The Times Australia
Fisher and Paykel Appliances
The Times World News

.

Major new research claims smaller-brained 'Homo naledi' made rock art and buried the dead. But the evidence is lacking

  • Written by Michael Petraglia, Director, Australian Research Centre for Human Evolution, Griffith University
Major new research claims smaller-brained 'Homo naledi' made rock art and buried the dead. But the evidence is lacking

On September 13 2013, speleologists Rick Hunter and Steven Tucker descended deep into South Africa’s Rising Star cave system and discovered the first evidence of an extraordinary assemblage of hominin[1] fossils.

To date, the remains of more than 15 individuals belonging to a previously unknown species of extinct human, dubbed Homo naledi, have been found in the cave. These short-statured, small-brained ancient cousins are thought to have lived in Southern Africa between 335,000 and 241,000 years ago.

Rising Star Cave is an exceptional resource for exploring the origins of our species. However, archaeological work at the site has been some of the most[2] controversial[3] in the discipline.

Three[4] new[5] studies[6] made available today (as pre-prints awaiting peer review) claim to have found evidence Homo naledi intentionally buried their dead (a sophisticated practice we usually associate with Homo sapiens) and made rock art, which suggests advanced cognitive abilities.

However, as archaeologists who investigate early humans in Africa, we’re not convinced the new research stacks up.

Did Homo naledi bury their dead?

The research purports to have evidence Homo naledi undertook deliberate burial of their dead – a major claim.

So far, the earliest secure evidence[7] for burial in Africa comes from the Panga ya Saidi cave site in eastern Kenya, excavated by our team and dated to 78,000 years ago. This burial of a Homo sapiens child meets rigorous criteria agreed upon by the scientific community for identifying intentional human burial[8].

The aim of the criteria is to help differentiate burial from other practices and phenomena that could lead to the depositing of human remains. These include, for example, the natural accumulation of skeletal parts in a predator’s cavern, or the kind of carrying and protecting[9] of dead bodies observed among cognitively advanced non-human species such as gorillas and chimpanzees.

The claimed Homo naledi burials precede the Panga ya Saidi burial evidence by as much as 160,000 years. If the claim is correct, it significantly pushes back evidence for advanced mortuary behaviour in Africa. It also implies intentional burial wasn’t limited to our species or other big-brained hominins.

Such a finding would force us to rethink the role of brain size in advanced “meaning-making” cognition, as well as what distinguishes our species from our ancestors.

But is there actually evidence for funerary behaviour at Rising Star Cave? According to standards set by the palaeoanthropology community, the evidence presented so far indicates no.

Insufficient evidence

The site’s researchers claim to have evidence[10] for three intentional burials.

However, not one of the burials provides compelling evidence of a deliberately excavated pit. Indeed, the shallow cavities may not be dug pits at all, but natural depressions where the bodies accumulated and were later disturbed by trampling, or partial cave collapse.

The alleged burials also fail to meet another fundamental criteria for deliberate burials: anatomical alignment of the body and articulation of skeletal remains.

In a deliberate burial, the body is generally intact and any minimal displacement can be explained by decomposition. That’s because burial involves immediately covering the body with soil, which protects the anatomical integrity of the skeleton.

Rising Star Cave so far hasn’t produced evidence for anything other than the general spatial association of some skeletal elements. At most, it provides evidence for the in-situ decomposition of particular body parts, such as an ankle, and partial hand and foot articulations.

Moreover, confirming intentional burial in the past has required the presentation of human remains in an arrangement that can’t have been achieved by chance. However, the scattered distribution of the remains at Rising Star prevents reconstruction of their original positions.

Other claimed evidence for funerary behaviour is equally uncompelling. A stone artefact supposedly included in the burial as a “grave good” is said to have scratches and edge serrations from use. But this so-called artefact’s shape suggests it may be natural. It’s still encased in sediment and has only been studied through synchrotron X-ray[11].

The purported stone artefact (from synchrotron X-ray) showing so-called scratches and edge serrations may actually be a natural rock and not culturally modified. Lee Berger et al, CC BY-SA[12]

But perhaps the biggest barrier to confirming the status of the findings is that so far none of the alleged burials have been fully excavated. It’s therefore impossible to assess the completeness of the bodies, their original position, and the limits of the purported pits.

Did Homo naledi make rock art?

An equally splashy claim made in one of the publications is that Homo naledi left rock art on the walls of Rising Star Cave.

The report[13] describes engravings in the form of deeply impressed cross-hatchings and geometric shapes such as squares, triangles, crosses and X’s. Further claims are made about the preparation of and potential repeated handling or rubbing of the associated rock surface, and the use of a similar “tool” to the one they claim was found with the alleged burial.

The researchers point to engravings in the wall as evidence of Homo naledi’s capability to create art and symbols. But these etchings haven’t been dated, and some of the lines look relatively recently etched. Lee Berger et al, CC BY[14][15]

This claim has major implications. To date, rock art has only reliably been linked to Homo sapiens and, in rarer cases, some of our large-brained ancestors. Similar to deliberate burial, producing rock art has major implications for the cognitive abilities of a species. It denotes a capacity for representation, and the creation and communication of meaning via abstract symbols.

The problem with the rock art at Rising Star Cave is that it’s undated. To imply any link with Homo naledi requires firm dates. This could be achieved through using dating techniques on associated residues or natural deposits[16] covering the art, or by studying materials from excavated and dated archaeological layers that can be linked to the art (for instance, if they contain engraving tools or engraved rock fall fragments).

In the absence of dating, it’s simply spurious to claim the engravings were made by Homo naledi, rather than by another species (and potentially at a much later date).

Did Homo naledi light up Rising Star Cave?

The researchers also claim the mortuary and engraving activities in Rising Star Cave involved strategic use of fire for illumination.

In public lectures[17] and on social media they clarify they have found new evidence for hearths, including charcoal, ash, discoloured clay and burned animal bones. Yet none of the scientific research needed to confirm the use of fire has been carried out. Or if it has, it hasn’t been published.

Previously acquired radiocarbon dates obtained by the site investigators on the apparent hearth material provided very late dates[18] that distanced the hearths from the remains of Homo naledi by several hundred thousand years.

We’re not opposed to the idea that the Rising Star Cave witnessed precocious mortuary behaviour involving the intentional disposal of bodies by Homo naledi. But it’s clear the latest inferences require further investigation before they’re accepted by the broader scientific community.

Read more: I was part of the team that found the Homo naledi child's skull: how we did it[19]

References

  1. ^ hominin (australian.museum)
  2. ^ most (www.sciencenews.org)
  3. ^ controversial (www.newyorker.com)
  4. ^ Three (www.biorxiv.org)
  5. ^ new (www.biorxiv.org)
  6. ^ studies (www.biorxiv.org)
  7. ^ earliest secure evidence (www.nature.com)
  8. ^ intentional human burial (www.sciencedirect.com)
  9. ^ carrying and protecting (www.bbc.com)
  10. ^ claim to have evidence (www.biorxiv.org)
  11. ^ synchrotron X-ray (en.wikipedia.org)
  12. ^ CC BY-SA (creativecommons.org)
  13. ^ report (www.biorxiv.org)
  14. ^ Lee Berger et al (www.biorxiv.org)
  15. ^ CC BY (creativecommons.org)
  16. ^ natural deposits (www.science.org)
  17. ^ public lectures (www.youtube.com)
  18. ^ very late dates (www.youtube.com)
  19. ^ I was part of the team that found the Homo naledi child's skull: how we did it (theconversation.com)

Read more https://theconversation.com/major-new-research-claims-smaller-brained-homo-naledi-made-rock-art-and-buried-the-dead-but-the-evidence-is-lacking-207000

Times Magazine

Can bigger-is-better ‘scaling laws’ keep AI improving forever? History says we can’t be too sure

OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman – perhaps the most prominent face of the artificial intellig...

A backlash against AI imagery in ads may have begun as brands promote ‘human-made’

In a wave of new ads, brands like Heineken, Polaroid and Cadbury have started hating on artifici...

Home batteries now four times the size as new installers enter the market

Australians are investing in larger home battery set ups than ever before with data showing the ...

Q&A with Freya Alexander – the young artist transforming co-working spaces into creative galleries

As the current Artist in Residence at Hub Australia, Freya Alexander is bringing colour and creativi...

This Christmas, Give the Navman Gift That Never Stops Giving – Safety

Protect your loved one’s drives with a Navman Dash Cam.  This Christmas don’t just give – prote...

Yoto now available in Kmart and The Memo, bringing screen-free storytelling to Australian families

Yoto, the kids’ audio platform inspiring creativity and imagination around the world, has launched i...

The Times Features

Mineral vs chemical sunscreens? Science shows the difference is smaller than you think

“Mineral-only” sunscreens are making huge inroads[1] into the sunscreen market, driven by fears of “...

Here’s what new debt-to-income home loan caps mean for banks and borrowers

For the first time ever, the Australian banking regulator has announced it will impose new debt-...

Why the Mortgage Industry Needs More Women (And What We're Actually Doing About It)

I've been in fintech and the mortgage industry for about a year and a half now. My background is i...

Inflation jumps in October, adding to pressure on government to make budget savings

Annual inflation rose[1] to a 16-month high of 3.8% in October, adding to pressure on the govern...

Transforming Addiction Treatment Marketing Across Australasia & Southeast Asia

In a competitive and highly regulated space like addiction treatment, standing out online is no sm...

Aiper Scuba X1 Robotic Pool Cleaner Review: Powerful Cleaning, Smart Design

If you’re anything like me, the dream is a pool that always looks swimmable without you having to ha...

YepAI Emerges as AI Dark Horse, Launches V3 SuperAgent to Revolutionize E-commerce

November 24, 2025 – YepAI today announced the launch of its V3 SuperAgent, an enhanced AI platf...

What SMEs Should Look For When Choosing a Shared Office in 2026

Small and medium-sized enterprises remain the backbone of Australia’s economy. As of mid-2024, sma...

Anthony Albanese Probably Won’t Lead Labor Into the Next Federal Election — So Who Will?

As Australia edges closer to the next federal election, a quiet but unmistakable shift is rippli...