A 110,000-year-old archaeological site in Israel and a newly published stratigraphic sequence from a cave in the northern Levant are forcing researchers to reconsider how long Neanderthals and early modern humans maintained overlapping cultural practices. Rather than a clean break between species, the evidence points to shared tool-making methods, pigment use, and symbolic traditions that persisted across tens of thousands of years, well beyond what previous models predicted.
Üçağızlı II and Tinshemet: two caves, one argument
The strongest case for extended cultural overlap comes from Üçağızlı II Cave in the northern Levant, where a peer-reviewed study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences documents long-term continuity in stone-tool technology and hunting strategies across the Neanderthal-to-modern-human sequence. The excavated layers show that core reduction methods, blade production, and the targeting of medium-sized ungulates remained remarkably consistent even as the biological occupants changed from Neanderthals to Homo sapiens. The researchers describe this not as coincidence but as evidence that traditions passed between groups rather than being reinvented independently each time a new population appeared.
In this reading, Üçağızlı II becomes less a simple succession of unrelated cultures and more a shared learning environment. Neanderthals and early modern humans may have used similar knapping recipes, maintained comparable site organization, and even followed parallel seasonal mobility patterns. Such continuity is difficult to reconcile with models that treat Neanderthals as rapidly displaced or culturally isolated once Homo sapiens entered the region. Instead, the cave’s stratigraphy suggests a prolonged period of contact in which ideas, if not always genes, flowed in both directions.
Separately, findings from Tinshemet Cave in Israel, reported by The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, describe a site where Neanderthals and Homo sapiens interacted closely around 110,000 years ago. According to the institutional summary, the assemblage includes overlapping stone-tool traditions, evidence of shared burial customs, and the use of red ochre within the same occupational context. These behaviors imply not just occasional encounters but sustained cooperation or at least regular co-residence.
The Tinshemet team argues that such early interspecies cooperation pushes the timeline for direct contact far deeper than most specialists had accepted. If Neanderthals and modern humans were already exchanging practices in the eastern Mediterranean at 110,000 years ago, then later episodes of cultural convergence-such as those inferred at Üçağızlı II-may represent a continuation of an established pattern rather than a late, brief experiment. Together, the two sites bracket a period of interaction that stretches from the Middle Pleistocene into the Late Pleistocene, covering a geographic arc from the coastal Levant to interior uplands.
Iberian shells, pigments, and eagle talons as parallel evidence
The Levantine record does not stand alone. In Iberia, Neanderthals left behind perforated marine shells stained with mineral pigments, artifacts widely interpreted as non-utilitarian and symbolic. A detailed analysis of these objects, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and accessible via an open-access report, shows that the shells were carefully selected, deliberately perforated, and coated with colorants such as red and yellow ochres. Their contexts and wear patterns argue against simple food waste or accidental accumulation.
The Iberian shells therefore offer a crucial baseline: Neanderthals were capable of symbolic behavior independent of any influence from modern humans. This matters for interpreting the Levantine record. If Neanderthals already possessed an aesthetic or ritual toolkit-ornaments, pigments, curated objects-then the shared practices seen at Tinshemet and Üçağızlı II may represent a meeting of two symbolically competent populations rather than a one-sided transfer from “advanced” Homo sapiens to “imitative” Neanderthals.
At Cova Foradada in Calafell, Spain, the picture becomes even more striking. There, Châtelperronian Neanderthals exploited imperial eagles, not for meat but for claws. Researchers recovered phalanges with cut marks and modifications interpreted as preparation for suspension or display. The study, available through a comprehensive site report, situates these talons within a broader pattern: eagle claws appear repeatedly at Neanderthal sites across Europe, suggesting a long-lived practice of using raptors as symbolic resources.
Such finds complicate any attempt to draw a sharp cognitive line between Neanderthals and modern humans. The repeated selection of rare birds of prey, the standardization of modification techniques, and the apparent preference for visually striking body parts all point to shared social understandings about prestige, identity, or ritual display. When these Iberian data are set alongside the Levantine evidence, they reinforce a view of Neanderthals as active participants in the symbolic sphere, capable of both independent innovation and cultural exchange.
Uranium-thorium dating of carbonate crusts over cave-art motifs at Spanish sites adds another dimension. Research hosted by the University of Southampton used these dates to argue that certain painted motifs-simple red signs and hand stencils-pre-date the arrival of modern humans in Iberia, implying Neanderthal authorship. While full measurement tables and uncertainty ranges have not been widely released, the available summary suggests that at least some cave art belongs firmly within Neanderthal occupation windows. If those dates are upheld, then Neanderthals were not only decorating their bodies and manipulating animal parts but also marking subterranean spaces with enduring visual symbols.
Climate stability and the limits of current data
One question the existing evidence raises but does not yet answer is whether periods of climatic stability encouraged cultural exchange between species. In principle, stable environments could create predictable resource landscapes, allowing Neanderthal and modern human groups to occupy the same territories for longer and to interact more regularly. Under such conditions, shared tool-making recipes, pigment use, and symbolic practices might flourish.
Testing this idea would require aligning high-resolution speleothem records from the same caves with the archaeological layers that show cultural convergence. Stalagmites and flowstones in sites like Üçağızlı II and Tinshemet preserve oxygen-isotope and trace-element signatures that can be translated into local temperature and rainfall histories. If peaks in cross-species artifact similarity coincide with intervals of climatic stability or moderate conditions, the case for environment-mediated interaction would strengthen. For now, however, no published study has systematically matched paleoclimate records to the cultural sequences at these key sites.
Several other gaps constrain how far current arguments can go. The Tinshemet Cave results, for example, are known primarily from an institutional summary tied to a Nature Human Behaviour paper. Detailed stratigraphic logs, taphonomic assessments, and osteological or genetic data confirming species identity at each layer have not yet been released to the broader community. Without that level of documentation, it remains difficult to assess how finely the team can distinguish Neanderthal and modern human remains within mixed contexts.
At Üçağızlı II, the situation is similar in some respects. While lithic analysis and faunal studies are robust, primary genetic or skeletal evidence pinpointing exactly where in the sequence Neanderthals gave way to modern humans has not been fully published. If later work shows that the apparent transition layers actually represent a temporal gap-centuries or millennia without occupation-the case for continuous, face-to-face transmission of traditions would weaken, leaving open the possibility of cultural convergence through indirect contact or parallel adaptation.
The Iberian cave-art chronology also remains under debate. The uranium-thorium dates that push some motifs into the Neanderthal timeframe rely on complex corrections for detrital contamination and assumptions about initial uranium concentrations. Without comprehensive datasets, including replicate measurements and independent cross-checks, skeptics can reasonably question whether all the early dates are secure. Given how central Neanderthal authorship of cave art has become to broader narratives about cognition, resolving these technical issues is essential.
What the shared-traditions argument changes
Even with these uncertainties, the emerging picture of shared traditions between Neanderthals and modern humans carries significant implications. First, it challenges the notion of a simple replacement in which a behaviorally “modern” species sweeps aside a cognitively inferior one. If Neanderthals were already using pigments, ornaments, and possibly cave art before extensive contact, then modern humans entering Eurasia encountered peers who were culturally sophisticated in their own right.
Second, the evidence of long-term continuity at Üçağızlı II and cooperative behavior at Tinshemet suggests that interaction was not limited to brief episodes of conflict or opportunistic mating. Instead, it points to extended periods of coexistence during which knowledge, techniques, and perhaps myths circulated across species boundaries. In such a world, cultural evolution looks less like a ladder and more like a braided stream, with ideas moving laterally between closely related human groups.
Third, recognizing Neanderthals as contributors rather than mere recipients reshapes how archaeologists interpret later Upper Paleolithic innovations. Some technologies and symbolic practices traditionally attributed to a creative “revolution” among modern humans may instead reflect blended ancestries-traditions rooted partly in Neanderthal experimentation, refined and redistributed through mixed communities. This does not erase real differences between populations, but it makes those differences subtler, more contingent, and more historically entangled.
Finally, the shared-traditions argument reframes what it means to be human. If symbolic behavior, cooperative burial, and artistic marking of space were not exclusive to Homo sapiens, then the boundary between “us” and “them” in deep time becomes less rigid. The archaeological record begins to look like a conversation among multiple human lineages, all grappling with mortality, identity, and memory. Filling the remaining gaps in dating, stratigraphy, and species identification will determine how far that conversation extended-but the days of viewing Neanderthals as silent spectators are, on current evidence, coming to an end.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
