Neanderthals in two adjacent caves in ancient Israel may have developed unique dietary traditions, according to new archaeological research.
Despite sharing tools and prey, the two groups left behind distinct butchery patterns on bone—differences that suggest not only practical differences but also perhaps learned and culturally inherited practices. The findings suggest that these prehistoric humans may have inherited food preparation methods, such as early "family recipes," offering a fascinating glimpse into the social and culinary complexity of Neanderthal life.
Evidence of Neanderthal butchering traditions
A new study suggests that Neanderthals who lived in two adjacent caves in northern Israel may have had very different food preparation habits. Although they used the same types of tools and hunted similar animals, their method of butchering meat was surprisingly different. This difference has led researchers to wonder whether these groups passed on their unique methods of food processing, similar to early culinary traditions.
“Subtle differences in the patterns of cut marks between ‘Amud and Kabara may reflect local traditions for processing animal carcasses,” said Anael Galon, a doctoral student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and lead author of the article published in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology. Although the Neanderthals at these two sites shared similar living conditions and faced similar challenges, they appear to have developed distinct butchery strategies, perhaps passed on through social learning and cultural tradition.
"These two sites provide us with a unique opportunity to explore whether Neanderthal butchery techniques were uniform," Gallon explained. "If butchery techniques varied across sites or time periods, this suggests that factors such as cultural traditions, culinary preferences, or social organization even influenced livelihood activities, such as butchery."
Adjacent caves, contrasting customs
The Amud and Kepara caves are located only 70 kilometers (~43 miles) apart. Neanderthals lived in both caves during winters between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago, leaving behind artifacts such as stone tools, hearths, animal bones, and even burials. The two groups hunted similar prey, including deer and fallow deer, and used similar flint tools. However, their behavior was not identical.
At Kepara, Neanderthals appear to have targeted larger animals, often bringing whole carcasses back to the cave for butchering, rather than preparing them at the slaughter site. By contrast, this was less common at Amud.
The bones at Amud show more signs of burning, with approximately 40% affected, most of them broken into fragments. This may have been due to cooking or subsequent damage. At Kebara, only 9% of the bones were burned, and they appeared less crumbly, which may indicate more thorough cooking. Interestingly, the bones at Amud also show less evidence of being chewed or damaged by carnivores than those at Kebara.
Cut marks reveal ancient cooking choices
To better understand how food preparation differed between the Amud and Kebara sites, the researchers analyzed a selection of animal bones showing cut marks from the same time period at each site. These bones were studied with the naked eye and under magnification, allowing the researchers to document the characteristics of the marks in detail. If the patterns appeared similar, this could indicate shared butchery methods. Conversely, the observed differences could reflect separate cultural practices.
The cut marks on the bones were well-preserved, mostly untouched by subsequent damage from scavengers or environmental exposure. The shape, angle, and width of the cuts were largely consistent between the two groups, which the researchers believe is likely due to the use of similar stone tools. However, one key difference stood out: the marks on the Amud were denser and tended to be less straight than those seen on the Kebara bones.
Cultural massacre or culinary strategy?
The research team explored a number of possible reasons for the differences in the observed cut marks between the two sites. Among these theories is that the difference may be due to the types of animals slaughtered or the types of bones used. For example, most of the bones found at Amud were long bones, while this was not the case at Kebara. However, when the scientists narrowed their focus to the long bones of small ungulates found at both sites, the differences in cut mark patterns remained.
Experimental archaeological tests also ruled out any other explanations. The distinctive marks cannot be explained by a lack of skill or the need for more stringent butchering to increase food intake. Rather, the evidence points to deliberate choices made by each group in how they prepared their meat.
One theory suggests that the Neanderthals at Amud may have handled their meat differently before slaughter, perhaps by drying it or allowing it to mature, similar to how modern butchers hang meat before cooking. Since decomposed or dried meat is more difficult to cut, this may explain the denser, more irregular marks. Another explanation is that the group structure may have been different, such as the number of individuals working together on a single animal, which may have influenced their butchering methods.
The mystery of the recipe remains. However, further research will be needed to investigate these possibilities.
"There are some limitations to consider," Gallon said. "Sometimes bone fragments are too small to provide a complete picture of the butchery marks left on a 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 further experimental work and comparative analyses, will be crucial to addressing these uncertainties—and perhaps one day reconstructing Neanderthal recipes."