Neanderthals had ‘factories' up and running 125,000 years ago
They may have been rendering fat from crushed animal bones in the Neumark-Nord region in central Germany, according to archaeological research, published in Science Advances.
While many bones that contained less marrow were spread out across the archaeological site, researchers observed that many of the marrow-rich bones were located in clusters – sites they call 'fat factories'.
The process required careful planning, specialised tools and detailed knowledge of nutrition.
Its use challenges long-held assumptions about Neanderthal capabilities, the study, commissioned at Leiden University in The Netherlands, found.
Prof Wil Roebroeks, the study's co-author said: 'This attitude that Neanderthals were dumb – this is another data point that proves otherwise.'
Dr Lutz Kindler, the study's first author, added: 'Neanderthals were clearly managing resources with precision – planning hunts, transporting carcasses and rendering fat in a task-specific area.'
Prior to this finding, the earliest evidence of this kind of fat rendering dated back to only 28,000 years ago, thousands of years after Neanderthals disappeared from the fossil record.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
New technique hailed as ‘powerful double weapon' against chemo hair loss
Scientists have developed a new technique which they describe as a 'powerful double weapon' to prevent cancer patients losing their hair during chemotherapy. The method combines scalp cooling – where a patient wears a cold cap to help reduce hair loss from the damage caused by the cancer drugs – with a lotion comprising the same antioxidants found in the likes of red grapes. The study, which has been hailed as a 'milestone', also pinpointed the optimal temperature for scalp cooling to be most effective for keeping hair. Cold caps are used by some cancer patients during chemotherapy to help minimise the amount of hair they lose. The technique works by restricting blood flow to the scalp, which reduces the amount of medication reaching the hair follicles. Now, researchers at Sheffield Hallam University have found cooling the scalp to 18C can prevent hair follicle damage, while cooling to 26C may not provide enough protection to hair follicle cells. The team has also shown how combining topical antioxidants with cooling could 'transform the ability of cooling to protect' against hair loss. Dr Nik Georgopoulos, an associate professor of cell biology and Transforming Lives fellow at Sheffield Hallam, told the PA news agency that he views hair loss as the 'face of cancer'. 'The reason why people get hair loss is because, at the base of the hair follicles, there are these rapidly dividing cells that are actually feeling the toxicity of chemotherapy drugs,' he said. 'Chemotherapy drugs are drugs that kill rapidly dividing cancer cells, but they cannot discriminate between cancer cells and rapidly dividing normal cells in the body. 'At the base of our hair follicles are these rapidly dividing cells, or keratinocytes, that constantly grow and they end up forming the actual hair.' For the study, published in Frontiers of Pharmacology, hair follicles were isolated from the scalp and grown in the lab before being treated with chemotherapy to study the impact. 'We show that they die,' Dr Georgopoulos said. 'The cells that are rapidly dividing and grow the hair, they will die because of the toxicity of chemotherapy. 'But if you cool them, they are protected, and I don't mean just protected – prevented from dying. 'So if cooling is used while the hair follicles are grown in the lab, it can completely prevent the toxicity. But there is a catch – you have to use the right temperature.' While an optimal temperature was highlighted in the study, researchers also combined cooling with the lotion as a potential target for patients who may not respond to the cold cap technique. It contained antioxidants like resveratrol, which is found in the likes of red grapes and peanuts, and N-Acetylcysteine, a dietary supplement. Dr Georgopoulos told PA: 'For some patients, cooling works, and for others it doesn't. Because some heads – I call them stubborn – they don't cool enough. 'By adding this topical product that delivers this antioxidant, we form a powerful double weapon that, based on our results in the lab, showed us it can transform the ability of cooling to protect.' Dr Georgopoulos added that the antioxidant lotion is not 'powerful enough' when used alone. 'The reason for that is cooling does multiple amazing things at the same time,' he said. 'What happens in the body when things go cold? You get the constriction of your blood vessels, they're narrowing down, less blood goes to the scalp, less drug. It isn't as simple as that. 'Our research has shown that cooling can slow down the cells, stops them from dividing – protection. 'It stops the chemotherapy drug going in – protection. It does multiple things at the same time as long as the cooling is optimal. 'If it isn't optimal, our approach is now allowing us to actually say 'it's OK, it's not an ideal scenario, but we compensate for it with our topical product'. Dr Georgopoulos has been working with Paxman Scalp Cooling for more than a decade. The Huddersfield-based business has created a device that circulates coolant through a specially designed cooling cap, worn by the patient. The cooling cap is worn for half an hour before chemotherapy treatment commences, during treatment, and for up to 90 minutes after all the drugs have been given. It is now hoped the new technique, combining scalp cooling with the antioxidants, can be trialled with cancer patients using the Paxman device, with researchers currently finalising the antioxidants that will be used in the topical product. Dr Georgopoulos said: 'Our ongoing work will ensure that efficacy is as high as possible with the belief that a topical agent will not only dramatically enhance the efficacy of scalp cooling in protecting from hair loss, but also significantly accelerates hair recovery post chemotherapy treatment.'
The Guardian
11 hours ago
- The Guardian
We must count the real costs of nuclear power
Tim Gregory (Can we afford to be afraid of nuclear power? 6 July) makes a series of assertions that are incompatible with recent evidence about the transition to zero-carbon energy. Two stand out. The first is that the world needs more energy. Poor countries certainly do. But the clean-energy transition involves shifting to much more efficient technologies, such as electric vehicles and heat pumps. Many studies, including by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, show that these can enable rich countries to halve their energy use while improving living standards. The whole world could have western European lifestyles and still use less energy. The second error is to argue that wind and solar energy cannot power a reliable electricity grid. A major study by the Royal Society showed that a system based on these resources with some long-duration storage is not only feasible, but will be cheaper than a system with any level of nuclear power. Nuclear power is a costly distraction from building an efficient and renewable EyreEmeritus professor of energy and climate policy, University of Oxford Your author, in his enthusiasm to highlight the cheaper costs to build new nuclear plants, failed to include the ever-increasing costs of decommissioning nuclear plants at the end of their working life. This must be included in any comparison of costs. He also failed to mention the problems of vast amounts of highly dangerous radioactive nuclear waste and accidents, freak weather – such as the tsunamis causing radioactive leaks in Japan – and potential terrorist attacks. Nuclear may not cause atmospheric carbon waste but it does create hugely toxic radioactive waste that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. A problem that threatens the health of all life. He mentions that Finland has made a deep burial site for nuclear waste, and the probability of geological activity and disturbance has obviously been factored in. However this does not mean it is guaranteed to stand the tests of time – and stable rock formations found at the site in Finland may not be so readily found AskewHayling Island, Hampshire Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Telegraph
12 hours ago
- Telegraph
Scientists accused of downplaying dangers of antidepressants
A row has broken out between scientists over whether antidepressants cause dangerous withdrawal effects. Researchers at Imperial College and King's College London have been accused of endangering patient safety after publishing a study suggesting that most people do not experience severe withdrawal after coming off the drugs. But experts from the University of East London (UEL) said the research was flawed, arguing that millions experienced problems. In 2019, UEL published a paper showing that 56 per cent of antidepressant users experienced anxiety, irritability, sleep disturbances and even suicidal thoughts when coming off the drugs. The Royal College of Psychiatrists and the National Clinical Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) also both warned that antidepressants could cause withdrawal symptoms. However at a press briefing on Tuesday, scientists from Imperial and Kings said that the 2019 research was based on unreliable survey data and argued that their new review of 50 trials suggested far fewer problems. Dr Sameer Jauhar, from Imperial, said: 'When you drilled down into the 2019 study scientifically, there were questions to be asked. Despite previous concern about stopping antidepressants, our work finds that most people do not experience severe withdrawal in terms of additional symptoms.' In the biggest study of its kind, the new research examined data from 50 trials on antidepressant withdrawal, involving nearly 18,000 patients. The findings showed that, on average, people who stopped taking antidepressants experienced about one additional symptom, most often dizziness, but sometimes nausea, vertigo and nervousness. The team said that current guidance should be rewritten to reassure people that they were unlikely to experience severe side effects when coming off the drugs. However, researchers admitted that most studies they reviewed had only followed up patients for two weeks and that antidepressant treatments they studied were shorter than those commonly prescribed in the real world. There was also little data about fluoxetine – Prozac – which is known to have a long wash-out period in the body and has been linked to debilitating withdrawal effects. Dr John Read, the chairman of the International Institute for Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal, who co-authored the original 2019 paper, said: 'Minimising the incidence of the withdrawal effects of antidepressants endangers patients' safety. 'It misinforms doctors, so they are less likely to recognise withdrawal effects and to provide proper support to the millions of people worldwide who are trying to come off their medication safely.'' Dr Read said the new research relied on short-term drug company studies of just a few weeks, which bore little resemblance to patients who had been taking antidepressants for many years. In Britain about four million people take antidepressants for more than two years, while around two million people take them for more than five years. 'What happens to people in eight to 12-week studies is a far cry from what happens to millions of people when they stop,' said Dr Mark Horowitz, who wrote describing guidelines for clinicians after suffering severe withdrawal effects when he came off antidepressants. Last year a study in The Lancet showed that around one in six people suffered withdrawal symptoms after stopping using antidepressants. Michail Kalfas, of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King's College London, said: 'While uncommon, our study highlights that there could be a sub-group of people who develop more severe withdrawal symptoms than the wider population of antidepressant users. 'Our focus must now turn to look at the pharmacological basis for this reaction, and ask whether it relates to the way they metabolise these drugs.'
