Parameters of Animal Mortuary Behavior

From The Observatory
The Observatory » Area » Human Bridges
By Cherene de Bruyn
Source: Human Bridges Project

A survey of the parameters of post-mortuary practices recorded from animal behavior, the human archaeological record from the Lower Pleistocene to the Iron Age, and ethnographic/ethological research.

This article was produced by Human Bridges.
“Parameters of Animal Mortuary Behavior” by Cherene de Bruyn is licensed by the Observatory under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). For permissions requests beyond the scope of this license, please see Observatory.wiki’s Reuse and Reprint Rights guidance.Published: December 11, 2025 Last edited: December 12, 2025
Send us a note about this articleDonate to the Observatory
BY
Cherene de Bruyn
Cherene de Bruyn is a South African–born archaeologist investigating the location of clandestine graves using forensic ecology and remote sensing approaches.
SOURCE

Introduction

What does taking care of a deceased body mean? How does this simple act, which, as it turns out, is quite a complex reaction, reflect the social and emotional values of a community? And is this behavior only observed in humans?

Research focusing on mortuary behavior presently and in the past suggests that its meaning is more nuanced than previously thought. It would seem that across species and time, this behavior has been a response to death, which is entangled with emotional and social meaning. And even more surprisingly, it may not be uniquely human or even symbolic.

There is a distinction between mortuary activity—the treatment or disposal of a corpse- and funerary activity—which involves ritualized commemoration. While funerary activity appears to require symbolic thought connected to the cognitive abilities of anatomically modern humans, mortuary activity does not. Interest in the mortuary behavior of past societies has captivated archaeologists, who interpret it through material culture.

Mortuary practices are a time and resource-intensive process, requiring the expenditure of valuable energy, as well as more than one member of a group to dig/prepare the burial site and carry the corpse.[1] At its most basic level, mortuary activity is not entirely a human-specific behavior. The fossil record and the animal kingdom are encumbered with evidence suggesting mortuary activity is present among many types of organisms that live in societies. When it is observed in the animal kingdom, mortuary practices demonstrate the architecture of investment in cohabitation, with motives ranging from hygiene to emotions supported by embedded memories and social bonds.

The treatment of the dead and the disposal of their body is not universal. The disposal of remains of a conspecific through burial reflects only one way that humans invented to take care of the dead in the past. Mortuary activity takes on many forms depending on the species, culture, geographic region, and time period. Evidence from the archaeological record and the animal kingdom suggests that a community’s social bonds and responses to death are an important raison d’être of mortuary activity. Reactions to death, such as guarding the corpse or showing signs of grief, seem to suggest a deeper emotional awareness than previously thought in animals. Responses toward death in animals reflect capacities for cognitive-emotional intelligence, particularly in species capable of social bonding, memory, and environmental awareness. The knowledge of how human societies and animals respond to death and loss provides the foundation for interpreting possible acts of mortuary behavior encapsulated in the fossil record.

This article will explore how certain prehistoric sites exhibit features consistent with mortuary behavior, and how comparative evidence from animal and primate behavior can help refine our interpretive criteria for intentional burial.

Evidence From the Animal Kingdom

Mortuary Behavior in Non-Primate Animals

This raises the question of whether animals experience emotion or feel grief. Is their experience of grief comparable, in any way, to human experience? Especially considering that grief at the loss of a family member or friend is typically a behavior that has mainly been associated only with humans. Questions regarding whether animals can express emotion have intrigued anthropologists, zoologists, and primatologists. The ability to not only express but also understand emotion has been a characteristic ascribed to humans, attributed to our cognitive intelligence. However, research is now indicating that other animals are capable of the same emotional understanding, even in response to death.

An increase in reported discoveries since the early 2000s has opened the door to the possibility that pods, troops, and herds within the mammalian kingdom mourn the loss of members of their community. While definitions of mortuary activity often hinge on cognitive (understanding and awareness of death) and emotional (feelings of grief or mourning) thresholds, a closer look at non-primate species reveals a diverse array of death-related behaviors. This challenges our assumptions about intention and social meaning, which can be found beyond human experience.

When animals first encounter a dead conspecific, their interaction may be driven by curiosity or serve a functional purpose. Among birds, corvids exhibit investigative behaviors around dead conspecifics, suggesting both curiosity and environmental threat assessment, rather than mourning. Upon the discovery of a dead conspecific, corvids (raven and jays), for example, will start calling, leading to other members showing up at the scene. The large aggregation around the corpse, while simulating mourning behavior, could be due to curiosity and to assess the dangers in an area.[2] [3]

Upon discovering a dead conspecific, the behavior of individuals in insect communities reflects strategies to deal with the dead, with the intention to protect the hive or colony against disease.[4] For instance, invertebrates like bees[5], wasps [6], termites[7], and ants[8] engage in necrophoresis. This includes the management of the corpse by removing the dead (undertaking). Insects respond to death through chemical cues, triggering corpse removal behaviors that serve hygienic rather than emotional or symbolic functions. The behavior toward corpses is in response to the release of specific fatty acids after death (“fatty acid death cue”).[9] When an organism dies, fatty acids, such as oleic acid, are released as cell membranes break down. Viewed as a “death pheromone,” it triggers behavior including the removal of the dead and any associated bacteria from the nest or hive as a defense mechanism to avoid the spread of disease.[10] [11]

As part of this behavior, termites relocate and bury dead members.[12] In some cases, fresh corpses in termite colonies are also cannibalized.[13] In insect colonies, the behavior toward a corpse seems to be regulated by potential health-related hazards and the shared interest to preserve the safety and health of the colony, instead of being driven by emotion or meaning.

Unlike insects and birds, some vertebrates show responses that suggest emotional complexity along with social entanglements, reflected through behavior such as corpse touching, vigil holding, grooming of corpses, protection from scavengers, and apparent expressions of “grief.” Mammals, including elephants, dolphins, whales, and leopards, have been observed displaying behaviors that indicate mourning and some awareness of death of a group member. This mourning type of behavior includes prolonged interaction with the corpse, especially among socially bonded animals. Social bonding in animals refers to an enduring and cooperative relationship often observed between females and infants within a conspecific community. One hypothesis suggests that strong maternal bonds may persist even after death, which might be a factor contributing to mortuary behavior.

Among sea mammals, like dolphins and whales, these bonds persist for a period after the death of a calf. For instance, dolphins have been observed surrounding the dead calf’s body in the Canary Islands. The mother of the dolphin calf was in the group and stayed near the calf. The dolphins remained by the corpse for a few days, warding off any scavengers or intruders who came near the body.[14] Similar behavior has been observed at Onega Bay of the White Sea, Russia, where a beluga whale mother carried her dead calf for nearly a full week.[15] In 2018 and in 2025, a female orca was recorded carrying her dead calf for days.[16] [17] This behavior requires immense amounts of energy for a mother to keep her calf afloat. The mothers behave this way at the expense of their own energy and safety. It should be noted that in no way is this behavior necessary or detrimental to the survival of the species. So what deep-seated reason do these mammals have to engage in this type of mortuary activity? The answer might be that it reflects a deep emotional entanglement and bond, the loss of which is felt at death.

Back on land, similar unusual behavior has been observed, where a leopard mother lingered near her cub’s body, which she had placed in the top branches of a tree. As she continued to observe the body from a distance, she made low whimpering sounds. Interestingly, when scavengers came too close to the cub’s body, the mother moved it to an area that was less accessible and visible to scavengers.[18] This could possibly be interpreted as a form of structured abandonment. It is difficult to discern whether the mother was acting out of instinct to protect her cub or whether she had an awareness of its death.

A more emotionally layered response to death has also been observed among communities of the largest land mammal, elephants. They are widely recognized for their social bonds, in part due to their long gestation periods and the matriarchal structure of their herds. In species with strong social structures, death can elicit collective responses such as herd gathering, vocalization, or altered movement patterns around the corpse. In the Kariega Game Reserve, South Africa, a female elephant has been filmed carrying the corpse of her stillborn calf for two days, showing it to the elephant herd and the tourists. The mother carried her lifeless calf with her trunk, unwilling to let go.[19] In northern Bengal, India, in five studied examples, elephants have been observed taking part in a mortuary activity after the death of a calf.[20] In these examples, following death, the calf’s corpse was carried or dragged by its mother for several hours or days until a suitable spot for “burial” was found. At the identified “burial” site, usually a natural opening in the ground (like an erosion gully or drain), the females worked together to partially bury the calf’s body, with the body being positioned feet upward in all cases. Additionally, the elephants were reported to make trumpeting noises and stamping their feet, as if they were holding a vigil. Scientists who authored the study also recorded that the elephants tended to avoid returning to those burial places during their movement afterward.

This potentially shows that the memory of loss, and by extension an awareness of death, is no longer a claim humans can hold onto.

The behavior of mothers and the group, from the above mammalian examples, suggests that animals may recognize death and feel the loss of a conspecific member. The prolonged attention to the dead offspring may also reflect deep relationships that form between mother and infant. Additionally, observation of the dead by other conspecifics could function as a means for the herd to recognize the loss of one of its members. The mortuary activity observed in animals possibly suggests a shared impulse to mark loss within a community, complicating the boundary between instinct and emotion.

Mortuary Behavior in Primates and Apes

Due to the phylogenetic closeness between humans and other primates (our shared evolutionary ancestry), it is hypothesized that mortuary behaviors observed in living primates can provide insights into the interpretation of the fossil record of hominins. This has been one of the main focuses of comparative primatology and thanatology. These fields examine how primates and apes behave and interact in different circumstances, including responses to death, as well as noting any similarities and differences across primate and ape species.[21] [22] The 1972 article in the Sunday Times by Dr. Jane Goodall about the death of the chimpanzee Flo, as well as her grieving son Flint, leaves little question regarding primates and apes’ ability to understand death and feel grief. The body of knowledge regarding the behavior of primates and apes is growing due to the availability of field observations. Nonetheless, a review of primate thanatology suggests that mortuary behaviors emerge more strongly in contexts of traumatic or unexpected death, where group members display engagement with the body.[23]

Several patterns of behavior related to mortuary activity have been observed in primates and apes such as capuchin monkeys,[24] chimpanzees, Sichuan monkeys,[25] wild vervet monkeys,[26] and gorillas. As seen in non-primates, social bonding appears to influence mortuary responses. It is possible that mortuary behavior among primates, such as grooming or corpse carrying, could be a method of dealing with death and maintaining social cohesion.[27]

The prolonged carrying of dead infants, sometimes for days or weeks, among primates, is one of the most striking mortuary behaviors, potentially indicating strong maternal attachment. Additional behavior such as inspecting, grooming, or guarding of corpses also suggests a form of social or emotional engagement with the dead.[28] This type of behavior has been frequently observed in chimpanzee mothers, who carry the corpse of their dead young for days after death, spending time interacting with the corpse. Several cases of this specific behavior have been documented in the Budongo Forest, Uganda.[29]

Another example of this mortuary behavior comes from West Africa, recorded in 1992 when a researcher was able to capture this behavior on videotape. After the unexpected death of a two-and-a-half-year-old infant chimpanzee, named Jokro, at Bossou, Guinea, its mother, Jire (35 years old), carried the infant’s mummified remains for 27 days.[30] Through this period, Jire kept Jokro’s remains close, only allowing certain members of the group to touch or inspect it.[31] It would seem that this type of mortuary behavior appears to be universal among chimpanzees regardless of geographic location. This might suggest that it is an inherent reaction to death and loss rather than behavior that is learned or mimicked.

In 2003, two instances of similar mortuary behavior were once again documented in Bossou, where mothers were carrying the remains of their deceased.[32] Coincidentally, one of the mothers was Jire. In both cases, the behavior of the mothers was similar to that documented in 1992. It was also observed in these later cases that some members of the group were allowed to touch, groom, smell, and inspect the remains. In contrast, different behavior, more akin to the act of cannibalism toward dead conspecifics, has been observed in chimpanzee groups in Tanzania and Kenya.[33] [34]

Among the great apes, infant corpse grooming and carrying have also been observed in Gorillas.[35] Like taking care of the infant in life, mothers groom the corpse even in death. As the infant corpse inevitably decomposes, skin and hair are sometimes intentionally removed during grooming, which is eaten (partial cannibalism). At some point, however, the infant corpse is abandoned by the mother and the group.[36]

Mortuary activity observed among primates and apes reveals emotional responses and elementary cognitive awareness of death. Responses to dead conspecifics by the mother and other members include behavior such as grooming and touching to test whether animacy is detected. In all the above examples, however, regardless of the mother's attachment, the final step is the eventual abandonment of the corpse.

It is hard to argue against the curiosity and deep emotion expressed at the death of an infant, reflected in the mortuary behavior observed in mammals, apes, and primates. However, this behavior, despite its emotional complexity, lacks the symbolic depth or ritual continuity that characterizes human burial.

Caption: Chart indicating the characteristics of recorded mortuary behavior by animals.


Mortuary Activity in the Fossil Record

Evidence of mortuary activity in the fossil record is observed through the scars and signatures left behind as a result of the physical act of burying and depositing a body in the subsurface. Remnants of the burial activity, such as the grave pit, are better preserved and are visible through differences in soil color and composition, artifacts (such as grave goods), and the skeletal remains. This makes burial activity easier to identify compared to other disposal strategies and actions of intentional postmortem body treatment.

While evidence of burial is more commonly preserved and as such excavated, it does not necessarily mean that other methods of treating the dead did not exist. It could be that evidence of other mortuary activities did not leave any physical traces behind. Or that archaeologists and paleoanthropologists might not yet have found evidence that is conclusive enough to suggest other forms of mortuary activity existed. Considering this, it has been suggested that the caching of bodies in, for instance, natural fissures, gaps, or unmodified caves could have been undertaken as a precursor to internment. Sima de los Huesos, Spain, dating to approximately 400,000–500,000 years ago, provides intriguing evidence for collective mortuary behavior by Homo heidelbergensis. The placement and positioning of the bodies of 28 individuals indicate intentional disposal through funerary caching, rather than accumulation through natural forces (water or scavenger activity).[37] [38] [39]

The earliest examples of intentional disposal of dead conspecifics date to the Middle Paleolithic in Europe. To distinguish intentional burial from natural deposition, archaeologists have relied on a set of criteria that aids in interpreting the position and placement of remains and evaluating any taphonomic processes that could have shaped their final deposition. Yet even with a set of criteria for analyzing a site, especially if it has been disturbed, the line between intentional burial and natural processes modifying remains can be blurred. Additionally, until the mid-2020s, symbolism embedded in mortuary activity was the main characteristic that separated anatomically modern humans (Homo Sapiens) and Neanderthals from other hominins.

Case in point is the Rising Star Cave, South Africa, associated with Homo naledi dating to around 300,000 years ago.[40] [41] [42] [43] The contested site is central to the debate over intentional burial, especially about the spatial distribution of the remains in the deep chamber and the absence of grave goods and skeletal articulation. If the evidence is accepted, it would mean that Homo naledi predates the earliest widely accepted Homo sapien burials found in the Levant (Qafzeh and Skhul dating to around 120 000–100 000 years ago), and in Kenya (child burial “Mtoto” from Panga ya Saidi dating to about 78 000 years ago). While the topic of intentional burial is still debated among academics, it is possible that what has been excavated in the cave is evidence of funerary caching by the small-brained hominins.

Species within the genus Homo, as far as archaeological evidence suggests, This article will explore how certain prehistoric sites exhibit features consistent with mortuary behavior, and how comparative evidence from animal and primate behavior can help refine our interpretive criteria for intentional burial.

Species within the genus Homo, as far as archaeological evidence suggests, are the only group that not only used funerary caching but also went further to practice the mortuary activity of intentional burial. Evidence of this has been found across Middle Paleolithic sites in Eurasia, including Amud, Tabun, and Kebara caves in Israel, Dederiyeh Cave in Syria, and Shanidar Cave in Iraq, .[44] associated with Neanderthal populations share several features that are cited as evidence for intentional burial, including complete or partial articulation of individuals’ remains, burial pit features, and, in some cases, the presence of burial goods.[45] [46] These features together seem to suggest that after the death of the deceased, group members buried their remains intentionally and rapidly, contributing to in situ preservation, which refutes the idea of deposition by natural elements or scavengers.

With the development of advanced technologies and a better understanding of taphonomic processes, site assemblages associated with intentional burials are being reanalyzed and reinterpreted. Sites identified previously as containing intentional burials (such as La Chapelle-aux-Saints and Roc de Marsal (France), and Krapina, (Croatia) are being reinterpreted due to taphonomic processes suggesting animal activity or geological processes. It is suspected that these natural processes modified the remains. Meaning these individuals either died accidentally at these sites and their remains were washed or naturally moved to their final resting place, or that the remains were carried to deposition sites by scavengers. As such, these processes indicate that they were not intentionally buried.[47] [48] [49] [50] This includes reinterpreting sites with no primary burials as sites where the deceased were processed through defleshing and cannibalism. Modifications of the deceased body through cannibalism have also been reported at Neanderthal sites such as El Sidrón (Spain), Krapina (Croatia), and Moula-Guercy (France).[51]

Several intentional Homo sapien burial sites have been excavated at Skhul Cave, Qafzeh Cave and Tinshemet Cave in Israel. What is interesting at these sites is the classification of intentional burial based on the articulated nature (or partial in some cases) of the remains, fetal positioning of the deceased prior to burial, as well as the artifacts found inside the graves (ochre, fauna, and stone tools).[52] Other feature of interest is the evidence that suggests the coexistence of early modern humans and Neanderthals in this area during this period.[53] [54] The emergence of symbolic funerary practices by Homo Sapiens becomes strikingly clear in the Upper Paleolithic. Sites such as Ostuni Papasidero Calabria and Barma Grande (Italy), Krems-Wachtberg (Austria), and Dolní Věstonice (Czech Republic) include fetuses or infants interred with grave goods, simultaneous multiple burials, ochre application, and personal adornments.[55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] The inclusion of grave goods signals clear meaning and memory that distinguish anatomically modern human mortuary traditions from their hominid predecessors

Caption: Table collating mortuary behavior observed in the fossil record

Species Country/Region Dates MNI Conditions Grave Goods
H. heidelbergensis[62] [63] [64] [65] Atapuerca (Sima de los Huesos), Spain ~430,000

Middle Pleistocene

29

  • Articulation: Disarticulated, though partial connections (crania and mandibles) persist

  • Position: Deposited in a deep vertical shaft (pit)

  • Concealment: Deliberate body disposal (possibly proto-burial or mortuary deposit)

 A single handaxe
H. naledi[66] [67] [68] Rising Star Cave, South Africa ~241,000–335,000

Middle Pleistocene

≥15

  • Articulation: Many articulated or semi-articulated, with some remains in anatomical connection, and flexed/semi-flexed poses

  • Concealment: Placement in remote cave chambers (Hill Antechamber and the Dinaledi Chamber) with sediment fill (but this is still debated)

 Possible single stone object
H. neanderthalensis[69] [70] [71] Tabun, Israel ~120,000 Middle Palaeolithic 1

  • Articulation: Remains found articulated

  • Concealment: Pit burial

 Ochre
H. sapiens[72] Skhul Cave, Israel ~100,000 Middle Paleolithic 10

  • Articulation: Cranial and post-cranial remains found partially articulated

 Marine shells and ochre
H. sapiens[73] [74] Qafzeh Cave, Israel ~92,000 Middle Paleolithic 25

  • Articulation: Articulated cranial and post-cranial remains

  • Position: Remains found in various burial positions (bodies laid on their backs or on their sides)

  • Concealment: Pit burials

 Ochre, marine shells, and deer antlers
H. sapiens[75] Panga ya Saidi cave site, Kenya ~78,000

Middle Stone Age

1

  • Articulation: There was strict articulation and good anatomical association of the remains, with the skull excavated still articulated with the spine

  • Position: Remains of a child in a flexed position

  • Concealment: Pit feature
H. neanderthalensis[76] [77] Amud Cave, Israel ~50,000 Late Middle Paleolithic 18

  • Articulation: Remains consist of complete and partial skeletons, fragmented or complete long bones, teeth, and partial cranial elements

  • Concealment and Position: Three individuals present evidence for intentional burial: Amud I has skeletal articulation and a flexed position of the remains; Amud 7 has a partial skeleton but is articulated, with the hands and feet in proper anatomical position. The remains were found in a natural niche in the bedrock of the cave’s north wall; Amud 9 is an adult with an articulated foot and lower leg. Both the heads of Amud I and 7 were pointing in the northwest direction
H. neanderthalensis[78] Kebara Cave, Israel ~60,000 Middle Paleolithic 29

  • Articulation: Several fragmented pieces of bone and teeth were excavated. One burial contained remains that were articulated

  • Position: The individual in the burial was lying on their back

  • Concealment: Pit burial
H. neanderthalensis[79] [80] Dederiyeh Cave, Syria ~50,000 Middle Paleolithic 2

  • Articulation: Articulated nearly complete and fragmented infant skeleton

  • Position: Articulated remains were positioned on its back, arms extended, and legs flexed

  • Concealment: Pit burial
H. neanderthalensis[81] [82] Shanidar Cave, Iraq ~35,000–65,000 Middle Paleolithic 10

  • Articulation: Several skeletons were in anatomical position and articulated

  • Position: One individual was found with a flexed posture, and some remains were also placed on their backs

  • Concealment: Buried in shallow pits

 Possible floral remains
H. neanderthalensis[83] Le Ferrassie, France ~50,000–70,000 Middle Paleolithic 8

  • Articulation: Partial, complete, and articulated skeletal remains

  • Concealment: Pit burials

 Faunal remains and lithics (uncertain)
H. neanderthalensis[84] Le Moustier, France ~40,000

Middle Paleolithic

2

  • Articulation: Articulated juvenile skeletal remains

  • Concealment: Pit burial
H. neanderthalensis[85] Tinshemet Cave, Israel ~70,000

Middle Paleolithic

5

  • Articulation: Two of the individual remains were fully articulated, while the rest of the individuals were partially articulated and in different states of preservation. The burials include a nearly complete adult skeleton and a nearly complete child skeleton.

  • Position: The individuals were placed in a fetal position, lying on their sides

  • Concealment: Burial pits

 Ochre
H. sapiens[86] [87] Lake Mungo, Australia ~40,000 1

  • Articulation: Nearly complete and articulated skeleton (Mungo III)

  • Concealment: A shallow pit and a cremation (Mingo I)

 Ochre associated with burial
Cro-Magnon[88] [89] Cro-Magnon rock shelter, France ~28,000 5

  • Concealment: Burials
Hybrid H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis[90] [91] Abrigo do Lagar Velho, Portugal ~25,000 1

  • Articulation: Remains were articulated with some damage to the skull and left forearm

  • Position: Individual positioned on their back

  • Concealment: Burial

 Burial of pierced shell and red ochre
H. sapiens[92] [93] Krems-Wachtberg, Austria ~27,000

Upper Paleolithic

3

  • Articulation: Articulated skeletal remains

  • Position: Individuals were placed in the flexed position

  • Concealment: Oval-shaped grave pit for the double infant burial that was covered with a mammoth scapula, and a narrow pit for a single burial that was backfilled

 Personal adornment, including mammoth ivory beads, perforated molluscs (Theodoxus sp.) and a perforated fox incisor (Vulpes sp.), as well as a possible leather garment (decorated), which was wrapped around a single individual
H. sapiens[94] [95] Dolní Věstonice, Czech Republic ~27,000–26,000

Upper Paleolithic

≥27

  • Articulation: Some of the remains were articulated, some skeletal elements and fragments were found partially articulated or completely unarticulated

  • Position: Individual in burials were placed on their backs or in a flexed position

  • Concealment: Pit burials with one grave being covered with a mammoth scapulae

 Flint tools, beads, perforated canine teeth and ivory pendants, and ochre
H. sapiens[96] [97] Barma Grande, Italy ~25,000

Upper Paleolithic

≥6

  • Articulation: Complete and partially complete articulated skeletal remains

  • Position: Individuals placed next to each other, while other individuals were placed on their backs

  • Concealment: Single pit burials and a triple burial

 Bone and ivory pendants, ornaments, including collars marine shells, fish vertebrae, and deer teeth
H. sapiens[98] Ostuni, Italy ~28,000

Upper Paleolithic

3

  • Articulation: Near complete skeletons, with an articulated fetus within the skeletal remains of a female

  • Position: Buried in a flexed position or partially on the side

  • Concealment: Burial pits

 Flint blade, shell beads, and perforated shells

Mortuary Activity in the Archaeological Record

The burial of the dead and the treatment of their bodies have become an intrinsic part of human culture. The treatment of the body after death is a complex process that is highly ritualized and symbolic, with its function deeply intertwined with commemorating the life of the dead, dealing with loss, and grieving together. Following the introduction of burial as a means of treating the body in the Paleolithic, the disposal of the dead became more socially complex and emotionally laden in the preceding Neolithic period. This increase in complexity goes hand in hand with the development of human culture and ideas. So much so that burials and the treatment of the dead started to reflect beliefs and sociocultural changes.

As mortuary practices evolved, there appears to be a clear shift from simple forms of burial in the Paleolithic and Neolithic to highly ritualized and socially stratified behaviors in the Bronze and Iron ages. Early burials consisted of pits containing personal adornments or ochre. In later burials, mortuary activity becomes more ritualized, with formal burial pits, grave goods, and spatial organization indicating symbolic intent and the status of the deceased. During the Neolithic, mortuary activity and funerary behavior became more frequent and even standardized as part of beliefs and culture. This is also reflected through the development of funerary architecture like tombs, burial mounds, and communal burial spaces.

By the Bronze and Iron ages, these spaces were formalized into elaborate spaces of the dead, highly furnished and organized. During these periods, the bodies of the dead were commemorated and disposed of through cremation, mummification, ritual defleshing, secondary burial, as well as pyre burning. Ideas regarding landscapes of the dead become more formalized, with these spaces also serving as sites of social memory and collective identity. The reuse of burial spaces has also been recorded during this period. For example, genetic evidence of the skeletal material indicated that later East Asian communities who settled in Papua New Guinea reused older Papuan graves, and these reused sites sometimes contained multiple individuals who were genetically unrelated.[99] The reuse of burial spaces in this study might further reflect practical responses to limited land or even continued usage of spaces of the dead.

As mortuary behavior and traditions changed, so did ideas about places of the dead. At these deathscapes, relationships between the living and the dead and the sociocultural ideals of the living are reflected. Social structures can influence mortuary practices and funerary traditions. At Panoría, on the Iberian Peninsula, Spain, the excavation of twice as many female skeletal remains compared to males were found in mortuary structures.[100] While it could be assumed that the burials reflect population demographics, the burials at Panoría instead reflect unique social dynamics; it preserves evidence of a society where females held the dominant positions .[101] This example illustrates how sociocultural ideas and identity, of both the living and the dead, filter through to death and is preserved in the manner humans commemorate the individual and treat their body. Evidence, excavated from archaeological sites across Eurasia, reflects that ideas about the treatment of the dead and of burial are not static. They are dynamic reflected changes over time, as well as within the sociocultural, emotional, religious, and political spheres of a society.

Archaeological Parameters and Cross-Species Comparison

Based on the above-mentioned examples from the fossil and archaeological records, mortuary practices can be identified across species and time periods by examining behavioral thresholds, material traces, and spatial organization of the dead. While funerary activity implies ritual and symbolism, mortuary activity may be present in species without symbolic cognition, requiring archaeologists to interpret burial evidence with caution. Considering the range of different behaviors that form part of mortuary activity in animals and especially primates, paleoanthropologists have been using this information to identify mortuary behavior in the fossil record. Drawing from various observations in the archaeological and ethnographic records, archaeologists have compiled a set of criteria to aid in the identification of intentional burial activity. Researchers typically look for one or more of these indicators within the identified archaeological context to classify actions as part of mortuary behavior.

Image illustrating criteria indicating mortuary and funerary behavior, as well as the overlap between these two categories. Depending on the context, species, geographical region, and time period, different actions of body treatment and disposal can be examples of only mortuary activity, or a combination of both.

Defining Intentional Burial

In order to identify mortuary behavior in the fossil record, archaeologists and paleontologists have developed a set of criteria to help to distinguish between the natural processes that could have deposited or modified remains after death from intentional body disposal activities. The following is the criteria that are considered to determine whether remains were deliberately buried:

  • The remains need to be found intact, with skeletal elements anatomically articulated. This indicates that bodies were intentionally placed in primary burial depositions while still in a “fresh state” after death.

  • For later burials, geochemical analysis of the soil can confirm an in situ decomposition process, suggesting fresh remains were buried.[102]

  • A high degree of completeness of the skeletal remains needs to be reported. This further indicates that whole bodies were deposited into the burial pit (this does not apply to secondary burials or defleshing prior to burial).

  • There should be intentional body positioning in a pit/grave, such as remains in supine position, or remains placed in a fetal position for smaller grave pits. [103] [104]

  • A deliberately dug pit feature should be distinguished, followed by evidence of the covering of the body with soil infill. [105]

  • The inclusion of grave goods either directly next to or on top of the body, or on the subsurface of the grave.[106] [107]

  • There should be minimal displacement or postmortem movement of the remains (apart from displacement as part of the decomposition process or bioturbation by animals or insects after body placement)[108].

  • The elimination of any natural process that could have led to the deposition of remains. This includes no taphonomic marks or cut marks (i.e., from murders or animal killings). It should be proven that the remains were not the result of an accidental death or instances where remains were transported postmortem to the site through underground rivers, rainwater, or erosion (natural processes).

  • In caves, the energy expenditure (for carrying the corpse and digging the burial pit) of the group needs to be taken into account, including likely entry and exit paths.

    ----
  1. ↑ P. Pettitt (2018). “Hominin Evolutionary Thanatology From the Mortuary to Funerary Realm: The Palaeoanthropological Bridge Between Chemistry and Culture.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol. 373, Issue 1754
  2. ↑ T.L. Iglesias, R. McElreath, and G.L. Patricelli (2012). “Western Scrub-Jay Funerals: Cacophonous Aggregations in Response to Dead Conspecifics.” Animal Behaviour. Vol. 84, Issue. 5, pp. 1,103–1,111.
  3. ↑ K.N. Swift and J.M. Marzluff (2015). “Wild American Crows Gather Around Their Dead to Learn About Danger.” Animal Behaviour. Vol. 109, pp. 187–197.
  4. ↑ G.O. López-Riquelme, and M.L. Fanjul-Moles. (2013). “The Funeral Ways of Social Insects. Social strategies for Corpse Disposal.” Trends in Entomology. Vol. 9, pp. 71–129.
  5. ↑ P.K. Visscher (1983). The Honey Bee Way of Death: Necrophoric Behavior in Apis mellifera Colonies. Animal behaviour. Vol. 31, Issue 4, pp. 1,070-1,076.
  6. ↑ Q. Sun, K.F. Haynes, and X. Zhou (2018). Managing the Risks and Rewards of Death in Eusocial Insects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol. 373, Issue 1754.
  7. ↑ Q. Sun and X. Zhou (2013). “Corpse Management in Social Insects.” International Journal of Biological Sciences. Vol. 9, Issue. 3, pp. 313–321.
  8. ↑ G.O. López-Riquelme and M.L. Fanjul-Moles (2013). “The Funeral Ways of Social Insects. Social Strategies for Corpse Disposal.” Trends in Entomology. Vol 9.
  9. ↑ H. Li, J. Liu, Q. Wang, Y. Ma, W. Zhao, B. Chen, et al. (2024). “Oleic Acid Triggers Burial Behavior in a Termite Population Through an Odorant Binding Protein.” Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Vol. 167.
  10. ↑ J.R. Anderson, D. Biro, and P. Pettitt (2018). “Evolutionary Thanatology.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol. 373, Issue. 1754.
  11. ↑ A. McAfee, A. Chapman, I. Iovinella, Y. Gallagher-Kurtzke, T.F. Collins, H. Higo, et al. (2018). “A Death Pheromone, Oleic Acid, Triggers Hygienic Behavior in Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.).” Scientific Reports. Vol. 8, Issue. 1.
  12. ↑ T. Chouvenc, A. Robert, E. Sémon, and C. Bordereau (2012). “Burial Behavior by Dealates of the Termite Pseudacanthotermes spiniger (Termitidae, Macrotermitinae) Induced by Chemical Signals From Termite Corpses.” Insectes Sociaux. Vol. 59, Issue. 1, pp. 119–125.
  13. ↑ L.H.B da Silva, I. Haifig, and A.M. Costa-Leonardo (2019). “Facing Death: How Does the Subterranean Termite Coptotermes gestroi (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) Deal With Corpses?” Zoology. Vol. 137.
  14. ↑ F. Ritter (2007). “Behavioral Responses of Rough-Toothed Dolphins to a Dead Newborn Calf.” Marine Mammal Science. Vol. 23, Issue. 2, pp. 429–433.
  15. ↑ V.V. Krasnova, A.D. Chernetsky, A.I. Zheludkova, and V.M. Bel’kovich (2014). “Parental Behavior of the Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) in Natural Environment.” Biology Bulletin. Vol. 41, Issue. 4, pp. 349–356.
  16. ↑ J. Taylor and Associated Press (2018). NBC News. “Mother Orca Pushes Dead Calf to the Surface for Two Days.”
  17. ↑ E. Bush (2025). NBC News. “Orca Who Carried Dead Newborn for Weeks Has Lost Another Calf and Is Carrying It Again.”
  18. ↑ R. Yosef, H. Dabi, and S. Kumbhojkar (2021). “Thanatological Behavior of a Female Leopard (Panthera pardus fusca).” acta ethologica. Vol. 24, Issue. 2, pp. 137–40.
  19. ↑ Kariega Game Reserve (2024). Kariega Game Reserve, South Africa. “Elephant Carries Stillborn Calf.” YouTube.
  20. ↑ P. Kaswan and A. Roy (2024). “Unearthing Calf Burials Among Asian Elephants Elephas maximus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia: Proboscidea: Elephantidae) in Northern Bengal, India.” Journal of Threatened Taxa. Vol. 16, Issue. 2, pp. 24,615–24,629.
  21. ↑ J.R. Anderson, D. Biro, and P. Pettitt (2018). “Evolutionary Thanatology.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol. 373, Issue. 1754.
  22. ↑ P.J. Fashing, N. Nguyen, T.S. Barry, C.B. Goodale, R.J. Burke, S.C.Z Jones, et al. (2011). “Death Among Geladas (Theropithecus gelada): A Broader Perspective on Mummified Infants and Primate Thanatology.” American Journal of Primatology. Vol. 73, Issue. 5, pp. 405–409.
  23. ↑ P. Pettitt (2018). “Hominin Evolutionary Thanatology From the Mortuary to Funerary Realm: The Palaeoanthropological Bridge Between Chemistry and Culture.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol. 373, Issue 1754.
  24. ↑ I. Delval, M. Fernández-Bolaños, P. Izar, and J.B Leca (2025). “Carrying the Dead: Behavior of a Primiparous Capuchin Monkey Mother and Other Individuals Toward a Dead Infant.” Primates. Vol. 66, pp. 241–247.
  25. ↑ B. Yang, J.R. Anderson, M. Mao, K. Wang, and B. Li. (2022). “Maternal Caretaking Behavior Toward a Dead Juvenile in a Wild, Multi-Level Primate Society.” Scientific Reports. Vol. 12, Issue 1, 4780.
  26. ↑ J. Botting and E. van de Waal. (2020). “Reactions to Infant Death by Wild Vervet Monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Prolonged Carrying, Non-Mother Carrying, and Partial Maternal Cannibalism.” Primates. Vol. 61, Issue 6, pp. 751–756.
  27. ↑ P. Pettitt (2018). “Hominin Evolutionary Thanatology From the Mortuary to Funerary Realm: The Palaeoanthropological Bridge Between Chemistry and Culture.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol. 373, Issue 1754.
  28. ↑ D.P. Watts (2020). “Responses to Dead and Dying Conspecifics and Heterospecifics by Wild Mountain Gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) and Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii).” Primates.Vol. 61, Issue. 1, pp. 55–68.
  29. ↑ A. Soldati, P. Fedurek, C. Crockford, S. Adue, J.W. Akankwasa, C. Asiimwe, et al. (2022) “Dead-Infant Carrying by Chimpanzee Mothers in the Budongo Forest.” Primates. Vol. 63, Issue. 5, pp. 497–508.
  30. ↑ Greencorridor.info (2003). The Chimpanzees of Bossou and Nimba. “Jokro: The Death of an Infant Chimpanzee.”
  31. ↑ T. Matsuzawa. “Reviewed Article: The Death of an Infant Chimpanzee at Bossou, Guinea.” PAN Africa News. Vol. 4, Issue. 1, pp. 4–6.
  32. ↑ D. Biro, T. Humle, K. Koops, C. Sousa, M. Hayashi, and T. Matsuzawa (2010). “Chimpanzee Mothers at Bossou, Guinea Carry the Mummified Remains of Their Dead Infants.” Current Biology. Vol. 20, Issue. 8, pp. R351–R352.
  33. ↑ K. Hosaka, A. Matsumoto-Oda, M.A. Huffmann, and K. Kawanaka (2000). “Reactions to Dead Bodies of Conspecifics by Wild Chimpanzees in the Mahale Mountains, Tanzania.” Primate Research. Vol. 16, Issue., 1, pp. 1–15.
  34. ↑ T. Kooriyama (2009). “The Death of a Newborn Chimpanzee at Mahale: Reactions of its Mother and Other Individuals to the Body.” PAN Africa News. Vol. 16, Issue. 2, pp. 19–21.
  35. ↑ D.P. Watts (2020). “Responses to Dead and Dying Conspecifics and Heterospecifics by Wild Mountain Gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) and Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii).” Primates.Vol. 61, Issue. 1, pp. 55–68.
  36. ↑ D.P. Watts (2020). “Responses to Dead and Dying Conspecifics and Heterospecifics by Wild Mountain Gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) and Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii).” Primates.Vol. 61, Issue. 1, pp. 55–68.
  37. ↑ P. Pettitt (2018). “Hominin Evolutionary Thanatology From the Mortuary to Funerary Realm: The Palaeoanthropological Bridge Between Chemistry and Culture.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol. 373, Issue 1754.
  38. ↑ J.L. Arsuaga, I. Martı́nez, A. Gracia, J.M. Carretero, C. Lorenzo, N. Garcı́a, et al. (1997). “Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). The Site.” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 33, Issues 2–3, pp. 109–127.
  39. ↑ J.L. Arsuaga, I. Martı́nez, A. Gracia, and C. Lorenzo (1997). “The Sima de los Huesos crania (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). A Comparative Study.” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 33, Issues 2–3, pp. 219–281.
  40. ↑ P. Pettitt (2018). “Hominin Evolutionary Thanatology From the Mortuary to Funerary Realm: The Palaeoanthropological Bridge Between Chemistry and Culture.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol. 373, Issue 1754.
  41. ↑ A. Val (2016). “Deliberate Body Disposal by Hominins in the Dinaledi Chamber, Cradle of Humankind, South Africa?” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 96, pp. 145–148.
  42. ↑ P.H.G.M. Dirks, L.R. Berger, J. Hawks, P.S. Randolph-Quinney, L.R. Backwell, and E.M. Roberts (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. Vol. 96, pp. 149–53.
  43. ↑ L.R. Berger, T. Makhubela, K. Molopyane, A. Krüger, P. Randolph-Quinney, M. Elliott, et al. (2025). “Evidence for Deliberate Burial of the Dead by Homo naledi.” eLife.
  44. ↑ E. Hovers and A. Belfer‐Cohen (2018). “Burials, Paleolithic.” The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology (1st ed.).
  45. ↑ A. Balzeau, A. Turq, S. Talamo, C. Daujeard, G. Guérin, F. Welker, et al. (2020). “Pluridisciplinary Evidence for Burial for the La Ferrassie 8 Neandertal Child.” Scientific Reports. Vol. 10, Issue. 1.
  46. ↑ E. Pomeroy, P. Bennett, C.O. Hunt, T. Reynolds, L. Farr, M. Frouin, et al. (2020). “New Neanderthal Remains Associated With the ‘Flower Burial’ at Shanidar Cave.” Antiquity. Vol. 94, Issue. 373, pp. 11–26.
  47. ↑ P. Andrews and S. Bello. “Pattern in Human Burial Practice.” The Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains. Oxbow Books (2009), pp. 14–29.
  48. ↑ D.M. Sandgathe, H.L. Dibble, P. Goldberg, and S.P. McPherron (2011). “The Roc de Marsal Neanderthal Child: A Reassessment of Its Status as a Deliberate Burial.” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 61, Issue. 3, pp. 243–253.
  49. ↑ P. Goldberg, V. Aldeias, H. Dibble, S. McPherron, D. Sandgathe, and A. Turq (2017). “Testing the Roc de Marsal Neanderthal ‘Burial’ With Geoarchaeology.” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. Vol. 9, Issue. 6, pp. 1,005–1,015.
  50. ↑ W. Rendu, C. Beauval, I. Crevecoeur, P. Bayle, A. Balzeau, T. Bismuth, et al. (2016). “Let the Dead Speak… Comments on Dibble et al.’s Reply to “‘Evidence Supporting an Intentional Burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints.’” Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol. 69, pp. 12–20.
  51. ↑ E. Hovers and A. Belfer‐Cohen (2018). “Burials, Paleolithic.” The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology (1st ed.).
  52. ↑ Y. Zaidner, M. Prévost, R. Shahack-Gross, L. Weissbrod, R. Yeshurun, N. Porat, et al. (2025). “Evidence From Tinshemet Cave in Israel Suggests Behavioral Uniformity Across Homo Groups in the Levantine Mid-Middle Paleolithic Circa 130,000–80,000 Years Ago.” Nature Human Behaviour. Vol. 9, Issue. 5, pp. 886–901.
  53. ↑ Y. Zaidner, M. Prévost, R. Shahack-Gross, L. Weissbrod, R. Yeshurun, N. Porat, et al. (2025). “Evidence From Tinshemet Cave in Israel Suggests Behavioral Uniformity Across Homo Groups in the Levantine Mid-Middle Paleolithic Circa 130,000–80,000 Years Ago.” Nature Human Behaviour. Vol. 9, Issue. 5, pp. 886–901.
  54. ↑ C.B. Stringer, R. Grün, H.P. Schwarcz, and P. Goldberg (1989). “ESR Dates for the Hominid Burial Site of Es Skhul in Israel.” Nature. Vol. 338, Issue. 6218, pp. 756–758.
  55. ↑ G. Onoratini, A. Arellano, A. Del Lucchese, P.E. Moullé, and F. Serre (2012). “The Barma Grande Cave (Grimaldi, Vintimiglia, Italy): From Neanderthal, Hunter of ‘Elephas antiquus,’ to Sapiens With Ornaments of Mammoth Ivory.” Quaternary International. Vol. 255, pp. 141–57.
  56. ↑ L. Tilley (2015). “Accommodating Difference in the Prehistoric Past: Revisiting the Case of Romito 2 From a Bioarchaeology of Care Perspective.” International Journal of Paleopathology. Vol. 8, pp. 64–74.
  57. ↑ A. Nava, A. Coppa, D. Coppola, L. Mancini, D. Dreossi, F. Zanini, et al. (2017). “Virtual Histological Assessment of the Prenatal Life History and Age at Death of the Upper Paleolithic Fetus From Ostuni (Italy).” Scientific Reports. Vol. 7, Issue. 1.
  58. ↑ M. Teschler-Nicola, D. Fernandes, M. Händel, T. Einwögerer, U. Simon, C. Neugebauer-Maresch, et al. (2020). “Ancient DNA Reveals Monozygotic Newborn Twins From the Upper Paleolithic.” Communications Biology. Vol. 3, Issue. 1.
  59. ↑ H. Fewlass, S. Talamo, B. Kromer, E. Bard, T. Tuna, Y. Fagault, et al. (2019) “Direct Radiocarbon Dates of Mid-Upper Paleolithic Human Remains From Dolní Věstonice II and Pavlov I, Czech Republic.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. Vol. 27.
  60. ↑ H. Fewlass, E.I. Zavala, Y. Fagault, T. Tuna, E. Bard, J.J. Hublin, et al. (2023). “Chronological and Genetic Analysis of an Upper Paleolithic Female Infant Burial From Borsuka Cave, Poland.” iScience. Vol. 26, Issue. 12.
  61. ↑ V. Formicola, A. Pontrandolfi, and J. Svoboda (2001). “The Upper Paleolithic Triple Burial of Dolní Věstonice: Pathology and Funerary Behavior.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Vol. 115, Issue. 4, pp. 372–379.
  62. ↑ P. Pettitt (2018). “Hominin Evolutionary Thanatology From the Mortuary to Funerary Realm: The Palaeoanthropological Bridge Between Chemistry and Culture.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol. 373, Issue 1754.
  63. ↑ J.L. Arsuaga, I. Martı́nez, A. Gracia, J.M. Carretero, C. Lorenzo, N. Garcı́a, et al. (1997). “Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). The Site.” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 33, Issues. 2–3, pp. 109–127.
  64. ↑ J.L. Arsuaga, I. Martı́nez, A. Gracia, and C. Lorenzo (1997). “The Sima de los Huesos crania (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). A Comparative Study.” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 33, Issues. 2–3, pp. 219–281.
  65. ↑ E. Carbonell and M. Mosquera. (2006). “The Emergence of a Symbolic Behavior: The Sepulchral Pit of Sima de los Huesos, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain.” Comptes rendus palévol. Vol. 5, Issues. 1–2, pp. 155–160.
  66. ↑ A. Val (2016). “Deliberate Body Disposal by Hominins in the Dinaledi Chamber, Cradle of Humankind, South Africa?” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 96, pp. 145–148.
  67. ↑ P.H.G.M. Dirks, L.R. Berger, J. Hawks, P.S. Randolph-Quinney, L.R. Backwell, and E.M. Roberts (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. Vol. 96, pp. 149–53.
  68. ↑ L.R. Berger, T. Makhubela, K. Molopyane, A. Krüger, P. Randolph-Quinney, M. Elliott, et al. (2025). “Evidence for Deliberate Burial of the Dead by Homo naledi.” eLife.
  69. ↑ T. Akazawa, S. Muhesen, Y. Dodo, O. Kondo, and Y. Mizoguchi (1995). “Neanderthal Infant Burial.” Nature. Vol. 377, Issue. 6550, pp. 585–586.
  70. ↑ Anne-marie M. Tillier (2005). “The Tabun C1 Skeleton: A Levantine Neanderthal?” Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. Vol. 35, pp. 439–450.
  71. ↑ H.P. Simpson, J.J. Schwarcz, and C.B. Stringer (1998). “Neanderthal Skeleton From Tabun: U-Series Data by Gamma-Ray Spectrometry.” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 35, Issue. 6, pp. 635–645.
  72. ↑ C.B. Stringer, R. Grün, H.P. Schwarcz, and P. Goldberg (1989). “ESR Dates for the Hominid Burial Site of Es Skhul in Israel.” Nature. Vol. 338, Issue. 6218, pp. 756–758
  73. ↑ E. Hovers, Y. Rak, R. Lavi, and W.H. Kimbel (1995). “Hominid Remains from Amud Cave in the Context of the Levantine Middle Paleolithic.” Paléorient. Vol. 21, Issue. 2, pp. 47–61.
  74. ↑ B. Vandermeersch and O. Bar-Yosef. (2019). “The Paleolithic Burials at Qafzeh Cave, Israel.” PALEO. Revue d’archéologie préhistorique, Vol. 30, Issue. 1, pp. 256–275.
  75. ↑ M. Martinón-Torres, F. d’Errico, E. Santos, A. Álvaro Gallo, N. Amano, W. Archer, et al. (2021). “Earliest Known Human Burial in Africa.” Nature. Vol. 593, Issue. 7857, pp. 95–100.
  76. ↑ E. Hovers, Y. Rak, R. Lavi, and W.H. Kimbel (1995). “Hominid Remains from Amud Cave in the Context of the Levantine Middle Paleolithic.” Paléorient. Vol. 21, Issue. 2, pp. 47–61.
  77. ↑ E. Hovers, W.H. Kimbel, and Y. Rak (2000). “The Amud 7 Skeleton—Still a Burial. Response to Gargett.” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 39, Issue. 2, pp. 253–260.
  78. ↑ O. Bar-Yosef, B. Vandermeersch, B. Arensburg, A. Belfer-Cohen, P. Goldberg, H. Laville, et al. (1992) “The Excavations in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel” Current Anthropology. Vol. 33, Issue. 5, pp. 497–550.
  79. ↑ T. Akazawa, S. Muhesen, Y. Dodo, O. Kondo, Y. Mizoguchi, Y. Abe, et al. (1995). “Neanderthal Infant Burial From the Dederiyeh Cave in Syria.” Paléorient. Vol. 21, Issue. 2, pp. 77–86.
  80. ↑ T. Akazawa, S. Muhesen, H. Ishida, O. Kondo, and C. Griggo (1999). “New Discovery of a Neanderthal Child Burial From the Dederiyeh Cave in Syria.” Paléorient. Vol. 25, Issue. 2, pp. 129–142.
  81. ↑ E. Pomeroy, P. Bennett, C.O. Hunt, T. Reynolds, L. Farr, M. Frouin, et al. (2020). “New Neanderthal Remains Associated With the ‘Flower Burial’ at Shanidar Cave.” Antiquity. Vol. 94, Issue. 373, pp. 11–26.
  82. ↑ E. Pomeroy, M. Mirazón Lahr, F. Crivellaro, L. Farr, T. Reynolds, C.O. Hunt, et al. (2017). “ Newly Discovered Neanderthal Remains From Shanidar Cave, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Their Attribution to Shanidar 5.” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 111, pp. 102–118.
  83. ↑ A. Balzeau, A. Turq, S. Talamo, C. Daujeard, G. Guérin, F. Welker, et al. (2020). “Pluridisciplinary Evidence for Burial for the La Ferrassie 8 Neandertal Child.” Scientific Reports. Vol. 10, Issue. 1, article.
  84. ↑ B. Maureille (2002). “A Lost Neanderthal Neonate Found.” Nature. Vol. 419, Issue. 6902, pp. 33–34.
  85. ↑ Y. Zaidner, M. Prévost, R. Shahack-Gross, L. Weissbrod, R. Yeshurun, N. Porat, et al. (2025). “Evidence From Tinshemet Cave in Israel Suggests Behavioral Uniformity Across Homo Groups in the Levantine Mid-Middle Paleolithic Circa 130,000–80,000 Years Ago.” Nature Human Behaviour. Vol. 9, Issue. 5, pp. 886–901.
  86. ↑ E. Hovers and A. Belfer‐Cohen (2018). “Burials, Paleolithic.” The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology (1st ed.).
  87. ↑ J.M. Bowler, H. Johnston, J.M. Olley, J.R. Prescott, R.G. Roberts, W. Shawcross, and Spooner. (2003). “New Ages for Human Occupation and Climatic Cchange at Lake Mungo, Australia.” Nature. Vol. 421, pp. 837–840.
  88. ↑ E. Hovers and A. Belfer‐Cohen (2018). “Burials, Paleolithic.” The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology (1st ed.).
  89. ↑ C. Partiot, E. Trinkaus, C.J. Knüsel, and S. Villotte. (2020). “The Cro-Magnon Babies: Morphology and Mortuary Implications of the Cro-Magnon Immature Remains.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. Vol. 30.
  90. ↑ E. Hovers and A. Belfer‐Cohen (2018). “Burials, Paleolithic.” The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology (1st ed.).
  91. ↑ C. Duarte., J. Maurício, P.B. Pettitt, P. Souto, E. Trinkaus, H. van der Plicht, and J. Zilhão. (1999). “The Early Upper Paleolithic Human Skeleton From the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and Modern Human Emergence in Iberia.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 96, Issue. 13, pp. 7,604-7,609.
  92. ↑ M. Teschler-Nicola, D. Fernandes, M. Händel, T. Einwögerer, U. Simon, C. Neugebauer-Maresch, et al. (2020). “Ancient DNA Reveals Monozygotic Newborn Twins From the Upper Paleolithic.” Communications Biology. Vol. 3, Issue. 1.
  93. ↑ T. Einwögerer, H. Friesinger, M. Händel, C. Neugebauer-Maresch, U. Simon, and M. Teschler-Nicola (2006). “Upper Paleolithic Infant Burials.” Nature. Vol. 444, Issue. 7117, pp. 285–285.
  94. ↑ H. Fewlass, S. Talamo, B. Kromer, E. Bard, T. Tuna, Y. Fagault, et al. (2019) “Direct Radiocarbon Dates of Mid-Upper Paleolithic Human Remains From Dolní Věstonice II and Pavlov I, Czech Republic.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. Vol. 27.
  95. ↑ V. Formicola, A. Pontrandolfi, and J. Svoboda (2001). “The Upper Paleolithic Triple Burial of Dolní Věstonice: Pathology and Funerary Behavior.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Vol. 115, Issue. 4, pp. 372–379.
  96. ↑ G. Onoratini, A. Arellano, A. Del Lucchese, and P.E. Moullé, F. Serre (2012). “The Barma Grande Cave (Grimaldi, Vintimiglia, Italy): From Neanderthal, Hunter of ‘Elephas antiquus,’ to Sapiens With Ornaments of Mammoth Ivory.” Quaternary International. Vol. 255, pp. 141–57.
  97. ↑ V. Formicola, P.B. Pettitt, and A. Del Lucchese (2004). “A Direct AMS Radiocarbon Date on the Barma Grande 6 Upper Paleolithic Skeleton.” Current Anthropology. Vol. 45, Issue. 1, pp. 114–118.
  98. ↑ E. Vacca and D. Coppola (1993). “The Upper Paleolithic Burials at the Cave of Santa Maria di Agnano (Ostuni, Brindisi): Preliminary Report.” Rivista di Antropologia. Vol. 71, pp. 275–284.
  99. ↑ K. Nägele, R. Kinaston, D. Gaffney, M. Walworth, A.B. Rohrlach, S. Carlhoff, et al. (2025). “The Impact of Human Dispersals and Local Interactions on the Genetic Diversity of Coastal Papua New Guinea Over the Past 2,500 Years.” Nature Ecology and Evolution. Vol. 9, Issue. 6, pp. 908–923.
  100. ↑ M. Díaz-Zorita Bonilla, G. Aranda Jiménez, M. Sánchez Romero, R. Fregel, K. Rebay-Salisbury, F. Kanz, et al. (2024). “Female Sex Bias in Iberian Megalithic Societies Through Bioarchaeology, aDNA and Proteomics.” Scientific Reports. Vol. 14, Issue. 1.
  101. ↑ M. Díaz-Zorita Bonilla, G. Aranda Jiménez, M. Sánchez Romero, R. Fregel, K. Rebay-Salisbury, F. Kanz, et al. (2024). “Female Sex Bias in Iberian Megalithic Societies Through Bioarchaeology, aDNA and Proteomics.” Scientific Reports. Vol. 14, Issue. 1.
  102. ↑ M. Martinón-Torres, F. d’Errico, E. Santos, A. Álvaro Gallo, N. Amano, W. Archer, et al. (2021). “Earliest Known Human Burial in Africa.” Nature. Vol. 593, Issue. 7857, pp. 95–100.
  103. ↑ B. Vandermeersch (2002). “The Excavation of Qafzeh.” Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem. Vol. 10, pp. 65-70.
  104. ↑ F. Blaizot (2022). “Methodological Guidelines For Archaeothanatological Practice.” The Routledge Handbook of Archaeothanatology. pp. 22–41.
  105. ↑ H.L. Dibble, V. Aldeias, P. Goldberg, S.P. McPherron, D. Sandgathe, and T. E. Steele (2015). “A Critical Look At Evidence From La Chapelle-Aux-Saints Supporting An Intentional Neanderthal Burial.” Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol. 53, pp. 649–657.
  106. ↑ R.H. Gargett (1999). “Middle Paleolithic Burial Is Not a Dead Issue: The View From Qafzeh, Saint-Césaire, Kebara, Amud, and Dederiyeh.” Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 37, Issue. 1, pp. 27–90.
  107. ↑ W. Rendu, C. Beauval, I. Crevecoeur, P. Bayle, A. Balzeau, T. Bismuth, and B. Maureille (2013). “Evidence Supporting An Intentional Neanderthal Burial At La Chapelle-aux-Saints.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 111, Issue. 1, pp. 81–86.
  108. ↑ F. Blaizot (2022). “Methodological Guidelines for Archaeothanatological Practice.” The Routledge Handbook of Archaeothanatology. pp. 22–41.
Retrieved from "https://observatory.wiki/w/index.php?title=Parameters_of_Animal_Mortuary_Behavior&oldid=12241"
Privacy Policy
Learn More About the Observatory
Reuse and Reprint Rights Guidance
Contact Us
Observatory Guides
Observatory Areas
Observatory Authors
Observatory Featured Articles