446

From the Sunghir Children tothe Romito Dwarf

Aspects of the Upper Paleolithic FuneraryLandscape

Vincenzo Formicola

Department of Biology, University of Pisa, via A. Volta 6,56126 Pisa, Italy (vformicola@biologia.unipi.it). 9 I 07

Because of their number, state of preservation, richness, anddiversity of associated grave goods, burials from the UpperPaleolithic (28,000–10,000 BP) represent an important sourceof information on ideological aspects modeling funerary be-havior of these populations. Analysis of the European recordreveals an intriguing high frequency of multiple burials. Amultiple burial may be unrelated to simultaneous deaths.However, absence of bone and grave goods displacement in-dicates that the interments, if not simultaneous, were not longseparated in time. Moreover, while the most conservative ex-planation for a multiple burial is a natural event such asdisease or an accident, burial composition by age and sexsuggests selective practices. In addition, some of the mostspectacular multiple burials include a severely deformed in-dividual. This is the case of the extraordinarily ornamenteddouble burial of the Sunghir children (Russia), the triple in-terment of Dolnı Vestonice (Moravia), which includes youngindividuals lying in unusual positions, and the adolescentdwarf from Romito Cave (Italy), buried together with awoman under the engraving of a bull. These findings pointto the possibility that human sacrifices were part of the ritualactivity of these populations and provide clues on the com-plexity and symbolism pervading Upper Paleolithic societiesas well as on the perception of “diversity” and its links tomagical-religious beliefs.

The appearance of ceremonial burials is one of the expressionsof the symbolism marking “modern” human behaviour (Har-rold 1980; Mellars 1989; Gamble 1999; Klein 1999). However,formal early Upper Paleolithic burials appear only with theGravettian, around 28,000 BP. Starting with these earliest ex-amples, funerary practices show a combination of aspects thatpoints to the complexity and the intricacy of Upper Paleolithicsocieties. While variety and richness of grave goods and gen-eralized use of red ocher are the most striking and emphasizedarcheological components, analysis of the human remainsthemselves may add important clues to social organizationand conceptions of life and death in those populations.

On the basis of various criteria including age at death, site,

� 2007 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2007/4803-0006$10.00

and ritual of inhumation, Zilhao and Trinkaus (2002) andZilhao (2005) argue that Gravettian preadolescents weretreated differently from adolescents and adults while no dif-ferences are apparent in the burial patterns of the various age-classes during the late Middle Paleolithic. The differentialtreatment based on age, as well as the rarity of female singleinterments (Binant 1991; Riel-Salvatore and Clark 2001),probably reflects differences in social conditions among sex-and age-classes. This underscores the importance of combin-ing biological and archeological evidence to infer ideologicalaspects modelling funerary behaviour. An analysis of theGravettian skeletons from Sunghir (Russia) and Dolnı Ves-tonice (Czech Republic) (Formicola, Pontrandolfi, and Svo-boda 2001; Formicola and Buzhilova 2004) following thisapproach raised intriguing questions regarding two aspects ofthe Upper Paleolithic funerary landscape: the burial treatmentof pathological individuals and the nature of multiple inter-ments. These two issues are addressed here in depth.

The Sunghir double burial is probably the most spectacularand elaborate Upper Paleolithic funerary example. A boy anda girl were placed head to head in a long, narrow, shallowgrave, covered with red ocher and ornamented with extraor-dinarily rich and unique grave goods (fig. 1). These includethousands of perforated ivory beads, which had probably beensewn onto caps and clothing, hundreds of perforated arcticfox canines, ivory pins, disc-shaped pendants, ivory animalcarvings, and, long spears of mammoth tusk, one of them2.40 m long (O. Bader 1970; N. Bader 1998). Interestingly,the ivory beads are about one-third smaller than those dec-orating the adult male from the same site (Sunghir 1) (White1995). This suggests that those beads were manufactured spe-cifically for the children and possibly by very few specialists(Soffer 1985).

Hip bone morphology and DNA analyses (Bruzek and No-votny 1993; Mednikova, Buzhilova, and Kozlowskaya 2000;Poltoraus, Kulikov, and Lebedeva 2000) indicate that the skel-etons belong to a boy (Sunghir 2) and a girl (Sunghir 3) ofabout 11–13 and 9–10 years, respectively. Moreover, the skel-eton of the girl is abnormal, showing marked bilateral short-ening and bowing of the femora. A congenital disease (con-genital bowing of long bones), possibly linked to the diabeticcondition of the mother, is the most likely diagnosis (For-micola and Buzhilova 2004). The absence of perturbation ofbones and grave goods and the direct uncalibrated 14C (AMS)dates on the two skeletons (Sunghir 2, 23, BP, and830 � 220Sunghir 3, 24, BP) (Pettitt and Bader 2000) are100 � 240consistent with the hypothesis of simultaneous inhumation.

As previously pointed out, the emplacement of rich cere-monial burials characterizes the Gravettian period—the timespan between 28,000 and 20,000 BP. Even in that context, therichness of this burial is astonishing and superior to thatexhibited by the most ornamented contemporary skeletons—Sunghir 1 (Bader 1967) and the so-called I1 Principe fromthe Arene Candide cave in Italy (Cardini 1942). On the basis

447

Figure 1. The double child burial from Sunghir (Russia), showing thelong spears and the variety of grave goods. The pathological skeleton(Sunghir 3) is on the right.

of experimental work, White (2003) suggests that each of theivory beads took more than an hour to make. This impliesan enormous amount of work, considering that the orna-mentation of each of the children includes about 5,000 beads(White 1995), not to mention the other ivory objects. Evi-dently the burial was perceived as very important by the Sun-ghir people.

Analysing funerary treatment in modern hunter-gatherersand agriculturalists, Binford (1971) finds differences based onsex and age and, more generally, on the personal qualities ofthe dead. Among those populations, a rich burial is an ex-pression of high status, acquired because of the ability toperform activities important for the survival of the group. Itis hard to imagine this kind of motivation for two children.Moreover, child burials are infrequent during the Gravettian,as is pointed out by Zilhao and Trinkaus (2002) and Zilhao(2005) and shown in table 1. (This table differs from thatreported by these authors because it includes only remainsfrom “formal burials”—excluding isolated or scattered bones,the skeletons from Cussac found on the surface of the deposit[Aujoulat et al. 2002], and the remains from Predmostı [Klıma1991; Oliva 2001; Svoboda 2005a] and from the Cro-Magnonsite [Henry-Gambier 2002], whose burial condition cannotbe ascertained.)

On the basis of labor investment, ritual activity and variety,and number of decorative objects, it has been hypothesizedthat status differentiation existed among early Upper Paleo-lithic people from the Russian Plain (Soffer 1985; White2003). The issue of the level of social complexity reached bythese populations emerges again when looking at the largeGravettian open-air site of Dolnı Vestonice in Moravia. Here,three young individuals, their ages ranging from 16 to 25years (Vlcek 1991; Hillson et al. 2005), were found in a com-mon grave in unusual positions: one face down and anotheron its side with hands reaching the pubic region of the skel-eton in the middle (fig. 2). While there is general agreementthat the individuals on the sides are males, the skeleton in

the middle is difficult to sex because of pelvic deformation.As a result, it has been variably diagnosed as female or male(e.g., Vlcek 1991; Bruzek et al. 2005). The uncalibrated 14Cdate obtained from charcoal associated with the skeletonspoints to an age of BP (Svoboda 1995). Or-26,640 � 110namentation includes pierced carnivore canines, ivory pen-dants, and powdered ocher around the skull. The skeleton inthe middle also has ocher in the pelvic area (Klıma 1987;Svoboda 2005b). On the basis of the size of the Moravianliving sites, technological innovations (e.g., kilns for clay fig-urines), richness of material culture, and elaborate funerarybehavior, Jelınek (1987, 1991) argues that the social organi-zation of those populations was well beyond the band level.

An additional interesting aspect of the triple burial is thepathological condition of the skeleton in the middle. Thisindividual (Dolnı Vestonice 15) shows asymmetric shorteningof the femur, bowing of the femur, humerus, and radius, andelongation of the fibulae, possibly resulting from a rare in-herited disorder (chondrodysplasia calcificans punctata) com-plicated by trauma (Formicola, Pontrandolfi, and Svoboda2001). This diagnosis would imply that this specimen is fe-male, because males do not survive the disorder into adult-hood. Trinkaus et al. (2005) disagree, suggesting an uniden-tifiable systemic dysplasia that leaves the ultimate diagnosisopen.

The combination of a pathological condition apparent sincebirth with a spectacular multiple burial of young individualsrecalls the contemporary child burial of Sunghir. Multipleburials are probably absent in the Middle Paleolithic (May1986; Zilhao and Trinkaus 2002)—the only possible exceptionbeing the burial of Qafzeh 9 and 10 (Vandermeersch 1981)—but become very frequent during the Gravettian (table 1).Interestingly, the only evidence of this practice in the Euro-pean Late Upper Paleolithic is in Italy, where the Gravettiancontinues into the Epigravettian (Bietti 1990; Mussi 2001)(table 2).

Among the five Epigravettian double burials from Italy, the

448C

urrentA

nthropologyV

olum

e48,

Nu

mber

3,Ju

ne

2007

Table 1. Composition of European Gravettian Burials

Specimen

Burial Age Sex

Single Multiple Child Adolescent Adult Male Female Unsexed

Sunghir 1 x – – – x x – –Sunghir 2 and 3 – double S 3 S 2 – S 2 S 3 –Kostenki 2 x – – – x x – –Kostenki 3 x – x – – – – xKostenki 4 x – x – – – – xBrno 2 x – – – x x – –Dolnı Vestonice 3 x – – – x – x –Dolnı Vestonice 13, 14, and 15 – triple – DV 13 DV 14 and 15 DV 13 and 14 x DV 15Dolnı Vestonice 16 x – – – x x – –Pavlov 1 x – – – x x – –Predmostı 27 x – – – x – – xKrems–Wachtberg – double xx – – – – xxGrotta delle Veneri (Parabita) 1 and 2 – double – – xx GV 1 GV 2 –Ostuni (S. Maria di Agnono) 1 x – – – x – x –Ostuni (S. Maria di Agnano) 2 x – – – x – – xPaglicci 12 x – – x – x – –Paglicci 25 x – – – x – x –Arene Candide 1 x – – x – x – –Bausu da Ture 1 x – – – x x – –Bausu da Ture 2 x – – – x x – –Bausu da Ture 3 x – – x – – – xBarma Grande 1 x – – – x x – –Barma Grande 2, 3, and 4 – triple – BG 3 and 4 BG 2 BG 2 BG 3 and 4 –Barma Grande 5 x – – – x x – –Barma Grande 6 x – – – x x – –Caviglione 1 x – – – x – x –Grotte des Enfants 4 x – – – x x – –Grotte des Enfants 5 and 6 – double – GE 6 GE 5 GE 6? GE 5 –Paviland 1 x – – – x x – –Lagar Velho 1 x – x – – – – x

Note: Specimens are listed by geographic location from north-east to south-west and are numbered according to Oakley, Campbell, and Molleson (1971) and, for the Italian remains,Alciati, Pesce Delfino, and Vacca (2005).

449

Figure 2. The triple burial of Dolnı Vestonice (Moravia). Thespecimen in the middle (Dolnı Vestonice 15) is pathological.

Figure 3. The double burial from Romito Cave (Italy). The dwarf(Romito 2) is on the right and appears to be held in the left armof the female individual.

first, found in the Romito Cave (Calabria), deserves particularattention. The burial, dating to BP (uncalibrated11,150 � 15014C date) (Alessio et al. 1966), includes an adolescent thatappears to be held in the left arm of an adult female (fig. 3).The skeletons are lying parallel to a large stone with a beautifulengraving representing a bull (Graziosi 1963; Bachechi andMartini 2002). Romito is one of the few caves in Italy withparietal art, and this and the additional Epigravettian burialsfound there suggest that the site was probably embedded ina ritualistic context. More important, the adolescent skeleton(Romito 2) is abnormal, showing the typical stigmata of dwarf-ism. The diagnosis is that of acromesomelic dwarfism, aninherited autosomal recessive disorder resulting in severegrowth deficiencies, marked bowing of the forearm bones,and frontal bulging, among other changes (Frayer et al. 1987;Frayer, Macchiarelli, and Mussi 1988).

The meaning of the burial of the dwarf has been a matterof debate. Frayer and coworkers (1987) stress that, despitethe physical impairments that would have been a substantialhandicap in nomadic hunting and gathering, the dwarf sur-vived to about 17 years of age and was buried in a selectedcave. For these reasons, they consider this burial an earlyexample of tolerance and care for a severely deformed indi-vidual. Dettwyler (1991) questions this view, which is basedon the attitude towards disabled people in modern societies,and argues that the ethnographic record points to a wide rangeof reactions towards individuals perceived as “different.”These individuals may be feared, hated, or revered. Dettwylerconcludes that we do not know whether this adolescent re-ceived special burial treatment in spite of being a dwarf orprecisely because he was a dwarf.

The latter possibility becomes more tenable when we takethe Sunghir and Dolnı Vestonice cases into account. The threeburials share significant points: all include a pathological in-dividual, all are multiple burials, and all possibly include in-dividuals of different sexes. It could be argued that the skeletalabnormalities exhibited by the Romito dwarf are more severethan those affecting either Sunghir 3 or Dolnı Vestonice 15,weakening the idea of a patterned relationship between anom-alous individuals and extraordinary burial treatment. Thephysical diversity of the latter individuals, however, may havebeen more perceptible than is suggested by skeletal changesalone, given that the hypothesized pathologies are frequentlyassociated with soft-tissue anomalies (Formicola et al. 2001;Formicola and Buzhilova 2004).

Multiple burials raise additional questions. The phenomenonis not restricted to pathological individuals and appears withintriguing frequency in the Gravettian around Europe and theItalian Epigravettian (tables 1 and 2). Additionally, wheneversex can be confidently diagnosed, a multiple burial includesindividuals of different sexes, the only exception being the Ar-ene Candide burial V (Cardini 1980)—in which an adult maleis associated with a child of the same sex as determined byDNA analyses (Tarsi et al. n.d.)—and possibly the triple burialof Dolnı Vestonice, given the uncertainty regarding the sex ofthe pathological skeleton.

A multiple burial is not necessarily the result of a singleevent. Depending on temperature and soil conditions, soft-tissue and ligament decay may take weeks or months (Dudayet al. 1990). Thus the reopening of a burial after a time fora further emplacement would not necessarily disturb the an-

450C

urrentA

nthropologyV

olum

e48,

Nu

mber

3,Ju

ne

2007

Table 2. Composition of Epigravettian Burials from Italy

Specimen

Burial Age Sex

Single Multiple Child Adolescent Adult Male Female Unsexed

Riparo Villabruna 1 x – – – x x – –Riparo Tagliente 1 x – – – x x – –Arene Candide 2 x – – – x x – –Arene Candide 5 and 6 – double AC 6 – AC 5 xx – –Arene Candide 8 x – x – – – – xArene Candide 10 x – – – x x – –Arene Candide 11 x – x – – x – –Arene Candide 13 x – – x – – – xArene Candide 14 and 15 – double AC 15 – AC 14 – – xxArene Candide 16 x – – x – x – –Grotte des Enfants 1 and 2 – double xx – – – – xxGrotte des Enfants 3 x – – – x – x –Vado all’Arancio 1 x – – – x x – –Vado all’Arancio 2 x – x – – – – xRiparo Continenza 7 x – – – x x – –Grotta Maritza 1 x – x – – – – xPaglicci 11 x – – – x x – –Grotta delle Mura 1 x – x – – – – xRomanelli 1 x – – – x x – –Romanelli 2 x – x – – – – xRomanelli 3 x – x – – – – xRomito (Papasidero) 1 and 2 – double – R 2 R 1 R 2? R 1 –Romito (Papasidero) 3 x – – – x x – –Romito (Papasidero) 4 x – – x – x –Romito (Papasidero) 5 and 6 – double – – xx R 6 R 5 –San Teodoro 1 x – – – x – x –San Teodoro 2 x – – – x – – xSan Teodoro 3 x – – – x – – xSan Teodoro 4 x – – – x – x –

Note: Specimens are listed by geographic location from north to south and are numbered according to Alciati, Pesce Delfino, and Vacca (2005).

451

atomical connections of the individual buried first. In thiscase, however, the associated grave goods may be disturbed.This scenario has been invoked to explain the position of afew elements ornamenting the head of the adolescent (G.d.E.6) of the Gravettian double burial from Grotte des Enfants(Grimaldi, Italy) (Cartailhac 1912), even though displace-ments by animal activity provide a valid alternative expla-nation. In the case of the Sunghir children, the rich andvarious undisturbed ornamentation and in particular the longspears running parallel to the two skeletons strongly suggestsimultaneous inhumation.

The enormous amount of time required to prepare all thoseivory objects and the possibility that ivory beads were madespecifically for the two children by a few specialists wouldimply that those grave goods were ready when the two chil-dren died, which in turn leads one to wonder whether thisceremony was foreseen long in advance. Clearly, the mostparsimonious explanation for the simultaneous death of twoor three individuals is an epidemic disease or an accident.However, considering the frequency of multiple burials, thenumber of young individuals, and the generally different sexesof the members of the common graves, it is legitimate to askwhether sacrificial practices could offer an explanation in ad-dition to natural causes and nonsimultaneous interments(Frayer 1997; Jelınek 1989; Buzhilova 2000).

Elaborate burials, selected individuals, rich ornamentation,and site of inhumation continue to raise questions about theideas shaping Upper Paleolithic funerary practices and stim-ulate reflections about social organization, conceptions of lifeand death, and the perception of diversity and its links tomagical-religious beliefs. The archeology of death is a processmade up of discovery, description, analysis, and interpretation(Pearson 2003), but the archeological traces left by funeraryrituals in such a distant past are poor indicators of the ideasand gestures that lay behind them. As Jurmain, Kilgore, andTrevathan (2005, 326) have put it, “behavior does not fos-silize.” Accordingly, the questions raised here remain open,but the recurring evidence from which they arise points oncemore to the complexity and importance of ritual activity andsymbolism in Upper Paleolithic societies (Mellars 1985;Mussi, Cinq-Mars, and Bolduc 2000; White 2003).

Acknowledgments

Presenting the results of this study in a symposium organizedin Rome provided the opportunity to see Amilcare Bietti forthe last time and to appreciate once again his vivid, broadmind and the constructive contribution he made to the dis-cussion. This work is dedicated to him.

I am indebted to John Hoffecker for information about thechronology of the Kostenki remains and to Nicolai Bader, JirıSvoboda, and Fabio Martini for permission to publish thephotographs of Sunghir, Dolnı Vestonice, and Romito burials,respectively. I thank William Carlton for technical support inthe preparation of the figures. This paper benefited from com-

ments by reviewers and discussion with colleagues. Amongthese, I am particularly grateful to Patrizia Garibaldi for shar-ing with me her stimulating ideas. This project was supportedby the Institute for Bioarcheology.

References Cited

Alciati, Giancarlo, Vittorio Pesce Delfino, and Eligio Vacca.2005. Catalogue of Italian fossil human remains from thePalaeolithic to the Mesolithic. Journal of AnthropologicalSciences (Rivista di Antropologia), suppl. 84.

Alessio, M., F. Bella, F. Bachechi, and C. Cortesi. l967. Uni-versity of Rome carbon-14 dates. Radiocarbon 9:346–67.

Aujoulat, Norbert, Jean-Michel Geneste, Christian Archam-beau, Marc Delluc, Henry Duday, and Dominique Henry-Gambier. 2002. La grotte ornee de Cussac, Le Buisson-de-Cadouin (Dordogne): Premieres observations. Bulletin dela Societe Prehistorique Francaise 99:129–53.

Bachechi, Luca, and Fabio Martini. 2002. Le sepulture. InGrotta del Romito, ed. F. Martini, 29–36. Firenze: Museo eIstituto Fiorentino di Preistoria.

Bader, Nicolai O. 1998. Upper Palaeolithic site Sungir (gravesand environment) (in Russian). Moscow: Scientific World.

Bader, Otto N. 1967. Eine ungewohnliche palaolitische Be-stattung in Mittelrussland. Quartar 18:191–93.

———. 1970. Das zweite Grab in der palaolitischen SiedlungSunghir im mittleren Russland. Quartar 21:103–4.

Bietti, Amilcare. 1990. The Late Upper Paleolithic in Italy: Anoverview. Journal of World Prehistory 4:95–155.

Binant, Pascale. 1991. La prehistoire de la mort: Les premieressepultures en Europe. Paris: Editions Errance.

Binford, Lewis R. 1971. Mortuary practices: Their study andtheir potential. In Approach to the social dimensions of mor-tuary practices, ed. J. Brown, 6–29. Memoirs of the Societyfor American Archeology 25.

Bruzek, Jaroslav, and Vladimir Novotny. 1993. Diagnosticauxologique de l’os coxal des enfants de Sungir 2 et 3(Paleolithique superieur, Russie). Bulletin et Memoires dela Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris 5:151–58.

Bruzek, Jaroslav, Robert G. Franciscus, Vladimir Novotny,and Erik Trinkaus. 2005. The assessment of sex. In Earlymodern human evolution in Central Europe: The people ofDolnı Vestonice and Pavlov, ed. E. Trinkaus and J. Svoboda,46–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buzhilova, Alexandra P. 2000. Pair and odd burials in UpperPalaeolithic: Selective criteria of the buried. In Homo sun-girensis, Upper Palaeolithic man: Ecological and evolutionaryaspects of the investigation, ed. T. I. Alexeeva and N. O.Bader, 441–48. Moscow: Scientific World.

Cardini, Luigi. 1942. Nuovi documenti sull’antichitadell’uomo in Italia: Reperto umano del Paleolitico super-iore nella Grotta delle Arene Candide. Razza e Civilta 3:5–25.

———. 1980. La necropoli mesolitica delle Arene Candide

452 Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 3, June 2007

(Liguria). Memorie dell’ Istituto Italiano di PaleontologiaUmana, n.s., 3:7–31.

Cartailhac, Emile. 1912. Les grottes de Grimaldi: Archeologie.Monaco: Imprimerie de Monaco.

Dettwyler, Katherine A. 1991. Can paleopathology provideevidence for “compassion”? American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology 84:375–84.

Duday, Henry, Patrice Courtaud, Eric Crubezy, Pascal Sellier,and Anne-Marie Tillier. 1990. L’anthropologie “de terrain”:Reconnaissance et interpretation des gestes funeraires. Bul-letin et Memoires de la Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris 2:29–50.

Formicola, Vincenzo, and Alexandra P. Buzhilova. 2004. Dou-ble child burial from Sunghir (Russia): Pathology and in-ferences for Upper Paleolithic funerary practices. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 124:189–98.

Formicola, Vincenzo, Antonella Pontrandolfi, and Jirı Svo-boda. 2001. The Upper Paleolithic triple burial of DolnıVestonice: Pathology and funerary behavior. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 115:372–79.

Frayer, David W. 1997. Ofnet: Evidence of a Mesolithic mas-sacre. In Troubled times: Violence and warfare in the past,ed. D. M. Martin and D. W. Frayer, 181–216. Amsterdam:Gordon and Breach.

Frayer, David W., William A. Horton, Roberto Macchiarelli,and Margherita Mussi. 1987. Dwarfism in an adolescentfrom the Italian late Upper Palaeolithic. Nature 330:60–62.

Frayer, David W., Roberto Macchiarelli, and MargheritaMussi. 1988. A case of chondrodystrophic dwarfism in theItalian Late Upper Paleolithic. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology 75:549–165.

Gamble, Clive. 1999. The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Graziosi, Paolo. 1963. Papasidero (Prov. Cosenza). Rivista diScienze Preistoriche 18:315.

Harrold, Francis B. 1980. A comparative analysis of EurasianPalaeolithic burials. World Archaeology 12:195–211.

Henry-Gambier, Dominique. 2002. Les fossiles de Cro-Mag-non (Les Eyzies de Tayac, Dordogne): Nouvelles donneessur leur position chronologique et leur attribution cultu-relle. Bulletin et Memoires de la Societe d’Anthropologie deParis 14:89–112.

Hillson, Simon W., Robert G. Franciscus, Trenton W. Hol-liday, and Erik Trinkaus. 2005. The ages at death. In Earlymodern human evolution in Central Europe: The people ofDolnı Vestonice and Pavlov, ed. E. Trinkaus and J. Svoboda,31–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jelınek, Jan. 1987. New Upper Palaeolithic human remainsin Dolnı Vestonice, Czechoslovakia. Rivista di Antropologia65:420–22.

———. 1989. Upper Paleolithic Gravettian population inMoravia. In Hominidae, ed. G. Giacobini, 443–48. Milano:Jaca Book.

———. 1991. Decouvertes d’ossements de la populationgravettienne de Moravie. L’Anthropologie 95:137–54.

Jurmain, Robert, Lynn Kilgore, and Wenda Trevathan. 2005.Introduction to physical anthropology. Toronto: ThomsonWadsworth.

Klein, Richard. 1999. The human career: Human biologicaland cultural origins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Klıma, Bohuslav. 1987. Une triple sepulture du Pavlovien aDolnı Vestonice, Tchecoslovaquie. L’Anthropologie 91:329–34.

———. 1991. Das palaolitische Massengrab von Predmostı:Versuch einer Rekonstruction. Quartar 41/42:187–94.

May, Fabienne. 1986. Les sepultures prehistoriques. Paris: Edi-tions du CNRS.

Mednikova, Maria B., Alexandra P. Buzhilova, and Maria V.Kozlowskaya. 2000. Sunghir 2 and Sunghir 3: Age and sexestimation from morphological criteria of skeletal system.In Homo sungirensis, Upper Palaeolithic man: Ecological andevolutionary aspects of the investigation, ed. T. I. Alexeevaand N. O. Bader, 57–60. Moscow: Scientific World.

Mellars, Paul. 1985. The ecological basis of social complexityin the Upper Paleolithic of Southwestern France. In Pre-historic hunter-gatherers: The emergence of cultural com-plexity, ed. T. D. Price and J. A. Brown, 271–97. San Diego:Academic Press.

———. 1989. Major issues in the emergence of modern hu-mans. Current Anthropology 30:349–85.

Mussi, Margherita. 2001. Earliest Italy: An overview of theItalian Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. New York: KluverAcademic/Plenum Publishers.

Mussi, Margherita, Jacques Cinq-Mars, and Pierre Bolduc.2000. Echoes from the mammoth steppe: The case of theBalzi Rossi. In Hunters of the Golden Age: The Mid-UpperPalaeolithic of Eurasia (30,000–20,000 BP), ed. W. Roe-broeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda, and K. Fennema, 105–24.Leiden: University of Leiden Press.

Oakley, Kenneth P., Bernard G. Campbell, and Theya I. Mol-leson. 1971. Catalogue of fossil hominids. London: BritishMuseum (Natural History).

Oliva, Martin. 2001. Les pratiques funeraires dans le Pavlovienmorave: Revision critique. Prehistoire Europeenne 16-17:191–214.

Pearson, Mike P. 2003. The archaeology of death and burial.Phoenix Mill: Sutton.

Pettit, Paul B., and Nicolai O. Bader. Direct radiocarbon datesfor the Sunghir mid Upper Palaeolithic burials. Antiquity74:269–70.

Poltoraus, A. B., E. E. Kulikov, and I. A. Lebedeva. 2000. Themolecular analysis of DNA from the remains of three in-dividuals from the Sunghir site: Preliminary data. In Homosungirensis, Upper Palaeolithic man: Ecological and evolu-tionary aspects of the investigation, ed. T. I. Alexeeva andN. O. Bader, 302–14. Moscow: Scientific World.

Riel-Salvatore, Julien, and Geoffrey A. Clark. 2001. Gravemarkers: Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic burials and

453

the use of chronotypology in contemporary Paleolithic re-search. Current Anthropology 42:449–79.

Soffer, Olga. 1985. Patterns of intensification as seen from theUpper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. In Prehis-toric hunter-gatherers: The emergence of cultural complexity,ed. T. D. Price and J. A. Brown, 245–70. San Diego: Ac-ademic Press.

Svoboda, Jirı. 1995. L’art gravettien en Moravie: Contexte,dates et styles. L’Anthropologie 99:258–72.

———. 2005a. Predmostı: The context of paleoanthropolog-ical discoveries (in Czech). Prehled Vyzkumu 46:63–91.

———. 2005b. The burials: Ritual and taphonomy. In Earlymodern human evolution in Central Europe: The people ofDolnı Vestonice and Pavlov, ed. E. Trinkaus and J. Svoboda,15–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tarsi, T., F. Noto, C. Martinez-Labarga, R. Giampaolo, C.Babalini, G. Scano, I. Contini, J. A. Lorente, M. Lorente,E. Pacciani, M. Silvestrini, A. Del Lucchese, R. Maggi, E.Lattanzi, V. Formicola, F. Mallegni, F. Martini, and O. Rick-ards. n.d. Ricostruzione della storia genetica per via ma-terna delle comunita paleolitiche del Balzi Rossi, delle AreneCandide e del Romito e di quelle neolitiche di Fontenocedi Recanati e di Samari. Origines: Progetti 3. In press.

Trinkaus, Erik, Simon W. Hillson, Robert G. Franciscus, andTrenton W. Holliday. 2005. Skeletal and dental paleopa-thology. In Early modern human evolution in Central Eu-

rope: The people of Dolnı Vestonice and Pavlov, ed. E. Trin-kaus and J. Svoboda, 419–58. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Vandermeersch, Bernard. 1981. Les hommes fossiles de Qafzeh(Israel). Paris: Editions du CNRS.

Vlcek, Emanuel. 1991. Die Mammuthjager von Dolnı Ves-tonice. Archaologie und Museum 22:1–136.

White, Randall. 1995. Ivory personal ornaments of Aurig-nacian age: Technological, social, and symbolic perspec-tives. In Le travail et l’usage de l’ivoire au Paleolithiquesuperieur, ed. J. Hahn et al., 29–62. Roma: Istituto Poli-grafico e Zecca dello Stato.

———. 2003. Prehistoric art: The symbolic journey of hu-mankind. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

Zilhao, Joao. 2005. Burial evidence for the social differenti-ation of age classes in the early Upper Paleolithic. In Com-portement des hommes du Paleolithique moyen et superieuren Europe: Territoires et milieux, ed. D. Vialou, J. Renault-Miskowsky, and M. Patou-Mathis, 231–41. Etudes et Re-cherches Archeologiques de l’Universite de Liege 111.

Zilhao, Joao, and Erik Trinkaus. 2002. Social implications. InPortrait of the artist as a child: The Gravettian human skel-eton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its archeologicalcontext, ed. J. Zilhao and E. Trinkaus, 519–41. Trabalhosde Arqueologia 22.