SKULL CULTS, CANNIBALISM AND RITUALISTIC USES OF HUMAN BONES IN NEOLITHIC EUROPE

SKULL CULTS

Teviec Burial from 6,700 years ago

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica: “Skull cult, veneration of human skulls, usually those of ancestors, by various prehistoric and some modern primitive people. Begun probably as early as the Early Paleolithic Period, the practice of preserving and honouring the skull apart from the rest of the skeleton appears to have continued in different forms throughout prehistoric times. Although some scholars believe that these skulls demonstrate prehistoric man’s cannibalism, most authorities agree that the skulls were cleaned and set up for worship long after death. [Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica]

“Prehistoric man also paid special attention to animal skulls. This practice is believed to have been a type of hunting magic, whereas the human skulls were honoured with the reverence accorded to heroic ancestors and perhaps also were thought to assure the possessor of the protection and help of the deceased.

In presentation on skull treatments in the Mesolithic era (11,600-4000 B.C.), Rick J. Schulting of the University of Oxford wrote: “The human head holds four of the body’s five main senses – sight, hearing, smell and taste – and shares the fifth, touch. Taken together with the uniqueness of facial features and their expressive capacity for communicating emotional states, it is not surprising that cultures around the world evince a strong interest in the head, in its embellishment with cosmetics and with adornments, in the elaboration of hair styles, and the wearing of head gear, as well as its prominent iconographic presence in what can be broadly termed ‘art’. And in death, if the corporeal remains are manipulated at all, it is the head that is often singled out for special treatment. [Source: Mesolithic 'skull cults' by Rick J. Schulting, University of Oxford, Conference Paper at the conference “Ancient Death Ways II. Proceedings of the workshop on archaeology and mortuary practices” at Uppsala, Sweden May 2013 ~]

“There is a rich ethnographic record documenting such practices, and for many periods of the historic and prehistoric past there is abundant archaeological evidence for the importance attached to the head, although specific meanings may be debated. But the archaeological record becomes progressively more difficult to read the further back in time one moves, if only because it tends to be far more fragmentary and incomplete. Nevertheless, a number of both old and recent finds combine to suggest a special interest in the human head in Mesolithic communities in various parts of Europe and adjacent regions of Southwest Asia and North Africa. But aside from being of some intrinsic interest, what does this behaviour tell us about people’s views of themselves and their world? This contribution presents a survey of some of the evidence for practices involving the human skull in Mesolithic Europe, with brief forays into the aforementioned adjacent regions, touching upon both earlier and later periods before returning to the paper’s central theme: Is there evidence for a Mesolithic ‘skull cult’, and, if so, how might it be understood? ~

“The skull consists of the cranium and the mandible, whereas the cranium lacks the mandible. Since the mandible easily becomes detached from the cranium as the corpse decays, its presence indicates an intact head. One or more upper cervical vertebrae would also be expected to be present in this case. A cranium, conversely, may have been collected at any time (e.g. by digging into a grave and removing it) and so does not have the same connotations.~

“While long known as a feature of the Near Eastern Neolithic, there is growing evidence for the special treatment of the human head in Mesolithic Europe. This takes the form of secondary deposition of crania and mandibles, often in unusual contexts, including as ‘grave goods’ with other burials; cutmarks suggesting decapitation, scalping and defleshing; and the deposition of fleshed heads in pits, as well as, most recently, on stakes in shallow pools. After reviewing this evidence, discussion turns to its interpretation. Possible links with the ‘ancestors’ are explored, and ethnographic support for their importance among hunter-gatherers is reviewed. If accepted, there may be implications for the expression of territoriality in the Mesolithic. The blurring of the lines between revered ancestor and enemy when interpreting the treatment of human heads is emphasised.” ~

Good Websites Archaeology News Report archaeologynewsreport.blogspot.com ; Anthropology.net anthropology.net : archaeologica.org archaeologica.org ; Archaeology in Europe archeurope.com ; Archaeology magazine archaeology.org ; HeritageDaily heritagedaily.com; Livescience livescience.com/

European Hunters Carved Human Bones Into Weapons 10,000 Years Ago

skull cup from Gough's Cave

Doggerland refers to a region that connected Britain and mainland Europe when sea levels were lower. Distinctive weapons — slender, saw-toothed bone points — made by Doggerland land inhabitants have been dredged up from the bottom of the North Sea. Fossil-hunters have collected nearly 1,000 of the jagged bone weapons, known to archaeologists as Mesolithic barbed points. In 2020, a team, led by Leiden University archaeologists, announced their results of an analysis of some these washed-up weapons in which they performed molecular measurements to determine which species the barbed points were made from. They found most of the roughly 10,000-year-old points were made of red deer bone but two were fashioned from human skeletons. This was the first tim archaeologists found clear evidence that ancient Europeans carefully crafted human bones into deadly weapons. [Source: Bridget Alex, smithsonianmag.com, December 21, 2020]

Why did they do it? Bridget Alex wrote in Smithsonian.com: Practical or economic concerns seemed unlikely explanations: Other raw materials like antler would have been more readily available and durable. Rather, the researchers concluded that ancient hunters chose these particular bones for symbolic reasons, related to their social or spiritual beliefs. “This was not an economic decision,” says archaeologist Joannes Dekker, lead author of the study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. The economic move would have been for ancient hunter-gatherers to produce strong points, quickly from animal parts leftover from meals. In that case, researchers would expect to find points made from antler as well as bones of aurochs, other deer species and Eurasian elk. These creatures roamed Mesolithic Doggerland, and experiments by modern archaeologists have shown their bones make excellent projectile weapons.

The fact that the scientists found predominately red deer and human bones suggests, “There must have been some other reason, a cultural reason, why it was important to use these species,” says Dekker, a Masters student at Leiden University in the Netherlands. The specific motivations driving this Doggerland fad, though, remain a mystery. “You can measure modern bone to see its properties as a projectile point,” says Dekker. “You can’t measure the thoughts in the head of a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer.”

Still, knowing Mesolithic people used human bones this way is a major discovery. “The human stuff is a complete shock,” says Newcastle University archaeologist Benjamin Elliott. According to him, earlier researchers had floated the idea that human bone comprised some especially long barbed points found in Ireland. Those speculations were based on the fact that there weren’t many large mammals, besides humans, on the island back when the artifacts were made. But until recently, no technology existed to test those claims.

Evidence of Cannibalism in Spain 10,000 Years Ago?

possibel signs of cannibalism on a Gough's Cave skull

Purported evidence of cannibalism on human bones dated to about 10,000 years ago has been found in a cave about an hour's drive south of Valencia, Spain. Mike McRae wrote in Science Alert, “Researchers studying the dig site of Coves de Santa Maira have studied 30 human bones uncovered over the past few decades that appear to belong to at least two adults and a young child, all of whom lived some time during the final thousand years of the last glacial period.

Many of the adult bones show signs of having been cut and hammered with stone tools, heated, and possibly bitten by other humans, and were found scattered among the remains of other animals, such as ibex and red deer. Intriguingly, differences in radio-carbon dating suggest this occurred on at least two separate occasions. [Source: Mike McRae, Science Alert, March 22, 2017 =||=]

“While cannibalism is a taboo practice today, it's not at all uncommon in nature, or even in our own past. But proving what anthropologists call 'anthropophagic practices' within ancient cultures is no simple task. From an evidence-based perspective, signs of cooking could sometimes be the result of normal funerary practices, or even just the wear and tear of the remains as they slowly move about over the millennia. "In North African sites ... there are dismembered human remains with cut marks associated with secondary burials," the researchers point out in their recent paper. =||=

“It's important not to jump to conclusions too quickly, given in some cases bodies were dug up, cut up, and buried in pieces without being served with a side of rabbit. To be fairly certain that these bones are evidence of cannibalism among our ancient relatives, the researchers applied the following checklist based on the work of French anthropologist Bruno Boulestin: 1) Direct proof: the presence of human bones within human coprolites or the identification of human bites on human bones; 2) Indirect proof: mainly cooking or pot polish marks; 3) First-order primary criteria: anthropogenic fracture and differential anatomical representation; 4) Second-order primary criteria: mainly cut marks; 5) Secondary criteria that are not directly related to functional exploitation: position and preservation of the bones and presence of burned bones. =||=

“In simpler terms, if you find human bones in human poo, marks on bones associated with cooking, bones that seem to have been pounded open or cut into with a tool, or bones scattered rather than neatly placed, you can confidently conclude 'cannibalism'. In this case, the researchers were able to tick boxes 2-5, missing out on human bones in coprolite, or preserved faeces. Distinguishing the marks made by our own teeth from those of an animal isn't always clear, yet in this case the researchers were fairly sure the double arch punctures and triangular pits were a good sign that they came from human canines and molars. =||=

“So, the evidence has piled up in favour of at least two meals of human flesh and marrow. But why did they do it? That part remains something of a mystery; humans have been known to eat one another in times of desperation, but there's also the possibility it was simply a way to either honour the dead or insult an enemy, either from one's own family or from an outside group The world was changing around 10,000 years ago, with the beginnings of agriculture springing up among some cultures, and populations migrating far and wide as the last ice age came to a close. It's possible that the community that lived around the Coves de Santa Maira area might have run into hardship, although the numerous animal bones, sea shells, and broad range of resources in the surrounding environment at the time make that hypothesis a little less likely. =||=

“An increase in human remains dating to that period in the western Mediterranean suggest there could have been more encounters between different cultures, either leading to conflicts or competition over resources, or even an exchange of new rituals and cultural practices. Humans and their closest relatives have been burying their dead for at least the last 50,000 years, if not far longer, so it's not hard to imagine in that time there have been a few examples of funeral ritual we might find a little uncomfortable today. Who knows what bones are left to be discovered, and what secrets of past cultures they might yet reveal. This research was published in the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. =||=

Skull Treatments in Europe

Teviec skull

Rick J. Schulting of the University of Oxford wrote: “While ‘skull cups’ do not appear to feature in the Mesolithic, other practices involving crania are reminiscent of those seen in the Late Upper Palaeolithic (this need not imply any direct continuity of the tradition, nor uniformity of meaning). The clearest example is perhaps that at Grotte Margaux (Dinant, Belgium), where an adult female cranium dating to the Preboreal exhibits numerous cutmarks on its zygomatic processes and on various parts of the cranial vault, the former suggesting cutting of the muscle attachment sites to facilitate removal of the mandible, and the latter scalping. Cutmarks consistent with scalping have also been noted on Late Mesolithic remains, including a child’s cranium from Dyrholmen (Jutland, Denmark) as well as examples from Ålekistebro (Sjælland, Denmark) and Drigge (Rügen, Germany). Probable cases of scalping that have survived have been found at Skateholm in southern Sweden and Zvejnieki in Latvia. Presumably most or all of these examples relate to trophy taking, as the hair is widely believed cross-culturally to be a powerful bodily substance. Cutmarked and fractured postcranial remains too were present at Dyrholmen, so treatment there was not restricted to the skull, and indeed the possibility of cannibalism has been raised. The same applies to the large human bone assemblage from La Grotte des Perrats, where there is abundant evidence for reduction of the body, including cutmarks and peri-mortem fracturing, again interpreted in a context of anthropophagy. [Source: Mesolithic 'skull cults' by Rick J. Schulting, University of Oxford, Conference Paper at the conference “Ancient Death Ways II. Proceedings of the workshop on archaeology and mortuary practices” at Uppsala, Sweden May 2013 ~]

“In other cases there is more subtle evidence for special treatment of the skull. The presence of the small bones of the hands and feet of some 12 individuals at the Early Mesolithic site of l’Abri des Autours, Belgium, in conjunction with a dearth of cranial remains, suggests that at least some complete bodies were originally interred, with the skulls subsequently taken away for deposition elsewhere. Erik Brinch Petersen draws attention to a headless Mesolithic skeleton found at Vænge Sø, eastern Jutland, but, recalling the discussion above, it is unclear whether this was intentional removal or due to disturbance. ~

“A different practice is seen at the large Mesolithic and ‘Neolithic’ cemetery of Zvejnieki, Latvia. Special treatment of the head here did not involve its removal, but rather the coating of the face with a layer of coloured clay and the laying of perforated amber disks on the eyes. Only a small number of individuals were treated in this way, comprising three or four out of the more than 300 present. As Nilsson Stutz et al. note, this would have transformed the face of the deceased prior to burial, but it then would no longer have been visible. This transformation was thus intended for the world of the dead, not to be seen by the living, other than for a brief period – and possibly by a limited number of people – before burial. In this sense the practice differs markedly from the plastered ‘skulls’ of the Neolithic Near East, which it otherwise brings to mind. The documentation of the use of amber disks in burials at Zvejnieki has facilitated wider recognition of the practice in other parts of the Baltic where bone does not survive. Thus, paired amber rings with clay plugs found at the Corded Ware Culture sites of Kokemäki Pispa and Laukaa Hartikka in Finland can now be interpreted as having lain on the eyes of the deceased: rings and lens-shaped discs of slate may have served the same function.” ~

Skull Treatments in the Iron Gates

Rick J. Schulting of the University of Oxford wrote: “There is abundant evidence for the special treatment of the human cranium and mandible in the Mesolithic sites of the Iron Gates, including Lepenski Vir. Here, for example, an extended adult skeleton was placed in a pit (Grave 7) dug through the plastered floor of one of the site’s trapezoidal houses. As with other intramural burials at Lepenski Vir, this occurred in a structured space west of the hearth interpreted as a household ‘sanctuary’ by the excavator, Dragoslav Srejović. The pit was later enlarged and an additional human cranium, an auroch skull and a red deer skull with attached antlers were deposited. The human cranium was placed at the left shoulder of the extended skeleton; intriguingly, another cranium was found in this same position in Burial 54e. Conversely, other extended burials, otherwise largely intact, lacked the skull. As with examples in the Near East (no direct connection is being implied), the lack of cutmarks indicates that the skull/cranium was removed only after the flesh, muscles and ligaments had decayed, a period requiring some years. New excavations at Vlasac document an example in Burial H63, a fully articulated adult female lacking the cranium and mandible, but with the uppermost cervical vertebrae in situ; the atlas has been slightly displaced, perhaps when the cranium was removed. Human crania are also found in isolation, as in the case of ‘Burial’ 122, a cranium found above the hearth of building 47. Some of the partially articulated and disarticulated remains have been suggested to represent secondary burial in conjunction with excarnation. [Source: Mesolithic 'skull cults' by Rick J. Schulting, University of Oxford, Conference Paper at the conference “Ancient Death Ways II. Proceedings of the workshop on archaeology and mortuary practices” at Uppsala, Sweden May 2013 ~]

“Given that skulls were often removed, but crania alone found in secondary deposits, it remains to account for the mandibles. Some at least were found set around large stone-lined hearths, as for example in building No. 40 at Lepenski Vir, together with a series of vertically set stone slabs mimicking the mandible’s triangular shape. It is tempting to suggest that the symbolism here revolves around either feeding the an estors, or having the ancestors ‘bless’ the food cooked on the hearth. The mandible in question is that of an adult female, perhaps linking women with the hearth and provision of the family and community. While this relationship is commonly assumed ethnographically, it is rarely demonstrable archaeologically. Even in this case, the situation is likely to be more complex than indicated in such a straightforward reading. And given the difficulty of reliably sexing isolated mandibles on morphological criteria alone, the connection itself is tenuous. ~

“Interpretation of the practices surrounding the human skull at Lepenski Vir and other Iron Gates sites are complicated by the intensity of activity taking place over a number of centuries, concentrated amongst closely associated structures and graves. There is a significant amount of disarticulated human bone – cranial and postcranial – across Lepenski Vir, some of which presumably represents disturbed earlier burials. The cranium may simply have received more careful treatment if disturbed than other elements. However, this is unlikely to be the full explanation. As the aforementioned examples demonstrate, in some cases intentional removal of the skull from a burial can be inferred, the lack of cutmarks on the vertebrae and their continued presence in the grave indicating that the flesh had fully decayed when this was done. In a recent overview of Iron Gate Mesolithic burial practices, Boroneanţ and Bonsall note examples from Lepenski Vir, Vlasac and Schela Cladovei. Detached crania (mandibles are also removed but are not typically recovered with the crania) occur as isolated finds, in small groups, and as inclusions in other graves. With the evidence from these and other sites, it appears that skull removal was common in the Iron Gates Mesolithic. Srejović interprets the treatment of human remains, and especially skulls, at Lepenski Vir as part of a cult of the ancestors.” ~

Teviec burial reconstruction

Skull Treatments in Sweden

Rick J. Schulting of the University of Oxford wrote: “Without doubt the most spectacular finding in recent years in European Mesolithic studies is the site of Kanaljorden (Östergötland, Sweden). Here was found a number of human crania set on stakes on a submerged stone platform within a small, shallow lake adjacent to the river Motala Ström. Again, an important detail is that few mandibles were present, indicating that rather than heads, these were at least partially decomposed crania. Complicating this picture, however, is the fact that one of the crania was found to contain brain matter, indicating that either it derived from a relatively recently deceased individual, or that it was retrieved from a location with excellent preservational properties – such as would be supplied by the anaerobic conditions of small lakes and bogs. As with most discussions concerning the special treatment of human heads, the question arises as to whether this is a complex mortuary treatment carried out by one’s own group, or related to the taking of enemy heads as trophies. These alternatives, rather than being mutually exclusive, can be seen as opposite sides of the same coin: if the power to act or to intercede on behalf of the living is imputed to the dead, and in particular to the distillation encapsulated by the head, then taking that power away from an enemy forms part of the same logic. [Source: Mesolithic 'skull cults' by Rick J. Schulting, University of Oxford, Conference Paper at the conference “Ancient Death Ways II. Proceedings of the workshop on archaeology and mortuary practices” at Uppsala, Sweden May 2013 ~]

“Kanaljorden aside, some of the most compelling evidence for practices involving human heads in the European Mesolithic comes from the sites of Ofnet, Kaufertsberg (Bayern) and Hohlenstein-Stadel (Baden-Württemberg) in south-west Germany and Mannlefelsen (Alsace) in north-east France. These sites are of particular interest for a number of reasons. Firstly, and unlike the examples discussed up to this point, the presence of the mandible and one or more upper cervical vertebrae unequivocally indicates that these were fleshed heads when deposited, presumably not long after removal from the body, though this last aspect is open to further discussion: Ian Armit has suggested that the heads may have been dried and curated. The presence of soft tissue is further confirmed by the presence of cutmarks on the vertebrae. Secondly, there is considerable evidence for trauma on the crania. All three individuals at Hohlenstein-Stadel – an adult male and female, and a young child – show peri-mortem blows (occurring at or around the time of death). The child’s cranial vault is enlarged and distorted, a condition consistent with hydrocephaly. Untreated, the condition is invariably fatal. It may arise in infancy, leading not only to obvious shape changes in the child’s head, but also to behavioural changes. The rapid onset and highly visible nature of the condition may have been seen as inauspicious, and may have led to the killing of the child together with its parents (although the genetic link has not been confirmed). The single adult male skull at Mannlefelsen exhibits both cutmarks and perimortem injuries according to a recent re-analysis. No injuries have been reported for the young adult male skull from Kaufertsberg, though of course this need not mean that this individual did not also die violently. ~

“In terms of the number of individuals involved, Ofnet clearly stands out from the other sites. In 1908 two ‘skull nests’ were found within Ofnet cave, Bavaria, comprising a smaller group of six skulls in one pit, and a larger group of 28 in another. The exact number is unclear, which is not surprising given the fragmentary nature of the remains, the presence of many younger children with more fragile and unfused crania, and the early nineteenth century date of recovery. All of the skulls – or rather heads at the time they were deposited – were oriented facing west, while the cave itself opens to the south-west, leaving it uncertain whether they faced the entrance or the cave wall adjacent to it; the importance of direction is suggested by the Kaufertsberg skull, which Judith Grünberg has suggested was positioned to look out across the valley. A number of the Ofnet skulls were covered with red ochre and abundant red deer and shell bead ornamentation. Many have commented on the site’s unusual demography, which seems to indicate an overrepresentation of children and a paucity of adult males relative to a living community: of the 14 or 15 adults in the two pits, nine or ten are female and five are male. Both points are debatable. Firstly, subadult presence and mortality would be expected to be high at this time (it is the underrepresentation of young children that is the anomalous feature of many archaeological cemeteries). And secondly, given the relatively small number of individuals involved, the female–male ratio (10:5) in fact does not depart significantly from 50:50 (one-tailed binomial p = 0.151). ~

“While the exact number is uncertain, many of the Ofnet crania show evidence of peri-mortem trauma in the form of stone axe blows. With the claimed percentage affected varying between ca. 20% and 60%, this in itself strongly suggests that burial assemblage is far from reflecting a normative mortuary rite. This is further supported by the injuries found on the skulls from Hohlenstein-Stadel and Mannlefelsen. This may be a mortuary rite specifically for those dying violently, though this raises the question of why so many children are represented at Ofnet, unless this is indeed a massacre site (and not all the crania need necessarily provide evidence of injury, as some individuals may have been killed in other ways). One problem is that so little is known of other contemporary burial practices in the region. In any case, the ritual importance of the head is indicated. Their careful placement within pits, together with red ochre and, at Ofnet, abundant bead ornamentation, together with their shared orientation, all speak of these heads being perceived as having special power. Thus, the evidence from SW Germany and NE France suggests that the term ‘skull cult’ might not be inappropriate, though this depends on exactly what the term is taken to mean. Certainly an interest in the head can be seen, but whether their careful treatment qualifies as veneration – a central feature of the definition – is unclear. ~

“The main point of controversy regarding Ofnet has from the beginning revolved around its chronology. The initial debate focused on whether the ‘skull nests’ should be attributed to the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic. As Naber points out, even before any direct dating was carried out, the recorded stratigraphy and closely associated microliths supported a Mesolithic date. A series of radiocarbon dates confirmed this attribution. The next issue, still unresolved, relates to whether deposition of the skulls occurred over some centuries, or over a much shorter period, perhaps even as a single event. If the latter, and given the evidence for peri-mortem trauma, the possibility of a massacre presents itself, a position taken by David Frayer. If the two pits are contemporary, the 34 men, women and children could well represent an entire hunter-gatherer band – an extraordinary level of violence for this period. Jörg Orscheidt, on the other hand, has argued that the range of radiocarbon dates obtained on the remains is more consistent with repeated deposition spanning some centuries. The available dating is simply not good enough to decide between these two alternatives. A new dating programme is currently underway, with the specific aim of assessing the duration of use of the two pits at Ofnet. While it will not be possible to positively identify a single event, higher precision dates combined with Bayesian modelling should be able to distinguish between deposition occurring over more or less than a generation. If the dates are consistent with a generation or less (i.e. approximately 20 years), it would strongly support the massacre hypothesis.” ~

Teviec burial

Neolithic Skull Cup and Manipulated Human Bones Found in Spanish Cave

On September 2023, scientists announced the discovery of a manipulated human shinbone used as a tool and a drinking cup fashioned from a human skull at a cave in Spain between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago. There was also possible evidence of cannibalism Similar evidence had been found throughout the region, hinting that interactions relationship between the living and the dead was important to people living at that time. fundamental to human societies at that time, the researchers reported in the study, published on September 20, 2023 in the journal PLOS One. "The ways in which humans treat and interact with [human] remains can teach us about the cultural and social aspect of past populations," including their manipulation, retrieval and reburial, the researchers said in a statement. [Source: Tom Metcalfe, Live Science, September 21, 2023]

Tom Metcalfe wrote in Live Science, Authors Zita Laffranchi and Marco Milella, both bioarchaeologists at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and Rafael Martínez Sánchez, an archaeologist at the University of Córdoba in Spain, studied human remains from at least 12 ancient burials from Mármoles cave, about 70 kilometers (45 miles) southeast of Córdoba. The cave was occupied by prehistoric humans at different times, and several ancient burials have been excavated there since the 1930s. Most of the burials in the new study were excavated between 1998 and 2018. The researchers identified the remains of seven adults and five children or juveniles, who'd been interred between the fifth and second millennium B.C. — roughly from the region's Neolithic period to its Bronze Age.

Microscopic analysis of the bones in the new study found that many showed signs of being deliberately fractured, perhaps to consume their marrow, and scraped to remove any flesh. The team also found a human shinbone, or tibia. Based on the polish and pits on parts of the bone, it seems to have been used as some sort of primitive tool, although the authors didn't speculate on its function. Perhaps the most striking object they studied was a "skull cup" made from a human cranium, probably from a man between the ages of 35 and 50 when he died.

The analysis showed ancient people had intentionally separated the cranium from the lower skull by fracturing the bone at its edges, and then repeatedly scraped it to remove any flesh. Similar "skull cups" have been found at several other Neolithic sites in southern Spain, the authors said. Although they might have been attempts to access the brain so it could be eaten, some skulls have marks consistent with their later use, perhaps as drinking vessels.

The researchers said they can't tell exactly how or why many of the human remains in the Mármoles Cave were utilized after death, but they suggested that some of the bones were broken to extract marrow, a valuable source of nutrients, while others may have been modified into tools or weapons or used for rituals. There's evidence of similar manipulations from other cave burials across southern Iberia at that time, indicating that these ancient societies shared complex cultural beliefs about death and the afterlife, the authors said.

Natural processes in caves could sometimes damage bones without any human intervention, "but the data suggest some targeted practices here," said archaeologist Christian Meyer, head of the OsteoArchaeological Research Centre in Goslar, Germany. Meyer wasn't involved in the new study, but he has published widely on enigmatic Neolithic burial sites. One question was whether the people who reused the bones always recognized if they came from other humans — an issue the authors had rightly discussed, he said. "For sites like these, with multi-period, episodic funerary use and occupation, definite answers to complex questions are almost impossible to get," he said.

Were the Groups in Europe ‘Skull Cults’?

Rick J. Schulting of the University of Oxford wrote: “While the available evidence is patchy and open to various readings, the overview presented here suggests the likelihood of widespread beliefs and practices involving the human head in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe. This is not to imply uniformity, as there are indications of marked regional variability. The best example of this is the carefully placed detached heads from a number of sites in south-west Germany, most notably Ofnet, and north-east France. And while only a small proportion of individuals may be involved, the application of clay ‘masks’ and amber or slate discs on the eyes of the deceased seems to be a distinctive feature of the eastern Baltic. Given the millennia separating Zvejnieki and the Finnish Corded Ware sites, this tradition may be a longstanding one. This need not be surprising, as there are other elements of northern Eurasian hunter-gatherer societies that seem to be widespread and persistent, for example, the use of elk-head imagery; this is found in the Baltic area, including Zvejnieki, and at sites in western Russia, most notably Oleni ostrov (Karelia, Russia) but also others. Marek Zvelebil discusses this and other shared motifs and symbolism in the region. The Mesolithic sites of the Iron Gates provide evidence of a different practice, involving the retrieval of the cranium, and sometimes also the mandible, from burials wherein the flesh had already decayed. While crania were redeposited in various ways, the mandibles were occasionally incorporated into elaborate hearth structures, with rich symbolic potential. Kanaljorden is different again, with partially decomposed heads set on wooden stakes in a shallow pool of water adjacent to a large settlement. Whether this practice will turn out to be more widespread remains to be seen, but it is unlikely to be unique. [Source: Mesolithic 'skull cults' by Rick J. Schulting, University of Oxford, Conference Paper at the conference “Ancient Death Ways II. Proceedings of the workshop on archaeology and mortuary practices” at Uppsala, Sweden May 2013 ~]

“As well as differences, there are tentative suggestions of commonalities, though these need involve nothing more than ways of thinking about the human head shared across many cultures. For example, a number of the cases discussed in this paper imply, to varying extents, an emphasis on the eyes and on the act of watching. This is seen most incontrovertibly, of course, in the addition of shell eyes on the modelled crania and skulls of the PPNB. The isolated cranium of a young female with deer vertebrae discs inserted into the orbits at Mas d’Azil provides an intriguing, if currently unique, example from the Magdalenian. For the Mesolithic, there is use of amber discs for eyes at Zvejnieki, though here the dead did not gaze upon the living, but upon an underworld. Given their early date of excavation, the situation at Ofnet and Kaufertsberg is not clear, but the skulls at both may have been placed to look out of their respective caves, albeit from underground. In any case, it may be significant that all reportedly faced the same direction, perhaps hinting at the importance of a particular view, though its specific meaning escapes us. Views to an underwater otherworld may have played a role for the heads on stakes at Kanaljorden, which may never have risen above the water.~

“What the examples discussed above all share is the recognition that the human skull is a rich and varied source of powerful symbolism. Indeed, this belief is shared much more widely through time and space, and is arguably a defining human characteristic, associated as it is with both personal and group identity. To partially answer the question posed at the beginning of this paper, there is plausible evidence for ‘skull cults’ in the Mesolithic (as indeed there is for the Upper Palaeolithic and for the Neolithic), as evidenced by varied practices involving the head in both its fleshed and bony forms.” ~

Bronze Age Wishing Well Used in 'Cult Rituals' Found in Bavaria

In January 2023, archaeologists in Bavaria, Germany announced that they had found a 3,000-year-old wooden wishing well filled with more than 100 artifacts dating to the Bronze Age. Live Science reported: Unlike modern-day wishing wells, where people toss in coins and make a wish, the items in this well were placed there for "ritual purposes" in what is now the Bavarian town of Germering. The artifacts included more than 70 well-preserved clay vessels, including numerous decorative bowls, cups and pots that were used for special occasions and not "simple everyday crockery," according to a translated statement. [Source: Jennifer Nalewicki, Live Science, January 13, 2023]

Archaeologists also found more than two dozen bronze robe pins, a bracelet, four amber beads, two metal spirals, a mounted animal tooth and a wooden scoop. "It is extremely rare for a well to survive more than 3,000 years so well," Jochen Haberstroh, an archaeologist with the Bavarian State Office for Monument Conservation, said in the statement. "Its wooden walls are completely preserved on the ground and partly still moistened by groundwater. That also explains the good condition of the finds made of organic materials, which are now being examined more closely. We hope that this will provide us with more information about the everyday life of the settlers at the time."

Based on the excellent preservation of the artifacts alone, researchers think villagers likely offered the items for "cult rituals" and that they "were lowered into the well," as opposed to the modern-day act of tossing coins into the water, according to the statement. "They were intended as sacrifices for a good harvest," Mathias Pfeil, general conservator for the Bavarian State Office for Monument Conservation, said in the statement. The December 2022 archaeological dig was conducted prior to the construction of a distribution center in the area. Since 2021, archaeologists have unearthed more than 13,500 artifacts dating to the Bronze Age and the early Middle Ages where the construction project is taking place. Objects from the wishing well are currently being studied by researchers at the Bavarian State Office for Monument Conservation, and will become part of the collection at the Germering City Museum of Science, according to the statement, Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons

Text Sources: National Geographic, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Smithsonian magazine, Nature, Scientific American. Live Science, Discover magazine, Discovery News, Ancient Foods ancientfoods.wordpress.com ; Times of London, Natural History magazine, Archaeology magazine, The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, BBC, The Guardian, Reuters, AP, AFP, Lonely Planet Guides, “World Religions” edited by Geoffrey Parrinder (Facts on File Publications, New York); “History of Warfare” by John Keegan (Vintage Books); “History of Art” by H.W. Janson (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.), Compton’s Encyclopedia and various books and other publications.

Last updated May 2024