Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Before providing my review of the revised version of this study by Berger et al., which explores potential deliberate burials of Homo naledi within the Rising Star Cave System, I would like to briefly summarize the key points from my previous review of the earlier version (in 2023). Summarizing my previous review will provide context for assessing how effectively the revised study addresses the concerns I raised previously (in 2023).
In my earlier comments, I highlighted significant methodological and analytical shortcomings that, in my view, undermined the authors' claim of intentional burials by Homo naledi. While the study presented detailed geological and fossil data, I found the evidence for intentional burials unconvincing due to insufficient application of archaeothanatological principles and other methodological gaps.
My key concerns included:
(1) The absence of a comprehensive archaeothanatological analysis, particularly with respect to taphonomic changes, bone articulations, and displacement patterns such as the collapse of sediments and bone remains into voids created by decomposition.
(2) Missing or unclear illustrations of bone arrangements, which are critical for interpreting burial positions and processes.
(3) A lack of detailed discussion on the sequence of decomposition, joint disarticulation, sediment infill, and secondary bone displacement.
To convincingly support claims of deliberate burial, I argued that the study must reconstruct the timeline and processes surrounding death and deposition while clearly distinguishing natural taphonomic changes from intentional human actions. I emphasized the importance of integrating established archaeothanatological frameworks, such as those outlined by Duday et al. or Boulestin et al., to provide the necessary analytical rigor.
I will now explain how the revised version of this study has successfully addressed all the concerns raised in my previous review and why I now think that the authors provide sufficient evidence for the presence of "repeated and patterned" deliberate burials (referred to as "cultural burials" by the authors) by Homo naledi within the Rising Star Cave System.
In their revised manuscript, the authors have implemented substantial improvements in methodology, analytical depth, and overall presentation, which have effectively resolved the critical issues I previously highlighted. These revisions greatly strengthen their argument for intentional funerary practices. Importantly, the authors remain cautious in their interpretation of the evidence, explicitly refraining from inferring "symbolic" behavior or complex cognitive motivations behind these burials. Instead, they focus on presenting clear evidence for deliberate, patterned practices while leaving the broader implications for Homo naledi's cultural and cognitive capacities open for further investigation. This cautious approach adds to the credibility of their conclusions and avoids overextending the interpretation of the data.
The authors' enhanced application of archaeothanatological principles now offers a more comprehensive and convincing interpretation of the burial features. Key gaps in the earlier version, such as the absence of detailed reconstructions of taphonomic processes, bone articulations, and displacement patterns, have been addressed with thorough analyses and clearer illustrations. The study also now includes a well-structured timeline of events surrounding death and deposition, demonstrating an improved ability to differentiate between natural processes and deliberate human actions. These additions lend greater clarity and rigor to the evidence, making the argument for intentional burials both robust and persuasive.
Furthermore, the revised study presents detailed data on skeletal arrangements, decomposition sequences, and spatial patterns. This information is now relatively well illustrated and contextualized, enabling readers to better understand the complex processes involved in these burial practices. Importantly, the authors provide a stronger theoretical framework, integrating established archaeothanatological methodologies and taphonomic studies that situate their findings within broader archaeological and anthropological discussions of funerary behavior.
That being said, there remain relatively minor issues that could be refined further. Addressing these would help ensure the study is as clear and accessible as possible to the reader. Such adjustments would enhance the overall readability and reinforce the study's impact within the scientific community.
A - Suggested changes:
While the revised version of this study marks a significant improvement, successfully addresses my previous major concerns and provides a convincing argument for deliberate burials by Homo naledi, I believe that including both one summary table + one summary figure for each of the three main locations and the-Hill Antechamber, and Dinaledi Chamber (Feature 1 and Puzzle Box)-would further enhance the clarity and accessibility of the findings. Such tables and figures would serve as a valuable reference, allowing readers to more easily follow how the detailed patterns observed at each site fit the criteria for distinguishing intentional from natural processes.
The summary tables should consolidate key information for each location, such as:
(1) Bone articulations: A comprehensive list of articulated skeletal elements, categorized by their anatomical relationships (e.g., labile vs. stable articulations).
(2) Displacement patterns: Documentation of any spatial shifts in bone positions, noting directions and extents of disarticulation.
(3) Sequence of decomposition: Observations regarding the sequence of decomposition, joint disarticulation and associated changes in bone arrangements.
(4) Sediment interaction: Notes on sediment infill and its timing relative to decomposition, including evidence of secondary voids or delayed sediment deposition.
(5) Distinguishing criteria: Clear indications of how each observed pattern supports intentional burial (e.g., structured placement, lack of natural transport mechanisms) versus natural processes (e.g., random dispersal, sediment-driven bone displacement).<br />
Including such tables would not only summarize the complex taphonomic and archaeothanatological data but also allow readers to quickly assess how the evidence supports the authors' conclusions. This approach would bridge the gap between the detailed narrative descriptions and the criteria necessary to differentiate deliberate funerary practices from natural occurrences.
To streamline the main text further, many of the detailed descriptions of individual bones, specific displacement measurements, and other intricate observations could be moved to the supplementary data. This reorganization would maintain the richness of the data for those who wish to explore it in depth, while the summary tables would present the key findings concisely in the main text. This balance between accessibility and detail would ensure that the study appeals to both specialists requiring comprehensive data and readers looking for an overarching understanding of the findings.
In addition to these structural changes, it is crucial to ensure that evidence is consistently illustrated throughout the text.
Importantly the skeletal part representation is provided for Dinaledi Feature 1 in Figure 14, but similar data is not presented for the other burial features, such as those in the Hill Antechamber or Puzzle Box. This inconsistency could make it more challenging for readers to compare the features and fully appreciate the patterns of burial behavior across the different locations. Ensuring that similar types of evidence and analyses are presented uniformly for all features would strengthen the study and make its conclusions more cohesive and compelling.
Adding supplementary figures to represent the skeletal part distribution (as in Figure 14) within each excavated area (i.e., not only for Dinaledi Feature 1 but also for Hill Antechamber and Puzzle Box) would significantly enhance the study's clarity and accessibility. These figures could provide a visual summary of skeletal part representation, allowing readers to easily understand the nature of human remains within each burial context.
Specifically, such figures could:
(1) Illustrate Skeletal Part Representation: By visually mapping the presence and location of various skeletal elements, the figures would make it easier for readers to assess the completeness and arrangement of remains in each feature. This is particularly important for interpreting patterns of bone articulation and disarticulation.<br />
For example, it is quite challenging to determine the exact number and characteristics of the human skeletal remains identified within the Puzzle Box and those recovered through the "subsurface collection" in its surrounding area. The authors state that "at least six individuals" were identified in this area (during "subsurface collection") but provide no further clarification. They simply mention that "most elements" were described previously, without specifying which elements or where this prior description can be found.
(2) Highlight Articulations and Displacements: Figures could indicate which bones are articulated and their relative positions, as well as the spatial distribution of disarticulated elements. This would provide a clear visual context to support interpretations of taphonomic processes.
(3) Facilitate Comparisons Across Locations: By presenting skeletal part representation consistently for each location, the figures would enable readers to directly compare features, reinforcing the argument for "repeated and patterned" behavior.
(4) Simplify Complex Data: Instead of relying solely on textual descriptions, the visual format would allow readers to quickly grasp the key findings, making the study more accessible to a broader audience
By including such figures alongside the proposed summary tables in the main text, the study would achieve a balance between detailed narrative descriptions and concise, visual representation of the data. This approach would strengthen the overall presentation and support the authors' conclusions effectively.
Again, by presenting the data in a structured and comparative format, the new tables + figures could also highlight the differences and similarities between the three locations. This would reinforce the argument for "repeated and patterned" behavior, as the tables would make it easier to observe consistent burial practices across different contexts within the Rising Star Cave System.
Adding these summary tables + figures, ensuring consistent presentation of evidence, and reallocating detailed descriptions to supplementary materials would not require significant new analysis. However, these organizational adjustments would greatly enhance the study's clarity, readability, and overall impact.
B - A few additional changes are needed:
Figure 8: This figure is critical but lacks clarity. Specifically:
Panels 8a-c suffer from low contrast, making details difficult to discern.<br />
Panel 8d (sediment profile) is too small and lacks annotations that would aid interpretation.<br />
Figure S7: While this figure has significantly better contrast than Figures 8a-c, I am unable to identify the "articulated foot ... at right of frame," as mentioned in the caption. Please clarify this by adding annotations directly to the figure.
Page 4, 2nd paragraph: In the sentence "Researchers thus have diverse opinions about how to test whether ...," the word "opinions" should be replaced with a more precise term, such as "approaches."
C - In conclusion, I am impressed by the significant effort and meticulous work that has gone into this revised version of the study. The quality of the new evidence presented is commendable, and the findings now convincingly demonstrate not only clear evidence of intentional burial practices by Homo naledi but also compelling indications of post-depositional reworking. These advancements reflect a major improvement in the study's analytical rigor and the robustness of its conclusions, making it a valuable contribution to the understanding of early hominin funerary behavior.