WIP of a pair of Neandertal women on morning watch duty, one distracted by an owl flying past and the other too focused on the ground to notice it. Long way to go for this piece, I'll probably render clothes for them eventually once I figure out what those should look like.
Photopea, 2025
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
My dear anon, you've no idea of the massive research spiral this induced. I also found an interesting missing possible-Neandertal near the site. This is going to be very long already so the "discovery" will be a separate post, with the general history and debate under the cut.
Unfortunately, not much research is happening around Bruniquel cave right now. I'm really not sure why that is, but there's been basically no movement since 2016's Jaubert et al.'s paper, which is the one that did uranium-thorium dating and confirmed the age of the site. I was able to find the original discovery announcement, but its all in French.
Here's a Google Drive link that has all the articles.
The jist of the 1995 article is as follows:
In 1987, a local boy starts digging in a cave. He reaches an opening in 1990 and tells his local caving group. The caving club explores it and realizes its something they should report to authorities. The caving club is connected to the magazine where the findings were published. A big name here is F. Rouzaud. Rouzaud was the head of the French cultural department in the area and ran the site. There seem to be earlier documentation on these discoveries (1992-3) by Rouzaud and his team, but they are listed as "local reports"; i.e. these were probably government reports and seem to have never been digitized. The C14 dates taken in 1992 that gave the 47k, took 3 years to process, hence why the paper is from 1995. Why this was not published in an archaeology journal and rather a caving magazine, is beyond me.
After this though, Rouzaud suddenly died and no further research was done until 2013 by Jaubert et al. The reason for this isn't clear. Its simply stated that the cave has restricted access and after Rouzaud's death, nothing was done. Jaubert is cited in the original article and all I can figure is his previous work there was how he gained access to do research in 2013.
Since 2016 though, almost nothing has been studied. There's a couple articles talking about the composition of the cave itself, but all other articles discussing it simply cite the 2016 Jaubert article. One article states, "Experimental studies are ongoing to determine which kind of fire and which material is needed to obtain the observed traces on the structures." However, there's no citation for this and I cant find anything else saying this. This same paper says they went to the cave but their research is just a reiteration of the 2016 paper.
Jaubert et al. is the only team who have done a decent job of recording the site. Whatever Rouzaud and his team did in the 1992-3 reports seems lost. We don't really know what was done to the cave during their time or the 20 year gap in between.
Bruniquel cave is often cited as evidence for symbolism and social cognition being higher than previously expected in Neandertals. Its also interesting because its much deeper than even modern humans tended to go, and shows mastery of sustaining fires in pitch black working conditions. The depth they went to and the ability of carrying fire there are all landmarks for this time period.
Now, cognitively speaking, Bruniquel cave seems to be de facto symbolic to the majority opinion. Its generally ascribed as pseudo-religious, if not outright so. Sykes gets into that whole cognitive concept in the book, but I still caution such interpretations. Certainly, its unprecedented. So much so, that we have no other examples- and that's something that's key.
When we're describing the cognition of hominins, we are generally talking about traits that are inherit to the species across the board or at least within a time period. So if we call this "symbolic behavior in a Neandertal", then we also have to answer why its the only such example. If we see this kind of advanced symbolism at 176kya, why was it never seen again? Other symbolic gestures, like ochre, bird feathers, shells, or even burials, do not adequately take place of something like monument building.
Personal ornaments and burials are a lot less abstract than building a monument. They occupy a different social context. Bruniquel cave represents a significant group undertaking, which Neandertals were no doubt able to do, but rarely ever inclined to. Social ability does not equate to social necessity; like it often does in Homo sapiens.
So, what's my take on Bruniquel cave? I think it shows Neandertals were still more cognitively flexible than we give credit for- but, not to the point where I'd say this was a "cognitive revolution". I think this represents a very specific group, place, time, and situation for these Neandertals, and not an overall shift in behavior since it is not seen again at any point. Even more notably, this behavior was not seen even when interactions with Homo sapiens became common and this kind of social context would've had more of a place.
This approach deepens the mystery without brazenly ascribing new cognitive attributes that cant be said to be widespread at all. Rather, the flexibility to do something this unique shows Neandertals had a lot of "untapped potential", but not a reason to use it.
The social life and the social cognition of a Neandertal is not the same as us. Homo sapiens' core feature is dealing with large social groups. The largest social groups are religion, and religion serves a significant purpose in uniting people.
But Neandertals didn't need this. They lived in small, sometimes nuclear families, generally consisting of only a few adults and a lot of children. While long distance trading did exist, it was never to the scale later Homo sapiens got up to. So to a Neandertal, there's no purpose in expending the energy required to do much monument building, even if they did have a concept of the supernatural.
Whatever was going on at Bruniquel cave 176k years ago, was a unique event. Maybe the it was a rare time when a big group got together and chose to do something special. Maybe there was one dude who just really wanted to do it and roped his group in. There's no research on how long they occupied the site, which would be a huge help in figuring how just how significant this site was to them at the time.
Verdict: needs more research. This is actually a shockingly understudied site and I'd kill to get some GPR in there and see if there's anything under the floor of the cave (a paper suggested this but didn't say why they thought that).
The next post is gonna be about the state of research in this area in the mid 1800s with a possible Neandertal skeleton on the loose that was described by the famous Richard Owens.
Did you know that neanderthals got their Y chromosome from early modern humans?! Neither did scientists, until now!
Early modern humans and neanderthals competed with each other for food and territory, but sometimes also got really cosy. They already exchanged genes more than 100 000 years ago. Scientists have now discovered that this interbreeding led to the original Y chromosome of neanderthals being replaced by that of early modern humans.
So the Y chromosome of early modern humans just completely wiped out its neanderthal counterpart! How is that even possible? Probably the sapiens-Y-chromosome gave a selective advantage and replaced all neanderthal-Y-chromosomes over time. For this study in Science, DNA from a tooth of one of "our" Spy neanderthals was analyzed!
One scientist has measured the chemical makeup of decaying meat. She’s comparing it against what’s in fossil bones to figure out what Neandertals ate.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Kimberly Foecke has a great relationship with her local butcher. She buys lots of organic meat — then lets it rot. Go really bad. What’s she’s learning may help her better understand what Neandertals ate.
Foecke undertakes experimental putrefaction (Pyoo-truh-FACK-shun). That, she explains, is “a fancy way of saying, I rot meat — all day, every day.” Foecke is a paleobiologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
Neandertals (Nee-AN-dur-tals) are an extinct species of hominid that was closely related to humans. They lived in Europe and parts of Asia from about 200,000 years ago until about 28,000 years ago. Scientists have a lot of questions about how they lived, including what they ate.
Researchers know Neandertals ate a lot of meat because much of the nitrogen in the hominids’ fossil bones tends to be a heavy form known as nitrogen-15, or 15N. 15N is least abundant in plants. Animals tend to have far more because their enzymes (or those of the food-digesting microbes in their guts) have a preference for breaking down molecules that have nitrogen-14 (or 14N). So when an animal eats plants with 15N, the chemical tends to accumulate in them. When that animal becomes the prey of another, the predator takes in even more 15N. In this way, 15N becomes more concentrated as nitrogen moves up the food chain.
The more meat an animal — including some hominid — eats, the higher the share of 15N their bones will tend to have.
But exactly how much meat Neandertals ate is somewhat controversial. So is the question of what else they dined on. Evidence such as tooth scrapings suggests Neandertals ate a variety of plants. But the high ratio of 15N to 14N in their bones points to their having eaten “an unreasonably huge amount of meat,” says Foecke. Their levels can exceed what’s seen in top carnivores, such as hyenas. Those critters eat little other than meat.
Foecke thinks the high 15N levels in their bones may be explained not just by how much meat Neandertals ate, but also how fresh it had been. Whether meat was eaten fresh or rotten, raw or cooked, might influence the ratio of 15N to 14N that ends up in bones. That’s why she’s measuring nitrogen in beef. She’s trying to pin down the chemical changes meat undergoes as it rots.
Grocery store steaks wouldn’t cut it for this experiment. Instead, Foecke calls her butcher in Maryland. The butcher makes sure that the steaks she receives are fresh and from animals raised on an organic diet. By that she means those animals must not have had added hormones or antibiotics. She wants those animals to be as close as possible to what Neandertals would have hunted 200,000 years ago.
Foecke places the meat in a mesh-covered box in her family’s backyard, or sometimes in a greenhouse. Then she leaves them to rot for 16 days. She samples nitrogen values in the meat daily. (In future, she plans to sample for even longer periods.)
Her early results suggest that 15N ratios vary as meat rots. In the first week, the share of nitrogen that’s 15N tends to increase. The meat is moist, she notes. So the microbes in it are busy breaking down the lighter 14N faster than the 15N. This meat smells “pretty terrible,” Foecke admits. Over time, however, the stench diminishes. At the same time, the meat blackens and becomes more jerkylike.
She reported her findings December 14 at the American Geophysical Union meeting, here, in Washington, D.C.
This research suggests that eating rotting meat could at least partly explain the high 15N levels in Neandertal fossils. And that makes sense, Foecke says. Neandertals weren’t always feasting on fresh grub. Especially after they killed a large animal, its carcass might last many days. Foecke also is measuring what happens chemically as she cooks or smokes meat. These are food-prep steps that Neandertals might have taken that also might affect 15N.
The new analysis, enabled by a remarkably well-preserved genome taken from a 52,000 year old bone fragment, is now the second Neanderthal genome to be fully sequenced in high fidelity. The resulting study, now published in Science, confirms a bunch of things we already knew about Neanderthals, while also revealing some things we didn’t know.
A international team of researchers has completed one of the most detailed analyses of a Neanderthal genome to date. Among the many new findings, the researchers learned that Neanderthals first mated with modern humans a surprisingly long time ago, and that humans living today have more Neanderthal DNA than we assumed.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
It’s the oldest dental plaque ever to be genetically analyzed. Yes, people do get excited about such things. And with good reason. Dental plaque harvested from five Neandertal specimens, found at cave sites in Belgium and Spain, are now yielding some fascinating clues into the diets of our closely-related hominids.
Writing in the journal Nature, scientists report:
At Spy cave, Belgium, Neanderthal diet was heavily meat based and included woolly rhinoceros and wild sheep (mouflon), characteristic of a steppe environment. In contrast, no meat was detected in the diet of Neanderthals from El Sidrón cave, Spain, and dietary components of mushrooms, pine nuts, and moss reflected forest gathering.
The specimens also yielded something else interesting: Neandertals may have used herbal remedies to feel better.
Scientists report one sample, from a Neandertal suffering from a jaw abscess, contained poplar. That’s a tree containing salicylic acid, a natural ingredient which paved the way for modern day Aspirin.
“Apparently, Neandertals possessed a good knowledge of medicinal plants and their various anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving properties,” said study co-author Alan Cooper in a news release. “Certainly our findings contrast markedly with the rather simplistic view of our ancient relatives in popular imagination.”
(Image Credit: Image credit: Paleoanthropology Group MNCN-CSIC)