It really does. There is nothing practical about collecting animal skulls. They can't be used as tools, so there is nothing practical about them. They saw some

It really does. There is nothing practical about collecting animal skulls. They can't be used as tools, so there is nothing practical about them. They saw some value in them enough to separate them, maybe what once was a habit out of a curiosity became tradition and ultimately a ritual in recognition of the importance to them of these animals, which sustained them and allowed them to survive. This impractical collecting is an emergence of a more human type of consciousness, a birth of a spiritual life such as no animal would ever have prepared. This is not projecting, it is investigative understanding of what makes us like them, recognizing the similarities. These were not animals. They were primitive peoples. Humans have a rich internal life of dreams and impressions, and so too did they. Maybe in 20K - 50K years this impractical collection of skulls becomes an alter. Would you also say, if they found what was obviously some kind of alter, that it didn't mean anything, or that there was no possibility of understanding what they used it for? It speaks volumes. When you can't see something, your first impression is that nothing is there. This isn't always true, and whatever it is you are good at and have full understanding of, it doesn't mean that you are expert at everything. Archeologists and anthropologists are not morons. They do not invent things, they uncover and can see and understand through experience and study things we never will without also having their experience and knowledge. They know what they're doing and recognize the significance of their own work, just as you know your own expertise and recognize its significance.