It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Adhesive production is one of the earliest forms of transformative technology, predating ceramics and metallurgy by over 150,000 years. The study of the adhesives used by Neandertals and early modern humans currently plays a significant role in debates about human technological and cognitive evolution. Depending on the type of adhesive used, different production sequences were required. These can vary in complexity and would have needed different knowledge, expertise, and resources to manufacture. However, our knowledge of this important technological development is severely hampered by poorly understood taphonomic processes, which affects the preservation and identification of adhesive materials and leads to a research bias. Here we present the results from a 3-year field preservation experiment. Flint flakes hafted and non-hafted with replica adhesives were left to weather naturally on and below the surface at two locations with different soils and climatic conditions. Differential preservation was recorded on a variety of natural adhesives by digitally measuring the surface area of each residue before and after the elapsed time. Residues were further assessed and photographed using metallographic optical microscopy. Results show that certain adhesives preserve to a significantly higher degree than others, while some materials may be more easily overlooked or visually misdiagnosed. We must therefore be aware of both taphonomic and identification biases when discussing ancient adhesive technology. This research provides a first look that will help us understand the disparities between which adhesives were used in the past and what we find in the archaeological record today.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Leiden University, Faculty of Archeology, Leiden, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.5132.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2312 1970); Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.5292.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4740)
2 Leiden University, Faculty of Archeology, Leiden, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.5132.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2312 1970)
3 Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.5292.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4740); University of Johannesburg, Palaeo-Research Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa (GRID:grid.412988.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 0109 131X)