2020
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1920933117
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reply to Schmidt et al.: Interpretation of Paleolithic adhesive production: Combining experimental and paleoenvironmental information

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings support the hypothesis that the Le Moustier artifacts were part of composite tools. They were assembled by gluing them to shafts or handles using an adhesive, or alternatively, as Neanderthal archaeological examples show ( 22 , 27 ), the adhesive was molded onto the tools and functioned as the handle itself.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These findings support the hypothesis that the Le Moustier artifacts were part of composite tools. They were assembled by gluing them to shafts or handles using an adhesive, or alternatively, as Neanderthal archaeological examples show ( 22 , 27 ), the adhesive was molded onto the tools and functioned as the handle itself.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…European H. sapiens also used adhesives from the late Aurignacian and Gravettian (<33 ka) on (23)(24)(25), but their botanical origin and production techniques are not well understood [an exception is the use of bitumen in Eastern Europe (26)]. The implications of Neanderthal birch tar are still debated [compare (27,28)], but what is certain is that Neanderthals made the effort to produce it, although other adhesive substances could simply have been collected in nature [see the discussion in (9,29,30)]. Thus, similarly to the modern human record from Africa, the known European adhesive technology documents innovative behavior and even cumulative cultural transmission of techniques (31,32).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The paleolithic archaeological debate about the extent of fire use by Neanderthals is not settled, but there are diverse data to support a wide variety of technological innovations focused on fire use by Neanderthals, such as producing mastics for hafting tools 62,64 . The nature of the acceleration of sites with evidence of fire from 400,000 years ago onward in Western and Central Eurasia, 126 that is, “Neanderthal territory,” supports the assertion that Neanderthals were technological pioneers up until the Upper Paleolithic transition (Figure 2).…”
Section: Neanderthal Cultural Cold Bufferingmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Experimental modeling of cave thermodynamics suggests Neanderthals were placing their hearths to maximize smoke ventilation, such as at Cueva Negra 116 or placing them under natural chimneys like at Kebara 117 . It is unlikely that some Neanderthal groups were wholly without the ability to make fire 61 when some sites have evidence of sophisticated pyrotechnical knowledge from thermodynamics 116 to the complicated production of synthetic compounds like birch pitch 62,64 …”
Section: Neanderthal Cultural Cold Bufferingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This simply involves heating birch bark adjacent to, and under, a large cobble propped on its side to create an overhang. Thus, Schmidt et al (2019, 17707) argue that there was no need for the ‘cognitively demanding set up’ proposed by Kozowyk et al (2017b), with the latter using the making of birch tar as a marker of Neanderthal technological and cultural complexity (see Kozowyk et al 2020b for a response). However, it is important to stress that, to date, no direct archaeological evidence for the Palaeolithic tar-production protocol(s) used has yet been identified, meaning that these experimental methods remain hypothetical theories, unable fully to address the question of Neanderthal behavioural complexity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%