Four Neanderthal Burials, Clusters of Eight Flower Pollens, and the Two November 1975 Analysts

Four Neanderthal Burials,

Clusters of Eight Flower Pollens,

and the Two November 1975 Analysts

The site of Shanidar, Iraq, presents some of the most interesting archaeological evidence of potential medicinal practice and post-mortum cultural customs among the Neanderthals. Analyses of the Shanidar burials usually highlight elements that could implicate a culture as evolved as modern humans living at the same time. While it is my sincere personal belief, based on much research, that Neanderthals did indeed possess a distinct and relatively complex culture, I will critically evaluate two articles on the Shanidar IV burial to point out the explanatory liberties and assumptions present in scholarly articles that could result in misleading reconstruction of the past.

Shanidar IV is associated with flower clusters that are interpreted as a ritualized burial practice. Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal man, is found with clusters of eight distinct flowers. Beneath Shanidar IV are two half-preserved Neanderthal women (Shanidar VI & Shanidar VII); below these women, a Neanderthal child (Shanidar VIII). In both palynologist Leroi-Gourhan's "The Flowers Found with Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal Burial in Iraq" and archaeologist Solecki's "Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal Flower Burial in Northern Iraq," the focus is only on Shanidar IV's association with the flower pollen clusters.

In order to place these two articles within the history of Shanidar's archaeological excavations, I'll give a brief biography of the two analysts in question. In the 1960s, a major archaeological excavation in Iraq - led by Solecki - uncovered Shanidar IV, VI, VII and VIII. Soil samples were taken at this time, and Solecki sent hundreds of these samples to be tested by palynologist Leroi-Gourhan in Paris, France. Leroi-Gourhan found that many of the soil samples were contaminated, in part because of natural post-deposition disruption and partially because of a hastened excavation for contemporary political reasons. (Leroi-Gourhan 1975) However, sample 313 and 314, found on either side of Shanidar IV, were relatively un-contaminated and contained more than 2000 pollen grains. Within these pollen grains, Leroi-Gourhan was able to detect clusters of eight specific flower pollens.

On November 7, 1975, Leroi-Gourhan published a synthesis of her findings and interpretations based on her pollen analysis in Science, New Series. A few weeks later on November 28, 1975, Solecki published his own interpretation of Leroi-Gourhan's findings in Science, New Series. Though they clearly share the same core data and similar interpretations, there are some interesting unique conclusions taken by both. By uncovering these personal liberties and assumptions, I will try to make the general point that when analyzing the archaeological record, much of what we know is through a series of archaeologists' and scientists' interpretative assumptions and teleological lines of argument.

To begin with, Solecki dates the Shanidar site to approximately 60,000 years ago (Solecki 1975) while Leroi-Gourhan offers a vague "more than 50,000 years ago." (Leroi-Gourhan 1975) Both describe Shanidar IV in varying details; however Leroi-Gourhan does not mention Shanidar VI, VII or VIII. This allows Leroi-Gourhan to analyze the significance of the placement of flowers around and under Shanidar IV without accounting for the fact that the flowers would have been placed on top of the other three Neanderthals. Meanwhile, Solecki postulates that the consecutive burials may indicate that the final burial, Shanidar IV, was a very important person. Solecki goes on to suggest that Shanidar IV may have been a medicine man because of the presence of flowers with known medicinal properties. (Solecki 1975) Whether the Neanderthals were aware of the plants' medicinal value and/or were able to process these plants effectively should be a question for great debate. Yet Solecki again takes great liberty as he concludes with: "naturally we cannot be sure that whoever buried Shanidar IV was aware of the economic and medicinal properties of the flowers that were interred with him...but it is extremely like that, as practising naturalists...the Neanderthals must have known and appreciated all of their environment, since their very existence depended on it." (Solecki 1975)

In describing the pollen clusters of the eight flowers, both Leroi-Gourhan and Solecki remark that at least four of the flowers present would have had very brilliant colours, suggesting their decorative purposes. As well, one flower present - the Ephedra Altissima - appears to be ideal in "the fabrication of a network or woven bedding" (Solecki 1975) and may have been "some sort of bedding on which the dead could have been laid." (Leroi-Gourhan 1975) In terms of specifically identifying the flowers, Leroi-Gourhan claims that aside from the four colourful flowers (Achillea Santolina, Centaurea Cyanus, Senecio Vernalis and Althea) and the ideal-bedding flower (Ephedra Altissima), the identity of the remaining two flowers was impossible to confirm their identity. Yet in Solecki's article, he details all eight flower clusters with their genus, English name, offers a visual description of them and sites their medicinal properties (based on contemporary medicinal uses of these flowers in Iraq). Though it is possible that new data was uncovered between the two article's publications that allowed Solecki the ability to identify these two mysterious flowers, this inconsistency is strange.

Another note that should be made is that Solecki bases the presence of a Neanderthal medicinal culture on the fact that the flowers present have contemporary recognized medicinal value (e.g., insect repellent, diuretic, cure for asthma, cardiac stimulant, inflammation and toothache relief, astringent, etc). However, when one does a bit of research on how these plants and flowers are medically prepared in contemporary culture, one learns that often the medicinal properties are procured through boiling the flower, leaves, or root. (Afifi and Abu-Irmaileh 2000) The act of boiling severely reduces a plants ability to preserve, and therefore it is very unlikely that a boiled plant would be found in the analysis of pollen remains alone. It is possible that some of the plants left phytolith remains that could potentially survive the boiling process; however without Leroi-Gourhan's technical report, a researcher cannot access the details of the palynologist's report and is forced to rely on Leroi-Gourhan and Solecki's subjective accounts based on their interpretation of the raw data.

Finally, the assessment that the flowers must have been intentionally placed by fellow Neanderthals after burial comes up in both Laroi-Gourhan and Solecki's account. Both represent this idea as logical and self-evident. However both appear to have slightly teleological arguments: they expect that the flowers (represented by pollen clusters) were intentionally placed but that the remaining 2000+ isolated grains present in sample 313 and 314 found their place by natural processes. Thinking logically, this is an intuitive judgement: any area could have wind swept traces of plants which would probably look like isolated fragments of pollen and/or been brought in unintentionally by people or animals as they "traversed grassland or clearings before entering the cave." (Laroi-Gourhan 1975) However, clusters suggest intentional placement and are highly unlikely to have occurred by the natural environment or by animals. This is especially true when it comes to the strong hearty Woody Horsetail (Ephedra Altissima), said to have been used as bedding for the buried Shanidar Neanderthal(s). Ephedra Altissima is a plant which would require labour and dedicated intention to cut and transport; it is highly unlikely that clusters of this plant would be present except if it were brought to the cave by Neanderthals. But what if these flowers were intentionally brought into the camp, but not intentionally placed with the deceased Shanidar Neanderthals? Unlikely, yes, but until uncontaminated raw pollen data is provided for the entire camp and clusters of flowers are found to not be present elsewhere in the cave, it is possible that flowers were brought into the cave and placed all over. Of course, flowers within the entire cave could still have rapport with a cultural practice related to the dead, but the strict link between the flowers location and the bodies would no longer be relevant.

By analyzing these two scholarly articles that offer subjective accounts of the Shanidar IV burial, I have pointed out the challenges for researchers like myself to access pure un-interpreted data. In addition, the small yet important discrepancies between Laroi-Gourhan and Solecki's articles serve to remind researchers that relying on only one description of a site may lead to skewed data. For example, had I simply relied on Solecki's account and assumed that as the chief excavator of Shanidar, his interpretations must be right, I would have missed out on a potentially significant find that Solecki chose to not analyze: the single butterfly wing. (Laroi-Gourhan 1975: fig. 2) Laroi-Gourhan characterizes this sole wing as a chance instance of a butterfly alighting on a flower petal and remaining there before the flower was brought into the cave. But more information can be extracted from this find. For example, if the butterfly wing was preserved, this suggests that the butterfly did not have the chance to fly away when it sensed imminent danger. Were the flowers interred under earth on either side of Shanidar IV immediately after being brought to the cave? Were the flowers crushed up along with the butterfly before being set in place? Crushing might suggest a method of extracting medicinal properties from the flowers; yet on the other hand, if the flowers were crushed it would be unlikely to find the butterfly wing still in contact. Would this suggest that flowers were not crushed? Of course, only one in-tact butterfly wing was uncovered so it may not be significant (a fact which may explain why Solecki leaves it out of his analysis).

Despite my personal beliefs that Shanidar IV does represent a culturally significant and evolutionary advanced treatment of the deceased, I have reservations about accepting the presence of a Neanderthal medical culture based on these two reports alone without having access to the raw data supporting their postulations. Of course, there's a danger in being over-sceptical, but understanding an article's potential room for author-bias is critical to accessing pure knowledge.

References:

Alfifi, F. U. and B. Abdu-Irmaileh. 2000. Herbal Medicine in Jordan with Special Emphasis on Less Commonly Used Medicinal Herbs. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 72: 101-110.

Leroi-Gourhan, Arlette. 1975. The Flowers Found with Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal Burial in Iraq. Science, New Series 190(4214): 562-564.

Solecki, Ralph S. 1975. Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal Flower Burial in Northern Iraq. Science, New Series 190(4217): 880-881.