Prehistoric Adhesives and Clever Neandertals

[Löwenmensch]

Just came across this in the September issue of Journal of Archaeological Science

P.P.A. Mazza et al.
A new Palaeolithic discovery: tar-hafted stone tools in a European Mid-Pleistocene bone-bearing bed
Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2006) 1310-1318, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.01.006

Abstract
   Two stone flakes partly covered in birch-bark-tar and a third without tar on it were discovered in fluvial gravel and clay in central Italy, in association with the bones of a young adult female Elephas (Palaeoloxondon) antiquus and several micromammals. The probable chronology of the stone flakes is compatible with the late Middle Pleistocene suggested by the site’s small mammals and geological context. The fauna indicates a cool stadial episode before isotope stage 6. That age means the flakes are the oldest ever found hafted with tar and indicate a greater capacity for late Middle Pleistocene hominins to utilize raw materials available during cold phases.


The end of OIS 6!
That would make this new evidence more than twice as old as the oldest previously known examples of Palaeolithic hafting material either in Europe (Königsaue, Germany dated to between 40000 and 50000 BP), the Near East (Umm el Tlel, Syria dated c. 40 000 BP) or in Africa (Sibudu Cave, S.Africa. dated to between 50,000 and 60,000 BP) - more info on Sibudu can be found in earlier posts by Jacques HERE, HERE and HERE
For more details on Königsaue see:
J.M. Grünberg, Middle Palaeolithic birch-bark pitch, Antiquity 76 (2002) 15-16;
and for Umm el Tlel:
Boeda et al. Bitumen as a hafting material on Middle Palaeolithic artefacts, in Nature 380 (1996) 336-338. First paragraph and refs. HERE


The current finds were dicovered in a clay pit in Campitello Quarry near Bucine, Tuscany. The late Middle Pleistocene date is largely based on the stratigraphy of the gravels they were discovered in, with a fine chronology based on the associated fauna:

"... we can confidently conclude that the cooccurrence of Microtus arvalis, Arvicola cantianus and Microtus gr. multiplex-subterraneus dates the tool- and elephant-bearing bed of Campitello to a time shortly preceding the end of the Middle Pleistocene. As to the climatic indication of these small mammals, the relative abundance of Microtus arvalis, as well as the presence of Clethrionomys in Upper Valdarno imply climatic conditions cooler than today’s, likely a stadial phase and not an interstadial, certainly not an interglacial." (p.1317)


As far as I can see, this is fairly major news: It not only provides the first direct evidence that neandertals were already producing composite tools (a trait commonly handled as Upper Palaeolithic) during OIS 6. But in addition it shows that they were also capable of producing birch-bark-tar (birch-bark-pitch), a process which requires maintaining relatively constant, high temperatures (>800°C) and largely anaerobic conditions (otherwise the bark just burns and no tar is produced),  Birch-bark-tar is well known from Neolithic contexts across Europe, but how Palaeolithic people were able to produce it without the aid of ceramics remains to be explained.

I'm surprised that this paper's not been given more publicity (it's been available online since March).
To me it certainly seems something worth shouting about. So, here goes .....


Keith

[Robert Henvell]

Keith,
Thanks a tonne for the post.Agree with you that it merits far greater publicity than it has received.Is the article freely available?
Bob

[lagarvelho]

Keith:

You said the paper has been online since March.  Could you give us the URL for it?  And is it freely available?
Anne G

[Löwenmensch]

Dear all

The abstract of the Mazza et al. article can be found HERE and is freely available. Full text/PDF is only available to subscribers.
For those who don't have access, here are a couple more quotes with some of the more important information:

"The centripetal flaking and size of the three artifacts are compatible with the technology to be expected in the time period suggested by the site’s geology and palaeontology. Three flakes are difficult to attribute to any temporal substage because similar flakes are present in Tuscany by the end of the local Acheulean (OIS 6-5), and more recent materials have been referred to Mousterian litho-complexes (OIS 3-2).
Similar Acheulean implements are sporadic in Lower Valdarno, while they are quite more common in eastern Tuscany, both in Upper Valdarno and Tiber Valley." (p. 1313)

"The molecular composition of the organic matter was detected using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) [12]. It revealed the presence of triterpenoid species characteristic of tars produced from bark or wood of Betulaceae trees, which include birch. GC-MS identified the following biomarkers: betulin (lup-20(29)en-3b,28-diol), betulone (lup-20(29)en-3-one-28-ol), lupeol (lup-20(29)-en-3b-ol), lupa-2,20(29)-dien-28-ol, and lupa-2,20 (29)-diene." (p.1317)


Keith

[Löwenmensch]

Just a quick correction: the second quote above is from page 1315. Sorry!

Keith

[trehinp]

As far as I can see, this is fairly major news: It not only provides the first direct evidence that neandertals were already producing composite tools (a trait commonly handled as Upper Palaeolithic) during OIS 6. But in addition it shows that they were also capable of producing birch-bark-tar (birch-bark-pitch), a process which requires maintaining relatively constant, high temperatures (>800°C) and largely anaerobic conditions (otherwise the bark just burns and no tar is produced),  Birch-bark-tar is well known from Neolithic contexts across Europe, but how Palaeolithic people were able to produce it without the aid of ceramics remains to be explained.

Thanks a lot Keith,

The fact that such advanced technology was already discovered by Neanderthals challenges seriously the idea that Homo Sapiens Sapiens (HSS) coming from Africa through the Middle East had a far superior technology than that of Neanderthals. I had voiced the hypothesis in an earlier discussion that HSS might even have learned a few technologies and other general knowhow from Neanderthals.

This discovery of "high tech" tools made by Neanderthals reinforces the work of people like Dominique Baffier ("Les Derniers Néandertaliens (Le Châtelperronien) , de - 36 000 à - 30 000 ans", La Maison des roches, coll. Histoire de la France Préhistorique, 1999) or Donald Grayson of the University of Washington and Francoise Delpech of the University of Bordeaux . The article of F. D'Erico chalenge the so called acculturation of Neanderthals by the HSS (d'Errico F., Zilhão J., Baffier D. , Julien M. and Pelegrin J. (in press) Neanderthal acculturation in Western Europe. A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. Current Anthropology, 1998, vol. 39, noJUN)

Remains the fascinating question of why so far no advanced representational art that could be attributed to Neanderthal have been discovered. Even the "Roche Cotard Mask ", attributed to Neanderthals, is far from providing an example of representative art comparable to the Aurignacian figurines or early paintings. It could be, of course, that art previous to the Aurignacian was lost through time's effect. But it seems that indeed Neanderthals didn't reach the levels of representative art the HSS achieved. This doesn't mean that Neanderthals had no symbolic thinking and activities.

I would like to suggest that art on the one side and general culture and technlogy on the other side, should be analysed separately. Having a high level of art at a certain point bears no relation to the general technology and culture available at the time of the art production. Too many researchers have posited that Neanderthal's culture and technologies were lower than HSS one because HSS produced representative and symbolic art. The fact that Neanderthals did have very advanced composite tools proves that this judgement was too pesimistic.

Paul Trehin

[lagarvelho]

Paul:

I think you have raised an important consideration, which is all too often just ignored in these discussions.  It certainly *is* odd that Neandertals never seem to have developed "representational" art(at least that we know of).  OTOH, since there don't seem to be any human remains associated with the earliest Aurignacian --- which includes some "representational" art, it's at least possible that Neandertals *could* have been responsible for some of the "Aurignacian" art traditionally attributed to "modern" humans.  Another possibility --- and granted, this is a highly speculative one --- is that Neandertals simply had some sort of taboo against "representation", except perhaps in crude forms such as the Roc de Marsal "face" or "mask" or whatever it is.  Given that they could do highly sophisticated things like create tar out of birch pitch(among other things), and are(apparently) known to have worked *some* things symbolically, it's perfectly possible --- and I have raised this issue elsewhere --- that they simply put their "symbolic" energy into song, dance, ritual, storytelling, mythmaking, etc.  Unfortunately, none of these things preserve in the fossil record, so absent a time machine, we'll  never know what Neandertals were capable of.  And unfortunately, they are not around any more to tell us. 

BTW, only the abstract is freely available.  I have the complete paper, thanks to the kindness of another person and the magic of e-mail

Thanks for your comments,
Anne G

[Daryl Habel]

Just came across this in the September issue of Journal of Archaeological Science

P.P.A. Mazza et al.
A new Palaeolithic discovery: tar-hafted stone tools in a European Mid-Pleistocene bone-bearing bed
Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2006) 1310-1318, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.01.006
(snip)
As far as I can see, this is fairly major news: It not only provides the first direct evidence that neandertals were already producing composite tools (a trait commonly handled as Upper Palaeolithic) during OIS 6. But in addition it shows that they were also capable of producing birch-bark-tar (birch-bark-pitch), a process which requires maintaining relatively constant, high temperatures (>800°C) and largely anaerobic conditions (otherwise the bark just burns and no tar is produced),  Birch-bark-tar is well known from Neolithic contexts across Europe, but how Palaeolithic people were able to produce it without the aid of ceramics remains to be explained.

I'm surprised that this paper's not been given more publicity (it's been available online since March).
To me it certainly seems something worth shouting about. So, here goes .....
Keith

Welcome Keith,

Thanks for the notice of this - somehow I'd overlooked this.  Yes, it appears to be a very important find.  I've now just read the paper and I have one question about what you say above about  the temperature (>800 deg C) and anaerobic conditions needed to to produce birch bark tar (or pitch, is this the same?).  Also, this quote from  Koller et al.(2001:393):  "....birch tar cannot be produced at temperatures below 340 [deg] C...."

Koller, J., Baumer, U. & Mania, D. (2001). High-tech in the Middle Palaeolithic: Neandertal-manufactured pitch identified.  European Journal of Archaeology 4 (3): 385-397.

As far as the dating estimate, Mazza et al. state a case for a stadial phase in late OIS 6.  At first glance, their fauna and geology looks OK, but I haven't really scrutinized as well as is needed. Ceramics would be nice, but there's no evidence for ceramics until the (Pavlovian) Upper Paleolithic (for all I know,  which is not necessarily saying much).   There probably was some alternate collection and application method.

And yes, it is surprising the lack of  "publicity" given this paper.   Shout out,
Dar

[Daryl Habel]

(snip)  I've now just read the paper and I have one question about what you say above about  the temperature (>800 deg C) and anaerobic conditions needed to to produce birch bark tar (or pitch, is this the same?).  Also, this quote from  Koller et al.(2001:393):  "....birch tar cannot be produced at temperatures below 340 [deg] C...."

Koller, J., Baumer, U. & Mania, D. (2001). High-tech in the Middle Palaeolithic: Neandertal-manufactured pitch identified.  European Journal of Archaeology 4 (3): 385-397).

Back again, with some little clarification.  After looking a bit further into the temperature required, it seems the temperature >800 deg C is correct.  At least according to the following article (thanks to Richard Parker on Anne Gilbert's palanthsci Yahoo group) from British Archaeology (last paragraph):

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba21/ba21feat.html

This also explains the use of ceramic sealed pots to achieve the anaerobic condition in the Neolithic production process.  Still no explanation for Middle Paleolithic production technique (beyond being able to control an 800 deg C fire).

Dar

[Löwenmensch]

Back again, with some little clarification.  After looking a bit further into the temperature required, it seems the temperature >800 deg C is correct.  At least according to the following article (thanks to Richard Parker on Anne Gilbert's palanthsci Yahoo group) from British Archaeology (last paragraph):

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba21/ba21feat.html

This also explains the use of ceramic sealed pots to achieve the anaerobic condition in the Neolithic production process.  Still no explanation for Middle Paleolithic production technique (beyond being able to control an 800 deg C fire).

Dar

Wow, Dar, you can answer your own questions quicker than I can :-)

yup, my information was lifted from the article you mention, which is from  E.M. AVELING, who's also written an article on the use of birch bark pitch in the Mesolithic (as a kind of chewing gum!)
      E.M. AVELING & C. HERON: Chewing tar in the early Holocene: an archaeological and ethnographic evaluation, ANTIQUITY 73 (1999): 579-84

 In the web article she writes: "Experiments have shown that tar begins to form at 807°C, but is produced efficiently only at a much higher temperature. The bark must also be heated as far as possible in the absence of air, otherwise all that happens is that the bark chars and no tar is produced."

However, animated by your question I went and checked the other articles I had and found the following in another article co-authered by Koller:

         "Birkenrindenpech (auch "Birkenbastpech") konnte nur durch Verschwelung ("trockene Destillation")
           hergestellt werden ... unter zumindest teilweisen Luftabschluß ... ." (p.32) 

in: J.M. Grünberg et al. (1999), Untersuchungen der mittelpaläolithischen "Harzrest" von Königsaue, Ldkr. Aschersleben-Straßfurt. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 81, 7-38.

   My translation: [Birk bark pitch ... could only be manufactured by smouldering ('dry distillation') ... under at least partial exclusion of air."]

The German term 'Verschwelung' is a bit tricky to translate. However, my technical dictionary translates it as "carbonisation at low temperatures".  which would seem to contradict the information in the Aveling article, while confirming 340-400 °C temperature mentioned in the Koller et al (2001) article.
So all in all there seems to be some confusion as to what conditions are actually required to produce birk bark pitch. However the exclusion of air seems to be a constant factor.  How did they do it?

Keith

[lagarvelho]

Keith:

This is not going to answer your question, and is apropos of more or less nothing.  But I always imagined Neandertals just heating up a very big(and hot) fire and immersing the birch(or whatever kind; one person has suggested alder as well) the pitch for whatever time was needed to turn it into tar.  Now mind you, I am not a "technical" person.  But now that you have brought this subject up, I imagine it *might* be possible to get a fire of whatever requisite temperature is required, by somehow digging a pt --- doesn't have to be huge) and building the fire in it, then covering it just enough to retain the heat and immersinvg the pitch in it, then watching it like a hawk till you get the consistency you want out of the pitch.  Of course, I have no idea how Neandertals(or anyone else living at that time) might have gone about doing such a thing, but it might not be as "high tech" as many people seem to imagine.  And even if it was, it seems that N's figurred out a way to do it.  And(sob!)we'll never know how!
Anne G

[trehinp]

How did they do it?

Keith

This subject on rather high level technologies used by Neanderthals (or any other early human beeings) is indeed a fascinating one. On a pragmatic level one wonders at the great achievement and would like to have an answer to the question you asked: "How did they do it?" I'm less pessimistic than Anne about the possibilities to find an answer. We may get the answer to that question as palaeolanthropological investigations techniques will become more and more able to detect extremely minute evidence for certain types of behaviours.

At a more a philosophical level, the first question "How did they do it ?" leads to at least two other fundamental questions for any technological breakthrough:
1/ "How did they discover / invent that technique?"
2/ "How was it transmitted through time and space?"

With a subsidiary question: "Was the technique discovered / invented several times in separate place and historical periods?"

But this is getting somewhat out of the original subject, eventhough it is related to it. If some Palanth members are interested to further develop that discussion on technology invention and transmission, I or someone else could start a new thread. It may be better to contact me off line to avoid meta discussions here.

Paul Trehin

[lagarvelho]

Paul:

I'm not really "pessimistic" about what we can "know" about prehistoric humans. Because it's becoming increasingly apparent that there is a lot that can be discerned from the artifacts recovered from digs, by modern methods.  But OTOH, we can't know the *exact* techniques by which such things as birch-pitch glue could be produced.  Although various techniques could be tried in laboratories to get at the method. 

BTW, a meta discussion on another thread might be quite interesting, but I won't say any more here about it.
Anne G