Abstract
The Homo naledi fossil discovery in South Africa’s Rising Star Cave System has sparked considerable attention and controversy since its announcement in 2015. What initially seemed to be just an addition to the hominin fossil record, has since evolved into a broader and complex discourse that encompasses themes such as what humanness means and how science should be practised and disseminated. This article critically explores the so-called burial discourse surrounding Homo naledi, focusing on the central controversy: Did this small-brained hominin species deliberately dispose of or even bury their dead? It investigates how power flows through and across the discourse network to shape knowledge, narratives and truth claims in the discourse and is structured around five interrelated research questions:
- What is the burial discourse about?
- Why is it important?
- How is it conducted?
- Where is it conducted?
- What role does the media play?
The article is theoretically rooted in actor-network theory (ANT), which conceptualises the world as composed of networks of interrelated human and non-human actors. ANT posits that no single actor – whether a scientist, a rock formation, or a media narrative – has privileged access to truth or authority. Rather, knowledge and reality are emergent properties of these relational networks.
In this context, the burial hypothesis is understood not merely as an archaeological claim, but as an assemblage of actors (including academic articles, sediment samples, cave access routes, anatomical features, and peer review mechanisms) that together produce a certain “truth”. Power, within ANT, is not something possessed but something enacted through networked relationships. Therefore, understanding the burial discourse requires unpacking how actors align, resist, or transform each other to reinforce or contest dominant narratives.
The study utilises critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine how the burial discourse unfolds across various platforms – particularly in academic literature. It focuses on the linguistic, structural, and contextual features of the texts to identify how authority is claimed, dissent is managed, and meaning is constructed. Sources were collected through open-access platforms such as Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and journal websites, given the author’s position as an independent researcher without institutional access. Preprints, peer-reviewed articles, and editorial feedback were systematically coded using thematic categories (e.g. scientific method, uncertainty, language use, rhetorical devices).
Crucially, the article does not assess the validity of the burial hypothesis per se, but rather the nature and dynamics of the discourse surrounding it. The study also reflects on the ethical use of AI (specifically ChatGPT) as a research assistant to help identify sources, test arguments, and refine textual output.
Key findings
a. What is the burial discourse about?
At its core, the burial discourse revolves around the question: Is there sufficient evidence that Homo naledi intentionally buried their dead? Two major camps have emerged:
- Proponents, led by Berger et al., argue that geological and anatomical evidence suggests intentional burial behaviour – graves dug, bodies placed before soft tissue decomposition, and specific cave chambers used for interment.
- Sceptics contest the strength of this evidence, pointing to alternative explanations such as water transport, accidental entrapment, or natural sedimentation. They argue that the interpretations rely on limited and ambiguous data.
This debate hinges not only on interpretation but on terminological shifts. The original claim referred to “deliberate disposal of the dead”. Over time, this was reinterpreted – by both critics and proponents – as implying full ritual burial, which carries significant cognitive and cultural implications. This shift illustrates how words themselves become actors, altering the trajectory of discourse and power.
b. Why does it matter?
The burial discourse holds deep implications for how we define humanness. If Homo naledi exhibited mortuary or ritual behaviour, it challenges the assumption that such practices are unique to cognitively advanced Homo sapiens. It raises questions about the evolution of religion, emotion, symbolic behaviour, and social complexity.
Beyond scientific implications, the discourse intersects with race, coloniality, and Eurocentrism. Historical views – stemming from Linnaean classification systems and colonial pseudoscience – have long equated African ancestry with primitiveness. Thus, for some audiences, accepting Homo naledi as a “burial-practising” hominin destabilises racialised hierarchies of cognition and culture. Conversely, others reject this precisely because it disrupts long-held assumptions about who counts as fully human.
c. How is the discourse conducted?
A major contribution of the study lies in its detailed analysis of language use in both camps. Using CDA and words and phrases from their texts, the contribution illustrates how both the proponents and sceptics rely heavily on:
- Emotive and persuasive language
- Hyperbole and rhetorical contrasts
- Appeals to scientific legitimacy
- Characterisations of opponents’ views as misleading or unscientific
Tables in the contribution document instances where sceptics use terms like “purporting”, “fallacious”, and “orchestrated exploitation”, while proponents invoke phrases such as “triumph in the democratisation of science” or “extraordinary cultural behaviour”.
This rhetorical strategy creates a polarised and performative discourse, where both sides seek to consolidate their authority through linguistic domination. The very nature of truth in palaeoanthropology becomes entangled with stylistic choices and discursive framing.
d. Where is the discourse conducted?
The burial discourse unfolds across multiple platforms, including scientific journals, preprint servers, and editorial commentaries. However, a noteworthy controversy has emerged around the peer review process itself. The proponents published key articles supporting the burial hypothesis in an open-access journal with a non-traditional editorial process where texts are made available to the public after peer review but before final acceptance. This led to accusations from sceptics that the proponents intentionally bypassed rigorous scrutiny by avoiding journals with stricter peer review standards. However, the new model could be a way to respond to the critique raised against the traditional peer review model whilst open-access journals could be a way to democratise the dissemination of knowledge and disrupt existing power structures. Thus, the discourse is not only about burial, but about who gets to validate science, and how. The publication venues themselves become actors in the network, shaping credibility, access, and scientific legitimacy.
e. What role does the media play?
The role of the media is central – and controversial – in the Homo naledi narrative. From the beginning, the discovery was unveiled through a well-coordinated media campaign involving National Geographic, press events, and an international documentary release. Sceptics have accused the team of creating a “media circus”, arguing that the science was orchestrated to suit the documentary format rather than academic integrity. This suspicion intensified in 2023 when the burial hypothesis was presented again with high media visibility alongside fresh publications. The article illustrates how the media, scientists, and power are continually interacting and changing with one another. Within ANT, the media is not a passive relay of information – it actively shapes the flow of power, legitimacy, and meaning in the network. The burial discourse thus exemplifies how the media, within ANT, becomes a powerful non-human actor, shaping the flow of influence, data interpretation, and public perception.
Conclusion
This article illustrates that the Homo naledi burial discourse is not merely a debate over archaeological data, but a complex, power-laden network of actors negotiating meaning, truth, and identity. The use of ANT and CDA provides an analytical framework for understanding how scientific narratives emerge not solely from empirical evidence, but from relationships, rhetoric, and power dynamics.
Key insights include:
- The Homo naledi burial discourse reveals how scientific knowledge is shaped within complex networks of human and non-human actors. Central to this is the recognition that no single actor holds absolute authority. Instead, reality emerges through interdependent relationships where actors are products of network dynamics.
- The discourse highlights the importance of precise scientific communication, especially when claims are both empirically grounded and speculative. Scientists must remain conscious of their language choices, as persuasive and emotive rhetoric – though engaging – can blur the line between credible science and popular narrative.
- The media’s growing role in scientific dissemination means that researchers face increased pressure to share preliminary findings, while also benefiting from broader public engagement. This media presence reshapes expectations of transparency and accountability.
- Moreover, as science becomes more democratised, debates over peer review standards intensify. The burial discourse illustrates that review processes themselves are under contestation.
- Lastly, the discourse challenges anthropocentric views, reminding us that humanness does not imply superiority. Human actors, like all others in the network, are part of a shared ecosystem of meaning and responsibility.
The discourse about Homo naledi’s burial practices reveals as much about us and our epistemologies as it does about a long-extinct species. And, as the bones themselves are quiet, humans are bound to research and debate whether Homo naledi buried their deceased kin or not. If only the bones could speak for themselves.
Keywords: actor-network theory; burial discourse; critical discourse analysis; Homo naledi; humanness; language; media; peer review; power dynamics; scientific publication
- This article’s featured image was created by Felipe Hueb and obtained from Pexels.
Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans
As die bene net wou praat – temas uit die Homo naledi-grafdiskoers