Ancient Neanderthal 'Fat Factory' Reveals How Advanced They Really Were
In a new discovery about this mysterious yet often familiar species, researchers have found ancient evidence of a Neanderthal "fat factory" in what is now Germany.
Operational around 125,000 years ago, the factory would've been a place where Neanderthals broke and crushed the bones of large mammals to extract valuable bone marrow and grease, used as a valuable extra food source.
Related:
According to scientists, this is the earliest evidence yet for this type of sophisticated, large-scale bone processing, including both bone marrow and grease: the first confirmation Neanderthals were also doing this some 100,000 years before our species made it to Europe.
"This was intensive, organised, and strategic," says archaeologist Lutz Kindler from the MONREPOS Archaeological Research Center in Germany.
"Neanderthals were clearly managing resources with precision – planning hunts, transporting carcasses, and rendering fat in a task-specific area. They understood both the nutritional value of fat and how to access it efficiently – most likely involving caching carcass parts at places in the landscape for later transport to and use at the grease rendering site."
The researchers found their evidence on a site called Neumark-Nord in eastern Germany, not far from the city of Halle. They uncovered more than 100,000 bone fragments from what are thought to be at least 172 large mammals, including horses and deer.
A good proportion of the bones showed cut marks and signs of intentional breakage, pointing to deliberate butchering – these weren't just leftovers from a hunt. There were also indications of tool use and fires in the same location, all in a relatively small area.
Add all of that together, and it seems clear that some kind of systematic, organized bone processing was going on here. Similar processes have been linked to Neanderthal sites before, but not at this level of scale or sophistication.
"Bone grease production requires a certain volume of bones to make this labour-intensive processing worthwhile and hence the more bones assembled, the more profitable it becomes," says archaeologist Sabine Gaudzinski-Windheuser from MONREPOS.
We can add this to the long list of studies that have revealed Neanderthals were much smarter than they're often made out to be. Thanks to recent research we know they were adept swimmers, capable brewers, and abstract thinkers – who raised their kids and used speech patterns in a similar way to humans.
Ultimately though, Homo sapiens thrived and survived, while Neanderthals died out. That's another story that archaeologists are busy investigating the whys and wherefores of, but all we have of the Neanderthals now are the remains and the sites they left behind – which will no doubt give up more revelations in the future.
"The sheer size and extraordinary preservation of the Neumark-Nord site complex gives us a unique chance to study how Neanderthals impacted their environment, both animal and plant life," says computer scientist Fulco Scherjon from MONREPOS.
"That's incredibly rare for a site this old – and it opens exciting new possibilities for future research."
The research has been published in Science Advances.
US Teen Drivers Admit to Looking at Their Phones For 21% of Every Trip
Oldest Egyptian DNA Reveals Secrets of Elite Potter From Pyramid Era
Zapping Volunteers' Brains With Electricity Boosted Their Maths Skills
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
12 hours ago
- Forbes
How Humanity's Use Of Water Is Nudging Earth's Tilt
A spinning globe model visualizing how Earth's geographic poles coincide with an imaginary axis ... More around which the planet rotates. In the last 200 years humanity has constructed over 6,800 dams for agricultural use, as drink-water storage and to generate hydroelectric power. Together, they hold so much water that Earth's tilt is changing. Earth's geographic poles, which are the points around which the planet rotates, move with respect to the surface during a process called polar motion in response to the distribution of Earth's mass. The same physical principle can be seen on a much smaller scale during a hammer throw competition, as the swirling mass of the "hammer" — a metal ball attached by a steel wire to a grip — forces the athlete to wobble around the center of rotation. Over geological time, the gravitational pull of Sun and Moon, growing or shrinking ice sheets and the slow drift of the continents will move mass around and cause Earth's poles to shift, but human activity can cause significant changes on a much smaller timescale. 'As we trap water behind dams, not only does it remove water from the oceans, thus leading to a global sea level fall, it also distributes mass in a different way around the world,' says Natasha Valencic, a graduate student in Earth and planetary sciences at Harvard University and lead author of a new study. Valencic and her colleagues used a global database of dams to map the locations of each dam and the amount of water each impounds, comparing their construction history with recorded shifts of Earth's poles. From 1835 to 1954, many dams were built in North America and Europe, shifting these areas toward the equator. The North Pole moved 20.5 centimeters (8 inches) toward the 103rd meridian east, which passes through Russia, Mongolia, China, and the Indochina Peninsula. Then, from 1954 to 2011, dams were built in East Africa and Asia, and the pole shifted 57 centimeters (22 inches) toward the 117th meridian west, which passes through western North America and the South Pacific. Over the entire period from 1835 to 2011, the poles moved about 113 centimeters (3.7 feet), with about 104 centimeters (3.4 feet) of movement happening in the 20th century. Already in 2023, Seo et al. published a similar study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters focusing on groundwater use. By pumping water out of the ground and moving it elsewhere, humans have shifted such a large mass of water that the Earth tilted nearly 80 centimeters (31.5 inches) east between 1993 and 2010 alone. The melting of glaciers and ice caps due to climate change, resulting in a mass shift from the poles to the equator, is expected to amplify this effect further, as a study published in the journal Science Advances suggested as early as 2016. Observed polar motion (red arrow labelled 'OBS') due to water/groundwater mass redistribution Earth's poles normally change by several meters within a year due to the planet's natural wobbling, so the observed changes don't run the risk of catastrophic consequences. However, such studies highlight how profoundly human activity can influence the entire planet. The study,"True Polar Wander Driven by Artificial Water Impoundment: 1835–2011," was published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Additional material provided by Samson Reiny for the American Geophysical Union.


Forbes
12 hours ago
- Forbes
Rethinking Human-Tech Collaboration With Passive Brain Interfaces
Thorsten O. Zander is the Founder & Chief Scientist at Zander Labs, a deep tech company at the forefront of pBCI and neuroadaptive tech. Recent headlines predict a future of mind-reading machines, but the real breakthrough in brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) isn't about decoding your deepest secrets. It's about building technology that understands, adapts to and evolves with you to enable a new era of human-centric innovation. The question is not what machines can take from us, but how they can learn from us to create technology that is fundamentally more responsive, supportive and empowering. The Cognitive Revolution Traditional BCIs require users to learn artificial machine languages, training their minds to issue specific, often awkward commands. In contrast, passive BCIs represent a paradigm shift. As I've written about previously, passive BCIs use sensors to record brain activity and translate these signals into digital data. This removes the need for surgery, and it also allows AI to evaluate real-time information about users' emotions. Rather than demanding that humans adapt to machines, we should build systems that adapt to us, silently interpreting patterns in brain activity like attention, workload or fatigue. This isn't science fiction—this is neuroadaptive technology, and it's happening now. It's a philosophical shift in human-machine collaboration. Rather than training humans to think in machine-readable patterns, we should build machines that learn from how humans naturally think. Precision Insights: A Transformative Opportunity Consider some of the practical applications of passive BCIs. With nuanced, real-time insights into attention, focus and emotional state, this technology could enable empathetic AI. Unlike what speculative mind-reading headlines suggest, these systems offer opportunities to enable practical, ethical advances across healthcare, education, workplace productivity and accessibility. Instead of developing AI models for predicting what you want, the goal could be to adapt to real needs, context and values, resulting in a fundamentally more personal and supportive experience. For example, the technology could tell when someone is overloaded and adapt to reduce stress. This could lead to learning platforms recognizing cognitive fatigue and offering support or communication tools that adjust for individuals with physical limitations. The Privacy Imperative As technology gains the ability to detect subtle cognitive states, privacy and user agency move to the forefront of innovation. The brain data collected today is already deeply personal, offering insights into not just what we're doing, but how our brains are functioning across a growing number of classifiers. Who owns your brain data? How can we ensure it's used ethically? What safeguards must be in place before these technologies become mainstream? These aren't abstract concerns for some distant future—they're immediate challenges requiring solutions now. That's why the future of neuroadaptive technology is systems that process data locally whenever possible, encrypt all signals and ensure users retain full control over their information. The goal is not surveillance but support that makes accurate insights possible while protecting what makes us human. Bridging The Gap One persistent challenge for brain-computer interfaces—especially passive BCIs—has been bridging the gap between impressive lab results and real-world, user-centered solutions. The field has been caught between academic explorations lacking real-world applicability and consumer gadgets lacking scientific rigor. Challenges with passive BCIs aren't just the tech. It's also about building something people actually want to use. Privacy matters enormously when you're dealing with brain data, but obsessing over perfect safeguards before we even have working systems misses the point. The technical hurdles are solvable. Signal noise and reliability issues just mean we need better real-world engineering. We should focus on applications where passive BCIs offer clear advantages: better safety monitoring, enhanced accessibility or cognitive support that traditional interfaces can't match. Success in these specific areas will build the trust and evidence base that broader adoption requires. The path forward requires technology that is scientifically valid and practically useful, delivering solutions that provide meaningful insights without the complexity of traditional research-grade equipment. Early adoption doesn't require perfect technology. It requires technology that solves specific problems better than existing alternatives. The first mainstream passive BCI and neuroadaptive tech successes will come from focusing on where these systems can uniquely improve safety, productivity or accessibility—setting the stage for wider transformation. Technology For The People As we pursue these advances, we must remember that the goal isn't technology for its own sake, but truly context-aware technology that understands and supports people more effectively. This means designing with empathy, testing with diverse populations and asking whether our innovations are making lives meaningfully better. As AI moves into an increasingly dominant position in our lives, BCI technology offers something unique: a direct connection to human intelligence. Rather than replacing human thinking, it amplifies our natural cognitive abilities and helps machines better understand human needs. The true measure of progress in brain-computer interfaces will be how well we translate neural signals into meaningful insights that enrich lives and expand human potential. Our task is to build technology that learns from and adapts to us, never the other way around. The future of BCI is about connecting human potential with technological possibility. This is not the age of mind-reading. It's the age of mind-understanding, where technology is guided by the remarkable complexity of the human mind. Let's ensure that the future is built on science, empathy and trust. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?


Medscape
12 hours ago
- Medscape
New Core Outcomes May Transform Stillbirth Care
TOPLINE: A new core outcome set for stillbirth care developed with the input from international stakeholders can be used in future trials and systematic reviews to reduce outcome-reporting bias, facilitate comparisons of interventions in meta-analyses, and ultimately reduce research wastage. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted an international consensus study using data from the modified Delphi method and consensus meetings to develop a core outcome set to guide future stillbirth care research. The core outcome set was developed following the methodological consensus standards outlined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative standards and supported by the relevant published literature. Researchers invited 542 stakeholders, including 381 parents or family members who had experienced stillbirth and 192 healthcare professionals or researchers (31 of whom identified as both a parent and a professional), from 29 countries across Africa, Australia, Europe, North America, South America, and Asia. Participants completed two rounds of Delphi surveys using Research Electronic Data Capture, followed by four consensus meetings to determine the final core outcome set. TAKEAWAY: Core outcomes for all stillbirth care studies were life-threatening complications, maternal death, parents' experience of respectful and supportive care, grief, mental health and emotional well-being, isolation, stigma, impact on work, and impact on family relationships. For studies investigating the cause of stillbirth, researchers identified two additional core outcomes: identification of the cause of death and parents' understanding of that cause. Studies assessing subsequent pregnancy care should measure outcomes such as antenatal complications for the mother and baby, baby survival, neonatal outcomes, and attachment to the baby. Studies focusing on stillbirth associated with a multiple pregnancy should consider outcomes such as survival of other babies, preterm birth, pregnancy complications for the baby, and neonatal outcomes. IN PRACTICE: "The development of a minimum agreed set of outcomes represents a significant milestone to address inconsistent outcome collection and reporting in studies of care after stillbirth," the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Danya Bakhbakhi, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, England. It was published online on July 07, 2025, in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. LIMITATIONS: Overall, 69.8% of participating parents had university or college education, which is higher than the population average, potentially affecting the generalisability of the core outcome set. The majority of stakeholders were from high-income countries. This study did not include stakeholders who did not speak English. DISCLOSURES: This study received support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research through a doctoral fellowship. Two authors reported receiving grant funding for stillbirth research. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.