Compassion and violence at iconic Neanderthal site
One of the most important Neanderthal sites is Shanidar Cave in Iraqi Kurdistan. The site was first excavated by American archaeologist Ralph Solecki between 1951 and 1960. The remains of nine Neanderthal individuals (Shanidar 1-9) were recovered during the excavations, comprising groups found on two different levels of the excavation. Shanidar 1, 3, and 5 were found in the upper level, and the others in the lower level. Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates of 50,600 and 46,900 BP were obtained for material recovered from just above Shanidar 3(Cameron and Groves, 2004), which was at the limit for radiocarbon dating at the time. More recent radiocarbon and OSL dating suggest that Shanidar 1, 3, and 5 are 45,000–55,000 years old, and the lower level remains are 60,000–70,000 years old(Pomeroy et al., 2020).
When Shanidar 4, a male aged 30 to 45, was found, it was decided to transport the entire sediment block containing the remains to the Baghdad Museum for recovery, where three further adults (Shanidar 6 and 8) and an infant (Shanidar 9) were found. Unfortunately, the block was disturbed during the journey. As a result, the precise stratigraphic relationships between the individuals are unknown, although Shanidar 4 was the uppermost. Either multiple individuals died at the spot, or they were interred at the spot, or multiple burials took place at the same spot over a period of time(Pomeroy et al., 2020).
Shanidar 4 and some other remains were transferred to the Smithsonian in Washington, DC, although most of the finds remained in Iraq. In 2006, archaeologist Melinda Zeder identified the incomplete left leg and foot bones of a one- or two-year-old infant from the Smithsonian material. This individual was designated Shanidar 10(Cowgill, Trinkaus and Zeder, 2007).
The three individuals in the upper level lay immediately below rock-fall debris, and Solecki believed that they were killed by a cave-in. One of the casualties was Shanidar 1, an elderly male. He was found lying on his back, legs fully extended, and arms folded across his chest, covered with small pieces of limestone. The pose suggests that others, possibly survivors of the cave-in, had later returned to the cave to bury him(Conroy, 1997; Cameron and Groves, 2004).
Shanidar 1 was in poor physical condition even before his death. Numerous injuries to the left side of his face suggest that he was probably blind in one eye. Bone spurs were present in the external auditory canals of both ears, suggesting that he was probably deaf in at least one ear. He had also sustained a serious injury to the right side of his body that had caused arthritic degeneration of the right knee and ankle. In addition, there were fractures and the possible loss of part of the right forearm. That these injuries had subsequently healed implies that they had been sustained before his death in the cave-in. This suggests that other members of his group must have cared for him during periods of convalescence(Trinkaus and Villotte, 2017).
Individuals in the lower level of the excavation appear to have been intentionally buried. The grave of Shanidar 4 yielded thought-provoking evidence that floral tributes might have been placed in his grave. To reconstruct the site’s climatic and vegetation history, archaeologists later analysed soil samples gathered around the body for pollen. In addition to the usual pollen found throughout the site, some samples yielded whole clumps of pollen. Solecki(Solecki, 1975) suggested that flowers were placed in the grave, presumably by grieving relatives. However, the idea of a ‘flower-power burial’ has since been largely disproven, and the pollen is thought to have had a natural origin. One suspect is the Persian Jird, a gerbil-like rodent known to store large numbers of seeds and flowers at certain points in their burrows(Sommer, 1999). Another possibility is that ground-nesting bees were responsible for the pollen(Fiacconi and Hunt, 2015; Hunt et al., 2023).
While the ‘flower power burial’ theory has not stood the test of time, a single circumscribed space appears to have been repeatedly used to deposit the dead within a relatively short time span. This is difficult to explain except in terms of intentional behaviour. The highly restricted area in which the cluster was deposited suggests that a specific meaning was attached to this location, rather than any practical considerations(Pomeroy et al., 2026).
In 2014, the Kurdish Regional Government invited a British team of archaeologists to conduct the first excavations at Shanidar since 1960, and fieldwork began the following year. The objective was to conduct detailed work along the original trench margins and place Solecki’s findings into a robust chronological, climatic, ecological, and cultural framework using archaeological techniques unavailable in the 1950s. Although the team did not expect to find further Neanderthal remains, several bones were found between 2015 and 2016, including a partial articulated leg attributed to Shanidar 5. In 2017 came an even bigger surprise: the remains of a completely new individual in the lower layer, just to the east of Shanidar 4(Pomeroy et al., 2020).
The remains were given the temporary name Shanidar Z, and belong to the same cluster as Shanidar 4, 6, 8, and 9. The sediments containing the remains are paler than layers above and below, and are capped on their northern side by two horizontally oriented stones. To the south is a vertical slab from a rockfall that was in situ before the burial. The remains have been only partially excavated, but Shanidar Z was probably placed on their back, with their shoulders and head raised, and their head resting on its left side on top of the left hand. The lower limbs have not yet been found, but the presence of the vertical slab to the south suggests they were probably flexed. Further very incomplete remains, designated Shanidar A and B, were identified in 2019 directly below Shanidar Z, separated by approximately 0.1 m (4 inches) of sediment, and were excavated in 2022. The Shanidar Z, A, and B remains could belong to either Shanidar 6 or 8. Shanidar 4 is largely complete, and 9 is an infant, but 6 and 8 are essentially skeletal elements that could not have belonged to 4 or 9(Pomeroy et al., 2020, 2025).
The Shanidar A individual was very incomplete. A flash flood had disturbed the remains, and the finds were limited to a left shoulder blade, a nearly complete right hand, and seven upper teeth. Heavy dental wear suggests that Shanidar A was an older individual aged around 45. One tooth – an upper left second incisor – had split, and the inward-facing half had been lost. The exposed half was covered in calculus, indicating that it had remained in the mouth for some time after the injury causing the split, possibly a fall onto a hard surface – or interpersonal violence(Pomeroy et al., 2026).
The shoulder blade exhibits a near-circular perforation, 15 mm wide, from which at least three radial fractures extend. Several bone fragments, each around 4 mm in length, were identified by micro-computerised tomography in the underlying sediment where the shoulder blade was found, prior to its removal. The perforation is best explained as resulting from penetrating trauma, such as that caused by a projectile or a thrusting implement such as a spear. Bevelling on the posterior side of the perforation indicates a ventral-to-dorsal (front-to-back) trajectory of the weapon, since bevelling is typical of exit wounds. The fragments of bone originating from the perforation and situated directly below it in the sediment are consistent with having been displaced by the puncture wound and becoming lodged in the soft tissue covering the shoulder blade. The overall picture suggests that Shanidar A was stabbed or struck in the chest by a spear, which penetrated the shoulder blade. The target may have been the heart, which would have resulted in almost immediate death(Pomeroy et al., 2026).
Shanidar A is not the earliest-known victim of lethal hominin violence: that dubious distinction belongs to the owner of the 430,000-year-old Cranium 17 at the site of Sima de los Huesos in Northern Spain. ancient origin(Sala et al., 2015).
References
Cameron, D. and Groves, C. (2004) Bones, Stones and Molecules: “Out of Africa” and Human Origins. London: Elsevier Academic Press.
Conroy, G. (1997) Reconstructing Human Origins: A Modern Synthesis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Cowgill, L., Trinkaus, E. and Zeder, M. (2007) ‘Shanidar 10: A Middle Paleolithic immature distal lower limb from Shanidar Cave, Iraqi Kurdistan’, Journal of Human Evolution, 53, pp. 213–223.
Fiacconi, M. and Hunt, C. (2015) ‘Pollen taphonomy at Shanidar Cave (Kurdish Iraq): An initial evaluation’, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 223, pp. 87–93.
Hunt, C. et al. (2023) ‘Shanidar et ses fleurs? Reflections on the palynology of the Neanderthal “Flower Burial” hypothesis’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 159, p. 105822. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2023.105822.
Pomeroy, E. et al. (2020) ‘New Neanderthal remains associated with the “flower burial” at Shanidar Cave’, Antiquity, 94, pp. 11–26.
Pomeroy, E. et al. (2025) ‘Excavating the archives: new perspectives on the Shanidar Cave Neanderthals’, Bulletins et mémoires de la société d’anthropologie de Paris, 37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4000/13pt3.
Pomeroy, E. et al. (2026) ‘Evidence for funerary behaviour and lethal trauma in a new Neanderthal individual from Shanidar Cave’, Scientific Reports, 16(1), p. 30042. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-69193-z.
Sala, N. et al. (2015) ‘Lethal Interpersonal Violence in the Middle Pleistocene’, PLOS ONE, 10, p. e0126589.
Solecki, R. (1975) ‘Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal flower burial in northern Iraq’, Science, 190, pp. 880–881.
Sommer, J. (1999) ‘The Shanidar IV “flower burial”: A reevaluation of Neanderthal burial ritual’, Cambridge Archæological Journal, 9, pp. 127–129.
Trinkaus, E. and Villotte, S. (2017) ‘External auditory exostoses and hearing loss in the Shanidar 1 Neandertal’, PLOS ONE, 12, p. e0186684.