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 Taylor 1,2,3, Cláudia Umbelino3,2, Miriam Cubas 4,
María Barrera Cruz5,1, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez1
1 Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Seville, Seville, ES
garciarivero@us.es< ruth.taylor@hotmail.com< mdrodriguez@us.es
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
umbelino@antrop.uc.pt
4 Department of History, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, ES< mcubas.morera@gmail.com
5 Department of Prehistory, Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Valencia, Valencia, ES
bacruzma@uv.es
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, pot-
tery, 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 pri-
dobili 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 pod-
premo 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 ar-
chaeological period, namely the Middle Neolithic
(García-Rivero et al. 2020).
During the archaeological excavation of Area C006
in 2017, a depositional context was discovered lo-
cated 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 impor-
tance, not only because of its singularity but also be-
cause it offers a unique opportunity to learn more
about the ritual and funerary behaviours of the com-
munities of the second half of the 6th millennium
cal BC in the Iberian Peninsula.
The aim of this paper is thus twofold: first, to pre-
sent 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 with-
in 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 ar-
chaeologists (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 po-
pulations of the past and, especially, to their sym-
bolic and ritual behaviours.
In recent years, an increase can be observed in the
archaeological evidence related to funerary practi-
ces during the Early Neolithic, c. 5600–4800 cal BC,
in the Iberian Peninsula. A major body of informa-
tion comes from cave sites in which disarticulated or
isolated human bones are commonly found along-
side other artefactual and faunal remains, admitted-
ly as the probable result of complex cultural and
post-depositional processes. When present, inhuma-
tions are usually individual, although several buri-
als 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 mul-
tiple inhumations inside pits within the liv-
ing areas. The articulated bodies are gener-
ally placed in a flexed lateral decubitus po-
sition, with variable assemblages of grave
goods or accompaniments, essentially of
pottery, stone tools, worked bone, shell ele-
ments, and faunal remains (Garrido-Pena
et al. 2012.145–147).
Dehesilla Cave (Cueva de la Dehesilla), lo-
cated in the foothills of the Sub-Baetic Sys-
tem in southwestern Spain (Fig. 1), holds
one of the oldest and richest Neolithic fune-
rary records known in the Iberian Penin-
sula, although apparently unevenly distri-
buted within the cave. The excavations car-
ried 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 hu-
man 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 inter-
pretation for the new archaeological context pre-
sented here. Moreover, it will enable us to highlight
the singular characteristics of the Dehesilla Cave, Lo-
cus 1 deposition, and to shed new light on the rit-
ual 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 sec-
ond excavation season, in 2017, and the work car-
ried out in Area C006 located in Room 4, one of the
innermost chambers of the cave (Fig. 2). The loca-
tion 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 cor-
responds exactly with its limit. The excavated area
is approx. 5m2, with a length of 5m running paral-
lel to the west wall of the cave and a width of 1m.
The excavation confirmed that only the upper lev-
els immediately beneath the flowstone sheet were
affected by recent human and animal activities. The
excavation proceeded with great care,
paying particular attention to the de-
finition of the contacts between stra-
tigraphic units (Harris 1991). The
elements associated with the deposi-
tion were clearly identified and do-
cumented, and all of the archaeolo-
gical materials and samples were re-
corded 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 magnify-
ing glass (10x) and a Dino-Lite Edge
Digital Microscope with a 30x to 70x
magnification range. The state of pre-
servation was assessed according to
Jane E. Buikstra and Douglas H. Ube-
laker (1994). Sex diagnosis, in one
case, was based on the maximum length of the ta-
lus, following Silva (1995). The estimation of age at
death considered the traits recommended by Louise
Scheuer and Sue Black (2000) for the non-adult in-
dividual, while the closure of the cranial suture of
the adult individual was assessed according to Cla-
ude Masset (1989). Dental wear was described fol-
lowing Holly B. Smith (1984).
Pottery analysis
The methods applied in the pottery analysis (She-
pard 1956; Sinopoli 1991; Orton, Hughes 2014;
Rice 2015; Hunt 2016) aimed to assess and recon-
struct the probable nature of the depositional and ta-
phonomic processes behind the creation of the as-
semblage under study, and to enable the typological
(formal and decorative) characterisation of the cera-
mic 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 de-
posit. After initial descriptive statistics, size was final-
ly retained as the most appropriate proxy variable
for the state of fragmentation. An exercise in cross-
fitting 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, Ever-
shed 2014). Gas Chromatography-Flame Ion Detec-
tion (GC-FID) and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spec-
trometry (GC-MS) were used for all samples (Appen-
dix 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 car-
bon 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 isoto-
pic values of the main fatty acids (palmitic and stea-
ric) were compared with compiled data from rumi-
nant and non-ruminant adipose, and dairy and ma-
rine 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 La-
place’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 typo-
technological analysis followed the main syntheses
and terminological proposals for the western (Car-
valho 1998; Carvalho, Gibaja 2005), southern (Mar-
tínez-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 inner-
most and furthest chamber from the present-day
mouth of the cave. The excavation documented a
complete stratigraphic sequence and has made pos-
sible a number of observations regarding the nature
and use of this part of the cave.
The surface level is constituted by a sheet of flow-
stone (Unit 0) with microgours and a thickness be-
tween 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 dis-
play 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 stra-
tigraphic characteristics and archaeological materi-
als, 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 tor-
rential events, and abundant archaeo-
logical materials.
During the formation of Unit 8, or
soon after, an anthropic depositional
event took place (Figs. 5 and 6.a). Lo-
cus 1 is therefore partially encased
within Unit 8, although in proximity
to its upper contact. The archaeologi-
cal materials documented in Unit 8
are dated to the Early Neolithic, as are
those of the depositional event. The
deposition consists of a pottery vesselFig. 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, surround-
ed by small stones, devoid of sediment but conta-
ining 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 num-
ber of larger blocks, resting on a ring of medium-
sized 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 pot-
tery 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 antero-
posterior 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 run-
ning 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 nar-
row 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 anthro-
pogenic 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 biomecha-
nical 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 impres-
sions and markings from plant roots can be exclud-
ed 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 orienta-
tion (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, Ube-
laker 1994; White et al. 2012). However, they may
also produce parallel grooves with different cross-
sections 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 car-
nivores 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, there-
fore, strong evidence of the peri-mortem anthropo-
genic 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 esti-
mation 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 neuro-
central 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 usu-
ally occurs by the age of 2 years (Scheuer, Black
2000). The thoracic vertebral neural arch may there-
fore 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 re-
presenting 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 incom-
plete, 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 in-
dividual. The minimum number of individuals rep-
resented 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 ques-
tion. 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 typo-
logies (Llobregat 1973; Bernabeu
1989). Its surfaces are smooth,
undecorated, with three approxi-
mately equidistant handles locat-
ed on the gentle shoulder. It is
slightly asymmetrical in the areas
of the rim, neck and height of the
handles (Fig. 10). The preserva-
tion of the base was compromised
and could not be physically recon-
structed, 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 pot-
tery fragments with a total weight
of 560g (Fig. 9). No sherds belong-
ing to the same pots, with or with-
out a direct physical refit, were identified. This is,
therefore, a very strong suggestion that each pottery
record of the Locus 1 fragmentary assemblage be-
longs 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 deposition-
al event in which a single and complete pottery ves-
sel was carefully placed. On the grounds of these
observations, it is probable that the fragmentary
pottery assemblage associat-
ed 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 frag-
mentary pottery assemblage
display strong affinities with
the pottery record of Unit 8
in which the deposition was
made. The formal and techno-
logical traits and the presence
of characteristic decorative
techniques place the context
in an advanced Early Neoli-
thic horizon, with a particularly noteworthy pres-
ence of impressed and ‘almagra’ wares (Fig. 11) (Na-
varrete 1976; Navarrete, Capel 1980; Bernabeu
1989; Acosta, Pellicer 1990; Capel et al. 2006; Par-
do-Gordó et al. 2021). Applied decoration is docu-
mented 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; b sec-
tion of the deposition after the excavation of its northern half; c re-
mains of a white crust inside the jar.
a
b
c
Fig. 7. a Superior view of the human
cranial vault; b the two cut marks of
the ectocranial surface; c detail of the
cut marks (70x) with a V-shaped cross-
section and, on one of the marks, par-
allel 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 be-
low). The observed effect is the reduction-carboni-
zation of the wall of these fragments from the in-
ternal surface of the vessel. This may indicate their
use as fire holders or lamps, although not necessa-
rily 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 re-
mains 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 stud-
ies undertaken in the Mediterranean and southeast-
ern 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 distrib-
ution of saturated fatty acids (C14:0 and C26:0), unsa-
turated 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 mo-
lecular biomarkers. For that reason, we carried out
the isotopic analysis (d13C) of the two main saturat-
ed fatty acids (C16:0 and C18:0) to distinguish the re-
source 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 Eu-
ropean 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 specifi-
city of the chromatogram and the absence of any
molecular biomarkers, this interpretation is based
only on the isotopic signal of the palmitic and stea-
ric 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, se-
ven 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, identi-
fied 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 prox-
imal platform and abrupt, deep, and partially con-
tinuous distal retouch (Fig. 13.L1-4) and a meso-
proximal 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 as-
semblage confirms that the wear on the sickle blade
is consistent with the cutting of cereals, with stria-
tions 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 An-
dalusian Neolithic caves, such as El Toro, Nerja, Mur-
ciélagos 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 ...
307
been used to cut an indeterminate soft material. In
the context of Locus 1, it is perhaps possible to re-
late this instrument to the cut marks on the human
calvarium and to the removal of flesh. However, as
noted above regarding the accidental presence of
pottery sherds, we cannot securely discard the same
depositional nature of the elements of the lithic as-
semblage of Locus 1. Indeed, the types of elements
found here are common throughout the entire stra-
tigraphical sequence. Heat treatment, along with the
presence of the sickle blade, are traits identified par-
ticularly in other Andalusian Neolithic sites (cf. Ibá-
ñez, González 1996; Vera 1997; Rodríguez 2004;
Carvalho et al. 2012; Morgado, Pelegrin 2013; Pe-
rales et al. 2015; Gibaja et al. 2017; Ibáñez et al.
2017).
Faunal and botanical remains
Small faunal remains were recovered from the sed-
iment surrounding the pottery jar. Sheep or goat,
suid, bovine, deer and rabbit are present, as well as
some rare invertebrates. A Unionida valve, identified
as Potomida littoralis (C006-202), was identified
near the pottery vessel. The faunal assemblage of
Locus 1 is identical in both taxonomical and tapho-
nomic terms to Unit 8, surrounding the deposition,
as well as to the contents of most of the levels of the
same excavation area. It is therefore likely that these
elements were included indirectly in the deposition.
The only exception may be the freshwater mussel
shell, since this kind of specimen is very unusual
throughout the entire sequence.
Despite having processed a stable proportion of se-
diment by flotation, barely any botanical remains
were recovered, with the exception of a fragment of
taxonomically indeterminate carbonized seed and a
few, very rare, wood charcoal fragments, including
wild olive and an unidentified angiosperm. The re-
lationship of these botanical remains with the Locus
1 depositional event cannot be safely assumed, as
has been suggested with regard to other materials
discussed above.
Fig. 10. Reconstruction of pottery vessel C006-244.
Fig. 11. Selection of the fragmentary pottery assemblage recovered from Locus 1.
Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez
308
Radiocarbon dating
Two samples were selected from Locus 1 for radio-
carbon dating: one from the human cranium itself,
and the other from the white crust from inside the
pottery vessel. The latter unfortunately did not
work, while the sample from the skull bone dated
to 5222–5036 cal BC (calibrated to two sigmas) (Tab.
4). This date is consistent with the characteristics of
the pottery assemblage.
This new date is also coherent within the current
body of radiocarbon dates in the Iberian Peninsula.
Recent reviews of these dates have established a
fundamental chronological span for the Early Neoli-
thic between c. 5600–4800 cal BC, which, in addi-
tion, supports the first Neolithic arrivals to the Ibe-
rian Peninsula by way of the Mediterranean coast
(Rojo et al. 2012; García-Puchol et al. 2017; Ber-
nabeu et al. 2018).
The available radiocarbon dates for the Andalusian
Early Neolithic indicate a maximum range c. 5500–
4700 cal BC, but there is generally a greater densi-
ty of dates in the last centuries of the 6th millennium
cal BC (Martín-Socas et al. 2018), as is the case here.
The oldest dates come from Dehesilla Cave itself,
where excavations in Area C003 documented at the
very base of the sequence a stratigraphical level in-
cluding impressa pottery of Mediterranean influ-
ence, followed by other levels characterized by ‘al-
magra’ wares (García-Rivero et al. 2018a; Taylor,
García-Rivero 2021). Other archaeological sites
with similarly very old dates in Andalusia are the
caves of Nerja (Jordá, Aura 2008) and Esqueleto
(Carrasco, Martínez 2014). This suggests that the
arrival of the first Neolithic populations took place
on the coastal line.
The accumulation of radiocarbon dates between c.
5300–5000 cal BC indicates a period of notable re-
plication and consolidation of these populations
throughout the south of the Iberian Peninsula. In
contrast, a drop in radiocarbon dates can be observ-
ed around 4700 cal BC, suggesting a decrease in the
human populations during most of the second half
of 5th millennia cal BC (Molina et al. 2017; García-
Rivero et al. 2018a).
Ritual funerary contexts in the Iberian Early
Neolithic
The funerary practices of the Early Neolithic in the
Iberian Peninsula have been
considered previously in sev-
eral specific works of synthe-
sis (e.g., Rubio 2001; 2004;
Garrido-Pena et al. 2012).
The general overview out-
lined in these works can be
updated with some recently
discovered contexts and new
data (Oms et al. 2017; Giba-
ja et al. 2018; Alt et al. 2020).
Broadly, the fundamental be-
haviours of the Early Neoli-
thic funerary record of the
Iberian Peninsula are essen-
tially embodied in the con-
cept of individual burial in a
flexed lateral position, with
relatively few elements of ma-
terial accompaniment. Burials
are more abundant in caves,
but also exist in open-air set-
tlements where they may of-
Tab. 2. Summary of the analysed samples and their
lipid concentrations.
Sample Sample Lipid concentration
Id. mass (mg) (mg\g)
LD_1 1010 5.11
LD_2 1090 4.88
LD_3 1260 4.01
LD_10 1120 13.60*
* Sample selected for GC-MS and GC-C-IRMS analyses.
Fig. 12. Partial gas chromatogram showing the distribution of the mole-
cular composition in sample LD-10.
Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ...
309
ten share domestic contexts or, occasionally, be plac-
ed in distinct spaces, in some cases considered as de-
signated burial grounds.
As well as the normative and formal primary buri-
als, another recurring pattern is the identification of
more or less isolated remains, which usually appear
mixed together with pottery fragments and fauna, as
well as with lithic elements and shells, in areas and
levels of presumably ordinary activities. This type of
finding actually constitutes the majority of the fune-
rary record, and has generally been interpreted as
evidence of secondary burials, involving ritual prac-
tices in which bones were moved and recategorized,
or as a result of the common post-depositional pro-
cesses that shape the stratigraphic palimpsests of
caves. Even at present, it is not easy to discriminate
between the two processes, and there is some uncer-
tainty about the precise meaning of this fragmentary
record and its possible cultu-
ral background.
In a separate and concise
group, there is evidence of in-
tentional depositional events
of a special nature, which re-
main rare and incompletely
understood. In order to shed
light on the new discovery at Dehesilla Cave, we will
focus here on the Early Neolithic ritual funerary con-
texts in the Iberian Peninsula that include either or
both of the two main elements of the depositional
context Locus 1, that is, the differential treatment of
crania and/or the specific use of pottery jars. The
comparative contexts have been characterized on
the basis of their structural features and material
markers of ritual behaviours. These archaeological
contexts and traits are summarized in Table 5, and
their locations in the Iberian Peninsula are shown in
Fig. 14. This overview provides a broader context for
the Locus 1 deposition, and aims to lay the ground
for its interpretative discussion.
At Dehesilla Cave, several Early Neolithic burials
were documented during the 1981 excavations (Aco-
sta, Pellicer 1990.57–58): seven inhumations (four
children, one juvenile and two adults, both female)
and two cases of isolated skeletal ele-
ments – a cranium and a mandible –
belonging to two different adult in-
dividuals were identified in Levels
VI and V. These two levels contain-
ed ceramic and lithic materials con-
sistent with the Early Neolithic peri-
od (Acosta, Pellicer 1990). The ra-
diocarbon date from a charcoal frag-
ment at the base of the burials (La-
yer 13 of Level VI), acting as a post
quem reference, is 5468–4992 cal
BC (cf. Acosta, Pellicer 1990.87;
García-Rivero et al. 2018a.126). The
majority of the remains belong to
formal burials, mostly flexed and
placed on one side. The human re-
mains were later studied from an
anthropological and paleopatholog-
ical perspective, and the existence of
cribra orbitalia was noted in two of
the children (Robledo, Jiménez-Bro-
beil 1994). The cranium showed
signs of cremation, and was found
next to a hearth with numerous Ibe-
rus alonensis snail shells (Acosta,
Typology
f Retouched % Use- % Total
tool wear
Knapped
Blades 57% 4 2 50% 2 50%
(87.5%)
Flakes 28.6% 2 0 – 0 – 7
Indeterminate 14.3% 1 0 – 0 –
Ground
(12.5%)
Hammer 100% 1 – – 1 100% 1
Tab. 3. Lithic assemblage.
Fig. 13. Lithic assemblage documented in Locus 1: L1-1 meso-proxi-
mal blade fragment; L1-4 sickle blade (C006-247); L1-5 mesial blade
fragment with partial retouch on the proximal break (C006-252);
L1-7 hammer stone fragment (C006-231).
Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez
310
Pellicer 1990.58). The mandible appeared to be an
isolated element.
The presence of disarticulated and isolated jaw bones
or other post-cranial remains is common and well-
documented, not only in all of the prehistoric con-
texts known to date at Dehesilla Cave, but also in
many other Neolithic caves throughout the south of
the Iberian Peninsula, probably in part caused by
post-depositional processes. In contrast, the case of
the isolated adult cranium is relevant here, not be-
cause skulls are unusual in the archaeological re-
cord, but because their specific deposition and con-
texts often have an intentional dimension that must
have been guided by a particular pattern of ritual
behaviour. In this case, it may also be significant
that the cranium was found in association with a
hearth and terrestrial snail shells.
In Andalusia, the funerary record of this Early Neo-
lithic period is characterised mainly by scattered re-
mains, more or less isolated, and some burials, main-
ly documented in caves. This is the case, for exam-
ple, at one of the most emblematic Andalusian sites
that was discovered in the 19th century, Cueva de
los Murciélagos de Albuñol, which has a substantial
funerary record, including both formal burials and
remains dispersed over the floor of different areas
of the cave, and among which there are numerous
isolated crania (Góngora 1868; Molina et al. 2012).
Unfortunately, the funerary record cannot be secure-
ly attributed to the different Neolithic periods, de-
spite a radiocarbon date for the famous weaved bas-
kets that would place at least some of the remains
in the advanced Early Neolithic (Castro et al. 1996).
Cueva de la Carihuela (Carigüela) also contains nu-
merous human remains throughout its sequence
(Pellicer 1964; Navarrete 1976; Arribas, Molina
1979), most of which are not anatomically connect-
ed, in addition to certain stratigraphic problems pro-
bably caused by the funerary use of the cave itself
(Carrasco et al. 2010). However, more than twenty
burials have been attributed to the Early Neolithic,
occasionally with signs of treatment, including defle-
shing, suggestive to some authors of cannibalistic
practices (Botella et al. 2000; Carrasco et al. 2012;
Molina et al. 2012.436).
On the coast of Málaga, Cueva de Nerja has provid-
ed many remains of Early Neolithic burials (Fernán-
dez et al. 2005). Of particular interest here are two
burials from the base of the Neolithic sequence in
the Sala Torca, one adult and one child, with evi-
dence of cremation (Pellicer, Acosta 1986.446); and,
perhaps more notably, the remains from level V of
area NM-84 in the room known as Sala de la Mina,
in which a juvenile cranium was found in association
with typical pottery of the period, knapped lithics
and stone hand-grinders, bone awls, charred acorns
and fish remains (Pellicer, Acosta 1986.368).
In one of the innermost and inaccessible areas of
Cueva de El Toro, there are several human remains
lacking any anatomical connection. These include
part of the calvarium of an adult male, with part of
the frontal and both parietal bones, dated to the ad-
vanced Early Neolithic (Martín-Socas et al. 2004;
Santana et al. 2019). It bears a series of up to 59
cut marks on the external surface made with a sharp
lithic tool and by a process of defleshing, also dis-
playing a V-shaped mark and remains of ochre (Gui-
jo 2004). This particular calvarium has been inter-
preted recently as a skull cup linked to ritualistic
cannibalism (Santana et al. 2019).
On the coast of Cádiz, at the open-air site of El Reta-
mar, there is a double burial of a woman and a man,
whose bodies were dusted with ochre (Bueno 2002;
Ramos, Lazarich 2002). The male skull was inten-
tionally displaced from the rest of the body, and a
specimen of Cardium edule was located at his feet,
while the mandible of the female individual was
placed between the long bones of her lower extre-
mities.
In the coastal area of central and southern Portugal,
apart from Neolithic burials on some of the Mesoli-
thic shell middens (e.g., Bicho et al. 2013; 2017), bu-
rials in caves are predominant and especially abun-
Tab. 4. Radiocarbon date. The calibration is made with IntCal13.14c Northern Hemisphere atmospheric
radiocarbon calibration curve in the software Calib 7.0 (Reimer et al. 2013).
Lab. code Sample Context Sample % %C %N C>N Date BP pM d13C Cal BC p*=
Id. Extract. ‰ 2s
CNA4493 DH17-21 Locus 1
Homo –
3.91 31.9 11.6 3.2 6180±30 46.31±0.18 –18.17±1.50 5222–5036 1.00
Skull
1 Method> Collagen extraction and purification. Ultrafiltration.
Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ...
311
dant in the Portuguese Estremadura and Alentejo-
Ribatejo regions. As for evidence of rituals, the trepa-
nation (without survival) of a skull from Casa da
Moura (Cardoso 2007.241; Carreira, Cardoso 2002)
belonging to a young adult male could be of interest
(Antunes et al. 2009). However, only one (carried
out on an ulna) of the 12 radiocarbon dates provid-
ed for the level containing the human remains fits
the advanced Early Neolithic period, in accordance
with the characteristics of the pottery assemblage
(Carreira, Cardoso 2002), while the remaining dates
are more recent (Carvalho, Cardoso 2011.396).
In the Meseta region, individual burials in pits and
isolated remains in secondary contexts are both do-
cumented. The cranium of an adult male between
20 and 30 years of age is noteworthy, with a slight
depression of the nasal bone, documented at Cueva
de la Vaquera in Segovia, in association with sever-
al ribs and the tooth of a sheep or goat (Estremera,
Valle 1999). Interpreted as a relic (Delibes et al.
1999), it has recently been dated to the transition
between the sixth and fifth millennia cal BC (Gar-
rido-Pena et al. 2012.148).
On the Valencian coast, the predominant funerary
evidence is provided by dispersed human remains,
especially from caves (Bernabeu et al. 2001). Of
particular interest to us here is the well-known case
of the ritual funerary deposition of Cova de la Sar-
sa. It is formed by two crania, one male and one
Fig. 14. Location map of the archaeologi-
cal sites mentioned in the text (see Appen-
dix 3), numbered as follows: 1 Cueva de
la Dehesilla, Jerez de la Frontera, Cádiz
(García Rivero et al. 2018); 2 Cueva de los
Murciélagos, Albuñol, Granada (Góngora
1868); 3 Cueva de la Carihuela or Cari-
güela, Los Montes, Granada (Carrión et
al. 2019); 4 Cueva de Nerja, Nerja, Má-
laga (Jordá et al. 2003); 5 Cueva del To-
ro, El Torcal de Antequera, Málaga (Mar-
tín Socas et al. 2004); 6 El Retamar, Puer-
to Real, Cádiz (Ramos, Lazarich 2002); 7
Casa da Moura, Óbidos, Portugal (Cardo-
so et al. 2018a); 8 Cueva de la Vaquera,
Torreiglesias, Segovia (Estremera 2003);
9 Cova de la Sarsa, Bocairent, Valencia
(Asquerino 1978); 10 Cova dels Lladres,
Vacarisses, Barcelona (Ten 1980); 11 Los
Cascajos, Navarra (Iriarte et al. 2019); 12
Cova de les Cendres, Moraira-Teulada, Ali-
cante (García-Puchol 2005; Bernabeu, Mo-
lina 2009); 13 Antigos armazéns Sommer,
Lisboa, Portugal (Rebelo et al. 2017; Car-
doso et al. 2018a); 14 Pálacio Ludovice, Lisboa, Portugal (Duarte et al. 2020); 15 Cueva del Picado, Cá-
diz (Mora 1970) (Theme map: https://www.naturalearthd ata.com/).
female, the latter with trauma to the left parietal,
and various post-cranial elements. They were depo-
sited in a crevice in the cave wall, delimited by a
stone structure, and located in an area difficult to
access. In the same area there are cave paintings,
and the human remains were accompanied by an as-
semblage of cardial pottery with the remains of pig-
ment, worked bone and lithic elements, and shells
(Miguel 2008; García Borja et al. 2011).
At the Catalan Cova dels Lladres, a cranium and
other human remains were found on the floor of the
cave alongside a globular pottery container with
two handles and a band of incised decoration (Pla,
Junyent 1970). In stratigraphy, several burials are
also known to be associated with two globular jars,
with a high neck, lug handles and incised decora-
tion. One of them was placed on the neck of anoth-
er fragmented jar of the same type, and contained
a substantial assemblage of perforated shell beads,
many on Cardium edule, as well as numerous vari-
scite pendants (Ten 1980).
The type of pottery jar, usually referred to as ampho-
roid or botella (Llobregat 1973; Bernabeu 1989;
Fábregas et al. 2019), was very common during the
Early Neolithic, and continued in later periods. The
shape, with a cylindrical neck, globular body and
semi-spherical or often cone-shaped base, may re-
flect their use as containers for liquids or substances
with a similar behaviour. This form is frequently
Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez
312
Ta
b.
 5
. A
rc
ha
eo
lo
gi
ca
l c
ha
ra
ct
er
is
ti
cs
 o
f 
th
e 
Ea
rl
y 
N
eo
li
th
ic
 r
it
ua
l d
ep
os
it
s 
of
 t
he
 I
be
ri
an
 P
en
in
su
la
. T
he
 d
at
e 
ra
n
ge
 g
iv
en
 f
or
 e
ac
h 
co
n
te
xt
 c
or
re
sp
on
ds
 t
o 
th
e
m
ax
im
um
 c
hr
on
ol
og
ic
al
 r
an
g 
(c
al
 B
C 
– 
2ss
) 
ba
se
d 
on
 t
he
 a
va
il
ab
le
 d
at
a 
se
t 
(L
ab
 C
od
es
) 
ca
li
br
at
ed
 t
o 
tw
o 
si
gm
a 
ac
co
rd
in
g 
to
 t
he
 o
ri
gi
n
al
 p
ub
li
ca
ti
on
s 
(R
e-
fe
re
n
ce
s)
.
Si
te
D
iff
er
en
tia
l
Lo
ca
tio
n
Tr
au
m
a 
- M
ar
ks
Po
tt
er
y
G
ra
ve
 g
oo
ds
C
al
 B
C
 –
 2
ss
La
b 
C
od
e
R
ef
er
en
ce
s
tr
ea
tm
en
t
St
ru
ct
ur
es
M
an
ip
ul
at
io
n
ja
r
A
cc
om
pa
ni
m
en
ts
of
 s
ku
lls
C
ue
va
 d
e 
la
V
 (
m
al
e,
In
ne
rm
os
t 
ar
ea
,
Tw
o 
in
ci
si
on
s
V
Li
th
ic
s,
52
22
–5
0
36
a
C
N
A
-4
49
3
Th
is
 p
ap
er
D
eh
es
ill
a
π4
5 
yr
s)
st
on
e 
co
ve
r
Po
to
m
id
a 
lit
to
ra
lis
C
ue
va
 d
e 
la
V
 (
ad
ul
t)
Fi
rs
t 
ro
om
C
re
m
at
io
n|
N
on
e
Ib
er
us
 a
lo
ne
ns
is
–
–
A
co
st
a,
 P
el
lic
er
 1
99
0
D
eh
es
ill
a
C
ue
va
 d
e 
lo
s
V
D
ee
pe
st
 a
re
a
–
–
Es
pa
rt
o 
gr
as
s 
fib
re
s
52
10
-4
84
0
b
C
SI
C
-1
13
3
G
ón
go
ra
 1
86
8<
 C
ac
ho
 e
t 
al
. 1
99
6<
M
ur
ci
él
ag
os
M
ol
in
a 
et
 a
l 2
01
2
C
ue
va
 d
e 
la
V
|
–
D
ef
le
sh
in
g
–
Fa
un
a
55
17
-5
0
60
b
C
ol
-1
56
6-
7
Pe
lli
ce
r 
19
64
< N
av
ar
re
te
 1
97
6<
 A
rr
ib
as
,
C
ar
ih
ue
la
 o
r
C
an
ni
ba
lis
m
|
15
60
, 1
56
4
M
ol
in
a 
19
79
< B
ot
el
la
 2
00
0<
 F
er
ná
nd
ez
 e
t 
C
ar
ig
üe
la
Pt
a-
91
63
al
. 2
00
7<
 C
ar
ra
sc
o 
et
 a
l.
20
12
< M
ol
in
a 
et
C
ol
-1
56
7
al
.2
01
2;
 M
ar
tín
 e
t 
al
.2
01
8
C
ue
va
 d
e
V
N
M
-8
4
–
–
Po
tt
er
y,
 k
na
pp
ed
N
er
ja
(j
uv
en
ile
)
Sa
la
 d
e 
la
 M
in
a
lit
hi
cs
, h
an
d 
gr
in
de
rs
54
84
-4
79
8
b
O
xA
-2
60
77
-8
6
A
co
st
a,
 P
el
lic
er
 1
98
6<
 F
er
ná
nd
ez
 e
t 
al
.
an
d 
qu
er
ns
, a
w
ls
, a
co
rn
s
20
05
< M
ar
tin
s 
et
 a
l. 
20
15
an
d 
fis
h 
re
m
ai
ns
C
ue
va
 d
e
V
In
ne
rm
os
t 
ar
ea
D
ef
le
sh
in
g
N
on
e
U
nd
ec
or
at
ed
 p
ot
te
ry
50
40
-4
85
0
a
B
et
a-
36
52
88
El
 T
or
o
(m
al
e,
59
 in
ci
si
on
s
ap
ro
x.
 3
0
 y
rs
)
V
-s
ha
pe
d 
m
ar
k
54
72
-4
46
3
b
G
rN
-1
54
40
G
ui
jo
 2
00
4<
 M
ar
tín
 S
oc
as
 e
t 
al
.2
00
4<
 
O
ch
re
15
44
3-
4
Sa
nt
an
a 
et
 a
l.
20
19
C
an
ni
ba
lis
m
|
B
et
a-
17
43
0
8
Sk
ul
l-c
up
|
B
et
a-
34
11
31
-2
B
et
a-
36
52
87
-8
36
52
90
36
52
92
-4
B
et
a-
49
84
12
El
 R
et
am
ar
V
H
ab
ita
t 
(h
ea
rt
hs
,
O
ch
re
 p
ow
de
r
N
on
e
C
ar
di
um
 e
du
le
54
97
-5
20
2
b,
 c
B
et
a-
90
12
2
R
am
os
, L
az
ar
ic
h 
20
02
< B
ue
no
 2
00
2<
(m
al
e,
 a
pp
ro
x.
st
on
e 
st
ru
ct
ur
es
R
am
os
 e
t 
al
. 2
01
0
25
 y
rs
)
an
d 
sh
el
lm
id
de
ns
)
O
pe
n 
ai
r
C
as
a 
da
V
–
Tr
ep
an
at
io
n
–
–
50
20
-3
0
0
0
b
TO
-9
53
, 2
0
92
-4
C
ar
re
ira
, C
ar
do
so
 2
00
2<
 C
ar
do
so
 2
00
7<
 
M
ou
ra
(m
al
e)
W
k-
28
0
0
4-
5
C
ar
va
lh
o,
 C
ar
do
so
 2
01
1
28
0
0
7,
 2
80
0
9-
10
O
xA
-5
50
6
Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ...
313
Si
te
D
iff
er
en
tia
l
Lo
ca
tio
n
Tr
au
m
a 
- M
ar
ks
Po
tt
er
y
G
ra
ve
 g
oo
ds
C
al
 B
C
 –
 2
ss
La
b 
C
od
e
R
ef
er
en
ce
s
tr
ea
tm
en
t
St
ru
ct
ur
es
M
an
ip
ul
at
io
n
ja
r
A
cc
om
pa
ni
m
en
ts
of
 s
ku
lls
C
ue
va
 d
e 
la
V
H
ab
ita
t
D
ep
re
ss
io
n 
of
 
N
on
e
R
ib
s,
 s
he
ep
 o
r 
go
at
 t
oo
th
60
52
-4
69
5
b
G
rN
-1
73
86
Es
tr
em
er
a,
 V
al
le
 1
99
9<
 E
st
re
m
er
a 
20
03
< 
V
aq
ue
ra
(m
al
e,
 a
pp
ro
x.
th
e 
na
sa
l b
on
e
22
93
0
-3
, 8
24
1
D
el
ib
es
 e
t 
al
.1
99
9<
 G
ar
rid
o 
Pe
na
 e
t 
al
.
25
 y
rs
)
92
26
, 9
22
8
20
12
C
ov
a 
de
 la
V
W
al
l c
ra
ck
 a
nd
Fe
m
al
e>
–
N
ea
r 
co
m
pl
et
e 
ca
rd
ia
l j
ar
,
54
70
-5
22
0
b
O
xA
-V
-2
39
2-
26
M
ig
ue
l I
bá
ñe
z 
20
08
< G
ar
cí
a-
B
or
ja
 2
01
2
Sa
rs
a
(m
al
e 
an
d
st
on
e 
w
al
l
pa
ri
et
al
 in
ju
ry
pi
gm
en
t, 
bo
ne
 a
nd
 s
to
ne
fe
m
al
e)
O
cc
ul
te
d
to
ol
s,
 s
he
lls
 (
C
ol
um
be
lla
,
R
oc
k 
ar
t
C
ar
di
um
)
C
ov
a 
de
ls
V
Fo
rm
al
 b
ur
ia
l
–
V
C
ar
di
um
 e
du
le
,
–
–
Te
n 
19
80
Ll
ad
re
s
3 
gl
ob
ul
ar
 ja
rs
sh
el
ls
, v
ar
is
ci
te
Lo
s 
N
on
e
Pi
t
N
on
e
V
N
ec
kl
ac
e
55
0
0
-3
75
0
b
U
a-
16
0
24
-5
G
ar
cí
a-
G
az
ól
az
, S
es
m
a 
20
07
< 
C
as
ca
jo
s
(E
st
ru
ct
ur
a 
47
5)
16
20
3,
 1
77
93
G
ar
cí
a-
G
az
ól
az
 e
t 
al
.2
01
1<
 G
ar
cí
a-
C
en
ot
ap
h|
17
79
5,
 2
44
23
-8
M
ar
tín
ez
 2
01
2
G
rA
-1
62
0
4
16
20
8-
11
, 1
69
42
C
ov
a 
de
 le
s
N
on
e
Pi
t
N
on
e
V
–
53
10
-4
90
0
a
B
et
a-
75
21
7
B
er
na
be
u,
 M
ol
in
a 
20
09
C
en
dr
es
A
nt
ig
os
N
on
e
B
ur
ia
l p
it
N
on
e
V
Po
tt
er
y 
sh
er
ds
, l
ith
ic
s
52
0
0
-4
89
0
a
W
k-
45
57
3
C
ar
do
so
 e
t 
al
.2
01
8
ar
m
az
én
s
O
pe
n 
ai
r 
ha
bi
ta
t
an
d 
fa
un
a 
(c
as
ua
l|
)
So
m
m
er
Pá
la
ci
o
N
on
e
B
ur
ia
l p
it
–
V
Po
tt
er
y 
sh
er
ds
 
–
–
Si
m
õe
s 
et
 a
l.
20
20
Lu
do
vi
ce
O
pe
n 
ai
r 
ha
bi
ta
t
(u
nd
ec
or
at
ed
, i
m
pr
es
se
d,
in
ci
se
d 
an
d 
bo
qu
iq
ue
),
lit
hi
cs
C
ue
va
 d
el
N
on
e
In
di
vi
du
al
 b
ur
ia
l
N
on
e
V
–
–
–
M
or
a 
19
70
Pi
ca
do
a 
D
ir
ec
t 
da
te
 fr
om
 t
he
 a
rc
ha
eo
lo
gi
ca
l m
at
er
ia
ls
 in
cl
ud
ed
 in
 t
hi
s 
ta
bl
e.
b 
In
di
re
ct
 d
at
e 
fr
om
 o
th
er
 m
at
er
ia
ls
 o
f t
he
 b
ro
ad
er
 a
rc
ha
eo
lo
gi
ca
l c
on
te
xt
.
c 
C
al
ib
ra
tio
n 
w
ith
 t
he
 M
ar
in
e1
3 
cu
rv
e.
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 do-
cumented 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 Lu-
dovice (Simões et al. 2020). Returning to the south,
amphoroid jars are documented at various sites vi-
cinity of Dehesilla Cave, including an individual bur-
ial 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 sin-
gular case. Some of the individual ritual traits are,
however, common to several sites. Based on the pre-
sent state of the available data, which is of course
influenced by the relative qualities of the archaeolo-
gical records, we may reflect on the degree of simi-
larity 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 De-
hesilla Cave itself are apparently among the closest
to Locus 1, at least in terms of their clearly ritual na-
ture 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 possi-
ble from the areas of daily activities, a pattern that
may reflect ritual behaviours and beliefs shared be-
tween 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 Ca-
scajos 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 Cen-
dres, the deposition was made in a crevice next to
the location of rock art. Pottery jars are also docu-
mented 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 Neo-
lithic human remains.
The other sites mentioned are perhaps a little fur-
ther from the ritual characteristics of the previous
cases, and are more in line with the usual findings
of disarticulated or isolated remains that predomi-
nate in the Neolithic record. It is worth noting, how-
ever, 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. Like-
wise, the double burial at El Retamar, although quite
a different type of context, corroborates the well-
known differential treatment, probably symbolic,
given to skulls.
Discussion of the possible interpretative scena-
rios 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 intentio-
nal 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 typi-
cally form small clusters on the frontal, parietal and
occipital bones, in a kind of circle around the calva-
rium (White et al. 2012; Gresky et al. 2017). The in-
completeness of the Locus 1 cranium does not enable
a clear interpretation of the observed marks, other
than their anthropogenic nature. Indeed, they indi-
cate 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 analy-
ses on the pottery jar are conducive to the observa-
tion 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 car-
ried 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 concentra-
tion 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 ves-
sel 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 additio-
nal factors. There are not many depositions of this
type dating to the Early Neolithic in the Iberian Pen-
insula, 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 specifi-
cally address the interpretation of such depositions
(e.g., Jiménez-Brobeil 1990; Rubio 2001; Jiménez-
Brobeil et al. 2009), beyond their simple descrip-
tion, 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 rituali-
stic 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 hi-
storical link between these and our case study, al-
though they may provisionally constitute a frame of
reference that will serve as a guide in our interpre-
tative exploration. Reference to the main interpreta-
tions developed in these comparative archaeologi-
cal 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 in-
juries, 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 cannibal-
ism has been noted at several cave sites in southern
Spain, such as Tontas, Carigüela, Malalmuerzo, Ma-
yólicas, Honda and de las Azuelas (province of Gra-
nada) 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, unfortuna-
tely, do not have a precise chronological identifica-
tion, beyond their general Neolithic attribution, and
there is very scarce evidence of this type dated se-
curely 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 (Jimé-
nez-Brobeil et al. 2009), due to the lack of care in
the treatment of the remains and the high frequen-
cy 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 ex-
pect 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 interpreta-
tion 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 crea-
tion 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 ethnogra-
phic 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 pot-
tery vessel, identified typologically as a jar or bottle,
is suggestive. In any case, a scenario of ritualistic fu-
nerary 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 Lo-
cus 1 depositional context.
There are several other diverse interpretations of
the symbolic dimension of the differential treatment
of skulls: foundational rites (Contenson 1992); rit-
ual celebrations through sacrifice and consumption
(Goring-Morris, Horwitz 2007); expressions of so-
cial 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 adap-
tive effects for the community, and often understood
in terms of social organization, that is, hierarchy, kin-
ship relations, cohesion and social memory (Cauvin
2000; Verhoeven 2002; Testart 2008; Bocquentin
et al. 2016; Hacdow, Knüsel 2017). The reasons be-
hind past rituals are now far from our current pos-
sibilities of corroboration, since they require a cer-
tain knowledge of the structure and the cultural di-
versity of the population under study, which is be-
yond the scope of present research. Some of the
theoretical behavioural models mentioned above are
simply impossible to consider here, because they re-
quire 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 rit-
ual celebration may be ruled out, since there is no
direct evidence of sacrifice or consumption. Inter-
pretation as a foundational rite related to the occu-
pation 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 scena-
rio, 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 conside-
ration of mature individuals as social guides or lea-
ders. The individual whose cranium was included in
the Locus 1 deposition has the highest age of the en-
tire sample considered in this study, and it can also
be noted that six of the seven sexually identified cra-
nia from the analysed sites belong to male individu-
als. Another interesting observation is that, among
the eight or nine individuals previously documented
at Dehesilla Cave, there are currently no secure for-
mal 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 po-
pulation group as the other burials at the site.
The interpretative model of the cult of supernatural
entities or powers, whether deities or spirits, can-
not easily be corroborated. In the Iberian reference
literature on the Early Neolithic period, the identi-
fication of anthropomorphic figures in a posture of
prayer in both pottery decoration and rock art de-
pictions 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 in-
voked 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 lo-
cated 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, pro-
phylactic and purification rites, as well as apotro-
paic 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 deli-
berate occultation. On the basis of these character-
istics, and in contrast to the above, it is possible to
suggest a tentative association between the deposi-
tion 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 in-
violable deposition of Locus 1 could have had a dis-
suasive or apotropaic character, perhaps as a contai-
ner of properties, forces or spirits, although not ne-
cessarily incompatible with other functions (to pre-
dict, 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 rela-
tively numerous in the ethnographic record (Yakar,
Hershkovitz 1988), but are also common in the Pre-
historic European and Near Eastern archaeological
records (Bonogosfsky 2001; 2006; Bori≤ 2003; Ru-
bio 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 compa-
rative data for the isolated finding of human crania.
Of the available sample, fortunately, many of the
contexts are relatively well preserved, or sufficient-
ly so, at least enough to corroborate the particular
or differential use of these skeletal elements through-
out 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 rel-
atively 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, trepana-
tion or trauma. They are usually accompanied by as-
semblages 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 acti-
vities 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 ba-
rely any sign of disturbance, and the distinctive struc-
tural 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 co-
vered by a human cranium, which also makes it an
extraordinary archaeological context for the Prehis-
tory of Western Europe.
Locus 1 materializes a ritual funerary event and ex-
tends the possibilities of knowledge about the sym-
bolic behaviour of the first Neolithic populations of
the Peninsula and the Western Mediterranean. This
study has allowed us to explore the theoretical inter-
pretative models currently available for the differen-
tial treatment of human skulls in this area, and has
enabled us to narrow down the range of interpreta-
tive possibilities for this particular depositional con-
text. However, it is impossible at present to offer a
single firm reconstruction, and several anthropologi-
cal scenarios that could explain this finding more
precisely must be left open, including ritualistic can-
nibalism, rites related to the elders or leaders, and/
or cults to the supernatural entities or forces.
This research has been carried out within the pro-
ject “High-resolution chronology and cultural evolu-
tion 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 paleo-
ambiental para el conocimiento de la ocupación hu-
mana prehistórica de la Sierra de Cádiz”. The 2017
archaeological field season received financial sup-
port from several funding programs from the Univer-
sity 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 devel-
oped 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 Bo-
tella 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 partici-
pated 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 anony-
mous 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 De-
hesilla (Jerez de la Frontera). Las primeras civilizacio-
nes 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 funera-
rio 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. Espó-
lio humano da Gruta da Casa da Moura (Cesareda): obser-
vações osteológicas crânio-faciais. Estudos Arqueológicos
Oeiras 17: 175–221.
Arribas A., Molina F. 1979. El poblado de ‘Los Castille-
jos’ en las Peñas de los Gitanos (Montefrío, Granada):
campaña de excavaciones de 1971. Secretariado de Pub-
licaciones de la Universidad de Granada. Granada.
Asquerino M. D. 1978. Cova de la Sarsa (Bocairente, Va-
lencia). Análisis estadístico y tipológico de materiales sin
estratigrafía (1971–1974). Sagvuntvn 13: 99–226.
Bagolini B. 1968. Ricerche sulle dimensioni dei manufat-
ti litici prehistorici non ritoccati. Annali Universitá Fer-
rara 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 deflesh-
ing and disarticulation after a period of decay: compari-
sons 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 Pre-
histórica. 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. Valen-
cia: 45–54.
Bernabeu J., Molina L. (eds.) 2009. La Cova de les Cen-
dres. 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 mod-
elled 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 líti-
cas. Trabajos de Prehistoria 38: 9–37.
Bicho N., Cascalheira J., Gonçalves C., Umbelino C., Gar-
cía-Rivero D., and André L. 2017. Resilience, replacement
and acculturation in the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition:
the case of Muge, central Portugal. Quaternary Interna-
tional 446: 31–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.09.049
Bicho N., Cascalheira J., Marreiros J., Gonçalves C., Perei-
ra T., and Dias R. 2013. Chronology of the Mesolithic oc-
cupation 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 mod-
eled skulls from the Neolithic Middle East. In M. Bono-
gofsky (ed.), Skull Collection, Modification and Deco-
ration. BAR International Series 1539. Archaeopress.
Oxford: 15–28.
Bori≤ D. 2003. ‘Deep time’ metaphor: mnemonic and apo-
tropaic practices at Lepenski Vir. Journal of Social Archa-
eoloy 3(1): 46–74.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605303003001098
Boulestin B. 2012. Quelques réflexions à propos des cou-
pes crâniennes préhistoriques. In B. Boulestin, D. Henry-
Gambier (eds.), Crânes trophées, crânes d’ancêtres et
autres pratiques autour de la tête: problèmes d’inter-
prétation en archéologie. BAR International Series 2415.
Archaeopress. Oxford: 35–45.
Boulestin B., Coupey A. S. 2015. Cannibalism in the lin-
ear pottery culture: The human remains from Herx-
heim. Archaeopress Publishing Limited. Oxford.
Botella M. C. 1973. Restos humanos eneolíticos con inci-
siones 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 investi-
gación 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, Cá-
diz). Contribución al estudio de la formación social tri-
bal 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 col-
lection from human skeletal remains: proceedings of
a seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History. Arkan-
sas 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 (Albu-
ñol, Granada). Complutum 6(1): 105–122.
Capel J., Huertas F., Pozzuoli A., and Linares J. 2006. Red
ochre decorations in Spanish Neolithic ceramics: a minera-
logical and technological study. Journal of Archaeologi-
cal Science 33: 1157–1166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.12.004
Cardoso J. L. 2007. Pré-história de Portugal. Universida-
de 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 ribei-
rinha de Lisboa (antigos armazéns Sommer). Estudos Ar-
queologicos de Oeiras 24: 125–140.
Carrasco J. L., Martínez F. 2014. Las cronologías absolu-
tas del Neolítico Antiguo en el sur de la península ibéri-
ca. Nuevas dataciones. Archivo de Prehistoria Levanti-
na 30: 57–80.
Carrasco J. L., Pachón J. A., and Martínez-Sevilla F. 2010.
Las necrópolis neolíticas en Sierra Harana y sus estriba-
ciones (Granada): nuevos modelos interpretativos. Anti-
quitas 22: 21–34.
Carrasco J. L., Pachón J. A., and Gámiz J. G. 2012. Las ce-
rámicas 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 demon-
strates Prehistoric origin for high-altitude alpine dairy-
ing. 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 Sci-
ence Reviews 217: 194–216.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.04.012
Carvalho A. F. 1998. Talhe da pedra no Neolítico anti-
go do Maciço Calcário das Serras d’Aire e Candeeiros
(Estremadura Portuguesa). Um primeiro modelo tec-
nológico e tipológico. Colibri. Lisboa.
Carvalho A. F., Cardoso J. L. 2011. A cronologia absoluta
das ocupações funerárias da gruta da Casa da Moura (Óbi-
dos). Estudos Arqueologicos de Oeiras 18: 393–405.
Carvalho A. F., Gibaja J. F. 2005. Talhe da pedra no Neo-
lítico 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. Techno-
logie, 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 funerà-
ries del Neolític postcardial. Quarhis 4: 70–75.
Copley M. S., Berstan R., Docherty G., +4 authors, and
Evershed R. 2003. Direct chemical evidence for wide-
spread 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 Me-
thods 6: 1330–1340. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3AY41678J
Courtin J. 2000. Les premiers paysans du Midi. La Mai-
son des Roches éditeur. Paris.
Craig O. E., Allen R. B., Thompson A., Stevens R. E., Ste-
ele 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 prac-
tices across the transition to agriculture in Northern Eu-
rope. 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 Ever-
shed R. P. 2014. Immediate replacement of fishing with
dairying by the earliest farmers of the northeast Atlantic
archipelagos. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon-
don 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 In-
ternational 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. Na-
ture Communications 11(1): 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15907-4
Del Olmo G. 2015. The Marzeah and the Ugaritic magic ri-
tual system. A close reading of KTU 1.114. Aula Orienta-
lis 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 (Se-
govia). 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 characteriza-
tion of animal fats in archaeological pottery. Unpubli-
shed PhD Thesis. School of Chemistry. University of Bri-
stol. Bristol. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/
portalfiles/portal/34490556/DX213544.pdf
Escacena J. L. 2018. Orantes neolíticos de Andalucía. Imá-
genes sobre vasijas de cerámica. Boletín del Museo Arque-
ológico Nacional 37: 25–42.
Estremera M. S. 2003. Primeros agricultores y gana-
deros 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 co-
lor de la pintura cerámica. Boletín del Seminario de Es-
tudios de Arte y Arqueología 65: 43–52.
Evershed R. P. 2008. Organic residue analysis in archaeo-
logy: the archaeological biomarker revolution. Archaeo-
metry 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. Na-
ture 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). Tra-
bajos 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 prehistó-
ricas 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 anthro-
pological 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 car-
dial 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, Navar-
ra). In M. A. Hurtado (ed.), La tierra te sea leve. Arqueo-
logía 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. Tec-
nología y tipología de la piedra tallada. BAR Internatio-
nal 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 si-
tio clave para el neolítico del sur de la península ibérica.
Munibe 69: 123–144.
García-Rivero D., Taylor R., Pérez-Aguilar L. G., +5 au-
thors, and Bernáldez Sánchez E. 2018b. Andalusi popu-
lations at La Dehesilla Cave (Sierra de Cádiz, Southern
Iberia): and interdisciplinary approach to their rural eco-
nomic 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 fune-
rary 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 Neolí-
tico 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 Mediter-
ráneo 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 cro-
nológicos 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 An-
dalucía. C. Maro. Madrid.
Goring-Morris N., Horwitz L. K. 2007. Funerals and feasts
during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Near East. Anti-
quity 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. Sevil-
la: 287–290.
Haddow S. D., Knüsel C. J. 2017. Skull retrieval and sec-
ondary burial practices in the Neolithic Near East: Recent
insights from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Bioarchaeology Inter-
national 1(1/2): 52–71. 
https://doi.org/10.5744/bi.2017.1002
Harris E. C. 1991. Principios de estratigrafía arqueoló-
gica. Crítica. Barcelona.
Hernández M. S. 2000. Sobre la religión neolítica: A propó-
sito 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 ar-
chaeological 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. Sala-
zar (eds.), Times of Neolithic transition along the West-
ern 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 Zu-
heros (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 East-
ern Neolithic societies. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Univer-
sity of Tsukuba. Tsukuba.
Jiménez-Brobeil S. A. 1990. Rituales funerarios neolíticos
en la Alta Andalucía. Estado actual de la cuestión. Zephy-
rus 43: 125–130.
Jiménez-Brobeil S. A., Botella M. C., Alemán I., and Sán-
chez 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 Physi-
cal 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 Pa-
leoecología Humana 4: 39–65.
Jordá J. F., Aura J. E. 2008. 70 fechas para una cueva: re-
visión crítica de 70 dataciones C14 del Pleistoceno Supe-
rior 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 Natu-
ral Sección Geológica 98(1–4): 73–89.
Juan-Cabanilles J. 2008. El utillaje de piedra tallada en
la Prehistoria reciente valenciana. Aspectos tipológi-
cos, estilísticos y evolutivos. Diputación de Valencia. Va-
lencia.
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 Anthro-
pology 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 Histo-
ire 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. Sagvn-
tvm 9: 3–10.
Maier C. I. 2017. Off with their heads! An analysis of the
Levantine plastered skulls during the Pre-Pottery Neoli-
thic B. Unpublished thesis for graduation with Honors in
Anthropology. Whitman College. Walla Walla. Washing-
ton. https://arminda.whitman.edu/theses/350
322
Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ...
323
Marginedas F., Rodríguez-Hidalgo A., Soto M., Bello S. M.,
Cáceres I., Huguet R., and Saladié P. 2020. Making skull
cups: Butchering traces on cannibalised human skulls from
five European archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeolo-
gical Science 114: 105076.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105076
Martín-Socas D., Cámalich, M. D., and González-Quintero
P. 2004. La cueva de El Toro (Sierra de El Torcal-Ante-
quera-Málaga). Un modelo de ocupación ganadera en
el territorio andaluz entre el VI y II milenios ANE. Con-
sejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía. Sevilla.
Martín-Socas D., Cámalich M. D., Caro J. L., and Rodrí-
guez-Santos F. J. 2018. The beginning of the Neolithic in
Andalusia. Quaternary International 470: 451–471.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.06.057
Martínez-Fernández G., Afonso J. A. 2008. L’évolution des
ensembles d’artefacts en pierre taillé pendant la Préhi-
stoire récente au Sud-est de la Péninsule ibérique. In M.
H. Dias-Meirinho, V. Lea, K. Gernigon, P. Fouéré, F. Briois,
and M. Bailly (eds.), Les industries lithiques taillées des
IVe et IIIe millénaires en Europe Occidentale. Hadrian-
books. Oxford: 291–308.
Martins H., Oms F. X., Pereira L., Pike A. W., Rowsell K.,
and Zilhão J. 2015. Radiocarbon dating the beginning of
the Neolithic in Iberia: new results, new problems. Jour-
nal of Mediterranean Archaeology 28(1): 105–131.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v28i1.27503
Masset C. 1989. Age estimation on the basis of cranial
sutures. In M. Y. Springfield (ed.), Age markers in the
human skeleton. CC Thomas. Iscan: 71–103.
Miguel M. P. 2008. La Cova de la Sarsa (Bocairent, Valen-
cia): Osteoarqueología de un yacimiento del Neolítico car-
dial. In M. S. Hernández, J. Soler, and J. López (eds.), IV
Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular. MARQ. Alicante: 85–91.
Molina F., Cámara J. A., Alfonso J. A., Gámiz J., Capel J.,
and Martínez G. 2017. Hiatus in an archaeological multi-
level site: Los Castillejos in Las Peñas de los Gitanos (Mon-
tefrío, Granada). In M. Cupitò, M. Vidale, and A. Angelini
(eds.), Beyond limits. Studi in onore di Giovanni Leo-
nardi. Università degli Studi di Padova. Padova: 91–100.
Molina F., Cámara J. A., and López Sáez J. A. 2012. Anda-
lucía. In M. A. Rojo, R. Garrido, and I. García-Martínez
(eds.), El Neolítico en la Península Ibérica y su con-
texto europeo. Cátedra. Madrid: 405–462.
Mora L. 1970. El yacimiento prehistórico de la Cueva de
Picado (Cádiz). Trabajos de Prehistoria 27: 279–286.
Morgado A., Pelegrin J. 2012. Origin and development of
pressure blade production in the Southern Iberian Pen-
insula (6th–3rd Millennia B.C.). In P. Desrosiers (ed.), The
Emergence of Pressure Blade Making. Springer. Boston:
219–235.
Navarrete M. S. 1976. La cultura de las cuevas con cerá-
mica decorada en Andalucía Oriental. Cuadernos de Pre-
historia y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada
1: 59–73.
Navarrete M. S., Capel J. 1980. Algunas consideraciones
sobre la cerámica a la almagra del Neolítico andaluz. Cua-
dernos de Prehistoria de Granada 5: 15–34.
Oms F. X., Daura J., Sanz M., Mendiela S., Pedro M., and
Martínez P. 2017. First evidence of collective human in-
humation from the cardial neolithic (Cova Bonica, Bar-
celona, NE Iberian Peninsula). Journal of Field Archa-
eology 42(1): 43–53.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2016.1260407
Orton C., Hughes M. 2014. Pottery in Archaeology. Cam-
bridge University Press. Cambridge.
Pardo-Gordó S, Gómez-Bach A, Molist M., and Bernabeu J.
(eds.) 2021. Contextualizando la cerámica impressa:
Horizontes culturales en la península ibérica. Univer-
sitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Bellaterra.
Pascual J. L. 2002. Incineración y cremación parcial en
contextos funerarios neolíticos y calcolíticos del este pen-
insular al sur del Xúquer. In M. Kunst, M. A. Rojo (eds.),
Sobre el significado del fuego en los rituales funerarios
del Neolítico. Secretariado de Publicaciones e Intercam-
bio Editorial. Valladolid: 155–190.
Pellicer M. 1964. El Neolítico y el Bronce de la Cueva de
la Carigüela de Piñar (Granada). Trabajos de Prehisto-
ria 15. CSIC. Madrid.
Pellicer M., Acosta P. 1986. Neolítico y Calcolítico de la
Cueva de Nerja. Trabajos sobre la Cueva de Nerja 6. Pa-
tronato de la Cueva de Nerja. Málaga.
Perales U., Gibaja J. F., Afonso J. A., Martínez G., Cámara
J. A., and Molina F. 2015. Análisis funcional del utillaje la-
minar del neolítico antiguo de Castillejos de Montefrío
(Granada). Spal 24: 15–33.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/spal.2015i24.01
Pérez-Fernández A., Soler B. (eds.) 2010. Restos de vida,
restos de muerte. Diputación de Valencia. Valencia.
Pla J., Junyent E. 1970. Noticia sobre el hallazgo de un
vaso en la Cova dels Lladres (Vacarisses, Barcelona). Pyre-
nae 6: 43–46.
Ramos J., Lazarich M. 2002. El asentamiento de ‘El Re-
tamar’ (Puerto Real, Cádiz). Contribución al estudio de
Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez
324
la formación social tribal a los inicios de la economía
de producción en la Bahía de Cádiz. Universidad de Cá-
diz. Cádiz.
Ramos J., Pérez M., Domínguez S., Vijande E., and Jesús
J. 2010. Estado actual del conocimiento de las socieda-
des tribales neolíticas en el ámbito de la región histórica
del Estrecho de Gibraltar. Proyectos e ideas en desarrol-
lo. In J. F. Gibaja and A. F. Carvalho (eds.), Os últimos
caçadores-recolectores e as primeiras comunidades pro-
dutoras do sul da Península Ibérica e do norte de Mar-
rocos. Universidade do Algarve. Faro: 107–118.
Recio C., Martín Q., and Raposo C. 2013. GC-C-IRMS ana-
lysis of FAMEs as a tool to ascertain the diet of Iberian
pigs used for the production of pork products with high
added value. Grasas y Aceites 64(2): 181–190.
Rice P. 2015. Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. The Univer-
sity of Chicago Press. Chicago.
Robledo B., Jiménez-Brobeil S. A. 1994. Restos humanos
neolíticos de la Cueva de la Dehesilla (Algar, Cádiz). In
Actas del II Congreso de Historia de Andalucía. Prehi-
storia. Monte de Piedad. Córdoba: 211–218.
Rodríguez A. 2004. Análisis funcional de los instrumen-
tos líticos tallados. In D. Martín-Socas (ed.), La Cueva de
El Toro (Sierra de El Torcal, Antequera-Málaga). Un
modelo de ocupación ganadera en territorio andaluz
entre el VI y II milenios A.N.E. Junta de Andalucía. Sevil-
la: 135–160.
Rojo M., Garrido-Pena R., and García-Martínez I. (eds.)
2012. El Neolítico en la Península Ibérica y su con-
texto europeo. Cátedra. Madrid.
Rojo M., García Martínez I., Garrido R., +11 authors, and
Magallón H. A. 2016. Enterramientos del Neolítico anti-
guo en el interior peninsular: nuevos datos para una ac-
tualización de la evidencia empírica. In Del neolític a
l’edat del bronze en el Mediterrani occidental. Estudis
en homenatge a Bernat Martí Oliver. STV 119. Servicio
de Investigación Prehistórica del Museo de Valencia. Va-
lència: 181–210.
Rubio I. 2001. El mundo funerario neolítico peninsular:
algunas reflexiones sobre su trasfondo social. Anales de
Prehistoria y Arqueología 17: 53–66.
2004. Rituales de cráneos y enterramiento en el Neo-
lítico precerámico del Próximo Oriente. Cuadernos de
Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autóno-
ma de Madrid 30: 27–45.
Santana J., Rodríguez-Santos F. J., Camalich-Massieu M. D.,
Martín-Socas D., and Fregel R. 2019. Aggressive or fune-
rary cannibalism? Skull-cup and the human bone manipu-
lation in Cueva de El Toro (Early Neolithic, southern Ibe-
ria). American Physical Anthropology 169: 31–54.
Scheuer L., Black S. 2000. Developmental juvenile osteo-
logy. Academic Press. London.
Schmandt-Besserat D. (ed.) 2013. Symbols at ‘Ain Gha-
zal. Ain Ghazal excavation reports 3. Bibliotheca neolithi-
ca Asiae meridionalis et occindentalis. Ex Oriente. Berlin.
Shepard A. O. 1956. Ceramics for the archaeologist. Car-
negie Institution of Washington. Washington.
Shipman P. 1981. Applications of scanning electron mi-
croscopy to taphonomic problems. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences 376: 357–385.
Silva A. M. 1995. Sex assessment using the calcaneus and
talus. Antropologia Portuguesa 13: 107–119.
Simões C. D., Rebelo P., Neto N., and Cardoso J. L. 2020.
Lisboa no Neolítico Antigo: resultados das escavações no
Palácio Ludovice. Estudos Arqueologicos de Oeiras 26:
11–40.
Sinopoli C. M. 1991. Approaches to archaeological cera-
mics. Springer. Boston.
Slon V., Sarig R., Hershkovitz I., Khalaily H., and Milev-
ski I. 2014. The plastered skulls from the Pre-Pottery Neo-
lithic B site of Yiftahel (Israel)–A computed tomography-
based analysis. PloS One 9(2): e89242.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089242
Smith B. H. 1984. Patterns of molar wear in hunter-gathe-
rers and agriculturalists. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 63: 39–84.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330630107
Solari A., Botella M., and Alemán I. 2012. Canibalismo en
la Cueva de Malamuerzo: identificación de huellas de
manipulación intencional en restos óseos humanos de
origen arqueológico (Granada, España). BAR Internatio-
nal Series 2418. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Spangenberg J. E., Jacomet S., and Schibler J. 2006. Che-
mical analyses of organic residues in archaeological pot-
tery from Arbon Bleiche 3, Switzerland: evidence for
dairying in the late Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological
Science 33: 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.05.013
Spiteri C. D. 2012. Pottery use at the transition to agri-
culture in the western Mediterranean. Evidence from
biomolecular and isotopic characterisation of organic
residues in Impressed/Cardial ware vessels. Unpublished
PhD Thesis. Department of Archaeology. University of
York. York. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9848297.pdf
Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ...
325
Spiteri C. D., Gillis R. E., Roffet-Salque M., +9 authors, and
Evershed R. P. 2016. Regional asynchronicity in dairy pro-
duction and processing in early farming communities of
the northern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
113: 13594–13599.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607810113
Reimer P. J., Bard E., Bayliss A.,  +26 authors, and van der
Plicht J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine radiocarbon age cali-
bration curves 0–50000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):
1869–1887. doi: 10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947
Taylor R., García-Rivero D. 2021. Evidencias sobre el po-
sible contexto del horizonte impresso en la cueva de la
Dehesilla: caracterización cerámica y definición respecto
al Neolítico antiguo andaluz tradicional. In S. Pardo-Gor-
dó, A. Gómez-Bach, M. Molist, and J. Bernabeu (eds.), Con-
textualizando la cerámica impressa: Horizontes cul-
turales en la península ibérica. Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona. Bellaterra: 153-166.
Taylor R., Pérez-Aguilar L., and García-Rivero D. 2018. La
secuencia arqueológica andalusí (siglos XI-XII) de la Cue-
va de La Dehesilla (Sierra de Cádiz, España). Arqueología
y Territorio Medieval 25: 107–143.
https://doi.org/10.17561/aytm.v25.4
Ten R. 1980. Notes entorn del Neolític Vallesà. Arraona
10: 6–25.
Testart A. 2008. Des crânes et des vautours ou la guerre
oubliée. Paléorient 34: 35–58.
Vera J. C. 1997. Algunos aspectos tecno-tipológicos y
morfo-funcionales de industrias líticas talladas del neolí-
tico andaluz. In Actas del XXIV Congreso Nacional de
Arqueología, II. Instituto de Patrimonio Histórico. Mur-
cia: 37–42.
Verhoeven M. 2002. Ritual and ideology in the Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12(2): 233–258.
doi:10.1017/S0959774302000124
Villa P. 1992. Cannibalism in prehistoric Europe. Evolu-
tionary Anthropology 1(3): 93–104.
https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.1360010307
Villa P., Courtin J., Helmer D., +5 authors, and Branca M.
1986. Un cas de cannibalisme au Néolithique. Gallia Pré-
histoire 29(1): 143–171.
White T., Black M., and Folkens P. 2012. Human osteo-
logy. Academic Press. Amsterdam.
Yakar R., Hershkovitz I. 1988. The modelled skulls of Na-
hal Hemar. Atiqot 18: 59–63.
Appendix 1
∴
Methods of the organic residue analyses
Lipid extraction
Lipids were extracted following established protocols of one-step extraction and methylation with acidified methanol
(Craig et al. 2013; Correa-Ascencio, Evershed 2014). After cleaning the surface of the sherd, we took 2g of homoge-
nised pottery powder. Prior extraction C34:0 n-alkane was introduced as internal standard (10μl of hexantriacontane
C34:0). Methanol (4ml) was added to 1g of pottery powder and the mixture sonicated during 15 min. Sulphuric acid
(H2SO4–800μL) was used to acidify the suspension that was then heated in glass tubes during 4 hours at 70°C. Lipids
were extracted from the centrifuged pottery powder with n-hexane (3x4ml). Internal standard (10μl of hexantriacon-
tane C36:0) was added to all the samples to quantify the relative abundance of lipids. One sample (LD-10, 1g) was also
extracted using 2:1 DCM:MeOH (3x2mL) to produce a total lipid extract (TLE) following established protocols (66).
The extracts were then dried under N2 and derivatized with N-O-bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA) heated
at 70°C for 1 hour.
Analytical protocol
Gas Chromatography-Flame Ion Detector (GC-FID)
GC-FID was carried out in all samples (n=4) using an Agilent 7890S gas chromatograph (Agilent Technologies, Cheadle,
Cheshire, UK). A splitless injector was used to inject the sample (1μL) at 300°C into the GC. The column used was a
polymidecoated fused silica DB-1 (15m x 320μm x 0.1μm; J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA, USA). The carrier gas was heli-
um with pressure set at 3.3 psi and with a flow rate of 2ml/min and velocity of 46.57cm/s. The temperature program
Daniel García Rivero, Ruth Taylor, Cláudia Umbelino, Miriam Cubas, María Barrera Cruz, and Manuel J. Díaz Rodríguez
326
was set at 100°C for 2 minutes, raised by 20°C/min until 325°C for 3 minutes. Quantification of lipid preservation was
calculated according to (Area(Sample)/Area(IS)) * (Weight(IS)/Weight (Ceramic sample)), omitting contaminant peaks
such as plasticisers.
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)
GC-MS analysis was undertaken on 4 acidified lipid extracts to identify the main molecular components. An Agilent
7890A series chromatograph was used, attached to an Agilent 5975 Inert XL mass detector (Agilent technologies,
Cheadle, Cheshire, UK). A splitless injector was used to keep the sample at 300°C (1μL). Helium was used as carrier
gas with a constant flow of 3mL/min. The ionisation energy of the MS was 70eV and spectra were obtained by scan-
ning between 3 and 44. A DB-23 (50%-Cyanopropyl)-methylpolysiloxane column (60m 0.250mm 0.25mm; J & Scienti-
fic, Folsom, CA, USA) was used. The temperature was set at 50°C for 2 minutes, then raised by 10°C/min until it reached
100°C, then raised by 4°C/min to 140°C, then by 0.5°C/min to 160°C, then by 20°C/min to 250°C where it was main-
tained for 10 minutes. Peak integration and quantification was carried out using ChemStation Rev. B.04.02 SP1. Auto-
mated integration was selected over manual integration to avoid inconsistencies. The analytical protocol was oriented
to the identification of main molecular components (saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, branched fatty acids, dicar-
boxylic fatty acids, alkanes and isoprenoid fatty acids, u-(o-alkylphenyl) alkanoic and phytanic acids). 
High Temperature Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (HTGC-MS)
HTGC-MS was performed on the TLE extracts (n=1) using a 7890A Series chromatograph attached to a 5975C Inert
XL mass-selective detector with a quadrupole mass analyser (Agilent Technologies, Cheadle, UK). The carrier gas was
helium, and the inlet/column head-pressure was constant. The GC column was inserted directly into the ion source of
the mass spectrometer. The ionisation energy of the mass spectrometer was 70eV and spectra were obtained by scan-
ning between m/z 50 and 1000. General screening of the TLE was performed using a DB-5 MS (5%-phenyl)-methylpoly-
siloxane column (30m x 0.250mm x 0.25μm; J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA, USA). The temperature for this column was
set at 50°C for 2 minutes, then raised by 10°C/min to 325°C, where it was held for 15 minutes. A second analysis was
performed with a HT-DB1 100% Dimethylpolysiloxane (15m x 0.320mm x 0.1μm) (J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA, USA)
column. The injector was maintained at 350°C. The temperature of the oven was set at 50°C for 2 minutes, and then
raised by 10°C/min to 350°C, where it was held for 15 minutes.
Gas Chromatography-Combustion Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (GC-C-IRMS)
GC-C-IRMS analysis was undertaken on 1 sample because it was the only extract which preserved the enough amount
of C16:0 and C18:0 to be analysed. Stable carbon isotope values of methyl palmitate (C16:0) and methyl stearate (C18:0),
derived from precursor fatty acids were measured by GC-C-IRMS, following existing procedure (Craig et al. 2012). An
Isoprime 100 (Isoprime, Cheadle, UK) linked to a Hewlett Packard 7890B series GC (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara,
CA, USA) with an Isoprime GC5 interface (Isoprime Cheadle, UK) was used for the analysis. One μL of each sample was
injected into DB-5MS ultra-inert fused-silica column. The temperature was set at 50°C for 0.5 minutes, then raised by
10°C/min to 300°C where it was held for 10 minutes. The carrier gas used was ultra-high purity grade helium with a
flow rate of 3mL/min. The gas flow eluting from the column was split into two streams. One was directed into an Agilent
5975C inert mass spectrometer detector (MSD), for the sake of sample identification and quantification, while the other
was directed through the GC5 furnace tube (CuO) kept at 850°C to oxidise all the carbon species to CO2. A clear reso-
lution and baseline separation of the analysed peaks were achieved. Eluted products were ionized in the mass spectro-
meter by electron impact and ion intensities of m/z 44, 45 and 46 were recorded for automatic computing of the 13C/
12C ratio of each peak in the extracts. Data analysis was carried out with IonVantage and IonOS softwares (Isoprime,
Cheadle, UK) and was based on comparisons with standard reference gas (CO2) of known isotopic composition that was
repeatedly measured. The results of the analysis were expressed in per mill (‰) relative to an international standard,
VPDB. The accuracy and precision of the instrument was determined on n-alkanoic acid ester standards of known iso-
topic composition (Indiana standard F8-3). The mean ±S.D. values of these were 29.82 ± 0.16‰ and 23.28 ± 0.19‰
for the methyl ester of C16:0 (reported mean value vs. VPDB –29.90 ± 0.03‰) and C18:0 (reported mean value vs. VPDB
–23.24 ± 0.01‰) respectively. Each sample was measured in replicate (mean of S.D. 0.11‰ for C16:0 and 0.10‰ for
C18:0). Values were also corrected subsequent to analysis to account for the methylation of the carboxyl group that
occurs during acid extraction. Corrections were based on comparisons with a standard mixture of C16:0 and C18:0 fatty
acids of known isotopic composition processed in each batch under identical conditions. To compare the isotopic val-
ues of the main fatty acids (palmitic and stearic), data obtained on ruminant, and non-ruminant adipose fat, dairy and
marine derived fatty acids resources throughout Europe have been compiled (Appendix 2).
Early Neolithic ritual funerary behaviours in the Westernmost regions of the Mediterranean> new insights from Dehesilla Cave ...
327
∴
Appendix 2
Resource Values  (‰)
d13C16>0 d13C18>0 D13C(C18>0–C16>0)
Porcine adipose fats
Mean –25.2 –24.4 0.8
Standard deviation 0.8 0.9 0.6
N 66 66 66
Ruminant adipose fats
Mean –29.1 –30.7 –1.6
Standard deviation 1.3 1.9 1.0
N 32 32 66
Ruminant dairy fats
Mean –28.7 –33.6 –4.8
Standard deviation 1.7 2.4 1.4
N 36 36 66
Marine oils
Mean –22.8 –22.3 0.5
Standard deviation 2.6 2.6 1.2
N 100 100 66
Data obtained on ruminant and non-ruminant adipose fat, dairy and marine derived fatty acids
throughout Europe
Summary of d13C values of C16:0 and C18:0 n-alkanoic acids obtained from modern European reference fats
and oils (ruminant, non-ruminant, dairy and marine) (Craig et al. 2013; Cramp et al. 2014; Dudd 1999;
Spangenberg et al. 2006; Bell et al. 2007; Spiteri 2012; Recio et al. 2013).
Appendix 3
Geographic coordinates for the archaeological sites mentioned in the text
No. Site X Y Latitude Longitude UTM Zone
1 Cueva de la Dehesilla 264554.81 4061867.432 36°40’21.7862” N 5°38’4.2919” W 30
2 Cueva de los Murciélagos 483892.52 4075115.45 36°49’16.1954” N 3°10’50.165” W 30
3 Cueva de la Carigüela 461989.158 4144825.745 37°26’56” N 3°25’47” W 30
4 Cueva de Nerja 424695.324 4069025.891 36°45’48.271” N 3°50’37.3128” W 30
5 Cueva del Toro 363234.189 4091203.509 36°57’23” N 4°32’10” W 30
6 El Retamar 753619.904 4046164.546 36°31’35” N 6°9’59” W 29
7 Casa da Moura 478091.82 4353132.739 39°19’36” N 9°15’15” W 29
8 Cueva de la Vaquera 411222.3 4549088 41°5’15” N 4°3’25” W 30
9 Cova de la Sarsa 712672.739 4292999.192 38°45’34”N 0°33’09”W 30
10 Cova dels Lladres 409242.963 4603718.884 41°34’45.4” N 1°54’40.8” E 31
11 Los Cascajos 564468.418 4709469.643 42°32’03” N 2°12’54” W 30
12 Cova de les Cendres 252261.347 4285836.315 38°41’09” N 0°09’07” E 31
13 Antigos armazéns Sommer 488672.516 4284614.07 38°42’34” N 9°07’49” W 29
14 Pálacio Ludovice 487465.719 4285139.897 38°42’51” N 9°08’39” W 29
15 Cueva del Picado 262198.62 4054892.33 36°36’33.5715” N 5°39’31.3417” W 30