Abstract
The use of birch tar can be traced back to the European Middle Palaeolithic and is relevant for our understanding of the technical skills and cognitive abilities of Neanderthals. Due to the lack of archaeological evidence, it remains unknown what techniques were used for birch tar making. Efficiency was recently used as a proxy to determine the method most likely used in the Middle Palaeolithic. Todtenhaupt et al. have proposed a technique employing a groove-like structure that is comparable with the recently presented condensation method. The groove method resulted in higher tar yields compared to other experimental aceramic production processes. However, the implications for Palaeolithic tar making remain unclear because some of the materials used in the experiment were not available then (polished granite slabs). To approach this problem, we replicated the groove with river cobbles and, in a second experiment with flint fragments, to evaluate whether similar results can be obtained. We were successful in producing birch tar in multiple runs with the cobble- and flint-grooves, which, in addition, proved to be more efficient than the condensation method in terms of tar yield per bark input. Our experimental study provides an additional possibility to make prehistoric birch tar.
Highlights
The use of birch tar can be traced back to the European Middle Palaeolithic and is relevant for our understanding of the technical skills and cognitive abilities of Neanderthals
Without artefacts directly associated with the production process of birch tar making, we cannot determine the exact method employed by Neanderthals
The traditional condensation method produced a similar amount of tar after 30 min (0.27 g and 0.28 g), the amount of bark used varied (Table 1)
Summary
The implications for Palaeolithic tar making remain unclear because some of the materials used in the experiment were not available (polished granite slabs) To approach this problem, we replicated the groove with river cobbles and, in a second experiment with flint fragments, to evaluate whether similar results can be obtained. It appears to be more efficient than the condensation method by a factor greater than two[7] The problem with this method for interpreting Neanderthal birch tar production is that polished granite slabs were not available in the Middle Palaeolithic. If the cobble-groove technique produces more tar per time and bark than the condensation method, it may be argued that this method is a possible evolution of the simpler condensation method Another aim is to assess whether the amount of tar produced using this method is comparable to the artefacts recovered at the Neanderthal sites that have yielded birch tar
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
