New research from a Belgian cave is reshaping how I understand Neanderthal violence, revealing that some groups did not just kill their rivals but butchered and ate them. The bones, cut and cracked with chilling precision, suggest cannibalism tied to conflict rather than simple hunger, and they point to women and children as primary victims.
Instead of a single grisly episode, the evidence from Goyet Cave hints at a pattern of targeted attacks between distinct Neanderthal communities, preserved in stone-cold detail for roughly 45,000 years. The result is a rare, deeply unsettling glimpse into how our close evolutionary cousins treated enemies, outsiders and perhaps even their own dead.
Goyet Cave and the return of a long‑buried mystery
I start with the place itself, because Goyet Cave is more than a backdrop, it is the archive that makes this story possible. Tucked into the limestone of present‑day Belgium, the cave has yielded Neanderthal bones for more than a century, but only recent reanalysis has revealed how many of those remains were deliberately broken, scraped and processed in ways that match butchery rather than natural decay. The new work focuses on a cluster of female and juvenile skeletons, whose bones show repeated patterns of cut marks, percussion damage and marrow extraction that are hard to reconcile with any funerary ritual.
Researchers working with this assemblage have argued that the victims were not part of the same local group that used the cave as a shelter, but instead belonged to an “outgroup” that was captured or ambushed and then consumed. Genetic and morphological clues, combined with the spatial distribution of the bones, support the idea that these individuals were outsiders who ended up in Goyet only after death, their bodies processed in the same way as hunted animals, as described in detail in analyses of the Goyet Neanderthal remains.
Evidence of cannibalism written into the bones
What convinces me that this is cannibalism, and not some ambiguous mortuary practice, is the sheer consistency of the damage across the skeletons. Long bones are fractured in the same way hunters break animal limbs to reach the fatty interior, skulls are opened along predictable lines, and there are fine cut marks where muscles and tendons would have been sliced away. These are not random breaks from cave collapse or scavenging carnivores, but a toolkit of techniques that Neanderthals applied to human bodies with the same efficiency they used on reindeer or horse carcasses.
Microscopic study of the bone surfaces shows repeated slicing and percussion at joint articulations, along with peeling and flaking that occur when fresh, fleshy limbs are twisted and snapped. In several cases, the pattern of marks on the children’s bones mirrors that on adult females, suggesting a standardized sequence of dismemberment and marrow extraction. That pattern, described in work on how cannibals targeted Neanderthal women and children, makes it difficult to argue that the damage came from anything other than deliberate processing for consumption.
Women and children as primary victims
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Goyet assemblage is who suffered this fate. Instead of a cross‑section of a community, the bones skew heavily toward adult females and juveniles, with very few adult males represented among the cannibalized remains. That demographic profile suggests selective targeting, which in turn hints at the social dynamics behind the violence. If this were simply a starving group turning on its own, I would expect a broader mix of ages and sexes; instead, the pattern looks more like the aftermath of a raid in which women and children were captured or killed.
Researchers have emphasized that this skew is not a statistical fluke but a robust signal across the sample, with multiple independent lines of analysis pointing to female and juvenile victims. The emerging picture, summarized in reporting on how Neanderthal women and children were victims of cannibalism, suggests that these individuals may have been easier to overpower during intergroup clashes, or perhaps were deliberately targeted to weaken rival bands. Whatever the motive, the demographic bias adds a chilling layer of intent to the already stark evidence of butchery.
Cannibalism as an act of conflict, not simple survival
Interpreting why Neanderthals ate other Neanderthals is harder than documenting that they did, but the Goyet evidence points away from a simple starvation narrative. The cave contains abundant remains of hunted animals, including species that would have provided ample calories and fat, which undercuts the idea that the group resorted to cannibalism only in a desperate bid to survive. Instead, the combination of outsider victims, selective targeting of women and children, and standardized butchery techniques suggests a practice embedded in conflict between distinct communities.
Some researchers have framed this as a form of “warfare” at a small scale, where killing and consuming enemies served both practical and symbolic purposes. The idea is that by treating rival groups as prey, Neanderthals may have reinforced territorial boundaries or social cohesion within their own band. That interpretation is echoed in analyses that describe a grim discovery in a Belgian cave as possibly linked to acts of war, and in discussions of how these events fit into a broader pattern of intergroup hostility rather than isolated episodes of famine cannibalism.
How Goyet fits into the wider Neanderthal record
Goyet is not the only site where Neanderthal bones bear the unmistakable signatures of cannibalism, but it is one of the clearest cases where conflict appears to be at the core. Other caves in Europe have yielded skeletons with similar cut marks and broken long bones, yet those assemblages often mix males, females and different age groups in ways that leave room for alternative explanations, including ritual defleshing of community members. By contrast, the outsider status of the Goyet victims and the demographic skew toward women and children make it harder to see this as an internal funerary practice.
Comparative work has shown that Neanderthals were capable of a wide range of behaviors toward their dead, from careful burials to what looks like pragmatic recycling of bodies for food. Reports on Neanderthal bones with signs of cannibalism highlight that this was not a one‑off aberration but part of a broader behavioral repertoire. Goyet stands out within that repertoire because the context points so strongly to intergroup violence, suggesting that cannibalism could be both a survival strategy in some settings and a weapon of social domination in others.
Reconstructing the scene: tools, techniques and taphonomy
To understand what happened in Goyet, I find it useful to picture the practical steps involved, as inferred from the bones. Stone tools were used to slice through skin and muscle at the joints, leaving fine, V‑shaped cut marks that cluster around elbows, knees and shoulders. Long bones were then struck with hammerstones or other hard objects, producing spiral fractures and impact notches that match experimental butchery on fresh limbs. In some cases, skull fragments show percussion pits and radiating cracks consistent with efforts to access brain tissue.
Taphonomic analysis, which tracks how bones change from the moment of death to their discovery, helps rule out alternative explanations like carnivore gnawing or rockfall damage. The absence of tooth marks from large predators, the lack of weathering on fracture surfaces and the tight clustering of human and animal butchery waste all point to a single, human‑driven process. Detailed reconstructions of these sequences, such as those discussed in coverage of Neanderthal cannibals, show that the same toolkit and gestures used to process hunted game were turned on members of another Neanderthal group.
Genetics, outsiders and the question of identity
One of the most striking claims to emerge from the Goyet research is that the cannibalized individuals were not closely related to the Neanderthals who used the cave as a base. Genetic data and anatomical differences suggest that the victims came from a distinct population, which reinforces the idea that they were enemies or outsiders rather than community members who died of natural causes. That distinction matters, because it implies that Neanderthals drew clear lines between “us” and “them,” and that those lines could be enforced with lethal violence.
Analyses of mitochondrial DNA and comparative morphology, referenced in reporting on how these Neanderthals may have eaten their enemies, indicate that the Goyet victims belonged to a lineage that was rare or absent in the local group. If accurate, that finding supports a scenario in which one band captured or killed members of another and then transported at least parts of their bodies back to the cave. In that light, cannibalism becomes not just a response to hunger but a brutal expression of group identity, where consuming outsiders may have been a way to erase or dominate them.
From excavation to public debate
The story of Goyet is also a story about how science moves from fieldwork to public consciousness. The bones themselves were excavated long ago, but only with modern imaging, microscopic analysis and genetic sequencing have researchers been able to piece together the full narrative of conflict and cannibalism. As those findings have filtered out of specialist journals, they have sparked a wider debate about what kind of creatures Neanderthals really were, and how much of their behavior we might recognize in ourselves.
Museum teams and science communicators have played a key role in that process, translating technical descriptions of cut marks and fracture patterns into accessible accounts of how Belgium’s Goyet caves reveal Neanderthal cannibalism. Social media posts and short explainers have amplified the findings, including a widely shared note on a study in Scientific Reports describing cannibalised female and juvenile Neanderthals. That public conversation, in turn, feeds back into how researchers frame their work, encouraging them to address not just what happened in the cave, but what it means for our understanding of human evolution.
Rethinking Neanderthal behavior and our own past
For years, I have watched the image of Neanderthals swing between caricatures of brutish savages and sympathetic portraits of gentle cousins who buried their dead and cared for the injured. The Goyet evidence complicates both extremes. It shows a group capable of intimate violence, directed especially at vulnerable outsiders, yet it also reveals planning, cooperation and technical skill. Cannibalism in this context is not a sign of mindless brutality, but of a social world where group loyalty and hostility to rivals could coexist with tenderness inside the band.
That complexity is part of why the Goyet findings resonate so strongly with broader discussions of human nature. When I read detailed reconstructions of how Neanderthals cannibalized outsider women and children, or watch visual explainers such as a video walkthrough of the cannibalism evidence, I am struck less by how alien these behaviors seem and more by how familiar the underlying dynamics are. Territorial conflict, the targeting of civilians, the use of violence to mark who belongs and who does not, all of these are threads that run through our own species’ history as well. Goyet does not reduce Neanderthals to monsters, but it does force me to acknowledge that the capacity for organized cruelty is very old, and not uniquely ours.
More from MorningOverview