Neanderthals and modern humans may have shared culture 59,000 years ago in Turkey, study finds 13%

By Olivia Maule7%

7/6/2026, 10:25:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Representativeness Heuristic as the most egregious example at 21.5% saturation with 159 hits. Analysis detected 1,511 faulty-reasoning hits from 739 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.4% and a BS Rank of 13% (19,173 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.60% of the article peer group.

Deep in a limestone cave on Turkey's Mediterranean coast, archaeologists have uncovered evidence that Neanderthals and the modern humans who moved in later left behind surprisingly similar traces of their daily lives  evidence that they hunted the same animals, crafted the same stone tools and collected the same type of seashells. 
The findings, published Monday (July 6) in the journal PNAS, feed into some of the biggest questions in human evolution: How similar were the cultures of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, given that we're so closely related? 
And did we share information with one another? 
The new evidence comes from Üçağızlı II Cave (pronounced Ooch-ah-UHZ'-luh), on a stretch of coastline just north of Syria that served as a prehistoric corridor between the Levant (an area of land east of the Mediterranean) and Eurasia. 
Although the team found only teeth and a partial jawbone within the cave, they were able to distinguish between the remains of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens by analyzing the internal structure of the fossilized teeth. 
Meanwhile, they dated the sediment at the site using optically stimulated luminescence, a technique that reveals how long ago buried mineral grains last saw sunlight. 
The team found that the Neanderthals had lived within the cave between approximately 77,000 and 59,000 years ago, while Homo sapiens stayed there between about 59,000 and 47,000 years ago. 
Despite the different time periods, the layers from both of these periods show "substantially uniform hunting-gathering strategies and lithic technology," showing how similar the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens were in their hunting-gathering strategies and stone-tool use, the team wrote in the study. 
What's more, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens got raw materials, such as flint, from the same local sources and hunted the same prey: wild goats (Capra aegagrus), fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa). 
Layer after layer also turned up 29 shells of a small marine snail, Columbella rustica, carried into the cave not for food but seemingly as ornaments. 
Some were pierced as if meant to be strung, and one shell dating to the Neanderthal occupation showed signs of deliberate heating that altered its color. 
"Our findings indicate a deep level of cultural interaction," study co-author Naoki Morimoto, paleoanthropologist at Kyoto University, said in a statement. 
"These two distinct but closely related human groups were not just adapting to the same environment: they were probably sharing symbolic preferences." 
That pattern breaks from findings at Mandrin Cave in France, where Neanderthals and modern humans are thought to have alternated occupation in distinct pulses from about 56,800 and 41,500 years ago, but did not leave evidence of a continuous culture. 
Instead, it echoes evidence from Tinshemet Cave in Israel, where researchers recently reported similar signs of shared behavior between the two groups tens of thousands of years earlier, from about 130,000 to 80,000 years ago. 
"Sites like these are forcing a rethink of how these two types of human were culturally related to each other," April Nowell, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Victoria in Canada who was not involved in the new study, told Live Science in an email. 
"By demonstrating cultural continuity and elevated levels of interaction, sites such as Tinshemet and Üçağızlı II are changing what we thought we knew about Neandertals, Homo sapiens and other contemporary Homo groups  a fascinating region just got even more so!" 
she said. 
But that cultural continuity only heightens the mystery of how modern humans and Neanderthals interacted, with Neanderthals eventually going extinct around 40,000 years ago. 
Two types of human can't occupy the same ecological niche indefinitely, Nowell noted, and some research into Neanderthal cognition suggests Neanderthals were less-flexible thinkers than modern humans, with more limited capacity for language and less of the kind of self-awareness and creativity that may have given H. sapiens an edge. 
(However, there is pushback against the idea that Neanderthals weren't as cognitively complex as H. sapiens.) 
If the archaeological record at sites like Üçağızlı II shows this much overlap in behavior, Nowell said, the real differences between the two may be ones the fossil record simply hasn't revealed yet. 
Ongoing and future excavations at sites like Üçağızlı II Cave may help to answer these questions and build a "more comprehensive picture of human evolution and cultural development during the Late Pleistocene," the team wrote in the study. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.6%Olivia Maule: 2.8%Live Science: 2.7%Confirmation Bias16.6%This article: 4.9%Olivia Maule: 0.8%Live Science: 1.2%Anchoring Bias4.9%This article: 5.3%Olivia Maule: 2.5%Live Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.3%This article: 21.5%Olivia Maule: 3.2%Live Science: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic21.5%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.8%Live Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Olivia Maule: 4.0%Live Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias7.6%This article: 4.9%Olivia Maule: 2.2%Live Science: 3.3%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.3%Live Science: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.7%Olivia Maule: 4.2%Live Science: 3.5%Optimism Bias12.7%This article: 10.0%Olivia Maule: 1.3%Live Science: 1.2%Pessimism Bias10.0%This article: 15.7%Olivia Maule: 3.6%Live Science: 3.3%Negativity Bias15.7%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.2%Live Science: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Olivia Maule: 0.6%Live Science: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.8%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Olivia Maule: 0.6%Live Science: 0.3%In-Group Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.4%Live Science: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Olivia Maule: 1.8%Live Science: 1.3%Halo Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Olivia Maule: 1.4%Live Science: 0.9%Recency Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.9%Live Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.8%Olivia Maule: 3.5%Live Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority13.8%This article: 4.1%Olivia Maule: 1.6%Live Science: 1.1%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.5%Live Science: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.2%Live Science: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.3%Olivia Maule: 4.0%Live Science: 3.8%Hasty Generalization10.3%This article: 4.7%Olivia Maule: 0.6%Live Science: 0.3%Red Herring4.7%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.3%Live Science: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.5%Olivia Maule: 1.9%Live Science: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion5.5%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.5%Live Science: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.2%Olivia Maule: 3.8%Live Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.2%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.5%Olivia Maule: 0.7%Live Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.5%This article: 6.8%Olivia Maule: 0.9%Live Science: 0.5%Appeal to Nature6.8%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.6%Live Science: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.5%Olivia Maule: 2.4%Live Science: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.5%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.7%Olivia Maule: 1.1%Live Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote5.7%This article: 8.4%Olivia Maule: 1.2%Live Science: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection8.4%This article: 12.6%Olivia Maule: 3.1%Live Science: 3.5%Biased Writer Voice12.6%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 1.1%Live Science: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Olivia Maule: 0.2%Live Science: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

739 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers29%attributed speech527writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageNaoki Morimoto • 21 words • 100.0% coverageNaoki Morimoto • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageApril Nowell • 45 words • 0.0% coverageApril Nowell • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageApril Nowell • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageApril Nowell • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

April Nowell

100%flagged-word coverage
169 attributed words80% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Quote-first Misdirection+24.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%April Nowell: 24.3%24.3%Biased Writer Voice+14.4 ptsWriter: 9.9%April Nowell: 24.3%24.3%Unattributed Quote-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%April Nowell: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.