Homines, Funera, Astra: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Funerary Anthropology 5-8 June 2011 '1 Decembrie 1918' University (Alba Iulia, Romania) 9781407310084, 9781407339863

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Foreword
Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials: offerings of decorative items and body ornaments
Considerations regarding the Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries in Romania and the Republic of Moldova
On Palaeolithic social inequality: The funerary evidence
Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic
Bioarchaeological inferences from Neolithic human remains at Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă (Transylvania, Romania)
Gendered bodies and objects in a mortuary domain: Comparative analysis of Durankulak cemetery
Adornments from the Hamangia cemetery excavated at Cernavodă – Columbia D. Contextual analysis
Shell adornments from the Hamangia cemetery excavated at Cernavodă – Columbia D. Techno-typological analysis
Traditions, Rules and Exceptions in the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu (Southeast Romania)
Anthropological research of the Komariv type (Middle Bronze Age) tumular cemetery, at Adâncata (Suceava County, Romania)
Coins and pebbles from the Anglo-Georgian excavations at Pichvnari
Funerary rite and rituals of the Early Sarmatians (second and first centuries BC) in the area between the mouths of the Don and the Danube
Funerary customs of Scythians and Thracians: a lexical analysis
Infant Burials in Roman Dobrudja. A report of work in progress: The case of Ibida (Slava Rusă)
Aspects of everyday life in Scythia Minor reflected in some funerary discoveries from Ibida (Slava Rusă, Tulcea County)
Early Roman and Late Roman child graves in Dobrudja (Romania). Preliminary considerations
List of contributors

Citation preview

BAR S2410 2012

Homines, Funera, Astra

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Funerary Anthropology

Kogălniceanu et al. (Eds)

5-8 June 2011 ‘1 Decembrie 1918’ University (Alba Iulia, Romania) Edited by

Raluca Kogălniceanu Roxana-Gabriela Curcă Mihai Gligor Susan Stratton

Homines, Funera, Astra

B A R Kogalniceanu 2410 cover.indd 1

BAR International Series 2410 2012

17/08/2012 15:41:03

Homines, Funera, Astra

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Funerary Anthropology 5-8 June 2011 ‘1 Decembrie 1918’ University (Alba Iulia, Romania) Edited by

Raluca Kogălniceanu Roxana-Gabriela Curcă Mihai Gligor Susan Stratton

BAR International Series 2410 2012

ISBN 9781407310084 paperback ISBN 9781407339863 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310084 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of Contents

Foreword Valentin-Codrin Chirica, Vasile Chirica Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials: offerings of decorative items and body ornaments

vii

1

Mădălin-Cornel Văleanu Considerations regarding the Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries in Romania and the Republic of Moldova

21

Mircea Anghelinu On Palaeolithic social inequality: The funerary evidence

31

Adina Boroneanț, Clive Bonsall Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic

45

Mihai Gligor, Mariana Roşu, Viorel Panaitescu Bioarchaeological inferences from Neolithic human remains at Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă (Transylvania, Romania)

57

Susan Stratton, Dušan Borić Gendered bodies and objects in a mortuary domain: Comparative analysis of Durankulak cemetery

71

Raluca Kogălniceanu Adornments from the Hamangia cemetery excavated at Cernavodă – Columbia D. Contextual analysis

81

Monica Mărgărit Shell adornments from the Hamangia cemetery excavated at Cernavodă – Columbia D. Techno-typological analysis

97

Cătălin Lazăr, Mădălina Voicu, Gabriel Vasile Traditions, Rules and Exceptions in the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu (Southeast Romania)

107

Angela Simalcsik, Bogdan Petru Niculică Anthropological research of the Komariv type (Middle Bronze Age) tumular cemetery, at Adâncata (Suceava County, Romania)

119

Michael Vickers Coins and pebbles from the Anglo-Georgian excavations at Pichvnari

135

Vitalie Bârcă Funerary rite and rituals of the Early Sarmatians (second and first centuries BC) in the area between the mouths of the Don and the Danube

141

Roxana-Gabriela Curcă Funerary customs of Scythians and Thracians: a lexical analysis

157

Alexander Rubel, Andrei D. Soficaru Infant Burials in Roman Dobrudja. A report of work in progress: The case of Ibida (Slava Rusă)

163

Dan Aparaschivei, Mihaela Iacob, Andrei D. Soficaru, Dorel Paraschiv Aspects of everyday life in Scythia Minor reflected in some funerary discoveries from Ibida (Slava Rusă, Tulcea County)

169

Irina Achim Early Roman and Late Roman child graves in Dobrudja (Romania). Preliminary considerations

183

List of Contributors

197

Foreword

The study of burial practices, of human attitudes and behavior in the face of death, has been an important part of archaeological research from its very beginnings. Some funerary discoveries have achieved sensational fame. Yet beyond this the archaeological community quickly came to understand that it is possible to gain as much information about the lives of past people from studying their funerary behavior as it is from studying their daily activities and the resultant artifacts.

The conference took place in the framework of the Sectorial Operational Programme for Human Resources Development 207-2013, co-financed by the European social Fund, under the project number POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61104 with the title “Social sciences and humanities in the context of global development – development and implementation of postdoctoral research” as part of the theme proposed by the Institute of Archaeology of the Romanian Academy – Iaşi branch: “Human communities and their material and spiritual creation in the Prehistory and Protohistory of the space between the Carpathians and Dniester”.

During the last two or three decades, funerary archaeology has experienced an unprecedented development of interest in studying the burial practices from all periods. Interdisciplinary research constituted the catalyst that transformed this particular field of study into a very dynamic and essential component of archaeological research. The archaeology of death today includes the work of specialists in archaeology, anthropology, biology, physics, chemistry, forensics, and other disciplines. With the help of modern methods and techniques, and through the complex analysis of skeletal material, valuable information can today be brought to light concerning estimations of age at death, sex, diet, pathologies, various causes of death, kinship or migration processes and their related issues. Thus, the quality and impact of such scientific results means that today we think it impossible to reconstruct the life of ancient human communities without the contribution of burial archaeology.

The event was the beneficiary of the generous support of “1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba Iulia – host of the symposium, of “Al. I. Cuza” University of Iaşi and of “Teohari Antonescu” Giurgiu County Museum, creating an environment conducive to the exchange of ideas between participants. Designed initially as a scientific meeting of Romanian postdoctoral researchers interested in the field of funerary anthropology, the symposium ultimately brought together well known researchers from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Great Britain and Romania, which fostered a genuinely interdisciplinary atmosphere through epistemic and heuristic dialogue. The studies published in this volume are grouped chronologically, from prehistory to history. Their common themes are the analysis of human osteological remains, the study of grave goods, the identification of funerary behavior, and the dating and cultural attribution of the archaeological discoveries.

As we go further back from the present day, the remains of, and information on, past civilizations become scarce and more difficult to evaluate. The potential offered by the investigation of funerary discoveries is not always exploited scientifically to its maximum. This situation is particularly prevalent in the regions of Central and Eastern Europe, which were the cradle of amazing prehistoric and protohistoric civilizations that are not truly reflected in current research. From this starting point, we consider that any scientific methodology applied to the research in this geographical area and historical period are welcome.

Ten studies are dedicated to prehistoric burial customs: three are focused on the Paleolithic, one on the Mesolithic, five studies focus on the Neolithic and Copper Age and one on the Bronze Age. Both older and more recent discoveries are considered from important sites in the area of interest: Bulgaria (Durankulak), Romania (Schela Cladovei, Alba Iulia – Lumea Nouă, Cernavodă, Sultana – Malu Roşu and Adâncata), and Serbia (Lepenski-Vir, Vlasac). Archaeological literature frequently refers to rigid funerary behavior with conservative norms and strict rules among prehistoric communities. A perusal of the studies published here demonstrates that those burial customs that are usually considered deviations and exceptions, are in fact more frequent than is generally assumed, which leads us to the conclusion that our current level of knowledge on the subject is far from satisfactory. Burial customs are approached from the perspective of grave goods in the case of the studies on the cemeteries of Cernavodă and Durankulak. They emphasize the typology and functionality of artifacts in an attempt to decipher their roles and symbolism.

The present volume gathers together the majority of the papers presented at the International Symposium on Funerary Anthropology, “Homines, Funera, Astra,” which took place at “1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba Iulia on the 5-8th of June 2011. The theme of the conference, organized by Dr. Mihai Gligor (“1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba Iulia), Dr. Raluca Kogălniceanu (“Teohari Antonescu” Giurgiu County Museum) and Dr. Roxana-Gabriela Curcă (“Al. I. Cuza” University of Iaşi) aimed to address the investigation of human osteological remains and burial practices specific to the prehistory and history in Central and Eastern Europe. vii

Human osteological remains are addressed in the studies concerning the discoveries made at Alba Iulia – Lumea Nouă and Adâncata, using rigorous anthropological analysis that brings relevant data into the scientific domain.

the archaeological data, to achieve an interdisciplinary approach. It was a pleasant duty for us to conclude the Alba Iulia conference with the publication of a volume of the papers presented there. The main aim of this volume is to bring into the scientific arena relevant data previously unpublished and to revisit old data from a new perspective.

The next section of the volume includes six studies that focus on aspects specific to the archaeology and funerary anthropology of the periods following prehistory. One of these studies synthesizes the results of archaeological research conducted by a BritishGeorgian team at Pichvnari (Georgia), in which special attention is directed towards coins and pebbles in funerary contexts from the fifth to the third centuries BC. Another study illustrates, based on literary and archaeological sources, various burial customs of the Sarmatians from the North-Pontic region in the second to the first centuries BC. The funerary lexicon of Scythians and Thracians reflected in the writings of the ancient authors is analyzed in a philologico-linguistic manner. The funerary behaviors of the RomanByzantine period are addressed in the last three studies, which focus on the funerary customs from Scythia Minor. These studies aim to analyze various funerary customs, particularly from a sociological and anthropological perspective. They use of Greek and Roman literary and epigraphic sources, combined with

We wish to thank all the contributors for their participation in our editorial project, and for the effort involved in elaborating upon their studies. We would also like to express our deep gratitude to Professor Michael Vickers (Jesus College, Oxford) and PhD Alexander Rubel (Institute of Archaeology, Iaşi) for their support in the publication of this volume. Our gratitude is also directed towards Professor Victor Spinei, corresponding member of the Romanian Academy (“Al.I. Cuza” University of Iaşi) and Professor Vasile Chirica (Institute of Archaeology, Iaşi) whose pertinent observations and useful suggestions helped us to perfect our editorial labor and to finalize this scientific enterprise.

The Editors

viii

Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials

Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials: offerings of decorative items and body ornaments Valentin-Codrin Chirica Institutul de Arheologie, Iaşi, Romania

Vasile Chirica Institutul de Arheologie, Iaşi, Romania sure that there was a consciousness of death. We do not know whether ritual anthropophagic practices were born together with the idea of protection, conservation and recovery of the potencies of the bodies of the dead, or much later, after certain spiritual developments, as a possibly thaumaturgical reflex, regarding the possible valences of superiority of those who imposed themselves in the social life of the community. We do not exclude the possibility that there was ritual consumption of the bodies or of parts of individuals who, when alive, demonstrated pathologic malformations and existed ideologically outside the community (with a possible connotation of superiority, not of inferiority). Nor do we exclude cannibalism; but we believe that this is about ideology, about mentalities that are specific only to isolated human communities. It is very probable that death was initially perceived as rather temporary, as a form of sleep, hence there have been graves discovered with complete skeletons buried “in the sleeping position” (Bosinski 1990, 28).

Abstract It is possible to perceive that the concept that we are attempting to assign to prehistoric man, that is spirituality, which represents a specific aspect and is manifested by conscious deeds and actions, such as art and funerary practices, was a feature of the social life of prehistoric communities. Regarding the various burial practices, understood to be representative of the will of the community members, the social relations between them, a certain state of religiosity and continuity in the prehistoric environments, we try to differentiate between ritual space and sacred space; ritual space cannot be permanently equated, especially for the localizations of its manifestations, to the sacred space. Ritual space has become sacred following the repetition of the manifestations of the collective sacredness (we refer, for instance, to the continuity of the burials in the same place, considered by its effectiveness, observed as repetition of the phenomenon of funeral sacredness); thus, the ritual space of the Palaeolithic caves or outside them has become open to sacredness by the attitude of the practitioners, of the initiated, and also, possibly, by the one of a large number of adepts, participants in the respective cult manifestations.

Analysis of the archaeological discoveries shows that there were no compulsory practices or canons that covered broad geographical areas, or within archaeological cultures. We believe that ritual practices appeared and multiplied through specific activities, by experience and permanent additions, by the association of rites of passage and transmission, to ideological elements, and by socialization, within the community or through intercommunity relations. Ritual practices certainly existed, even if we do not know the exact details of the cult manifestations, but we consider that they were part of what we refer to as religious feeling. In our opinion, religious fact and its manifestations are related to the practitioner, to his mental attitude, so that it is only possible to refer to ideological aspects of the life of human communities of the Palaeolithic. Thus, starting with the idea that man is born with religious feeling (V. Chirica 2006, 10), we can appreciate that the phenomenon of the sacred in the distant past constituted a reality in the daily social life of man, starting in prehistory. The approaches and research methodologies, regarding various geographical areas and geochronological intervals, provide us with a first general image of the complexity and variety of the decorative art forms and their aesthetic, cognitive and/or magicreligious interpretations, especially when such items, alone or associated with items of bodily ornamentation, were placed as offerings in the graves of community members. The magic-religious theories place spirituality at the origin of art, consisting of objects or images that were reproduced or modified for worshiping.

During the Upper Palaeolithic it is possible to perceive similarities in practices of funeral behavior, but also certain innovations. Variations appear regarding the deposition and orientation of the dead, and are especially seen in types of funerary offerings. We consider that it is only in this period that the behavior of the living population has created the possibility to evaluate the way the respective human communities functioned, their organization, world views and, last but not least, their beliefs and religious practices. Key words Palaeolithic burials, funerary offerings, ritual anthropophagic, ritual practices, the phenomenon of funeral sacredness The attention paid to the dead by the human communities of the Palaeolithic can be explained by two elements specific exclusively to humans, as an upper entity of the living world: 1, the fact that people experienced spirituality; 2, by the social specificity of all an individual’s life and activity. We shall probably never be able to know how death was understood in the world views of ancient human communities. Still, starting from archaeological discoveries, we can be 1

Valentin-Codrin Chirica, Vasile Chirica It is possible to see that the concept that we are trying to assign to prehistoric man, that is spirituality, which represents a specific feature and is manifested by conscious deeds and actions, such as art and the funeral phenomenon, was a feature of the social life of prehistoric communities. We do not believe that it is possible nowadays to know in detail the religious understandings of prehistoric human communities. Regarding the various burial practices, understood as expressions of the preferences of the community members, the social relations between them, a certain state of religiosity and continuity in the prehistoric environments, we try to differentiate between ritual space and sacred space. Ritual space cannot be permanently equated, especially for the localizations of its manifestations, to the sacred space. Ritual space becomes sacred following the repetition of the expressions of the collective sacredness (we refer, for instance, to the continuity of burials in the same place). Thus, the ritual space of the Palaeolithic caves or their exteriors has come to be considered sacred by the attitude of the practitioners, the initiated, and also, possibly, by a large number of adepts, participants in the respective cult activities.

one, being formed of two apparently superficial incisions, drawn almost perpendicular to the long axis of the item. Their length is of 8.5 and of 11.5 mm. The fourth series, the best preserved, is also better represented. It is located 11.5 mm from the previous one, and the length of the four incisions is of 10-13 mm. The first incision is deep and has an asymmetrical U profile, with a slight scratch in the lower part. The third incision was carried out on a polished background; the second and fourth incisions do not show features which differentiate them from the previous ones. We could also add the discovery of Bilzingsleben (Germany), dated to between 350,000-320,000 years ago, as evidence of the longevity of aesthetic expression. Found there, on a fragment of elephant tibia, were drawn incisions, clusters of vertical lines, framed by symmetrical oblique lines (Figure 1). By chance, we have noticed that at sunset the last of the sun’s rays have the same appearance: clusters of vertical lines symmetrically framed by oblique ones. The similarity prompts us to think of humankind’s tendency, since the dawn of evolution, of rising towards the celestial unknown, towards divinity.

This first approach in the specialist Romanian literature requires a short excursion, starting with what we could designate as aesthetic ideas, but also with sacredness, the deposition of the dead in a naturally protected environment, but without having the certitude of the voluntary arrangements according to the face and the resemblance. Social behavior in the communities of Homo erectus is discernable from around 1 million years ago, if we take into account the discoveries of Belle-Roche (Belgium), of the high terraces of the Loire (France), dated to about 1 million years, which already seem to demonstrate the existence of especially arranged constructions at that time (Cordy et al. 1992; 2001; Despriée et al. 2001). We should also point out the first aesthetic achievements of the epoch, the discoveries of the Kozarnika cave in Bulgaria. In the ocupation levels belonging to the Lower Palaeolithic, dated to between 1.4 and 0.9 million years ago, several bone fragments (flakes) decorated with intentional striations were discovered. The cuts do not result from meat butchering operations. The most representative case is a bovid tibia, of 95.15 mm length and 12.41 mm width, found in layer 12, dated to 1,000,000 years ago (Guadelli and Guadelli 2004). The item was decorated with several series of striations 10-15 mm long. The first series of striations were made at the left end of the item, and have an oblique trajectory in comparison to the axis of the item. This series consists of one striation and a group of three incisions. The second series is situated 16 mm to the right in relation to the first series, and consists of a group of four parallel incisions, at a 1-2 mm distance from one another, also obliquely laid, the fourth and last incision being formed in its turn by four fine cuts, also at an oblique angle. The third series is incomplete, probably due to the poor state of conservation of the item. This series is located at a 25 mm distance from the previous

Figure 1. Bilzingsleben (Kozlowski 1992, fig. 18).

In this context, we should point out that the invention (or the domestication) of fire had an extraordinary significance for the evolution of Palaeolithic human communities. It represents the most important human creation, which had huge spiritual effects, as well as effects in the field of religious phenomena. It is considered that fire initially had a sociological role (people would gather around fire for protection and showed each other their acquisitions), but also a metaphysical role, by the extension and accentuation of social relations, of the collective consciousness, of cult manifestations and of worship. In the same context of the life and death of Homo erectus we should mention the discovery of more than 30 human skeletons, dated to over 300,000 years B.P., found at Cima de los Huesos, Atapuerca (Spain). They were situated in a natural hollow, at the bottom of which – and this makes us think of the idea of a collective grave – there was laid as a funerary offering a quartzite bifacial item of exceptional quality (Clottes 2005, 21), a fact inexplicable outside the sacred context of a funeral behavior (Figure 2). However, upon a more considered analysis, one cannot accept the idea of a unique burial of 2

Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials 30 individuals, along with the deposition of a single ritual offering. We think certain details were ignored by the archaeologists; either micro-stratigraphy, or other detailed elements. A somewhat similar situation has been observed in Krapina, Croatia, also with 30 skeletons, but all the specialists involved accepted the idea of a ritual sacrifice, such as ritual anthropophagy.

arrangements for the deposition of the dead, meant for their protection. Thus, the following discoveries have been made, of which some are more complex, others more simple (Otte 1996, 241-263; Masset 2000, 55-59; Vandermeersch 1976, 725-727): France: - Biache, a surface site, dated to about 200,000 years ago, with two fragmentary skulls, without special arrangements, but deposited within the perimeter of the site; - Arcy-sur-Cure, a series of caves, one of which contained several Neanderthal type remains, in association with lithic implements and combustion structures; - Chapelle-aux-Saints, a cave where the first Neanderthal burials in France were discovered, where the dead were deposited in ritual conditions, in folded position, and associated with offerings of animal bones and stone tools. The site had a dual role, as a Mousterian camp, but also as a place of burial. This situation was considered by the discoverers to be particularly important: “The man that we found was intentionally buried” (Bouyssonie, Bouyssonie and Bardon 1909, 513-517). The discoverers also pointed out that in this cave “people would come and have numerous funeral meals”, demonstrating the existence of specific mortuary practices among these communities, even if such considerations date back to the beginning of the twentieth century, being made by amateur archaeologists; - La Ferrassie, where there was identified a large shelter with a well-known Mousterian industry, with several funeral pits containing a total of 7 individuals, of whom 5 were children. One of the ritual pits showed the dead were covered with a stone slab decorated with cupules. One of the children’s skeletons was laid over the skeleton of a foetus. D. Peyrony provided another discovery here: two adults (one man and one woman) were laid within the perimeter of the cultural layer, and in two small pits a 10 year-old child and two newborns were deposited (Vandermeersch 1976, 726). In 1920 nine mounds were identified at La Ferrassie. At the base of one of them was found the remains of a foetus. Other pits were also investigated, one of them was covered with a limestone slab, and contained the remains of a 3 year old child, but its head, without the mandible, was at a 1.5 m distance from the rest of the skeleton. Interestingly, all the children’s graves were intensively consolidated by different structures, but the authors of the research did not provide precise information as to the nature thereof (Vandermeersch 1976, 726); - Fontechevade, a cave with Tayacian industry, with hearths and several Neanderthal skeletal remains; - L’Hortus, a cave with deposits dating to the Early Würm glaciation, with numerous habitation structures, associated with a lithic industry and rich faunal remains; numerous palaeo-anthropologic remains were spread among other archaeological remains. Specialists questioned whether these are the result of pedogeological micro-processes or anthropophagic practices; - Marillac, a habitation used during the Early Würm,

1 2 Figure 2. Atapuerca 1: skull; 2: bifacial (http://atapuerca.evoluciona.org/documents/00/en/gral_foto/con tent/inici/04_sima_de_los_huesos/01_practica_funeraria.html).

Within the same chronological period (Lower Palaeolithic) and region (Europe), we can also include other discoveries of human remains, which display possible spiritual aspects of the funeral phenomenon from Germany (the mandible of Mauer, dated to 650,000 years, the skulls of Steinheim, Ehringsdorf, Bilzingsleben), Hungary (Vertesszöllos), Greece (Petralona), Italy (the cave of the Prince, Castel di Guido, Saccopastore, Venosa-Notarchirico), France (the cave of Arago, Montmaurin, Terra Amata, Lazaret, Orgnac, La Chaise, Vergranne, Biache-Saint-Vaast, Fontéchevade), Spain (Cova Negra), Great Britain (Swanscombe), and so on (Chavaillon 1992, 290; Otte 1996, 241-263). For example, in the cave of Arago, dated to approximately 450,000 and 220,000 years ago, numerous bone remains of Homo erectus were discovered in association with tools and faunal remains. In the rock overhang shelter of La Chaise was found a long sequence of human habitation, with skull fragments of the Neanderthal type and with specific tool industry. At Montmaurin, in a complex karstic network, the remains of an occupation with lithic industry were discovered, along with remains of human bones of Neanderthal or even older appearance, which are supposedly datable to the Mindel-Riss interglacial phase. In most cases discoveries involved skulls or mandibles, and this situation was perpetuated in the Middle Palaeolithic, leading A. Leroi-Gourhan (1990, 20) to propose the idea of the existence of a mandible cult, taking into account the percentage of discoveries and the observation that among several categories of bone remains (teeth, mandibles, maxillaries, long bones) from animals (wolf, hyena, fox) and from humans, human teeth and mandibles form percentages of 60% and 20% respectively. For the Middle Palaeolithic there is an increase in these finds, and one notices the existence of special 3

Valentin-Codrin Chirica, Vasile Chirica known especially for the numerous Neanderthal type bone remains; - Le Moustier, the famous eponymous site of the Mousterian, provided, along with the specific lithic industry, a Neanderthal grave of a very young child, deposited with the body folded, in a specially arranged pit; - Pech de l’Aze, a limestone massif with several caves inhabited during the Middle Palaeolithic, with combustion structures and Neanderthal bone remains, the whole compound being dated to the Early Würm; - La Quina, a shelter that produced the Charentian industry of the Middle Palaeolithic, and also numerous human bone remains spread among other archaeological materials, however there was also a specially built pit for the protection of a body probably deposited according to certain ceremonial actions; - Regourdou, an open-air site, dated to the last interglacial phase, with a Mousterian lithic industry and a Neanderthal skeleton deposited in a special structure, considered unique throughout the European Middle Palaeolithic. It was identified in level IV, protected by a kind of tumulus arranged inside the cave. E. Bonifay (1965, 136-139) described the skeleton as lying on a bed of stone slabs, covered by stone slabs, and mixed with the grave offerings: cores, flakes, one scraper, and one bear humerus. The whole complex was covered by pebbles, sand and ashes from the hearth, including bear bones and a deer horn; - Roc de Marsal, a Mousterian cave habitation with a child’s grave, arranged in a specially arranged pit, with the lower limbs in an abnormal position, but without more detailed description; - Saint-Cesaire, a shelter, with a Neanderthal skull in an archaeological context of the Châtelperronian industry.

Palaeolithic; - Salzgitter-Lebenstedt, open-air site, with fauna and industry specific to the Middle Palaeolithic, where a Neanderthal occipital was also discovered. Belgium: - Engis, the famous cave where two human skulls in association with a Mousterian industry were discovered in secure stratigraphic conditions; - Sclayn, a famous cave with habitation remains starting from 130,000 years ago, the remains of a child were discovered in an upper level, dated to 110,000 years ago; - Spy, a site where in 1886 two Neanderthal skeletons were discovered in association with a Mousterian lithic industry (Maureille, Semal and Cillys 2001, 121). Also in Belgium other burials have been discovered, such as those of Fonds de Forêt, Walou etc. (Toussaint and Pirson 2001, 121). Slovakia: - Ganovce, an open-air site, with Middle Palaeolithic type industry, where a “molding” of a Neanderthal skull calotte has been discovered. Hungary: - Subalyuk, a cave with two levels of Mousterian habitation, with ante-Szelettian industry, fauna, and skeletal remains of the Neanderthal type. Great Britain: - Gibraltar, a limestone mountain massif, containing sites with a Mousterian industry, and also with the remains of a Neanderthal; - Pontnewydd, a cave with several compartments, with habitation remains, the oldest dating to about 200,000 years ago, but with an industry based on the Levallois technique, with palaeo-fauna of reindeer, elephant, rhinoceros, and fragments of human bones.

Therefore, in France, 10 graves dated to the Mousterian have been investigated, six of which were dedicated to children and only four to adults. We also notice the attention paid by the community to the funerary offerings: stone implements, and also bone remains or even deer horns, which might have further significance than simply being meat offerings (bones). Furthermore, it was noticed that at La Ferrassie, one child was buried with three scrapers, which were orientated with the body.

Italy: - Guattari, several caves situated in Monte Circeo; in one of these a Mousterian habitation has been discovered, including a human skull deposited within a “circle” of stones, according to a specific ritual (Figure 3);

Spain - Banyoles, the famous mandible considered to belong to the last interglacial phase, identified in the Lacustrian deposits; - Carihuela, a cave with levels 11-4 of Mousterian occupation, with several Neanderthal palaeoanthropologic remains; - Los Moros de Cabasa, a cave with several human remains of the Neanderthal type, which seem to correspond to a family group (Ignacio-Lorenzo and Montes 2001, 77-86).

Figure 3. Guatari (Masset 2000, fig. 1).

Germany: - Neanderthal, the famous cave which provided the anthropologic remains this name describes, the creators of the archaeological culture of the Middle

- Saccopastore, locality where, within the gravel levels, two fragments of skull were discovered, probably of the Neanderthal type. 4

Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials Ukraine: - Kiik-Koba, the famous Crimean cave with Mousterian habitation and typical lithic industry also contained a double Neanderthal grave of an adult and a new-born; - Staroselye, a rock shelter site in Crimea, with evolved Mousterian industry, and in the same context a grave was also discovered, considered to belong either to a modern human or a Neanderthal; - Zaskalnaya, a compound of Mousterian sites, with rock-shelters, where a group of Neanderthal graves were discovered, containing 5 individuals with numerous offerings of lithic materials. Croatia: - The discovery, in the cave of Krapina, of the fragmentary remains of at least 30 Neanderthal individuals, raised another important problem: the possibility of ritual anthropophagy among early humans in Europe, especially considering similar discoveries (with isolated human bones, with traces of consumption as food items) from other Mousterian sites.

1

More importantly, in our opinion, is the fact that most of the discoveries of (isolated) skulls belong to children, not to adults (Kiik-Koba, La Ferrassie, Le Moustier, Spy, etc.). In the site of La Ferrassie seven graves were found, out of which five belonged to children. Another feature, particularly for the child graves, is their association with stone tools of adults (especially scrapers), which raises certain questions regarding the significance of the funeral practices of the Neanderthals.

2

Figure 4. 1: Quasfzeh; 2: Kebara (Masset 2000, fig. 2, 3).

Some specialists consider the number of intentional graves with special pits, which have been found throughout the territory of Europe, as up to 30, ten others being identified in Israel, Iraq, and up to Uzbekistan (Otte 1996, 181). Maybe also due to their antiquity, it is not always possible to discern the position of the skeletons when they were initially deposited. We should also add a fact which does not lack importance: the first (and the largest number of) discoveries were made during the first and second halves of the nineteenth century, when Palaeolithic research was in its infancy, so that the attention of the discoverers (most of them having other specializations) was not directed towards conservation of the details of such discoveries. It should also be noted that the majority of the discoveries of burial sites (for the whole Palaeolithic epoch) are in France, Italy, Spain, and Belgium, although this can mostly likely be attributed to a greater intensity of archaeological research and excavations in these countries.

Taking into account that human remains were not found on all sites in a secure archaeological context, and that most of them were located within the perimeter of Palaeolithic habitation areas, we feel justified in introducing into this category two discoveries made in Romania: Muierii Cave of Baia de Fier and Cioclovina Cave, dated within an interval contained between 30,150 ± 800 BP (34,810 ± 927 cal. years BP) for Muierii Cave, and 29,000 ± 700 BP (33,540 ± 832 cal. years BP) for the Cioclovina Cave. In the Muierii Cave there were discovered: fragments of mandible, skull, shoulder blade, a tibia diaphysis, and at Cioclovina, a fragmentary skull. All these paleoanthropological discoveries were found in stratigraphic conditions which were not very well defined taking into account the fact that in the two sites there were recorded remains of Aurignacien and Mousterian inhabitants, and the specialists in the field observed that human bone fragments had features of Homo sapiens, but with more archaic characteristics (Alexandrescu et al. 2010, 341-353).

The following general remarks are necessary regarding the funeral phenomenon during the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic (Vandermeersch 1976, 725727): - there certainly existed a need to protect the dead long before the special arrangement of a place for their deposition; - we cannot extend and generalize the existence of practices related to a certain ritual anthropophagic phenomenon, possibly even of cannibalism of the members of the human communities; we think it is likely that for some human groups, from various geographic regions, one could accept that

Obviously, we have not included all the discoveries of hominid remains in Europe. One could also add those of the Near and Middle East (Figure 4), some of which have had a major impact on scholars’ attempts to decipher the specificities and religious significances of funeral practices. 5

Valentin-Codrin Chirica, Vasile Chirica consumption of the dead occurred, not for ritual reasons, without being able to identify such groups. The poor condition of the human bones on discovery is probably due to a series of non-anthropogenic factors: the time elapsed since deposition (chronological aspects), the chemical composition of the soil in which the bodies were laid; possible actions of predators, etc. - the discoveries at Bilzingsleben and Atapuerca of some of the most ancient human remains, which were considered to represent the phenomenon of spirituality in funeral practices, lead to consideration of the upper level of knowledge and thinking by the members of the respective human communities. The funerary offering at Atapuerca was so precious that that burial stands apart from the other identified skeletons that were spread among the archaeological remains. At Atapuerca, as in the case of Krapina (which dated to about 70,000 years BP), another phenomenon occurred: a possible confrontation with a group of external “predators”, that were killed and treated in a specific manner. DNA analysis of the skeletons could indicate the ethnic characteristics of the individuals “thrown” into the common pit. Only in the case of the discoveries in the cave of Los Moros de Cabasa, Spain, has it been possible to assert that the human remains belong to a family group (IgnacioLorenzo and Montes 2001, 77-86). - the use of art and the idea of the reawakening of the buried can already be detected in the Middle Palaeolithic. We refer to the individual at Shanidar deposited on a “bed of flowers”. This activity suggests two things: aesthetic awareness, and the idea of healing and resurrection. These plants are valued by modern Iraqi nomadic for their healing properties. Near identical situations have been observed for the discoveries of Roc de Marsal and de La Ferrassie (Renault-Miskovsky et al. 2005, 207-209). - isolated graves (La Chapelle-aux-Saints), double graves (Spy), necropolises (La Ferrassie, Zaskalnaya), and “common pits” (Atapuerca, Krapina) have all been identified, but we do not know whether any DNA analyses were carried out to establish the possible kinship relations or other ethnic aspects pertaining to the deceased. Only in the case of Zaskalnaya was it possible to determine that the children, aged from 2-3 to 11-12 or 14-15, did not have any kinship relations. This brings to light an important issue, that several populations (or human communities) used the same cemetery exclusively for burying children of various ages (Demidenko 2011, 1-2). - it is clear that certain deliberate actions were carried out on bodies as part of the funeral phenomenon in the Middle Palaeolithic (Masset 1992, 267; Otte 1996, 183-186). Bodies were butchered, with meat being removed from the limbs, with intentional actions on the long bones or on the skulls (Petralona, Verteszöllös, Tautavel, Atapuerca, Bilzingsleben, Kulna, etc.). These actions cannot be confidently interpreted as being related to spiritual aspects or to the burial rituals. The greatest attention was paid to children, for whom there were more burials with special arrangements in comparison to adults,

including the deposition of certain valuable tools, despite the children being unable to create or use them (Figure 5) (Otte 1996, fig. 101).

1

2 Figure 5. 1: La Ferrassie, Child tomb with three scrapers; 2: Le Moustier, tomb no. 2: bones and flint (Otte 1996, fig. 101).

- the deposition in the graves, including those of children, of meat offerings or of the horns of hunted animals can be attached to practices and rituals regarding either the idea of the supremacy of man within the living world, or the idea of resurrection. In fact, the act of deposition of the dead in a “sleeping” position causes us to think that members of Neanderthal communities considered death as a reversible process (Figure 6). The discoveries at Petralona, Guatari, Kebara (Israel) and other places raise the idea of the existence of a skull cult, together with the mandible cult, as it seems these were deliberate actions taken on this part of the human body following death (Otte 2011, 50-53). One can also consider the existence of a “two phase” burial (Masset 1992, 265-266; Otte 2011, 50-53), as it was noticed that, after inhumation, the body was ritually laid in another sacred space while some parts of the body remained in the first grave (Martini and Sarti 1990, 124). 6

Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials sapiens replaced Homo sapiens neandertaliensis. Secondly, the period is characterized by the last glaciation, especially the second half, and the end of the glacial epochs (the Epigravettian, generally dated after the Maximum Valdai in the understanding of O. Soffer (1985). While one may consider the Middle Palaeolithic to be characterized by a type of art with religious content (Otte 2011, 50-53), it is during the Upper Palaeolithic that we observe an extraordinary development in artistic production, the multiplication of representations and of the raw materials used, and the act of art itself being considered to have a religious aspect. New acquisitions and transmissions also occurred in the funerary domain, particularly regarding the religious significance of burial. During the Upper Palaeolithic many practices of funeral behavior remained constant, but there were also certain innovations. Variations appear regarding the deposition and orientation of the dead, and among funerary offerings. We feel that it is only at this point that the behavior of the living population represented by the archaeological record creates the possibility of evaluating how human communities functioned, their organization, world views and, last but not least, their beliefs and religious practices. At the end of the twentieth century specialists considered there were 10 cave graves dated to the Middle Palaeolithic, 11 shelter graves and none in the open air sites, while for the Upper Palaeolithic there had been recorded 18 cave burials, 10 shelter burials and 24 on open air sites (Binant 1991, 20-21). This estimate was obviously very limited, more than 70 cave burials are known just on the Italian Peninsula (Henry-Gambier 2005, 213), this actually being the region with the highest number of discovered burials. In Spain, for the first half of the Upper Palaeolithic (Aurignacian) only four such identifications were made, while for the later archaeological cultures up to the Mesolithic, there were more than 20 (Arias and Alvarez-Fernández 2004, 221223). It would be useful now to provide a chronological and cultural framework of the burial discoveries (including isolated discoveries, common during the first half of the Upper Palaeolithic): the beginning of the period (Aurignacian and contemporary archaeological cultures Ulluzzian, Szelettian, etc.) and the second part (Gravettian – Epigravettian along with the contemporary Solutrean and Magdalenian cultures). On the other hand, A. Palma di Cesnola (2003, 131) splits the period into two entities, “an earlier period, which goes from the Aurignacian-Gravettian up to the beginning of the Epigravettian, and a more recent period, which includes the final Epigravettian”.

Figure 6. A, Quafzeh; B, Techik-Tash; C, Skhul V: animal bones associated with the deceased (after Otte 1996, fig. 100).

We will now bring to an end the selective observations regarding Middle Palaeolithic burials, but we would like to emphasize the existence of many elements of certain “scenarios” of these depositions which seem to indicate a concern with protection and conservation of the body for a possible return to life. It may be that the generally strict compliance with an east-west grave orientation demonstrates the existence of a celestial harmony for the destiny of the dead (Otte 1996, 191).

The burials that have been assigned to the Aurignacian are not completely secure in their archaeological contexts or their excavation conditions. Thus, even the five skeletons attributed as Cro-Magnon cannot be considered undoubtedly Aurignacian, due to stratigraphic problems. The pits of the burials in level 8a of the cave Cueva Morin, dated to the Early Aurignacian, are represented by “four pits filled with large long rocks, associated with a hearth dated to

The Upper Palaeolithic, which occurs in Europe between approximately 40,000 and 15,000-12,000 years ago, is represented by several novel events. Firstly, a new species of hominid, Homo sapiens 7

Valentin-Codrin Chirica, Vasile Chirica about 29,500 cal. BC. In two of them (Morin I and III), excavators noticed pseudomorphic shapes of human and animal bodies preserved thanks to a “saponification process” (Arias and AlvarezFernández 2004, 221), considered as proof of complex funeral behavior involving the amputation of certain anatomic parts. This is a unique situation within the Palaeolithic throughout the entire world. Other discoveries clearly do not represent complete burials, but detached parts of skeletons, suggesting the existence of cult practices in the Aurignacian: Mladec, Vogelherd, Isturitz, Brassempouy, La Quina (two perforated teeth), La Crouyade, Bise, Kent's Cavern, Fontana Nouva, and Vindija (in Croatia, where a Neanderthaloid frontal bone, likely Aurignacian, dated to 33,850 years BP was discovered) (Art et Civilisations… 1984; C.-V. Chirica 1996; Djindjian 1999; Lejeune 1995; 1998; Taborin 1990). In spite of all these examples, A. Leroi-Gourhan (1990) considers that during the Upper Palaeolithic, from England to Russia, there is a defined funerary process: the digging of the pit, and subsequent deposition of the dead, who was covered with red ochre and ornamental items that had symbolic rather than aesthetic importance. According to M. Otte (1993), the data regarding religious behavior during the European Upper Palaeolithic are abundant, indicating that the whole human community shared not only stone implements specific to the archaeological culture and a certain type of habitation arrangement and exploitation of space, but also certain values, myths and beliefs, creating an equilibrium in the whole society. The archaeological discoveries indicate the existence of certain beliefs and behavioral practices, which were not isolated, but on the contrary were continuous and compulsory. As we have already pointed out (V. Chirica 1999, 247-248), during the Upper Palaeolithic art has a religious character; all creations, artistic or decorative, are of a religious nature. Humankind assumes responsibilities, power and characteristics and assumes this by transposing his own being into the existence of the element that he wants to subdue. The discoveries dating from the Gravettian and Epigravettian period are more numerous, and their value also increases if we consider especially the funerary offerings regardless of their type. They become extremely important elements for the understanding of the complexity of the life of the community.

In the Czeck Republic (and also Moravia) there are numerous burials with specially arranged pits, which however have been dated to the Moravian Pavlovian. M. Oliva (2002, 191-214) has written a synopsis of the discoveries and the issues they raised. It is considered that on seven sites 10 graves have been found containing approximately 30 buried individuals: Predmosti, common pit, with 18 skeletons (one of them without the skull), Brno II, Dolní VestoniceI/3 and 4, Dolní Vestonice II/13-16, and Pavlov I, to which can be added the remains of female skeletons of uncertain dating, from Brno-Žabovresky and Svitávka (Oliva 2002, 191). We shall not provide here the details of the discoveries, but we shall provide alternative opinions regarding the triple burial of Dolni Vestonice, which carries particularly important implications for communal funerary practices. While the middle burial could not be identified as female, a flint knife had been laid in the pubic area, along with large quantities of ochre. This, as well as the pathological deformation of the face, and the orientation of the hand the body buried to the right, determined most specialists to speak of a young woman, rather than of an individual of uncertain sex. The discovery at Brno II was associated with a high number of ritual depositions including faunal remains (mammoth tusks and shoulder blades, rhinoceros skull and ribs, horse and bison teeth, and a processed reindeer bone), ornamental items made of mollusks (“more than 600 items”), laid around the skull, fragments of a male figurine (the only example to have been found in a Gravettian tomb) (Delporte 1993, 92), numerous decorated roundels made of molars, mammoth tusks, stones and bones, as well as other items of personal ornamentation or decorative artistic items (Oliva 2002, fig. 18-21; Klima 1995; Valoch 1959, 24-29) (Figure 7). Discoveries of palaeo-anthropological remains have also been made in Belgium. In the caves of Goyet human remains were discovered in the European levels, belonging to the Aurignacian occupation, in the third cave (Otte 1979, 418), although no further details are known. We should point out that it is not certain whether these discoveries represent intentional burial. An example of this are the two skulls discovered at Engis (considered Mousterian). M. Otte (1979, 491-492) assigned to “the occupation of the Ancient Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Perigordian) represented at Engis”. According to their discoverer (P. C. Schmerling), the first skull belonged to an adult, and was covered by a layer containing rhinoceros, horse, hyena and bear teeth, which had been undisturbed since its initial deposition (Otte 1979, 491). The other skull (“Engis II”) belonged to a young man. It was associated with an elephant tooth, and can be considered as belonging to the Mousterian level (Otte 1979, 492). Other Ancient Upper Palaeolithic discoveries of human remains in Belgium, recorded in the first (1833-1834; Schmerling) and second halves (1872; Dupont) of the nineteenth century, were not described as belonging

For an easier understanding of the complexity of the funeral phenomenon during the European Upper Palaeolithic, we shall consider the matter in more detail, concentrating on the region of the Great Russian Plain, Central and West Europe and at the culturalchronological level of the Aurignacian - Gravettian, and Epigravettian, through consideration and presentation of the categories of depositions: meat and horn offerings, decorative and plastic art items, flint and other rock items (some with deliberate cut marks), bone and horn weapons, including the significance of such offerings, and particularly the presence, sometimes abundant, of red ochre. 8

Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials to intentional burials, and their fragmentary condition seems to demonstrate that they were spread within the geological deposits in which the levels of

archaeological occupation were found (Otte 1979, 492).

Figure 7. Brno 2. Roundels associated with the deceased (Oliva 2002, fig. 18-19).

Regarding the discoveries dated to the Recent Upper Palaeolithic, it seems that it is only in the caves of Martinrive and Remouchamp that human remains have been found, but without the archaeological context to enable the identification of intentional burial. Despite this the discovery of a necklace (Figure 8) found in association with human bones (13 phalanges and 19 teeth) is considered to be an offering. The whole was identified “under a stalagmite cover”, in a fissure of the cave (zone “DD”) (Dewez 1987, 356-357).

Throughout the huge spaces of the Russian Plain two large funeral centers have been identified: Sungir, to the north of Moscow, and Kostenki, on the Don. In fact, the discoveries of Sungir also belong, from the cultural point of view, to the Kostenkian region. A. Sinitsyn (2004, 237) established a micro-chronology for the discoveries of Kostenki, which he divided into three phases: phase I, between (40,000 ?) 36,000 and 33,000 years, without funerary pits, with only a few isolated discoveries of human remains; phase II, between 32,000 and 27,000 years (with most of the burials being deliberate), and phase III, between 26,000 and 20,000 years (including the graves of Kostenki 2 and 18). The next example in our study is the triple burial of Sungir, dated to about 25,000 years BP. The grave is of a man and two children, but its significance is in the associated grave goods, which are possibly richest in the whole continent (Figures 9 and 10). The three bodies were laid on their backs, the children (a 12-13 year old boy and an 8-9 year old girl) being placed near the man, but head to head. The very rich funerary inventory of the man, consisting 3,500 whole and fragmentary ivory beads, 25 ivory bracelets (including some with traces of painting, and perforated at the ends to allow linkage to one another) deposited in the area of the forearms and thighs, a schist pendant, painted red and with dotted ornamentation, found on the neck, another zoomorphic, fragmentary pendant with dotted ornamentation on the two surfaces, a perforated ivory disc, several perforated fox teeth, and stone tools including a flint knife. The offerings deposited around the boy included more than

Figure 8. Grotte de Remouchamps, replica of a necklace made of fossil shells (Dewez 1987, fig. 246, 237).

9

Valentin-Codrin Chirica, Vasile Chirica 4,900 ivory beads, 250 perforated polar fox canines, a zoomorphic pendant laid on the chest, a needle was found in the neck area, which supposedly fastened a clothing item, a zoomorphic sculpture on the left shoulder, a fragment of human femur, polished and filled with red ochre (deposited on the left side of the thorax), a 2.42m long ivory spear, and an ivory disc with a central perforation and ornamented with radial lines. The funerary offerings with the girl consisted of 5,200 pearls identical to those of the other burials laid along the body on both sides, a 1.66 m long ivory spear, two perforated horn sticks, one of which was ornamented with lines of notched dots, and three discs with central perforations and radial lines (as in the case of the boy) (Kozlowski 1992, 44-46; V. Chirica 1996, 33-35; Djindjian, Kozlowski and Otte 1999). Experts in the field consider this triple burial to be unique, possibly indicating the social hierarchy of the community to which the dead belonged. However, we believe that many aspects of the spirituality of this practice have not been perceived by our current understanding. We notice, among other things, the presence of the human femur, certainly from another unknown individual, filled with red ochre, which ideologically must have been relevant only to the boy and girl, because the body of the man was entirely covered with red ochre. Moreover, if we take into account the fact that although the two children were not inhumed at the same time as the man they may well be related, we could suggest that they would have followed, hereditarily, the traditions of the community. The inclusion of offerings specific to adults represented the consignation of their future maturity. If we also consider the offerings of faunal remains we can propose that the burials at Sungir are the most complex from the whole European Upper Palaeolithic. This once more confirms the statement that man wanted to have, even by substitution, supremacy in relation to the natural environment which it dominated by hunting. The sacred character of this grave cannot be doubted. A. LeroiGourhan (1983, 165) wrote that “the practice of inhumation of the dead is a significant feature for the preoccupations usually correlated to religious feeling”.

Figure 10. The Sungir burials (Bosinski 1990, fig. 1, 2).

Returning to the sites on the Don, in the second phase of A. Sinitsyn’s chronology burials occur both in tombs and special pits. At Kostenki 14 the base of the pit was marked by a covering of red ochre, on top of which the body of a young man of about 25 years old was laid in a very contracted position. There were no funerary offerings apart from three flint flakes, a mammoth phalange and several rabbit bones in the pit fill. At Kostenki 15 the body of a 6-7 year old child was laid in a seated position, on a bone knife, in an oval-shaped pit, placed within the perimeter of habitation. The base of the pit was covered with red and yellow ochre, and an artificial seat had been created from two types of yellow and gray allogeneic clay. The grave was covered with soil and bones, including a fragmentary mammoth shoulder blade. When it collapsed the bones of the skeleton were dislocated; the skull fell to one side of the pit, and the rest of the skeleton was on the opposite side. The funerary offerings consisted of flint items, including 10 scrapers, 1 awl, various blades and flakes (secondary processing products) (Figure 11), a knife, a polisher, a bone needle, and a headdress with more than 150 pierced polar fox teeth.

Figure 9. Sungir, art and jewelry items (Kozlowski 1992, fig. 32, 33).

10

Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials was covered with large mammoth bones, and the whole complex had the characteristics of a funerary crypt. It is thought that the three pits that accompanied the tomb were conventional or cenotaph sepultures (Sinitsyn 2004, 241-242), because they were not domestic or waste pits (Figure 12). Another discovery was made at Kostenki 2; an occupation structure with a long room, where the lower part of a skeleton including the ribs was identified, without the deposition of offerings. The upper part of the skeleton was not in anatomical context, being found within the habitation at 1.5 m from the rest of the skeleton. It is thought that a special funerary crypt was built, abutting the wall of the habitation. The body was covered up the shoulders, head and arms to the outside, and partly destroyed by scavengers. These cases represent another type of burial, without offerings, and, possibly also secondary burial, as indicated by certain Middle Palaeolithic burials.

Figure 11. Flint items from the tomb of Kostenki 15 (Sinitsyn 2004, fig. 7).

Other burials of the Kostenki group belonging to the second phase were also mentioned, among which mention should be made of level II of Kostenki 8. During the analysis of the skull bones of the 35-40 year old man traces of drilling, which occurred while the individual was alive, were noticed, possibly the oldest evidence for the practice of trepanation. We should also point out that some skull fragments were subjected to fire, being found in an area of occupation near the hearth, together with other bone remains, probably of the same skeleton. At Kostenki 12, in level I, a burial of a new born child (which measured 46-48 cm), about 10 days old, was discovered. Its body was protected by animal skins.

A large number of burials have been discovered in Italy. It is thought that between 1872 and 1905, in four caves (Children’s Cave, Baousso da Tore, Barma Grande and Barma de Caviglione), 12 graves were discovered, out of which 10 were earlier than 15,000 years BP. Recent studies detail the existence of more than 60 sepultures containing over 70 individuals, including seven double burials and a triple one (Giacobini 1999, 29). Italian specialists (Palma di Cesnola 2003, 131-139; Henry-Gambier 2005, 213229 ) speak of at least two chronological phases: “the ancient phase”, Aurignacian – Gravettian, and a recent phase, the advanced Upper Palaeolithic, that is the final Epigravettian, each with specific features of burial practices, along with some features characteristic to both phases. As with other regions, in Italy the first discoveries occurred at the end of the nineteenth century, when the methods of excavation and recording were lacking in detail in comparison to modern methods, causing a loss of information in regard to the chronological and cultural context of the burials. The discoveries listed above are from the most ancient phase of the Upper Palaeolithic. Two burials at Grimaldi – Children’s Cave (GA) were dated to between 25,000 and 20,000 years BP, placing them in the Gravettian, but they could also be included in the initial phase of the Epigravettian (Giacobini 1999, 30). GA 1 and 2 contained two children (which gave the cave its name), of 4 and 5-6 years old, laid on their backs, side by side, with their waists surrounded by a “belt” made from over one thousand perforated shells. GE 3 was an adult woman, associated with numerous shells (Trochus), deposited together with an adolescent (GE 6). GE 4 was an adult man, laid extended on the back, arms folded. Grave goods associated with the individual were perforated shells, flint tools, and perforated deer teeth. Interestingly, the head and feet were covered with stone slabs, in our opinion deposited to prevent the dead from leaving the “eternal place” (Figures 13 and 14).

Figure 12. Kostenki 18. “Cenotaph” (Sinitsyn 2004, fig. 10).

Among the third (most recent) phase are the tombs of Kostenki 18. Here, near the tomb of a 9-10 year old child, three pits were found, which probably served sacred purposes. There were no offerings but the tomb 11

Valentin-Codrin Chirica, Vasile Chirica

Figure 13. 1: Children’s Cave III; 2: Paglicci; 3: Children’s Cave IV (Palma di Cesnola 2003, fig. 1).

Figure 14. Funeral finds. 1: Abri Tagliente; 2: Vado all’Arancio; 3: Arene Candide I, II, IV, Va, Vb, VIa, VIb, VII (Palma di Cesnola 2003, fig. 2).

At Barma Grande (= BG) one tomb (BG1) was arranged near the entrance, at the depth of 8.40 m, another one, a triple burial (BG 2-3-4) at a several meters’ distance from the first, at 8.00 m depth. Two other tombs (BG 5-6) were arranged close to each other at the back of the cave, at the depth of 6.40m. So, one cannot state for sure whether the burials were contemporary nor whether there were any family relationships between them. All the inhumations are dated to between 19,280 ± 220 BP and 14,110 ± 150 BP, and therefore it is suggested they belong to the Epigravettian. The presence of three flint blades, of 17, 23 and 26 cm long, engraved bone or ivory pendants, numerous perforated shells, deer canines and salmonids in BG 2-3-4 seems to indicate that they belonged to the Gravettian (Henry-Gambier 2005, 214). BG 5 had no red ochre deposits, but the skeleton was covered with three large stones. Did this community’s members fear the “return” of the dead (adult, male) among them?

“Man of Menton” (Giacobini 1999, 30), with funerary adornments made of shells. 13 inhumed bodies were uncovered, with complete skeletons and only a small amount of damage caused by geo-pedological phenomena. Three of them were adolescents and 10 adults; five could be women. Eight bodies belonged to individual burials. At Barma Grande the deceased in tombs 2 and 3-4 were buried simultaneously. Most of them were buried in a supine extended position, inside the cave or at the entrance, on an E – W alignment, although there were also cases of N – S, or NE – SW, with different positions for the bodies, limbs or head. The existence of pits is confirmed in some cases and uncertain in others. Burial offerings consisted of perforated shells of Ciclope neritea, Cyprae etc., perforated and sometimes engraved deer canines, ivory or bone pendants, and vertebrae of salmonids that decorated the clothes of the dead. We think that the disposition of the funerary offerings in association with the body had a certain importance within the possible funeral practices. In addition, the observations made by the discoverers are not very conclusive. Other goods include large flint blades (in the right hand for BG 2 and 3 and under each shoulder for BG 1), animal horns, cervidae and bovidae teeth, and other bone fragments (laid around the body at BG 2, 3, 4). Red ochre accompanied each body, being abundantly deposited around the head, but also on the body, especially at BT 3 and BG 6.

At Baousso da Torre three tombs (BT 1, 2, 3) were discovered rather close to one another at depths between 3.70 - 3.90 m, indicating they may be contemporary. The grave goods included points with a split base of the Aurignacian type, but it is thought that the dead belonged to a Gravettian group. Another burial of this group, marked by uncertainties, was discovered at Barma de Caviglione, also known as the 12

Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials

1

2

Figure 15. Arene Candide. 1: Tomb of “The Prince”; 2: pendant no. 2. (Giacobini and Malerba 1995, fig. 1, 8).

The Cave of Arene Candide provided 16 Palaeolithic burials (Broglio 1996, 289-298), one of which was very well preserved and dated to 23,440 ± 190 BP. It belonged to an adolescent, deposited in an extended supine position, in a pit arranged with red ochre on the base and all over its interior. This is the famous burial of “The Prince” (“Il Principe”). The offerings consisted of shells of Ciclope neritea (especially around the knees), and also perforated deer teeth and engraved bone or ivory pendants. A possible clothing accessory was ornamented with a squirrel tail; there was a flint blade in the individual’s right hand, and four perforated sticks made of elk horn completed the offerings. Mention should also be made of the four ivory pendants, three of which were made of mammoth

tusks. A large flint blade, 25 cm long, was placed in the right hand. The skeleton was covered with red ochre. The tomb was situated in the first room of the cave, at the depth of about 7 m. As in other situations in Italy, the stone industry was assigned to the Gravettian or Epigravettian (Martini, Sarti 1990 124-126). The burial dates to before 18,560 ± 210 years BP (Giacobini and Malerba 1995, 173-186) (Figures 15, 16 and 17). At Arene Candide other burials (II, V-IX, XI) were also discovered, but they were considered to be Mesolithic, dating to between 11,750 ± 95 BP and 10.910 ± 90 BP (Giacobini 1999, 32), and as such we do not include them in our study. 13

Valentin-Codrin Chirica, Vasile Chirica

1 2 Figure 16. Arene Candide. Tomb of “The Prince”. 1: pendant no. 1; 2: pendant no. 4. (Giacobini and Malerba 1995, fig. 2, 12).

Figure 17. Arene Candide. Tomb (Martini and Sarti 1990, pag. 125).

Tagliente shelter contained a burial of Epigravettian age, with one adult male skeleton. It is interesting to note that the skeleton was covered (protected?) with stones, two of which had engraved linear decoration, representing the profile of a lion and the head of a Bos primigenius. The offerings also included an ankle fragment from a large bovid (Giacobini 1999, 33; Henry-Gambier 2005, 222).

“diadem” of 30 perforated deer canines on the head, with other perforated canines deposited on the body. A Cyprae shell was placed on the thorax, and there were also bone and flint tools. Pag. 25 (named Pag. 3 by Giacobini 1999, 34) contained a young woman, deposited in an extended supine position in a pit, with red ochre on the head, pelvis, feet, with a “diadem” of seven perforated deer teeth on the head. Two burins, one scraper, one blade, one flint flake and a fragment of Pecten completed the funerary offerings (HenryGambier 2005, 217).

At other sites (namely Villabruna shelter, Vado all’Arancio, Grotte Maritza, and Grotte Continenza) skeletons of Epigravettian age were also discovered, belonging to children, young men or adults (Palma di Cesnola 1996 305-325). Mention should be made of one skeleton found at Vado all’Arancio, in which were discovered as offerings, a fragment of roebuck mandible, a horse molar, an auroch premolar, pebbles, perforated shells, two scrapers and one truncated flint. The second skeleton belonged to an 18 month-old child. Its head was laid on a travertine block, and another block was laid on the child’s chest. In the Grotte Continenza the skeleton of an adult was found in the middle of a circle of stones, without a grave pit, while the skull was missing, and apparently replaced by stones. There were no funerary adornments (Giacobini 1999, 33-34) (Figure 18). Grotte Paglicci provided two other burials (Pag. 15 and Pag. 25), dated to 24,720 ± 420 years BP (Pag. 15) and 23,470 ± 370 years BP (Pag. 25). Pag. 15 contained a 13-14 year old male, buried without an excavated pit, but the body was protected by a stone structure. Large amounts of red ochre had been applied all over the body, and the burial was also accompanied by a

Figure 18. Cave Continenza. Burial without the skull (Grifoni Cremonesi 2003, fig. 1).

14

Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials At other sites, especially caves (Grotte delle Veneri, Grotte Romanelli, Grotte-abri du Romito, Grottee San Teodoro, Ostumi), similar examples of both individual and double graves have been uncovered. One example that stands out is Ostumi 1, where a young woman was buried at the end of her pregnancy (the foetus skull was situated in the woman’s pelvic area), a unique situation during the European Upper Palaeolithic. All the skeletons were accompanied by funerary offerings, generally the same: perforated canines, perforated shells, red ochre etc.

again, the discoveries were made during the initial period of archaeological research and excavation of Palaeolithic sites, their authors did not pay due attention to the burial sites, nor did they provide descriptions of their field observations. However, a number of sites should be mentioned in this study: Combe-Capelle, Cro-Magnon, Roc de Sers, Cap Blanc, St. Germain, Bruniquel, La Madeleine, LaugerieBasse, Chancelade, Le Figurier, Les Hoteaux, with 21 skeletons (Figure 19), Isturitz and others, such as those of Cap Roux, Marronnier, etc. Even the basic chronology of the discoveries remains imprecise (Quéchon 1976, 728-729); out of the 12 burials considered most precise in terms of discovery conditions and findings, only two make the case for a date of about 27,000 years BP, and 10 for under 18,000 years BP. The scarcity of discoveries dated to the Ancient Upper Palaeolithic (Aurignacian, Châtelperonian) and their absence during the Gravettian, is striking. There are some clues regarding the existence of the funeraral phenomena, of certain differentiations between the ritual practices, particularly for the Magdalenian period, when “inhumation is more frequent and it conquers the whole Palaeolithic territory” (Quéchon 1976, 730). The burials in the cave of Figurier and the shelter of Cap Roux were published in greater detail, with special attention paid to the presence of the funerary offerings, which consisted of Glycymeris violacenses, Nassarius circumcintcta, Nassarius gibbosula, Nassa (Arcularia) gibbosule, Nassa circumcinta, Nassa acrostyla. We can add the description of one of the discoverers, “Indeed, if in the Caves of Menton we discovered until now 10 human skeletons of adults and children – the former decorated with shells and pierced deer teeth, the latter covered with a kind of body wrap exclusively made of shells, all of the same species Nassa neritea – on the contrary we have not found at Cap-Roux other human remains than the few debris … spread here and there in the middle of a hearth” (Onoratini and Combier 1995, 266).

In Italy for the Upper Palaeolithic over 16 Gravettian burials and more than 35 Epigravettian have been identified, that is dating to approximately between 26,000-25,000 and 14,000-11,000 years BP. Throughout the period there is evidence of concern for the dead. In fact, E. Morin (1970, 33) wrote that “practically, there are no human groups that would abandon their dead without a rite”. However, certain differences can be observed, probably pertaining to the specific rituals, local or not, of certain human communities: - in 12 cases the grave pits were immediately filled, possibly for the protection of the bodies; - all the bodies were covered with red ochre, and the importance of this fact can probably be connected to the belief in resurrection, in the blood protection of the deceased; - there were 13 individual burials, two doubles and one triple grave; - the laying of large stones on the buried bodies, sometimes on the feet, other times on the feet and head, or on the chest may demonstrate fear of the resurrection of the dead and their return among the living, these “protection” measures were especially common in the case of 2-3 year old children; - there are no anatomical elements which demonstrate a possible biological relationship between simultaneously inhumed individuals (only three graves could be assigned to such a category); - we consider that the diversity of the body and limb positions does not represent the details or the indices of elements of funeral ritual; - the deposition of funerary offerings was extremely important for the Gravettian and Epigravettian communities, especially for the latter, when the grave goods became more numerous and more varied; Cyclope neritea is present in most burials, whatever the age or gender. We cannot ascertain (even though certain specialists have tried to make connections between grave goods according to age and/or sex Henry-Gambier 2005, 223), whether offerings were deposited according to compulsory canons, or were randomly implemented, possibly also according to a certain condition of richness of the respective human community; - other details regarding the funeral behavior of the Gravettian and Epigravettian human communities of the modern territory of Italy exceed the limits of our current approach.

In the Iberian Peninsula, the Gravettian - Epigravettian period is marked by an increase in the number of burials. First of all, mention should be made of the discovery of Lagar Velho (Estremadura, Portugal) (Figures 20 and 21) where the body of a 5 year old child was laid near the wall of the cave, at the depth of only 0.30 m but in a deliberately dug pit. The burial took place according to specific ritual practice, as the body was laid stretched on the back, with the slightly bent feet. Before the inhumation, a branch of Pinus silvestris was burnt at the base of the pit. The authors of the research interpreted the presence of red ochre all over the pit as representing the fact that the body of the child was wrapped in a tinted cloth. The incomplete skeleton of a baby rabbit was found near the child’s right tibia, as well as two deer pelvises at either end of the body, representing, undoubtedly, meat offerings. Four perforated deer teeth, skull fragments, and two perforated shells of Littorina obtusata completed the funerary adornments (Arias and Alvarez-Fernández 2004, 222; Zilhão and Trinkaus 2002, 131-145).

France is well represented in terms of the burials dated to the Upper Palaeolithic. Unfortunately, as, once 15

Valentin-Codrin Chirica, Vasile Chirica

Figure 19. Geographic distribution of the burials and the position of the skeletons from France (Quéchon 1976, fig. 1).

The four Solutrean age skeletons discovered in the cave of Nerja (Andalusia, Spain) belonged to three adults and one child in a foetal position (Arias and Alvarez-Fernández 2004, 223). We consider this to be the second burial of an unborn child, following the one

from Italy (Ostumi 1). We should mention that this cave was also used during the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Chalcolithic periods, becoming, in our view, a veritable sanctuary of prehistoric ritual burials.

16

Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials References Alexandrescu, E., Olariu, A., Skog, G., Stenström, K. and Hellsborg, R. 2010. Os fossiles humains des grottes Muierii et Cioclovina, Roumanie, L’Anthropologie 114, 341-353. Arias, P. and Alvarez-Fernández, E. 2004. Les chasseurs-cuelleurs de la Péninsule Ibérique face à la mort: une révision des données sur les contextes funéraires du Paléolithique supérieur et du Mésolithique. In M. Otte (ed.), La Spiritualité. Actes du colloque international de Liège (10-12 décembre 2003), 221-236. Liège, ERAUL, 106.

1

xxx 1984. Art et civilizations des chasseurs de la Préhistoire, 34.000-8000 av. J.-C.. Paris, Laboratoire De Préhistoire Du Musée De L'homme - Musée Des Antiquités Nationales. Binant, P. 1991. La Préhistoire de la Mort. Les sépultures en Europe. Paris, Errance. 2 Figure 20. Lagar Velho 1. 1: skeleton no. LVI ; 2: front and side view of the skull (Zilhão and Trinkaus 2002, fig. 7, 8).

Bonifay, E. 1965. Un ensemble rituel moustérien à la grotte du Régourdou (Montignac, Dordogne). Atti del VI Congresso Internazionale delle Scienze Preistoriche e Protostoriche II, Rome, 136-139. Bosinski, G. 1990. Homo sapiens. L’histoire des chasseurs du Paléolithique supérieur en Europe (40000 – 10000 avant J.-C.). Paris, Errance. Bouyssonie, A., Bouyssonie, J. and Bardon, L. 1909. Découverte d’un squelette humain mousterien à la Bouffia de La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corrèze). L’Anthropologie XIX, 513-517. Broglio, A. 1996. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Italie du Nord (1991-1996). In M. Otte (ed.), Le Paléolithique supérieur européen. Bilan quinquennal 1991-1996, 289-304. Liège, ERAUL, 76.

Figure 21. Lagar Velho 1. Jewelry items deposited in tomb LVI (Zilhão and Trinkaus 2002, fig. 9).

The cave of Tito Bustillo is, as we have pointed out elsewhere (V. Chirica 2006, 7-35; C.-V. Chirica 2004, 103-127), another sanctuary of the European Upper Palaeolithic, a “key site” of the Iberian Magdalenian, with elements of cave art and burial remains, and a single individual Magdalenian burial (Arias and Alvarez-Fernández 2004, 223).

Chavaillon, J. 1992. Les Hominides. In J. Garanger (ed.), La Préhistoire dans le monde. Nouvelle édition de la préhistoire d’André Leroi-Gourhan, 283-290. Paris, Nouvelle Clio, PUF. Chirica, C.-V. 1996. Arta şi religia Paleoliticului superior în Europa Centrală şi Răsăriteană. Iaşi, Helios, Bibliotheca Archaeologica Iassiensis, VI.

The Mesolithic is much better represented by burial discoveries, with no less than 23 identified sites with inhumation sepultures, mostly simple, but these aspects exceed the chronological framework of our study.

Chirica, C.-V. 2004. Les significations artistiques et religieuses de certaines découvertes paléolithiques de l’espace carpato-dniestréen. In M. Otte (ed.), La Spiritualité. Actes du colloque international de Liège (10-12 décembre 2003), 177-186. Liège, ERAUL, 106.

Acknowledgements This work was possible with the financial support of the Sectorial Operational Programme for Human Resources Development 2007-2013, co-financed by the European Social Fund, under the project number POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61104 with the title „Social sciences and humanities in the context of global development - development and implementation of postdoctoral research”.

Chirica, V. 1999. Arheologia Cuaternarului, in A. Saraiman and V. Chirica (eds.), Cuaternarul pe teritoriul României, 207-276. Iaşi, Helios. Chirica, V. 2006. Artă şi religii preistorice. Sanctuarele paleoliticului superior european. Prelegeri Academice V, 5. 17

Valentin-Codrin Chirica, Vasile Chirica Grifoni Cremonesi, R. 2003. La Grotta Continenza (Trasacco, Abruzzes): sépultures du Néolithique ancien et du Paléolithique supérieur. In E. Derwich (ed.), Préhistoire des Pratiques mortuaires. Paléolithique – Mésolithique – Néolithique, Actes du symposium international de Leuven (12-16 septembre 1999), 107110. Liège, ERAUL, 102.

Clottes, J. 2005. Spiritualité et religion au Paléolithique : les signes d’une émergence progressive. Religions & Histoire 2 (mai-juin), 18-25. Cordy, J.-M., Bastin, B., Ek, C., Geeraerts, R., Ozer, A., Quinif, Y., Thorez, J. and Ulrix-Closset, M. 1992. La Belle Roche (Sprimont, Belgium): the Oldest Archaeological Site in the Benelux. A Report on a Field Trip. In M. Toussaint (ed.), 5 millions d'années. L'aventure humaine, Actes du symposium de Paléontologie humaine de Bruxelles (12-14 septembre 1990), 287-301. Liège, ERAUL, 56.

Guadelli, A. and Guadelli, J.-L. 2004. Une expression sur os dans le Paléolithique inférieur. Etude préliminaire de l’os incisé de la grotte Kozarnika, Bulgarie du Nord-Ouest. In M. Otte (ed.), La Spiritualité. Actes du colloque international de Liège (10-12 décembre 2003), 87-95. Liège, ERAUL, 106.

Cordy, J.-M., Juvigné, E., Renson, V., Geeraerts, R., Huss, J., 2001. Révision de l’ancienneté de l’Homme au Bénélux à travers du gisement préhistorique de la Belle-Roche (Sprimont, Liège), (Paléolithique inférieur) et des terrasses de l’Amblève. In XIV Congrès International des Sciences Pré- et Protohistoriques, Pré-Actes, 98. Liège.

Henry-Gambier, D. 2005. Evolution des pratiques funéraires en Italie au Paléolithique supérieur, in D. Vialou, J. Renault-Miskovski and M. Patou-Mathis (eds.), Comportements des hommes du Paléolithique moyen et supérieur en Europe. Territoires et milieux. Actes du colloque du G.D.R. 1945 du CNRS, Paris, 810 janvier 2003, 213-230. Liège, ERAUL, 111.

Delporte, H. 1993. L’image de la femme dans l’art préhistorique, Paris, Picard.

Ignacio Lorenzo, J. and Montes, L. 2001. Restes néandertaliens de la grotte de «Los Moros de Gabasa» (Huesca, Espagne), in Zilhao, T. Aubry and A. Faustino Carvalho (eds.), Les premiers hommes modernes de la Péninsule Ibérique. Actes du Colloque de la Comission VIII de 1'UISPP, Vila Nova de Foz Côa, Octobre 1998, 77-86. Lisboa, Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Trabalhos de Arqueología 17.

Demidenko, Y.E. 2011. Zaskalnaya (Crimée). Une sepulture multiple. Dossier d’Archéologie 345, 48-49. Despriée, J., Gageonnet, R., Duvialard, J., Varache, F. 2001. Les industries du Paléolithique inférieur des formations alluviales quaternaires de la région Centre (France). In XIV Congrès International des Sciences Pré- et Protohistoriques, Pré-Actes, 98. Liège.

Klima, B. 1995. Dolni Vestonice II. Ein Mammutjägerrastplatz und seine Bestattungen. Liège, ERAUL, 73.

Dewez, M. 1987. Le Paléolithique Supérieur Récent dans les Grottes de Belgique. Louvain-La-Neuve, Société Wallonne de Palethnologie A.S.B.L.

Kozlowski, J.K. 1992. L’Art de la Préhistoire en Europe orientale. Paris, Editions du CNRS.

Djindjian, F. 1999. L’Aurignacien, in F. Djindjian, J. Kozlowski and M. Otte (eds.), Le Paléolithique supérieur en Europe, 161-180. Paris, A. Colin.

Lejeune, M. 1995. La naissance de l’Art. In J.-M. Cordy (ed.), Le génie de l’Homme. Des origines à l’écriture, 178-180. Abbaye Saint-Gérard de Brogne, Musée d'Histoire Naturelle de Luxembourg.

Djindjian, F., Kozlowski, J. and Otte, M. (eds.) 1999. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. Paris, A. Colin.

Lejeune, M. 1998. Manifestation «artistique» dans une sépulture mésolithique de Crimée. In M. Otte (ed.), Préhistoire d’Anatolie, Genèse de deux mondes, 447452. Liège, ERAUL, 85.

Garanger, J. (ed.) 1992. La Préhistoire dans le monde. Nouvelle édition de la préhistoire d’André LeroiGourhan. Paris, Nouvelle Clio, PUF.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1983. Gestul şi cuvântul, vol. I. Bucureşti, Meridiane.

Giacobini, G. 1999. Les sépultures du Paléolithique supérieur en Italie. In D. Sacchi (ed.), XXIV-è Congrès préhistorique de France. Faciès leptolithiques du nord-est méditerranéen: milieux naturels et culturels, Carcassonne, 1994, 29-39. Carcassonne.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. (ed.) 1988. Dictionnaire de la Préhistoire. Paris, PUF. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1990. Les religions de Préhistoire. Paléolithique. Paris, Quadrige/PUF.

Giacobini, G. and Malerba, G. 1995. 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 Fr. Widemann (eds.), Le travail et l’usage de l'ivoire au Paléolithique supérieur, Actes de la Table ronde de Ravello (29-31 mai 1992), 173-187. Rome, Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.

la

Martini, F., Sarti, L. 1990. La preistoria del Monte Cetona. Firenze, All’Insegna del Giglio. Masset, C. 1992. L’étude des sépultures et la paléosociologie. In J. Garanger (ed.), La Préhistoire dans le monde, 263-279. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. 18

Spirituality of Palaeolithic burials Masset, C. 2000. La mort aux périodes préhistoriques et protohistoriques (1000000 à 750), in E. Crubézy, E. Lorans, C. Masset, F. Perrin and L. Tranoy (eds.), Anthropologie, archéologie funéraire et anthropologie de terrain, 55-58. Paris, Errance.

Quéchon, G. 1976. Les sépultures des Hommes du Paléolithique supérieur. In H. de Lumley (ed.), La Préhistoire française, T. I, Les civilisations paléolithiques et mésolithiques de la France, 728-733. Paris, Editions du CNRS.

Maureille, B., Semal, P. and Cillys, J. 2001. Spy 2, second exemple néanderthalien d’usure en cure-dent a minima. In XIV-è Congrès UISPP, Pré-Actes, 121. Liège.

Renault-Miskovsky, J., Girard, M. and Thi Mai, B. 2005. La palynologie dans les sépultures, in D. Vialou, J. Renault-Miskovski and M. Patou-Mathis (eds.), Comportements des hommes du Paléolithique moyen et supérieur en Europe. Territoires et milieux. Actes du colloque du G.D.R. 1945 du CNRS, Paris, 8-10 janvier 2003, 207-212. Liège, ERAUL, 111.

Morin, E. 1970. L’Homme et la Mort. Paris, Le Seuil. Oliva, M. 2002. Les pratiques funéraires dans le Pavlovien morave: révision critique. Préhistoire Européenne 16-17 (2000-2001), 191-214.

Sinitsyn, A. 2004. Les sépultures de Kostenki: chronologie, attribution culturelle, rite funéraire. In M. Otte (ed.), La Spiritualité. Actes du colloque international de Liège (10-12 décembre 2003), 237244. Liège, ERAUL, 106.

Onoratini, G., Combier, J. 1995. Restes d’enfant et parure de coquillages du site gravettien du Maronier (Saint-Remèze-Ardeche): témoins de l’expansion occidentale de la culture de tradition noaillienne méditerranéenne. In M. Otte (ed.), Nature et Culture. Actes du colloque international de Liège, 13-17 décembre 1993, 261-274. Liège, ERAUL, 68.

Soffer, O. 1985. The Upper Palaeolithic of the Central Russian Plain. New York, Academic Press. Taborin, Y. 1990. Les prémices de la parure. In C. Farizy (ed.), Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe. Rupture et transition: examen critique des documents archéologiques. Actes du Colloque international de Némours, 1988, 335-344. Némours, A.P.R.A.I.F.

Otte, M. 1979. Le Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Belgique. Bruxelles, Musée royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Monographies d’Archéologie Nationale, 5. Otte, M. 1993. Préhistoire des religions. Paris-MilanBarcelone-Bonn, Masson.

Toussaint, M. and Pirson, S. 2001. Les Néandertaliens mosans. In XIV-è Congrès UISPP, Pré-Actes, 121. Liège.

Otte, M. 1996. Le Paléolithique inférieur et moyen en Europe. Paris, Armand Colin.

Valoch, K. 1959. Die Grabbeigaben, in J. Jelinek, J. Pelišek and K. Valoch, Der fossile Mensch Brno II. Anthropos 9, N.S. 1, 23-30. Anthropos Institute – Moravian Museum Brno.

Otte, M. 1999. La Préhistoire. Paris, Bruxelles, De Boeck Université. Otte, M. 2011. Arts et religions des Néandertaliens. Dossiers d’Archéologie 345, 50-55.

Vandermeersch, B. 1976. Les sépultures néandertaliennes. In H. de Lumley (ed.), La Préhistoire française, T. I, Les civilisations paléolithiques et mésolithiques de la France, 725-727. Paris, Editions du CNRS.

Palma di Cesnola, A. 1996. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Italie méridionale (1991-1996). In M. Otte (ed.), Le Paléolithique supérieur européen. Bilan quinquennal 1991-1996, 305-318. Liège, ERAUL, 76.

Zilhão, J. and Trinkaus, E. 2002. Anatomie, contexte archéologique et sépulture de l’enfant gravettien de l’abri Lagar Velho (Lapedo, Leiria, Portugal). Praehistoria 3, 131-145.

Palma di Cesnola, A. 2003. Evolution des rites funéraires du Paléolithique Supérieur italien dans le temps et l’espace. In E. Derwich (ed.), Préhistoire des Pratiques mortuaires. Paléolithique – Mésolithique – Néolithique, Actes du symposium international de Leuven (12-16 septembre 1999), 131-140. Liège, ERAUL, 102.

19

Valentin-Codrin Chirica, Vasile Chirica

20

Considerations regarding the Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries in Romania and the Republic of Moldova

Considerations regarding the Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries in Romania and the Republic of Moldova Mădălin-Cornel Văleanu Complexul Muzeal Naţional „Moldova”, Iaşi, Romania Abstract The study updates the known assemblage of Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries in Romania and the Republic of Moldova. Certain considerations are expressed relating to this body of material, taking into account especially the following aspects: the archaeological conditions of discovery and the method of research, the manner of determination and taxonomic assignment; the place of discovery and remarks on the type/manner of deposition; similar discoveries and correlations throughout Europe; new directions of investigation and aspects regarding the biological evolution of modern humans during the Upper Palaeolithic.

Introduction Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries are very rare, and no matter the context they always raise the interest of the scientific world. This interest is justified both by the primary archaeological information and by the possibility of obtaining new information by interdisciplinary methods. In relation to this we will present the Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries that have been made throughout the territories of Romania and the Republic of Moldova (Figure 1), discoveries which, during the last decade, have been the subject of numerous interdisciplinary studies.

Key words Palaeolithic, anthropological discoveries, Romania, Republic of Moldova

Figure 1. Palaeolithic Anthropological Discoveries in Romania and the Republic of Moldova. 1: Ohaba Ponor – Bordu Mare Cave; 2: Cioclovina – Cioclovina Cave; 3: Crăciuneşti – Balogu Cave; 4: Ribicioara – Avenul cu Incizii from Gaura Cizmii Cave; 5: Casa de Piatră – Vârtop Ice Cave; 6: Steierdorf – Oase Cave; 7: Coronini – Gaura Livadiţei Cave; 8: Baia de Fier – Muierii Cave; 9: Peştera – Small Cave (Peştera Mică in Romanian); 10: Giurgiu – Mocanu Islet; 11: Târguşor – La Adam Cave; 12: Cosăuţi; 13: Duruitoarea Veche – Duruitoarea Veche Cave.

21

Mădălin-Cornel Văleanu Inventory of the discoveries 1

(Rainer and Simionescu 1942, 491). Radiocarbon analysis was carried out on the skull, providing the age of 29,900 BP (Olariu et al. 2002, 307). Recently the skull was re-analyzed (Soficaru et al. 2007) and was dated at 33,540 + 832 cal. BP (Alexandrescu et. al. 2010, 341-343). c. The existing stratigraphy points indicates that inside the cave only the Aurignacian level exists in situ, while the Mousterian elements have been disturbed. However, outside the cave the Mousterian occupation is in situ. The human skull was discovered together with three bear skulls and three Aurignacian lithics, and therefore it was argued that it was found in the Upper Palaeolithic layer, more precisely to the Aurignacian (Rainer and Simionescu 1942, 491). d. In 1911 another human skull was discovered in this cave (Roska 1912, 203).

Romania 1. Ohaba Ponor (Pui commune, Hunedoara County) – Bordu Mare Cave a. In the cave on Bordu Mare Hill, situated to the southeast of the village. The entrance to the cave is at an altitude of 695 m (V. Boroneanţ 2000, 80-81). b. Three human phalanges were discovered (Figure 2), of the right foot, the index finger and the ring finger, assigned to Homo primigenius, Schwalbe (Homo primigenius neandertalensis) (S. Gaal 1928, 65; I. Gaal 1943, 30). Some researchers consider that the remains might belong to a form of Homo sapiens fossilis (C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1956, 16; D. Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1968, 384). Palynological analysis and radiocarbon dating were later undertaken on the 3rd level (Mousterian), which indicate a date between 45,500 – 39,000 BP (Cârciumaru and Niţu 2008, 129). c. The cave contains several levels assigned to the Mousterian and the Aurignacian. The discoveries of human skeletal remains were made during archaeological research undertaken by M. Roska (1923-1925, 1928-1929), in the 3rd level (Mousterian), together with lithic and osteological materials assigned to a wide range of fauna species (Roska 1930, 92; 1943, 50). d. The skeletal remains are no longer preserved.

Figure 3. The human skull from Cioclovina Cave (Soficaru et al. 2007, fig. 3).

3. Crăciuneşti (Băiţa commune, Hunedoara county) – Balogu Cave a. North of Crăciuneşti village, on Balogu Hill (V. Boroneanţ 2000, 75). b. A fragment of broken bone, supposedly from a human, was discovered (A. Boroneanţ 2002, 12). c. Archaeological research was carried out in 1924 (Roska 1924, 297). The bone fragment was discovered in the lower layer, assigned to the Mousterian, together with limestone flakes (A. Boroneanţ 2002, 12). d. Adina Boroneanţ quotes Repertoriul Arheologic al României (manuscript), arguing that the existence of this discovery is at least doubtful (A. Boroneanţ 2002, 12 and note 30).

Figure 2. The human phalanges from Ohaba Ponor - Bordu Mare Cave (S. Gaal 1928, fig. 11 - top; I. Gaal 1943, Abb. 1 – central and bottom).

4. Ribicioara (Ribiţa commune, Hunedoara County) – Avenul cu Incizii from Gaura Cizmii Cave a. Grohot Massif – Ribicioarei Gorges, in the karst between the valleys of Crişul Alb and Arieşul Mic rivers (V. Boroneanţ 2000, 82). b. A skeleton was discovered in a supine position together with bear bones, and was interpreted as Palaeolithic (V. Boroneanţ, 2000, 82). c. Speleological research also brought to light the existence of wall paintings, dated to the late medieval period (Cârciumaru and Brijan 1989). d. Due to the death of C. Rişcuţia, who had undertaken the osteological study of the bones, the human skeletal material has had no further publication, and is only referenced in a paper left in manuscript (V. Boroneanţ 2000, 82; A. Boroneanţ 2002, 12-13).

2. Cioclovina (Boroşod commune, Hunedoara County, Romania) – Cioclovina Cave a. Cioclovina Cave is situated about 1.5 km south of the homonymous village, in the Valley of Strei (V. Boroneanţ 2000, 74-75). b. In 1941, during the extraction of phosphates, there was a chance discovery, at the depth of about 2 m, of an almost complete and well preserved human skull (Figure 3), of the dolichocephale type, of a 30-40 year old female, close to the Predmost II type (Cro-Magnon branch), assigned to Homo sapiens diluvialis / Homo sapiens fossilis (Rainer and Simionescu 1942, 491). The discovery was assigned to the Upper Palaeolithic 1

The information was structured as follows: a. Location of the discovery; b. Description of the discovery; c. Stratigraphic and archaeological conditions; d. Notes and remarks.

22

Considerations regarding the Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries in Romania and the Republic of Moldova 358; Trinkaus 2005, 211; Trinkaus et al. 2005, 13-15; Trinkaus 2007, 7367-7368). d. Human osteological remains were dated by the radiocarbon method, obtaining the values of > 35,400 BP and 34,290 BP for Oase 1 and 28,980 BP for Oase 2 (Trinkaus et al. 2005, 16-17; Trinkaus et al. 2006, 45-48).

5. Casa de Piatră (Arieşeni commune, Alba County) – Vârtop Ice Cave a. On the left slope of Ponorului Valley, in the basin of the River Someşul Cald, in the plateau area between Ponorului Valley and Firii Valley (V. Boroneanţ 2000, 2). b. Three footprints were discovered, of which the best preserved was 22 cm long and 10.6 cm wide (Figure 4), and the distance between the big toe and the second toe is 1.6 cm (Viehmann et al. 1982, 37-38; Onac et al. 2005, 1152-1153). These footprints were assigned to Neanderthals, due to their presumed age (Onac et al. 2005, 1155-1156). c. No archaeological materials were identified in the cave (Viehmann et al. 1982; Viehmann 1987, 230). d. The determination of the age of certain speleothemes has been undertaken by the method U/Th, obtaining the values of 60,100±7,300 BP and 63,700±3,700 BP (Viehmann et al. 1996, 171; Onac et al. 2005, 1153-1154).

Figure 5. The human osteological remains from Steierdorf Oase Cave (Trinkaus et al. 2005, fig. 2-3).

7. Coronini (Coronini commune, Caraş Severin county) – Gaura Livadiţei Cave a. In the karst of the area of Porţile de Fier (the Iron Gates), between Moldova Noua and Liborajdea, at 120m below the Gaura cu Muscă Cave (V. Boroneanţ 1979, 142; 2000, 20). b. A probable Homo neaderthalensis phalange was discovered (Terzea 1979, 114; V. Boroneanţ 2000, 20; A. Boroneanţ 2002, 12). c. During the archaeological research carried out here in 1972 and 1975, the stratigraphy of the cave was established, the phalange being assigned in the upper horizon of the 2nd Layer, attributed to Mousterian occupation. d. The taxonomic determination was done by E. Terzea, who identified it as a 1st phalange (A. Boroneanţ 2002, 12 and note 32).

Figure 4. Footprint from Casa de Piatră –Vârtop Ice Cave (Onac et al. 2005, fig. 2b).

6. Steierdorf (town of Anina, Caraş Severin county) – Oase Cave a. Oase Cave is situated in the karst system of Minişului Valley, at an approximate altitude of 580 m (Trinkaus et al. 2003a; Lazarovici et al. 2005, 357). b. In this cave were discovered human osteological remains (Figure 5), referred to as Oase 1 (a mandible with five molars belonging to an adult), and Oase 2 (the upper face bones with six molars, the bones of the skull calotte, a whole temporal bone and fragments of the occipital, assigned to an adolescent) (Trinkaus et al. 2003b; Trinkaus et al. 2005, 13-15; Trinkaus and Zilhão 2007). Anthropologically, the mandible (Oase 1) shows a series of features that distinguishes it from the late archaic people, at least in the European context, and approaches it rather to recent modern men, while the skull of the adolescent (Oase 2) belonged to an early modern robust man, of large size (Trinkaus et al. 2005, 17-20). c. Research carried out so far have not demonstrated the existence of Palaeolithic artefacts or of an archaeological context (Lazarovici et al. 2005, 357-

8. Baia de Fier (Baia de Fier commune, Gorj County) – Muierii Cave a. At 2 km north of Baia de Fier, in Galbenului Gorges, on the right slope of Galbenului Valley, on the versant of Gârba (V. Boroneanţ 2000, 57). b. The initial discovery was of a human skull (almost whole), the right half of a mandible (in association with bear bones), a tibial diaphysis (which shows traces of gnawing) and a fragment of shoulder blade (Daicoviciu et al. 1953, 199-200). Later on, the identification of a temporal bone and a fibular diaphysis was also mentioned (Soficaru, Doboş and Trinkaus 2006, 23

Mădălin-Cornel Văleanu 17196) 2 (Figure 6). The skull and mandible were assigned to a 40-45 year old female (Gheorghiu and Haas 1954, 653) 3 (it is possible that the diaphysis and the shoulder blade result from the same individual), belonging to Homo sapiens fossilis type, although it shows certain archaic traits and Negroid features 4.

(Păunescu 2001b, 231), and 31,500 BP (Olariu et al. 2004; Soficaru, Doboş and Trinkaus 2006, 17197) and 34,810 + 927 cal. BP (Alexandrescu et al. 2010, 341343) for the scapula and tibia. There was also new analysis and interpretation of the human scapula discovered there (Trinkaus 2008; Trinkaus et al. 2009). 9. Peştera (Moeciu commune, Braşov County) – Small Cave (Peştera Mică în Romanian) a. On the right slope of the Rucăr-Bran couloir (V. Boroneanţ 2000, 18-19). b. A small piece of human fossil, a fragment of a femur, assigned to a Homo sapiens fossilis (C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1960, 17; V. Boroneanţ 2000, 18). c. In 1957 a survey was made in this cave (C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1959; C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor et al. 1961, 16). d. The context of the discovery cannot be elaborated upon (A. Boroneanţ 2002, 10). 10. Giurgiu (Giurgiu County) – Mocanu Islet a. On Mocanu Islet, during the construction of the bridge over the Danube (C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1957, 57). b. At the depth of 22 m was discovered in the alluvia, in a secondary deposition, a fragment of human frontal bone (Figure 7), very fossilized. The osteological fragment, belonging most probably to a 40 year old female, showed visible traces of rolling and was assigned to Homo sapiens fossilis (C.S. NicolăescuPlopşor 1956, 32). c. Without stratigraphic context. Assigned to the Upper Palaeolithic (Păunescu 2001b, 96). d. Scientific works indicate a different depth of discovery for the osteological fragment (C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1960, 17; Păunescu 2001b, 96).

Figure 6. Human osteological remains from Baia de Fier – Muierii Cave (Soficaru et al. 2006, fig. 1, 4-6).

c. Although the discoveries were made within systematic archaeological research 5, there was contradictory information regarding the manner of discovery (Gheorghiu and Haas 1954, 646; Alexandrescu et al. 2010, 343-344) and debate on the stratigraphic context in which they were discovered (Păunescu 2000, 310-324; Păunescu 2001a, 96; Necrasov 1971, 215; Cosac 2007). The human skull, the mandible and the tibial diaphysis were discovered in the 1st Layer (Mousterian), and the shoulder blade fragment was discovered in the 2nd Layer (Mousterian), 0.30m under the 1st Layer. d. Several dating procedures have been carried out on the human osteological remains found in Muierii Cave, obtaining the following values: 29,000 years (on an unknown sample) 6, 29,930 BP for the skull, and 29,110 BP for the temporal bone (Soficaru, Doboş and Trinkaus 2006, 17197), 31,500 BP for the mandible

Figure 7. The frontal bone from Giurgiu - Mocanu Islet (C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1956, fig. 11).

11. Târguşor (Târguşor commune, Constanţa County) – La Adam Cave a. On the right versant of Visterna Valley, at about 4 km southwest of Gura Dobrogei and about 4.5 km east of Târguşor village (Dumitrescu et al. 1962-1963, 229230; V. Boroneanţ 2000, 54). b. A human tooth bud (M1, upper, definitive) (Figure 8), assigned to a 6 year old child, which shows the features of a molar of Homo sapiens, but with archaic traits, represented by the metacone sometimes present on the Neanderthal molars (Necrasov 1962-1963, 286287; Necrasov 1971, 215). c. Archaeological research carried out in 1962-1963 led to the establishment of the stratigraphy of the cave (Dumitrescu et al. 1963; 1965; Samson 1969; Păunescu 1999, 202). d. The discovery of the molar was made in Layer 72,

2

Consultation of the site notebooks indicates that other human osteological remains were discovered along with the published ones (Neaga 2010, 69). 3 Initially, the authors indicated the age of 50-65 years. 4 Initially it was considered Homo sapiens fossilis and Homo primigenius (D. Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1968, 384). Regarding the arguments invoked for the anthropological determination, certain researchers have expressed their reserves (Necrasov 1971, 215). 5 The first surveys were made in 1929 (C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1938, 64-65), being followed by systematic researches in 1951-1953 and 1955 (Daicoviciu et al. 1953, 199; Gheorghiu et al. 1954, 73; C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1957, 57). 6 The analyses were most probably carried out on samples of mandible and skull – see Vinogradov et al. 1968, 454; Roşu 1987, 35; Viehmann 1987, 230; Cosac 2007, 195.

24

Considerations regarding the Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries in Romania and the Republic of Moldova 13. Duruitoare Veche (Râşcani district) – Duruitoarea Veche Cave a. Duruitoarea Veche Cave is located on the eastern side of the village, where the third terrace of the Prut is limited by a high slope (Chetraru and Borziac 2005). b. A mandible (Figure 10) of a man of contemporary physical type was discovered in the 2nd habitation level, assigned to the Upper Palaeolithic (the Middle Gravettian or Epigravettian) (Chetraru and Borziac 2005, 13). c. The mandible was discovered during systematic archaeological research, together with other osteological materials of fauna, flint and bone objects, and also items of jewellery (Chetraru and Borziac 2005, 13-15; Borziac, Chirica and Văleanu 2006, 192194 and fig. 93-99). d. The mandible was sent to Moscow for analysis by the anthropologist M.M. Gerasimov, and was unfortunately lost (Chetraru and Borziac 2005, 13).

which was associated with a lithic industry of the Gravettian type and Wurmian fauna (Dumitrescu et al. 1963, 240-241; 1965; Samson 1969, 631-633).

Figure 8. The human tooth bud from Târguşor – La Adam Cave (Necrasov 1962-1963, fig. 1).

The Republic of Moldova: 12. Cosăuţi (Soroca district) – Palaeolithic site of Cosăuţi a. The site was located at about 500 m northwest of the village (Chirica and Borziac 2009, 47; Noiret 2009, 249). b. In 1987 a child’s tomb was discovered, probably an infant of male sex (Figure 9), fairly well preserved, with the head pointing to the northwest, laid on the back, the face towards the thorax, and the arms by the body and the left arm slightly bent (Noiret 2009, 252253) 7. The body was deposited at the side of the dwelling; it was covered with red ochre, and had no grave goods (Borziac 1991, 62; Noiret 2009, 252-253). The tomb was extracted whole in situ 8. c. The site of Cosăuţi was the subject of wide ranging interdisciplinary research (Chirica and Borziac 2009, 47-48; Noiret 2009, 249-250), but this important discovery remains unpublished 9. The tomb is particularly important, being the only one of this type discovered in the Carpathian-Dniestrean area. It was discovered in a distinct archaeological context, in a small pit 17 cm under level 2b (Gravettian), covered by the remains of this level and in clear connection with the same (Noiret 2009, 253-254). d. For this discovery there exists an unpublished archaeological report 10.

Figure 10. The mandible from Duruitoarea Veche Cave (Chetraru and Borziac 2005, fig. 10/2).

Discussions In the specialist literature on discoveries of Palaeolithic human remains in Romania there are several interpretations regarding the relevance and significance of these discoveries. Therefore, we support the analyses of these human remains that are based on the discovery conditions of the palaeoanthropological remains (Henry-Gambie 2008, 332-334). On this note, we observe that three of the Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries were made by chance (the skull of Cioclovina Cave, the frontal bone of Mocanu Islet and the femur fragment of Small Cave), and in two other cases there was no information regarding the stratigraphic location (the human skeleton of the Avenul cu incizii from Gaura Cizmii Cave and the footprints of Vârtop Ice Cave). In the case of the skull discovered in Cioclovina Cave, a reconstruction of its position in the archaeological and stratigraphical context of the cave was attempted (Rainer and Simionescu 1942, 491). The remains found at Baia de Fier – Muierii Cave represent a special situation, where, although the discoveries were made during systematic archaeological research, contradictory information existed on the manner of discovery and discussions on the stratigraphic context in which they were found, as specified in the inventory (see above). To the specifics detailed above should be added the anthropological discoveries at Oase Cave, where despite the existence of a known geological stratigraphy, the archaeological context is missing. The

Figure 9. The child’s tomb from Cosăuţi (photo I.Borziac). 7

S. Covalenco (2010, 155) erroneously specifies that the skeleton was in a bent, foetus-like position, on the right side. 8 At present, it is in the stores of the National History and Archaeology Museum of Chişinău. 9 Except for the notes of I. Borziac (1991, 62), P. Noiret (2009, 252253) and S. Covalenco (2010, 155). 10 The National History and Archaeology Museum of Chişinău: archaeological archive, registration no. 201108, inventory no. 265.

25

Mădălin-Cornel Văleanu same is true of the supposed discovery of Balogu Cave and that of Cioclovina Cave in 1911.

Other discoveries also fall into the category of imprecise taxonomic determination, such as the human prints in Vârtop Ice Cave. Beyond the morphological aspects which are frequently observed in contemporary individuals, an aspect expressly detailed by the authors for the taxonomic determination (Onac et al. 2005, 1165-1166), the argument for their assignation was largely based on their age, at least 60,000 BP, which was also indirectly determined (Onac et al. 2005, 11651166). The case of the footprints of Tana della Basura Cave in Italy, where the taxonomic assignment was reconsidered, an example that was mentioned by the Romanian authors in their work, should have urged caution, as age itself cannot be used as an argument for the taxonomic determination. Taking into account the advances in discoveries during the last decades, we cannot a priori exclude other hypotheses, such as those pertaining to the possible existence of much earlier incursions of the new type of hominid into Europe, or that the moment of advancement of the first modern humans into Europe might not be much older than currently proposed, and the discovery of footprints in the Vârtop Ice Cave may be evidence to support this hypothesis.

Only in five of the above discoveries was it possible to specify the archaeological context; these are the phalanges from Bordu Mare Cave, the phalange from Gaura Livadiţei Cave, the molar from La Adam Cave, together with the two discoveries in the Republic of Moldova, of the child’s tomb at Cosăuţi and of the mandible from Duruitoarea Veche Cave. Another aspect that needs to be mentioned is the scientific value and attention that some of these discoveries of human remains have received. We refer to the situation in the Avenul cu incizii from Gaura Cizmii Cave, which, after almost 30 years since its discovery, has not yet enjoyed a detailed analysis or publication of the findings, despite its apparent importance. A similar situation is represented by the discovery at Cosăuţi, probably the most important of all the Palaeolithic discoveries of human remains in the study region. The situations outlined above may lead to the loss of important archaeological information, and with this in mind we can cite certain examples where palaeoanthropological remains are no longer in existence – those discovered in Bordu Mare Cave and those from Duruitoarea Veche Cave.

Considering that 11 of the 13 discoveries were found in caves, we should consider in this analysis how these remains came to be in such places. In five cases we have to deal with human osteological material of small size, discovered individually (the phalange from Gaura Livadiţei Cave, the fragment of femur in Small Cave, the molar in La Adam Cave, the supposedly human bone fragment from Balogu Cave) or not (the three phalanges of Bordu Mare Cave). In two other cases the human remains are more significant, but still individual, such as the skull from Cioclovina Cave or the mandible from Duruitoarea Veche Cave. Only in two cases, at Baia de Fier – Muierii Cave and Steierdorf – Oase Cave, can we speak of quantitatively richer osteological material.

A further issue we need to consider in our analysis is the problems with taxonomic determination for the Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries in the territory of Romania and the Republic of Moldova. Although anthropological research and investigation methods have developed considerably during the last decades, in connection with technological developments and also with the accumulation of new knowledge in the field, like any scientific investigation method it has its limits. Taking into account the possible morphological variations (Jurmain, Kilgore and Trevathan 2009, 269272), taxonomic determination with a high degree of precision cannot be made for osteological remains of small size or for single discoveries. Given such arguments, in our opinion, exact taxonomic determination cannot be achieved in the case of some anthropological discoveries, and we refer here to the phalanges from Bordu Mare Cave, the phalange from Gaura Livadiţei Cave, the fragment of femur in Small Cave, and the molar in La Adam Cave.

In these nine cases, the manner in which the osteological material and stratigraphy were preserved prevents any determination of the process of deposition in which these materials reached the cave. That is why any of the scenarios promoted in the specialist literature can be considered plausible, from the intentional collection or deposition to fighting with animals (Gamble 2001, 2326), as the tibial diaphysis with traces of gnawing at Baia de Fier – Muierii Cave seems to suggest. Not even the clear stratigraphic context at Duruitoarea Veche Cave allowed the identification of any detail which might bring light on the context in which the human remains came to be inside the cave.

Last but not least, we included finally the child’s molar discovered in La Adam Cave, because aspects pertaining to this molar, that is the presence of metacone, was taken in the 1970s to indicate archaic traits, but on the basis of the new results from the research on the anthropological material from Oase Cave, now appear to have a different significance, as we shall see below. This is also the case for the archaic traits identified on the skull from Cioclovina Cave discovered in 1942, but this discovery has been reanalysed in the meantime (Soficaru et al. 2007, 613-615).

The discovery of a human skeleton in the I Avenul cu incizii from Gaura Cizmii Cave is unique, but this has been neither analysed nor published. We do not have details on the arguments that led the authors of the discoveries to assign them to a Palaeolithic habitation, and, in this situation, any attempt to interpret these discoveries is unproductive. 26

Considerations regarding the Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries in Romania and the Republic of Moldova The human frontal bone, found in the alluvia of Mocanu Islet, was for a long period the only anthropological discovery in Romania made outside caves. However, the discovery of the child’s tomb of Cosăuţi was made, with similarities to discoveries encountered in the European Upper Palaeolithic. Currently, this is the only discovery in the region that clearly indicates an act of voluntary deposition, and of the existence of events with religious character in connection to this action, indicated by the use of red ochre. Almost 25 years since its discovery, the lack of detailed anthropological analysis and of a study dedicated to this topic is not at all encouraging.

and therefore gradually became extinct and their place was taken by modern humans 11, the presence of archaic traits such as those identified on the skull from Cioclovina Cave cannot be explained. Archaic traits were also identified in the case of the human remains from Baia de Fier – Muierii Cave (this is probably the reason it generated debate regarding the archaeological context of the discoveries – see supra) or on the molar from La Adam Cave (the presence of the metacone - an element frequently encountered with Neanderthals). In the context of new research, results point to complexity in the biological evolution of modern humans, which nowadays points not to an extinction of the Neanderthal population, but rather to a mixing with the new allochthonous populations (Trinkaus et al. 2005, 20-21). This was initially indicated by the skeletal remains found at Peştera cu Oase, and more recently by those at Muierii Cave and Cioclovina Cave. It is also sustained by recent DNA analysis, which confirms that between 1-4% of the genome of the population of Eurasia derives from that of the Neanderthals (Green et al. 2010, 721-722), and which is not found among African or Australian populations (Yotova et al. 2011, 1960-1961).

Beyond this last aspect detailed above, the child’s tomb of Cosăuţi is related to other similar discoveries found in the European Upper Palaeolithic. Firstly, we would like to mention the most recent of these discoveries, at Krems-Wachtberg (Austria) (Einwögerer et al. 2008, 15-18; Händel et al. 2009, 187-189), where three children’s tombs have been identified. The similarities between the two are remarkable, beyond certain differences in the position of the skeletons or the presence of grave goods. The authors of the discoveries in Austria specify that in their case the inhumation ritual has obvious links to similar discoveries in Moravia, a fact which demonstrates that new borns and children were not treated differently from adolescents or adults (Händel et al. 2008, 104).

Under these circumstances, the human osteological discoveries from Romania and the Republic of Moldova initially require detailed anthropological and interdisciplinary analyses to be undertaken, wherever they have not yet been carried out. We refer here firstly to the child’s burial from Cosăuţi and the skeleton from Avenul cu incizii from Gaura Cizmii Cave. A re-analysis of the other discoveries, in those cases where they have survived through time, would also be highly beneficial.

Discoveries of children’s burials are relatively few in Europe - at Kostenki, Sungir or Lagar Velho (Formicola 2007, 448, tab.1) - in comparison with those of adolescents or adults, which support arguments for already well defined social structures (Bar-Yosef 2002, 365-368). These events are the precursors of the future social revolution that is Neolithisation (Bar-Yosef 2002, 379-381).

Acknowledgements This work was possible with the financial support of the Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Resources Development 2007-2013, co-financed by the European Social Fund, under the project number POSDRU 89/1.5/S/61104.

For this reason, the child’s tomb of Cosăuţi must also be considered in the context of a foundation for behaviours seen in the next phase, that is the Neolithic, and analogies with discoveries of children’s tombs are found nearby, in the Carpathian-Dniestrean space, invoking here only the case of the four children’s burials at the Starcevo-Criş site of Trestiana (Popuşoi 2005, 56-58).

References Alexandrescu, E., Agata, O., Göran, S. and Kristina, S., Ragnar, H. 2010. Os fossiles humains des grottes Muierii et Cioclovina, Roumanie. L'Anthropologie 114(3), 341-353.

In the same context, there is a need for the dietary data of the Palaeolithic/Mesolithic/Neolithic populations to be analysed. Analysis has already been carried out on four of the Palaeolithic discoveries from Muierii Cave, Cioclovina Cave and Oase Cave (Trinkaus et al. 2009 5-6; Richards and Trinkaus 2009, 16034-16035), but in this field research is only at the beginning.

Bar-Yosef, O. 2002. The Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 31, 363-393. Boroneanţ, A. 2002. O trecere în revistă a resturilor osteologice umane din paleoliticul românesc. Buletinul Muzeului Judeţean „T. Antonescu” Giurgiu 7-8 (20012002), 9-20.

A last aspect which we considered for analysis in this paper is that of the anatomo-morphological features of the human osteological discoveries in Romania and the Republic of Moldova.

Boroneanţ, V. 1979. Descoperiri arheologice în unele peşteri din defileul Dunării, in T. Orghidan and S.

In the hypotheses according to which the Neanderthals were unable to adapt to the new conditions at the end of the Middle and beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic,

11

Certain discoveries would also suggest the possible cohabitation of the two human types in neighboring areas.

27

Mădălin-Cornel Văleanu Negrea (eds.), Speologia (Academia Republicii Socialiste România – Grupul de cercetări complexe Porţile de Fier, seria monografică), 140-185. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei RSR.

Dumitrescu, M., Samson, P., Terzea, E., Rădulescu, C. and Ghica, M. 1965. Sur l’état actuel des fouilles à la grotte „La Adam”. Actes du III-e Congrès International de Spéléologie 4, 15-19.

Boroneanţ, V. 2000. Arheologia peşterilor şi minelor din România. Bucureşti, cIMeC.

Einwögerer, T., Händel, M., Neugebauer-Maresch, C., Simon, U. and Teschler-Nicola, M. 2008. The Gravettian Infant Burials from Krems-Wachtberg, Austria. In K. Bacvarov (ed.), Babies Reborn: Infant/Child Burials in Pre- and Protohistory, 15-22. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1832.

Borziac, I. 1991. Quelques données préalables sur l’habitat tardi-paléolithique pluristratifié de Cosseoutsy sur le Dniestr Moyen, in V. Chirica and D. Monah (eds). Le Paléolithique et le Néolithique de la Roumanie en contexte européen, 56-71. Iaşi, Bibliotheca Archaeologica Iassiensis, IV.

Formicola, V. 2007. From the Sunghir children to the Romito dwarf: aspects of the Upper Paleolithic funerary landscape. Current Anthropology 48(3), 446-453.

Borziac, I., Chirica, V. and Văleanu, M.C. 2006. Culture et sociétés pendant le Paléolithique Supérieur à travers l’espace Carpato-Dnistréen. Iaşi, PIM, Bibliotheca Archaeologica Moldaviae VI.

Gaal, I. 1943. Újabb ember-és emlőscsontleletek erdély moustérijéből. Kőzlemények III/1, 1-46. Gaal, S. 1928. Der erste mitteldiluviale Menschenknochen aus Siebenbürgen. Die paläontologischen und archäologischen Ergebnisse der in Ohabaponor ausgeführten Höhlenforschungen. Publicaţiile Muzeului Judeţului Hunedoara III-IV (XXV-XXVI/1927-1928), 61-112.

Cârciumaru, M. and Brijan, P. 1989. Gravurile rupestre din “Peştera cu incizii”. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche a României 40(1), 73-81. Cârciumaru, M. and Niţu, E.-C. 2008. Considérations stratigraphiques et géochronologiques concernant le dépôt de la grotte Bordul Mare de Ohaba Ponor (Roumanie) (Regard rétrospectif et conclusions interdisciplinaires). Annales d’Université „Valahia” Târgovişte, Section d´Archéologie et d´Histoire X/1, 119-146.

Gamble, C. 2001. The Peopling of Europe. 700,00040,000 Years before Present. In B. Cunliffe (ed.), The Oxford illustrated history of prehistoric Europe, reissued, 5-41. Oxford-New York. Gheorghiu, A. and Haas, N. 1954. Date privind omul primitiv de la Baia de Fier. Consideraţii paleoantropologice. Sesiunea Secţiunii de Ştiinţe Medicale a Academiei 41, 641-666.

Chetraru, N. and Borziac, I. 2005. Paleoliticul din Grota Duruitoarea Veche. Tyragetia XIV, 5-28. Chirica, V. and Borziac, I. 2009. Gisements du Paléolithique supérieur récent entre le Dniestr et la Tissa. Iaşi, PIM, Bibliotheca Archaeologica Iassiensis XXII.

Gheorghiu, A., Nicolăescu-Plopşor, C.S., Haas, N., Comşa, E., Preda, C., Bombiţă, G., Enea, G., Gheorghiu, F., Iofcea, S., Nicolăescu-Plopşor, D., Neagoe, A., Silveanu, R. and Surdu, I. 1954. Raport preliminar asupra cercetărilor de paleontologie umană de la Baia de Fier (reg. Craiova) din 1951. Probleme de antropologie I, 73-86.

Cosac, M. 2007. Une réévaluation du contexte des découvertes d’ossements humains de la galerie M de la grotte Muierilor à Baia de Fier. Annales D’Université „Valahia” Târgovişte, Section d´Archéologie et d´Histoire VIII-IX (2006-2007), 190-197.

Green, R. et al. 2010. A Draft Sequence of the Neandretal Genome. Science 328, 710-722.

Covalenco, S. 2010. Primele manifestări culturale. Paleoliticul şi Mezoliticul. Orânduirea comunei primitive. In V.A. Dergachev (ed.) Istoria Moldovei. Epoca preistorică şi antică (până în sec. V), 99-176. Chişinău, Academia de Științe a Moldovei, Institutul Patrimoniului Cultural, Centrul Arheologie.

Händel, M., Einwögerer, T., Simon, U. 2008. KremsWachtberg – A Gravettian Settlement Site in the Middle Danube Region. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus dem Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseum 19, 91-108. Händel, M., Simon, U., Einwögerer, T. and Neugebauer-Maresch, C. 2009. New excavations at Krems-Wachtberg. Approaching a well-preserved Gravettian settlement site in the middle Danube region. Quartär 56, 187-196.

Daicoviciu, C., Ferenczi, S., Bodor, A., NicolăescuPlopşor, C.S, Goştar, N., Radu, D., Detiu, M. and Duka, P. 1953. Date preliminare asupra rezultatelor paleoantropologice de la Peştera Muierilor, Baia de Fier, R. Novaci, reg. Craiova. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche IV(1-2), 195-209.

Henry-Gambier, D. 2008. Les sujets juvéniles du Paléolithique supérieur d'Europe à travers l'analyse de sépultures primaires: l'exemple de la culture gravettienne, in F.G. Jener, S. Muriel and C. Olària (eds.), Nasciturus, infans, puerulus vobis mater terra, 331-361. Diputació de Castelló, Servei d'Investigacions Arqueològiques i Prehistòriques.

Dumitrescu, M., Samson, P., Terzea, E., Rădulescu, C. and Ghica, M. 1963. Peştera “La Adam” (La grotte „La Adam”, station pléistocène), staţiune pleistocenă. Lucrările Institutului de Speologie „E. Racoviţǎ“ I-II (1962-1963), 229-284. 28

Considerations regarding the Palaeolithic anthropological discoveries in Romania and the Republic of Moldova Jurmain, R., Kilgore, L. and Trevathan, W. 2009. Essentials of Physical Anthropology. Seventh Edition, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Olariu, A., Hellborg, R., Stenström, K., Skog, G., Faarinen, M., Persson, P., Erlandsson, B. and Alexandrescu, E. 2002. Dating of some Romanian fossil bones by combined nuclear methods. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 253(2), 307-311.

Lazarovici, G., Zilhão, J., Moldovan, O., Trinkaus, E., Codrea, V., Constantin, S., Rodrigo, R., Rougier, H., Băltean, I.C., Milota, Ş., Gherase, M., Sarcina, L., Cincă, A. and Pendea, F. 2005. Steierdorf (oraş Anina), jud. Caraş Severin, Punct: Peştera cu Oase (punct 210). In Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România. Campania 2004. A XXXIX-a Sesiune Naţională de Rapoarte Arheologice, Jupiter-Mangalia, 25-28 mai 2005, 357-359. Bucureşti, cIMeC.

Olariu, A., Skog, G., Hellborg, R., Stenström, K., Faarinen, M., Persson, P. and Alexandrescu, E. 2004. Dating of two Paleolithic human fossil bones from Romania by accelerator mass spectrometry, in A. Olariu, K. Stenström and R. Hellborg (eds.), Applications of High Precision Atomic and Nuclear Methods, 222-226. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române. Onac, B.P., Viehmann, I., Lundberg, J., Lauritzen, S.E., Stringer, C. and Popiţă, V. 2005. U-Th ages constraining the Neanderthal footprint at Vârtop Cave, România. Quaternary Science Reviews 24, 1151-1157.

Neaga, I.C. 2010. Cronostratigrafia musterianului din România în contextul evoluţiei omului de Neanderthal din Europa. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universitatea Valahia Târgovişte.

Păunescu, A. 1999. Paleoliticul şi mezoliticul de pe teritoriul Dobrogei (Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique sur le territoire de la Dobroudja), Bucureşti, Satya Sai.

Necrasov, O. 1962-1963. Date cu privire la mugurele dentar uman descoperit în stratul paleolitic superior din peştera „La Adam” (Dobrogea). Lucrările Insitutului de Speologie „E. Racoviţă” I-II (1962-1963), 285-291.

Păunescu, A. 2000. Paleoliticul şi mezoliticul din spaţiul cuprins între Carpaţi şi Dunăre. Bucureşti, AGIR.

Necrasov, O. 1971. Originea şi evoluţia omului. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei RSR.

Păunescu, A. 2001a. Paleoliticul şi mezoliticul pe teritoriul României, in M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa and A. Vulpe (eds.), Istoria Românilor, vol. I, 67-110. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române.

Nicolăescu-Plopşor, C.S. 1938. Le Paléolithique en Roumanie. Dacia V-VI (1935-1936), 41-107. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, C.S. 1956. Rezultatele principale ale cercetărilor paleolitice în ultimii patru ani în R.P.R.. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche VII(1-2), 7-39.

Păunescu, A. 2001b. Paleoliticul şi mezoliticul din spaţiul transilvan. Studiu monografic. Bucureşti, AGIR.

Nicolăescu-Plopşor, C.S. 1957. Le paléolithique dans la R. P. Roumaine à la lumière des dernières recherches. Dacia N.S. I, 41-60.

Popuşoi, E. 2005. Trestiana. Monografie arheologică, Bârlad, Sfera. Rainer, F. and Simionescu, I. 1942. Sur le premier crane d’homme paléolithique trouve en Roumanie. Analele Academiei Române, Memoriile Secţiei Ştiinţifice, seria III, tom. XVII(12), 489-507.

Nicolăescu-Plopşor, C.S. 1959. Săpăturile de la Pestera (Les fouilles de Pestera). Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice VI, 25-31.

Richards, M., and Trinkaus, E. 2009. Isotopic evidence for the diets of European Neanderthals and early modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(38), 16034-16039.

Nicolăescu-Plopşor, C.S. 1960. Paleoliticul superior, in P. Constantinescu-Iaşi et al. (eds.), Istoria României, vol.I, 15-24. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei RPR. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, C.S., Nicolăescu Plopşor, D., Pop, I. and Rişcuţia, C. 1961. Cercetări paleolitice în peşterile din Ţara Bârsei. Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice VII, 15-19.

Roska, M. 1912. Traces de l'homme diluvien dans la caverne Cholnoky a Csoklovina. Dolgozatokaz Erdelyi nemzeti Muzeum Erem-as Regisegtäräbol 3(2), 201-249.

Nicolăescu-Plopşor, D. 1968. Les hommes fossiles découverts en Roumanie. In Le VII-ème Congrès International des Sciences Anthropologiques et Ethnologique, Moscou (3-10 août 1964), vol. III, 381386. Moscou, Nauka.

Roska, M. 1924. Recherches préhistoriques pendant l'année 1924. Dacia I, 297-313. Roska, M. 1930. Notă preliminară asupra cercetărilor paleolitice făcute în cursul anului 1928. Anuarul Institutului Geologic al României XIV (1929), 79-98.

Noiret, P. 2009. Le Paléolithique supérieur de Moldavie. Essai de synthèse d’une évolution multiculturelle. Liège, ERAUL, 121.

Roska, M. 1943. A Ponorohabai Bordu-Mare Barlangjanak Palaeolithikuma. A regeszeti vonatkozasu leletek ismertetese. Közlémeniek III(1), 47-61. 29

Mădălin-Cornel Văleanu Roşu, L. 1987. Treptele antropogenezei. Mic dicţionar al oamenilor fosili. Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică.

Trinkaus, E., Băltean, I., Constantin, S., Gherase, M., Horoi, V., Milota, Ş., Moldovan, O., Petrea, C., Quiles, J., Rodrigo, R., Rougier, H., Sarcina, L., Soficaru, A. and Zilhão, J. 2005. Asupra oamenilor moderni timpurii din Banat: Peştera cu Oase. Banatica 17, 9-27.

Samson, P. 1969. La stratigraphie du Quaternaire supérieur en Roumanie. In T. Mireille (ed.), VIIIe Congrès INQUA, Paris 1969, «Etude sur le Quaternaire dans le Monde», 629-636. Paris, International INQUA.

Trinkaus, E., Zilhão, J., Rougier, H., Rodrigo, R., Milota, Ş., Gherase, M., Sarcină, L., Moldovan, O., Băltean, I.C., Codrea, V., Bailey, S.E., Franciscus, R. G., de León, M.P. and Zollikoffer, P.E. 2006. The Peştera cu Oase and Early Modern Humans in Southeastern Europe. In N. Conard (ed.), When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met, 145-164. Tübingen, Kerns-Verlag.

Soficaru, A., Doboş, A. and Trinkaus, E. 2006. Early modern humans from the Peştera Muierii, Baia de Fier, Romania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(46), 17196-17201. Soficaru, A., Petrea, C., Dobos, A. and Trinkaus, E. 2007. The Human Cranium from the Pestera Cioclovina Uscata – Romania. Context, Age, Taphonomy, Morphology, and Paleopathology. Current Anthropology 48(4), 611-619.

Trinkaus, E., Soficaru, A., Doboş, A., Constantin, S., Zilhão, J. and Richards, M. 2009. Stable Isotope Evidence for Early Modern Human Diet in Southeastern Europe: Peştera cu Oase, Peştera Muierii and Peştera Cioclovina Uscată. Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice S.N. V, 5-14.

Terzea, E. 1979. Mamiferele cuaternare din unele peşteri si adăposturi sub stânci din zona Porţilor de Fier, in T. Orghidan and St. Negrea (eds.), Speologia (Academia Republicii Socialiste România – Grupul de cercetări complexe Porţile de Fier, seria monografică), 105-139. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române.

Viehmann, I. 1987. Prehistoric human footprints in Romania’s cave. Theoretical and Applied Karstology 3, 229-234. Viehmann, I., Bucur, I. and Racoviţan, I. 1982. Urme de picioare ale omului preistoric în peşterile României. Carst – Anuarul Clubului Speologic Cepromin 2, 37-43.

Trinkaus, E. 2005. Early Modern Humans. Annual Review of Anthropology 34, 207-230. Trinkaus, E. 2007. European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(18), 7367-7372.

Viehmann, I., Lauritzen, S.-E. and Onac, B.P. 1996. The Vârtop Cave Man and His Radiometric Age. In S.E. Lauritzen (ed.), Climate Change: The Karst Record. 2, 170-172. Bergen, Karst Waters Institute Special Publication.

Trinkaus, E. 2008. Behavioral Implications of the Muierii 1 Early Modern Human Scapula. Annuaire Roumain d’Anthropologie 45, 27-41.

Vinogradov, A.P., Devirts, A.L., Dobkina, E.I. and Markova, N.G. 1968. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute. Radiocarbon 10(2), 454-464.

Trinkaus, E. and Zilhão, J. 2007. Oase Cave: The Discovery of Europe’s oldest modern humans. Current World Archaeology 24, 32-41.

Yotova, V., Lefebvre, J.-F., Moreau, C., Gbeha, E., Hovhannesyan, K., Bourgeois, S., Be´darida, S., Azevedo, L., Amorim, A., Sarkisian, T., Avogbe, P.H., Chabi, N., Dicko, M.H., Amouzou, E., Sanni, A., Roberts-Thomson, J., Boettcher, B., Scott, R.J. and Labuda, D. 2011. An X-Linked Haplotype of Neandertal Origin Is Present Among All Non-African Populations. Molecular Biology and Evolution 28(7), 1957-1962.

Trinkaus, E., Milota, Ş., Rodrigo, R., Gherase, M., Moldovan, O. 2003a. Early modern human cranial remains from the Peştera cu Oase, România. Journal of Human Evolution 45, 245-253. Trinkaus, E., Moldovan, O., Milota, Ş., Bîlgăr, A., Sarcina, L., Athreya, S., Bailey, S., Rodrigo, R., Gherase, M., Higham, T., Ramsey, C. and van der Plicht, J. 2003b. An early modern human from the Peştera cu Oase, România. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20), 11231-11236.

30

On Palaeolithic social inequality: The funerary evidence

On Palaeolithic social inequality: The funerary evidence Mircea Anghelinu Universitatea „Valahia”, Târgoviște, Romania In the following paper, I propose an evaluation of the variability recorded in Palaeolithic mortuary behavior in relation to the issue of social inequality. My approach will rely on the most consistent sample, which comes from the European mid and late Upper Palaeolithic. As comprehensive descriptions of the empirical dataset are already available (e.g. Formicola, Pontrandolfi and Svoboda 2001; Giacobini 2006; Henry-Gambier 2005; 2008a; 2008b; Oliva 2001; Sinitsyn 2004; Tillier and Majó 2008; Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2005), my approach will only focus on a few relevant points.

Abstract This paper focuses on the marks of social inequality seen across the European mid Upper Palaeolithic burial sample. Several points are stressed: the symbolic segregation of young children, the relatively weak gender bias, and the prevalence of an achieved individual status. While the previous features argue for a generally egalitarian social structure, the possible presence of an inherited status in several exceptional cases is also discussed. Although theoretically possible and even likely, the existence of Upper Palaeolithic hereditary hierarchy nevertheless requires further substantiation.

Getting closer to Palaeolithic burial grounds Many cultural dimensions, ranging from emotional bonds to elaborated religious beliefs and social values, are typically involved in funerary behavior (Fahlander and Oestigaard 2008). Distilling those strictly referring to social inequality is a daunting task and the Palaeolithic sample is by far the most challenging.

Key words Burial, Upper Palaeolithic, exotics, inequality Introduction For most scholars, food sharing, ‘contra-domination’ mechanisms and egalitarianism are the main markers of hunter-gatherer sociality, the Palaeolithic included (Boehm 1999; Erdal and Whiten 1994). Others stress the important differences separating the Holocene foragers from their Pleistocene counterparts (Bettinger 2001), or expect to find in prehistory the full range of extant hunter-gatherer social variability (Kusimba 2005). With the rigid egalitarian social contract of extant foragers (Binmore 2001) seen as an outcome of their Holocene social circumscription in marginal habitats (Sassaman 2004), an increasing number of scholars find convincing proofs of social inequality as early as the Mousterian (Hayden 2008), or at least in the Magdalenian (Bender 1989). A high level of social complexity above the band level has also been inferred for the Gravettian in Russia (White 2003) or Moravia (Jelinek 1991).

Firstly, hunter-gatherers’ mobile and flexible lifestyle gives a specific flavor to the ‘classic’ marks of inequality (burial treatment, monumental architecture, domestic wealth, exotics). The formation processes of the Palaeolithic archaeological record involve a gross time averaging, prone to hiding or mixing swift changes in mobility, settlement patterns and economic opportunities, each capable of triggering dramatic changes in the social sphere. Due to differential preservation and uneven intensity of research, known Palaeolithic graves are widely scattered in time and space. A large majority were discovered during old excavations, often using crude excavation techniques, which likely lost much contextual information. For taphonomic reasons, discerning the difference between intentional and incidental inclusions in Palaeolithic graves is still extremely difficult. Their state of preservation is often poor enough to inhibit even an accurate sex or age determination; on many occasions, even their proper identification as burials proved complicated. Furthermore, even using the best excavation and dating methods available today, it is often impossible to follow their chronology in absolute terms. Even when burials come from comparable cultural contexts, the latter are meaningless for ethnic assessments: Mousterian, Gravettian, or Magdalenian are obviously not ‘cultures’ in an anthropological sense. Consequently, finding recurrent and potentially meaningful patterns, or at least dissociating idiosyncratic from normative behavior for the purpose of a deeper social interpretation, is particularly difficult.

As a favored method of entry into understanding past social worlds, funerary patterns provide a promising avenue for this growing interest with Palaeolithic social inequality. However, most approaches dedicated to social matters still focus on post-Palaeolithic, socially stratified and sedentary groups, with rather stable economical and organizational structures. With the notable exception of some Mesolithic contexts (e.g. O’Shea and Zvelebil 1984), prehistoric hunter-gatherer mortuary variability has enjoyed comparatively little attention, for several reasons, including their supposedly simple funerary practices, the rarity of formal cemeteries or even standardized burial practices, and, by and large, the totally inadequate sample they provide for statistically meaningful analyses (Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2005). 31

Mircea Anghelinu Ethnography provides a useful but limited help. Diversity seems the only trans-cultural feature of funerary practices (Ucko 1969) and hunter-gatherers are no exception. The wide array of funerary practices (burial, incineration, abandonment/exposure with or without secondary interment) displayed appears quite similar to many sedentary societies (Hofman 1986). Nonetheless, several important differences in mortuary patterns between hunter-gatherers and agrarian societies have long been noticed. First, huntergatherers’ mortuary patterns are mainly connected to age, sex and personal achievements (Binford 1972). The proportion, age and sex composition of burials also vary in relation to mobility patterns, which in turn correlates to the nature of foragers’ economic adaptations. For instance, the frequency of secondary burial varies proportionally with the degree of logistical organization of subsistence strategies and the size of their territorial range. Cemeteries belonging to seasonally aggregated groups tend to occur in association with relatively reliable, predictable and geographically fixed resources (Hofman 1986). Mobility may also lead to alteration of the standard funerary rituals in favor of more expedient methods of dealing with the remains.

farther than this, and the most consistent approaches available today seem to have also stopped at a similar ‘pre-post-processual’, pragmatic stance (e.g. Vanhaeren and D’Errico 2005; Zilhão 2005). My approach is based on similar premises. The sample The paucity of human remains attributed to the initial Upper Palaeolithic is certainly frustrating (Churchill and Smith 2000). Fortunately, the mid Upper and, in part, the Late Palaeolithic offers a much richer sample, amounting to 63 graves, of which only 12 sites contained multiple burials (Vanhaeren and D’Errico 2005). Two main areas, Moravia and Italy, offered the bulk of the sample considered here. The Gravettian (Pavlovian) in Moravia provided eight burial contexts in six settlements (Předmostí, Brno, Dolní Věstonice I and II, Pavlov, Brno-Žabŕovesky), totaling 27 buried individuals, of which 18 skeletons, and one without its skull, originate from the ‘mass grave’ at Předmostí (Oliva 2001, 2007). Of the 28 Pavlovian individuals recorded by Vlček (1997), 14 were adults of indeterminate sex. As a general pattern, no truly old individuals (i.e. older than 60) were identified, the sample being clearly dominated by male adults (one third), with only one-tenth female and one fifth children. However, a great number of dispersed and occasionally burned human bones were recorded in all Pavlovian settlements excavated on a larger surface during older research stages. The selective content of the Předmostí ‘mass grave’ (long bones, skulls and skull fragments) fueled the idea of secondary burials (Oliva 2007, but see also Zilhão 2005). While no ochre was observed around the Předmostí burials, the mammoth omoplats, usually covering the Pavlovian primary inhumation contexts, as in the case of the burials at Dolní Věstonice I and II, or the roughly contemporary Kostenki 15 (Sinitsyn 2004) were nevertheless recorded. Secondary burials were not necessarily absent: one of the skeletons at Pavlov had the femurs in a longitudinally reversed position, while the partially preserved Brno II ‘shaman’ might also have been a secondary interment (Oliva 2000).

Hunter-gatherers’ Weltanschauung and religious beliefs emphasize a deeply symbolic relationship of reciprocity connecting the natural realm to human existence (Eliade 1997; Ingold 1986; Zvelebil 2008). In the most elaborated animistic systems, such as those of Northern Eurasian foragers, the survival of human spirits and their reincarnation are often associated with important ritual prescription regarding the ‘proper’ manipulation of bodily remains (Losey et al. 2011). Hunter-gatherers’ beliefs and rituals are also generally associated with shamanistic practices (Clottes 2004; Hayden 2003; Price 2001). The shaman’s office is variously involved in funerary rituals, and accordingly reflected in the surviving archaeological sample, including burials of shamans themselves (Oliva 2000; Grosman, Munro and Belfer-Cohen 2008). Fortunately, contrary to domestic archaeological contexts, funerary associations are intentional, and therefore selective. To put it another way, differences represented in the population sample, the number and structure of artifact types, the presence of exotic items, the overall quantity of objects in funerary contexts and their quality in terms of handicraft, much like the spatial differentiation of burials, are still powerful tools for social reconstruction (Härke 1997), provided that enough space is left for alternative scenarios. We may add to this compulsory cross-comparison with the nonfunerary aspects of each cultural context, as it is impossible ‘to approach the archaeology of the dead without having archaeology of the living’ (Lull 2000, 579). As processual archaeologists repeatedly stressed (e.g. O’Shea 1984), mortuary differentiation is patterned and, although not isomorphic, the differential treatment of individuals is consistent with their social position in the living society. With the available Palaeolithic sample I do not think one can go much

With the exception of the latter burial, associated with a rich inventory (shells, ochre, stone roundels and one anthropomorphic ivory statuette) and probably marked by a protective feature in massive mammoth and woolly rhino bones (Oliva 2000), most Pavlovian dead were buried with what seems to have been ornaments of their daily apparel (teeth pendants, shells) (Uthmeier n.d.), in simple, shallow graves. Further to the east, the Sungir finds (Russia) deserve a special mention. The single male (Sungir 1) and the double child burial (Sungir 2 and 3), fully covered by ochre, also contained impressive grave goods, including several thousand ivory beads, bracelets, pins, spears and daggers in mammoth ivory, and hundreds of perforated arctic fox canines (Bader 2004; Formicola and Buzhilova 2004). Scattered remains of another six individuals were also found in the settlement area. 32

On Palaeolithic social inequality: The funerary evidence The highest concentration of Upper Palaeolithic graves – about 50, amounting to ca. 60 buried individuals – was found in Italy (Mussi 2001; Henry-Gambier 2005; 2008b; Giacobini 2006; 2007). 16 burials (21 individuals) belong to the Gravettian (24 to 20 ka uncal. BP), the rest being attributed to the Epigravettian (14 to 10 ka uncal. BP). They all come from cave settlements. Much like in the Pavlovian case, the quality of the Italian sample was severely affected by the excavation methods employed in some cases. For instance, serious doubts surround the disposal patterns and the grave goods, which generally consisted of pierced shells (Cyclope, Cyprae), deer teeth, and pendants in bone and ivory, of the 13 Gravettian primary burials uncovered from the five caves in Grimaldi area (Liguria) (Henry-Gambier 2005; Giacobini 2007).

individuals carry traces of ochre (on the head, the abdomen, or on the entire body). Associated funerary goods were found in at least half of the cases (diadems, pendants). On occasions, the inventory can be truly impressive, as at Sungir, Grimaldi, or Kostenki 15. Except for Sungir, where amazingly weapons were associated with the two children and not with the adult (Sungir 1) (Bader 2004), no tools or weapons were found in the sub-adult graves. For the Late Palaeolithic, Italy again provided the most impressive burial record. The Epigravettian necropolis at Arene Candide (functional in two stages, between 11-10.5 and 9.5 ka cal. BC) comprises a sample of 29 individuals of both sexes and various ages (including seven children), but clearly dominated by males (Mussi 2001; Formicola et al. 2005, Henry-Gambier 2005). Only two cases of double burials (adult and child) were found. The grave goods are poorly differentiated on an age basis, but generally quite rich. Apart from the large quantity of ochre, which actually covers almost the entire cave surface, pierced red deer canines, marine shells, shell lunates, colored pebbles, bird bones and small mammals’ bones were also found. Two pairs of elk antlers, of which one was decorated with ochre colored cupules, seem to have visually marked the funerary space. The documented funerary practices are not only similar between the two Epigravettian phases; they also appear to echo those of the mid Upper Palaeolithic in Italy. Yet, several elements of the inventories (the lunates shaped Pectunculus, the Pattela shells, the squirrel vertebrae etc.) were absent in the Gravettian cases. Furthermore, the dominance of the extended burial position, the constant use of stones (some painted) for protecting or marking the graves, and the importance of child burials, need to be stressed as important changes in comparison to the Gravettian. Several other aspects have also been noticed: a discrete separation of the grave goods between adults and children and, among children, of those younger than 6 years. The latter graves comprise poorer inventories, lacking any sort of tools, but, in contrast to adults, contain squirrel remains, and are often associated with different animal species: beaver, fish, and birds. Deer canines occur in association with all ages, although in varying amounts (Henry-Gambier 2005).

Some other Ligurian finds, however, such as the ‘Prince’ from Arene Candide, display an impressive state of preservation. This male adolescent was placed in a pit, protected by stones. The head was ornamented with shells (Cyclope neriteea), pierced deer teeth, but also pendants of bone and ivory. Similar ornaments were found in the knee area and on the right hand. Four bâtons percés made in elk antler completed the already rich inventory (Henry-Gambier 2005; Giacobini 2006). Interestingly enough, both the ‘Prince’ and two individuals at Barma Grande (Grimaldi) were associated with exceptionally long blades made in exotic flint from Vauclouse area (Southern France), and similarly decorated pendants (Mussi 2001). Almost identical equipment was deposited with the contemporary Gravettian male adolescent in Paglicci Cave (Henry-Gambier 2005). Comparable elements (a head dress of Cyclope neriteea shells and deer teeth, one case of ornaments (bracelet?) close to the right fist) were mentioned in some other Gravettian burials, such as Veneri Parabita and Santa Maria de Agnano (Pouilles); significantly, these settlements are located in Southeastern Italy, hundreds of kilometers from Arene Candide and Grimaldi (Giacobini 2006). The almost 60 adults found in Gravettian contexts, that is, the known burial sample, received essentially the same funerary treatment, although the body disposal often varies. Apart from the Italian ‘anomaly’, where no children younger than 12 years old were buried, in all other areas a fairly complete sample of the living population was buried (Henry-Gambier 2008a). With the exception of Balzi Rossi (Grimaldi), where adolescents were associated with adults, no specific association with other individuals was noticed, although one could note the tendency in Central and Eastern Europe of grouping together child burials.

Amongst the Magdalenian burials, the females from Saint-Germain-la-Rivière (around 16 ka BP) stands apart, due to the stone slabs, which are clearly marking/protecting the grave and especially the rich set of grave goods, including around 70 perforated red deer canines (of which almost half decorated with incisions), a few shells (Trivia, Cyprae), lithic and bone tools, and faunal remains. Contrasting with the associated faunal assemblage, which belonged to a cold-dry biotope, and also with the beads regularly found in contemporary contexts in the area, the red deer canines were most likely imported large distances from the south (Vanhaeren and D’Errico 2005).

As concerns the child burials, all Gravettian cases, including the chronologically equivalent eastern occurrences (Kostenki 12, 15, 18, Sungir – Sinitsyn 2004) are primary interments. Although lying in a variety of positions, a common feature was noticed in that the bodies were flexed, and always lying on the left side (Henry-Gambier 2008a). Virtually all

In summary, most Upper Palaeolithic burials were primary, individual inhumations. Several multiple 33

Mircea Anghelinu burials have also been found, most likely including relatives, as in the Grimaldi (Villotte et al. 2011), Dolní Vestoniče (Alt et al. 1997) or Sungir cases (Formicola and Buzhilova 2004). With the exception of some later and probably accidental interventions on the corpses, incineration is a rare occurrence in Palaeolithic funerary contexts. In spite of several intriguing Moravian cases (Oliva 2000; 2001; 2007), the best documented European examples of secondary burials come from the Magdalenian in Brillenhöhle (four adults and one infant) and from the roughly contemporary Creswellian context from Gough’s Cave (England) (Orschiedt 2002). However, the selected human remains at Oblazowa Cave in Poland (Uthmeier n.d.), and the recently published find at Kabazi III rock shelters (Crimea), may push the practice of secondary burials back in time to the mid Upper Palaeolithic (Prat et al. 2011).

Therefore, it seems reasonable to state that most Palaeolithic people were either not interred in habitation areas, or were not interred at all. Abandonment, exposure and excarnation in the open air, deposition in water or marshes might all explain such a strongly selective presence. If this was the case, the visibility of actual Palaeolithic burial grounds is close to zero and archaeology is mostly dealing with ‘exceptions’ rendering a social interpretation particularly difficult. Contrary to more straightforward approaches (Mussi 1995), the very existence of a small buried sample of the population cannot be directly used as an argument for social stratification, for one obviously cannot estimate the complexity of the missing funerary contexts. The rationales for the special treatment of some individuals might have been cultural, religious, circumstantial (i.e. mobility, causes or moment of death) or pertaining to a particular individual personality (inherited/achieved status). Quite possibly, they are all mixed in the surviving sample.

The method of body disposal is quite varied, but the extended position is by far the most common, at least in the larger samples. The use of ochre and the grave goods (pendants, shells, perforated deer canines, bracelets, fish vertebrae, lithic tools, animal remains etc.) are ubiquitous in all burial contexts. There are some notable differences, with Paviland (AldhouseGreen and Pettitt 1998) and some Ligurian cases as exceptions, regarding the raw material use for adornments: pierced deer canine and seashells are normally used in Western Europe, while fox canines and ivory pendants are typical for Eastern and Central Europe funerary events. As the ochre stains are most often specifically located (head, abdomen), their relation to a post-mortem treatment of the body and therefore to the funerary ritual appear certain (contra Henry-Gambier 2005; 2008a; 2008b). Some other inclusions, like tools or weapons, also seem to have belonged to the deceased and they were intentionally left in their proximity. A similar explanation covers the animal parts, which were either marking the grave area, or were placed close to the deceased.

Unfortunately, connecting the known burial sample to specific ethnic groups is simply impossible in the current state of knowledge. The inherent documentary lacunas proved as inhibitory for the task as the actual behavioral stability displayed by the Upper Palaeolithic societies in what are allegedly the most relevant stylistic markers (e.g. raw material choice, shape and decoration of personal adornments, Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2006; Taborin 2000). Clear religious prescriptions may also be invoked at best for later Mesolithic cases (Zvelebil 2008). The same is true for the circumstances of death in relation to local mobility patterns. Apart from the positive correlation between the reduction in mobility and the increase in burial sample (Uthmeier n.d.), already suggested by huntergatherer ethnography, detailed regional patterns are still missing. Given these limits, the remaining question is: do the buried individuals display any other form of special treatment, which can be interpreted mainly in terms of social inequality? Even in the best documented cases, the samples are obviously too small to be followed analytically even to the level of social groups effectively involved, unless we are taking the risk of some rather qualitative assessments. The singularizing features (age, sex, pathology, body disposal, inventory etc.) are obviously the most solid empirical criteria to be used in estimating a socially codified special treatment of some individuals or classes of individuals.

Patterns of differentiation The total number of Upper Palaeolithic burials, coming from different cultural contexts and expanding across 20 ka and a huge geographical distance, certainly represent only a fraction of the living population. Even by admitting that all scattered remains recorded were initially primary burials, which is obviously speculative, and acknowledging the lowest demographical estimations (e.g. Mussi 2001), the sample remains ridiculously small. Virtually all recorded Palaeolithic burials come from inhabited sites, or from very close proximity to them, thus pointing to an inevitable research bias. However, the effects of research intensity, mobility patterns and preservation cannot solely account for this situation: in many areas (Southwestern France, Israel, and Moravia), quite extensive research included both short term hunting sites and permanent year-round occupations, many with good faunal preservation.

Age boundaries No age pattern is particularly visible as far as the adult sample is concerned, although some of the most spectacular graves generally involve older persons (Sungir 1, Brno II, and Saint-Germain). However, a special burial treatment of Gravettian children, connected to various social ages, has been identified (Zilhão 2005). According to this view, contrary to the full social persona attributed to adolescents (i.e. older 34

On Palaeolithic social inequality: The funerary evidence than 15), and even to pubescents, the Gravettian infants (i.e. younger than 5) were either missing from the burial record, or were buried separately. Thus, a ‘mutual avoidance’ between adults and infants was practiced. Some scholars explain this segregation in terms of the lesser social and economic importance of children (Henry-Gambier 2005). The practice seems, however, to have been abandoned during the Epigravettian, only to reappear in several Mesolithic contexts (e.g. Borič and Stefanovič 2004) and to be followed in Neolithic and later (Jener, Muriel and Olària 2008). As there is no solid case for inferring a deeper or earlier social and economic involvement of Epigravettian children compared to their Gravettian or Neolithic counterparts, it seems more realistic to assign this burial segregation to a symbolic boundary.

1997) and similar to the newborn twins’ grave in Krems-Wachtberg (Einwögerer et al. 2008). On occasions, like at Paglicci Cave, the rich equipment of a Gravettian male adolescent contrasts with the more modest grave goods of the adult female buried nearby (Henry-Gambier 2005). However, as the female buried in Saint-Germain-la-Rivière shows, the opposite also occurred. The rarity of female burials and the association between adult males and children in Arene Candide Epigravettian suggests, for some scholars at least, a selection involving a patrilineal kinship system (Mussi 2001). On a general view, no truly gender-specific grave goods were recorded (Henry-Gambier 2005). To put it differently, the hunter, or rather gatherer, status is not particularly visible for these Upper Palaeolithic huntergatherers, contrary to expectations regarding the division of labor based on hunter-gatherer ethnography (Marlowe 2007). Two explanations for this missing gender signature are possible: the division of labor was either less sharp or appears less clearly expressed in meaningful (to us) objects, such as domestic tools (women) vs. weapons (men); or, some particularly relevant items (e.g. high investment weapons and tools) were actually inherited by kin.

Notwithstanding, even this feature appears occasionally blurred in the mid Upper Palaeolithic. At least some children enjoyed identical or even more elaborate burials than some adults. This opens several possibilities, of which the first is that they were being treated as ‘miniature’ adults, a practice well documented among Arctic populations such as the Inuit (Park 1998). This is apparently the case of the Solutreean child burial in Figuier (Slimak and Plisson 2008) and of the child in Kostenki 15, belonging to the much older Gorodtsovian (Sinitsyn 2004). Both were buried with a special set of small sized lithic tools. The latter was also carefully placed in a pit covered by colored, exotic clay.

Various evidence, ranging from cave art (Duhard 1993) to the noticeable sexual dimorphism in the Pavlovian anthropological sample (Vlček 1997, Churchill et al. 2000) and the increasing elaboration of domestic activities, support a gender-based labor specialization, actually quite visible in both Gravettian (Soffer 2000) and Magdalenian contexts (Zubrow, Audouze and Enloe 2010). However, as ethnography suggests (Jarvenpa and Brumbach 2006; Marlowe 2007), the gender boundaries could have been quite permeable, at least concerning subsistence activities. The worn out anterior teeth of one Pavlovian individual show that at least older men were involved in skin processing activities (Vlček 1997). The hunting equipment of the Sungir girl, much like the general robustness of Upper Palaeolithic women (Churchill et al. 2000; Holt and Formicola 2008), further highlights the permeable line separating the sexual division of labor.

However, while the 30 ivory pendants of the KremsWachtberg newborns (Einwögerer et al. 2008) might be interpreted as paraphernalia, and the elaborate burial (body wrapping, charcoal, tools, animal bones, ochre, pierced shell pendants) of the 4 year old Lagar Velho child (Zilhão 2005) may simply point to kin involvement, other cases raise different issues. The dozens of pierced shells which covered the double child burial in Grimaldi (Henry-Gambier 2005), the several thousand small ivory beads sewed on the apparel of the two adolescents in Sungir (Bader 2004), much like the 1500 Dentalium shells covering the Epipalaeolithic child (two to four years old) at La Madeleine (Vanhaeren and D’Errico 2001) certainly cannot be connected to age status, nor to a magical protection of the body or to a personal involvement of close kin. Although age-dependent status was clearly important, it appears on occasions to have been overwritten by an inherited position.

The care and attention of children also suggests strong kinship affiliation and makes a stronger case for the inheritance of weapons and tools, particularly those requiring a special raw material and/or labor investment as in elaborated bone and antler artifacts (e.g. Keeley 1982). If this was the case, it points to a strong communal feeling, as goods valuable for the surviving community in terms of work investment, exchange value or exoticism were more important than their connection to the personality of the deceased. Placing them in burial contexts, that is, abandoning them, argues once more for a special individual status.

Gender differentiation Adults of both sexes are present in the surviving sample, although in different proportions. Invoking a separate treatment of men vs. women in the sample initially selected for burial is nevertheless risky, given the amount of indeterminate remains (Henry-Gambier 2008a; 2008b) and the existence of several primary burials of women. For instance, the burial context of the female in Dolní Vestoniče 1 (flexed position, ochre covering and protective mammoth scapulae) is identical to the male grave found in Pavlov (Vlček

Body disposal, pathologies and violent deaths A. Testart (2004) proposed an interesting approach for the estimation of Palaeolithic social differentiation, based on the structural (a)symmetry governing the 35

Mircea Anghelinu relative positions of multiple burials. There are several problems with this model, however. Although the suggestion may hold for more complex societies (see O’Shea 1984), it asks for a long-lasting preferred burial space which is generally not the case (except maybe for Grimaldi, Předmostí or Arene Candide). Moreover, from a methodological point of view, the strict contemporaneity and therefore the intentionality involved in a special arrangement of the bodies is almost impossible to prove. Although the hypothesis of synchronous deaths is occasionally solid (e.g. Sungir 2 and 3, Krems-Wachtberg, Dolní Vestoniče etc.), the actual circumstances of this event might have also interfered with the interment of the body. One of the few thought-provoking cases comes from Baousso da Tore (Italy), where an adolescent without grave goods was buried lying face down in the proximity to the legs of a pair of adults, themselves covered in ochre and displaying several objects of adornment (HenryGambier 2008a, 343-344). If one accepts the relative contemporaneity between the three individuals, the position and differential inventory may indeed point to an age-based status. The contrast between the supine position of the Barma Grande male individual and the flexed position of the females found there and at Grotte des Enfants, might also advocate a gender differentiation (Henry-Gambier 2005).

individuals is unusually large for the Upper Palaeolithic burials (about 25%, Trinkaus and Buzhilova 2010), it seems unsafe to take this feature alone as a selective criterion for inhumation. Violent deaths can hardly serve as a relevant mark among the known Upper Palaeolithic burials. With the exception of Sungir 1, recently demonstrated to have been lethally wounded by a lithic implement (Trinkaus and Buzhilova 2010), the Epigravettian child at Grotte des Enfants (Grimaldi), probably killed by a weapon, and one individual from San Teodoro, wounded several times in his lifetime (Henry-Gambier 2005), the actual cause of death is unknown for the entire Upper Palaeolithic sample. Most of the identified pathologies, while sometimes painful and long lasting (e.g. bone diseases), can hardly be held responsible for a premature death. Burial inventory To present knowledge, the safest way of approaching the issue of Palaeolithic inequality rests on ‘classic’ (Tainter 1978) archaeological arguments, like the documented investment in burial construction or grave goods. As most of the objects of adornment were found closely associated with the bodies and bore traces of usage, they seem to have been connected to the equipment of the deceased. They are, therefore, incidental and not intentional inclusions. The elaboration, particularly of the head ornaments (probably attached to caps or hoods), is slightly discrepant, even for individuals buried in the same funerary context (e.g. Grimaldi, Henry-Gambier 2005). While the actual significance of these differences remains hard to assess, it is parsimonious to attribute them to sex and age differences.

While intriguing and obviously pointing, through the unusual disposal of the bodies, to a mysterious meaning, the famous triple burial at Dolní Vestoniče is unfortunately of little direct help for the issue of social inequality. All three young individuals (two men and one woman), probably siblings (Alt et al. 1997), were buried most likely at the same time, in some sort of wooden structure. Elements of adornment (pendants), ochre and traces of fire were also present, with the latter as clear markers of a funerary ritual. The severe pathologies identified on the female, which may also have had some visible effects on her skin when alive (Formicola, Pontrandolfi and Svoboda 2001), much like her position in the relation to the two others, suggest an unusual personal status. A similar ‘special’ status was inferred for the Sungir 3 girl (Formicola and Buzhilova 2004). However, pushing her pathological traits too far is risky, given the general robustness of the girl and particularly the associated healthy adolescent, wearing the same apparel and almost similar, though somehow ‘poorer’ grave goods. As the same authors noted (Formicola and Buzhilova 2004,195), the strange ivory figure from Gagarino, displaying 2 individuals also aligned head to head, points to a particular funerary pattern, with the pathologies probably playing no particular role. Another famous pathological example from an Epigravettian context, the Romito dwarf (Calabria, Italy), was buried together with an older woman and, apart from a lack of associated grave goods, no special treatment can be noticed in this case either (Giacobini 2006; Formicola 2007). The hypothesis of human sacrifices proposed for Dolní Vestoniče (Oliva 2001) and Sungir (Buzhilova 2004) is at best unproven. Thus, although the sample of pathologically affected

Contrary to the structures marking the Epigravettian communal funerary space at Arene Candide, both Brno II and Saint-Germain-en Rivière burials benefited from special, protective constructions, which, together with their unusually rich inventory, make these individual burial grounds unique. Equally significant are the objects which express unequal access to wealth. Fortunately, they display several important features, all recorded in the case of the Magdalenian burial at Saint-Germain-La-Rivière: “(1) [they] are made of materials that are rare either by their nature or through remoteness from their point of origin, (2) their fabrication requires a major investment of time and work, (3) their production involves complex techniques that were mastered exclusively by certain members of the group, and (4) they have standardized forms and colors” (Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2005, 118). These features are present in several other cases, particularly if one allows for a less restrictive use of the model. Sungir, La Madeleine, Barma Grande, and Arene Candide provide clear examples that some elements, though not all, might be present: standardization and imported objects (ivory, flint) for 36

On Palaeolithic social inequality: The funerary evidence the Ligurian cases; standardization and an impressive funerary investment for La Madeleine or Sungir. The last case stands apart indeed: each of the 5000 miniature ivory pendants ornamenting the children, much like the 3000 associated with the adult, required more than one hour of work (White 2003). It seems unlikely that such a rich ornamentation was part of their daily wear, but even as part of ceremonial apparel, prepared for funerary purposes or not (Bader 2004), such an investment is unmatched among Palaeolithic burials. The similar equipment and the association between the two children and the older male is open to a wide variety of interpretations, among which the most spectacular rests on the huge chronological gap (1,000 years) separating the children from the adult, as suggested by radiometric measurements (Pettitt and Bader 2000). Although counterintuitive, if real, this time distance points if not to members of a far-fetched ‘dynasty’ (AldhouseGreen and Pettitt 1998, 769), at least to some unusually long-lasting funerary customs displaying a strong normative aspect.

differential hunting success or, for that matter, in the netting, scraping or sewing skills in women’s domestic sphere (Soffer 2000), further strengthens the case for a competence-based hierarchy. Furthermore, the location and structure of some works of cave art, and the presence of children, suggests the use of painted caves for initiation ceremonies, pointing at least to an agebased hierarchy in relation to mythical knowledge and beliefs (Owens and Hayden 1997). The wide circulation of exotic items such as ivory and shell, and the standardization of these likely prestige objects (Taborin 2000; Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2005) further points to wide communication networks, particularly visible before the Late Glacial Maximum (Gamble 1999; Mussi, Roebroeks and Svoboda 2000). Repeated attempts to replace (or fake) the ‘ideal’ shape or raw materials with locally available species or materials supports the idea of a symbolic inter-group hierarchy (e.g. group of origin vs. pioneers). Notwithstanding, as the Upper Palaeolithic trade items sample consists of small, portable objects, rarely collectively held or displayed, they argue for differential possession and consequently for intragroup prestige competition.

In fact, in all cases for which the sample provides reasonable statistical support, clearly normative, prescriptive burial customs are visible, such as in the Gravettian in Liguria or Moravia (Mussi 1995, 2001). It is therefore realistic to infer that they were so in most mid Upper Palaeolithic or later cultural contexts, and that the lack of patterning is rather due to preservation (or recovery) biases. As suggested above, the very existence of such prescriptions is telling for some socially acknowledged, clear rules of behavior. The main issue, however, is whether those rules were the work of transient or hereditary elite.

However, while there are many dimensions of Upper Palaeolithic material culture indicating a hierarchy of knowledge, competence and most likely prestige, there are fewer direct clues to how social authority worked and how far the prestige competition went. The visible behavioral patterning is not necessarily the outcome of hierarchical systems (i.e. vertically differentiated). Heterarchy, as a horizontal differentiation of competence, authority and prestige (Crumley 1995), or sequential rather than synchronous hierarchy, could have effectively led to similar outcomes. Moreover, neither does temporary authority unavoidably lead to permanent offices, nor do lifetime offices necessarily result in hereditary hierarchy. In many hunter-gatherer societies, elaborated egalitarian mechanisms, ranging from food sharing to assassination, are recurrently activated in order to prevent this outcome (Clastres 1995; Woodburn 1982). In other words, the visible ‘order’ may be simply the result of multiple parallel or interfering lines of authority and initiative, for which age, gender, kinship and special competences played a dynamic and variable role. A modest authority, based on personal prestige, lifetime achievements, and sex/age status, both incapable and unwilling to overtly challenge the powerful egalitarian order, suffice to explain most Upper Palaeolithic burial and domestic contexts.

Discussion: hierarchy or heterarchy? As has become increasingly clear, purely egalitarian societies, that is, ‘societies in which no one outranks anyone’ as Marshall Sahlins (cf. Flanagan 1989) once put it, are hard to imagine. Subtle hierarchical principles govern any known society, despite their egalitarian practices or leveling ideologies, which may even hide striking disparities in wealth, prestige or access to power. What formally egalitarian societies do display is an elaborate, continuous and sometimes fully conscious attempt to control, with various degrees of success, the aggrandizers’ claims (Hayden 1995, 2008). A minimum of social preeminence is vital for a critical perpetuation of cultural information (Shennan 1996). The sharper cultural boundaries in lithic or organic artifact styles, the complexity of economic practices and the effective regional adaptation, including the successful colonization of open and colder environments (Finlayson 2004), and the cumulative culture-evolutionary trends, suggest that some members of Upper Palaeolithic groups attained such preeminence. The exquisite works of art, the differential (and occasionally exceptional) competence in stone knapping (see contributions in Zubrow, Audouze and Enloe 2010), much like the inevitably

However, some individuals took to their graves an impressive amount of collective work and hundreds of obviously valuable objects, which were also presumably displayed, at least on occasions, on their apparel when alive. The unmatched elaboration of the Sungir apparel, much like that of the several comparable cases (e.g. Arene Candide, Saint-Germainen-Rivière, La Madeleine), if contrasted to most other more or less contemporary burials lacking an 37

Mircea Anghelinu exceptional inventory, including the other scattered human remains at Sungir, definitely allow for speculation. Furthermore, the Sungir and La Madeleine children, much too young for any major personal achievements, strongly point to an inherited status. Is such a sharp social inequality conceivable in Late Pleistocene times?

case is again vague. For instance, contrasting with the generally healthy adult there, the richly buried Sungir children seemed to have experienced serious dietary stress in their early years (see contributions in Alexeeva and Bader 2004). Obviously, this realization does not necessarily exclude the possibility of an inherited high status. Misfortune and lean years are not uncommon in hunter-gatherers’ lives, and it is quite possible that bones have simply recorded such past events. While the state of preservation of the Sungir seasonal (summer, autumn) settlement is indeed poor, the diversity of hunted herbivore species (reindeer, horse, mammoth, bison, saiga), the technological elaboration and the likely storage facilities such as the recorded ‘ritual’ pits (Bader 2004) point to very effective, logistically organized hunter-gatherers. In fact, the adult’s state of health, providing a much better, decades long insight into his life and diet, strengthens the case for a highly effective adaptation to northern landscapes – and not much more.

For decades, an extensive literature has discussed the causes that triggered the emergence of social complexity and stratification in hunter-gatherer societies. Various ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors, such as population growth, environmental stress, technological innovation, warfare, trade, sedentism, development of storage techniques, political and ideological manipulation, and control over non-kin labor have been put forward in order to explain the rise of Holocene complex hunter-gatherers (e.g. Arnold 1993; Fitzhugh 2004; Hayden 1995; 2008; Sassaman 2004). Contrary to the classical evolutionary narratives, there is now a widely held agreement that social complexity is neither limited by hunter-gatherers’ subsistence basis, nor the necessary outcome of a long evolutionary accumulation. Thus, an early appearance and even a fast growth of complex hunter-gatherer societies in mid and late Upper Palaeolithic times is theoretically acceptable, provided that at least some of the factors listed above are documented archaeologically.

Similar arguments for a successful adaptation to colder landscapes, which triggered social complexity, have been invoked for the Magdalenian burial at SaintGermain-en-Rivière (Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2005). In fact, the Late Glacial Maximum restructuring of the social and cultural landscape provides a better framework for inferring the emergence of some more complex mobility patterns and social dynamics. In a consistently reduced ecumene, the population packed into more southerly refugia (Gamble at al. 2004) most likely experienced increased stress and competition. Various evidence, including anatomical changes (Churchill et al. 2000), technological elaboration and sharper regionally differentiated boundaries in material cultural, or the flourishing of Franco-Cantabrian cave art, support this inference. While the presence of ‘others’ (Holly 2005) always provides arguments for important changes in hunter-gatherer subsistence, mobility patterns and symbolic land claims, it is much harder to find a straight correlation between such a busy social landscape and an emerging social hierarchy. Unfortunately, the lack of a more accurate reconstruction of the contemporary demographical and economical parameters reduces any inference regarding the status of the richly buried individuals to mere speculation. Given the general content of the sample, it seems nevertheless safe to admit at least “that the elaborately buried MUP individuals were as unusual in life as they were in death” (Trinkaus and Buzhilova 2010, 8).

As has been repeatedly suggested, the emergence of any form of permanent inequality among huntergatherers is systematically connected to some sort of material affluence (Hayden 1995, 2008), at least seasonally based, and occasionally coupled with times of stress (Arnold 1993). Long-term storage facilities are also invariably needed for supporting the redistribution circuits initiated by aggrandizers. For this requirement, the widely acknowledged mid Upper Palaeolithic ‘affluence’ (Mussi, Roebroeks and Svoboda 2000) or documented storage facilities (Binford 1993) paint a rather ambiguous picture. Climatically unstable, but generally bountiful as far as biomass was concerned (Guthrie and Kolfschoten 2000), the 30-20 ka interval, in which most Palaeolithic burials are framed, witnessed an unprecedented cultural flourishing across Europe (Roebroeks et al. 2000). However, the wide communication networks visible in both material culture and human genetics (Churchill et al. 2000) during this ‘Golden Age’ supports a pattern of extensive mobility and broad safety networks (Gamble 1999); not particularly promising for a long-lasting local demographic increase, intensive group integration, competition, or sharp vertical differentiation. Although, as has been noted, prestige exotics were sought and displayed and larger social aggregations also took place, there are no further grounds to infer more than a diffuse social competition and a sex/age/personal achievementbased hierarchy.

Conclusions In summary, the correlation between the socioeconomic complexity, social stratification and the elaboration of burial practices suggested by processual archeology does not seem to work particularly well on the Palaeolithic burial record, too dispersed chronologically and geographically to allow deeper social interpretations. The rarity of burials and particularly of secondary burials in the Palaeolithic sample apparently suggests both a higher degree of mobility and less social complexity in comparison to at

This pattern is not necessarily valid in its entirety for the more eastern examples, such as Sungir. Unfortunately, the contextual evidence available in this 38

On Palaeolithic social inequality: The funerary evidence least some of the Holocene hunter-gatherers. This conclusion is strongly supported by some other wideranging arguments, such as the instability of the Pleistocene climate and the generally fragile demography (Bettinger 2001; Richerson, Boyd and Bettinger 2009). However, this remark tells little about the inner variability of the Palaeolithic societies; it also dangerously amasses them under the egalitarian umbrella, thus ignoring several exceptional burial contexts that overtly challenge it.

monitor egalitarian social contract. This collective social control was occasionally challenged in the Upper Palaeolithic, when both technological and demographical accretion and local affluence allowed several gifted individuals a more boastful behavior. These changes, nothing more than opportunist circumventions of egalitarian rules, were far from general and clearly reversible, but left behind some of the most spectacular prehistoric burials. Acknowledgments This work was possible with the financial support of the Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Resources Development 2007-2013, co-financed by the European Social Fund, under the project number POSDRU 89/1.5/S/61104. I also wish to express my gratitude to my colleagues Thorsten Uthmeier and Leif Steguweit (Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nürnberg) for their warm hospitality, fruitful exchange of ideas and bibliographic support provided during my research stay in Germany. Last but not least, I wish to thank my colleague Loredana Niţă for the valuable references she provided.

Kinship, sex, age, achieved merits or special abilities seem to have provided the basic hierarchical framework for most Palaeolithic societies and the burials express this quite clearly, at least from the mid Upper Palaeolithic onwards. Thus, a status subjected to change during lifetime provided the main criteria for social differentiation. On ethnographic grounds this is hardly an innovative point. Neither is the apparently special status of very young children, quite visible during the Gravettian, and which, as noted, may be attributed to a symbolic boundary connected to a late social and/or spiritual full birth. As a rule, however, mid Upper Palaeolithic children, much like their Solutreean or Epipalaeolithic heirs, seem to have entered the world of adults’ rights and responsibilities quite early in their life; an aspect indicative of a social complexity already higher than that of extant ‘simple’ foragers (Keith 2006), but again predictable on ethnographic grounds, which paradigmatically connect colder environments to rather complex adaptations (e.g. Binford 1980).

References Aldhouse-Green, S.H.R. and Pettitt, P.B. 1998. Paviland Cave: contextualizing the Red Lady. Antiquity 72 (278), 756-772. Alexeeva, I. and Bader, O. (eds.) 2004. Homo sungirensis. Upper Palaeolithic man: ecological and evolutionary aspects of the investigation. Moscow, Scientific World.

Gender differences in burial treatment, if not severely biased by conservation or recovery techniques appear as weakly marked, pointing in turn to a balanced social, economic and symbolic importance of both sexes. While there are serious reasons to believe in a marked division of labor, in turn presumably anchored into a higher symbolic order and supported by various social metaphors, the more practical rationales of living a tough life in demanding environments allowed for a gender complementarity rather than hierarchy.

Alt, K.W., Pichler, S., Vach, V., Klima B., Vlček, E. and Sedlmeier, J. 1997. Twenty-Five Thousand-YearOld Triple Burial From Dolni Věstonice: An Ice-Age Family?. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102, 123-131. Arnold, J.E. 1993. Labor and the Rise of Complex Hunter-Gatherers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12, 75-119.

While definitely not gender-based, there are, however, important differences that can be occasionally noticed among classes of individuals. In several contexts, a few individuals, men, women and children alike, were buried with rich grave goods, including exotic items or artifacts involving a huge work-investment. Interpreting these particularly rich graves as belonging to a hereditary elite remains problematic on contextual, but not theoretical, grounds (Henry-Gambier 2008a, 343; Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2005, 130-131).

Bader, O.N. 2004. The Upper Palaeolithic site of Sunghir, in I. Alexeeva and O. Bader (eds.), Homo sungirensis. Upper Palaeolithic man: ecological and evolutionary aspects of the investigation, 1-8. Moscow, Scientific World. Bender, B. 1989. The roots of inequality, in D. Miller, M. Rowlands and C. Tilley (eds.), Domination and Resistance, 83-95. London, Unwin. Bettinger, R.L. 2001. Holocene Hunter-Gatherers, in G. Feinman and D.T. Price (eds.), Archaeology at the Millenium: A Sourcebook, 137-198. New York, Kluwer.

For powerfully adaptive reasons, strong egalitarian practices (e.g. collective food sharing and redistribution, reciprocity), coupled with short-lived alliances among individuals (Runciman 2005) were probably at work quite early in the Lower Palaeolithic. Strong kinship ties and group selection (Boehm 1999; Richerson and Boyd 2001) provided additional support for the emergence of cooperation and of an easy to

Binford, L.R. 1972. Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. In L.R. Binford (ed.), An Archaeological Perspective, 208-251. New York, Seminar Press. 39

Mircea Anghelinu Austria. In K. Bacvarov (ed.), Babies reborn. Infant/Child Burials in Pre- and Protohistory, 15-22. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1832.

Binford, L.R. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45, 4-20. Binford, L.R. 1993. Bones for Stones. Considerations of Analogues for Features Found on the Central Russian Plain, in O. Soffer and N. Praslov (eds.), From Kostenki to Clovis. Upper Paleolithic - Paleoindian Adaptations, 101-124. New York, Plenum Press.

Eliade, M. 1997. Şamanismul şi tehnicile arhaice ale extazului. Bucureşti, Humanitas. Erdal, D. and Whiten, A. 1994. On human egalitarianism: an evolutionary product of Machiavellian status escalation?. Current Anthropology 35, 175-183.

Binmore, K. 2001. How and Why Did Fairness Norms Evolve?. In W.G. Runciman (ed.), The Origins of Human Social Institutions, Proceedings of the British Academy 110, 149-170. London, Routledge.

Fahlander, F. and Oestigaard, T. 2008. The Materiality of Death. Bodies, Burials, Beliefs, in F. Fahlander and T. Oestigaard (eds.), The Materiality of Death. Bodies, Burials, Beliefs, 1-16. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1768.

Boehm, C. 1999. Hierarchy in the Forest: the Evolution of Egalitarian Behaviour. Harvard, Harvard University Press.

Finlayson, C. 2004. Neanderthals and Modern Humans. An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Borič, D. and Stefanovič, S. 2004. Birth death: infant burials from Vlasač and Lepenski Vir. Antiquity 78, 526-546.

Fitzhugh, B. 2004. Evolution of Complex Hunter– gatherers: Archaeological Evidence from the North Pacific. Boston, Kluwer Academic.

Buzhilova, A.P. 2004. Pair and old burials in Upper Palaeolithic. Selective criteria of the buried, in T.I. Alexeeva and O. Bader (eds.), Homo sungirensis. Upper Palaeolithic man: ecological and evolutionary aspects of the investigation, 441-448. Moscow, Scientific World.

Flanagan, J. 1989. Hierarchy in simple “egalitarian” societies. Annual Review of Anthropology 18, 245-266. Formicola, V. 2007. From the Sunghir Children to the Romito Dwarf. Aspects of the Upper Paleolithic Funerary Landscape. Current Anthropology 48(3), 446-453.

Churchill, S.E and Smith, F.H. 2000. Makers of the Early Aurignacian of Europe. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 43, 61-115. Churchill, S., Formicola, V., Holliday, T., Holt, B. and Schuman, B. 2000. The Upper Palaeolithic population of Europe in an evolutionary perspective, in W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda and K. Fennema (eds.), Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000-20,000 BP, 31-58. Leiden, University of Leiden Press.

Formicola, V. and Buzhilova, A.P. 2004. Double Child Burial from Sunghir (Russia): Pathology and Inferences for Upper Paleolithic Funerary Practices. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 124, 189-198. Formicola, V., Pontrandolfi, A. and Svoboda, J. 2001. The Upper Paleolithic Triple Burial of Dolni Věstonice: Pathology and Funerary Behavior. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 115, 372-379.

Clastres, P. 1995. Societatea contra statului. Studii de antropologie politică. București, Ararat.

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, 1598-1602.

Clottes, J. 2004. Le chamanisme préhistorique: fondement d’une hypothèse. In M. Otte (ed.), La Spiritualité. Actes du colloque international de Liège (10-12 décembre 2003), 195-202. Liège, ERAUL, 106.

Gamble, C. 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Crumley, C.L. 1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, in R.M. Ehrenreich, C.L. Crumley and J.E. Levy (eds.). Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6, 1-5. Washington, American Anthropological Association.

Gamble, C., Davies, W., Pettitt, P. and Richards, M. 2004. Climate change and evolving human diversity in Europe during the last glacial. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society of London 359, 243-254.

Duhard, J.-P. 1993. Upper Palaeolithic figures as a reflection of human morphology and social organization. Antiquity 67(254), 83-92.

Giacobini, G. 2006. Les sépultures du Paléolithique supérieur: la documentation italienne. Comptes Rendus Palevol 5, 169-176.

Einwögerer, T., Händel, M., Neugebauer-Maresch, C., Simon, U. and Teschler-Nicola, M. 2008. The Gravettian Infant Burials from Krems-Wachtberg, 40

On Palaeolithic social inequality: The funerary evidence Giacobini, G. 2007. Richness and Diversity of Burial Rituals in the Upper Paleolithic. Diogenes 214, 19-39.

Ingold, T. 1986. The Appropriation of Nature. Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Grosman, L., Munro, N.D. and Belfer-Cohen, A. 2008. A 12,000-year-old Shaman burial from the Southern Levant (Israel). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 105(46), 17665-17669.

Jarvenpa, R. and Brumbach, H. J. 2006. Circumpolar Lives and Livelihood. A Comparative Ethnoarchaeology of Gender and Subsistence. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.

Guthrie, D. and van Kolfschoten, T. 2000. Neither warm and moist, nor cold and arid: the ecology of the Mid Upper Paleolithic, in W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda and K. Fennema (eds.), Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,00020,000 BP, 12-20. Leiden, University of Leiden Press.

Jelinek, J. 1991. Découvertes d’ossements de la population gravettienne de Moravie. L’Anthropologie 95, 137-154. Jener, F.G., Muriel, S. and Olària, C. (eds.) 2008. Nasciturus, infans, puerulus vobis mater terra: la muerte en la infancia. Diputació de Castelló, Servei d'Investigacions Arqueològiques i Prehistòriques.

Härke, H. 1997. The Nature of Burial Data, in C.K. Jensen and K.H. Nielsen (eds.), Burial and Society. The Chronological and Social Analysis of Burial Data, 19-28. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.

Keeley, L.H. 1982. Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47(4), 798-809.

Hayden, B. 1995. Pathways to Power. Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities, in T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman (eds.), Foundations of Social Inequality, 15-86. New York, Plenum Press.

Keith, K. 2006. Childhood Learning and the Distribution of Knowledge in Foraging Societies. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 15, 27-40.

Hayden, B. 2003. Shamans, Sorcerers and Saints. Washington, Smithsonian Books.

Kusimba, S.B. 2005. What Is a Hunter-Gatherer? Variation in the Archaeological Record of Eastern and Southern Africa. Journal of Archaeological Research 13(4), 337-366.

Hayden, B. 2008. L’Homme et l’inégalité. L’invention de la hiérarchie à la préhistoire. Paris, CNRS Editions.

Losey, R.J., Bazaliiskii, V.I., Garvie-Lok, S., Germonpré, M., Leonard, J.A., Allen, A.L., Katzenberg, M.A. and Sablin, M.V. 2011. Canids as persons: Early Neolithic dog and wolf burials, CisBaikal, Siberia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30, 174-189.

Henry-Gambier, D. 2005. Évolution des pratiques funéraires en Italie au Paléolithique supérieur, 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 G.D.R. 1945 du CNRS, Paris, 810 janvier 2003, 213-229. Liège, ERAUL, 111.

Lull, V. 2000. Death and society: A Marxist approach. Antiquity 74(285), 576-580.

Henry-Gambier, D. 2008a. Les sujets juvéniles du Paléolithique supérieur d’Europe à travers l’analyse des sépultures primaires: l’exemple de la culture Gravettiene, in F.G. Jener, S. Muriel and C. Olària (eds.), Nasciturus, infans, puerulus vobis mater terra: la muerte en la infancia, 331-364. Diputació de Castelló, Servei d'Investigacions Arqueològiques i Prehistòriques.

Marlowe, F.W. 2007. Hunting and Gathering: The Human Sexual Division of Foraging Labor. CrossCultural Research 41, 170-195. Mussi, M. 1995. Rituels funéraires dans les sépultures gravettiennes des grottes de Grimaldi et de la grotte delle Arene Candide: une mise au point. In M. Otte (ed.), Nature et Culture. Actes du colloque international de Liège, 13-17 décembre 1993, 833-846. Liège, ERAUL, 68.

Henry-Gambier, D. 2008b. Comportement des populations d’Europe au Gravettien: pratiques funéraires et interprétations. Paléo 20, 165-204. Hofman, J.L. 1986. Hunter-gatherer mortuary variability: towards an explanatory model. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Knoxville, University of Tennessee.

Mussi, M. 2001. Earliest Italy, An Overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic. New York, Plenum. Mussi, M., Roebroeks, W. and Svoboda, J. 2000. Hunters of the Golden Age: an introduction, in W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda and K. Fennema (eds.), Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000-20,000 BP, 1-12, Leiden, University of Leiden Press.

Holly, D.H. 2005. The Place of “Others” in HunterGatherer Intensification. American Anthropologist 107(2), 207-220. Holt, B.M. and Formicola, V. 2008. Hunters of the Ice Age: The Biology of Upper Paleolithic People. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 51, 70-99. 41

Mircea Anghelinu O’Shea, J. 1984. Mortuary variability: An archaeological investigation. New York, Academic Press.

Runciman, W.G. 2005. Stone Age Sociology. Journal of Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 11, 129-142.

O’Shea, J. and Zvelebil, M. 1984. Oleneovstrovski mogilnik: Reconstructing the social and economic organization of prehistoric foragers in Northern Russia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3, 1-40.

Sassaman, K.E. 2004. Complex Hunter-Gatherers in Evolution and History: A North American Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(3), 227-280. Shennan, S. 1996. Social inequality and the transmission of cultural traditions in forager societies, in J. Steele and S. Shennan (eds.), The Archaeology Of Human Ancestry: Power, Sex and Tradition, 326-340. London, Routledge.

Oliva, M. 2000. The Brno II Upper Palaeolithic Burial, in W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda and K. Fennema (eds.), Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000-20,000 BP, 143154. Leiden, University of Leiden Press.

Sinitsyn, A.A. 2004. Les sépultures de Kostenki: chronologie, attribution culturelle, rite funéraire. In M. Otte (ed.), La Spiritualité. Actes du colloque international de Liège (10-12 décembre 2003), 237-244. Liège, ERAUL, 106.

Oliva, M. 2001. Les pratiques funéraires dans le Pavlovien morave: révision critique. Préhistoire Européene 16-17, 191-214. Oliva, M. 2007. Gravettien na Moravě, Brno-Praha.

Slimak, L. and Plisson, H. 2008. La sépulture paléolithique de l’enfant du Figuier (Ardèche, France): emboîtement d’une symbolique funéraire, in M. Bailly and H. Plisson (eds.), La valeur fonctionnelle des objets sépulcraux, 29-38. Aix-en-Provence, Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes 14.

Orschiedt, J. 2002. Secondary Burial in the Magdalenian: the Brillenhöhle (Blauberen, Southwest Germany). Paléo 14, 241-256. Owens, D. and Hayden, B. 1997. Prehistoric Rites of Passage: A Comparative Study of Transegalitarian Hunter-Gatherers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, 121-161.

Soffer, O. 2000. Gravettian technologies in social contexts, in W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda and K. Fennema (eds.), Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000-20,000 BP, 59-76. Leiden, University of Leiden Press.

Park, R.W. 1998. Size counts: the miniature archaeology of childhood in Inuit societies. Antiquity 72(276), 269-281.

Taborin, Y. 2000. Gravettian body ornaments in Western and Central Europe, in W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda and K. Fennema (eds.), Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000-20,000 BP, 135-142. Leiden, University of Leiden Press.

Pettitt, P.B. and Bader, O.N., 2000. Direct AMS radiocarbon dates for the Sungir mid Upper Palaeolithic burials. Antiquity 74, 269-270. Prat, S., Péan, S.C., Crépin, L., Drucker, D.G., Puaud, S.J., Valladas, H., Lázničková-Galetová, M., van der Plicht, J. and Yanevich, A. 2011. The Oldest Anatomically Modern Humans from Far Southeast Europe: Direct Dating, Culture and Behavior. PLoS ONE 6(6), e20834. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020834.

Tainter, J.A. 1978. Mortuary practices and the study of prehistoric social systems. Advances in Archaeological Theory 1, 106-143. Testart, A. 2004. Les morts d’accompagnement. La servitude volontaire I. Paris, Errance.

Price, N.S. (ed.) 2001. Archaeology of Shamanism. London, Routledge.

Tillier, A.-M. and Majó, T. 2008. L’enfant et la mort en préhistoire. Les prémices de l’archéologie funéraire, in F.G. Jener, S. Muriel and C. Olària (eds.), Nasciturus, infans, puerulus vobis mater terra: la muerte en la infancia, 575-591. Diputació de Castelló, Servei d'Investigacions Arqueològiques i Prehistòriques.

Richerson, P.J. and Boyd, R. 2001. Institutional Evolution in the Holocene. The Rise of Complex Societies. In W.G. Runciman (ed.), The Origins of Human Social Institutions, Proceedings of the British Academy 110, 197-234. London: Routledge/Oxford University Press.

Trinkaus, E. and Buzhilova, A.P. 2010. The Death and the Burial of Sungir 1. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, DOI: 10.1002/oa.1227.

Richerson, P.J., Boyd, R. and Bettinger, R.L. 2009. Cultural Innovations and Demographic Change. Human Biology 81(2-3), 211-235.

Ucko, P.J. 1969. Ethnography and the Archaeological Interpretations of Mortuary Practices. World Archaeology 1(2), 262-280.

Roebroeks, W., Mussi, M., Svoboda, J. and Fennema, K. (eds.) 2000. Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000-20,000 BP. Leiden, University of Leiden Press. 42

On Palaeolithic social inequality: The funerary evidence Uthmeier, T. n. d. The Dead, the Shaman and the Chief? Some Thoughts on Status and Prestige in the Gravettian. Undated manuscript.

White, R. 2003. Prehistoric art: The symbolic journey of humankind. New York, Harry N. Abrams. Woodburn, J. 1982. Egalitarian Societies. Man N.S. 17(3), 431-451.

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, 201-240.

Zilhão, J. 2005. Burial Evidence for the Social Differentiation of Age Classes in the Early Upper Paleolithic, 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 G.D.R. 1945 du CNRS, Paris, 8-10 janvier 2003, 231-241. Liège, ERAUL, 111.

Vanhaeren, M. and d’Errico, F. 2005. Grave goods from the Saint-Germain-la-Rivičre burial: Evidence for social inequality in the Upper Palaeolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24, 117-134. Vanhaeren, M. and d’Errico, F. 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 1105-1128.

Zubrow, E., Audouze, F. and Enloe, J.G. (eds.) 2010. The Magdalenian Household: Unraveling Domesticity. New York, State University.

Villotte, S., Knüsel, C.J., Mitchell, P.D. and HenryGambier, D. 2011. Probable carpometacarpal and tarsal coalition from Baousso da Torre Cave (Italy): Implications for burial selection during the Gravettian. Journal of Human Evolution 61, 117-220.

Zvelebil, M. 2008. Innovating Hunter-Gatherers: The Mesolithic in the Baltic, in G. Bailey and P. Spikins (eds.), Mesolithic Europe, 18-59. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Vlček, E. 1997. Human Remains from Pavlov and the Biological Anthropology of the Gravettian Human Population in South Moravia. In J. Svoboda (ed.), Pavlov I - Northwest. The Upper Paleolithic Burial and its Settlement Context, 53-154. Dolni Vestoniče Studies 4.

43

Mircea Anghelinu

44

Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic

Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic Adina Boroneanț Institutul de Arheologie „Vasile Pârvan”, Bucureşti, Romania

Clive Bonsall University of Edinburgh, UK the richest concentrations of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic burials in Europe, dating to the period between 12,500 and 5500 cal BC. Over 400 burials have been recorded from 15 sites (Figures 1 and 2) and four of these sites, Lepenski Vir, Padina, Schela Cladovei and Vlasac, each contained large numbers of graves. In addition, scattered, disarticulated human remains were found in non-burial contexts across all 15 sites, as well as in a number of other sites where formal burials were not identified.

Abstract Some of the best evidence in Europe for Mesolithic burial practices is found at sites in the Iron Gates section of the Lower Danube Valley. Burials dating to the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic (c. 12,500-5500 cal BC) have been recorded from at least 15 sites, four of which – Lepenski Vir, Padina, Schela Cladovei and Vlasac – each contained large numbers of graves, with evidence for the existence of formal disposal areas or ‘cemeteries’. The burials encompass a range of mortuary practices, including single inhumation in various body positions, multiple inhumation, cremation and excarnation. Our paper re-examines this evidence and considers the question of temporal and spatial patterning in Mesolithic mortuary practices in the Iron Gates, in the light of new research since the 1990s. Key words Iron Gates, Mesolithic, burials, isotopes

14

Many of the burials were uncovered in salvage excavations undertaken in 1965-71 and the early 1980s ahead of dam construction. The excavations were conducted rapidly, with variable standards of recovery and recording, and poor chronological control. Published accounts of the excavations vary in quality and detail, and photographs and/or accurate plans are available for just a small percentage of the burials. All this poses problems in interpretation, which in some cases have been exacerbated by inadequate curation of the human bone collections since excavation.

C dating, stable

Introduction Sites in the Iron Gates section of the Lower Danube Valley between Serbia and Romania contain some of

Figure 1. Map of Iron Gates Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites with formal burials (drawing Clive Bonsall).

45

Adina Boroneanţ, Clive Bonsall Site 1

1. Ajmana 2. Climente II 3. Cuina Turcului 4. Gornea 5. Hajdučka Vodenica 6. Icoana 7. Kula 8. Lepenski Vir2 9. Ostrovul Corbului3 10. Padina 11. Schela Cladovei2 12. Ušće Kameničkog potoka1 13. Vajuga-Pesak (trench XV)1 14. Velesnica 15. Vlasac TOTAL:

Number of burials 1 2 ? 2 32 3 5 128 6 51 90 1 1 2 104 425

MNI 17 2 6 2 46+ 3 5 184 9 48+ 100+ 1 1 7 206 637+

Mesolithic (Epipalaeolithic) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

Early Neolithic ● ? ● ● ? ● ? ? ● ● ● ?

Figure 2. Occurrence of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic burials in the Iron Gates region. Site locations are shown in Figure 1. Data from: Mogoșanu 1978; Premk, Popović and Bjelajac 1984; Sladić 1986; 2007; Stalio 1986; Stanković 1986; Păunescu 1990; Radovanović 1996; Roksandic 2000; 2008; A. Boroneanț 2010; A. Boroneanț and C. Bonsall, unpublished data. 1 - These sites contained burials of various periods, but only those assigned to the Mesolithic or Early Neolithic by the excavators are shown. 2 The burial and MNI totals exclude a small number of burials that have been AMS 14C-dated to later periods. 3 - A total of 63 burials were uncovered at Ostrovul Corbului. Six (MNI = 9) were attributed to the Mesolithic and/or Early Neolithic. The other 57 were assigned to the Chalcolithic on the basis of grave goods or ‘stratigraphy’, but could include older burials.

Ivana Radovanović (1996) undertook the first systematic analysis of Mesolithic burial practices in the Iron Gates, relying mainly on the evidence from Padina, Lepenski Vir, Vlasac and Hajdučka Vodenica, all on the Serbian bank of the Danube. Subsequent research has shown that her relative chronology was not always correct, and that some burials included in her analysis actually date to the Neolithic, while other burials omitted from her analysis because they were thought to belong to the Neolithic are in fact of Mesolithic date. Nevertheless, Radovanović’s (1996) study stands as an important contribution to the subject, and has been invaluable in the preparation of this paper. Further information on Mesolithic burial practices in the Iron Gates has emerged since the 1990s as a result of new excavations at Schela Cladovei (V. Boroneanț et al. 1999; Bonsall 2008) and Vlasac (Borić 2006; Borić, French and Dimitrijević 2008), combined with AMS 14C dating and stable C-, N- and S-isotope analysis of human bones from these and other sites in the Iron Gates (see, e.g., Bonsall et al. 1997; 2008; in press; Cook et al. 2002; Borić and Miracle 2004; Borić and Dimitrijević 2009; Nehlich et al. 2010). In this paper we review the evidence for temporal and spatial patterning in Mesolithic mortuary practices in the Iron Gates, in the light of advances in research over the past two decades. Body treatment Mortuary patterns in the Iron Gates Mesolithic show significant variability in the treatment and disposal of the body. There is evidence of primary and secondary inhumation, individual and collective burial, and cremation.

Figure 3. Extended supine inhumation: burial M37 at Schela Cladovei, excavated in 1988 (photo: Vasile Boroneanț).

46

Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic Primary burials Primary inhumation burials (where the body was buried soon after death and the skeleton is still articulated) are well represented in Iron Gates Mesolithic sites. Within this category of burial several different body positions are represented.

Padina, Vlasac and Hajdučka Vodenica in the Iron Gates Gorge, and from Kula, Ostrovul Corbului and Schela Cladovei in the downstream area between the Iron Gates I and II dams. Also quite widely represented are burials where the skeleton lay on one side, with the legs straight or flexed, and the arms flexed in various positions. In extreme cases, e.g. Vlasac grave 44 (Srejović and Letica 1978, fig. 101) and burial M1 from the Climente II cave (Figure 4; V. Boroneanț 1970), the legs were tightly flexed at right angles to the body. This last-mentioned body position is also seen at sites in the downstream area, at Kula, Vajuga-Pesak and Velesnica. The Kula find was interpreted as Mesolithic (Sladić 1986), while the examples from Vajuga and Velesnica were assigned to the Early Neolithic (Premk, Popović and Bjelajac 1984; Vasić 1986). Since no 14C dates have yet been reported for the burials from Vajuga, Velesnica, Climente II or for Vlasac burial 44, it remains to be proven whether within the Iron Gates region the tightly flexed body position (as distinct from the ‘crouched’ or ‘curled up’ posture characteristic of many Starčevo Culture burials from Southeast Europe) is a Mesolithic or a Neolithic trait, or both. There are a few instances of burials where the skeleton was in a sitting position, usually with the legs crossed. The best-known examples were excavated at Padina (burials 15 and 16: Jovanović 1969: pl. XIII; Borić and Miracle 2004: fig. 8), but the same position has been reported from Vlasac (burial 17: Srejović and Letica 1978, fig. 118), Kula (burial 5: Mikić and Sladić 1994), and Ostrovul Corbului (burials M2 and M25: Figure 5; A. Boroneanț 2010).

Figure 4. Flexed inhumation: burial M1 in the Climente II cave (photo: Vasile Boroneanț).

There are many primary burials where the skeleton occurred in the extended, supine position – on the back, body straight out with the hands by the side or resting on the abdomen or chest (Figures 3 and 10). Examples of this position are known from Icoana, Lepenski Vir,

Figure 5. Ostrovul Corbului: burial M25, described as in a sitting position (photo: Florea Mogoșanu, drawing: Alexandru Păunescu).

47

Adina Boroneanţ, Clive Bonsall

Figure 6. Lepenski Vir: burial 69 – dorsal decubitus inhumation in the ‘butterfly’ posture (photos: Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade).

Figure 7. Lepenski Vir: extended supine inhumation burials 54c and 54e in house 65. The skull of 54c was removed. Arranged around the upper body of 54e are disarticulated human bones (burial 54d) from one or more individuals, including a cranium resting on the left shoulder of the articulated skeleton. Burials 54e and 54d were found beneath a heap of stones (photo: Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade).

48

Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic Burial 69 from Lepenski Vir (Figure 6) is sometimes cited as another example where the body was placed in a sitting position (e.g. Borić and Miracle 2004, 355). However, this burial is quite distinct. The skeleton lay in a supine position, the legs were tightly flexed and splayed with the soles of the feet together, and the head was bent forward on the chest. The only other skeleton from an Iron Gates site to exhibit a similar posture is burial 2G from Velesnica (Vasić 1986, figs. 15‒17), which was the earliest burial in a collective grave pit of (presumed) Early Neolithic date (Vasić 1986; 2008).

Although primary inhumations are the most frequent burial type recognized at Mesolithic sites in the Iron Gates, there is also abundant evidence of secondary inhumation burial of individual human bones, groups of disarticulated bones, and body parts (bones in articulation suggesting they were still held together by soft tissue, i.e. not completely defleshed, when reburied). These were sometimes added to graves containing a primary burial (Figures 7 and 10), and sometimes buried separately. In some cases it is possible that the bones were derived from an older burial that was accidentally re-exposed through natural processes or when a new grave was dug. But in many instances the evidence points to reburial as part of secondary burial rites.

Secondary burials ‘Secondary burial’ implies a two-stage or multi-stage process in which final burial takes place some time after death and the skeleton is disarticulated.

Figure 8. Mesolithic burials in Area III-IV at Schela Cladovei. The skulls were missing from skeletons M47, M50 and M52, while M44 and M45 were part of a cache of two crania and a calvarium. The head-to-foot positioning of M43 and M46 suggests they could have been placed in the same grave (reproduced from V. Boroneanț et al. 1999, fig. 2).

Since there are no signs of separation of body parts by sectioning (cutting), it is likely that excarnation (defleshing) was allowed to happen naturally. A body may have been left exposed to allow the flesh to either rot away or be removed by scavengers. However, removal of flesh by mammalian or avian scavengers is likely to leave marks on the bones, and very few if any human bones from Iron Gates Mesolithic sites display such marks. Therefore, excarnation was probably achieved by burying the corpse in the ground, or covering it over with earth or stones, until the soft tissue had decayed, followed by exhumation and perhaps manual cleaning of the bones. Exhumation and reburial of entire skeletons appears to have been rare. But there are many cases where an individual bone or parts of a skeleton were removed from a primary burial.

M47, M50 and M52 at Schela Cladovei (Figure 8; V. Boroneanț et al. 1999). At all three sites detached crania occurred as isolated finds, in small groups, and/or as inclusions in graves containing primary or secondary inhumations. Judging from this evidence, and isolated finds of crania at other sites, e.g. Icoana (A. Boroneanț et al. 2008), skull removal appears to have been a widespread practice in the Iron Gates Mesolithic.

Sometimes, the skull or cranium is missing from a primary inhumation, under circumstances suggesting intentional removal. Examples include burial 54c at Lepenski Vir (Figure 7; Srejović 1969), burial 73 at Vlasac (Srejović and Letica 1978, fig. 122) and burials

Ten contexts containing cremated human remains were identified during the 1970-71 excavations at Vlasac. Fragmented burned bones occurred in piles (burials 35, 45a, 47a, 65a, 58a and 68) or in small pits (burials 11b, 54a, 85 and 86), often in close proximity to inhumation

Cremation Cremation burials have occasionally been found in Mesolithic contexts across Europe, from Greece to southern Scandinavia (e.g. Arts and Hoogland 1987; Cullen 1995; Fahlander 2008). Burned human remains have also been reported from several sites in the Iron Gates, most notably Vlasac.

49

Adina Boroneanţ, Clive Bonsall burials, or as sporadic finds within the infillings of inhumation graves. The excavators suggested that the cremations belonged to an early phase in the Mesolithic occupation of the site (Srejović and Letica 1978, 75), but failed to demonstrate any stratigraphic or chronological basis for this interpretation. Results of anthropological analyses led Srejović and Letica to

conclude that cremation at Vlasac was reserved mainly for individual adults (only one cremation deposit comprising remains of more than one individual was identified), and men more often than women, and that cremations were always of the opposite sex to the adjacent inhumations (Srejović and Letica 1978, 75-76).

Figure 9. Collective burial of an adult (M1) and child (M1bis) in trench L2N at Schela Cladovei, excavated in 1968. The upper part of the adult’s skeleton had been destroyed by a later pit feature (photo: Vasile Boroneanț, drawing: A. Boroneanț).

More detailed information on Mesolithic cremation practices at Vlasac was recovered during excavations in 2006-7 (Borić, French and Dimitrijević 2008; Borić, Raičevic and Stefanović 2009). A further 38 contexts with cremated human remains were identified. These were mainly concentrated in two areas, 10-20m apart, which also contained clusters of inhumations. In one area inhumations and cremations occurred in a complex vertical sequence, with some examples of cremations superposed by inhumations and vice versa. In some cases burned bone fragments from cremations could be conjoined with unburned fragments from inhumation burials. From an analysis of the surface coloration and condition of the burned bone fragments, Borić, Raičevic and Stefanović (2009) concluded that the bones had been burned with no soft tissue on them. Thus the suggestion was made that bones from earlier burials were disinterred, intentionally fragmented, and

then cremated in the immediate vicinity of the inhumation burial or burials from which they came. A reanalysis of the human bone material from the 197071 excavations revealed similar patterns. Contrary to Srejović and Letica’s (1978) interpretation, Borić, Raičevic and Stefanović (2009) found that in most cases the number of individuals within an individual cremation deposit could not be reliably determined, and that there was no apparent selection of individuals for cremation by either sex or age group. From all these lines of evidence Borić, Raičevic and Stefanović (2009) concluded that the Vlasac cremations were secondary burials. Direct AMS 14C dates were obtained on a number of inhumation burials within each area/burial sequence and used to suggest that the secondary cremation burials span a period of at least 800 years, from c. 6800-6000 cal BC. 50

Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic Collective burial The term ‘collective’ can be applied to any grave in which the remains of more than one individual were interred. Collective burials from the Iron Gates Mesolithic can be divided into four types: I. Graves containing primary and secondary burials; II. Graves containing secondary burials of two or more individuals; III. Cremation deposits comprising the remains of two or more individuals; IV. Graves containing two or more primary inhumation burials. Examples of the first three have been mentioned above. Collective primary burials (type IV) likely also exist in the Iron Gates Mesolithic but can be difficult or impossible to identify with certainty, since the outlines of graves are often indistinct (see below). Grave 2 at Velesnica, containing five articulated skeletons and two partial skeletons (9DVLü , is an undoubted collective burial, but the chronological context may be Early Neolithic rather than Mesolithic. There are instances, however, where the spatial relationship between two or more Mesolithic skeletons is suggestive of a collective burial. At Schela Cladovei there are several examples of articulated skeletons lying side-by-side or one directly above the other, which may have been placed in the same grave. For example, in Area III-IV excavated in 1990-92, the head to foot arrangement of skeletons M43 and M46 (Figure 8; V. Boroneant et al. 1999) is strongly suggestive of a collective burial. This evidence is consistent with the high incidence of violent trauma among Mesolithic skeletons from Schela Cladovei, including numerous arrow injuries (V. Boronean‫ ܊‬and Nicolaescu-3ORS‫܈‬RU 1990; Bonsall 2008), which occasionally may have produced multiple deaths. A more clear-cut example of a collective inhumation burial from Schela Cladovei is burial M1 from trench L2N excavated in 1968, which comprises the lower half of the skeleton of an adult with a child (M1bis) resting on the upper legs (Figure 9; A. %RURQHDQ‫܊‬DQGV. %RURQHDQ‫)܊‬.

Figure 10. Schela Cladovei: extended supine burial at Schela Cladovei, excavated in 1996. This is one of a small number of burials uncovered where the outline of the original burial pit could be discerned (photo: Clive Bonsall).

Burial beneath low stone mounds (‘cairns’) has been documented occasionally at sites in the Iron Gates gorge, most notably at Lepenski Vir (Bonsall et al. 2008) and Padina (‘the stone construction of the necropolis’ – %RULü DQG 0LUDFOH  ILJ  . Cairn burial would seem to hold two advantages over pit burial in the context of Iron Gates Mesolithic burial practices. Arguably, it is easier to exhume a body from under a cairn and remove the skull or other skeletal elements following excarnation (cf. Bonsall et al. 2008), while new burials could have been added to the cairn relatively easily. Thus it may seem surprising that this type of grave construction was not employed more frequently or more widely in the Iron Gates, especially given the ready availability of stone sources along the Danube in both the gorge and downstream sections. On the other hand, cairn burial perhaps carries with it a greater risk of a skeleton being crushed by the weight of the material (stones) above it.

Body disposal – graves and cemeteries Only limited evidence survives of the grave construction methods employed by the Mesolithic inhabitants of the Iron Gates. At Schela Cladovei there is evidence that both primary and secondary burials were made in simple pits, although for the great majority of burials the shape and depth of the grave pit could not be discerned. In the case of burial M96/8 (Figure 10; Bonsall et al. 2002) the burial pit outline was visible only because it had been dug through fine-grained alluvium and into an underlying gravel deposit. In most cases, however, the burial pit was likely cut entirely within the alluvium, and the outline obscured or erased by soil processes. Similarly, at Lepenski Vir the outlines of burial pits were indistinct, except where the grave was cut through the plaster floor of a ‘house’.

The fact that skulls and individual bones were also removed from pit burials as well as cairn burials with (apparently) minimal disturbance of the rest of the skeleton suggests that the locations of the bones were known fairly precisely. This in turn raises the 51

Adina Boroneanţ, Clive Bonsall possibility that markers were placed on the ground surface above or around the grave, although such features might be difficult to identify archaeologically for a variety of reasons. The placement in relation to burials of some of the carved boulders found at Lepenski Vir, and the cup-marked stones found at Lepenski Vir and other sites, suggests that in some cases they may have served as grave markers (see, e.g., Figure 8, and Srejović 1969, pl. 66).

1992-96 excavations at Schela Cladovei at least one house pit was found with a burial underneath it and another cut through its infilling, but the placement of the burials with respect to the house appears to have been fortuitous (C. Bonsall, personal observation). Burial goods The Iron Gates Mesolithic habit of placing burials in areas that had previously been used for settlement, burial or some other activity, and then refilling the graves with material from the pit or surrounding areas, means that objects found with a burial cannot always be securely identified as grave goods. Occasional finds of unmodified animal bones clearly fall into this category with very rare exceptions, such as the aurochs skull found on the right shoulder of burial 7/I at Lepenski Vir (Srejović 1969, pl. 69).

Some burials were overlain or encircled by large stones, although it is not always clear if the stone arrangements were man-made or natural. In a few cases stones were placed on top of a corpse before the grave was filled in, for example burial 69 at Lepenski Vir (Figure 6, left). On occasion, natural features appear to have been incorporated into grave constructions. Examples include the ‘chamber tomb’ at Hajdučka Vodenica, which appears to have taken advantage of a wide crevice in the limestone bedrock (Radovanović 1996, fig. 4.16), and Vlasac burial 9, which is said to have been placed in a natural hollow and surrounded by very large stones (Borić, Raičevic and Stefanović 2009, 267, fig. 28).

Bone artefacts, even when found resting against a skeleton, cannot always be accepted as burial goods. For example, broken bone projectile points found with inhumation burials at Schela Cladovei and Vlasac may originally have been associated with injuries sustained by the buried individuals (Bonsall 2008), although Borić, Raičevic and Stefanović (2009, 274) interpreted the presence of burnt examples in cremation pits at Vlasac as related to mortuary rituals.

At Lepenski Vir, Vlasac and Schela Cladovei (the sites with the largest numbers of burials) graves occurred more or less throughout the areas investigated. At Schela Cladovei and Vlasac zones with particular concentrations of burials were identified, and these may have been designated burial areas (cemeteries) that were in use for a limited period (Bonsall 2008; Borić, Raičevic and Stefanović 2009). The term ‘cemetery’ could also be applied to the main burial clusters at Hajdučka Vodenica and Padina (sector III), since each contained a large number of burials within a clearly circumscribed area, with evidence from Padina that the burials were interred over a period of several centuries (Borić and Miracle 2004).

The most convincing examples of grave goods are the marine shells and the bead-shaped crowns of pharyngeal teeth from large carp found with a number of burials at Schela Cladovei and Vlasac, which show modifications perhaps for attachment to clothing and/or (in the case of the shells) for suspension, and the stone beads that accompanied some very late Mesolithic burials from Vlasac (Borić, Raičevic and Stefanović 2009) and Lepenski Vir (Srejović 1969, pl. VII). Many primary burials had no identifiable grave goods. Presence or absence of burial goods may have been a reflection of the social status of the buried individual, or a mark of high or low esteem among family members. In some cases where grave goods were not identified, of course, they may have been overlooked during excavation. Since mortuary rituals in the Iron Gates Mesolithic often involved primary and secondary stages of interment, another intriguing possibility is that primary burials accompanied by grave goods signalled the intent of a final interment and, conversely, those without grave goods represented ‘defleshing stage’ interments intended for secondary burial (cf. Heath 2003). This hypothesis would not preclude some ‘final’ primary burials from being disinterred and reburied during acts of ‘cleansing’, as suggested by Borić, Raičevic and Stefanović (2009).

At Vlasac and Schela Cladovei burials frequently occurred around house pits or stone-lined hearths. In some cases it can be shown that the emplacement of the burials post-dated the abandonment of the houses/hearths. In others the ‘association’ between houses and burials appears to have been created when a house pit was dug into a former burying ground (Bonsall 2008). At Lepenski Vir many burials, including those of children (and especially neonates), were found under the plaster floors of trapezoidal buildings or cut through the plaster floors (Borić and Stefanović 2004). There were also burials in the spaces between buildings and in areas peripheral to the zone with buildings. Generally, the buildings were excavated with much greater care than the surrounding areas. To some extent, therefore, the high frequency of ‘subfloor’ burials at Lepenski Vir may be a function of the much higher density of buildings at this site compared to others.

Spatial and temporal trends in burial practices Of the 400+ Mesolithic and Early Neolithic burials recorded from sites in the Iron Gates, 55 have been 14 C-dated by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). The evidence is summarized in Figure 11. However, interpretation of the dates is not straightforward. Cook

Genuine subfloor burials are not an obvious feature of Mesolithic sites elsewhere in the Iron Gates. In the 52

Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic et al. (2001) showed that the Mesolithic inhabitants of the Iron Gates regularly consumed fish from the Danube, which resulted in their bones being depleted in 14 C, producing ages that are erroneously old by up to c. 500 years. It was also shown (Cook et al. 2002) that 14 C dates on human bone could be ‘corrected’ for the Danube reservoir effect using the δ15N value of the bone collagen, giving ages that are more accurate though less precise. For example, a 14C age of 8380±80 BP from a bone with a δ15N value of +15.0‰ becomes 7960±97 BP after reservoir correction, using Method 1 of Cook et al. (2002).

Conclusions Our understanding of burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic has improved significantly over the past two decades, thanks to new excavations at Schela Cladovei and Vlasac, and the application of AMS 14C dating and stable isotope analysis to human remains from a number of sites. This paper has attempted to summarize the current state of knowledge. Graves were dug within the confines of settlements, both within pit houses and around houses, although in many cases it is likely that the houses were already abandoned. Burials were often made in pits and more rarely under stone heaps, although large stones were sometimes placed on top of a corpse prior to filling in the grave pit. Primary burials show significant variability in body positioning, which is frequently supine and extended, less commonly flexed or semiflexed. Other body dispositions occur but are far less frequent; they include burials in sitting positions, and supine burials with the legs flexed and splayed and the feet together or crossed at the ankles.

Figure 12 presents a comparison of mortuary traits between successive phases of the Iron Gates Mesolithic, based on 46 14C-dated burials with median probability ages between 9600 and 6000 cal BC (cf. Figure 11). There are some obvious biases in the data presented in Figures 11 and 12. Only five sites have usable 14C dates, and only one of these, Schela Cladovei, is located in the downstream area. The majority (47) of the dates come from three sites, which results in a marked clustering of dates in the later part of the timerange, after c. 7200 BC, with only 8 directly dated burials from the earlier part of Mesolithic. With the exception of 24 dates from Lepenski Vir (reported by Bonsall et al. 2008, table 1) 14C dating was not directed specifically at identifying temporal variations in burial practices.

No clear temporal patterning is evident in grave construction, body positioning, or orientation of the body with respect to the Danube. In the later Mesolithic after c. 7200 cal BC, however, there is evidence that mortuary rituals frequently involved several stages, with some primary burials being disinterred, or partially disinterred, and the bones reburied. At Vlasac reburial was often preceded by cremation, while at other sites secondary burial usually took the form of inhumation of individual bones or groups of disarticulated bones or body parts. Disinterred bones were sometimes added to graves containing a primary burial, and sometimes buried separately. Skull removal/reburial (well known from the Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic of the Near East) is known from a number of Iron Gates sites, and represents a particular aspect of the multistage burial ritual that characterized the later stages of the Mesolithic at least.

With these caveats in mind, the main features of the data presented in Figure 12 are: 1. The extended supine burial position is found throughout the Mesolithic; 2. Flexed and semi-flexed inhumations occur in the Early and Late Mesolithic, but are not represented among the 13 dated burials from the period between 6300 and 6000 cal BC; 3. So far, secondary burial and skull removal are only clearly attested in the period after 7200 cal BC, although the lack of evidence from the Early Mesolithic may be due to the small sample size; 4. Similarly, marine shells and carp teeth as burial goods are known with certainty only from the later phases of the Mesolithic; 5. Stone beads (and Spondylus shell ornaments) have only been reported from burial contexts belonging the period after c. 6300 cal BC, heralding a practice that was more common in the Neolithic.

The Iron Gates sites are distributed along some 230 km of the Lower Danube valley, and it is possible that there were variations in mortuary practices across the region, as well as through time. New 14C dates are being prepared at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit on human remains from Velesnica, Ostrovul Corbului, Climente II, Icoana, and Cuina Turcului. We expect the results will contribute further to our understanding of temporal and spatial variability in burial practices during the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the Iron Gates.

In addition, there appears to be no clear temporal patterning in grave construction or in the orientation of primary inhumations with respect to the Danube (not included in Figure 12).

53

Adina Boroneanţ, Clive Bonsall

Figure 11. Distribution of median probability ages for 55 Mesolithic and Early Neolithic burials from Padina, Lepenski Vir, Vlasac, Hajdučka Vodenica and Schela Cladovei. Calibrations performed with CALIB 6 (Stuiver and Reimer, 1993; Stuiver, Reimer and Reimer 2005) and the IntCal09 dataset (Reimer et al., 2009). Corrections for the ‘Danube Reservoir Effect’ were made using Method 1 of Cook et al. (2002). A 14C date of 7604±76 BP for a burial from Icoana, published by Dinu, Soficaru and Mirițoiu (2007), has not been included because it has no associated δ15N value, hence a reservoir correction cannot be applied.

Primary burial

EARLY

LATE

FINAL

(9500-7200 BC)

(7200-6300 BC)

(6300-6000 BC)

Extended

●

●

●

Flexed

●

●

Crouched Ventral

Secondary burial

Sitting

●

Butterfly

●

Disarticulated

●

●

Skull removal/reburial

●

●

Cremation

●

Collective burial Grave construction Burial goods

Pit

○

Cairn

●

Shells/Carp teeth

●

●

●

● ●

●

Mammalian bone

● ●

Bone artefact

○

Stone beads

○ ●

Figure 12. Mortuary traits in the Iron Gates Mesolithic, as reflected in 46 directly dated burials with median probability ages older than 6000 cal BC. Open circles indicate an element of uncertainty.

54

Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic Acknowledgements We should like to thank the Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, for permission to reproduce the images shown in Figures 6 and 7, and Dr Catriona Pickard for her comments on a preliminary draft of the paper.

Borić, D. and Stefanović, S. 2004. Birth and death: infant burials from Vlasac and Lepenski Vir. Antiquity 78, 526-546. Borić, D., French, C. and Dimitrijević, V. 2008. Vlasac revisited: formation processes, stratigraphy and dating. Documenta Praehistorica 35, 261-287.

This paper was partly supported by the Sectorial Operational Programme Human Resources Development (SOP HRD), financed from the European Social Fund and by the Romanian Government under the contract number SOP HRD/89/1.5/S/59758.

Borić, D., Raičevic, J. and Stefanović, S. 2009. Mesolithic cremations as elements of secondary mortuary rites at Vlasac (Serbia). Documenta Praehistorica 36, 247-282.

References Arts, N. and Hoogland, M. 1987. A Mesolithic settlement area with a human cremation grave at Oirschot V, municipality of Brest, the Netherlands. Helinium 27, 172-189.

Boroneanţ, A. 2010. Ostrovul Corbului – o discuţie asupra mormintelor mezolitice şi neolitice timpurii. Buletinul Muzeului Judeţean Teleorman. Seria Arheologie 2, 1-23.

Bonsall, C. 2008. The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates, in Bailey and P. Spikins (eds.), Mesolithic Europe, 238-279. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Boroneanţ, A., Boroneanţ, V., Miriţoiu, N. and Soficaru, A. 2008. The Icoana burials revisited. Studii de Preistorie 5, 51-60.

Bonsall, C., Lennon, R., McSweeney, K., Stewart, C., Harkness, D., Boroneanţ, V., Payton, R., Bartosiewicz, L. and Chapman, J.C. 1997. Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Iron Gates: a palaeodietary perspective. Journal of European Archaeology 5(1), 50-92.

Boroneanț, A. and Boroneanț, V. 2009. Schela Cladovei 1965-1968. După 40 de ani. Studii de Preistorie 6, 6-34. Boroneanț, V. 1970. Un mormînt din perioada de trecere de la Paleoliticul Superior la Epipaleolitic. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie 21, 129-132.

Bonsall, C., Macklin, M.G., Payton, R.W. and Boroneanț, A. 2002. Climate, Floods and River Gods: Environment al Change and the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Southeast Europe. Before Farming 3_4(2), 1-15.

Boroneanț, V. and Nicolaescu Plopșor D. 1990. Lésions traumatiques violents datant de l’épipaleolithique tardif du sud-ouest de la Roumanie. Antropologie 28(1), 55-65.

Bonsall, C., Radovanović, I., Roksandic, M., Cook, G.T., Higham, T. and Pickard, C. 2008. Dating burial practices and architecture at Lepenski Vir, in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneanţ and I. Radovanović (eds.), The Iron Gates in Prehistory, 175-204 . Oxford, BAR Publishing.

Boroneanț, V., Bonsall, C., McSweeney, K., Payton, R. and Macklin, M. 1999. A Mesolithic burial area at Schela Cladovei, Romania. In A. Thévenin (ed.), L’Europe des Derniers Chasseurs: Épipaléolithique et Mésolithique, 385-390. Paris, Éditions du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques.

Bonsall, C., Cook, G.T., Pickard, C., McSweeney, K., Bartosiewicz, L., Sayle, K., Radovanović, I., Higham, A. (forthcoming). T.F.G. and Boroneanț, Distinguishing between freshwater- and terrestrial-based diets? A Mesolithic case study from the Iron Gates. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Santander, Spain. 13th-17th September 2010.

Cook, G.T., Bonsall, C., Hedges, R.E.M., McSweeney, K., Boroneanţ, V. and Pettitt, P.B. 2001. A freshwater diet-derived 14C reservoir effect at the Stone Age sites in the Iron Gates gorge. Radiocarbon 43(2A), 453-460.

Borić, D. 2006. New discoveries at the MesolithicEarly Neolithic site of Vlasac: preliminary notes. Mesolithic Miscellany 18(1), 7-14.

Cook, G.T., Bonsall, C., Hedges, R.E.M., McSweeney, K., Boroneanţ, V., Bartosiewicz, L. and Pettitt, P.B. 2002. Problems of dating human bones from the Iron Gates. Antiquity 76, 77-85.

Borić, D. and Dimitrijević, V. 2009. Apsolutna hronologija i stratigrafija Lepenskog Vira. Starinar 62 (2007), 9-55.

Cullen, T. 1995. Mesolithic mortuary ritual at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Antiquity 69, 270-289.

Borić, D. and Miracle, P. 2004. Mesolithic and Neolithic (dis)continuities in the Danube gorges: new AMS dates from Padina and Hajdučka Vodenica (Serbia). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23(4), 341-371.

Dinu, A., Soficaru, A. and Mirițoiu, D. 2007. The Mesolithic at the Danube’s Iron Gates: new radiocarbon dates and old stratigraphies. Documenta Praehistorica 34, 31-52.

55

Adina Boroneanţ, Clive Bonsall Fahlander, F. 2008. A piece of the Mesolithic. Horizontal stratigraphy and bodily manipulations at Skateholm, in F. Fahlander and T. Oestigaard (eds.), The Materiality of Death: Bodies, Burials, Beliefs, 29-45. Oxford, BAR Publishing.

Roksandic, M. 2000. Between foragers and farmers in the Iron Gates gorge: physical anthropology perspective. Documenta Praehistorica 27, 1-100. Roksandic, M. 2008. The human osteological material from Velesnica, in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneanţ and I. Radovanović (eds.), The Iron Gates in Prehistory, 243-249. Oxford, BAR Publishing.

Heath, C.L. 2003. Woodland Period mortuary variability in the Lower Roanoke River Valley: perspectives from the Jordan’s Landing, Sans Souci and Dickerson sites. Research Paper Presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina, November 12-15, 2003.

Sladić, M. 1986. Kula près de Mihajlovac – un site préhistorique: compte-rendu des fouilles de 1980. Đerdapske sveske 3, 432-440. Sladić, M. 2007. Архитектура раних праисторијских насеља на локалитету Кула код Михајловца (The architecture of early prehistoric settlements on the site of Kula at Mihajlovac). Archaica 1, 9-40.

Jovanović, B. 1969. Hajdučka Vodenica. In Đ. Bošković (ed.), Stare Kulture u Đerdapu, 142-147. Belgrade, SANU. Mikić, Ž . and Sladić, M. 1994. Ostaci mezolitskog čoveka iz Kule u Đerdapu. Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta 18, 37-41.

Srejović, D. 1969. Лепенски Вир. Нова Праисторијска Култура у Подунављу (Lepenski Vir: a New Prehistoric Culture in the Danube Region). London, Thames and Hudson.

Mogoșanu, F. 1978. Mezoliticul de la Ostrovul Corbului, o nouă așezare de tip Schela Cladovei. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 29(3), 335-351.

Srejović, D. and Letica, Z. 1978. Vlasac. A Mesolithic Settlement in the Iron Gates. Volume 1, Archaeology. Belgrade, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Nehlich, O., Borić, D., Stefanović, S. and Richards, M.P. 2010. Sulphur isotope evidence for freshwater fish consumption: a case study from the Danube Gorges, SE Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 1131-1139.

Stalio, B. 1986. Le site préhistorique Ajmana à Mala Vrbica. Đerdapske sveske 3, 27-50. Stanković, S. 1986. Embouchure du Ruisseau Kamenicki Potok site du groupe de Starčevo: compterendu des fouilles de 1981. Đerdapske sveske 3, 467-471.

Păunescu, A. 1990. Locuirea mezolitică de tip Schela Cladovei de la Ostrovul Corbului (jud. Mehedinţi). Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 41, 123-147.

Stuiver, M. and Reimer, P.J. 1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35(1), 215-230.

Premk, A., Popović, P. and Bjelajac, Lj. 1984. VajugaPesak: fouilles de sondage de 1980. Đerdapske sveske 2, 118-124.

Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J. and Reimer, R. 2005. CALIB Radiocarbon Calibration (rev. 5.0.2), On-line Manual. http://radiocarbon.pa.qub.ac.uk/calib/manual/

Radovanović, I. 1996. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. Ann Arbor (MI), International Monographs in Prehistory.

Vasić, R. 1986. Compte-rendu des fouilles du site préhistorique à Velesnica 1981-1982. Đerdapske sveske 3, 264-285.

Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51, 1111-1150.

Vasić, R. 2008. Velesnica and the Lepenski Vir Culture, in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneanţ and I. Radovanović (eds.), The Iron Gates in Prehistory: New Perspectives, 227-241. Oxford, BAR Publishing.

56

Bioarchaeological inferences from Neolithic human remains at Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă

Bioarchaeological inferences from Neolithic human remains at Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă (Transylvania, Romania) Mihai Gligor Universitatea “1 Decembrie 1918”, Alba Iulia, Romania

Mariana Roşu Institutul Naţional de Medicină Legală “Mina Minovici”, Bucureşti, Romania

Viorel Panaitescu Institutul Naţional de Medicină Legală “Mina Minovici”, Bucureşti, Romania extensive archaeological excavations and the establishment of research units in different parts of the site, the surface of the settlement has been determined to have been larger than 40 ha (Figure 2).

Abstract The Neolithic settlement of Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă was discovered in 1942, while carrying out town planning works. Several archaeological campaigns have occurred from the 1940s to today. A distinct Neolithic funerary complex has been the focus of recent excavations. The human skeletal remains were not found in anatomical connection. The current paper intends to analyze specifically a representative set of human mandibles and maxillaries. In particular, study of the mandibles has allowed us to ascertain that some of them present on the mandibular branch an area with obvious sectioning traces that present regular, oblique margins. Key words Human remains, mandibles, mortuary practices, periand postmortem fractures, Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă, Late Neolithic-Early Eneolithic Introduction Alba Iulia is situated in Alba County, part of the historical region of Transylvania (Figure 1). The Lumea Nouă site is situated in the NE area of Alba Iulia, on the second terrace of the Mureş River. At present, following

Figure 1. Position of Alba County and Alba Iulia town in Romania.

Figure 2. Aerial view of Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă settlement (Gligor 2010, Fig. 1).

one of the outstanding discoveries from 2003 and 2005; a funerary complex with unique mortuary practices. The corroboration of the two funerary discoveries, separated by only 12 meters, leads to the conclusion that around

Archaeological Context and Anthropological Data Last year's research has shown that the most intensive habitation belongs to Foeni group members (Gligor 2009, 25-56, 71-86, 110-115), to whom we also attribute 57

Mihai Gligor, Mariana Roşu, Viorel Panaitescu 100 disarticulated individuals were buried in this area. This funerary complex contains a larger number of skulls than whole skeletons.

Approximately 84-85 human skulls were discovered within the entire perimeter (Gligor 2009, Pl. CCVICCX) with other human bone fragments, some of which have traces of burning (Gligor 2009, Pl. CCXI/1-2). A thick layer of ashes and brick-red coloured traces of fire over the sides and down to the bottom of the pit (Gligor 2009, Pl. CCXII) are evidence of an intense fire.

Excavations in 2003 (Trench II) revealed a pit (G1/2003), inside which 23 human skulls were found, together with a large number of bone remains, randomly distributed in the upper levels, with many bones found in a slanting position (Figure 3). The pit is located in square C, at approx. ▼0.75 m, is marked by small stones placed around its exterior, and is 1.50-1.70 m in diameter (Gligor 2009, 32; Pl. X/2, CCII-CCV).

The presence of both children and adults, male and female, has been determined by osteological analyses (Gligor 2009, 120-121). No traces of interpersonal violence such as wounds inflicted by arrows or lithic weapons have been found. Additionally, no arrow tips or axes have been found in connection with human bone material. Therefore, collective death as a result of violence is unlikely (Panaitescu et al. 2008, 267-268). Some of the skulls present round-shaped clogging fractures and abrasion areas (Panaitescu et al. 2008, Fig. 1-11). The processing of the archaeological material associated with the funerary discovery allowed for a cultural classification under the Foeni group (Gligor 2009, 38, 213; Pl. CIII/1-2, CIV/2, CXIV/4-5, CXV/3, CXVI/1, 4, 7, CXVIII/2-4, CXXXI/1a-1b, CLII/11a11c, 12a-12c, CLIX/1, CLX/1a-1b, CCXI/4). The chronological timeframe given by the AMS 14C dating of the bone material taken from human skeletal remains (Gligor 2009, 141-142, Pl. CLXXVIIICLXXIX; Gligor 2010, 236) spans between 4600-4450 cal. BC (Figure 5), which marks the end of the Late Neolithic and beginning of Transylvanian Eneolithic.

Figure 3. Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă, human remains from G1/2003.

Figure 5. AMS 14C data from Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă human remains (Gligor 2010, Fig. 8).

Methods Individual sexing has been performed according to morphological characters of the skull, the pelvis bones, morphometric variables of the cranial and post-cranial skeleton (Relethford and Hodges 1985; Krogman and İşcan 1986; Bass 1995; Oettle´, Pretorius and Steyn 2009), and sexual dimorphism (Relethford and Hodges 1985). The age at death for adult skeletons has been estimated by examining the pubic bone (Katz and Myers Suchey 1986; Brooks and Suchey 1990), cranial suture closure (Meindl and Lovejoy 1985), dental state and wear (Molnar 1971; Lovejoy et al. 1985; Smith 1984), and degenerative changes (Jurmain 1977; Ortner 2003). The stature has been estimated by applying regression

Figure 4. Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă, human remains from Trench III/2005, square B (Gligor 2009, Pl. CCIX/2).

In trench III/2005, in square B, at ▼0.65 m we found an agglomeration of disarticulated human bones (Figure 4). The skulls were positioned mainly inside the pit G2 (Gligor 2009, 36-37; Pl. VIII-IX, X/1). At the same time, the long bones were found towards the upper part of the pit and at ground level, most of them in a slanting position, which indicates that they were most probably carelessly thrown into the pit. 58

Bioarchaeological inferences from Neolithic human remains at Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă equations to the length of the long bones (Olivier et al. 1978; Ubelaker 1989). The age at death for immature skeletons has been estimated observing: long bone size (Scheuer and Black 2000; Rösing et al. 2007), appearance of ossification centers (Scheuer and Black 2000), epiphyseal union (Krogman and İşcan 1986; Scheuer and Black 2000), mineralization status of the teeth (Rösing et al. 2007), dental formation (Shackelford, Stinespring Harris and Konigsberg 2012), and dental calcification and eruption (Ubelaker 1989; Shackelford, Stinespring Harris and Konigsberg 2012).

The mandible body presents moderately-defined protuberances for the muscular insertions and a round chin, characteristic of females (Figure 6). Teeth 45 (second lower right premolar, minimal abrasion) and 46 (first lower right molar, moderate abrasion) are present in the alveoli, while the rest of the fragment’s alveoli (for teeth 31, 32, 41, 42, 43, and 44) are empty, with sharp edges, which indicates postmortem loss. The fragment’s extremities (the rami and the part adjacent to the body) are obliquely cut, with regular edges, and no signs of healing/bone remodeling; the section area is brownish, like the rest of the bone; all these suggest the lesions occurred peri- or post-mortem, with a sharp edged object (Sauer 1998; Bennike 2008). We conclude that the mandible comes from a female aged 20-30 (Adultus); a more precise estimation cannot be made due to the absence of most of the teeth and the mandible rami (including the gonions).

The interpretation of the traumatic bone lesions was made by taking into account the studies of Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994), Lovell (1997), Sauer (1998), Bennike (2008), together with Schulting and Wysocki (2005). In establishing the dental status we have considered Hillson’s classification (Hillson 2001), ante mortem tooth loss considerations of Lukacs (1989) and Ogden (2008), and contributions on dental calculus from Brothwell (1981), Greene, Kuba and Irish (2005) and Hillson (2001). In the entire area of the funerary space we have found 54 mandibles and maxillaries separated from the skull, 14 belonging to subadults ( Órugma, matoß (tó) (noun) - “excavation, trench, ditch, moat, tunnel, mine, pit” (Chantraine 1968, 829; Liddell and Scott 1996, 1257); the PIE *h1reuk- “to dig” appears in Lat. runco- “weeds” or in Skt. lúncati- “tears, plucks” (Mallory and Adams 2006, 375); qáptw (verb) “honour with funerary rites”, derives from the PIE *dhmbh- “hole, grave” (Chantraine 1968, 423; Liddell and Scott 1996, 784); for expressing the idea of inhumation, Herodotus uses also the compound sunqáptw - “bury together, join in burying, to be buried with” (Liddell and Scott 1996, 1716) and the nouns táfoß, -oû (¦) - “funerary rites, grave, tomb” (Liddell and Scott 1996, 1761) and qëkh, -hß (£) (noun) - “case, chest, grave, tomb” (Chantraine 1968, 434; Liddell and Scott 1996, 797). The PIE root *dheh1- “to put” can be found in Hit. tittiya- “establish” or Skrt. dádhāti “puts, places” (Mallory and Adams 2006, 295). Another verb from the same semantic field is xýnnumi - “had a sepulchral mound raised over” (Chantraine 1968, 1281; Liddell and Scott 1996, 2014); to the same word family belongs the noun xôma, -matoß (tó) “earth thrown up, mound, sepulchral mound” (Liddell and Scott 1996, 2014); krúptw has the meaning of “to hide, cover in the earth, bury” (Chantraine 1968, 589; Liddell and Scott 1996, 1000); sepelio, -ire, -pelii, -pultum (verb) - “to dispose of a corpse, ashes, to submerge, to overcome” (Glare 1976, 1738) has the PIE root *sep- which can be recognized in Ved. Saparyáti (Ernout and Meillet 1967, 1085; Adams and Mallory 2006, 370); another verb that Pomponius Mela mentions is iaceo, -ere, -ui, -itum - “to be in a recumbent position, to lie in a position of rest, recline, to be inactive, to lie dead, to be killed, die” (Ernout and Meillet 1967, 540; Glare 1968, 812-813).

¦lofúrontai, sunqáptetai, rússousi, krúptousi, qáptousi, qáptontai). All the verbs in the historical present are in the third person. The author’s choice of aorist participle is due to the fact that he can refer to both a past and a present event (Campbell 2008, 1415), being in direct correlation with the historical present (proklaúsanteß, ˜popnícanteß, sfácanteß, katakaúsanteß, krúyanteß, qáyanteß). A significant role in the development and enrichment of vocabulary is the use of prefixes-prepositions as compound elements (Panastassiou 2007, 663). The diegesis of Herodotus has revealed the use the following prepositions: ˜po- (˜pogígnomai, ˜poqnðskw), kata(katakaúsanteß), pro- (proklaíw, protíqhmi), sun(sunqáptw), and para- (paratíqhmi). In the case of the verb ˜poqnðskw, we have a compound word < qnðskw “to die, to be dead, to perish” + prefix ˜po“from, away from, after” (Liddell and Scott 1996, 802); the significance of preposition ˜po- is “asunder, finishing off, completing, ceasing from, leaving off, back again” (Liddell and Scott 1996, 192). The author’s choice of proklaíw is not random; in this case, the act of lamentation was performed before and during the ritual procession (Petropoulou 1988, 31, note 7). Pro-, as a compound with different verbs, means: “before, forwards, publicly” (Liddell and Scott 1996, 1465). Focusing on the significance “publicly” as one of the meanings of this preposition and the fact that lamentation was an important element in the funerary procession, perhaps the choice of proklaíw is also determined by the author’s need to express the public character of the ceremony. The lexeme sunqáptw is a transparent compound from the verb qáptw and the 159

Roxana-Gabriela Curcă preposition sun- “in company with, together with” (Liddell and Scott 1996, 1690). In the case of the participle katakaúsanteß, the preposition kata(Liddell and Scott 1996, 883) implies the idea of a complete action; the Latin preposition de (