For decades, the prevailing image of Homo neanderthalensis has been that of a resourceful but cognitively limited hunter, focused largely on big game. But a recent experiment by European archaeologists suggests a very different picture—one in which Neanderthals processed small birds with skill, control, and foresight.
Published in Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology, the study demonstrates that Neanderthals may have used flint tools to butcher birds and intentionally roasted them over controlled fires. The results carry sweeping implications for our understanding of Neanderthal diet, fire use, and cognitive complexity.
At the core of the project was an effort to answer a deceptively simple question: What do the cut marks and burn traces on bird bones from two 90,000-year-old Portuguese cave sites really mean? Could they point to purposeful cooking behavior? To test this, researchers took an uncommon approach—they cooked birds themselves using replica Neanderthal tools.
The resulting evidence doesn’t just challenge old assumptions; it exposes a potentially massive blind spot in the archaeological record—namely, that cooked small-animal remains may be systematically underrepresented due to their fragility.
Cut Marks, Char, and Cognitive Depth
The experiment focused on the Middle Paleolithic sites of Figueira Brava and Oliveira, where bird bones had been excavated with signs of slicing and burning. The origins of those marks were debated. As the study’s lead author, Mariana Nabais, writes: “It can be complicated to determine if such marks result from human activities, natural processes, or even other animals.”
To address this, Nabais and her team conducted a controlled experiment on five bird carcasses—two carrion crows, two collared doves, and one wood pigeon. All had died naturally and were preserved by a Portuguese wildlife center. Using sharp flint flakes, the researchers butchered two birds raw, then roasted and dissected the other three using only tools available to Neanderthals.
The results were clear: raw birds left identifiable tool marks, while cooked birds often disarticulated by hand, leaving fewer traces but more brittle remains. These patterns, especially cut marks around tendons and joints, mirrored those found on prehistoric bones—providing a reliable reference framework for interpreting Neanderthal activity.
Burnt Bones May Be Vanishing From the Record
One of the most consequential findings had little to do with what was seen—and everything to do with what wasn’t. In the experiment, up to 57.1% of one roasted bird’s skeleton was lost due to fragmentation during or after cooking.
The authors report that “burning activities may go undetected in archaeological sites” because roasting makes bones significantly more fragile. Even when char was visible—typically brown or black—internal bone cavities showed signs of heat damage that wouldn’t survive fossilization.
Their analysis suggests that fire-based food preparation may be systematically erased from archaeological visibility. “Cooking renders bones extremely fragile, which may complicate their identification,” the researchers write.
Tools Tell Their Own Story
Another key component was the microscopic analysis of the flint flakes used in butchering. The stone tools showed small, crescent-shaped scars and polished edges consistent with meat cutting and tendon slicing—wear patterns that matched those previously found on Neanderthal artifacts.
The researchers note that “these use-wear traces are tenuous, which is consistent to the working of a light butchery and over a short time.” The evidence reinforces that Neanderthals likely used tools not just for hunting or scraping hides, but also for precise food processing.
Notably, the roasted birds required almost no use of tools. In these cases, manual handling—twisting, pulling, flexing joints—was sufficient for disarticulation, echoing a behavioral adaptation that prioritized effort-saving strategies.
More Than Survival: Strategic Selection
What emerges from this study is a model of Neanderthal behavior that reflects planning and adaptability. For instance, while the larger carrion crows were harder to process and yielded less meat, smaller species like the wood pigeon provided better returns. The researchers observed that “carrion crows were found to have minimal meat… in contrast to collared doves, and wood pigeons in particular.”
The inference is clear: Neanderthals likely selected prey not just based on availability, but on processing efficiency and nutritional value. They also adapted their techniques—opting for roasting to simplify disarticulation, reduce tool use, and expedite meat access.
While the experiment did not involve consumption of the meat—due to health risks—the team noted that some birds, particularly the pigeon, appeared “rather tempting.”
What We’ve Overlooked in Fire and Bone
This pilot study offers more than a glimpse into Neanderthal kitchens. It points to systematic biases in archaeological interpretation. If small roasted bones routinely disintegrate or disappear, entire categories of behavior—including fire use and dietary breadth—may be underestimated.
The implications ripple outward. Much of what we think we know about early human behavior is shaped by what survives. But absence of evidence, especially in fragile organic remains, is not evidence of absence. Controlled fire use, butchery precision, and prey selection all hint at a behavioral sophistication that’s been obscured by gaps in preservation.
As the study suggests, more experimental archaeology is needed—not as reenactment, but as a method for testing archaeological visibility.
Source link
