Early Neolithic Ritual Funerary Behaviours in the Westernmost Regions of the Mediterranean New Insights from Dehesilla Cave (Southern Iberian Peninsula)

298 Documenta Praehistorica XLVIII (2021) Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave (Southern Iberian Peninsula) Daniel García Rivero1,2,3, Ruth Taylor1,2,3, Cláudia Umbelino3,2, Miriam Cubas4, María Barrera Cruz5,1, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez1 1 Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Seville, Seville, ES [email protected]< [email protected]< [email protected] 2 Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and Evolution of Human Behavior, University of Algarve, Faro, PT 3 Research Centre for Anthropology and Health, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, PT [email protected] 4 Department of History, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, ES< [email protected] 5 Department of Prehistory, Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Valencia, Valencia, ES [email protected] ABSTRACT – An intact archaeological context named Locus 1 has recently been discovered at Dehesilla Cave (southern Spain). The ritual funerary deposition consists of a complete pottery jar with part of a human calvarium over the mouth, and was occulted by large stone blocks. This paper offers a presentation of the new data provided mainly by the stratigraphic, osteological, pottery, lithic and radiocarbon analyses. A systematic review of the relevant evidence in the Iberian Peninsula during the Early Neolithic (c. 5600–4800 cal BC) provides a context for this finding and supports its interpretation with reference to several possible anthropological scenarios. IZVLE∞EK – Nedavno so v jami Dehesilla (ju∫na πpanija) odkrili nepo∏kodovan pogrebni kontekst Locus 1. Gre za v celoti ohranjen kerami≠en lonec z delom ≠love∏kega lobanjskega svoda nad usti, ki je bil prekrit z ve≠jimi kamnitimi bloki. V prispevku predstavljamo nove podatke, ki smo jih pridobili na podlagi stratigrafske in osteolo∏ke analize, analize keramike in kamnitih orodij ter z radiokarbonskim datiranjem. Najdbo postavljamo v kontekst s pomo≠jo sistemati≠nega pregleda relevantnih podatkov iz zgodnjega neolitika (ok. 5600-4800 pr. n. ∏t.) na Iberskem polotoku in podpremo interpretacijo s sklicevanjem na razli≠ne mo∫ne antropolo∏ke scenarije. KEY WORDS – Neolithic; ritual; human skull; pottery jar; residue analysis KLJU∞NE BESEDE – neolitik; obred; ≠love∏ka lobanja; kerami≠ni lonec; analiza ostankov hrane Zgodnje neolitski pogrebni obredi v najbolj zahodnih regijah Sredozemlja> nova spoznanja iz jame Dehesilla (ju/ni Iberski polotok) DOI> 10.4312\dp.48.8 Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ... 299 Another ritual funerary context named Locus 2 has been published recently, but belongs to a later archaeological period, namely the Middle Neolithic (García-Rivero et al. 2020). During the archaeological excavation of Area C006 in 2017, a depositional context was discovered located in one of the innermost chambers of the cave, identified as Unit 10-Locus 1 (hereafter, Locus 1). This find takes on particular interest and importance, not only because of its singularity but also because it offers a unique opportunity to learn more about the ritual and funerary behaviours of the communities of the second half of the 6th millennium cal BC in the Iberian Peninsula. The aim of this paper is thus twofold: first, to present the new finding documented at Dehesilla Cave, supported by a wide range of data provided by the technical means available today in archaeology; and second, to place this ritual funerary deposition within the broader context of the contemporaneous and comparable data known at present in the Iberian Peninsula. This comparative approach enables not Introduction Neolithic funerary practices in the Iberian Peninsula have caught the attention and interest of many archaeologists (e.g., Bernabeu et al. 2001; Rubio 2001; Pascual 2002; Gibaja 2004; Chambon 2008; Jiménez-Brobeil 2009; Bernabeu 2010; Carrasco et al. 2010; Pérez-Fernández, Soler 2010; Garrido- Pena et al. 2012; Alonso, Jiménez-Echevarría 2015; Rojo et al. 2016) as an empirical record of particular importance, as a direct means of approach to the populations of the past and, especially, to their symbolic and ritual behaviours. In recent years, an increase can be observed in the archaeological evidence related to funerary practices during the Early Neolithic, c. 5600–4800 cal BC, in the Iberian Peninsula. A major body of information comes from cave sites in which disarticulated or isolated human bones are commonly found alongside other artefactual and faunal remains, admittedly as the probable result of complex cultural and post-depositional processes. When present, inhumations are usually individual, although several burials may be placed in the same area. There are also some unusual cases of secondary burials and rare multiple graves. For the same period, a smaller number of burials are known at open-air sites, where they tend to belong to individual and very rarely multiple inhumations inside pits within the living areas. The articulated bodies are generally placed in a flexed lateral decubitus position, with variable assemblages of grave goods or accompaniments, essentially of pottery, stone tools, worked bone, shell elements, and faunal remains (Garrido-Pena et al. 2012.145–147). Dehesilla Cave (Cueva de la Dehesilla), located in the foothills of the Sub-Baetic System in southwestern Spain (Fig. 1), holds one of the oldest and richest Neolithic funerary records known in the Iberian Peninsula, although apparently unevenly distributed within the cave. The excavations carried out in 1977 and 1981 documented a series of burials (c. 8) attributed to the Early Neolithic (Acosta, Pellicer 1990) (extended information is provided in the Discussion), while the excavation of Area C003 during the 2016 field season (García-Rivero et al. 2018a) documented only a few isolated human bones in the Early Neolithic levels. Fig. 1. Location of Dehesilla Cave (Theme map: https://www. naturalearthdata.com/ and http://www.juntadeandalucia. es/insti tutodeestadisticaycartografia). Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez 300 only a systematic review of the current evidence, but also supports the formulation of a likely interpretation for the new archaeological context presented here. Moreover, it will enable us to highlight the singular characteristics of the Dehesilla Cave, Locus 1 deposition, and to shed new light on the ritual funerary behaviours during the Early Neolithic period in the Iberian Peninsula. Materials and methods Archaeological excavation The unpublished context and data presented here are provided by the recent excavations carried out at Dehesilla Cave, and more specifically by the second excavation season, in 2017, and the work carried out in Area C006 located in Room 4, one of the innermost chambers of the cave (Fig. 2). The location of C006 coincides with an area in which the surface sheet of flowstone was broken and absent (Unit 0) and the irregular shape of the trench corresponds exactly with its limit. The excavated area is approx. 5m2, with a length of 5m running parallel to the west wall of the cave and a width of 1m. The excavation confirmed that only the upper levels immediately beneath the flowstone sheet were affected by recent human and animal activities. The excavation proceeded with great care, paying particular attention to the definition of the contacts between stratigraphic units (Harris 1991). The elements associated with the deposition were clearly identified and documented, and all of the archaeological materials and samples were recorded accordingly. The location of the archaeological features and finds was recorded in the field using total stations and laptops with EDM Mobile software (Dibble, McPherron 2010). The sediment was screened and a stable proportion was processed by flotation. Unprocessed samples were set aside for further analyses. Human remains The human remains were analysed with the naked eye, with a magnifying glass (10x) and a Dino-Lite Edge Digital Microscope with a 30x to 70x magnification range. The state of preservation was assessed according to Jane E. Buikstra and Douglas H. Ubelaker (1994). Sex diagnosis, in one case, was based on the maximum length of the talus, following Silva (1995). The estimation of age at death considered the traits recommended by Louise Scheuer and Sue Black (2000) for the non-adult individual, while the closure of the cranial suture of the adult individual was assessed according to Claude Masset (1989). Dental wear was described following Holly B. Smith (1984). Pottery analysis The methods applied in the pottery analysis (Shepard 1956; Sinopoli 1991; Orton, Hughes 2014; Rice 2015; Hunt 2016) aimed to assess and reconstruct the probable nature of the depositional and taphonomic processes behind the creation of the assemblage under study, and to enable the typological (formal and decorative) characterisation of the ceramic materials. The quantification of the number of pottery fragments and the individual measurement of their size and weight helped to establish a series of reference values for the fragmentation of the deposit. After initial descriptive statistics, size was finally retained as the most appropriate proxy variable for the state of fragmentation. An exercise in crossfitting was also completed, with the specific purpose of identifying sherds belonging to the same pots, with or without a direct physical connection. Fig. 2. Location of excavation area C006 on the 3D model of the cave. Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ... 301 Organic residue analysis was carried out on four pottery samples. The method applied focused on the organic residues absorbed by the clay matrix. Lipids were extracted following established protocols of one-step extraction and methylation with acidified methanol (Craig et al. 2011; Correa-Ascencio, Evershed 2014). Gas Chromatography-Flame Ion Detection (GC-FID) and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) were used for all samples (Appendix 1). High Temperature Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (HTGC-MS) and Gas Chromatography- Combustion Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (GC-C- IRMS) were applied on the single successful sample after the previous methods (Appendix 1). Stable carbon isotope values of methyl palmitate (C16:0) and methyl stearate (C18:0), as derived from precursor fatty acids, were measured by GC-C-IRMS, following existing procedures (Craig et al. 2012). The isotopic values of the main fatty acids (palmitic and stearic) were compared with compiled data from ruminant and non-ruminant adipose, and dairy and marine derived fatty acid resources throughout Europe (Appendix 2). Lithics The stone tools were counted and analysed in two main groups: knapped and ground stone. The study of the knapped materials followed the Georges Laplace’s (1966) analytical typology for retouch and extraction techniques, while the characterisation of particular technical attributes was complemented by the classification put forward by Bernaldo-Quirós et al. (1981). The metric description of the material was based on Bernardino Bagolini (1968). Backing, patina and macroscopic use-wear was determined by observation with a 20x magnifying glass. The typotechnological analysis followed the main syntheses and terminological proposals for the western (Carvalho 1998; Carvalho, Gibaja 2005), southern (Martínez-Fernández, Afonso 2008) and eastern (Juan- Cabanilles 2008) regions of the Iberian Peninsula. The archaeological deposit Locus 1 Archaeological context Area C006 provides valuable information on the depositional processes of Room 4 (Fig. 3), the innermost and furthest chamber from the present-day mouth of the cave. The excavation documented a complete stratigraphic sequence and has made possible a number of observations regarding the nature and use of this part of the cave. The surface level is constituted by a sheet of flowstone (Unit 0) with microgours and a thickness between 5 and 20cm. Underneath the flowstone the sequence includes several thick layers, which appear to correspond to natural depositional events in which rocks, sediments and water may have been carried down from Room 2 or, possibly, through cracks and chimneys in the roof of the cave. These levels display a descending south to north slope, i.e. from the hillside to the interior of the cave, and form a wedge-shaped accumulation in the southern half of the room. The anthropic sequence is formed by a number of levels defined on the basis of their stratigraphic characteristics and archaeological materials, belonging to different Neolithic periods (Fig. 4). This sequence spans (from top to bottom) from Late Neolithic (units 0, 1 and 4), Middle Neolithic B (units 5, 6 and 6b), Middle Neolithic A (units 7, 9, Structure 1 and Locus 2), to Early Neolithic (Locus 1 and units 8, 11, 12 and 13). The upper level (Unit 8) of the Early Neolithic sequence displays a marked south to north descending slope, and contains numerous medium to large limestone blocks, some up to 70cm, possibly linked to rock fall and/or torrential events, and abundant archaeological materials. During the formation of Unit 8, or soon after, an anthropic depositional event took place (Figs. 5 and 6.a). Locus 1 is therefore partially encased within Unit 8, although in proximity to its upper contact. The archaeological materials documented in Unit 8 are dated to the Early Neolithic, as are those of the depositional event. The deposition consists of a pottery vessel Fig. 3. Panoramic view from the centre to the South of Room 4. Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez 302 (No. C006-244) (Fig. 6.b) placed upright, surrounded by small stones, devoid of sediment but containing a light-coloured crust (Fig. 6.c). The mouth of the jar was covered by part of a human calvarium, and other isolated human remains were found among the packing stones. Finally, it was covered by a number of larger blocks, resting on a ring of mediumsized stones placed for this purpose around the mouth of the jar and supporting a final limestone capstone. This deposition may have involved the excavation of a small negative feature, not detected between the packing materials and the surrounding sediment. The human remains The human cranium covering the mouth of the pottery vessel is represented by the posterior portion of the frontal bone and the anterior portion of the right and left parietal bones (Fig. 7.a), with an anteroposterior measurement of 180mm and medio-late- ral of 130mm. The endocranial surface was facing down, and the frontal bone was oriented to the north. This calvarium belonged to an adult, most probably of more than 45 years of age, based on the Stage 3 closure of the observed portions of coronal and sagittal sutures. Sex could not be determined since cranial thickness, which is average, was the only trait that could be assessed, therefore not permitting a reliable diagnosis. The ectocranial surface displays two linear marks on the right side of the frontal bone (Fig. 7.b), both running perpendicular to the sagittal line, approx. 45 and 47mm from the coronal suture. With a length of 20 and at least 30mm, these marks are 2 to 3mm apart, almost parallel to each other. They are narrow and shallow, and display smooth (not jagged) sharp (well-defined) edges, a V-shaped cross-section and micro-striations (Fig. 7.c). The absence of bone remodelling indicates their peri- or post-mortem timing. Several traits support the peri-mortem and anthropogenic nature of these marks. The colouration of the incisions, similar to the rest of the bone surface, points to marks made only a short time after death, while the bone still preserved all of its biomechanical properties. In contrast, post-mortem marks with a recent origin would be light in colour and have jagged edges (Buikstra, Ubelaker 1994; White et al. 2012; Gresky et al. 2017). Vascular impressions and markings from plant roots can be excluded due to the straight, linear and parallel aspect of the marks, and the presence of micro-striations. Trampling may also produce shallow striations but is expected to create marks with a random orientation (White et al. 2012). The tooth marks made by carnivores are known to display a typical pattern of pitting, scoring and puncturing, particularly on the trabecular extremities of long bones (Buikstra, Ubelaker 1994; White et al. 2012). However, they may also produce parallel grooves with different crosssections depending on the tooth cusp (Shipman 1981), which are more difficult to distinguish from intentional marks. Rodent gnawing may also result in shallow, parallel or sub-parallel grooves, usually on bony prominences (Buikstra, Ubelaker 1994; White et al. 2012). Yet, the marks produced by carnivores and rodents are square bottomed in section (Shipman 1981; Buikstra, Ubelaker 1994; White et Fig. 4. East section of C006 (the white asterisk indicates the location on the section nearest to Locus 1). Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ... 303 al. 2012), a trait that is not observed in this case. The linear and parallel placement, the smooth edges and V-shaped cross-section, and the presence of micro-striations on the Locus 1 cranium are, therefore, strong evidence of the peri-mortem anthropogenic origin of the marks and are indicative of the use of a stone tool (Shipman 1981; Bello et al. 2016; Santana et al. 2019). In addition to the cranium, another seven human bones and one tooth were recovered from Locus 1 (Tab. 1, Figs. 8 and 9). Sex determination and estimation of age at death were only possible in two cases. The complete talus (DH17-6-Locus 1–3), with a maximum length of 47.28mm, is consistent with a female individual. The thoracic vertebral neural arch (DH17-6-Locus 1–2) does not display the neurocentral fusion that usually takes place by the age of 6 (Scheuer, Black 2000), thus providing an upper age limit, while the lower age limit is provided by the fusion of the posterior synchondrosis that usually occurs by the age of 2 years (Scheuer, Black 2000). The thoracic vertebral neural arch may therefore be attributed to a child between the age of 2 and 6 years. The poor preservation of the rest of the osteological material, characterised by small bone fragments representing less than 25% of the skeletal element, does not provide any further reliable information pertaining to sex and age at death, other than their belonging to adult individuals. The small size of the medial condyle of the femur may indicate a female or an adolescent individual. The same observation is valid for the scapula fragment from the region of the right glenoid cavity which, although incomplete, points most probably to a female. The only tooth recovered, a left mandibular first premolar, displays Grade 4 occlusal dental wear, according to Smith’s (1984) classification. With the exception of the thoracic vertebra from a non-adult individual, all of the other bones and the tooth could eventually belong to the same adult individual. The minimum number of individuals represented in Locus 1 would therefore be two and the maximum number eight, in the case that all of the elements belonged to different individuals. Only DNA analysis may, in time, shed light on this question. In any case, it is not clear beyond doubt that the fragmentary human remains, with the exception of the calvarium, were introduced intentionally in the deposition. Pottery The complete pottery jar (C006-244) deposited in Locus 1 is an ovoid form with a restricted neck and a simple rim, belonging to the type known as ampho- Fig. 5. Plan of the stratigraphic phase corresponding to Locus 1. Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez 304 roid or botella in common typologies (Llobregat 1973; Bernabeu 1989). Its surfaces are smooth, undecorated, with three approximately equidistant handles located on the gentle shoulder. It is slightly asymmetrical in the areas of the rim, neck and height of the handles (Fig. 10). The preservation of the base was compromised and could not be physically reconstructed, thus the curvature of the base and height of the vessel are estimated on the basis of the known parameters. In addition to this complete jar, there is an assemblage of 50 pottery fragments with a total weight of 560g (Fig. 9). No sherds belonging to the same pots, with or without a direct physical refit, were identified. This is, therefore, a very strong suggestion that each pottery record of the Locus 1 fragmentary assemblage belongs to a different vessel, thus indicating a large number of pots although represented only by single and small fragments (T/ =3.7cm maximum axis). This pattern of fragmentation and representation is in complete contrast to the physical integrity of the jar included as a central element of the deposition, thus supporting the reconstruction of a depositional event in which a single and complete pottery vessel was carefully placed. On the grounds of these observations, it is probable that the fragmentary pottery assemblage associated with Locus 1 may form part of the context merely as a component of the fill of the negative feature surrounding the deposited jar, that is as an incidental inclusion in the packing material. The characteristics of the fragmentary pottery assemblage display strong affinities with the pottery record of Unit 8 in which the deposition was made. The formal and technological traits and the presence of characteristic decorative techniques place the context in an advanced Early Neolithic horizon, with a particularly noteworthy presence of impressed and ‘almagra’ wares (Fig. 11) (Navarrete 1976; Navarrete, Capel 1980; Bernabeu 1989; Acosta, Pellicer 1990; Capel et al. 2006; Pardo-Gordó et al. 2021). Applied decoration is documented in a single case in the form of a finger-im- pressed cordon. Incised decoration is also present, and is exclusively linked to slipped wares, mainly to the bright red ‘almagra’ pottery and secondarily to those of dull brownish hue. There are eight fragments (all undecorated) with physical evidence of alteration from direct contact with heat sources, during long periods of time and/ Fig. 6. a Locus 1 after removing the large limestone cover stone; bsection of the deposition after the excavation of its northern half; cremains of a white crust inside the jar. a b c Fig. 7. aSuperior view of the human cranial vault; bthe two cut marks of the ectocranial surface; cdetail of the cut marks (70x) with a V-shaped crosssection and, on one of the marks, parallel micro-striations. Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ... 305 or with low oxygen levels. Fragment ID-10 (C006- 188) also preserves a carbonized residue and has been sampled for organic residue analysis (see below). The observed effect is the reduction-carboni- zation of the wall of these fragments from the internal surface of the vessel. This may indicate their use as fire holders or lamps, although not necessarily linked to the ritual deposition but explained more broadly by the location and conditions of the inaccessible chamber. Organic residue analysis Three samples from the pottery jar with visible remains of a white crust, and one sample from the above-mentioned fragment with carbonized residue, were analysed. Interpretable amounts of lipids (>5μg/g) were obtained from two samples (Tab. 2). However, in one of these cases the value is very close to the threshold. Low lipid preservation in the analysed samples is in accordance with other studies undertaken in the Mediterranean and southeastern Europe (Evershed et al. 2008; Spiteri et al. 2016). Just one sample LD-10 (the pottery sherd with carbonized residue, not the amphoroid jar) met the criteria in order to carry out further analysis by GC-MS and GC-C-IRMS. The molecular composition is formed by a distribution of saturated fatty acids (C14:0 and C26:0), unsaturated fatty acids (C16:1, C18:1, C22:1) and C23 alkane (Fig. 12). However, this molecular composition is limited due to the absence of specific sterols or molecular biomarkers. For that reason, we carried out the isotopic analysis (d13C) of the two main saturated fatty acids (C16:0 and C18:0) to distinguish the resource type in comparison with modern authentic fats. As well as absolute ranges, ruminant adipose, ruminant dairy and porcine fats are distinguished according to differences in the carbon isotope values between the two main fatty acids (D13C = d13C18:0 –d13C16:0) (Copley et al. 2002). Comparison of isotopic values (d13C C16:0: –30.45 and d13C C18:0: –30.94; D13C: 0.49) with modern European reference fats and oils (Appendix 2) suggests that the pottery vessel was probably used in the processing of mixed ruminant and non-ruminant animal resources. However, due to the low specificity of the chromatogram and the absence of any molecular biomarkers, this interpretation is based only on the isotopic signal of the palmitic and stearic acids. The result from sample LD-10, belonging to an indeterminate pottery form, is in accord with the pattern observed recurrently in the use of the Fig. 8. Assemblage of human remains from Locus 1. Tab. 1. Human remains recovered from Locus 1. Specimen numbers Skeletal elements Side Completeness Age Sex DH17-6-Locus 1-2 Vertebral arch of a thoracic vertebra – 100% Non-adult – DH17-6-Locus 1-3 (C006-228) Talus Left 100% Adult Female DH17-6-Locus 1-4 (C006-197) Femur medial condyle | ∏ 25% Adult Unknown DH17-6- Locus 1-5 (C006-218) Femur fragment from the anterior region | ∏ 25% Adult Unknown DH17-6- Locus 1-6 (C006-217) Parietal bone (from the region of the | ∏ 25% Adult Unknown sagittal suture) DH17-6- 8-8 (C006-249) Tibia (proximal half of the anterior and Left 25–75% Adult Unknown posterior region of the shaft) DH17-6-8-10 (C006-251) Lower first premolar tooth Left 100% Adult Unknown DH17-6-10-1 Scapula fragment from the region of Right ∏ 25% Adult Female| the glenoid cavity Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez 306 earliest pottery of the Atlantic facade of the Iberian Peninsula (Cubas et al. 2020). Lithics Locus 1 yielded a total of eight lithic elements, seven knapped and one ground (Tab. 3 and Fig. 9). The first group includes tools – blades and flakes with and without retouch – and reduction products. The second group contains only one element, identified as a fragment of a pebble used as a hammer stone as indicated by the surface scars (Fig. 13.L1-7). The knapped lithic elements are made out of grey (3), beige (3) or brown (1) flint, and correspond to four blades, two flakes and one undiagnostic reduction flake. In addition to the traits described below, flat (2) and pointed (1) platforms and proximal truncation (2) are also documented. There is one case of a third extraction cortex and two cases of heat treatment, with and without the creation of thermal domes. Among the tools, a sickle blade with a faceted proximal platform and abrupt, deep, and partially continuous distal retouch (Fig. 13.L1-4) and a mesoproximal blade fragment with a dihedral platform (Fig. 13.L1-1) are noteworthy, as they also display use-wear patina. The traceological analysis currently in progress on part of the Dehesilla Cave lithic assemblage confirms that the wear on the sickle blade is consistent with the cutting of cereals, with striations and abrasions in the form of pecking due to the cutting of stalks close to the ground. This type of element is similar to those documented in other Andalusian Neolithic caves, such as El Toro, Nerja, Murciélagos de Zuheros or the sites of Bajondillo and Los Castillejos (Ibáñez, González 1996; Rodríguez 2004; Carvalho et al. 2012; Perales et al. 2015). The second element with use-wear is a fragment of a blade with a very sharp edge without retouch that, according to the traceological analysis, seems to have Fig. 9. Plan and section of the location of the archaeological materials documented in Locus 1. Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ... 313 Site Differential Location Trauma - Marks Pottery Grave goods Cal BC – 2ssLab Code References treatment Structures Manipulation jar Accompaniments of skulls Cueva de la V Habitat Depression of None Ribs, sheep or goat tooth 6052-4695 bGrN-17386 Estremera, Valle 1999< Estremera 2003< Vaquera (male, approx. the nasal bone 22930-3, 8241 Delibes et al. 1999< Garrido Pena et al. 25 yrs) 9226, 9228 2012 Cova de la V Wall crack and Female> – Near complete cardial jar, 5470-5220 bOxA-V-2392-26 Miguel Ibáñez 2008< García-Borja 2012 Sarsa (male and stone wall parietal injury pigment, bone and stone female) Occulted tools, shells (Columbella, Rock art Cardium) Cova dels V Formal burial – V Cardium edule,– –Ten 1980 Lladres 3 globular jars shells, variscite Los None Pit None V Necklace 5500-3750 bUa-16024-5 García-Gazólaz, Sesma 2007< Cascajos (Estructura 475) 16203, 17793 García-Gazólaz et al. 2011< García- Cenotaph| 17795, 24423-8 Martínez 2012 GrA-16204 16208-11, 16942 Cova de les None Pit None V – 5310-4900 aBeta-75217 Bernabeu, Molina 2009 Cendres Antigos None Burial pit None V Pottery sherds, lithics 5200-4890 aWk-45573 Cardoso et al. 2018 armazéns Open air habitat and fauna (casual|) Sommer Pálacio None Burial pit – V Pottery sherds – – Simões et al. 2020 Ludovice Open air habitat (undecorated, impressed, incised and boquique), lithics Cueva del None Individual burial None V – – – Mora 1970 Picado a Direct date from the archaeological materials included in this table. b Indirect date from other materials of the broader archaeological context. c Calibration with the Marine13 curve. Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez 314 found in domestic contexts, as well as in funerary depositions. We will, therefore, only mention here some cases that, like Locus 1, illustrate the funerary and/or ritual use of this type of jar throughout the Iberian Peninsula. The open-air settlement of Los Cascajos in Navarra had a specific area, a designated burial ground, with over thirty individual burials, and several ritual graves or pits containing material remains. Structure 475 is of special interest here, holding a complete jar, placed on top of a necklace of discoidal beads (García-Gazólaz, Sesma 2007; García-Gazólaz et al. 2011; Rojo et al. 2016). At Cova de les Cendres, on the coast of Alicante, a jar was found intact inside a pit, covered by a large flat stone (Bernabeu et al. 2001). On the opposite side of the Iberian Peninsula, two such pottery containers have recently been documented in association with two separate individual burials in Lisbon. Both jars are decorated: one with boquique or stab-and-drag technique, at the Antigos armazéns Sommer (Cardoso et al. 2018b); and the other with incisions and impressions, at Palácio Ludovice (Simões et al. 2020). Returning to the south, amphoroid jars are documented at various sites vicinity of Dehesilla Cave, including an individual burial context at Cueva del Picado (Mora 1970.283). This overview allows for a number of inferences to be made. A striking initial observation is that there is no identical context to the one presented here, in such a way that Locus 1 constitutes a certainly singular case. Some of the individual ritual traits are, however, common to several sites. Based on the present state of the available data, which is of course influenced by the relative qualities of the archaeological records, we may reflect on the degree of similarity or affinity between Locus 1 at Dehesilla Cave and the contexts documented at other sites. The depositions documented at Cova de la Sarsa, Cueva de El Toro and in the old excavations at Dehesilla Cave itself are apparently among the closest to Locus 1, at least in terms of their clearly ritual nature provided by the particular use of crania (not pottery jars). At these three cave sites, skulls (some with trauma and/or markings) are located in the deepest and most inaccessible areas, as far as possible from the areas of daily activities, a pattern that may reflect ritual behaviours and beliefs shared between these populations. A similar situation is found at Cova dels Lladres, with particular regard to the finding of a human cranium in association with a decorated pottery jar. The finds analysed from Cova de les Cendres and the open-air site of Los Cascajos are clear examples of closed and well-preserved contexts with pottery jars deposited inside pits created for this purpose within specific ritual areas. Structure 475 of Los Cascajos is located within a funerary area, yet appears to be of a different functional nature to the rest of the pits at the site. In the case of Cova de les Cendres, the deposition was made in a crevice next to the location of rock art. Pottery jars are also documented at the Antigos armazéns Sommer, Pálacio Ludovice and Cueva del Picado, although in these cases they are associated with inhumations, the most common and widespread formal treatment of Neolithic human remains. The other sites mentioned are perhaps a little further from the ritual characteristics of the previous cases, and are more in line with the usual findings of disarticulated or isolated remains that predominate in the Neolithic record. It is worth noting, however, the case of the Sala de la Mina at Nerja, due to the peculiarity of some of the materials documented in the close proximity of the human cranium. Likewise, the double burial at El Retamar, although quite a different type of context, corroborates the wellknown differential treatment, probably symbolic, given to skulls. Discussion of the possible interpretative scenarios for the Locus 1 deposit Cut marks on human skulls are often attributed to processes of defleshing and/or scalping, and their distribution on the cranial bones makes it possible to distinguish between these two types of intentional treatments. In the removal of soft tissues, cut marks are observed on bone surfaces at the sites of tendon and ligament insertions (Buikstra, Ubelaker 1994). In the removal of the scalp, the marks typically form small clusters on the frontal, parietal and occipital bones, in a kind of circle around the calvarium (White et al. 2012; Gresky et al. 2017). The incompleteness of the Locus 1 cranium does not enable a clear interpretation of the observed marks, other than their anthropogenic nature. Indeed, they indicate the use of a lithic tool for periosteum removal, although it is impossible to infer the precise purpose of the gestures involved. The (negative) results of the organic residue analyses on the pottery jar are conducive to the observation that the samples do not contain absorbed fats, and that the white crust found inside the pot is not Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ... 315 an organic substance. Despite the frequency of this pottery form in the Neolithic record of the Iberian Peninsula, only the results of residue analysis carried out on the cardial jar from Cova Eirós in Lugo are currently known (Fábregas et al. 2019). This analysis indicated that the vessel had been used in the processing of ruminant animal meat and vegetal resources. These results contrast with those obtained from the Locus 1 jar, in which the lipid concentration obtained from the analysed samples was below the minimum threshold, and evidence of alteration from heat/fire was absent. These observations may be related to the low intensity or null use of the vessel for storage, food preparation or cooking before its deposition. Deciphering the meaning of Locus 1 is, therefore, not an easy task, considering a number of additional factors. There are not many depositions of this type dating to the Early Neolithic in the Iberian Peninsula, and this finding at Dehesilla Cave is also quite different from other known contexts. There is also a certain scarcity of studies that attempt to specifically address the interpretation of such depositions (e.g., Jiménez-Brobeil 1990; Rubio 2001; Jiménez- Brobeil et al. 2009), beyond their simple description, and such studies are more common for later periods, from the Late Neolithic onwards, and are particularly concerned with megalithic activities. However, there is a wealth of general knowledge provided by other geographic and chronological contexts, both from ethnography and archaeology, including the Central European Neolithic and the LBK culture, and especially the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Near East, that provides rich and diverse data regarding the differential funerary and ritualistic treatment of human skulls. The reference to these analogies here, of course, does not imply any assumption of a relationship of ancestry nor of a historical link between these and our case study, although they may provisionally constitute a frame of reference that will serve as a guide in our interpretative exploration. Reference to the main interpretations developed in these comparative archaeological contexts may, indeed, enable us to narrow down the number of interpretative scenarios that may be aligned with the Locus 1 deposition. The recurrence of isolated human remains, and of skulls in particular, some displaying marks from injuries, has led some authors to interpret them, both in the European framework and Near East, as war trophies or evidence of cannibalistic practices (Villa et al. 1986; Villa 1992; Courtim 2000; Testar 2008; Le Bras-Goude et al. 2010; Marginedas et al. 2020). In the specific context of the Neolithic period in the Iberian Peninsula, anthropological studies have drawn attention for over thirty years to practices such as the defleshing of the dead and the possible existence of ritualistic cannibalism (Botella 1973; Jiménez-Brobeil 1990; Jiménez-Brobeil et al. 1986; 1996; 2009; Botella et al. 2000; Santana et al. 2019). Moreover, possible evidence of Neolithic cannibalism has been noted at several cave sites in southern Spain, such as Tontas, Carigüela, Malalmuerzo, Mayólicas, Honda and de las Azuelas (province of Granada) and El Toro (province of Málaga) (Botella 1973; Botella et al. 2000; Jiménez-Brobeil et al. 1986; Solari et al. 2012; Santana et al. 2019). However, many of these human remains, unfortunately, do not have a precise chronological identification, beyond their general Neolithic attribution, and there is very scarce evidence of this type dated securely to the Early Neolithic (e.g., Jiménez-Brobeil 1990.125), perhaps with the exceptions of Cueva de la Carigüela and Cueva de El Toro. An aggressive type of cannibalism has also been proposed based on evidence at Carigüela and Malalmuerzo (Jiménez-Brobeil et al. 2009), due to the lack of care in the treatment of the remains and the high frequency of head injuries as an indicator of interpersonal violence. Recently this possible interpretation has also been put forward at El Toro (Santana et al. 2019). Several features of Locus 1 do not seem to fit with its interpretation as a war trophy, as we would expect this type of deposition to be socially visible to the general population, rather than being carried out in a hidden, secretive place and a remote part of a cave. It also does not align, at least in exclusive terms, with a cannibalistic interpretation, especially in its belligerent form. Indeed, for this interpretation to stand, the Early Neolithic human remains of Dehesilla Cave would need to display more common evidence of this kind (cut marks from the removal of the scalp and flesh, from percussion for the creation of calottes, etc.), which in fact is not present (Robledo, Jiménez-Brobeil 1994). Ritualistic cannibalism of a funerary (and perhaps exceptional) nature cannot be ruled out, nor can the identification of the calvarium as a skull cup, a type of object that is quite widespread in the ethnographic and archaeological literature (e.g., Botella et al. 2000; Bouslestin 2012; Boulestin, Copey 2015; San- Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez 316 tana et al. 2019; Marginedas et al. 2020). Moreover, the association of a possible skull cup next to a pottery vessel, identified typologically as a jar or bottle, is suggestive. In any case, a scenario of ritualistic funerary cannibalism would necessarily imply other behavioural models, not necessarily alternative but at least complementary, and particular symbolic components, which appear to be present in the Locus 1 depositional context. There are several other diverse interpretations of the symbolic dimension of the differential treatment of skulls: foundational rites (Contenson 1992); ritual celebrations through sacrifice and consumption (Goring-Morris, Horwitz 2007); expressions of social identities (individual and collective) (Kuijt 2008; Croucher 2006); worship of ancestors (Kenyon 1953; Bienert 1991) or elders (Cauvin 2000), if not of deities and spirits, related to wisdom, virility and fertility (Freeman 1979) or to supernatural powers or vital forces (Deleonardis 2000; Verhoeven 2002; Jammo 2014). Emic interpretations have usually explored the basis and social or systemic (etic) consequences of ritual, in the sense of behaviours with beneficial or adaptive effects for the community, and often understood in terms of social organization, that is, hierarchy, kinship relations, cohesion and social memory (Cauvin 2000; Verhoeven 2002; Testart 2008; Bocquentin et al. 2016; Hacdow, Knüsel 2017). The reasons behind past rituals are now far from our current possibilities of corroboration, since they require a certain knowledge of the structure and the cultural diversity of the population under study, which is beyond the scope of present research. Some of the theoretical behavioural models mentioned above are simply impossible to consider here, because they require a more substantial record and a more detailed knowledge than that provided by the archaeological record. Perhaps the most obvious aspect is that which envisages the expression of social identities. In the specific case of Locus 1, the scenario of a ritual celebration may be ruled out, since there is no direct evidence of sacrifice or consumption. Interpretation as a foundational rite related to the occupation and establishment of populations at the site is also unlikely, given that the radiocarbon date from the cranium itself is notably later than the first Neolithic evidence at the cave, dated to the middle of the sixth millennium BC (cf. García Rivero et al. 2018a). However, a foundational event related to the arrival of a different population after the early pioneer group(s) cannot be discarded, within the framework of complex dynamics of mobility with a degree of nomadic behaviour. The peri mortem marks increase the probability that the death of the individual may have been linked directly to the timing of the ritual deposition itself, although a cranium recovered from an earlier primary burial, in line with an ancestor cult scenario, is not impossible. A heterogeneous and inclusive view of this hypothesis would, in fact, be viable, taking into account the relatively advanced age of the Locus 1 individual (>45 years) and the consideration of mature individuals as social guides or leaders. The individual whose cranium was included in the Locus 1 deposition has the highest age of the entire sample considered in this study, and it can also be noted that six of the seven sexually identified crania from the analysed sites belong to male individuals. Another interesting observation is that, among the eight or nine individuals previously documented at Dehesilla Cave, there are currently no secure formal male burials. Future research into this line of interpretation in relation to Locus 1 will require, among other things, a DNA analysis to confirm the alleged affiliation of this individual to the same population group as the other burials at the site. The interpretative model of the cult of supernatural entities or powers, whether deities or spirits, cannot easily be corroborated. In the Iberian reference literature on the Early Neolithic period, the identification of anthropomorphic figures in a posture of prayer in both pottery decoration and rock art depictions is relatively widespread (e.g., Hernández 2000; Escacena 2018). If such figures are related to religious or supernatural cults, and given that they mostly share the feature of arms outstretched above the head, it is likely that the entities or powers invoked must be located in the heights, in the sky or on the tops of mountains, a belief in fact widespread in many ancient cultures of the Mediterranean. Most of the supposedly contemporaneous rock art is located in open-air panels, and thus in shelters and in the external and accessible areas (near the entrance) of caves. The magical-religious rituals known from ethnographic, archaeological and textual records usually include many meanings: propitiatory and supplicatory rites, augury or premonitory rites, prophylactic and purification rites, as well as apotropaic rites of protection and dissuasion. The specific finding that brings us here, a pottery jar partially buried in the ground and sealed symboli- Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ... 317 cally and physically with a human calvarium and a large and heavy limestone block, not only occupies a hidden location in the depths of the cave, but also demonstrates, by its own structural features, a deliberate occultation. On the basis of these characteristics, and in contrast to the above, it is possible to suggest a tentative association between the deposition and the chthonic or telluric entities or forces, whether they were deities or even malign powers or spirits. It is worth recalling that the jar buried in a pit inside the cave of Cova de les Cendres was also covered by a large stone. The sealed, hidden and inviolable deposition of Locus 1 could have had a dissuasive or apotropaic character, perhaps as a container of properties, forces or spirits, although not necessarily incompatible with other functions (to predict, propitiate, purify or pray). The known cases of superstitious beliefs and religious rites of this nature, in addition to the differential use of skulls, are relatively numerous in the ethnographic record (Yakar, Hershkovitz 1988), but are also common in the Prehistoric European and Near Eastern archaeological records (Bonogosfsky 2001; 2006; Bori≤ 2003; Rubio 2004; Slon et al. 2014; Maier 2017), as well as in the Semitic texts (e.g., Schmandt-Besserat 2013; Del Olmo 2015). Conclusions This article has focused particularly on the comparative data for the isolated finding of human crania. Of the available sample, fortunately, many of the contexts are relatively well preserved, or sufficiently so, at least enough to corroborate the particular or differential use of these skeletal elements throughout much of the geography of the Iberian Peninsula. The analysis of the data has enabled some recurrent patterns to be observed. Practically all of the known cases are located inside caves, most of them in relatively deep and remote chambers or crevices, and therefore display a tangible degree of differential treatment compared to the overall funerary record. There is also a bias in the demographic profile of the subjects, since most of the remains belong to adult males. Many cases show evidence of anthropogenic lesions, including incisions and cut marks, trepanation or trauma. They are usually accompanied by assemblages of materials, which include, in order of their relative frequency, shells, pottery, lithic and bone instruments or faunal remains. The known contexts probably reflect a diversity of specific activities and, therefore, of interpretive scenarios, but clearly share some behavioural traits and patterns of a ritual nature. It can therefore be put forward that these depositions probably took place within a relatively common framework of cultural behaviours and traditions of a highly symbolic nature. The specific case of Locus 1 is singular because it provides a depositional context with an unusually good state of preservation, only paralleled at a few other Iberian sites. At least two factors contributed to this: the location in a deep and inaccessible area of the cave, without evidence of occupation and barely any sign of disturbance, and the distinctive structural characteristics of the deposition, including a heavy stone cover. It is the only discovery to date in the Iberian Peninsula of a complete pottery jar covered by a human cranium, which also makes it an extraordinary archaeological context for the Prehistory of Western Europe. Locus 1 materializes a ritual funerary event and extends the possibilities of knowledge about the symbolic behaviour of the first Neolithic populations of the Peninsula and the Western Mediterranean. This study has allowed us to explore the theoretical interpretative models currently available for the differential treatment of human skulls in this area, and has enabled us to narrow down the range of interpretative possibilities for this particular depositional context. However, it is impossible at present to offer a single firm reconstruction, and several anthropological scenarios that could explain this finding more precisely must be left open, including ritualistic cannibalism, rites related to the elders or leaders, and/ or cults to the supernatural entities or forces. This research has been carried out within the project “High-resolution chronology and cultural evolution in the South of the Iberian Peninsula (c. 7000– 4000 cal BC): a multiscalar approach” (PGC2018- 096943-A-C22), funded by: FEDER/Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation – State Research Agency. The data presented here are provided by the project “Cueva de la Dehesilla: Estudio arqueológico y paleoambiental para el conocimiento de la ocupación humana prehistórica de la Sierra de Cádiz”. The 2017 archaeological field season received financial support from several funding programs from the University of Seville (VI Plan Propio de Investigación y Transferencia, III Plan Propio de Docencia, Facultad de Geografía e Historia and Dpto. de Prehistoria y Arqueología), as well as from the Research Centre for Anthropology and Health, University of Coimbra (UIDB/00283/2020). FUNDING Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez 318 A number of people and entities have collaborated with logistic support and diverse resources for the tasks developed by the Dehesilla Project during the 2017 season: Algar Local Council, Jerez de la Frontera Archaeological Museum, EvoCultura-Association for the study of human behaviour and cultural diversity, as well as the Díaz Romero family. Drs João Cascalheira and Célia Gonçalves from the Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and Evolution of Human Behavior (ICArEHB), Universidade do Algarve, helped setting up the georeferencing system implemented in the field. Juan Carlos Vera, of the University of Huelva, assisted in the typological identification of the lithic assemblage, while the traceological analysis is being carried out by Juan Francisco Gibaja, of the Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología en Roma, CSIC. Eloísa Bernáldez and Esteban García Viñas, of the Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, Seville, provided the taxonomical identifications of the fauna and Patricia Monteiro, of the ICArEHB, Universidade do Algarve, the anthracological determinations. Drs Miguel Botella and Sylvia Jiménez showed a generous disposition on our visit to the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Granada, when we recently reviewed the human osteological remains from the early excavations of Dehesilla Cave. David López, Patricia Virino, Pablo Gutiérrez, Jericó Mancera, Elena Trujillo and Araceli Barrera participated in the archaeological excavation and the processing of the finds during 2017. Finally, we would like to thank the Editors of Documenta Praehistorica for their interest in our work. The comments from the two anonymous reviewers assigned by the journal helped to improve the structure and clarity of the initial version of the paper. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS References ∴∴ Acosta P., Pellic Britisher M. 1990. La Cueva de la Dehesilla (Jerez de la Frontera). Las primeras civilizaciones productoras en Andalucía occidental. CSIC. Jerez de la Frontera. Alonso C., Jiménez Echevarría J. 2014. Contribución al estudio del poblamiento, modos de vida y ritual funerario del neolítico antiguo: el asentamiento al aire libre de El Prado (Pancorbo, Burgos). Zephyrus 74: 41–64. Alt K. W., Tejedor C., Nicklisch N., +23 authors, and Rojo Guerra M. A. 2020. A massacre of early Neolithic farmers in the high Pyrenees at Els Trocs, Spain. Scientific reports 10(1): 2131. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58483-9 Antunes M. T., Cardoso J. L., and Cunha A. S. 2009. Espólio humano da Gruta da Casa da Moura (Cesareda): observações osteológicas crânio-faciais. Estudos Arqueológicos Oeiras 17: 175–221. Arribas A., Molina F. 1979. El poblado de ‘Los Castillejos’ en las Peñas de los Gitanos (Montefrío, Granada): campaña de excavaciones de 1971. Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada. Granada. Asquerino M. D. 1978. Cova de la Sarsa (Bocairente, Valencia). Análisis estadístico y tipológico de materiales sin estratigrafía (1971–1974). Sagvuntvn 13: 99–226. Bagolini B. 1968. Ricerche sulle dimensioni dei manufatti litici prehistorici non ritoccati. Annali Universitá Ferrara 15(10): 195–219. Bell J. G., Preston T., Henderson R. J., Strachan F., Bron J. E., Cooper K., and Morrison D. J. 2007. Discrimination of wild and cultured European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) using chemical and isotopic analyses. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 55: 5934–5941. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0704561 Bello S. M., Wallduck R., Dimitrijevi≤ V., Ωivaljevi≤ I., and Stringer C. B. 2016. Cannibalism versus funerary defleshing and disarticulation after a period of decay: comparisons of bone modifications from four prehistoric sites. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 161(4): 722–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23079 Bernabeu J. 1989. La tradición cultural de las cerámicas impresas en la zona oriental de la Península Ibérica. Serie de Trabajos Varios 86. Servicio de Investigación Prehistórica. Valencia. 2010. El mundo funerario entre el VI y el II milenio AC. In A. Pérez-Fernández, B. Soler Mayor (eds.), Restos de vida, restos de muerte. Diputación de Valencia. Valencia: 45–54. Bernabeu J., Molina L. (eds.) 2009. La Cova de les Cendres. Museo Arqueológico de Alicante. Alicante. Bernabeu J., Molina L., and García-Puchol O. 2001. El mundo funerario en el horizonte cardial valenciano: Un registro oculto. Sagvntvn 33: 27–36. Bernabeu J., García-Puchol O., and Orozco-Köhler T. 2018. New insights relating to the beginning of the Neolithic Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ... in the eastern Spain: Evaluating empirical data and modelled predictions. Quaternary International 470: 439– 450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.03.071 Bernaldo-Quirós F., Cabrera V., Cacho C., and Vega L. G. 1981. Proyecto de análisis técnico para las industrias líticas. Trabajos de Prehistoria 38: 9–37. Bicho N., Cascalheira J., Gonçalves C., Umbelino C., García-Rivero D., and André L. 2017. Resilience, replacement and acculturation in the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition: the case of Muge, central Portugal. Quaternary International 446: 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.09.049 Bicho N., Cascalheira J., Marreiros J., Gonçalves C., Pereira T., and Dias R. 2013. Chronology of the Mesolithic occupation of the Muge valley, central Portugal: the case of Cabeço da Amoreira. Quaternary International 308: 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.10.049 Bienert H. D. 1991. Skull cult in the prehistoric Near East. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 5: 9–23. Bocquentin F., Kodas E., and Ortiz A. 2016. Headless but still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre- Pottery Neolithic North-South Levant. Paléorient 42(2): 35–55. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2016.5719 Bonogofsky M. 2001. Cranial modeling and Neolithic bone modification at ‘Ain Ghazal: new interpretations. Paléorient 27(2): 141–146. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2001.4734 2006. Complexity in context: Plain, painted and modeled skulls from the Neolithic Middle East. In M. Bonogofsky (ed.), Skull Collection, Modification and Decoration. BAR International Series 1539. Archaeopress. Oxford: 15–28. Bori≤ D. 2003. ‘Deep time’ metaphor: mnemonic and apotropaic practices at Lepenski Vir. Journal of Social Archaeoloy 3(1): 46–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605303003001098 Boulestin B. 2012. Quelques réflexions à propos des coupes crâniennes préhistoriques. In B. Boulestin, D. Henry- Gambier (eds.), Crânes trophées, crânes d’ancêtres et autres pratiques autour de la tête: problèmes d’interprétation en archéologie. BAR International Series 2415. Archaeopress. Oxford: 35–45. Boulestin B., Coupey A. S. 2015. Cannibalism in the linear pottery culture: The human remains from Herxheim. Archaeopress Publishing Limited. Oxford. Botella M. C. 1973. Restos humanos eneolíticos con incisiones de la provincia de Granada. Anales del Desarrollo 17(41–42): 401–423. Botella M. C., Jiménez S. A., Alemán I., Du Souich P., and García C. 2000. Evidencias de canibalismo en el Neolítico español. In L. Caro, H. Rodríguez, E. Sánchez, B. López and M. J. Blanco (eds.), Tendencias actuales de investigación en la antropología física española. Universidad de León. León: 43–56. Bueno O. 2002. Estudios de los restos humanos aparecidos en el yacimiento de “El Retamar”. In J. Ramos, M. Lazarich (eds.), El asentamiento de ‘El Retamar’ (Puerto Real, Cádiz). Contribución al estudio de la formación social tribal a los inicios de la economía de producción en la Bahía de Cádiz. Universidad de Cádiz. Cádiz: 241–248. Buikstra J. E., Ubelaker D. H. 1994. Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains: proceedings of a seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series. Fayetteville. Cacho C., Papi C., Sánchez-Barriga A., and Alonso F. 1996. La cestería decorada de la cueva de los Murciélagos (Albuñol, Granada). Complutum 6(1): 105–122. Capel J., Huertas F., Pozzuoli A., and Linares J. 2006. Red ochre decorations in Spanish Neolithic ceramics: a mineralogical and technological study. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1157–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.12.004 Cardoso J. L. 2007. Pré-história de Portugal. Universidade Aberta. Lisboa. Cardoso J. L., Medeiros S., and Martins F. 2018a. 150 anos depois: una rara placa de xisto decorada encontrada na gruta da Casa da Moura (Óbidos). Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 21: 57–69. Cardoso J. L., Rebelo P., Neto N., and Ribeiro R. A. 2018b. Enterramento do neolítico antigo em fossa na zona ribeirinha de Lisboa (antigos armazéns Sommer). Estudos Arqueologicos de Oeiras 24: 125–140. Carrasco J. L., Martínez F. 2014. Las cronologías absolutas del Neolítico Antiguo en el sur de la península ibérica. Nuevas dataciones. Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina 30: 57–80. Carrasco J. L., Pachón J. A., and Martínez-Sevilla F. 2010. Las necrópolis neolíticas en Sierra Harana y sus estribaciones (Granada): nuevos modelos interpretativos. Antiquitas 22: 21–34. Carrasco J. L., Pachón J. A., and Gámiz J. G. 2012. Las cerámicas neolíticas pintadas en Andalucía y sus contextos arqueológicos. Antiquitas 24: 17–79. Carreira J. R., Cardoso J. L. 2002. A gruta da Casa da Moura (Cesareda, Óbidos) e sua ocupação pós-paleolíti- ca. Estudos Arqueologicos de Oeiras 10: 249–361. 319 Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez 320 Carrer F., Colonese A. C., Lucquin A., +4 authors, and Craig O. E. 2016. Chemical analysis of pottery demonstrates Prehistoric origin for high-altitude alpine dairying. PLoS ONE 11(4): e0151442. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151442 Carrión J. S., Fernández S., Jimenez J. M., +8 authors, and Walker M. J. 2019. The sequence at Carihuela Cave and its potential for research into Neanderthal ecology and the Mousterian in southern Spain. Quaternary Science Reviews 217: 194–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.04.012 Carvalho A. F. 1998. Talhe da pedra no Neolítico antigo do Maciço Calcário das Serras d’Aire e Candeeiros (Estremadura Portuguesa). Um primeiro modelo tecnológico e tipológico. Colibri. Lisboa. Carvalho A. F., Cardoso J. L. 2011. A cronologia absoluta das ocupações funerárias da gruta da Casa da Moura (Óbidos). Estudos Arqueologicos de Oeiras 18: 393–405. Carvalho A. F., Gibaja J. F. 2005. Talhe da pedra no Neolítico antigo do Maciço Calcário Estremenho (Portugal): matérias-primas, tecnologia e análise funcional. In P. Arias, R. Ontañón, and C. García-Moncó (eds.), Actas del III Congreso del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica. Universidad de Cantabria. Santander: 373–382. Carvalho A. F., Gibaja J. F., and Gavilán B. 2012. Technologie, typologie et analyses fonctionnelles de l’outillage lithique durant le Néolithique Ancien dans la Cueva de Murciélagos de Zuheros (Córdoba, Espagne): réflexions sur la néolithisation du sud de la Péninsule Ibérique. L’Anthropologie 116: 148–170. Cauvin J. 2000. The birth of the gods and the origins of agriculture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Chambon P. 2008. Alguns trets de les pràctiques funeràries del Neolític postcardial. Quarhis 4: 70–75. Copley M. S., Berstan R., Docherty G., +4 authors, and Evershed R. 2003. Direct chemical evidence for widespread dairying in prehistoric Britain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(4): 1524–1529. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0335955100 Correa-Ascencio M., Evershed P. 2014. High throughput screening of organic residues in archaeological potsherds using direct acidified methanol extraction. Analytical Methods 6: 1330–1340. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3AY41678J Courtin J. 2000. Les premiers paysans du Midi. La Maison des Roches éditeur. Paris. Craig O. E., Allen R. B., Thompson A., Stevens R. E., Steele V. J., and Heron C. 2012. Distinguishing wild ruminant lipids by gas chromatography/combustion/isotope ratio mass spectrometry. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 26(19): 235. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.6349 9-2364. Craig O. E., Steele V. J., Fischer A., +7 authors, and Heron C. 2011. Ancient lipids reveal continuity in culinary practices across the transition to agriculture in Northern Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(44): 17910–17915. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107202108 Cramp L. J. E., Jones J., Sheridan A., +4 authors, and Evershed R. P. 2014. Immediate replacement of fishing with dairying by the earliest farmers of the northeast Atlantic archipelagos. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 281(1780): 20132372. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2372 Croucher K. 2006. Getting ahead: exploring meanings of skulls in the Neolithic Near East. In M. Bonogofsky (ed.), Skull Collection, Modification and Decoration. BAR International Series 1539. Archaeopress. Oxford: 29–44. Cubas M., Lucquin A. J. A., Robson H. K., +20 authors, and Craig O. E.. 2020. Latitudinal gradient in dairy production with the introduction of farming in Atlantic Europe. Nature Communications 11(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15907-4 Del Olmo G. 2015. The Marzeah and the Ugaritic magic ritual system. A close reading of KTU 1.114. Aula Orientalis 32: 221–241. DeLeonardis L. 2000. The body context: interpreting Early Nasca decapitated burials. Latin American Antiquity 11 (4): 363–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/972002 Delibes G., Estremera M. S., Alonso O., and Pastor F. 1999. ¿Sepultura o reliquia? A propósito de un cráneo hallado en ambiente habitacional en la Cueva de la Vaquera (Segovia). Sagvntvm Extra 2: 429–434. Dibble H., McPherron S. 2010. Old Stone Age. http://www. oldstoneage.com/software/edm-mobile.shtml. Accessed 22 March 2020. Dudd S. N. 1999. Molecular and isotopic characterization of animal fats in archaeological pottery. Unpublished PhD Thesis. School of Chemistry. University of Bristol. Bristol. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/ portalfiles/portal/34490556/DX213544.pdf Escacena J. L. 2018. Orantes neolíticos de Andalucía. Imágenes sobre vasijas de cerámica. Boletín del Museo Arqueológico Nacional 37: 25–42. Estremera M. S. 2003. Primeros agricultores y ganaderos en la Meseta Norte: el Neolítico de la Cueva de Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ... La Vaquera (Torreiglesias, Segovia). Junta de Castilla y León. León. Estremera M. S., Valle A. D. 1999. Las almagras neolíticas de la Cueva de la Vaquera (Segovia): la transformación térmica de la goethita en relación con los cambios de color de la pintura cerámica. Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología 65: 43–52. Evershed R. P. 2008. Organic residue analysis in archaeology: the archaeological biomarker revolution. Archaeometry 50: 895–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00446.x Evershed R. P., Payne S., Sherratt A. G., +18 authors, and Burton M. M.. 2008. Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southeastern Europe linked to cattle herding. Nature 455: 528–531. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07180 Fábregas R., Carvalho A. F., Lombera A., Cubas M., Lucquin A., Craig O., and Rodríguez-Álvarez X. P. 2019. Vaso con decoración cardial de Cova Eirós (Triacastela, Lugo). Trabajos de Prehistoria 76(1): 147–160. https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2019.12231 Fernández E., Cortés M., Pérez-Pérez A., and Turbón D. 2005. Primeras secuencias de DNA de muestras prehistóricas andaluzas. In M. Pellicer, A. Arribas (eds.), II y III Simposios de Prehistoria Cueva de Nerja. Fundación Cueva de Nerja. Nerja: 208–215. Freeman D. 1979. Severed heads that germinate. In R. H. Hook (ed.), Fantasy and symbol: Studies in anthropological interpretation. Academic Press. New York: 233– 246. Garcia Borja P., Salazar D. C., Pérez-Fernández A., Pardo- Gordó S., and Casanova V. 2011. El Neolítico antiguo cardial y la Cova de la Sarsa (Bocairent, València). Nuevas perspectivas a partir de su registro funerario. Munibe 62: 175–195. García-Gazólaz J., García-Sesma J. 2007. Enterramientos en el poblado neolítico de Los Cascajos (Los Arcos, Navarra). In M. A. Hurtado (ed.), La tierra te sea leve. Arqueología de la muerte en Navarra. Gobierno de Navarra. Pamplona: 52–58. García-Gazólaz J., García-Sesma J., Rojo M. A., Alday A., Garrido R., and García-Martínez I. 2011. Los Cascajos (Los Arcos, Navarra). Sagvntvm 12: 135–140. García-Martínez I. 2012. El proceso de neolitización en el Interior Peninsular: la Submeseta norte y el Alto Valle del Ebro: El análisis de la cerámica como herramienta interpretativa. Universidad de Valladolid. Valladolid. García-Puchol O. 2005. El proceso de neolitización en la fachada mediterránea de la península Ibérica. Tecnología y tipología de la piedra tallada. BAR International Series 1430. Archaeopress. Oxford. García-Puchol O., Bernabeu J., Barton C. M., Pardo-Gor- do S., McClure S. B., and Diez-Castillo A. 2018. A Bayesian approach for timing the neolithization in Mediterranean Iberia. Radiocarbon 60(1): 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2017.61 García-Rivero D., Vera J. C., Díaz-Rodríguez M. J., Barrera M., Taylor R., Pérez-Aguilar L. G., and Umbelino C. 2018a. La Cueva de la Dehesilla (Sierra de Cádiz): vuelta a un sitio clave para el neolítico del sur de la península ibérica. Munibe 69: 123–144. García-Rivero D., Taylor R., Pérez-Aguilar L. G., +5 authors, and Bernáldez Sánchez E. 2018b. Andalusi populations at La Dehesilla Cave (Sierra de Cádiz, Southern Iberia): and interdisciplinary approach to their rural economic systems. Journal of Islamic Archaeology 5(2): 119–151. García-Rivero D., Taylor R., Umbelino C., +10 authors, and Pérez-González J. 2020. The exceptional finding of Locus 2 at Dehesilla Cave and the Middle Neolithic ritual funerary practices of the Iberian Peninsula. PLoS ONE 15(8): e0236961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236961 Garrido-Pena R., Rojo M. A., Tejedor C., and García-Martí- nez I. 2012. Las máscaras de la muerte: ritos funerarios en el Neolítico de la Península Ibérica. In M. A. Rojo, R. Garrido-Pena, and I. García-Martínez (eds.), El Neolítico en la Península Ibérica y su contexto europeo. Cátedra. Madrid: 143–174. Gibaja J. F. 2004. Prácticas funerarias durante el Neolítico en Cataluña. Mainake 26: 9–27. Gibaja J. F., Mazzucco N., Ibáñez J. J., +5 authors, and López C. 2017. Reconociendo el camino seguido por las primeras comunidades neolíticas asentadas en el Mediterráneo centro-occidental a través del análisis de sus hoces. Arkeogazte 7: 5–24. Gibaja J. F., Morell B., López-Onaindia D., Zemour A., Bosch A., Tarrús J., and Eulàlia M. 2018. Nuevos datos cronológicos sobre la cueva sepulcral neolítica de l’Avellaner (Les Planes d’Hostoles, Girona). Munibe 69: 145–155. https://doi.org/10.21630/maa.2018.69.01 Góngora M. D. 1868. Antigüedades prehistóricas de Andalucía. C. Maro. Madrid. Goring-Morris N., Horwitz L. K. 2007. Funerals and feasts during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Near East. Antiquity 81(314): 902–919. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00095995 321 Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez Gresky J., Haelm J., and Clare L. 2017. Modified human crania from Göbekli Tepe provide evidence for a new form of Neolithic skull cult. Science Advances 3(6): e- 1700564. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1700564 Guijo J. M. 2004. Paleoantropología. In D. Martín-Socas, M. D. Cámalich, and P. González Quintero (eds.), La cueva de El Toro (Sierra de El Torcal-Antequera-Málaga). Un modelo de ocupación ganadera en el territorio andaluz entre el VI y II milenios ANE. Junta de Andalucía. Sevilla: 287–290. Haddow S. D., Knüsel C. J. 2017. Skull retrieval and secondary burial practices in the Neolithic Near East: Recent insights from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Bioarchaeology International 1(1/2): 52–71. https://doi.org/10.5744/bi.2017.1002 Harris E. C. 1991. Principios de estratigrafía arqueológica. Crítica. Barcelona. Hernández M. S. 2000. Sobre la religión neolítica: A propósito del arte macroesquemático. In M. H. Olcina, J. A. Soler (eds.), Scripta in Honorem Enrique A. Llobregat Conesa. Diputación Provincial de Alicante. Alicante: 137–156. Hunt A. M. W. (ed.) 2016. The Oxford handbook of archaeological ceramic analysis. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Ibáñez J. J., Gibaja J. F., Gassin B., and Mazzucco N. 2017. Paths and rhythms in the spread of agriculture in the Western Mediterranean: the contribution of the analysis of harvesting technology. In O. García Puchol, D. C. Salazar (eds.), Times of Neolithic transition along the Western Mediterranean. Springer. Cham: 339–371. Ibáñez J. J., González J. E. 1996. La función de los útiles tallados neolíticos de la Cueva de los Murciélagos de Zuheros (Córdoba). Primeros resultados. Rubricatum 1: 169–176. Iriarte E., Del Val M., García-Martínez I., Rojo Guerra M. A., Tejedor C., García-Gazólaz J., and Sesma-Sesma J. 2019. Contexto paleoambiental del yacimiento Neolítico de Los Cascajos (Navarra, España): quimioestratigrafía de la secuencia sedimentaria holocena del río Odrón. Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana 71(2): 261–273. Jammo S. 2014. A study of skull symbolism in Near Eastern Neolithic societies. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Tsukuba. Tsukuba. Jiménez-Brobeil S. A. 1990. Rituales funerarios neolíticos en la Alta Andalucía. Estado actual de la cuestión. Zephyrus 43: 125–130. Jiménez-Brobeil S. A., Botella M. C., Alemán I., and Sánchez A. P. M. G. 1996. Cráneos trepanados neolíticos de Andalucía Oriental. In A. Pérez-Pérez (ed.), Actas del III Congreso Nacional de Paleopatología. Fundación Uriach. Barcelona: 271–276. Jiménez-Brobeil S. A., Du Souich P. H., and Al Oumaoui I. 2009. Possible relationship of cranial traumatic injuries with violence in the south-east Iberian Peninsula from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140(3): 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21089 Jiménez-Brobeil S. A., Ortega J. A., and García-Sánchez M. 1986. Incisiones intencionales sobre huesos humanos del Neolitico de la Cueva de Malalmuerzo. Antropología y Paleoecología Humana 4: 39–65. Jordá J. F., Aura J. E. 2008. 70 fechas para una cueva: revisión crítica de 70 dataciones C14 del Pleistoceno Superior y Holoceno de la Cueva de Nerja (Málaga, Andalucía, España). Espacio, Tiempo y Forma 1: 239–256. Jordá J. F., Aura J. E., Rodrigo M. J., Pérez M., and Badal E. 2003. El registro paleobiológico cuaternario del yacimien- to arqueológico de la Cueva de Nerja (Málaga, España). Boletín de la Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural Sección Geológica 98(1–4): 73–89. Juan-Cabanilles J. 2008. El utillaje de piedra tallada en la Prehistoria reciente valenciana. Aspectos tipológicos, estilísticos y evolutivos. Diputación de Valencia. Valencia. Kenyon K. M. 1953. Neolithic Portrait-Skulls from Jericho. Antiquity XXVII(106): 105–107. Kuijt I. 2008. The regeneration of life: Neolithic structures of symbolic remembering and forgetting. Current Anthropology 49(2): 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1086/526097 Laplace G. 1966. Recherches sur l’origine et l’évolution des complexes leptolithiques. Mélanges Archeolog Histoire 4. Ecole Française de Rome. París. Le Bras-Goude G., Binder D., Zemour A., and Richards M. P. 2010. New radiocarbon dates and isotope analysis of Neolithic human and animal bone from the Fontbrégoua Cave (Salernes, Var, France). Journal of Anthropological Science 88: 167–178. Llobregat E. A. 1973. Del fin del Neolítico de cerámicas impresas al comienzo de la Edad del Bronce en la región valenciana: precisiones sobre cronología absoluta. Sagvntvm 9: 3–10. Maier C. I. 2017. Off with their heads! An analysis of the Levantine plastered skulls during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Unpublished thesis for graduation with Honors in Anthropology. Whitman College. Walla Walla. Washington. https://arminda.whitman.edu/theses/350 322