Latest news with #Neanderthals
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- Science
- The Guardian
Even Neanderthals had distinct preferences when it came to making dinner, study suggests
Nothing turns up the heat in a kitchen quite like debating the best way to chop an onion. Now researchers have found even our prehistoric cousins had distinct preferences when it came to preparing food. Archaeologists studying animal bones recovered from two caves in northern Israel have found different groups of Neanderthals, living around the same time, butchered the same animals in different ways. 'It means that within all the Neanderthal population, you have several distinct groups that have distinct ways of doing things, even for activities that are so related to survival,' said Anaëlle Jallon, the first author of the research, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Writing in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Archeology, Jallon and colleagues report how they studied cut marks on 249 bone fragments from between 70,000 and 50,000 years ago from Amud cave, and 95 bone fragments dating to between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago from Kebara cave. The caves are about 70km apart and both were occupied by Neanderthals during the winters. Both groups are known to have used similar flint-based tools. The team's analysis of the bones fragments – which were recovered from the caves in the 1990s – confirmed previous findings that burned and fragmented samples were more common in Amud cave, and that both groups had a similar diet featuring animals including mountain gazelles and fallow deer. But it also provided fresh insights, including that bones from larger animals such as aurochs were more commonly found at Kebara cave. However, Jallon noted it could be that the samples at Kebara were easier to identify, or that Neanderthals at Amud might have butchered such animals elsewhere. Jallon and colleagues carried out a detailed analysis of the cut marks on 43 and 34 bone samples from Amud and Kebara caves respectively, finding a number of differences in the cut marks between the two sites. While the researchers say some of the variation related to the type of animal – or body part – being butchered, these factors did not explain all of the differences. 'Even when we compare only the gazelles, and only the long bones of gazelles, we find a higher density of cut marks in [bones from] Amud, with more cut marks that are crossing each other, [and] less cut marks that are straight lines, but more [curved],' said Jallon. The team suggest a number of possible explanations, including that different groups of Neanderthals had different butchery techniques, involved a different number of individuals when butchering a carcass, or butchered meat in different states of decay. 'It's either, like, food preferences that lead to different ways of preparing meat and then cutting it, or just differences in the way they learn how to cut meat,' said Jallon. Dr Matt Pope, of University College London, who was not involved in the work, said the study added to research showing different Neanderthal groups had different ways of making tools, and sometimes used different toolkits. 'These aren't just cut marks being studied, these are the gestures and movements of the Neanderthal people themselves, as evocative to us as footprints or hand marks on a cave wall,' he said. 'Future research will help to discern between the alternative [explanations for the variations], but the study as it stands is a powerful reminder that there is no monolithic neanderthal culture and that the population contained multiple groups at different times and places, living in the same landscape, with perhaps quite different ways of life.'
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Did Neanderthals have 'family recipes'? Study suggests butchery practices in ancient groups
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. New 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 kilometers 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 ofArchaeology 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." Were Neanderthal butchery techniques were standardized Jallon emphasized the unique opportunity 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 more large 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 post-depositional 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 while the cut-marks were clear, intact, and largely unaffected by later damage, and 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 in shape 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 pre-treating 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." She concluded, "Future studies, including more experimental work and comparative analyses, will be crucial for addressing these uncertainties — and maybe one day reconstructing Neanderthals' recipes.' Solve the daily Crossword
Time of India
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
NYT Mini Crossword July 16 hints and answers: ‘Keeps in the loop in a way' mystery solved
The NYT Mini Crossword for July 16, 2025, might be short, but it's definitely not easy for everyone. With just five across and five down clues, The Mini is a daily speed run for many players. But some clues today can really slow you down, especially if you're aiming for a perfect streak. If one word is holding you back, don't waste time. I've listed all the hints and the full answer key to today's puzzle. Whether you're stuck on an across clue or a down one, scroll down for everything you need to finish it stress-free. NYT Mini Crossword July 16 hints Doubtful situation? Think four letters. What did Neanderthals create from birch bark tar? Which rock helps start a fire? 'So ___!' and 'Go ___!' – what word fits both? What do you call a person who practices meditation? NYT Mini Crossword July 16 Across answers Iffy – Doubtful Glue – Neanderthals made the first one with birch bark tar Flint – Fire-starting rock Long – Word that works in both 'So ___!' and 'Go ___!' Yogi – Meditation practitioner NYT Mini Crossword July 16 Down answers Igloo – Brand of cooler Fling – Short-lived relationship Fungi – Mushrooms and such Yet – 'Even so…' Fly – Outer layer of a tent That's all for today. Come back tomorrow for NYT Mini Crossword answers for July 17!
Yahoo
a day ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Osteoarchaeologist Uncovers Shocking Link Between Brain Condition and Neanderthals
Modern humans may owe more to Neanderthals than just a few genetic quirks, and in at least one case, that inheritance might come with serious health risks. A new study suggests that Chiari malformation type I, a brain abnormality that affects up to 1 in 100 people, may be tied to DNA inherited from Neanderthals. The condition happens when the lower part of the brain extends into the spinal canal, often causing severe headaches, neck pain, and other complications. Researchers had long suspected that interbreeding between Homo sapiens and ancient hominin species could play a role in the shape mismatch between the brain and skull that leads to this defect. But this new research points a finger squarely at Neanderthals, not other early human relatives like Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis. Led by osteoarchaeologist Kimberly Plomp at the University of the Philippines, Science Alert reports the team used 3D modeling and skull shape analysis on more than 100 modern human skulls, comparing those with Chiari malformation to those without. They also examined eight fossil skulls from ancient species, including Neanderthals. Their finding? Only the skulls of Neanderthals showed a similarity to the bone structure of modern people with Chiari malformations, especially in the area where the brain meets the spine. This challenges an earlier theory from 2013 that broadly connected the defect to multiple ancient human species. Instead, researchers now propose what they're calling the Neanderthal Introgression Hypothesis, suggesting the condition may trace specifically back to Neanderthal ancestry. The next step is expanding the study to include more skull samples and testing across different populations. Since African groups have far less Neanderthal DNA than European or Asian groups, future research could reveal patterns in how widespread the condition is based on genetic inheritance. Ultimately, understanding this ancient connection could offer new insight into diagnosing and possibly preventing Chiari malformations. The researchers believe their methods could help unravel the causes of the condition and lead to better treatment Uncovers Shocking Link Between Brain Condition and Neanderthals first appeared on Men's Journal on Jul 16, 2025
Time of India
a day ago
- Science
- Time of India
Scientists just found a 140,000-year-old child's skull in Israel, and what they found could change human history
A child's skull, almost 140,000 years old, was found in Israel. Researchers believe it shows interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals. The skull has both Homo sapiens and Neanderthal traits. CT scans helped in the analysis. Some scientists disagree and want DNA evidence. The discovery could change views on human evolution. It suggests interbreeding occurred earlier than thought. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Skull shows both modern and Neanderthal features New reconstruction raises old questions Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Debate continues among scientists Implications for human evolution A nearly 140,000-year-old child's skull found in Skhul Cave, Israel, may show evidence of interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals, researchers said in a new study. The partially reconstructed skull, first discovered almost a century ago, belonged to a child believed to be around 3 to 5 years old and was recently examined using modern scanning research, published in the July-August issue of L'Anthropologie, was led by Anne Dambricourt Malasse at the Institute of Human Paleontology in France. Her team used CT scans to re-analyse the skull, which was previously restored with plaster, limiting scientific study for braincase of the child displays features common to Homo sapiens, but the mandible — or jawbone — appeared more similar to Neanderthal anatomy. It lacked a chin and showed traits typical of Neanderthals, suggesting a possible mixed lineage."This study is maybe the first that has put the Skhul child's remains on a scientific basis," said John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who was not involved in the research. "The old reconstruction and associated work, literally set in plaster, did not really enable anyone to compare this child with a broader array of recent children to understand its biology."The skull had several missing parts, including much of the facial area and the base. The rest of the bones were in fragments. Using modern technology, the team developed a clearer reconstruction, bringing new attention to the child's all experts agree with the hybrid theory. Some researchers caution that DNA evidence is needed to confirm the claim. Others believe the observed traits may reflect natural variation within early modern humans."Even if not 1st-generation hybrids, it's certainly possible that the Skhul fossils reflect some gene flow between the 2 populations," said Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London, who also did not take part in the study. "Overall though, looking at all the material, including the skeletons, the material still primarily aligns with Homo sapiens, in my view."If proven to be a hybrid, the skull would support the idea that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred more often and earlier than previously thought. This could change long-held views about human migration and studies suggest that genetic exchange between the two species may have occurred about 100,000 years ago. The Skhul child may provide a physical example of this interaction."I have long thought that hybridisations were not viable and I continue to think that they were mostly abortive," said Malasse. "This skeleton reveals that they were nevertheless possible, even though this little girl lived only 5 years."
