This paper examines how evidential standards are constructed, interpreted, and enforced in paleoanthropology and funerary archaeology, focusing on claims of deliberate burial practices in Homo naledi. We begin by tracing how criteria for identifying burials have been historically articulated within funerary archaeology. We then turn to the debate sparked by Berger and colleagues’ 2023 preprint, which claims intentional burial by H. naledi, analyzing the ensuing public peer review and critical responses—a snapshot of an ongoing discussion that offers a rich empirical terrain for philosophical analysis. We argue that, in its earlier stage, disagreement did not primarily concern the identification of relevant standards, but rather how such standards are conceptualized and applied—a phenomenon we believe is not an unusual feature of paleoanthropological debates. We distinguish between checklist-based and scaffolding-based construals of evidential standards: the former is primarily concerned with the collection of relevant types of data, while the latter focuses on the inferential architecture that connects data to the claims they are meant to support. We then show how critical assessments of H. naledi burial claims suggested failures of adherence under both accounts. We further extend our analysis to the arguments presented in the second preprint (published as the version of record in September 2025), emphasizing how they relate to the original debate. Finally, we show how a scaffolding-based construal of evidential standards comes with norms of adherence in the communication of science, and discuss their implications in high-visibility paleoanthropology.
