Imagine Neanderthals swapping recipes, albeit with a decidedly Paleolithic twist. New research suggests that Neanderthal groups living near each other in northern Israel employed surprisingly different methods for butchering their prey, hinting at the existence of localized culinary traditions passed down through generations.
A study published in Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology details the findings from the Amud and Kebara caves, located just 70 kilometers apart. Despite sharing similar environments, tools, and prey , primarily gazelles and fallow deer , the Neanderthals occupying these caves between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago exhibited markedly different butchering techniques.
“The subtle differences in cut-mark patterns between Amud and Kebara may reflect local traditions of animal carcass processing,” explains Anaëlle Jallon, Ph.D. candidate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the study’s lead author.
This suggests that these groups weren’t simply reacting to immediate environmental pressures. Instead, something more nuanced was at play—socially transmitted knowledge, akin to distinct family recipes or regional cooking styles.
The initial reactions varied widely,” said Dr. Eliana Weiss, a specialist in prehistoric diets at Tel Aviv University, who was not involved in the study. “Some colleagues were immediately captivated by the implication of Neanderthal culture being more diverse than previously thought, while others were understandably cautious, pointing to the need for larger sample sizes and further verification.”
The study highlights the importance of examining seemingly minor variations in archaeological evidence. It’s not just about what Neanderthals ate, but how they prepared their food that offers a unique glimpse into their cultural lives.
- Amud: Bones are more fragmented, with 40% showing signs of burning. Cut marks are densely packed and less linear.
- Kebara: Bones are less fragmented, with only 9% burned. Cut marks are more linear. Neanderthals there seemed to transport larger prey back to the cave to butcher.
To reach their conclusions, the research team meticulously analyzed cut marks on animal bones from both sites, using both macroscopic and microscopic techniques. They controlled for variables like tool type and prey species, eventually concluding that the differences in cut marks could not be explained by anything other than distinct butchering preferences.
Could it be that the Neanderthals at Amud preferred their meat aged, perhaps even allowing it to partially decompose before butchering? Such a practice, common in some contemporary cultures, would indeed make processing the meat more challenging, potentially explaining the denser, less linear cut marks observed.
Or perhaps, the key lies in social structure. Did the communities differ in terms of how they organized their butchering activities? Were there fewer or more butchers involved in the process at each site? These are the kinds of questions that demand further investigation.
Untapped Potential: Previous research often focused on technological capabilities of Neanderthals, overlooking the significance of social learning and cultural transmission.
Overcoming Barriers: Analyzing fragmented remains, distinguishing cultural practices from environmental factors, and accounting for potential biases in the archaeological record.
Achieved Success: Identifying distinct butchery patterns suggesting local food traditions, opening new avenues for understanding Neanderthal culture.
On X.com, user @PaleoChef quipped, “Neanderthal cooking show, anyone? I’d watch!” while a Facebook group dedicated to archaeological discoveries debated whether “family recipes” was an overstatement. One user commented, “It’s cool, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. They weren’t exactly posting #foodporn on Insta, were they?”
However, Jallon cautions that more research is needed. “There are some limitations to consider,” she says. “The bone fragments are sometimes too small to provide a complete picture of the butchery marks left on the carcass. While we have made efforts to correct for biases caused by fragmentation, this may limit our ability to fully interpert the data. Future studies, including more experimental work and comparative analyses, will be crucial for addressing these uncertainties—and maybe one day reconstructing Neanderthals’ recipes.” A similiar sentiment echoed by many online.
But even with these limitations, the study offers a compelling glimpse into the complexities of Neanderthal life. It suggests that, like us, they were not simply driven by instinct and survival, but also by culture, tradition, and the subtle nuances that make each community unique. It is important to note that there are similiar studies ongoing, such as one taking place near Dordogne, France.
