Amud and Kebara caves in northern Israel are two broadly contemporaneous Middle Paleolithic sites dated to 70,000-50,000 years ago, both located in the Mediterranean realm of the southern Levant. Neanderthal occupations at these sites are represented by considerable amounts of stone artifacts, fire use features and abundant animal and human fossils. New research from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem suggests that Neanderthals living in these caves butchered their food in strikingly different ways, despite living close by and using similar tools and resources.
Jallon et al. suggest distinctive butchering strategies between the Neanderthal populations in Amud and Kebara caves despite comparable occupation intensities, similar stone tool technologies, and access to similar food resources.
“The subtle differences in cut-mark patterns between Amud and Kebara may reflect local traditions of animal carcass processing,” said Anaëlle Jallon, PhD candidate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
“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.”
“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.”
Neanderthals occupied Amud and Kebara caves — which are only 70 km apart — during the winters between 70,000 and 50,000 years ago.
Both groups used the same flint tools and relied on the same prey for their diet — mostly gazelles and fallow deer.
But Kebara Neanderthals seem to have hunted more large prey than those at Amud, and they also seem to have carried more large kills home to butcher them in the cave rather than at the site of the kill.
At Amud, 40% of the animal bones are burned and most are fragmented. This could be caused by deliberate actions like cooking or by later accidental damage.
At Kebara, 9% of the bones are burned, but less fragmented, and are thought to have been cooked.
The bones at Amud also seem to have undergone less carnivore damage than those found at Kebara.
To investigate the differences between food preparation at Kebara and at Amud, the researchers selected a sample of cut-marked bones from contemporaneous layers at the two sites.
They examined these macroscopically and microscopically, recording the cut-marks’ different characteristics. Similar patterns of cut-marks might suggest there were no differences in butchery practices, while different patterns might indicate distinct cultural traditions.
The cut-marks were clear and intact, largely unaffected by later damage caused by carnivores or the drying out of the bones.
The profiles, angles, and surface widths of these cuts were similar, likely due to the two groups’ similar toolkits.
However, the cut-marks found at Amud were more densely packed and less linear in shape than those at Kebara.
The scientists considered several possible explanations for this pattern. It could have been driven by the demands of butchering different prey species or different types of bones — most of the bones at Amud, but not Kebara, are long bones — but when they only looked at the long bones of small ungulates found at both Amud and Kebara, the same differences showed up in the data.
Experimental archaeology also suggests this pattern couldn’t be accounted for by less skilled butchers or by butchering more intensively to get as much food as possible.
The different patterns of cut-marks are best explained by deliberate butchery choices made by each group.
One possible explanation is that the Neanderthals at Amud were treating meat differently before butchering it: possibly drying their meat or letting it decompose, like modern-day butchers hanging meat before cooking.
Decaying meat is harder to process, which would account for the greater intensity and less linear form of the cut-marks.
A second possibility is that different group organization — for example, the number of butchers who worked on a given kill — in the two communities of Neanderthals played a role.
However, more research will be needed to investigate these possibilities.
“There are some limitations to consider,” Jallon said.
“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.”
“Future studies, including more experimental work and comparative analyses, will be crucial for addressing these uncertainties — and maybe one day reconstructing Neanderthals’ recipes.”
The findings were published in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology.
_____
Anaëlle Jallon et al. 2025. Cut from the same cloth? Comparing Neanderthal processing of faunal resources at Amud and Kebara caves (Israel) through cut-marks analyses. Front. Environ. Archaeol 4; doi: 10.3389/fearc.2025.1575572