A. Aleo
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
9 records found
1
Adhesives are essential components of everyday life and have been for thousands of years. The history of adhesives begins with a stone tool covered in birch tar found at Campitello Quarry, Italy, dating to around 200,000 years ago. This find demonstrated the use of adhesives by Neanderthals and their ability to manufacture materials through transformative processes. In Southern Africa, modern humans have been producing compound adhesives by mixing plant and mineral materials since at least 70,000 years ago, tailoring adhesives to different environments and uses. In recent years, the number of identified prehistoric adhesives has grown, and adhesive technology has become a proxy for discussing technological complexity across different hominin species. However, to fully evaluate and compare the adhesive technology of other human groups across space and time, more research is needed on the selection of adhesive materials, adhesive recipes, and the context in which adhesives and their tools were used.
With this dissertation, I contribute to enlarging the sample of identified prehistoric adhesives by analysing tools with adhesive residues from Steenbokfontein Cave (South Africa, Later Stone Age), Morín Cave (Spain, Middle-Upper Palaeolithic), and the Dutch North Sea (the Netherlands, Mesolithic). I employ a multi-analytical approach encompassing optical microscopy and experiments with the integration of data from chemical analysis of residues. The results of the analysis, combined with data from available literature, provide insights into several questions that enhance the debate on the technological complexity of Neanderthals and modern humans. What materials and additives were used by Neanderthals and modern humans to manufacture adhesives? Was there a difference in adhesive recipes depending on the context of use of the hafted tools? Was there a preference for hafting specific tools? Is there a difference between Neanderthal and modern human adhesive technologies in terms of raw materials exploited, use of additives, and context of use? Does adhesive technology reflect differences in technological complexity between Neanderthals and modern humans?
All the analysed adhesives were used by Neanderthals and modern humans to fasten their tools to organic handles. Adhesive residues have been identified on stone and organic projectile points, as well as on ‘common tools’ used in domestic tasks, strongly suggesting that adhesives were integrated into the domestic economy of Neanderthals and modern humans. No relevant differences in the use of adhesives were observed depending on the tools’ raw materials or functions.
Adhesives were mostly produced from natural resources available in the surrounding environment. At Steenbokfontein Cave, South Africa, adhesives were made using the resin or tar of conifer trees, specifically Podocarpus or Widdringtonia, both of which were available near the Cave and mixed with (mineral) additives. Similarly, at Morín Cave in Spain, the resin from a tree of the genus Juniperus, largely available in the environment, was likely used. However, there is evidence that some adhesives were selected over others equally available for their material properties. For instance, birch bark tar was preferred over pine resin for hafting bone points at the Dutch North Sea, a trend seen at many other Mesolithic sites. Furthermore, increasing evidence suggests that Neanderthals used additives, primarily iron oxides, to alter the material properties of their adhesives, similar to contemporaneous modern humans in Africa. This reflects Neanderthals' and modern humans' understanding of available natural resources, their distinct material properties, and the effects of their combinations.
Adhesive technology requires good knowledge of natural resources and their material properties, control of fire, enlarged cognitive functions, and forms of cultural transmission and social learning, qualifying it as a complex technology. The examination of adhesive remains in this thesis demonstrates that Neanderthals and modern humans share considerable technological parallels, highlighting Neanderthal technological sophistication. How Neanderthals selected, transformed, and employed adhesives suggests analogous procedures and reasoning to modern humans. Consequently, these insights likely reflect that Neanderthals had comparable cognitive and technological skills to anatomically modern humans.
...
With this dissertation, I contribute to enlarging the sample of identified prehistoric adhesives by analysing tools with adhesive residues from Steenbokfontein Cave (South Africa, Later Stone Age), Morín Cave (Spain, Middle-Upper Palaeolithic), and the Dutch North Sea (the Netherlands, Mesolithic). I employ a multi-analytical approach encompassing optical microscopy and experiments with the integration of data from chemical analysis of residues. The results of the analysis, combined with data from available literature, provide insights into several questions that enhance the debate on the technological complexity of Neanderthals and modern humans. What materials and additives were used by Neanderthals and modern humans to manufacture adhesives? Was there a difference in adhesive recipes depending on the context of use of the hafted tools? Was there a preference for hafting specific tools? Is there a difference between Neanderthal and modern human adhesive technologies in terms of raw materials exploited, use of additives, and context of use? Does adhesive technology reflect differences in technological complexity between Neanderthals and modern humans?
All the analysed adhesives were used by Neanderthals and modern humans to fasten their tools to organic handles. Adhesive residues have been identified on stone and organic projectile points, as well as on ‘common tools’ used in domestic tasks, strongly suggesting that adhesives were integrated into the domestic economy of Neanderthals and modern humans. No relevant differences in the use of adhesives were observed depending on the tools’ raw materials or functions.
Adhesives were mostly produced from natural resources available in the surrounding environment. At Steenbokfontein Cave, South Africa, adhesives were made using the resin or tar of conifer trees, specifically Podocarpus or Widdringtonia, both of which were available near the Cave and mixed with (mineral) additives. Similarly, at Morín Cave in Spain, the resin from a tree of the genus Juniperus, largely available in the environment, was likely used. However, there is evidence that some adhesives were selected over others equally available for their material properties. For instance, birch bark tar was preferred over pine resin for hafting bone points at the Dutch North Sea, a trend seen at many other Mesolithic sites. Furthermore, increasing evidence suggests that Neanderthals used additives, primarily iron oxides, to alter the material properties of their adhesives, similar to contemporaneous modern humans in Africa. This reflects Neanderthals' and modern humans' understanding of available natural resources, their distinct material properties, and the effects of their combinations.
Adhesive technology requires good knowledge of natural resources and their material properties, control of fire, enlarged cognitive functions, and forms of cultural transmission and social learning, qualifying it as a complex technology. The examination of adhesive remains in this thesis demonstrates that Neanderthals and modern humans share considerable technological parallels, highlighting Neanderthal technological sophistication. How Neanderthals selected, transformed, and employed adhesives suggests analogous procedures and reasoning to modern humans. Consequently, these insights likely reflect that Neanderthals had comparable cognitive and technological skills to anatomically modern humans.
...
Adhesives are essential components of everyday life and have been for thousands of years. The history of adhesives begins with a stone tool covered in birch tar found at Campitello Quarry, Italy, dating to around 200,000 years ago. This find demonstrated the use of adhesives by Neanderthals and their ability to manufacture materials through transformative processes. In Southern Africa, modern humans have been producing compound adhesives by mixing plant and mineral materials since at least 70,000 years ago, tailoring adhesives to different environments and uses. In recent years, the number of identified prehistoric adhesives has grown, and adhesive technology has become a proxy for discussing technological complexity across different hominin species. However, to fully evaluate and compare the adhesive technology of other human groups across space and time, more research is needed on the selection of adhesive materials, adhesive recipes, and the context in which adhesives and their tools were used.
With this dissertation, I contribute to enlarging the sample of identified prehistoric adhesives by analysing tools with adhesive residues from Steenbokfontein Cave (South Africa, Later Stone Age), Morín Cave (Spain, Middle-Upper Palaeolithic), and the Dutch North Sea (the Netherlands, Mesolithic). I employ a multi-analytical approach encompassing optical microscopy and experiments with the integration of data from chemical analysis of residues. The results of the analysis, combined with data from available literature, provide insights into several questions that enhance the debate on the technological complexity of Neanderthals and modern humans. What materials and additives were used by Neanderthals and modern humans to manufacture adhesives? Was there a difference in adhesive recipes depending on the context of use of the hafted tools? Was there a preference for hafting specific tools? Is there a difference between Neanderthal and modern human adhesive technologies in terms of raw materials exploited, use of additives, and context of use? Does adhesive technology reflect differences in technological complexity between Neanderthals and modern humans?
All the analysed adhesives were used by Neanderthals and modern humans to fasten their tools to organic handles. Adhesive residues have been identified on stone and organic projectile points, as well as on ‘common tools’ used in domestic tasks, strongly suggesting that adhesives were integrated into the domestic economy of Neanderthals and modern humans. No relevant differences in the use of adhesives were observed depending on the tools’ raw materials or functions.
Adhesives were mostly produced from natural resources available in the surrounding environment. At Steenbokfontein Cave, South Africa, adhesives were made using the resin or tar of conifer trees, specifically Podocarpus or Widdringtonia, both of which were available near the Cave and mixed with (mineral) additives. Similarly, at Morín Cave in Spain, the resin from a tree of the genus Juniperus, largely available in the environment, was likely used. However, there is evidence that some adhesives were selected over others equally available for their material properties. For instance, birch bark tar was preferred over pine resin for hafting bone points at the Dutch North Sea, a trend seen at many other Mesolithic sites. Furthermore, increasing evidence suggests that Neanderthals used additives, primarily iron oxides, to alter the material properties of their adhesives, similar to contemporaneous modern humans in Africa. This reflects Neanderthals' and modern humans' understanding of available natural resources, their distinct material properties, and the effects of their combinations.
Adhesive technology requires good knowledge of natural resources and their material properties, control of fire, enlarged cognitive functions, and forms of cultural transmission and social learning, qualifying it as a complex technology. The examination of adhesive remains in this thesis demonstrates that Neanderthals and modern humans share considerable technological parallels, highlighting Neanderthal technological sophistication. How Neanderthals selected, transformed, and employed adhesives suggests analogous procedures and reasoning to modern humans. Consequently, these insights likely reflect that Neanderthals had comparable cognitive and technological skills to anatomically modern humans.
With this dissertation, I contribute to enlarging the sample of identified prehistoric adhesives by analysing tools with adhesive residues from Steenbokfontein Cave (South Africa, Later Stone Age), Morín Cave (Spain, Middle-Upper Palaeolithic), and the Dutch North Sea (the Netherlands, Mesolithic). I employ a multi-analytical approach encompassing optical microscopy and experiments with the integration of data from chemical analysis of residues. The results of the analysis, combined with data from available literature, provide insights into several questions that enhance the debate on the technological complexity of Neanderthals and modern humans. What materials and additives were used by Neanderthals and modern humans to manufacture adhesives? Was there a difference in adhesive recipes depending on the context of use of the hafted tools? Was there a preference for hafting specific tools? Is there a difference between Neanderthal and modern human adhesive technologies in terms of raw materials exploited, use of additives, and context of use? Does adhesive technology reflect differences in technological complexity between Neanderthals and modern humans?
All the analysed adhesives were used by Neanderthals and modern humans to fasten their tools to organic handles. Adhesive residues have been identified on stone and organic projectile points, as well as on ‘common tools’ used in domestic tasks, strongly suggesting that adhesives were integrated into the domestic economy of Neanderthals and modern humans. No relevant differences in the use of adhesives were observed depending on the tools’ raw materials or functions.
Adhesives were mostly produced from natural resources available in the surrounding environment. At Steenbokfontein Cave, South Africa, adhesives were made using the resin or tar of conifer trees, specifically Podocarpus or Widdringtonia, both of which were available near the Cave and mixed with (mineral) additives. Similarly, at Morín Cave in Spain, the resin from a tree of the genus Juniperus, largely available in the environment, was likely used. However, there is evidence that some adhesives were selected over others equally available for their material properties. For instance, birch bark tar was preferred over pine resin for hafting bone points at the Dutch North Sea, a trend seen at many other Mesolithic sites. Furthermore, increasing evidence suggests that Neanderthals used additives, primarily iron oxides, to alter the material properties of their adhesives, similar to contemporaneous modern humans in Africa. This reflects Neanderthals' and modern humans' understanding of available natural resources, their distinct material properties, and the effects of their combinations.
Adhesive technology requires good knowledge of natural resources and their material properties, control of fire, enlarged cognitive functions, and forms of cultural transmission and social learning, qualifying it as a complex technology. The examination of adhesive remains in this thesis demonstrates that Neanderthals and modern humans share considerable technological parallels, highlighting Neanderthal technological sophistication. How Neanderthals selected, transformed, and employed adhesives suggests analogous procedures and reasoning to modern humans. Consequently, these insights likely reflect that Neanderthals had comparable cognitive and technological skills to anatomically modern humans.
Backed segments in quartz from the Howiesons Poort industry of Southern Africa (65–60 ka) have been interpreted as tips of arrows. Nevertheless, several different hafting configurations for these pieces have been proposed. Here, experimental data on the efficacy of two different hafting configurations is presented. Arrows with flint segments replicated to the dimensions of quartz segments from the Howiesons Poort have been shot into gelatin targets. These experiments show that transversally hafted segments outperform diagonally hafted segments in penetration depth, but there is substantial overlap in the size of wounds caused. Our results help constrain the interpretation of archaeological backed segments from the Howiesons Poort and similar lithic elements from technocomplexes across Africa and Europe.
...
Backed segments in quartz from the Howiesons Poort industry of Southern Africa (65–60 ka) have been interpreted as tips of arrows. Nevertheless, several different hafting configurations for these pieces have been proposed. Here, experimental data on the efficacy of two different hafting configurations is presented. Arrows with flint segments replicated to the dimensions of quartz segments from the Howiesons Poort have been shot into gelatin targets. These experiments show that transversally hafted segments outperform diagonally hafted segments in penetration depth, but there is substantial overlap in the size of wounds caused. Our results help constrain the interpretation of archaeological backed segments from the Howiesons Poort and similar lithic elements from technocomplexes across Africa and Europe.
Journal article
(2024)
-
R. Chasan, Margaret-Ashley Veall, L.I. Baron, A. Aleo, P.R.B. Kozowyk, G.H.J. Langejans
Research on ancient adhesives from the South African Stone Age is expanding, driven by excellent preservation conditions of adhesives and the potential to address diverse archaeological questions. These adhesives are primarily characterized through microscopic and chemical analysis. Despite geographic variability, a consistently identified component is Podocarpus resin or tar. We challenge these identifications, considering another Podocarpaceae genus, Afrocarpus, and the Cupressaceae genus Widdringtonia. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry was employed to analyze molecular signatures of modern wood, tar, resin, and seed cones from these genera. The results form an extensive reference database and reveal challenges in distinguishing these genera based on the diterpenoid signature. While Podocarpus is frequently cited, we advocate for a broader classification as Podocarpaceae when phenolic diterpenoids are found in high abundances and pimaranes and abietanes in lower abundances, and Widdringtonia when the opposite is true. The study differentiates materials used in adhesive production, including leaves and wood, highlighting the significance of α,ω-dicarboxylic acids, hydroxy acids, n-alkanes, and alcohols. Tars produced from leaves are characterized by odd-numbered n-alkanes, while tars produced from twigs and branches are characterized by long-chain α,ω-dicarboxylic acids, hydroxy acids, and alcohols. Because the differences between these adhesives in terms of raw material procurement and production are great, a more nuanced and cautious approach that acknowledges the challenges in differentiating tree species on a molecular level and considers archaeological and environmental context is required.
...
Research on ancient adhesives from the South African Stone Age is expanding, driven by excellent preservation conditions of adhesives and the potential to address diverse archaeological questions. These adhesives are primarily characterized through microscopic and chemical analysis. Despite geographic variability, a consistently identified component is Podocarpus resin or tar. We challenge these identifications, considering another Podocarpaceae genus, Afrocarpus, and the Cupressaceae genus Widdringtonia. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry was employed to analyze molecular signatures of modern wood, tar, resin, and seed cones from these genera. The results form an extensive reference database and reveal challenges in distinguishing these genera based on the diterpenoid signature. While Podocarpus is frequently cited, we advocate for a broader classification as Podocarpaceae when phenolic diterpenoids are found in high abundances and pimaranes and abietanes in lower abundances, and Widdringtonia when the opposite is true. The study differentiates materials used in adhesive production, including leaves and wood, highlighting the significance of α,ω-dicarboxylic acids, hydroxy acids, n-alkanes, and alcohols. Tars produced from leaves are characterized by odd-numbered n-alkanes, while tars produced from twigs and branches are characterized by long-chain α,ω-dicarboxylic acids, hydroxy acids, and alcohols. Because the differences between these adhesives in terms of raw material procurement and production are great, a more nuanced and cautious approach that acknowledges the challenges in differentiating tree species on a molecular level and considers archaeological and environmental context is required.
Journal article
(2024)
-
Sebastian Fajardo, Jelte Zeekaf, Tinde van Andel, Christabel Maombe, Terry Nyambe, George Mudenda, Alessandro Aleo, Martha Nchimunya Kayuni, Geeske H.J. Langejans
This study explores traditional adhesives using an ethnobiological approach within a multisocioecological context in Zambia. Through semi-structured interviews, videotaped demonstrations, and herbarium collections, we investigated the traditional adhesives people know and use, the flexibility of production processes, resource usage, and knowledge transmission in adhesive production. Our findings reveal flexibility in adhesive production systems. People use a wide range of organic and inorganic materials in their adhesive recipes. Recipes are flexible, demonstrating the ability to adapt to changes and substitute materials as needed to achieve the desired end product. Additionally, our study reveals a variety of redundant pathways for knowledge transmission typically confined within individual population groups. These include same-sex vertical transmission and distinct learning spaces and processes. Also, we identified material procurement zones showing that people are prepared to travel 70 km for ingredients. We use our findings to review the archaeology and we discuss the identification of archaeological adhesives, the functional roles of adhesive materials, adhesive storage, and the sustained human interaction with species from families such as Euphorbiaceae and Apiade. Our findings underscore the diversity and adaptability of traditional adhesive production and suggest that further research on adhesives would reveal similar diversity within the archaeological record.
...
This study explores traditional adhesives using an ethnobiological approach within a multisocioecological context in Zambia. Through semi-structured interviews, videotaped demonstrations, and herbarium collections, we investigated the traditional adhesives people know and use, the flexibility of production processes, resource usage, and knowledge transmission in adhesive production. Our findings reveal flexibility in adhesive production systems. People use a wide range of organic and inorganic materials in their adhesive recipes. Recipes are flexible, demonstrating the ability to adapt to changes and substitute materials as needed to achieve the desired end product. Additionally, our study reveals a variety of redundant pathways for knowledge transmission typically confined within individual population groups. These include same-sex vertical transmission and distinct learning spaces and processes. Also, we identified material procurement zones showing that people are prepared to travel 70 km for ingredients. We use our findings to review the archaeology and we discuss the identification of archaeological adhesives, the functional roles of adhesive materials, adhesive storage, and the sustained human interaction with species from families such as Euphorbiaceae and Apiade. Our findings underscore the diversity and adaptability of traditional adhesive production and suggest that further research on adhesives would reveal similar diversity within the archaeological record.
Journal article
(2024)
-
Alessandro Aleo, Antonieta Jerardino, Rivka Chasan, M. Despotopoulou, Dominique J.M. Ngan-Tillard, Ruud W.A. Hendrikx, Geeske H.J. Langejans
Evidence of different compound resin-based adhesives is present in South Africa from at least 77000 years ago. Ancient glue production is considered one of the oldest known highly complex technologies, requiring advanced technological and mental abilities. However, our current knowledge of adhesive materials, recipes, and uses in South Africa is limited by the lack of in-depth analysis and molecular characterization of residues. To deepen our knowledge of past adhesive technology, we performed a detailed multi-analytical analysis (use-wear, XRD, μ-CT, IR spectroscopy, GC-MS) of 30 Later Stone Age tools with adhesive remains from Steenbokfontein Cave, South Africa. At the site, tools made of various rocks were hafted with compound adhesives, and we identified three recipes: 1) resin/tar of Widdringtonia or Podocarpus species combined with hematite; 2) resin/tar of Widdringtonia or Podocarpus species mixed with hematite and another plant exudate; 3) resin/tar without hematite. The studied scrapers were used in hide-working activities, and the studied cutting tools were used to work animal and soft plant matters. All scrapers display evidence of intense resharpening and were discarded when no longer useable. The combination of different methods for residue analysis reveals the flexibility of adhesive technology at Steenbokfontein. Despite the consistent use of conifer resin/tar throughout the sequence, we observed that other ingredients were added or excluded independently of the tools’ raw materials and functions. Our results highlight the long-lasting tradition of using adhesive material from conifer species but also the adaptability and flexibility of adhesive traditions. The systematic application of this multi-analytical approach to Pleistocene adhesives will be useful to better characterise adhesive traditions and enhance the debate on the technological, cognitive, and behavioural implications of this technology.
...
Evidence of different compound resin-based adhesives is present in South Africa from at least 77000 years ago. Ancient glue production is considered one of the oldest known highly complex technologies, requiring advanced technological and mental abilities. However, our current knowledge of adhesive materials, recipes, and uses in South Africa is limited by the lack of in-depth analysis and molecular characterization of residues. To deepen our knowledge of past adhesive technology, we performed a detailed multi-analytical analysis (use-wear, XRD, μ-CT, IR spectroscopy, GC-MS) of 30 Later Stone Age tools with adhesive remains from Steenbokfontein Cave, South Africa. At the site, tools made of various rocks were hafted with compound adhesives, and we identified three recipes: 1) resin/tar of Widdringtonia or Podocarpus species combined with hematite; 2) resin/tar of Widdringtonia or Podocarpus species mixed with hematite and another plant exudate; 3) resin/tar without hematite. The studied scrapers were used in hide-working activities, and the studied cutting tools were used to work animal and soft plant matters. All scrapers display evidence of intense resharpening and were discarded when no longer useable. The combination of different methods for residue analysis reveals the flexibility of adhesive technology at Steenbokfontein. Despite the consistent use of conifer resin/tar throughout the sequence, we observed that other ingredients were added or excluded independently of the tools’ raw materials and functions. Our results highlight the long-lasting tradition of using adhesive material from conifer species but also the adaptability and flexibility of adhesive traditions. The systematic application of this multi-analytical approach to Pleistocene adhesives will be useful to better characterise adhesive traditions and enhance the debate on the technological, cognitive, and behavioural implications of this technology.
The dynamic lives of osseous points from Late Palaeolithic/Early Mesolithic Doggerland
A detailed functional study of barbed and unbarbed points from the Dutch North Sea
Osseous barbed and unbarbed points are commonly recovered from the Dutch North Sea and other Mesolithic sites of northern Europe. Interpreted as elements of projectile weaponry, barbed points are considered by archaeologists to be a technological innovation in the hunting equipment of hunter-gatherers. However, debate about their exact use and identification of the targeted prey species is still ongoing. To shed light on the function of these tools, we analysed a sample of 17 artefacts from the Netherlands with a multi-disciplinary approach encompassing morphometric, functional, and chemical analysis. 14C-AMS dating yielded the oldest date for a barbed point from the Dutch coast (⁓13000 cal. BP). The observation of microwear traces preserved on the tools provides solid evidence to interpret the function of barbed and unbarbed points. We show that there were two distinct tool categories. 1) Barbed points hafted with birch tar and animal or vegetal binding were likely projectile tips for terrestrial and aquatic hunting. We provide strong clues to support the link between small barbed points and fishing using wear traces. 2) Points without barbs served as perforators for animal hides. Our results highlight the importance of use-wear and residue analysis to reconstruct prehistoric hunting activities. The functional interpretation of projectile points must also rely on microwear traces and not merely on the association with faunal remains, historical sources, and ethnographic comparisons.
...
Osseous barbed and unbarbed points are commonly recovered from the Dutch North Sea and other Mesolithic sites of northern Europe. Interpreted as elements of projectile weaponry, barbed points are considered by archaeologists to be a technological innovation in the hunting equipment of hunter-gatherers. However, debate about their exact use and identification of the targeted prey species is still ongoing. To shed light on the function of these tools, we analysed a sample of 17 artefacts from the Netherlands with a multi-disciplinary approach encompassing morphometric, functional, and chemical analysis. 14C-AMS dating yielded the oldest date for a barbed point from the Dutch coast (⁓13000 cal. BP). The observation of microwear traces preserved on the tools provides solid evidence to interpret the function of barbed and unbarbed points. We show that there were two distinct tool categories. 1) Barbed points hafted with birch tar and animal or vegetal binding were likely projectile tips for terrestrial and aquatic hunting. We provide strong clues to support the link between small barbed points and fishing using wear traces. 2) Points without barbs served as perforators for animal hides. Our results highlight the importance of use-wear and residue analysis to reconstruct prehistoric hunting activities. The functional interpretation of projectile points must also rely on microwear traces and not merely on the association with faunal remains, historical sources, and ethnographic comparisons.
An adhesive is any substance that bonds different materials together. This broad definition includes materials used in everything from hafted stone tools to monumental architecture. In addition, the combination of bonding, plasticity, and insolubility meant that some adhesives were exploited for waterproofing and sealing of materials, as self-adhering inlays and putties, and as paints, varnishes, and inks. Adhesives have a history of at least 200,000 years. Throughout (pre)history and around the world, people used materials, including bitumen/ asphalt, carbohydrate polymers such as starches and gums, natural rubbers, mortars, proteins (from casein, soy, blood, and animal connective tissue), insect and plant resins, and tars made from various barks and woods. Adhesives thus are very diverse and have widely varying properties: they can be tacky, pliable, elastic, brittle, water-resistant, fluid, viscous, clear, dark, and much more. They are a plastic avant la lettre. These properties can and were tweaked by mixing ingredients or by further processing. In the study of archaeological adhesives, their characterization is essential and this is best done with chemical and spectroscopic methods. When larger coherent samples as opposed to single finds are analyzed, adhesive studies can provide data on past technologies, socioeconomic organizations, and environments and raw material availability. Through sourcing and mapping of ingredients and adhesive end products, travel and transfer of materials and knowledge can be illuminated. Additionally, experimental reproductions provide data on technological aspects that otherwise are lost in the archaeological record. An archaeology of adhesives can reveal the transport networks, subsistence, mobility strategies, division of labor, and technological know-how that held societies together.
...
An adhesive is any substance that bonds different materials together. This broad definition includes materials used in everything from hafted stone tools to monumental architecture. In addition, the combination of bonding, plasticity, and insolubility meant that some adhesives were exploited for waterproofing and sealing of materials, as self-adhering inlays and putties, and as paints, varnishes, and inks. Adhesives have a history of at least 200,000 years. Throughout (pre)history and around the world, people used materials, including bitumen/ asphalt, carbohydrate polymers such as starches and gums, natural rubbers, mortars, proteins (from casein, soy, blood, and animal connective tissue), insect and plant resins, and tars made from various barks and woods. Adhesives thus are very diverse and have widely varying properties: they can be tacky, pliable, elastic, brittle, water-resistant, fluid, viscous, clear, dark, and much more. They are a plastic avant la lettre. These properties can and were tweaked by mixing ingredients or by further processing. In the study of archaeological adhesives, their characterization is essential and this is best done with chemical and spectroscopic methods. When larger coherent samples as opposed to single finds are analyzed, adhesive studies can provide data on past technologies, socioeconomic organizations, and environments and raw material availability. Through sourcing and mapping of ingredients and adhesive end products, travel and transfer of materials and knowledge can be illuminated. Additionally, experimental reproductions provide data on technological aspects that otherwise are lost in the archaeological record. An archaeology of adhesives can reveal the transport networks, subsistence, mobility strategies, division of labor, and technological know-how that held societies together.
Use-wear traces are considered to be material specific. The use of an appropriate reference collection is thus fundamental for interpreting tools' function. To test whether a flint reference collection can be used to interpret the function of non-flint tools, I conducted experiments using chert, dolerite, and quartz endscrapers and flakes. I compared wear traces obtained during the experiment with use-wear on experimental flint tools exposed to the same variables (motion, contact material, time). The results highlighted strong similarities in the characteristics and distribution of traces on chert and flint. Dolerite and quartz differ from flint, especially regarding the distribution and appearance of use-polish. However, shared traits were observed in all the raw materials involved in this experiment, demonstrating a certain degree of comparability between use-wear traces on flint and non-flint rocks. Based on the data, a flint reference collection can allow a basic interpretation of use-wear also on different rocks.
...
Use-wear traces are considered to be material specific. The use of an appropriate reference collection is thus fundamental for interpreting tools' function. To test whether a flint reference collection can be used to interpret the function of non-flint tools, I conducted experiments using chert, dolerite, and quartz endscrapers and flakes. I compared wear traces obtained during the experiment with use-wear on experimental flint tools exposed to the same variables (motion, contact material, time). The results highlighted strong similarities in the characteristics and distribution of traces on chert and flint. Dolerite and quartz differ from flint, especially regarding the distribution and appearance of use-polish. However, shared traits were observed in all the raw materials involved in this experiment, demonstrating a certain degree of comparability between use-wear traces on flint and non-flint rocks. Based on the data, a flint reference collection can allow a basic interpretation of use-wear also on different rocks.
Scraping hide in the early Upper Paleolithic
Insights into the life and function of the Protoaurignacian endscrapers at Fumane Cave
Journal article
(2021)
-
Alessandro Aleo, Rossella Duches, Armando Falcucci, Veerle Rots, Marco Peresani
Endscrapers are specialized tools that are usually recovered in great quantities in every Upper Paleolithic site in Europe. Although they make their first ephemeral appearance in the Middle–late Middle Paleolithic transitional technocomplexes, endscrapers commonly appear in toolkits from initial and early Upper Paleolithic traditions onwards. Nevertheless, endscrapers and, in general, domestic tools have attracted relatively little attention in debates revolving around the significance of technological change, tool function, and tool specialization after the end of the Middle Paleolithic. With the aim to overcome this paucity of information, here, we present the results of a techno-functional study performed on the large endscraper assemblage recovered from the early and late Protoaurignacian layers at Fumane Cave in northeastern Italy. We analyzed these artifacts using technological, morpho-metrical, typological, and functional approaches. Despite the large morphological variability, use-wear traces reveal functional consistency and high levels of specialization for these tools. Almost all the use-wear traces we recorded developed from hide working with transverse motion. Moreover, we find no evidence that endscrapers were involved in the production of bone and antler tools during the late Protoaurignacian. Macroscopic and microscopic wear on the lateral edges of tools point to a considerable number of hafted endscrapers, which implies systematic time investment and planning depth. Comparison with the few endscrapers from transitional industries that have been analyzed highlights marked differences in the production, morphology, and use of these tools and reinforces our view of the Aurignacian as a complex not directly related with preceding European traditions.
...
Endscrapers are specialized tools that are usually recovered in great quantities in every Upper Paleolithic site in Europe. Although they make their first ephemeral appearance in the Middle–late Middle Paleolithic transitional technocomplexes, endscrapers commonly appear in toolkits from initial and early Upper Paleolithic traditions onwards. Nevertheless, endscrapers and, in general, domestic tools have attracted relatively little attention in debates revolving around the significance of technological change, tool function, and tool specialization after the end of the Middle Paleolithic. With the aim to overcome this paucity of information, here, we present the results of a techno-functional study performed on the large endscraper assemblage recovered from the early and late Protoaurignacian layers at Fumane Cave in northeastern Italy. We analyzed these artifacts using technological, morpho-metrical, typological, and functional approaches. Despite the large morphological variability, use-wear traces reveal functional consistency and high levels of specialization for these tools. Almost all the use-wear traces we recorded developed from hide working with transverse motion. Moreover, we find no evidence that endscrapers were involved in the production of bone and antler tools during the late Protoaurignacian. Macroscopic and microscopic wear on the lateral edges of tools point to a considerable number of hafted endscrapers, which implies systematic time investment and planning depth. Comparison with the few endscrapers from transitional industries that have been analyzed highlights marked differences in the production, morphology, and use of these tools and reinforces our view of the Aurignacian as a complex not directly related with preceding European traditions.