Neanderthals and humans interbred in Europe for 5,400 years

Our results show that the Neandertals from the Troisième caverne of Goyet were butchered, with the hypothesis of their exploitation as food sources the most parsimonious explanation for the observed bone surface modifications. Goyet provides the first unambiguous evidence of Neandertal cannibalism in Northern Europe and given the dates obtained on the Neandertal remains, it is most likely that they were processed by their fellow Neandertals as no modern humans are known to have been in the region at the time17,23. However, the available data make it impossible to determine whether the modifications observed on the Neandertal skeletal material represent symbolic practices or simply result from the processing of immediately available sources of food. In addition, Goyet is the first site to have yielded multiple Neandertal bone retouchers. It has been proposed that Middle Palaeolithic retoucher blanks were by-products of the processing of carcasses for food consumption40,41, which may have been selected to be re-used51. The data at hand do not allow us to propose a different scenario for the Goyet retouchers made on Neandertal bones. However, the freshness of the blanks used suggests that Neandertals may have been aware that they were using human remains. Whether this was part of a symbolic activity or induced by a functional motivation cannot be attested, as was the case for the La Quina Neandertal retoucher43.

Although the Goyet late Neandertals date to 40.5–45.5 ky calBP, the lack of reliable contextual information makes it impossible to associate them with any of the technocomplexes from the site. However, coeval Mousterian assemblages are known from sites in the Mosan Basin, as at unit 1A of Scladina53, located only 5 km from Goyet, layer CI-8 of Walou Cave54, and layer II of Trou de l’Abîme at Couvin55 (Supplementary Note S2). While the LRJ is known from two sites in Belgium, Spy and Goyet, with its first appearance dated at other sites to around 43–44 ky calBP23,56), no reliable information is currently available for its regional chronology. Given the direct 14C dates obtained for the Goyet Neandertals, it is impossible to securely associate them with either the Mousterian occupation(s) or the LRJ.



In terms of the region’s late Neandertal mortuary practices, four sites within an approximately 250 km radius around Goyet produced Neandertal remains reliably dated to between 50–40 ky calBP (Supplementary Fig. S1). Interestingly, none of these sites produced evidence for the treatment of the corpse similar to that documented for Goyet. Two Belgian sites, Walou Cave and Trou de l’Abîme, produced, respectively, a premolar and a molar55,57. Although impossible to infer the behavioural signature represented by these remains, given their state of preservation it is highly unlikely that they involved funerary practices, including burial. In Germany, the Neandertal individuals from Feldhofer, including Neandertal 1, are possibly associated with the “Keilmesser group”, a late Middle Palaeolithic technocomplex58,59 unknown at Goyet (Supplementary Note S2). Neandertal 1 comprises elements of the cranial and postcranial skeleton of a single individual. Despite cutmarks on the cranium, clavicle and scapula, the long bones are intact and damage to still articulated skeletal elements during their recovery indicates that at least part of the skeleton may have originally been in anatomical connection60,61. Finally, at Spy, direct dates obtained on the two Neandertal adults place them within the current chronology of the LRJ62, although the association between the human remains and this technocomplex is uncertain due to the lack of contextual information. A recent reassessment of the Spy specimens and their context suggests that both individuals were buried63. And, it is worth noting that the most complete individual, Spy II, was originally described as a complete skeleton found in a contracted position. Moreover, the completeness of the skeleton and the absence of post-depositional alterations suggest the body to have been rapidly protected63.

Considerable diversity is evident in the mortuary behaviour of the late Neandertal populations of Northern Europe, possibly involving both primary and secondary deposits, alongside other types of practices, including cannibalism. Despite low genetic diversity amongst late Neandertal populations, the presence of various late Middle Palaeolithic technocomplexes, as well as the LRJ, nevertheless suggests significant behavioural variability amongst these groups in Northern Europe.

Rougier, H. et al. Neandertal cannibalism and Neandertal bones used as tools in Northern Europe. Sci. Rep. 6, 29005; doi: 10.1038/srep29005 (2016).

"As the last surviving species of humans on the planet, it is tempting to assume our modern faces sit at the tip of our evolutionary branch," says Chris Stringer, an anthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London, as he joins me in the gallery.

"And for a long time, that has been what the fossils seemed to indicate," he continues. "Around 500,000 years ago, there was a fairly widespread form of Homo heidelbergensis that has a face somewhat intermediate between that of a modern human and Neanderthals. For a long time, I argued this was our common ancestor with Neanderthals."



Stringer shows me the cast of a real H. heidelbergensis cranium that was found at Broken Hill in Zambia in the 1920s, and which is now kept safely in the museum's fossil collection. It is the same skull that the little boy stood in front of earlier.

By comparison the Neanderthal face was huge, with an enormous nose and the front of the face pulled forward. Around the cheeks the skull curved outwards, rather than being hollowed out. To our eyes, this would have given them a puffy appearance. They also had a far flatter forehead than we do, while above their eyes was a pronounced double arch of the brow-ridge that hung over the rest of their face.
H. heidelbergensis had a slightly flatter face than the Neanderthal and a smaller nose, but no canine fossa. They also had an even more pronounced brow-ridge than that seen in Neanderthals.



For decades, most anthropologists agreed that Neanderthals had retained many of these features from H. heidelbergensis as they evolved and developed a more protruding jaw, while our own species went in a different direction. That was until the 1990s, when a puzzling discovery was unearthed in the Sierra de Atapuerca region of northern Spain.

In a sinkhole in the mountains, fragments of a small, flat-faced skull were unearthed, alongside several other bones. The remains were identified as belonging to a previously unknown species of hominin. It was called Homo antecessor.



At first, this apparent contradiction was hand-waved away. The Atapuerca skull belonged to a child, aged around 10 to 12 years old. It is difficult to predict what this youngster's face would have looked like in adulthood, because as humans age their skulls grow and change shape. "It was assumed that it would fill out and grow into something resembling heidelbergensis," says Stringer.

However, later discoveries suggest this is not the case. "We now have four fragments from antecessor adult and sub-adult skulls," says Stringer. "It looks like they maintain the morphology we see in the child's skull."