Abstract
In this study we describe new results of excavations in the Dinaledi Subsystem of the Rising Star cave system, South Africa. In two areas within the Hill Antechamber and the Dinaledi Chamber this work uncovered concentrations of abundant Homo naledi fossils including articulated, matrix-supported skeletal regions consistent with rapid covering by sediment prior to the decomposition of soft tissue. We additionally re-examine the spatial positioning of skeletal material and associated sediments within the Puzzle Box area, from which abundant H. naledi remains representing a minimum of six individuals were recovered in 2013 and 2014. Multiple lines of evidence exclude the hypothesis that skeletal remains from these three areas come from bodies that decomposed on the floor of the chamber or within a shallow depression prior to burial by sediments. The spatial positioning of skeletal material, the topography of the subsystem, and observations on sediments within and surrounding features exclude the hypothesis that rapid burial by sediment was a result of gravity-driven slumping or spontaneous movement of sediments. We present a minimal hypothesis of hominin cultural burial and test the evidence from all three areas, finding that this hypothesis is most compatible with the pattern of evidence. These results suggest that mortuary behavior including cultural burial was part of the repertoire of Homo naledi.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Footnotes
We extend our sincere thanks to the editor, referees for eLife, and other commentators who have written evaluations of this manuscript, either in whole or in part. Sources of these comments were highly varied, including within the bioRxiv preprint server, social media (including many comments received on X/Twitter and some YouTube presentations and interviews), comments made by colleagues to journalists, and also some reviews of the work published in other academic journals. Some of these are formal and referenced with citations. Others were informal but nonetheless expressed perspectives that helped enable us to revise the manuscript with the inclusion of broader perspectives than the formal review process. It is beyond the scope of this summary to list every one of these, which have often been brought to the attention of different coauthors, but we begin by acknowledging the very wide array of peer and public commentary that have contributed to this work. The reaction speaks to a broad interest in open discussion and review of preprints. Given the extensive revisions required by the above, we have provided a supplementary document outlining all revisions that we encourage readers to examine first, as well as a copy of these revisions in the comments section of this revised manuscript and supplementary information.
