Birch bark tar was used extensively throughout human history. While later ceramic-based production technologies are known, prehistoric aceramic techniques leave little to no archaeological evidence. Experimental tar production attempts to fill this gap and suggest potential techniques. However, their archaeological relevance is unclear. Through an in-depth biomolecular analysis using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, this study attempts to differentiate tars produced using four experimental aceramic techniques: condensation, ash mound, pit roll, and raised structure. In doing so we publish the largest collection of GC-MS results of aceramic birch tars. The results show that pentacyclic triterpenoids, characteristic of birch bark, vary between the production techniques in relation to heating exposure and perhaps the tar collection method. This allows for a tentative identification of tars produced through the condensation and ash mound techniques, which were formed consistently using short periods of heating and collected systematically by scraping. In contrast, tars produced using the pit roll and raised structure techniques do not have consistent molecular signatures. Despite the partial success of Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, the archaeological relevance is questioned because this technique is only applicable to samples from optimum lipid preservation conditions when a high number of pentacyclic triterpenoids are preserved. Therefore, using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry to determine the transformation methods of organics, like birch bark, may not be an appropriate standalone technique to fairly discuss the technological capabilities of past populations.@en

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.@en

The intentional production of birch bark tar by European Neanderthals as early as 190,000 years ago plays an important role in discussions about the technological and behavioural complexity of Pleistocene hominins. However, research is hampered because it is currently unknown how Neanderthals were producing birch tar. There are several different techniques that could have been employed, but these differ in their apparent production complexity, time and resource efficiency. Identifying production processes in the archaeological record is therefore paramount for furthering research on the technical behavioural repertoire. Organic biomarkers, identified with Gas Chromatograph–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS), have been used to identify possible production processes during the Neolithic. Here we test whether these biomarkers can also distinguish Palaeolithic (aceramic) tar production methods. We produced tar using five different methods and analysed their biomolecular composition with GC–MS. Our results show that the biomarkers used to distinguish Neolithic tar production strategies using ceramic technology cannot be reliably used to identify tar production processes using aceramic Palaeolithic techniques. More experimentation is required to produce a larger reference library of different tars for future comparisons. To achieve this, complete GC–MS datasets must also be made publicly available, as we have done with our data.@en