Grave Shortcomings: The Evidence for Neandertal Burial [and Comments and Reply]

Gargett, Robert H.; Bricker, Harvey M.; Clark, Geoffrey; Lindly, John M.; Farizy, Catherine; Masset, Claude; Frayer, David W.; Montet-White, Anta; Gamble, Clive; Gilman, Antonio; Leroi-Gourhan, Arlette; Navarrete, María Isabel Martínez; Ossa, Paul; Trinkaus, Erik; Weber, Andrzej

doi:10.1086/203725

Cited by 205 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the wealth of differences in tools, grave goods, tailored clothing, built shelters, hunting technologies, and artistic remains suggest important cognitive differences between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens (Chase & Dibble, 1987;Gargett, 1989Gargett, , 1999Hoffecker, 2002;Lieberman & Shea, 1994;Mellars, 1996, pp. 366 -391).…”

Section: Defining Pre-upper Paleolithic (Up) Religionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion

Rossano

2006

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article summarizes the literature on the religious mind and connects it to archeological and anthropological data on the evolution of religion. These connections suggest a three stage model in the evolution of religion: One, the earliest form of religion (pre-Upper Paleolithic [UP]) would have been restricted to ecstatic rituals used to facilitate social bonding; two, the transition to UP religion was marked by the emergence of shamanistic healing rituals; and, three, the cave art, elaborate burials, and other artifacts associated with the UP represent the first evidence of ancestor worship and the emergence of theological narratives of the supernatural. The emergence of UP religion was associated with the move from egalitarian to transegalitarian hunter-gatherers.

show abstract

Section: Defining Pre-upper Paleolithic (Up) Religionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion

Rossano

2006

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following presentation of this paper a debate on the problem of Neanderthal burial was initated in Current Anthropology with a paper by Gargett (1989), including a lengthy and detailed commentary. Gargett discussed the possibility that natural causes may have been involved in creating the appearance of burial.…”

Section: Notes Added In Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the human capacity: The symbolic evidence

Marshack

1989

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rare instances of symboling and problem-solving in the archaeological record of the European Acheulian and Mousterian suggest highly evolved potentially variable hominid capacities. These are aspects of capacity not evidenced in the lithic industries and habitation site complexes, and they cannot be determined from studies of comparative morphology or genetic distance. This sparse artifactual evidence cannot be quantified and is, in fact, statistically insignificant. Nevertheless, the internal cognitive contents and complexity evident in these unique materials reveal the presence of highly evolved skills and conceptual capacities involving the evaluation and use of diverse materials and processes. They also reveal a capacity for planning and mapping or modeling the territory and culture in time and space. Significantly, the evidence for these behaviors is richer in Europe during these early periods than in other areas of late hominid presence, including the Middle East and Africa where forms of anatomically modern humans were developing. It is possible that these early European efforts represent incipient and preparatory innovations that in some measure led to the regional "creative explosion" of the following European Upper Paleolithic. It is suggested that hominization selected for certain types and classes of problem-solving and symboling capacity and that the Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans each represent progressive advances over the evolved erectus capacity and its cultural manifests. It is also suggested that these late hominid capacities ultimately and evolutionarily derive from still earlier potential and variable problemsolving and conceptual capacities comparable to those found among the great apes.

show abstract

“…The nature of their cultural systems has been much debated, and views about them have often been polarized around questions of their cognitive ability. Negative evaluations of Neanderthal cognition have been embedded in arguments about what they could not do: they were not capable of hunting large game, lacked capacity for long-term planning and organization (including social activities), lacked even the foresight of their own mortality, and did not have complex language (e.g., Binford 1989;Gargett 1989;Lieberman 1989Lieberman , 1991Stinger and Gamble 1993;Noble and Davidson 1996). More positive evaluations have been offered, but in the absence of representational art and elaborate bone and antler technologies researchers still concluded that Neanderthal were cognitively slightly less complex than modern humans (see Clark and Lindly 1989;Lindly and Clark 1990;Mellars 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quina Procurement and Tool Production

Hiscock

Turq²,

Faivre

et al. 2009

Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quina Mousterian lithic variability is explicated as a consequence of interactions between the flexible Quina technology and the economic context in which it was employed. Quina technology was expressed somewhat differently in each assemblage as the needs of people in specific contexts led them to emphasize different possibilities of Quina flake and core forms. Variation in Quina tools was linked to blanks produced by the distinctive core reduction strategy as well as the intensity with which tools were maintained and transported. However, despite variation that exists in Quina assemblages, it is still clear that this expresses a common technological and economic theme. Quina strategies represent particular solutions to the problems of provisioning Neanderthal foragers in the Dordogne during the Middle Paleolithic. Transporting highly extendable packages of stone, usually in the form of thick flakes from which knapper's could remove large numbers of flakes for prolonged periods, either to maintain/create working edges and/or to produce the flakes themselves, formed the central strategy of Quina behavior. The nature of core reduction and flake retouching appears to have been efficient and appropriate for producing these packages, and the pattern and directionality of material transfers indicates the structure of economic needs rather than the intellectual capacity of Neanderthals. Nevertheless, the existence of a "Quina system" which integrated a variety of procurement and technological practices to create an economic structure that was suited to a specific environmental/economic context may indicate the presence of planning in Neanderthal foragers who developed and employed it.Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies Edited by Brian Adams and Brooke S. Blades

show abstract

Grave Shortcomings: The Evidence for Neandertal Burial [and Comments and Reply]

Cited by 205 publications

References 0 publications

The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion

The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion

Evolution of the human capacity: The symbolic evidence

Quina Procurement and Tool Production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About