The Caves of Amdo and Kebara in northern Israel date back to the central Paleolithic period, approximately 70,000-50,000 years ago. Both are situated in the Southern Levant’s Mediterranean region. The Neanderthals occupying these sites left behind a wealth of stone tools, evidence of fire usage, and a variety of animal and human fossils. A recent study from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem indicates that despite their proximity and the use of similar resources and tools, Neanderthals at these sites employed markedly different methods for processing their food.
Jaron et al. Despite comparable occupational strengths, similar stone tool techniques, and access to similar food resources, we propose a unique slaughter strategy among Neanderthal populations in the caves of Amdo and Kebara.
“The distinct variations in cut mark patterns between Amdo and Kebara might reflect local customs in animal processing,” stated Anal Jaron, a doctoral candidate at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
“Though the Neanderthals at both sites experienced similar environments and challenges, they seem to have developed a distinct butchering strategy potentially passed on through cultural learning and social traditions.”
“These two sites present an extraordinary opportunity to investigate whether Neanderthal slaughter methods were standardized.”
“If butchering techniques differ between sites or over time, it could suggest that factors like cultural practices, dietary preferences, or social structures have influenced self-sufficiency activities, including slaughter.”
The Neanderthals resided in the caves of Amdo and Kebara during the winters between 70,000 and 50,000 years ago.
Both groups utilized the same flint tools and primarily preyed on gazelles and fallow deer.
However, it appears that the Kebara Neanderthals hunted larger game compared to their counterparts in Amdo and opted to perform the slaughter in caves rather than at the kill sites.
In Amdo, 40% of the animal bones show signs of burning, with most being fragmented, possibly resulting from intentional cooking or accidental damage afterward.
Conversely, in Kebara, only 9% of the bones are burned, suggesting they were cooked with less fragmentation.
Amdo’s bones seem less impacted by carnivores than those found in Kebara.
To compare food preparation techniques at Kebara and Amdo, researchers selected bone samples from corresponding layers at both sites.
These samples were analyzed macroscopically and microscopically to assess various cut mark characteristics. Similar patterns might suggest consistent slaughter practices, while differing patterns may highlight distinct cultural customs.
The cut marks were notably clear and intact, with minimal alteration from carnivorous activity or later damage from desiccated bones.
The profiles, angles, and widths of these cuts were akin across both groups and their toolkits.
Nonetheless, the cut marks at Amdo were found to be more densely packed than those at Kebara, and exhibited a less linear shape.
Scientists have proposed several potential reasons for this observation. It could be due to differing demands in processing various prey species and types of bones—most of the bones found in Amdo are short, yet similar distinctions appeared when examining small, straight bone fragments present in both sites.
Experimental archaeology indicates that this pattern cannot be solely attributed to the skills of butchers or heightened slaughtering efforts to maximize food yield.
Instead, the varying cut mark patterns likely reflect intentional butchering choices made by each group.
One hypothesis is that Neanderthals in Amdo treated meat differently prior to slaughter—perhaps opting to dry it or allow it to decay.
We posit that managing decomposing meat poses challenges, which may explain the strong cut marks and less linear characteristics observed.
The second possibility is that the organization of the groups (e.g., the number of butchers involved in a particular kill) contributed to the variance in practices between these two Neanderthal communities.
However, further research is needed to explore these theories.
“There are some limitations to consider,” Jaron noted.
“Bone fragments can be too small to provide a complete understanding of the butcher marks present on the remains.”
“We have made efforts to mitigate biases caused by fragmentation, but this may limit our ability to fully interpret the findings.”
“Future research involving more experimental work and comparative studies will be vital to address these uncertainties. Eventually, we might be able to reconstruct Neanderthal recipes.”
Survey results published in the journal Frontiers of Environmental Archaeology.
____
Anal Jaron et al. 2025. Comparing Neanderthal Treatment of Faunal Resources in the Amdo and Kebara Caves (Israel) Through Cut Mark Analysis. Front. Environ. Archaeol 4; doi:10.3389/fearc.2025.1575572
Source: www.sci.news
