Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteThe headline’s claim that Neanderthal woodworking was far more advanced than previously thought cannot be confirmed from the reporting available here. We could not locate the original paper or an authoritative institutional announcement for a new study on this subject. What is established is narrower and still striking: several separate studies show that early humans, and in one case an early Neanderthal population, worked wood with more precision and planning than older assumptions allowed. This article separates those documented findings from the unverified headline.
What the headline’s claim can and cannot support
A headline that says “new study shows” should lead to a named publication, a journal, a date and a set of measurements. Without those, a reader cannot tell whether a result describes one site, a whole population, or a single artefact. Social-media posts have circulated a figure of 597 wooden remains and imprints from the Abric Romaní site in Spain. We have not been able to tie that count to a published report, so it should not be treated as a finding. The same applies to any tool types or conclusions attributed to that site.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
That does not make the broader idea baseless. The archaeological record contains real evidence of skilled wood processing. The problem is that the headline merges distinct sites, species of toolmaker and methods into a single story. The sections below keep each finding attached to its own source.
The documented examples
The studies below are independent of one another. They differ in site, material and type of evidence, so they cannot be ranked against each other or treated as a single body of proof.
#1 Best Overall
| Site | Material and evidence | What the source establishes | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schöningen, Germany | A 77 cm spruce stick | Analysis with 3-D microscopy and micro-CT led the team to infer that the stick was scraped, seasoned and sanded before use. The makers were early humans, not identified in this report as Neanderthals. | British Academy report, 6 September 2023 |
| Poggetti Vecchi, Italy | Wooden implements and sticks with evidence of fire | Fire was used to work wooden implements by an early Neanderthal population. | PNAS study (publication date not confirmed in the source summary) |
| Abri du Maras, France | A 3-ply cord fragment made from inner bark fibres, found on a stone tool | Shows fibre technology and multi-material tool use. It is not direct evidence of woodworking. | Scientific Reports study (publication date not confirmed in the source summary) |
| Poggetti Vecchi, Italy (hafting) | Wooden handles and lithic tools with hafting traces | A techno-functional analysis of how stone tools were attached to wooden handles. Details beyond the journal’s description are not confirmed here. | Quaternary Science Reviews, 2024 |
| Early-hominin site (not identified as Neanderthal) | Structural use of wood | Shows wood used in construction at least 476,000 years ago. The makers are not established as Neanderthals. | Nature report (date as cited in the source summary) |
The Schöningen stick: what “advanced” means in practice
The clearest example of careful wood processing is the Schöningen spruce stick. Its 77 cm length is the figure reported by the British Academy in its 2023 account of the study. The team did not observe the stick being made. They reached their conclusions by reading the surface of the wood, which is why the processing steps are described as inferred.
The experimental archaeologist Dr Annemieke Milks, quoted in that British Academy account, put the point this way: “Although early woodworking may sound quite simple, the sophistication of the multiple steps involved, as well as intentionally designing a weapon capable of flight, really shows us how clever these early humans were.”
The phrase “far more advanced” is harder to justify than the individual findings. None of these sources uses a common scale, and they do not share a sample size or measurement method. A stick that shows several processing steps tells us about planning and skill. It does not establish a general ranking of cognitive or technological ability between species or populations.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →How archaeologists read wood from the ground
Wood rarely survives in the Palaeolithic record, so each surviving piece carries more information. Researchers typically work through a sequence of checks before drawing any conclusion about how an object was made.
Rank #3
- Identify the material and its condition. Establish the wood type and whether the surface is original, weathered or altered by burial.
- Examine tool marks under magnification. 3-D microscopy records the shape and direction of cuts, scrapes and polishing.
- Look inside the object. Micro-CT imaging reveals internal structure, which can show drying and seasoning.
- Test for heat. Charring or fire-related alteration indicates whether wood was worked or treated with fire, as at Poggetti Vecchi.
- Compare with experiments. Replicating cuts and scrapes with stone tools shows which traces a given method produces.
- Infer the sequence, and label it as inferred. Multiple steps are a hypothesis until the traces support each one independently.
Why the wooden record is thin
Wood and plant fibre decay quickly in most soils and sediments. Sites that preserve them are unusual, often waterlogged or sealed by unusual sediments. Most of what we know about early woodworking therefore comes from a small number of exceptional sites. A small sample can be representative of some behaviours and misleading about others, so any claim about how common or sophisticated woodworking was should be treated with caution.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to check a new claim about ancient wood
When a new report about ancient wooden objects appears, look for these details before accepting it:
Rank #4
- The name of the peer-reviewed journal and the publication date.
- The site name, country and the age estimate, with the method used to date it.
- The number of objects analysed and whether the count includes fragments or imprints.
- The imaging or microscopy methods used to identify tool marks.
- Whether the authors say which processing steps were observed and which were inferred.
- Whether the makers are identified by species, and on what evidence.
Applying this test to the Abric Romaní claim is what currently rules it out as a verified finding. The other examples above pass it in part, with the strongest detail coming from the Schöningen stick.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteFurther reading
For readers who want a general introduction to Neanderthal material culture and Palaeolithic archaeology, look for a current book on Neanderthal archaeology in your library or bookshop. Choose an edition published within the last few years, since the field has changed quickly with new dating and imaging methods.
Quick Recap
“
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
