Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AND
HAROLD L. DIBBLE
Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19104
BURIALS
There are two major issues to be addressed when dealing with the
burial data. First is. the question of whether or not the interment of the human
remains was intentional. It appears that at least some interments were. The actual
number of cases where intentional burial is more or less 'certain is small compared
to the total number of individuals found to date, but this is undoubtedly due to
problems of preservation and, sometimes, to problems in recovery.
La Chapelle-aux-Saints and La Ferrassie are the two sites in France that first
yielded good evidence for deliberate burials of Neanderhals. At the former site,
the adult make skeleton (La Chapeile-aux-Saints I; fossil numbers from Oakley et
al. 1971,1975) was discovered in August of 1908 (Bouyssonie et al. 1908,1913); It
was found in a pit near the center of the cave that was clearly visible to the
excavators because it contrasted well with the overlying archaeological layers.
About a year later, Capitari and Peyrony discovered the first of six individuals at
La .Ferrassie (Capitan and Peyrony 1909, 1912, 1921; Peyrony 1934; see also
Heim 1976, 1982). Here again, the interpretation of intentional interment appears
sound. Also indicative of intentional burial in France are the remains of a young
(3 years) individual from Roc de Marsal, though this site is still incompletely
published (Bordes and Lafille 1962). The situation surrounding the skeleton from
Le Moustier recovered by Hauser will forever remain in doubt (Hauser 1909;
Vallois 1940), though Peyrony (1930) later found the remains of a child is one of
a pair of roughly circular pits. A completely unique occurrence is that of
Rdgourdou (Bonifay 1965; Bonifay and Vandermeersch 1962; Vander-meersph
1976), which revealed what has been interpreted as a tomb built up of rocks
'containing the remains of an adult Neandertal. Nearby, in another "structure,"
were the remains of a brown bear (Ursus arctos). This site, which is part of a
karstic system that collapsed in antiquity, is not without problems of interpretation
(see below).
Outside of France are other examples of Neandertal burials, including Amud
(Suzuki and Takai 1970), Tabun Cl (Garrod and Bate 1937), and Kebara (Smith
and Arensburg 1977; Bar-Yosef et al. 1986) in Israel; Shanidar (Solecki 1953,
1960, 1975a; Stewart 1977; Trinkaus 1983c) in Iraq; Kiik-Koba (Klein 1965) and
Teshik-Tash in the USSR (Movius 1953); and, perhaps, Krapina in Yugoslavia
(see Trinkaus 1985). For the time being we will exclude the finds of early
anatomically modern H. sapiens found in very late Mousterian contexts at Skhul
(McCown 1937) and Qafzeh (Vandermeersch 1981), both of which also yield
evidence of ,-' intentional burials.
A number of finds are more equivocal as to intentional interment. Martin
(1923:30-35) argued strongly against a deliberate burial of La Quina H5, though
the fact that a large proportion of the skeletal elements
were preserved suggests quick covering of the body whether through nat- /' liral
(alluvjal) or human agencies (Hrdlicka 1930:284-285). The two adult individuals
from Spy (1 and 2), discovered in 1886 (Hrdlicka 1930:182), are also relatively
complete, but there is no independent evidence of burial. -The same is true for the
Neandertal holotype.
But in spite of these questionable cases, it has been generally agreed for some
time (see Peyrony 192Ib; Hrdlicka 1930) that definite burials do occur in
Mousterian and Neandertal contexts. This is the earliest evidence for such
behavior during the course of human evolution.
The second question concerns the interpretation of that behavior. Burial of the
dead can mark a transition in the life cycle of an individual and thus the act of
burial can reflect a culturally bound religious belief or existential philosophy
concerning a person's soul. Or it can be much simpler than that, i.e., simply a
method for disposing of a body. In order to help decide between these alternative
interpretations, or perhaps arrive at some intermediate position, it is necessary to
look for further evidence of ritual or ceremony surrounding these burials. Of
course, most "aspects"of burial ceremony may not leave archaeological traces
except in the form of grave goods, and so it is ne'cessary to focus on this specific
class of objects.
It is the nature of grave goods that differentiate most clearly Middle . Paleolithic
burials from Upper Paleolithic.ones (Hanrold 1980, see also Binford 1968b;
Watson 1970). According to the more complete and careful study done by Harrold
(1980:206), burials from these two periods differ in terms of the simple presence
or absence of accompanying grave goods—88% of the burials of the Upper
Paleolithic contain grave goods of some kind while only 33% of Middle
Paleolithic burials do so—and also in terms of the overall abundance and diversity
of the goods when they are present.-Table 1 (from Harrold 1980) presents a
breakdown of the frequency of
, major categories of grave goods that are directly associated with actual burials. It
is apparent that Upper and Middle Paleolithic burials differ significantly in objects
of personal adornment or other items that may be inferred to have special
symbolic meaning for those people. Middle Paleolithic burials include only
mundane items of everyday use, which may lead one to question whether such
objects reflect any special ceremony 'surrounding their placement in the graves.
A good example of this comes from the site of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, which is
often quoted in secondary sources as having yielded abundant grave goods and
ochre (e.g., Hrdlickb 1930:255; Wreschner 1980). In association with the skeleton
(La Chapeile I) were the distal bones of a limb of a large bovid (a distal
metatarsal, the two first phalanges, and a second
TABLE 1
REPORTED FREQUENCY OF MAJOR CATEGORIES OF GRAVE GOODS IN BURIALS OF MIDDLE AND UPPER
PALEOLITHIC*
Middle
Upper Paleolithic
• Paleolithic
(N-67)
(N - 33)
Tools 7 36
Animal bones 7 24
Manuports 8 5
Shells 0 18
Ochre 0 35
Art/decorative items 0 33
• From Harrold (1980), Table 5.
phalanx) and other large fragments of long bones. These were originally
interpreted as offerings of food for the dead (Bouyssonie et al. 1908:517). The
original report continues':
"II y avail autour du reste (Ju corps un grand nombre d'e'clats de quartz, des silex parfois bien
travaille's, quelques fragments d'ocrc, des os brisks, etc. comme dans le rcste de la couche
arche'ologique, sans rien de bien caractfristique" [emphasis added] (1908:517).
This example illustrates the problem that one encounters when interpreting the
kinds of objects associated with recognized Middle Paleolithic burials, namely,
that they express no special character. In virtually all cases the burials are located
in the occupation areas of the sites and the associated objects are indistinguishable
from objects found in the surrounding sediments. The question is then do the
artifacts in the graves represent symbolic offerings to the dead or are they in
association with the remains only fortuitously? It is important to remember that
the occurrence of artifacts in graves in almost inevitable if the graves are dug
through and refilled with sediments containing artifacts. As Vandermeersch
(1976:727) put it:
"En eftet, des objets semblables a ceux qui ont M interprdtds comme des or* frandes se
retrouvent plus ou moins abondants dans tout le niveau archdologique de la sepulture. 11s
peuvent done avoir <£td introduils fonuitement au moment de Pddification de celle-ci. Pour
pouvoir parler d'ofTrandes !l fraudrail que les objets prdsentent un caractfcre exceptionnel, par
leurs dimensions, par rapport au con-tenu archdologique de la couche ou par leur arrangement
dans la sepulture.."
In other words, in order to be interpreted as true offerings, and certainly to
indicate some notion of religion or belief in an afterlife, the grave goods must
exhibit some special characters beyond those seen in other contexts in the site (see
also Leroi-Gourhan 1964a:53-64). For virtually
all burials in Europe this is not the case. The best example outside of •Europe is
Shanidar, in Iraq, where the presence of clumped pollen grains associated with the
Shanidar 4 Neandertal burial has been interpreted as reflecting the deliberate
placement of flowers in the grave with the deceased (Leroi-Gourhan 1975;
Solecki 1975a). However, there is evidence of considerable disturbance of..the.
grayeTtsei? "by rodents (Solecki 1977:120) and it is perhaps possible that the
pollens represent later, intrusions into the sediments. Nonetheless, this is an
interesting, though isolated case. The deliberate nature of it would be confirmed if
other such examples were found.
Mousterian burials of anatomically modern H. sapiens provide stronger evidence
of ritual symbolism. Qafzeh and Skhul, in Israel, contain graves with animal
remains which, because of their direct association with the buried individuals,
more strongly suggest that they we're true "offerings." For example, the mandible
of a wild boar was "clasped in the hands of (Skh'ul) V" (McGown 1937:104) and
a deer (Dama mesopo-tamica ?) antler was found in the hands of a child, Qafzeh
(Vandermeesch 1970). Of particular interest at the latter site is the discovery of
ochre in the vicinity of Qafzeh 8, 9, and 10 (Vandermeersch 1969), though it is
still not clear exactly how direct the association is with the burials. -In addition to
the fact that the fossil remains from these burials are definitely those of modern H.
sapiens (Vandermeersch 1981), it must also be pointed out that there is evidence
based on lithic studies that suggests that these two sites may be quite late in the
Middle Paleolithic sequence of that area (Jelinek 198la; Dibble 1983; cf. Bar-
Yosef and Vandermeersch 1981). Thus, the behavior implied by this evidence
does not' reflect the adaptation of archaic H. sapiens.
Certain spatial arrangements have been taken for many years as examples of
burial ceremony. One of the best known of these is La Ferrassie, where^two
adults, a male (Ferrassie 1) and female (Ferrassie 2), were found head to head,
although according to the excavators there was no evidence of actual burial pits
(Capitan and Peyrony 1909). Four other individuals, a child of 10 years (Ferrassie
3), a newborn (Ferrassie 4a, 4b), a 3-year-old child (Ferrassie 5), and the remains
'of a fetus (Ferrassie 6), were recovered from pits or hollows. In addition, nine
small earth mounds were discovered, along with other depressions.
This arrangement is interesting if it reflects an event or events that took place over
a restricted period of time, i.e., if the burials, pits, and small earth mounds are to
be understood as a group and not as series of unrelated activities that took place
over a prolonged period of time (Vandermeersch 1976:726). It is unfortunate that
detailed measured sections and plans are not available from these early
excavations at La Ferrassie.
Another arrangement with supposed ceremonial significance comes
from the site of Teshik-Tash in southern Uzbekistan. A young male Neandertal, 8-
10 years of age, was said to have been buried and the grave surrounded by a
"ring" of five or six pairs of horn cores of the Siberian mountain goat (Capra
sibirica). The ring of horn cores and the presence of a small hearth nearby has
been taken as evidence of a brief ritual in connection with the burial (Movius
1953:28).
However, two facts make such an interpretation difficult. First, it must be kept in
mind that remains of this animal were ubiquitous. throughout the site. Of 768
identified bones from nonrodent mammalian fauna reported, 760 were of C.
sibirica (Movius 1953:48), including other examples of horn cores. We might,
therefore, expect some association with the burial simply due to random dispersal
of remains of that species through the site. But such association would not have
significant behavioral implications. Second, the association between the goat horn
cores and the burial is not that strong. At the time of the discovery, only the skull
lay within the concentration of horn cores and the pbstcranial remains lay beyond
it.»The dispersal of the human bones suggests predator disturbance. In addition, as
Jelinek (personal communication) suggests, even if the horn cores where at one
time associated with the burial, the association may have been pragmatic rather
than ritual:... the horns may simply have been used as picks for excavating the
grave.
Thus, Teshik-Tash is yet another case rwhere objects associated with a Middle
Paleolithic burial are the same objects that are found throughout the particular
occupation level. Again, we must return to Vandermeersch's (1976:727) caution
expressed above that to be interpreted as grave goods, then the objects must have
some exceptional characteristic. If goal remains were rare at Teshik-Tash except
in context of the burial, then their presence in that context would be exceptional
and would more clearly suggest some ritual or possible symbolism. But their
extreme commonness at that site (and their possible utilitarian function) make
such an interpretation weak. .;
In summary, the evidence from Middle Paleolithic burials— except those of
anatomically modern H. sapiejns—does not demonstrate the presence of
symbolism or of culturally defined values during that time. Deliberate burials are
clearly present but there are no other obvious signs of ritual. On the other hand,
the act of burial itself suggests a caring for the deceased well beyond that seen
among other primates. In this regard there is other evidence for strong affective
relationships and dependences during the Mousterian. based on skeletal evidence
of trauma, for example in Shanidar 1 and 3 (Trinkaus 1983c:422-423); we can
infer that care was extended to incapacitated members of Neandertal groups.
Burial, in its simplest and nonsyrnbolic sense could be seen as a continuation of
such care or a reflection of earlier emotional attachment.
RITUALS OTHER THAN BURIAL
There are abundant claims of evidence for ritual behavior outside of the context of
burials during the Middle Paleolithic. Many of these amount to fanciful
interpretations 6f strange and unique finds and can be dismissed without serious
consideration. Others, such as those that follow, deserve more careful review.
There is, perhaps, no-single supposed ritual of the Neandertals more widely
known than the "Cult of the Cave Bear," described by prehisto-rians (Breuil and
Lander 1959; Maringer 1960) and even popular novelists (Auel 1980). The
existence of such a cult is based on original finds dating to the early Upper
Pleistocene in the Swiss cave of Drachenloch (Baschler 1921,-1923), other cave
sites in that general area, and in France at Les "•Furtins, Sadne-et-Loire (Leroi-
Gourhan 1947) and Rdgourdou, in the De-' Apartment of the Dordogne (Bonifay
and Vandermeersch 1962).
The evidence consists of concentrations of long bones and crania of the now
extinct cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) or at Re'gourdou, brown bear (U. arctos).
These remains were found deep inside the caves and reportedly were intentionally
cached in stone-lined pits or showed some evidence of •purposeful arrangement
by humans along the cave walls or in "niches." Interpretations of these
bones,'assuming humans as agents of deposition, range from the hypothesis that
they arb the remains of food storage caches, or storage of brains for tanning
purposes, to the notion that the skulls represent hunting trophies or reflect some
prehistoric religion or cult (see Maringer 1960:38-62).
A thorough review of this subject was published posthumously by Jequier
(1975:45-64), who notes several problems with the original evidence. Principally
there was a general lack of rigor during the excavation vof several of the early
sites and in presentation of the finds. As Je'quier notes (1975:47), one must accept
or deny the original descriptions more '"'or less on faith, which can sometimes be
difficult. An example of this difficulty concerns the very famous cave bear skull
from Drachenloch, 'which was found resting on two tibiae with the proximal end
of a right •-femur lodged inside the zygomatic arch. In the original description the
femur was passing through the left zygomatic arch, but in subsequent f
descriptions the same femur is seen passing through the one on the right ; (Je'quier
1975:51)! The case for the famous stone-lined pits with "caches" of cave bear
skulls from the same site is also equivocal given that references made to them in
the original.field notes by Nigg are quite different, and far less spectacular, than
the later descriptions by BSchler (Je'quier 1975:50).
Even if the descriptions are accurate, many researchers (Koby 1951; Leroi-
Gourhan 1964a; Kurtdn 1976:83-91; Je'quier 1975; le Tonsorer
1986) have argued that the general kinds of phenomena seen in these sites can be
explained more simply by natural agencies. Underground streams are often most
likely responsible for the accumulations of bones in natural niches and in and
around groups of fallen roof blocks. The actions of the bears themselves must also
be considered as they moved about in the cave and prepared their circular nests for
hibernation. As Leroi-Gourhan describes in his own cas*e at Les Furtins, any
concentration of bones can give an excavator the impression of an intentional
arrangement (Leroi-Gourhan 1947; cf. idem. 1964:32-33). But actual
demonstrations of in-tentionality have not yet been made. .
Jequier (1975:26-43) also rejects the notion of specialized hunting of these
animals in the Alpine sites. It cannot be demonstrated clearly that the bear bones
were not broken naturally, especially by carnivores. The evidences for wounds
resulting from hunting are generally questionable, either because they were poorly
interpreted (e.g., were actually postmortem damage qr accidental) or, again, were
poorly reported. Moreover, virtually no intentional butchering marks could be
found on any of the material from Drachenloch, Wildesmannlisloch, or Cotencher.
The French site of Rdgourdou is unique. AJthough the early excavations there did
lack rigor, it does seem clear that the site contained a cavity covered by a stone
slab weighing approximately 850 kg and containing the remains of a brown bear.
Nearby, in another stone "tumulus" were the remains of a Neandertal with various
objects including a core, some flakes, a scraper, and a bear humerus, which were
interpreted as grave offerings (Bonifay and Vandermeersch 1962; Bonifay 1965,
cited in Vandermeersch 1976:726). However, given that the site is within a karstic
system that collapsed in antiquity, it is most probable that these stone structures,
almost megalithic in size and completely unknown in any other Mousterian
deposit, are the result of that cave-in. Leroi-Gourhan (1964a:35) and Je'quier
(1975:63) also both argue convincingly against it being an intentional placement
of bear bones.
Through more careful attention to taphonomic factors, we are beginning to
understand that concentrations of bones and bizarre juxtaposition of elements can
occur naturally and that we should therefore be much more cautious in our
interpretations. Such understanding of the taphonomic factors dispelled the notion
of the "Osteodontokeratic Culture" that had been proposed for the early South
African material (Dart 1960; cf. Shipman and Phillips-Conroy 1977). For similar
reasons, Je'quier con-.'cludes:
"L'existence de pratiques magico-religieuses au Pallolithique, sous forme de dipdts
intentionnels de crines et d'ossements d'ours des cavcrnes i I'inte'rieur de certaines grottes,
n'est guere soutenable dans 1'itat actuel des connaissances" (1975:64).
It is, therefore doubtful that the evidence presented for a "Cult of the
Cave Bear" should, at this time, be taken as reflecting any symbolic ritual
behavior. Similarly, a better understanding of taphonomic factors may clarify the
question of whether intentional, and perhaps ritual, cannibalism may have been
practiced during the Middle Paleolithic, especially noted at Krapina and Monte
Circeo, as well as at many other earlier sites (Bergounioux 1958; Blanc 1961;
Roper 1969; and others). In part, this question arises because of a perceived bias
in.the preservation of certain skeletal elements, with more mandibles and cranial
vaults recovered then might be expected given the number of individuals
represented. This has even led to the notion of a Paleolithic "Skull Cult"
(Bergounioux 1958:151-153).
Leroi-Gourhan (1964a:45-4"7) and, more recently, THnkaus (1985) present
comparative data which suggest that much of the differential frequency of various
elements is due to factors of preservation and that similar biases can be shown for
other forms under completely natural conditions (see Brain 1981). There is also
some suggestion that much of the perceived bias is due to poor recovery
techniques and thus the accidental overlooking of cervical vertebrae and facial
bones (Jacob 1972). Moreover, the work of Trinkaus (1985) on the Krapina
remains suggests that as burial customs became more common, such a bias in
preservation would tend to be lessened. Because burials only begin to appear
during the Middle Paleolithic and are not, in fact, common -until the Upper Pa-
leolithic, the role played by taphonomic factors in producing biased bone
assemblages is greater during the earlier periods.
The case of Monte Circeo exemplifies the kinds of problems surrounding many of
the phenomena interpreted as evidence of ritual behavior. This site is known for -
the discovery of an isolated Neandertal skull found within a circle of stones on the
surface of an interior cave chamber sealed by roof fall in prehistoric times (Blanc
1939-1940). As described by Blanc, the skull had been broken in the temporal
region — which was taken as an indication of ritual killing — and the foramen
magnum had been enlarged by "careful and symmetric incising of the periphery"
(Blanc 1961:126). However, drawings of the find indicate that . stones were
plentiful on the surface where the skull was found (Blanc 1958, Fig. 1), suggesting
that, like the goat-horn ring at Teshik-Tash, the stone ring at Monte Circeo may be
more natural than artificial. Moreover, the hotel owner who first found the skull
and later showed it to Blanc had earlier picked up the skull and, by his own
admission, was unsure he had put it back on its original position. Blanc himself
saw from the concretions on the skull that it had been replaced incorrectly (Blanc
1938-1940:258). Thus, even if the "circle" of stones was real, the relationship
between it and the skull must remain in doubt. Regarding the incisions at the base
of the skull, Sergi, toe paleontolo-
gist who analyzed it, clearly stated that the damage to this area was due to a series
of blows, not incisions (Sergi 1939:672). Thus, at Monte Circeo, as in so many
cases, lack of descriptive rigor, doubtful provenience, or association, due in this
case to the actions of an amateur, and possible misinterpretation of natural
phenomena make the inference of ritual killing and deposition suspect.
ART
In many ways, the most striking difference between Middle and Upper Paleolithic
is .the contrast between the rich and highly developed art found in the latter period
and the almost complete lack of it in the former. Nevertheless, there are at least
some signs of an esthetic sense as far back as the Lower Paleolithic. It is still not
clear, however, that this esthetic sense was linked to symbolism before the Upper
Paleolithic.
As was mentioned .earlier, there is some indication in the stone tools of both the
Lower and Middle Paleolithic, primarily bifaces, that the homi-nids responsible
for their manufacture had some notion of and appreciation for both symmetry and
regularity. There are^also signs of this in a few other scattered artifacts. For
example, there is a carefully worked roughly oval plaque made from the tooth of a
mammoth that was found in the Middle Paleolithic of Tata, Hungary (V6rtes
1959,1964:139; Marshack 1976a, 1976b, 1986a), and, again, the "winged" bone
point from Salz-gitter-Lebenstedt (Tode et al. 1953).
Perhaps also indicating some esthetic appreciation are the few finds of mineral
coloring (chiefly hematite and manganese) from some Middle and Lower
Paleolithic deposits (see Wreschner 1980; Marshack 1981). In some instances,
lumps of colored mineral have been rubbed or scraped, presumably to obtain
powder, and in some cases they have perhaps been used as pencils (Peyrony
1921c; Bordes 1952; Marshack 1981; Singer and Wymer 1982). However, the use
to which such colors were put is not clear; that is, it is not known whether they
were used for coloring the body or other objects. As far as the latter is concerned,
the plaque from Tata showed traces of color as did a limestone plaque (6bouli?)
from La Ferrassie (Peyrony 1934).
Such colorings have not been found in contexts that clearly indicate symbolism or
ritualm as noted above, ochre is not directly associated with Middle Paleolithic
burials of Neandertals, as it often is in the Upper Paleolithic. Scattered bits of red
ochre were found at Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon, with some fallow deer bones.
Because of the completeness of the bones and the fact that they showed no signs
of burning, Soleck
(1975b:290-291) suggested that this feature represented a ritual burial of that
animal. However, there are natural deposits of ochre in the immediate vicinity of
the site and fallow deer were the most common game animal present. So, once
again there is nothing unusual about this feature given the overall composition of
the deposits. Esthetic appreciation may also explain the presence in some Middle
Paleolithic contexts of manu-ports of unusual materials or other exotic objects
such as fossils, shells, etc.'-Even from the Lower Paleolithic there are examples of
quartz crystals from Zhoukoudian (Edwards and Clinnick 1980) and flakes made
from chert composed of fossil coral at Swanscombe (Oakley 1971). At Saint-Just-
des-Marais in France, a scraper was made from a piece of flint with a cast of a
Cretaceous echinoid (ibid.) and at the site of West Tofts, Norfolk, England, a
biface was flaked around a fossil bivalve imbedded in the flint (Oakley 1973).
Other examples of interesting finds include a bit of perforated bone from the
Mousterian of Pech de I'Aid (Hordes 1969), a punctured (but not perforated) fox
tooth and perforated (possibly intentionally) reindeer phalanx from La Quina
(Martin 1909), some bear teeth with grooves from Sclayn, Belgium (Otte 1987),
and a rock with cup-Hke depressions in it found overlying burial 6 at la Ferrassie.
A recent find of what may be an engraved figurine in an Acheulian context at
Berekhat Ram in the Golan Heights (Goren-Inbar 1986) is intriguing and demands
further investigation.
There are, in addition, reports of engravings from both the Middle and the Lower
Paleolithic. Some of these, such as the shell of Nummilites perforates from Tata
with a cross of two straight lines at right angles'to each other all the way across
one surface (Ve*rtes 1964:141-142, 261) and bones with irregular curvilinear
grooves from Cueva Morm have proven, on closer examination, to be the results
of natural agents (Marshack 1986b). Other examples, however, are clearly the
result of human actions and sometimes crudely resemble Upper Paleolithic motifs
such as zigzags or festoons (Marshack 1976a, 1976b). It should be emphasized
that such engravings are usually quite crude when judged as art—as can be seen,
for example, in Marshack's (1976b) figures comparing the rib fragment from Pech
de l'Az6 and the engraved bone fragment from Bacho Kiro, Bulgaria, with Upper
Paleolithic pieces that they resemble. Actually, some of these may be explained by
nonartistic activities such as slicing material on a bone "cutting board" (e.g., the
bone with parallel cuts from La Ferrassie (Marshack 1976b, Fig. 6)).
It is arguable, indeed likely, that sotne of these objects are intentional and do
reflect the presence of an esthetic sense in the Middle and Lower Paleolithic.. But
whether such engravings, or any of the phenomena de-
scribed above, can be taken as evidence of symbolism is another ques-. tion.
Upper Paleolithic art is without doubt both esthetic and representational in nature.
In addition, there are many reasons for believing that it had a symbolic and ritual
aspect: the hidden and even hard-to-reach location of much cave art, the
nonrandom distribution of different signs or different species of animal, the
superposition of figures, and representations of beings that do not exist (Leroi-
Gourhan 1965, 1968, 1982; Breuil 1952; Narr 1974; Ucko and Rosenfeld 1967).
While hypotheses vary about why this art was produced (see also Conkey 1978,
1983; Pfeiffer 1982;'$5eveking 1979), there is little disagreement that at least
some of it was symbolic in nature.
However it is mportant to bear in mind that the symbolic nature of Upper
Paleolithic art is not inferrabIe from manuports, coloring, careful; workmanship,
or crudely engraved patterns such as those found in the Middle and Lower
Paleolithic., On the contrary, to the extent that we assume that such objects or
patterns do have symbolic meaning in the Upper Paleolithic, it is because they
occur in the context of art known by those other criteria to be symbolic, criteria
which are absent from the Middle Paleolithic record. When one transfers the
assumption of symbolic meaning from an Upper Paleolithic context to the Middle
Paleolithic, one is assuming what must be demonstrated..
On the other hand, there are art objects that appear very much in an Upper
Paleolithic vein from the Chatelperronian of Arcy-sur-Cure, France (Leroi-Gourhan
1961; Movius 1969). Since a Neandertal has been found in the Chatelperronian of St.
Cesaire (ApSimon 1980, 1981), it could be arguejd that Neandertal adaptation and
behavior indeed, did, INvolve the kind of symboling known from the Upper
Paleolithic.
The Chatelperronian is an unusual case, however, in that it would now appear that
Neandertals and modern H.sapiens coexisted at this time. It may be that it was
not,the Neandertals but their contemporaries wfho were responsible for the
material at Arcy. More likely', the stimulus of contact with modern populations
produced a behavior that had not previously been the. norm for Neandertals, much
as human stimulus can produce rudimentary symbolic behavior in even such
small-brained species as chimpanzees.
There are also Middle Paleolithic artifacts that have been interpreted as musical
instruments. The mammoth-tooth plaque from Tata has been interpreted as a bull-
roarer or churinga (VeYtes 1959, 1964), but as Malinger ' (1982:126) points out, the
absence of a hole for attaching it to a cord or thong makes this unlikely. Another
supposed example of a churinga from Pin Hole Cave in England (Armstrong 1936)
is, in fact, a piece pf bone that had been so severely eroded in a hyena's digestive
tract that it-had been perforated in numerous places (Kitching 1963:PIate3).
Also intriguing are the punctured phalanges of reindeer described as , 'whistles by
Lartet and Christy (1864). This interpretation has been the subject of a long
controversy between those who accept it and those who ' prefer Martin's
(1909:150-168) argument that the phalanges were punctured by the teeth of
carnivores. Recent examination of the faunal mate-" rial from Combe Grenal
(Chase 1986b:80-83) support Martin's observations. The holes usually occur, in
the thinnest part of the bone wall; many of the phalanges had tooth marks on the
opposite surface; and while experiments showed'that some pierced phalanges do
produce a tone, there are identical holes found on bones other than phalanges
which could,not possibly serve as whistles. Thus, the deliberate manufacture of
these objects for that purpose is not demonstrable.
0n the basis of the artifacts and manuports found in the Middle .Paleolithic
contexts it seems quite possible that the hominids of the period had an esthetic
sense. This is seen partly in their apparent appreciation of symmetry and
regularity in certain kinds of tools and by the occasional presence of curiosities
and coloring materials. But there Is little in the Middle Paleolithic evidence that
clearly indicates symbolic content unless we assume a priori that a possession of
an esthetic sense and symbolic behavior were linked in the Middle Paleolithic in
the same way that they are today. In effect, this would be assuming that which we
are trying to demonstrate.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
'We think several people who have read earlier versions of this paper and who
have made valuable sugtestlons. Among them are Ward Goodenough, Robert
Harding, Alan Mann, Bernard Wailes, and Alexander Manhack. Our interest in
this topic hat been stimulated through our long association with Arthur Jelinek.