New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

New Evidence Suggests That Neandertals Buried Their Dead

In their treatment of the dead, Neandertals were a lot like us

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Around 60,000 years ago, in a small limestone cave in what is now central France, Neandertals dug a grave and laid an elderly member of their clan to rest. That is the picture emerging from the archaeological site that yielded the famous La Chapelle-aux-Saints Neandertal skeleton in 1908, and it has important implications for understanding the behavior and cognitive capacity of our closest evolutionary relatives.

Some archaeologists have long argued that a number of Neandertal sites preserve evidence of burials, a practice considered to be a key feature of modern human behavior. But critics have countered that the sites were excavated long ago using outmoded techniques that obscure the facts.

In recent years researchers have found compelling evidence that Neandertals had other modern practices, such as decorating their bodies and making sophisticated tools. They did such things before anatomically modern humans invaded their turf, suggesting that Neandertals developed cultural traditions independently, rather than learning them from savvy newcomers.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A reexcavation of the French cave has recovered more Neandertal bones and teeth, as well as stone tools and animal remains. William Rendu of New York University and his colleagues found a number of features indicating that the pit containing the Neandertal skeleton was at least partially modified for the purposes of burial, as opposed to being an entirely natural depression. They also observed that whereas the animal remains appear to have been gnawed on by carnivores, the Neandertal bones exhibit no such damage, suggesting that the corpse was covered rapidly, as would occur if it were intentionally buried. Rendu and his colleagues reported their findings in January in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

Ironically, the original La Chapelle-aux-Saints discovery in the early 20th century gave rise to the Neandertals' unfortunate reputation as dumb brutes. Shortly after the find, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule reconstructed the skeleton to show a stooped, slouching individual with bent knees, a short neck and a low, sloping skull. Thus, the image of the oafish caveman was born. Scientists later determined that the skeleton was in fact that of an aged male who suffered from severe arthritis.

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and was formerly senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong
Scientific American Magazine Vol 310 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Ancient Burial” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 310 No. 3 (), p. 19
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0314-19a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe