Let the dead speak…comments on Dibble et al.'s reply to “Evidence supporting an intentional burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints”

Rendu, William; Beauval, Cédric; Crevecœur, Isabelle; Bayle, Priscilla; Balzeau, Antoine; Bismuth, Thierry; Bourguignon, Laurence; Delfour, Géraldine; Faivre, Jean-Philippe; Lacrampe‐Cuyaubère, François; Muth, Xavier; Pasty, Sylvain; Semal, Patrick; Tavormina, Carlotta; Todisco, Dominique; Turq, Alain; Maureille, Bruno

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2016.02.006

Cited by 22 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Excavation of a pit for the deposition of a very well preserved Neandertal skeleton is also present in the Bouffia Bonneval for La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 (LC1; Rendu et al, 2014Rendu et al, , 2016; but see Dibble et al, 2015). The preservation and completeness of the LC1 skeleton is similar to that of LF1.…”

Section: Is the Taphonomic Evidence Consistent With Lf1 Being An Intementioning

confidence: 92%

“…It is also likely that some Neandertal groups (Pettitt, 2011) also purposefully buried their dead, i.e., that they practiced funerary behavior. This would be the case of individuals such as LF1, LF2, La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1, Amud 7, and Le Moustier 2, among others (Hovers et al, 2000;Maureille, 2002;Rendu et al, 2014Rendu et al, , 2016Balzeau et al, 2016a, b). Differences in preservation between individuals at the same site (e.g., Dederiyeh) also suggest the possibility of different kinds of interment (primary vs secondary; Akazawa and Muhesen, 2003).…”

Section: Is the Taphonomic Evidence Consistent With Lf1 Being An Intementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

La Ferrassie 1: New perspectives on a “classic” Neandertal

Gómez‐Olivencia

Quam

Sala

et al. 2018

Journal of Human Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The La Ferrassie 1 (LF1) skeleton, discovered over a century ago, is one of the most important Neandertal individuals both for its completeness and due to the role it has played historically in the interpretation of Neandertal anatomy and lifeways. Here we present new skeletal remains from this individual, which include a complete right middle ear ossicular chain (malleus, incus, and stapes), three vertebral fragments, and two costal remains. Additionally, the study of the skeleton has allowed us to identify new pathological lesions, including a congenital variant in the atlas, a greenstick fracture of the left clavicle, and a lesion in a mid-thoracic rib of unknown etiology. In addition, we have quantified the amount of vertebral pathology, which is greater than previously appreciated. We have complemented the paleopathological analysis with a taphonomic analysis to identify any potential perimortem fractures. The taphonomic analysis indicates that no surface alteration is present in the LF1 skeleton and that the breakage pattern is that of bone that has lost collagen, which would be consistent with the intentional burial of this individual proposed by previous researchers. In this study, we used CT and microCT scans in order to discover new skeletal elements to better characterize the pathological lesions and to quantify the fracture orientation of those bones in which the current plaster reconstruction did not allow its direct visualization, which underlines the broad potential of imaging technologies in paleoanthropological research. A century after its discovery, LF1 is still providing new insights into Neandertal anatomy and behavior.

show abstract

Section: Is the Taphonomic Evidence Consistent With Lf1 Being An Intementioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Is the Taphonomic Evidence Consistent With Lf1 Being An Intementioning

confidence: 99%

La Ferrassie 1: New perspectives on a “classic” Neandertal

Gómez‐Olivencia

Quam

Sala

et al. 2018

Journal of Human Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Underlying infection, both localized and systemic, would have taken a progressive toll on health and strength over the last 12 months of life, and his ability to contribute to the group would have decreased accordingly. He was nonetheless clearly part of the group until death, with his articulated remains subsequently carefully buried (see Rendu et al [2014]; Dibble et al [2015]; Rendu et al [2016] for further debate).…”

Section: Re-assessing Interpretations Of Healthcare Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calculated or caring? Neanderthal healthcare in social context

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explanations for patterns of healed trauma in Neanderthals have been a matter of debate for several decades. Despite widespread evidence for recovery from injuries or survival despite impairments, apparent evidence for healthcare is given limited attention. Moreover, interpretations of Neanderthals' approach to injury and suffering sometimes assume a calculated or indifferent attitude to others. Here the authors review evidence for Neanderthal healthcare, drawing on a bioarchaeology of care approach and relating healthcare to other realms of Neanderthal social life. The authors argue that Neanderthal medical treatment and healthcare was widespread and part of a social context of strong pro-social bonds which was not distinctively different from healthcare seen in later contexts. They suggest that the time has come to accept Neanderthal healthcare as a compassionate and knowledgeable response to injury and illness, and to turn to other questions, such as cultural variation or the wider significance of healthcare in an evolutionary context.

show abstract

“…Although studies examining the archaeological context of such findings are useful for interpreting the sites, specific analyses of the taphonomy of human remains are less common in the literature (Gómez‐Olivencia et al, ; Kappelman et al, ; Marín‐Arroyo, ; Pickering, Clarke, & Heaton, ; Sala & Conard, ). The depositional origin of hominin fossils is usually interpreted in the light of their contextual framework (Pettitt, ; Rendu et al, , ), especially those originating from funeral activities, but rarely from detailed taphonomic observations of the bones. In contrast, in cases of cannibalistic assemblages, taphonomic studies are more abundant (Andrews & Fernández‐Jalvo, ; Bello, Saladié, Cáceres, Rodríguez‐Hidalgo, & Parfitt, ; Bello, Wallduck, Dimitrijević, Živaljević, & Stringer, ; Boulestin & Coupey, ; Cáceres, Lozano, & Saladié, ; Clark et al, ; Defleur, White, Valensi, Slimak, & Crégut‐Bonnoure, ; Fernández‐Jalvo, Díez, Cáceres, & Rosell, ; Morales‐Pérez et al, ; Rougier et al, ; Sala & Conard, ; Saladié et al, ; Saladié & Rodríguez‐Hidalgo, ; Turner & Turner, ; Valensi, Crégut‐Bonnoure, & Defleur, ; Villa & Courtin, ; White, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%