etnologia 34: 17–79.
Stiner, M. C., and Kuhn, S. L. 2006. Changes in the ‘Connectedness’ and Resilience of
Paleolithic Societies in Mediterranean Ecosystems. Human Ecology 34(5): 693–712.
0001823556.INDD 344
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
upper palaeolithic eurasia
345
—— Munro, N. D., and Surovell, T. A. 2000. he Tortoise and the Hare: Small-Game Use, the
Broad-Spectrum Revolution, and Paleolithic Demography. Current Anthropology 41(1):
39–79.
Street, M., and Terberger, T. 2002. German Pleistocene Human Remains Series. Archaeometry
44(Suppl. 1): 11–16.
—— —— and Orschiedt, J. 2006. A Critical Review of the German Paleolithic Hominin
Record. Journal of Human Evolution 51: 551–79.
Stringer, C. B. 2000. he Gough’s Cave Human Fossils: An Introduction. Bulletin of the Natural
History Museum, London 56(2): 135–9.
Surovell, T. A., and Brantingham, P. J. 2007. A Note on the Use of Temporal Frequency
Distributions in Studies of Prehistoric Demography. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:
1868–77.
—— Finley, J. B., Smith, G. M., Brantingham, P. J., and Kelly, R. 2009. Correcting Temporal
Frequency Distributions for Taphonomic Bias. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(8):
1715–24.
Svoboda, J. 1988. A New Male Burial from Dolní Vĕstonice. Journal of Human Evolution 16:
827–30.
—— 2008. he Upper Paleolithic Burial Area at Pedmostí: Ritual and Taphonomy. Journal of
Human Evolution 54: 15–33.
—— van der Plicht, J., and Kuzelka, V. 2002. Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Human Fossils
from Moravia and Bohemia (Czech Republic): Some New 14C Dates. Antiquity 76:
957–62.
Tournier, A., and Guillon, C. 1895. Les Hommes Préhistoriques dans l’Ain. Bourg: Imprimerie
J.-M. Villefranche.
Trinkaus, E., and Jelinek, J. 1997. Human Remains from the Moravian Gravettien: he Dolní
Vĕstonice 3 Postcrania. Journal of Human Evolution 33: 33–82.
—— and Svoboda, J. 2006. Early Modern Human Evolution in Central Europe: he People of
Dolní Vĕstonice and Pavlov. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ullrich, H. 1995. Reconstruction of Close Biological Relationships in Paleolithic Burials. In:
M. Otte (ed.) Nature et Culture: Actes du Colloque international de Liège, 13–17 décembre
1993. Liège: Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 68: 765–96.
Vallois, H. V. 1972. Le crâne magdalénien des Hoteaux: notes anthropologiques. Bulletins et
Mémoires de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris 9(1): 7–25.
Vandermeersch, B. 1993. Was the Saint-Césaire Discovery a Burial? In: F. Lévêque, A. M.
Backer, and M. Guilbaud (eds.) Context of a Late Neandertal. Madison, Wisc.: Prehistory
Press: 129–31.
Vanhaeren, M., and d’Errico, F. 2001. La parure de l’enfant de La Madeleine (fouilles Peyrony).
Un nouveau regard sur l’enfance au Paléolithique supérieur. Paléo 13: 201–40.
—— —— 2002. he Body Ornaments Associated with the Burial. In: J. Zilhão and E. Trinkaus
(eds.) Portrait of the Artist as a Child: he Gravettian Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do
Lagar Velho and its Archaeological Context. Lisbon: Instituto Português de Arqueologia:
154–86.
—— —— 2003. Le mobilier funéraire de la Dame de Saint-Germain-la-Rivière (Gironde) et
l’origine paléolithique des inégalités. Paléo 15: 195–238.
Vasil’ev, S. A. 2000. he Siberian Mosaic: Upper Palaeolithic Adaptations and Change before
the Last Glacial Maximum. In: W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda, and K. Fennema (eds.)
Hunters of the Golden Age: he Middle Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000–20,000 bp.
Leiden: University of Leiden: 173–96.
0001823556.INDD 345
12/17/2012 2:24:40 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 12/17/2012, SPi
346
human experience across cultural contexts
Verneau, R. 1892. Nouvelle découverte de squelettes préhistoriques aux Baoussé-Roussé, Près
de Menton. L’Anthropologie 3: 513–40.
—— 1894. Découverte d’un nouveau squelette humain dans une grotte des Baoussé-Roussé.
L’Anthropologie 5: 123–4.
—— 1899. Les nouvelles trouvailles de M. Abbo dans la Barma Grande, près de Menton.
L’Anthropologie 10: 439–52.
—— 1906. Anthropologie. In Les Grottes de Grimaldi (Baoussé-Roussé). Vol. II. Monaco:
Imprimerie de Monaco.
—— 1908. L’Homme de la Barma Grande (Baoussé-Roussé). In: F. Abbo (ed.) Études des collections anthropologiques et archéologiques réunies dans le Museum Praehistoricum. Menton:
Imprimerie Colombani.
Veyrier, M., Huchard, P., and Obenich, A. 1953. La sépulture Paléolithique de la grotte du
Figuier à Saint-Martin-d’Ardèche. L’Anthropologie 57: 495–503.
Villotte, S., and Henry-Gambier, D. 2010. he Rediscovery of Two Upper Palaeolithic Skeletons
from Baousso da Torre Cave (Liguria-Italy). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141:
3–6.
White, R. 1993. Technological and Social Dimensions of ‘Aurignacian-Age’ Body Ornaments
across Europe. In: H. Knecht, A. Pike-Tay, and R. White (eds.) Before Lascaux: he Complex
Record of the Early Upper Paleolithic. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press: 277–99.
—— 1999. Intégrer la complexité sociale et opérationelle de l’identité sociale à Sungir. In:
H. Camps-Fabrer and M. Julien (eds.) Préhistoire d’os. Aix-en-Provence: Université de
Provence: 319–32.
—— 2007. Systems of Personal Ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological
Challenges and New Observations. In: O. Bar Yosef, K. Boyle, P. Mellars, and C. Stringer
(eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the
Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research: 287–302.
Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American
Antiquity 48(2): 253–76.
Wild, E. M., Teschler-Nicola, M., Kutschera, W., Steier, P., Trinkaus, E., and Wanek, W. 2005.
Direct Dating of Early Upper Palaeolithic Human Remains from Mladeč. Nature 435:
332–5.
Zilhão, J., and Almeida, F. 2002. he Archaeological Framework. In: J. Zilhão and E. Trinkaus
(ed.) Portrait of the Artist as a Child, the Gravettian Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do
Lagar Velho and its Archaeological Context. Lisbon: Instituto Português de Arqueologia:
29–57.
0001823556.INDD 346
12/17/2012 2:24:41 PM
Julien Riel-Salvatore
Claudine Gravel-Miguel