Rosa Rubicondior: Refuting Creationism - Neanderthals And Modern Humans Lived Together

Archaeological examination of the Tinshemet Cave floor.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Neanderthal and Homo sapiens Interactions in the Mid-Middle Palaeolithic (130,000–80,000 years ago) | EUROPEAN FRIENDS OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY

Neanderthals are a persistent thorn in the side of creationism because they show that human origins are far older, messier and more interesting than the simplistic creation myths in the Bible. Genetic evidence shows that people outside Africa still carry a small but significant inheritance from Neanderthals, demonstrating that human ancestry was shaped not by descent from a single primordial couple, but by repeated episodes of migration, divergence and interbreeding between distinct human populations. There is even evidence that early Homo sapiens were interbreeding with Neanderthals as long as 100,000 years ago.

Now, new research by archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University, excavating at Tinshemet Cave in central Israel, suggests that the relationship between Neanderthals and early modern humans in the Levant, between about 130,000 and 80,000 years ago, involved far more than occasional contact. Their evidence indicates sustained interaction, shared technologies, similar hunting strategies and parallel ritual behaviour, including formal burial practices. The team have just published their findings in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. What emerges is a picture of different human groups living in close contact, exchanging ideas and behaviours to such an extent that their cultural differences became increasingly blurred.

The researchers reached this conclusion by integrating evidence from four main areas: stone-tool production, hunting strategies, symbolic behaviour and social complexity. Particularly striking is the clustering of burials at Tinshemet Cave, which suggests that the cave may have served as a repeated burial site, perhaps even an early cemetery. The placement of objects such as stone tools, animal bones and pieces of ochre in graves points to shared ritual practices and symbolic behaviour, hinting at a level of social and cultural complexity that creationist caricatures of early humans simply cannot accommodate.

Background^ Tinshemet Cave and the problem it poses for creationism. Tinshemet Cave, also known as Mugharet Al Watwat, lies near Shoham in central Israel on the east bank of Nahal Beit Arif. It is a Middle Palaeolithic site with the main archaeological deposits concentrated on the terrace at the entrance and in the first chamber, where excavators have found rich accumulations of stone tools, animal bones, traces of fire, ochre and human remains. The site was first noted in the 1940s, but the current excavation project began in 2016 under the direction of Yossi Zaidner of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [1]

What makes Tinshemet Cave important is not simply that humans lived there, but when they lived there. The site belongs to the Levantine mid-Middle Palaeolithic, roughly 130,000–80,000 years ago, with the main finds at Tinshemet itself dating to about 100,000 years ago. That places it tens of thousands of years before the dates demanded by young-Earth creationism, and in a period when the Levant was occupied by human populations showing a mixture of anatomical traits that do not fit the childish idea of a single, specially created human kind appearing all at once. [2]

The cave has yielded articulated human remains associated with ochre, stone tools and animal bones. The stone industry is Levallois-based, typical of the Middle Palaeolithic, and the faunal evidence shows a strong reliance on large-game hunting. Particularly striking is the evidence for deliberate burial, with bodies placed in graves and accompanied in some cases by ochre and other materials. This does not prove a fully developed theology or a neatly defined belief in an afterlife, but it does show symbolic and ritual behaviour of a kind that creationists have often tried to reserve for supposedly unique, fully modern humans. [2]

The significance of Tinshemet Cave becomes even clearer when it is compared with other Levantine sites such as Skhul, Qafzeh, Tabun and Nesher Ramla. The authors argue that across this region there was a broad behavioural uniformity: similar stone-tool technology, similar hunting strategies, and similar socially elaborated practices such as burial and ochre use. In other words, even where fossil remains suggest anatomically different human groups, the archaeological evidence suggests close interaction, cultural exchange and probably admixture between them. [2]

This is exactly the sort of evidence that creationism cannot comfortably absorb. Instead of a recent creation of a single human pair, followed by a simple and separate history for “true humans”, we find deep time, overlapping human populations, shared technologies, symbolic practices and blurred boundaries between groups. Tinshemet Cave adds to the growing body of evidence that human evolution was not a tidy ladder leading in a straight line to ourselves, but a branching, entangled history of related populations meeting, mixing and influencing one another over immense spans of time. [2]

The work of the team is explained in a news item from the European Friends of The Hebrew University:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Neanderthal and Homo sapiens Interactions in the Mid-Middle Palaeolithic (130,000–80,000 years ago)
The first-ever published research on Tinshemet Cave reveals that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens in the mid-Middle Paleolithic Levant not only coexisted but actively interacted, sharing technology, lifestyles, and burial customs. These interactions fostered cultural exchange, social complexity, and behavioral innovations, such as formal burial practices and the symbolic use of ochre for decoration. The findings suggest that human connections, rather than isolation, were key drivers of technological and cultural advancements, highlighting the Levant as a crucial crossroads in early human history.
A new discovery at Tinshemet Cave in central Israel is reshaping our understanding of human interactions during the Middle Palaeolithic (MP) period in the Near East. The cave, remarkable for its wealth of archaeological and anthropological findings, has revealed several human burials—the first mid-MP burials unearthed in over fifty years.

This research, published in Nature Human Behaviour, marks the first publication on Tinshemet Cave and presents compelling evidence that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens in the region not only coexisted but also shared aspects of daily life, technology, and burial customs. These findings underscore the complexity of their interactions and hint at a more intertwined relationship than previously assumed.

The excavation of Tinshemet Cave, led by Prof. Yossi Zaidner of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Prof. Israel Hershkovitz of Tel Aviv University, and Dr. Marion Prévost of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has been ongoing since 2017. A primary goal of the research team is to determine the nature of Homo sapiens–Neanderthal relationships in the mid-Middle Palaeolithic Levant. Were they rivals competing for resources, peaceful neighbours, or even collaborators?

By integrating data from four key fields—stone tool production, hunting strategies, symbolic behaviour, and social complexity—the study argues that different human groups, including Neanderthals, pre-Neanderthals, and Homo sapiens, engaged in meaningful interactions. These exchanges facilitated knowledge transmission and led to the gradual cultural homogenization of populations. The research suggests that these interactions spurred social complexity and behavioural innovations. For instance, formal burial customs began to appear around 110,000 years ago in Israel for the first time worldwide, likely as a result of intensified social interactions. A striking discovery at Tinshemet Cave is the extensive use of mineral pigments, particularly ochre, which may have been used for body decoration. This practice could have served to define social identities and distinctions among groups.

The clustering of human burials at Tinshemet Cave raises intriguing questions about its role in MP society. Could the site have functioned as a dedicated burial ground or even a cemetery? If so, this would suggest the presence of shared rituals and strong communal bonds. The placement of significant artifacts—such as stone tools, animal bones, and ochre chunks—within the burial pits may further indicate early beliefs in the afterlife.
Prof. Zaidner describes Israel as a "melting pot" where different human groups met, interacted, and evolved together.

Our data show that human connections and population interactions have been fundamental in driving cultural and technological innovations throughout history.

Professor Yossi Zaidner, lead author.
Institute of Archaeology
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel.

Dr. Prévost highlights the unique geographic position of the region at the crossroads of human dispersals.

During the mid-MP, climatic improvements increased the region’s carrying capacity, leading to demographic expansion and intensified contact between different Homo taxa.

Dr Marion Prévost, co-author
Institute of Archaeology
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel.

Prof. Hershkovitz adds that the interconnectedness of lifestyles among various human groups in the Levant suggests deep relationships and shared adaptation strategies.

These findings paint a picture of dynamic interactions shaped by both cooperation and competition.

Israel Hershkovitz, co-author.
Department of Anatomy and Anthropology
Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences
Tel Aviv University
Tel Aviv, Israel.

The discoveries at Tinshemet Cave offer a fascinating glimpse into the social structures, symbolic behaviours, and daily lives of early human groups. They reveal a period of profound demographic and cultural transformations, shedding new light on the complex web of interactions that shaped our ancestors’ world. As excavations continue, Tinshemet Cave promises to provide even deeper insights into the origins of human society.

Publication:
Zaidner, Y., Prévost, M., Shahack-Gross, R. et al.
Evidence from Tinshemet Cave in Israel suggests behavioural uniformity across Homo groups in the Levantine mid-Middle Palaeolithic circa 130,000–80,000 years ago.
Nat Hum Behav 9, 886–901 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02110-y

Abstract
The south Levantine mid-Middle Palaeolithic (mid-MP; ~130–80 thousand years ago (ka)) is remarkable for its exceptional evidence of human morphological variability, with contemporaneous fossils of Homo sapiens and Neanderthal-like hominins. Yet, it remains unclear whether these hominins adhered to discrete behavioural sets or whether regional-scale intergroup interactions could have homogenized mid-MP behaviour. Here we report on our discoveries at Tinshemet Cave, Israel. The site yielded articulated Homo remains in association with rich assemblages of ochre, fauna and stone tools dated to ~100 ka. Viewed from the perspective of other key regional sites of this period, our findings indicate consolidation of a uniform behavioural set in the Levantine mid-MP, consisting of similar lithic technology, an increased reliance on large-game hunting and a range of socially elaborated behaviours, comprising intentional human burial and the use of ochre in burial contexts. We suggest that the development of this behavioural uniformity is due to intensified inter-population interactions and admixture between Homo groups ~130–80 ka.

Fig. 1: Tinshemet Cave, geographical location, cave plan and stratigraphy.

a, Location of Tinshemet Cave and other major mid-MP sites in the Levant. b, Plan of the Terrace and the First Chamber of the cave. c, Stratigraphic sections of the outer part of the First Chamber and the Terrace, and field image of the Terrace sediments. The red circles denote articulated human remains. The orange stars connected by a dashed line denote the locations of volcanic shards with similarly evolved rhyolitic signatures that suggest a chronological correlation between Unit A on the Terrace and Layer III in the outer part of the Inner Chamber.

Fig. 2: Tinshemet Cave: major characteristics.

Archaeological and environmental characteristics (stratigraphy, dating, microfauna, lithics, ochre and fauna) of the Terrace and the First Chamber. Ages are given in ka. When mean ages are presented, they are marked with an asterisk. FC, First Chamber; TR, Terrace; Ar, Arvicanthis; Ma, Mastomys. Smaller icons for lithics and ochre indicate smaller ratios. Smaller animal icons indicate their lower frequencies in the assemblages. Credit: Silhouettes from PhyloPic under a Creative Commons license CC0 1.0: porcupine, T. Michael Keesey; hyena, Margot Michaud; horse, Lisa Nicvert; deer, Feeran Sayol; aurochs, Mariana Ruiz Vilarreal. Skull icon by purzen adapted from OpenClipArt under a Creative Commons license CC0 1.0.

Fig. 3: Lithic artefacts from Tinshemet Cave.

a, Recurrent centripetal Levallois core. b, Centripetal Levallois core. c, Preferential Levallois core with centripetal preparation. d, Preferential Levallois core. e, Débordant flake. f, Débordant and outrepassé flake. g, Éclat débordant à dos limité (pseudo-Levallois flake). h, Éclat débordant à dos limité (pseudo-Levallois flake). i, Éclat débordant à dos limité (pseudo-Levallois flake) j, Centripetal Levallois flake. k, Centripetal Levallois flake. l, Levallois flake with bidirectional scar pattern. m, Centripetal Levallois flake. n, Levallois flake with bidirectional scar pattern. o, Levallois point. p, Scraper on centripetal Levallois flake. q, Scraper on Levallois flake.

Fig. 4: Different types of ochre from Tinshemet Cave and their association with human and animal bones.

a, Ochre types. Class I: sandstone, distinguishable sand grain size and crumbly, high abundance of quartz mineral; Class II: fine-grained laminated and compacted clay, with high abundance of quartz mineral and very low to non-existent carbonates; Class III: calcium-carbonated formation and low abundance of quartz grains; Class IV: heterogenic anisotropic grains, unstructured heterogeneous fabric, with anisometric and contiguous quartz crystals; Class V: oolitic sandstone; Class VI: poorly compacted sandstone. b, In situ piece of ochre located between the human leg long bones (Tinshemet 2). c, Ochre piece associated with several fragmented animal bones and lithic artefacts in Unit B1a in square AF23 (same sub-unit and ~1 m from Tinshemet 2). d, Ochre pieces associated with several fragmented animal bones and lithic artefacts in Unit A4 in square AG22.

Fig. 5: Human burials at Tinshemet, Qafzeh and Skhul Caves.

Note that in all three caves the body was deposited on their right side (Qafzeh 9 excluded) in a fetal position, regardless of sex or age. The burials of Skhul IX, IV and V are redrawn from McCown and Keith³, and the burials of Qafzeh 25, 15, 8 and 11 are redrawn from Vandermeersch and Bar-Yosef⁴.

Fig. 6: Centripetal Levallois method and large-game hunting in the Levantine MP.

a, Frequencies of Levallois flakes with centripetal scar patterns on the dorsal faces in various Levantine MP assemblages. The data and references are provided in Supplementary Table 7. b, The relative abundance of the largest ungulates (aurochs, equids, rhino and hippo) among the MP cave sites. The data and references are provided in Supplementary Table 9. Credit: Silhouettes from PhyloPic under a Creative Commons license CC0 1.0: horse, Lisa Nicvert; deer, Feeran Sayol; aurochs, Mariana Ruiz Vilarreal; hippo, Steven Traver; rhino, Jody Taylor.

Zaidner, Y., Prévost, M., Shahack-Gross, R. et al.
Evidence from Tinshemet Cave in Israel suggests behavioural uniformity across Homo groups in the Levantine mid-Middle Palaeolithic circa 130,000–80,000 years ago.
Nat Hum Behav 9, 886–901 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02110-y

Copyright: © 2026 The authors.
Published by Springer Nature Ltd. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

And so, once again, the facts turn out to be the exact opposite of what creationists need them to be. Instead of a recent creation of a single, uniquely distinct human pair, the evidence shows a deep and tangled human past stretching back well over 100,000 years, populated by related human groups who not only met and mated, but shared technologies, customs and probably symbolic ideas. Tinshemet Cave adds yet another piece to the growing body of evidence that human evolution was not a simple, linear procession, or the magical sudden appearance without ancestry, but a complex network of interacting populations evolving over deep time.

This is awkward enough for biblical literalism, but it is even worse for the creationist habit of drawing a sharp line between “fully human” beings made in a god’s image and everything else. At Tinshemet Cave, those neat boundaries dissolve. Here we find different human groups apparently burying their dead in similar ways, using similar tools, hunting similar prey and participating in the same cultural world. That is not what we would expect from separate, specially created kinds. It is exactly what we would expect from closely related human populations evolving, interacting and exchanging ideas over long periods of time.

As so often, the scientific evidence fits comfortably within evolutionary theory and makes perfect sense in the light of descent with modification, migration and admixture. It is creationism that is left floundering, forced either to ignore the evidence, misrepresent it, or pretend that a richly documented prehistory somehow does not exist. Tinshemet Cave is a reminder that the story of our origins is written not in ancient mythology, but in bones, tools, ochre and DNA — and that story is far older, far more intricate, and far more interesting than any Bronze Age creation tale.

Advertisement

Amazon