Deep inside a cave in central Spain, Neanderthals repeatedly carried horned and antlered skulls of large herbivores, stripped them of flesh, and arranged them near fires over what appears to be thousands of years. The collection, at least 35 modified crania found in a single archaeological layer, represents one of the most striking examples of deliberate, non-utilitarian behavior ever attributed to Neanderthals. A new study analyzing the spatial distribution of these skulls offers fresh evidence that the accumulation was intentional, shaped by both human action and natural cave dynamics, and it reignites a debate about whether our closest extinct relatives engaged in symbolic or ritual practices.
A Skull Collection Unlike Any Other
Des-Cubierta Cave sits in the Lozoya Valley near Pinilla del Valle, Madrid. Its Level 3 deposit stands out from typical Neanderthal occupation sites because of what it contains and, just as critically, what it lacks. The assemblage is dominated by large ungulate crania from species such as bison, aurochs, and deer, yet post-cranial bones, teeth, mandibles, and maxillae are almost entirely absent. That pattern is the opposite of what archaeologists expect at a butchery or living site, where limb bones rich in marrow and meat would be the primary refuse. Instead, someone selected skulls, specifically those bearing horns or antlers, and brought them into the cave while leaving the rest of the carcass behind.
The skulls bear clear cut marks and percussion traces, indicating they were carefully removed from the bodies and worked with tools. The crania cluster around hearths alongside 1,421 lithic items belonging to the Mousterian stone tool tradition, a technology closely associated with Neanderthal populations across Europe. Fire use at the site was not incidental; the association between crania and hearths recurs across multiple sub-layers, suggesting that the behavior was repeated over many visits rather than being a one-off event. The overall pattern implies a long-lived practice that was transmitted across generations, not a single unusual episode frozen in time.
Processing Outside, Displaying Inside
One of the more telling findings comes from use-wear analysis of the stone tools recovered at Des-Cubierta. A study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports examined non-flint tools from the site and found wear patterns consistent with butchery activities. The sequence the researchers reconstructed is specific: animals were processed outside the cave, their crania were then transported inside, and further modification took place at the interior hearths. That two-stage workflow distinguishes Des-Cubierta from sites where animals were simply consumed on the spot. The deliberate separation of processing and deposition suggests the skulls served a purpose beyond nutrition, since hauling only the heads into a confined space is an inefficient way to extract calories.
This interpretation gains strength when set against the geological record. A stratigraphy study archived through Oxford University’s research repository links Level 3 to cold-period deposition punctuated by successive rockfall episodes. Those rockfalls reorganized parts of the deposit over time but did not create the skull concentration on their own. Natural processes shaped the spatial layout, yet the crania themselves were already there because Neanderthals had placed them. The interplay between deliberate accumulation and geological disturbance is central to understanding why the collection looks the way it does today, and it undercuts arguments that the pattern could simply be the byproduct of erosion, water flow, or carnivore activity.
Rockfalls and Ritual: Disentangling Nature from Intent
A new spatial analysis published in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences directly tackles the question of how much of the skull arrangement is human-made and how much is geological accident. The study documents at least 35 anthropically modified horned or antlered herbivore crania in Level 3 and maps their positions against rockfall debris and fire features. Its conclusion is that the formation history was multi-episode, with successive collapses partially burying and redistributing earlier deposits. But the concentration of skulls, their consistent modification, and their association with Mousterian tools and hearths cannot be explained by rockfall alone. The pattern points to repeated, intentional deposition over an extended period, with later collapses merely shuffling an already unusual assemblage.
This matters because skeptics of Neanderthal symbolic behavior have long argued that unusual-looking assemblages can result from natural taphonomic processes, water flow, carnivore activity, or random geological events that mimic human arrangement. The Des-Cubierta team’s spatial modeling directly addresses that objection by showing that while rockfalls did alter the deposit, the underlying accumulation of horned crania was already anomalous, before any collapse occurred. No known natural process selectively concentrates horned skulls while excluding limb bones, jaws, and teeth from the same species. An independent discussion of the find in a Nature news analysis underscores this selectivity, noting that the missing body parts would normally dominate a kill site but are conspicuously absent here.
Trophies, Shrines, or Something Else Entirely
The big question, the one that has driven public fascination since the findings were highlighted in a widely read overview, is what the skulls meant to the Neanderthals who collected them. Researchers have floated several possibilities. One is that the crania functioned as hunting trophies, displayed to signal prowess or group identity, perhaps marking the achievements of particular individuals or bands. Another is that the cave served as a kind of shrine, a place where horned skulls held symbolic or spiritual significance tied to the animals themselves, echoing later traditions in which powerful prey species are accorded special treatment. Neither interpretation can be confirmed with current evidence, but both share the premise that the behavior was non-utilitarian, driven by meaning rather than calories.
Some researchers have pushed back on symbolic readings, suggesting the skulls could reflect practical concerns such as raw material storage or even a form of territorial marking during resource stress. However, the Des-Cubierta pattern does not match typical storage behavior, which would usually involve transportable meat or marrow-rich bones rather than heavy, low-yield crania. The repeated association of the skulls with hearths and the lack of intensive brain extraction also weaken purely economic explanations. A separate commentary on the discovery emphasizes that while labels such as “ritual” or “shrine” may be premature, the best-supported reading is that Neanderthals were engaging in a structured, repeated practice that went beyond simple subsistence, and added another piece of evidence to the growing case that their cognitive world was richer and more symbolically charged than once believed.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
