The articles description about the glue making process indicates a good understanding of chemistry and thus, I would say, even some sort of an idea ("model", if you will) about the basic construction of matter (atoms, molecules).
The article says: ------------------------------------------------------------------- The archaeologists took design cues from stone tools found during a decade of excavation at South Africa’s Sibudu Cave site. The stones were still covered with traces of an iron-rich red pigment and acacia gum, a natural adhesive found in the bark of acacia trees.
Acacia gum was almost certainly used to attach the stones to wooden shafts, but researchers have debated the pigment’s role. Some suggested that it was decoration. The Witersrand team suspected a more functional use.
Indeed, when they used Stone Age toolmaking techniques to attach stones to wooden shafts with nothing but acacia gum, the tools soon fell apart. When they added the pigment, the tools stuck together. But making the glue required much more than simple mixing. It demanded careful and sustained attention.
Keeping the fire at the right temperature required certain types of wood, with a certain degree of moisture content. If glues were mixed too close to the fire, they contained air bubbles. If too dry, they weren’t cohesive; if too wet, they were weak. The Sibudu Cave’s Stone Age inhabitants, wrote the researchers, were “competent chemists, alchemists and pyrotechnologists.” -------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact it seems that to think of this type of glue shows a way of think more akin modern man (even people living in medieval times seem to have thought of this type of stuff). Or am I wrong here?
Technologies come and go. Bronze age smiths could harden bronze to hold a razor edge, a skill now lost. Not too many cartwrights around anynore, either.
.....
The articles description about the glue making process indicates a good understanding of chemistry and thus, I would say, even some sort of an idea ("model", if you will) about the basic construction of matter (atoms, molecules).
- A long jump.... practical mastery does in no way equal theoretical understanding. If one could prove that they had _calculated beforehand_ the right mix and the right production procedure.... but I suspect some generations of trial-and-error, and a transmitted method, perhaps like japanese smiths, who got it right, but probably knew little "physics".
In fact it seems that to think of this type of glue shows a way of think more akin modern man (even people living in medieval times seem to have thought of this type of stuff). Or am I wrong here?
- It's probably wrong to think that technology is cumulative. Bushmen have superb animal tracking "technology" (or, skill), which we have lost because we don't need it. Europe had a lot of "kungfu" (the manuals are still around), but then someone hammered together the first pistol, and exit hand-to-hand combat skills (pars pro toto). Which captain today can handle a triple decker ship of the line from Nelson's days? Skilles are developed when necessary, and forgotten when obsolete.
> Technologies come and go. > Bronze age smiths could harden bronze to hold a razor edge, a skill now > lost. > Not too many cartwrights around anynore, either.
> .....
> The articles description about the glue making process indicates a > good understanding of chemistry and thus, I would say, even some sort > of an idea ("model", if you will) about the basic construction of > matter (atoms, molecules).
> - A long jump.... practical mastery does in no way equal theoretical > understanding. If one could prove that they had _calculated beforehand_ the > right mix and the right production procedure.... but I suspect some > generations of trial-and-error, and a transmitted method, perhaps like > japanese smiths, who got it right, but probably knew little "physics".
> In fact it seems that to think of this type of glue shows a way of > think more akin modern man (even people living in medieval times seem > to have thought of this type of stuff). Or am I wrong here?
> - It's probably wrong to think that technology is cumulative. > Bushmen have superb animal tracking "technology" (or, skill), > which we have lost because we don't need it. > Europe had a lot of "kungfu" (the manuals are still around), but then > someone > hammered together the first pistol, and exit hand-to-hand combat skills > (pars pro toto). > Which captain today can handle a triple decker ship of the line from > Nelson's days? > Skilles are developed when necessary, and forgotten when obsolete.
> T
> T
I have my copy of Lurio Russo's The Forgotten Revolution which I dig out everytime some one comes up with a marvelous invention of the long period after the Hellenistic Age. One example which is in the same area as the glue, lines on an Egyptian gem a millimeter wide, strongly suggest the use of a magnifying lens for close work. Something later gem carvers fortified. And the lens was not just used for close work.
> In fact it seems that to think of this type of glue shows a way of > think more akin modern man (even people living in medieval times seem > to have thought of this type of stuff). Or am I wrong here?
> Thanks in advance,
Generations of experience and 'rule of thumb' and observing the results of accidents can create very complex and sophisticated technology without any understanding of the underlying chemistry or physics - or even any thought at all about them. Our ancestors were at least as intelligent and observant as we are.
One can easily imagine someone getting pigment contaminated with resin (or vice versa) by accident, and noticing the adhesive properties when trying to clean up.
>I have my copy of Lurio Russo's The Forgotten Revolution which I dig >out everytime some one comes up with a marvelous invention of the long >period after the Hellenistic Age. One example which is in the same >area as the glue, lines on an Egyptian gem a millimeter wide, strongly >suggest the use of a magnifying lens for close work. Something later >gem carvers fortified. And the lens was not just used for close work.
I once bought a book called "Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age"... (I think *). Contrary to intuition, it did not mention descent from space aliens, nor Atlantis. Paleologist R. Rudgley endeavoured to try to trace back through archaeological finds the roots of modern technologies. I have forgotten most of it, except the parts on neanderthal brain surgery (trepanned skulls with bone growth showing the "patient" survived), Egyptian dentistry and the earliest use of of composite materials (e.g. axe with a wooden handle, bows and arrows). But there was much more; quite interesting, I thought.
> >I have my copy of Lurio Russo's The Forgotten Revolution which I dig > >out everytime some one comes up with a marvelous invention of the long > >period after the Hellenistic Age. One example which is in the same > >area as the glue, lines on an Egyptian gem a millimeter wide, strongly > >suggest the use of a magnifying lens for close work. Something later > >gem carvers fortified. And the lens was not just used for close work.
> I once bought a book called "Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age"... (I > think *). > Contrary to intuition, it did not mention descent from space aliens, > nor Atlantis. Paleologist R. Rudgley endeavoured to try to trace back > through archaeological finds the roots of modern technologies. > I have forgotten most of it, except the parts on neanderthal brain surgery > (trepanned skulls with bone growth showing the "patient" survived), > Egyptian dentistry and the earliest use of of composite materials > (e.g. axe with a wooden handle, bows and arrows). But there was > much more; quite interesting, I thought.
|
