A

A multi-analytical approach reveals flexible compound adhesive technology at Steenbokfontein Cave, Western Cape

Journal of Archaeological Science, vol. 167, pp. 105997

Abstract

Evidence of different compound resin-based adhesives is present in South Africa from at least 77000 years ago. Ancient glue production is considered one of the oldest known highly complex technologies, requiring advanced technological and mental abilities. However, our current knowledge of adhesive materials, recipes, and uses in South Africa is limited by the lack of in-depth analysis and molecular characterization of residues. To deepen our knowledge of past adhesive technology, we performed a detailed multi-analytical analysis (use-wear, XRD, μ-CT, IR spectroscopy, GC-MS) of 30 Later Stone Age tools with adhesive remains from Steenbokfontein Cave, South Africa. At the site, tools made of various rocks were hafted with compound adhesives, and we identified three recipes: 1) resin/tar of Widdringtonia or Podocarpus species combined with hematite; 2) resin/tar of Widdringtonia or Podocarpus species mixed with hematite and another plant exudate; 3) resin/tar without hematite. The studied scrapers were used in hide-working activities, and the studied cutting tools were used to work animal and soft plant matters. All scrapers display evidence of intense resharpening and were discarded when no longer useable. The combination of different methods for residue analysis reveals the flexibility of adhesive technology at Steenbokfontein. Despite the consistent use of conifer resin/tar throughout the sequence, we observed that other ingredients were added or excluded independently of the tools’ raw materials and functions. Our results highlight the long-lasting tradition of using adhesive material from conifer species but also the adaptability and flexibility of adhesive traditions. The systematic application of this multi-analytical approach to Pleistocene adhesives will be useful to better characterise adhesive traditions and enhance the debate on the technological, cognitive, and behavioural implications of this technology.

Authors 7

  1. Leiden University · Delft University of Technology

    Affiliation as printed

    Department of Archaeological Sciences, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, 2333 CC Leiden, the Netherlands

    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, the Netherlands

  2. University of South Africa

    Affiliation as printed

    Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, School of Humanities, University of South Africa, PO Box 392, Pretoria 0003, South Africa

  3. Delft University of Technology

    Affiliation as printed

    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, the Netherlands

  4. Delft University of Technology

    Affiliation as printed

    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, the Netherlands

  5. Delft University of Technology

    Affiliation as printed

    Department of Geosciences and Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CN Delft, the Netherlands

  6. Delft University of Technology

    Affiliation as printed

    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, the Netherlands

  7. University of Johannesburg · Delft University of Technology

    Affiliation as printed

    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, the Netherlands

    Palaeo-Research Institute, University of Johannesburg, 2092 Johannesburg, South Africa

Cited by 10 stored of 10

10 results

No patents citing this paper on Lens.org (checked 2026-10-11).

References 87