Research into the butchery practices of Neanderthals living in two nearby caves in northern Israel between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago suggests surprisingly distinct food preparation methods, hinting at the possibility of early cultural traditions being passed down through generations.
Despite living only 70 km. apart and utilizing the same tools and prey, the Neanderthals of Amud and Kebara caves appear to have processed their food in visibly different ways, according to a study led by Anaëlle Jallon from the Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University.
The study, published in Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology, involved collaboration with colleagues Lucille Crete and Silvia Bello from the Natural History Museum of London, under the supervision of Hebrew University’s Prof. Rivka Rabinovich and Prof. Erella Hovers.
Their meticulous examination of cut-marks on the remains of animal prey revealed patterns that cannot be explained by differences in skill, resources, or available tools at each site.
“The subtle differences in cut-mark patterns between Amud and Kebara may reflect local traditions of animal carcass processing,” stated Anaëlle Jallon, a PhD candidate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the lead author. She added, “Even though Neanderthals at these two sites shared similar living conditions and faced comparable challenges, they seem to have developed distinct butchery strategies, possibly passed down through social learning and cultural traditions.”
Neanderthal butchery techniques were standardized
Jallon emphasized the rare chance these two sites present: “These two sites give us a unique opportunity to explore whether Neanderthal butchery techniques were standardized. If butchery techniques varied between sites or time periods, this would imply that factors such as cultural traditions, cooking preferences, or social organization influenced even subsistence-related activities such as butchering.”
Both Amud and Kebara caves were occupied by Neanderthals during the winters, leaving behind not just food remains but also burials, stone tools, and hearths. The two groups relied on similar diets, predominantly gazelles and fallow deer, and used identical flint tools. However, subtle distinctions emerged from the archaeological record. Neanderthals at Kebara appear to have hunted larger prey and more frequently transported large kills back to the cave for butchering, rather than processing them at the kill site.
FURTHER DIFFERENCES in bone remains provided clues: at Amud, 40% of the animal bones were burned and highly fragmented, potentially due to cooking or postdepositional damage. In contrast, only 9% of the bones at Kebara were burned, less fragmented, and believed to have been cooked. Additionally, bones from Amud showed less evidence of carnivore damage compared to those found at Kebara.
To investigate these variations in food preparation, the research team meticulously examined cut-marked bones from contemporaneous layers at both sites, using both macroscopic and microscopic analysis. They recorded various characteristics of the cut-marks, hypothesizing that similar patterns would suggest consistent butchery practices, while differing patterns would point to distinct cultural traditions.
The analysis revealed that the cut-marks were clear, intact, and largely unaffected by later damage. Although their profiles, angles, and surface widths were similar – likely due to the shared toolkits – the cut-marks at Amud were more densely packed and less linear than those at Kebara..
The researchers explored several hypotheses for these observed patterns. They ruled out explanations based on different prey species or bone types, as the differences persisted even when comparing only the long bones of small ungulates found at both sites. Experimental archaeology also indicated that the variations couldn’t be attributed to less-skilled butchers or more intensive butchering to maximize food yield. Instead, the evidence strongly suggested that the differing cut-mark patterns were a result of deliberate butchery choices made by each Neanderthal group.
One compelling explanation proposed by the researchers is that the Amud Neanderthals might have been pretreating their meat before butchering. This could involve drying the meat or allowing it to decompose, similar to how modern butchers hang meat. Decaying meat is known to be more challenging to process, which would explain the greater intensity and less linear nature of the cut-marks observed at Amud.
Another possibility is that differences in group organization, such as the number of individuals involved in butchering a single kill, played a role. However, further research is needed to fully explore these intriguing possibilities.
“There are some limitations to consider,” Jallon acknowledged. “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 interpret 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.”