Author Response:
We would like to thank the eLife reviewers for the considerable time and effort they have invested to review these manuscripts. We have also benefited from a previous round of review of the manuscript describing the proposed burial features, which underwent two rounds of revisions in a high-impact journal over a period of approximately 8 months during 2022 and early 2023. Both sets of reviews have reflected mixed responses to the evidence we have presented, with one reviewer recommending acceptance with minor editorial revisions, two recommending acceptance with minor revisions and the fourth recommending rejection based upon similar arguments to those reflected by some of the reviewers in this current round of reviews in eLife. Ultimately the managing editor of this first journal took the decision that the review process could not be completed in a timely manner and rejected the manuscript although the submission here reflected our consideration of these reviewers suggestions.
We have chosen in this initial response to the eLife reviews to include some references to the previous anonymous reviews in order to illustrate differences of opinion and differences in revision suggestions within the review process. Our goal is to offer maximal insight into our decision-making process and to acknowledge the considerable time and effort put into the assessment of these manuscripts by reviewers (for eLife and in the case of the earlier review process). We hope that this approach will assist the readers, and reviewers, of our manuscripts in understanding why we are proceeding with certain decisions during the revision process.
This is a new process for us and the reviewers, and one way in which it significantly differs from more traditional review is that both the reviews and our reply will be public well in advance of our revisions to the manuscript. Indeed, considering the scope of the reviews, some of those revisions may take considerable time, although many can be accomplished fairly easily. Thus, we are not in a position to say that we have solved every issue raised by the reviewers. Instead, we will examine what appear to be the key critical issues raised regarding the data and the analyses and how we propose to address these as we revise the papers. We will also address several philosophical and ethical issues raised by the reviews and our proposal for dealing with these. More specific editorial and citational recommendations will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and we do not address these point-by-point in this reply. Please note, this response to the reviewers is not the revision of the manuscript and is only the initial opinion of the corresponding authors with some guidance from the larger group of authors of all three papers. Our final submitted revision will reflect the input of all authors included on those submissions.
We took the decision to submit three separate papers consciously. The two different categories of evidence, burials and engravings, involve different kinds of analysis and different (although overlapping) teams of researchers, and we recognized that each deserved their own presentation and assessment. Meanwhile, together they inform the context of H. naledi in a way that requires some synthetic discussion, in which both kinds of evidence are relevant, leading to a third paper. But the mutual relevance of these different kinds of evidence and their review by a common set of reviewers naturally raises cross-cutting issues, and the reviewers have cross-referenced the three articles. This has sometimes led to suggestions about one manuscript based on the contents of another. Considering the situation, we accepted the recommendation that it would be clearer to consider all three articles in a single reply. Thus, while each of the three papers will proceed separately during the revision process, it will be necessary to highlight across all three papers occasionally in our responses.
Scientific Issues:
In reading the reviews, we feel there are 9 critical points/assertions raised by one or more of the reviewers that present a problem for, or challenge to, our hypothesis that the observed evidence (bone accumulations and engravings) described in the Dinaledi subsystem are of intentional naledigenic origin. These are:
The evidence presented does not demonstrate a clear interruption of the floor sediments, thus failing to demonstrate excavated holes.
The sediments infilling the holes where the skeletal remains are found have not been demonstrated to originate from the disruption of the floor sediments and thus could be part of a natural geological process (e.g. water movement, slumping) or carnivore accumulations.
Previous geological interpretations by our research group have given alternative geological explanations for formation of the bony accumulations that contradict the present evidence presented here and result in alternative origins hypotheses.
Burial cannot be effectively assessed without complete excavation of the features and site.
The skeletal remains as presented do not conform clearly to typical body arrangement/positions associated with human (Homo sapiens) burials.
There is no evidence of grave goods or lithic scatters that are typically associated with human burials.
Humans may have been involved with the creation of either the Homo naledi bone accumulations, the engravings, or both.
Without a date of the engravings, the null hypothesis should be the engravings were created by Homo sapiens.
The null hypothesis for explanation of the skeletal remains in this situation should be “natural accumulation”.
Our analysis of the Dinaledi Feature 1 leads us to accept that the laminated orange-red mudstone (LORM) sedimentary layer is interrupted, indicating a non-natural intervention, and that the hole created by the interruption was then filled by both a fleshed body (and perhaps parts of other bodies) which were then covered by sediment that originated from the hole that was dug. We recognize that the four eLife reviewers are not convinced that our presentation is sufficient to establish this. Interestingly, this was not the universal opinion of earlier reviewers of the initial manuscript several of whom felt we had adequately supported this hypothesis. The lack of clarity in this current version of the burial manuscript is our responsibility. In the upcoming revision of this paper to be submitted, we will take the reviewers’ critiques to heart and add additional figures that illustrate better the disruption of the LORM and clarify the sedimentological data showing the material covering the skeletal remains in the hole are the disrupted sediments excavated from the same hole. We are proposing to isolate this most critical evidence for burial into a separate section in the revised submission based on the reviewers’ comments. The fact that the LORM layer is disrupted, a fleshed body was placed in the hole created by this disruption, and the body (and perhaps parts of other bodies) was/were then covered by the same sediments from the hole is the central feature of our hypothesis that the bone accumulations observed reflect a burial and not a natural process.
The possibility of fluvial transport or involvement in the subsystem is a topic that we have addressed extensively in past work, and it is clear from these reviews that we must enhance our current manuscript to discuss this issue at greater length. Our previous work (Dirks et al. 2015; Dirks et al. 2017) emphasized that fluvial transport of whole bodies into the subsystem was precluded by several lines of sedimentological evidence. We excavated a rich accumulation of skeletal remains, including articulated limbs and other elements in subvertical orientations inconsistent with slow sedimentary infill, which were difficult to explain without positing either a large and dense pile of bodies and/or sediment movement. We encountered fractured chunks of laminated orange-red mudstone (LORM) in random orientations within our excavation area, within and among skeletal remains, which directly refuted that the remains were inundated with water at the time of burial, and this limited the possibility of fluvial transport. Water flow sufficient to displace bodies or complete skeletal evidence would also transport large and course sediment, which is absent from the subsystem, and would sort the commingled skeletal material that we found by size, which we do not observe. But our excavation only covered less than a square meter at very limited depth, and this was the limit to our knowledge of subsurface sediment. We thus were left with uncertainty that led us to suggest the possibility of sediment slumping or movement into subsurface drains, although these were not observed near our excavation. Our current work expands our knowledge of the subsurface and presents an alternative explanation for the disposition of skeletal remains from our earlier excavation. But we acknowledge that this new explanation is vulnerable to our own previous published proposals, and we must do a better job of explaining how the new information addresses our previous suggestions. By not clearly creating a section where we explained how these previous hypotheses were now nullified by new evidence, we clearly confused the reviewers with our own previous work. We will revise the manuscript by enhancing the review of the significant geological evidence demonstrating that there is no significant fluvial action in the system and making it clear how the burial hypothesis provides a clearer explanation for the situation of skeletal remains from our previous excavation work.
One of the central issues raised by reviewers has been a perceived need to excavate these features completely, totally exhuming all skeletal remains from them. Reviewers have written that it is necessary to identify every skeletal element that is present and account for any missing elements. On this point, we have both ethical and scientific differences from these reviewers. We express our ethical concerns first. Many of the best-preserved possible burials ever discovered by archaeologists were subjected to total excavation and exhumation. Cases like La Chapelle-aux-Saints, La Ferrassie, and Skhūl were fully excavated at a time when data recording and excavation methods did not include the range of spatial and geomorphological approaches that later became routine. The judgment of early investigators that these situations were intentional burials was challenged by later workers, and the kind of information that might enable better tests had been irrevocably lost (Gargett 1999; Dibble et al. 2015; Rendu et al. 2014).
Later, improved excavation standards have not sufficed to remove uncertainty or debate about possible burials. For example, it was long presumed that well-preserved remains of young children were by themselves diagnostic of intentional burial, such as those from Dederiyeh, Border Cave, or Roc de Marsal. Such cases were also fully excavated, with adequate documentation of the positioning of skeletal remains and their surrounding stratigraphic situation, but such cases were later challenged on several bases and the complete exhumation of material has confused or precluded testing of new hypotheses (e.g. Gargett 1999). The case of Roc de Marsal is one in which data from the initial excavation combined with data from the initial excavation combined with re-excavation and geoarchaeological analysis led to a naturalistic interpretation of the skeletal material (Sandgathe et al. 2011; Goldberg et al. 2017). But even in this case, the researchers erred in their interpretation of the skeleton’s situation due to a lack of identification of parts of the infant’s skeleton (Gómez-Olivencia and García-Martinez 2019). That is to say, it is not only the burial hypothesis but other hypotheses that suffer from complete excavation. Researchers concerned with preserving all possible information have sometimes taken extraordinary measures to remove and study possible burials at high-resolution in the laboratory. Such was the case of the Shanidar IV burial removed from the site and transported in plaster jacket by Solecki, which led to the disruption and loss of internal stratigraphic information (Pomeroy et al. 2020). Arguably, the current state of the art is full excavation with partial preparation, such as that undertaken at Panga ya Saidi (Martinón-Torres et al. 2021). But again, any future attempt to reinterpret or test the hypothesis of burial must rely on the adequacy of documentation as the original context has been removed.
In our decision to leave material in place as much as possible, we are expanding upon standard practice to leave witness sections and unexcavated areas for future research. The situation is novel, representing possible burials by a nonhuman species, and that makes it doubly important in our opinion to be conservative in not fully exhuming the skeletal material from its context. We anticipate that many other researchers, including future investigators, will suggest additional methods to further test the hypothesis of burial, something that would be impossible if we had excavated the features in their entirety prior to publishing a description of our work. We believe strongly that our ethical responsibility is to publish the work and the most likely interpretation while leaving as much evidence in place as possible to enable further testing and replication. We welcome the suggestions of additional methods/analyses to test the H. naledi burial hypothesis.
This being said, we also observe that total exhumation would not resolve the concerns raised by the reviewers. The recommendation of total exhumation is in pursuit of a full account of all skeletal material present and its preservation and spatial situation, in order to demonstrate that they conform to body positions comparable to human burials. As has been highlighted in forensic casework, the excavation of an inhumation feature does not necessarily provide an accurate spatial or anatomical manifest of the stratigraphical relationships between the body, encapsulating matrix, and any cut present due to preservational, taphonomic and operational factors (Dirkmaat and Cabo, 2016; Hunter, 2014). In particular, in cases where skeletal elements are highly fragmented, friable, or degraded (such as through bioerosion) then complete excavation—even under controlled laboratory conditions—may destroy bone and severely limit skeletal identification (Henderson, 1997; Hochrein, 2002; Owsley and Compton, 1997), particularly in elements where the ratio of trabecular to cortical bone is high (Darwent and Lyman, 2002; Lyman, 1994). As such, non-invasive methods of 3D and 4D modelling (preservation in situ) are often considered preferable to complete necropsy or excavation (preservation by record) where appropriate (Bolliger and Thali, 2009; Dell’Unto and Landeschi, 2022; Randolph-Quinney et al., 2018; Silver, 2016).
The test of burial is not primarily positional, but taphonomic and geological. The position and number of bones can elaborate on process-driven questions of decay and destruction in the burial environment, or post-mortem modification, but are not singularly indicative of whether the remains were intentionally buried – the post-mortem narrative of all the processes affecting the cadaveric island is required (Knüsel and Robb, 2016). In previous cases, researchers have disputed or accepted the hypothesis of intentional hominin burial based upon assumptions about how modern humans or Neandertals would have positioned bodies, with the idea that some positions reflect ritual intent while others do not. But applying such assumptions is unjustifiable, particularly for a species like H. naledi, whose culture may have differed fundamentally from our own. Our work acknowledges that the present evidence does not enable a full reconstruction of the burial positions, but it does show that fleshed remains were encased in sediment prior to decomposition of soft tissue, and that subsequent spatial changes can be most parsimoniously explained by natural decomposition within sedimentary matrix contained within a burial feature (after Green, 2022; Mickleburgh and Wescott, 2018; Mickleburgh et al., 2022). If the argument is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, we feel that the evidence documents excavation and interment (and will do so more clearly in the revision) and the fact of the remains do not match a “typical” human burial in body positioning is not in itself evidence that these are not H. naledi burials.
We feel that the reviewers (in keeping with many palaeoanthropologists) have a clear idea of what they “think” a burial should look like in an idealised sense, but this platonic ideal of burial form is not matched by the extensive literature in archaeothanatology, funerary archaeology and forensic science which indicates enormous variability in the activity, morphology and post-mortem system experienced by the human body in cases of interment and body disposal (e.g. Aspöck, 2008; Boulestin and Duday, 2005 and 2006; Connelly et al., 2005; Channing and Randolph-Quinney, 2006; Cherryson, 2008; Donnelly et al., 1995; Finley, 2000; Hunter, 2014; Parker Pearson, 1999; Randolph-Quinney, 2013). Decades of experience in the identification, recovery and interpretation of clandestine, deviant, and non-formal burials indicates the platonic ideal is rare, and in many contexts, the exception (Cherryson, 2008; Parker Pearson, 1999). This variability is particularly relevant to morphological traits in burial context, such as the informal nature of the grave cut in plan and section, shallow burial depth, and initial disposition of body (placement) during the early post-mortem period. These might run counter to the expectations of reviewers or others referencing the fossil hominin record, but are well accepted within the communities of researchers investigating Holocene archaeological sites and forensic contexts.
It is encouraging to see reviewers beginning to incorporate the extensive (often experimentally derived) literature from archaeothanatology and forensic taphonomy in their deliberations, and we will be taking these comments on board going forward. In particular, we acknowledge reviewers’ comments and the need to construct a more detailed post-mortem narrative, accounting for joint disarticulation (labile versus persistent joints etc), displacement, and final disposition of elements within the burial space. As such we will incorporate the hierarchy of decomposition (rank order disarticulation), associations between regions of anatomical association, areas of disassociation, and the voids produced during decomposition (after Mickleburgh and Wescott, 2018; Mickleburgh et al., 2022) into our narrative. In doing so we acknowledge the tensions between the inductive archaeolothanatological narrative-driven approach (e.g. Duday, 2005 & 2009) versus robust decomposition data derived from human forensic taphonomic experimentation recently articulated by Schotsmans and colleagues (2022) - noting that we will highlight comparative data based on forensic experimental casework and actualistic modelling over inductive intuitive approaches which come with significant evidential shortcomings (Bristow et al. 2011).
Finally, from a taphonomic perspective it is worth pointing out to reviewers that we have already addressed the issue of lack of taphonomic evidence for carnivore involvement in the formation of the Dinaledi assemblage (Dirks, et al., 2016). Absence of any carnivore-induced bone surface modifications, patterns of skeletal part representation, and a total absence of any carnivore remains found within the Dinaledi chamber (following Kuhn and colleagues, 2010) lead us to reject carnivores as possible vectors of body accumulation within the Dinaledi Chamber and Hill Antechamber.
Reviewers suggest that without a date derived from geochronological methods, the engravings cannot be associated with H. naledi, and that it is possible (or probable) that the engravings were done in the recent past by H. sapiens. This suggestion neglects the context of the site. We have previously documented the structure and extremely limited accessibility of the Dinaledi subsystem. This subsystem was not recorded on maps of the documented Rising Star Cave system prior to our work and its discovery by our teams. Furthermore, there is no evidence of prehistoric human activity in the areas of the cave related to possible subterranean entrances There is no evidence that humans in the past typically ventured into such extreme spaces like those of Rising Star. It is clear from the presence of the remains of many individuals that H. naledi ventured into these spaces again and again. It is likely that H. naledi moved through these spaces more easily than humans do based on their physique. We show that the engravings overlay each other suggesting multiple engraving events. These engravings took time and effort and the only evidence for use of the Dinaledi subsystem by any hominin is by H. naledi. The context leads to the null hypothesis that H. naledi made the marks. In our revision, we will elaborate on this argument to clarify the evidence for our stance on this hypothesis. Several reviewers took issue with the title of the engraving paper as we did not insert a qualifier in front of the suggested date range for the engravings. We deliberately left out qualifying language so that the title took the form of a testable hypothesis rather than a weak assertation. Should future work find the engravings were not produced within this time range, then we will restate this hypothesis.
Finally, with regards to the engravings we have chosen to report them because they exist. Not reporting the presence of engraved marks on the walls of a cave above hypothesized burials would be tantamount to leaving relevant evidence out of the description of an archeological context. We recognize and state in our manuscript that these markings require substantial further study, including attempts at geochronological dating. But the current evidence is clearly relevant to the archaeological context of the subsystem. We take a similar stance with reporting the presence of the tool shaped artefact near the hand of the H. naledi skeleton in the Hill Antechamber. It is evident that this object requires further study, as we stated in our manuscript, but again omitting it from our study would be leaving out relevant evidence.
Some have suggested that the null hypothesis should be that all of these observed circumstances are of natural origin. Our team took this approach in our early investigation of the Dinaledi subsystem (Dirks et al. 2015). We adopted the null hypothesis that the geological processes involved in the accumulation of H. naledi skeletal remains were “natural” (e.g., non-naledigenic involvement), and we were able to reject many alternative explanations for the assemblage, including carnivore accumulation, “death trap” accumulation, and fluvial transport of bodies or bones (Dirks et al. 2015). This led us to the hypothesis that H. naledi were involved in bringing the bodies into the spaces where they were found. But we did not hypothesize their involvement in the formation of the deposit itself beyond bringing the bodies to the location.
This approach seems conservative. It followed the traditional view that small-brained hominins do not engage in cultural practices. But we recognize in hindsight that this null hypothesis approach did harm to our analyses. It impeded us from recognizing within our initial excavations of the puzzle box area and other excavations between 2014 – 2017 that we might be encountering remains that were intrusive in the sedimentary floor of the chamber. If we had approached the accumulation of a large number of hominins from the perspective of the null hypothesis being that the situation was likely cultural, we perhaps would have collected evidence in a slightly different manner. We certainly note that if the Dinaledi system had been full of the remains of modern humans, there would have been little doubt that the null hypothesis would have been that this was a cultural space and not a “natural space”. We therefore respectfully disagree with the reviewers who continue to support the idea that we should approach hominin excavations with the null hypothesis that they will be natural (specifically non-cultural) in origins. If excavations continue with this mindset we believe that potential cultural evidence is almost certain to be lost.
There has been a gradient across paleoanthropological excavations, archaeological work, and forensic investigation, with increasing precision of context. The reality is that the recording precision and frame of approach is typically different in most paleontological excavations than in those related to contemporary human remains. If anything comes from the present discussion of whether the Dinaledi system is a burial site for H. naledi or not, we hope that by taking seriously the possibility of deep cultural dynamics of hominins, we will encourage other teams to meet the highest standards of excavation in order to preserve potential cultural evidence. Given H. naledi’s cranial capacity we suggest that even very early hominin skeletal assemblages should be re-examined, if there is sufficient evidence or records available. These would include examples such as the A.L. 333 Au. afarensis site (the so called First Family site in Hadar Ethiopia), the Dikika infant skeleton, WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) and even A.L. 288 (Lucy) as such unusual taphonomic situations where skeletons are preserved cannot be simply explained away as “natural” in origin, based solely on the cranial capacity and assumed lack of cognitive and cultural complexity of the hominins as emphasized by us in Fuentes et al. (2023). We are not the first to observe that some very early hominin situations may represent early mortuary activity (Pettitt 2013), but we would advocate a step further. We suggest it may be damaging to take “natural accumulation” as the standard null hypothesis for hominin paleoanthropology, and that it is more conservative in practice to engage remains with the null hypothesis of possible cultural formation.
We are deeply grateful for the time and effort all of the 8 reviewers (across three reviews) have taken with this work. We also acknowledge the anonymous reviewers from previous submissions who’s opinions and comments will have made the final iterations of these manuscripts better for their efforts. As this process is rather public and includes commentary outside of the eLife forum, we ask that the efforts of all 37 authors and 8 reviewers involved be respected and that the discourse remain professional in all venues as we study this fascinating and quite complex occurrence. We appreciate also the efforts of members of the public who have engaged with this relatively new process where preprints are posted prior to the reviews allowing comments and interactions from colleagues and the public who are normally not part of the internal peer review process. We believe these interactions will make for better final papers. We feel we have met the standards of demonstrating burials in H. naledi and that the engraving are most likely associated with H. naledi. However, given the reviews we see many areas where our clarity and context, and analyses, were less strong than they can be. With the clarifications and additions taken on board through these review processes the final papers will be stronger and clearer. We, recognize that this is an ongoing process of scientific investigation and further work will allow continued, and possibly better, evaluation of these hypothesis and others.
Lee R Berger, Agustín Fuentes, John Hawks, Tebogo Makhubela
Works cited:
Aspöck, E. (2008). What Actually is a ‘Deviant Burial’?: Comparing German-Language and Anglophone Research on ‘Deviant Burials.’ In E. M. Murphy (Ed.). Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp 17–34.
Bolliger, S.A. & Thali, M.J. (2009). Thanatology. In S.A. Bolliger and M.J. Thali (eds) Virtopsy Approach: 3D Optical and Radiological Scanning and Reconstruction in Forensic Medicine. Boca Raton: CRC Press. pp 187-218.
Boulestin, B. & Duday, H. (2005). Ethnologie et archéologie de la mort: de l’illusion des références à l’emploi d’un vocabulaire. In: C. Mordant and G. Depierre (eds) Les Pratiques Funéraires à l’Âge du Bronze en France. Actes de la table ronde de Sens-en-Bourgogne. Paris: Éditions du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques. pp. 17–30.
Boulestin, B. & Duday, H. (2006). Ethnology and archaeology of death: from the illusion of references to the use of a terminology. Archaeologia Polona 44: 149–169.
Bristow, J., Simms, Z. & Randolph-Quinney, P.S. Taphonomy. In S. Black and E. Ferguson (eds.) Forensic Anthropology 2000-2010. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp 279-318.
Channing, J. & Randolph-Quinney, P.S. (2006). Death, decay and reconstruction: the archaeology of Ballykilmore Cemetery, County Westmeath. In J. O’Sullivan and M. Stanley (eds.) Settlement, Industry and Ritual: Archaeology. National Roads Authority Monograph Series No. 3. Dublin: NRA/Four Courts Press. pp 113-126.
Cherryson, A. K. (2008). Normal, Deviant and Atypical: Burial Variation in Late Saxon Wessex, c. AD 700–1100. In E. M. Murphy (Ed.). Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp 115–130.
Connolly, M., F. Coyne & L. G. Lynch (2005). Underworld : Death and Burial in Cloghermore Cave, Co. Kerry. Bray, Co. Wicklow: Wordwell.
Darwent, C. M. & R. L. Lyman (2002). Detecting the postburial fragmentation of carpals, tarsals and phalanges. In M. H. Sorg and W. D. Haglund (eds). Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory and Archeological Perspectives. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press. pp 355-378.
d’Errico, F., & Backwell, L. (2016). Earliest evidence of personal ornaments associated with burial: The Conus shells from Border Cave. Journal of Human Evolution, 93, 91–108.
De Villiers. H. (1973). Human skeletal remains from Border Cave, Ingwavuma District, KwaZulu, South Africa. Annals of the Transvaal Museum, 28(13), 229–246.
Dell’Unto, N. and Landeschi, G. (2022). Archaeological 3D GIS. London: Routledge.
Dibble, H. L., Aldeias, V., Goldberg, P., McPherron, S. P., Sandgathe, D., & Steele, T. E. (2015). A critical look at evidence from La Chapelle-aux-Saints supporting an intentional Neandertal burial. Journal of Archaeological Science, 53, 649–657.
Dirkmaat, D. C., & Cabo, L. L. (2016). Forensic archaeology and forensic taphonomy: basic considerations on how to properly process and interpret the outdoor forensic scene_. Academic Forensic Pathology_ 6, 439–454.
Dirks, P. H., Berger, L. R., Roberts, E. M., Kramers, J. D., Hawks, J., Randolph-Quinney, P. S., Elliott, M., Musiba, C. M., Churchill, S. E., de Ruiter, D. J., Schmid, P., Backwell, L. R., Belyanin, G. A., Boshoff, P., Hunter, K. L., Feuerriegel, E. M., Gurtov, A., Harrison, J. du G., Hunter, R., … Tucker, S. (2015). Geological and taphonomic context for the new hominin species Homo naledi from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa. ELife, 4, e09561.
Dirks, P.H.G.M., Berger, L.R., Hawks, J., Randolph-Quinney, P.S., Backwell, L.R., and Roberts, E.M. (2016). Comment on “Deliberate body disposal by hominins in the Dinaledi Chamber, Cradle of Humankind, South Africa?” [J. Hum. Evol. 96 (2016) 145-148]. Journal of Human Evolution 96: 149-153.
Dirks, P. H., Roberts, E. M., Hilbert-Wolf, H., Kramers, J. D., Hawks, J., Dosseto, A., Duval, M., Elliott, M., Evans, M., Grün, R., Hellstrom, J., Herries, A. I., Joannes-Boyau, R., Makhubela, T. V., Placzek, C. J., Robbins, J., Spandler, C., Wiersma, J., Woodhead, J., & Berger, L. R. (2017). The age of Homo naledi and associated sediments in the Rising Star Cave, South Africa. ELife, 6, e24231.
Donnelly, S., C. Donnelly & E. Murphy (1999). The forgotten dead: The cíllíní and disused burial grounds of Ballintoy, County Antrim. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 58, 109-113.
Duday, H. (2005). L’archéothanatologie ou l’archéologie de la mort. In: O. Dutour, J.-J. Hublin and B. Vandermeersch (eds) Objets et Méthodes en Paléoanthropologie. Paris: Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques. pp. 153–215.
Duday, H. (2009). Archaeology of the Dead: Lectures in Archaeothanatology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Finley, N. (2000). Outside of life: Traditions of infant burial in Ireland from cillin to cist. World Archaeology 31, 407-422.
Gargett, R. H. (1999). Middle Palaeolithic burial is not a dead issue: The view from Qafzeh, Saint-Césaire, Kebara, Amud, and Dederiyeh. Journal of Human Evolution, 37(1), 27–90.
Goldberg, P., Aldeias, V., Dibble, H., McPherron, S., Sandgathe, D., & Turq, A. (2017). Testing the Roc de Marsal Neandertal “Burial” with Geoarchaeology. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 9(6), 1005–1015.
Gómez-Olivencia, A., & García-Martínez, D. (2019). New postcranial remains from the Roc de Marsal Neandertal child. PALEO. Revue d’archéologie Préhistorique, 30–1, 30–1.
Green, E.C. (2022). An archaeothanatological approach to the identification of late Anglo-Saxon burials in wooden containers. In C.J. Knüsel and E.M.J. Schotsmans (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Archaeothanatology. London: Routledge. pp 436-455.
Henderson, J. (1987). Factors determining the state of preservation of human remains. In A. Boddington, A. Garland and R. Janaway (eds). Death, Decay and Reconstruction: Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp 43-54.
Hunter, J. R. (2014). Human remains recovery: archaeological and forensic perspectives. In C. Smith (ed). Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer New York. pp 3549-3556.
Hochrein, M. (2002). An Autopsy of the Grave: Recognizing, Collecting and Preserving Forensic Geotaphonomic Evidence. In M. H. Sorg and W. D. Haglund (eds). Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory and Archeological Perspectives. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press: 45-70.
Knüsel, C.K. & Robb, J. (2016). Funerary taphonomy: An overview of goals and methods. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10, 655-673.
Kuhn, B.F., Berger, L.R. & Skinner, J.D. (2010). Examining criteria for identifying and differentiating fossil faunal assemblages accumulated by hyenas and hominins using extant hyenid accumulations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 20, 15-35.
Lyman, R. (1994). Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Martinón-Torres, M., d’Errico, F., Santos, E., Álvaro Gallo, A., Amano, N., Archer, W., Armitage, S. J., Arsuaga, J. L., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Blinkhorn, J., Crowther, A., Douka, K., Dubernet, S., Faulkner, P., Fernández-Colón, P., Kourampas, N., González García, J., Larreina, D., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., … Petraglia, M. D. (2021). Earliest known human burial in Africa. Nature, 593(7857), 7857.
Mickleburgh, H.L & Wescott, D.J. (2018). Controlled experimental observations on joint disarticulation and bone displacement of a human body in an open pit: implications for funerary archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20: 158-167.
Mickleburgh, H.L., Wescott, D.J., Gluschitz, S. & Klinkenberg, V.M. (2022). Exploring the use of actualistic forensic taphonomy in the study of (forensic) archaeological human burials: An actualistic experimental research programme at the Forensic Anthropology Center at Texas State University (FACTS), San Marcos, Texas. In C.J. Knüsel and E.M.J. Schotsmans (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Archaeothanatology. London: Routledge. pp 542-562.
Owsley, D. & B. Compton (1997). Preservation in late 19th Century iron coffin burials. In W. Haglund and M. Sorg (eds). Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press: 511-526.
Parker Pearson, M. (1999). The Archaeology of Death and Burial. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Pettitt, P. (2013). The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. Routledge.
Pomeroy, E., Bennett, P., Hunt, C. O., Reynolds, T., Farr, L., Frouin, M., Holman, J., Lane, R., French, C., & Barker, G. (2020). New Neanderthal remains associated with the ‘flower burial’ at Shanidar Cave. Antiquity, 94(373), 11–26.
Randolph-Quinney, P.S. (2013). From the cradle to the grave: the bioarchaeology of Clonfad 3 and Ballykilmore 6. In N. Brady, P. Stevens and J. Channing (eds.). Settlement and Community in the Fir Tulach Kingdom. Dublin: National Roads Authority Press. pp A2.1-48.
Randolph-Quinney, P.S., Haines, S. and Kruger, A. (2018). The use of three-dimensional scanning and surface capture methods in recording forensic taphonomic traces: issues of technology, visualisation, and validation. In: W.J. M. Groen and P. M. Barone (eds). Multidisciplinary Approaches to Forensic Archaeology. Berlin: Springer International Publishing, pp. 115-130.
Rendu, W., Beauval, C., Crevecoeur, I., Bayle, P., Balzeau, A., Bismuth, T., Bourguignon, L., Delfour, G., Faivre, J.-P., Lacrampe-Cuyaubère, F., Tavormina, C., Todisco, D., Turq, A., & Maureille, B. (2014). Evidence supporting an intentional Neandertal burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(1), 81–86.
Sandgathe, D. M., Dibble, H. L., Goldberg, P., & McPherron, S. P. (2011). The Roc de Marsal Neandertal child: A reassessment of its status as a deliberate burial. Journal of Human Evolution, 61(3), 243–253.
Silver, M. (2016). Conservation Techniques in Cultural Heritage. In E. Stylianidis and F. Remondino (eds) 3D Recording, Documentation and Management of Cultural Heritage. Dunbeath: Whittles Publishing. pp 15-106.
Schotsmans, E.M.J., Georges-Zimmermann, P., Ueland, M. and Dent, B.B. (2022). From flesh to bone: Building bridges between taphonomy, archaeothanatology and forensic science for a better understanding of mortuary practices. In C.J. Knüsel and E.M.J. Schotsmans (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Archaeothanatology. London: Routledge. pp 501-541.
