Neanderthals: an ecologically selective species? Experimental methods to research fire use in the Abric Romani rockshelter

尼安德特人对火有着熟练的控制能力，Abric Romani（西班牙Capellades）是距今约55 ka BP的一个关键的用火地点。我的项目分析了Abric Romani壁炉的木炭，解决了尼安德特人燃料选择，生态知识和实验偏见的问题。个别燃料物种将被测试的可燃性，并与尼安德特人的数据进行比较，以前在我的硕士论文（未发表）分析，以证实尼安德特人是否选择燃料的物种或环境的可用性。这对尼安德特人的认知能力及其与我们自己物种的相似性具有重要意义。更一般地说，我的实验将为解释旧石器时代和其他壁炉数据集提供重要的基准样本。这项研究将解决三个关键问题：“尼安德特人选择木柴是基于其可获得性还是可燃性？“，”木炭生产/存活是否因不同燃料种类而异？“和”阿布里克罗姆人的壁炉是为特定的功能而建造的吗？“为了评估第二个问题及其对第一个问题的影响，我将创建一个基准数据库，将木炭生产与12个属的考古保护相关联（宏基，埃里卡，白蜡，沙棘，杜松，油橄榄，李，栎，柳，花楸，桦和松），以测试：-不同物种的木材到木炭的转化率，区分湿/干/腐烂和树皮/芯木。火坑结构（石围、下沉/半下沉等）和点火方法（灌木、植被、无火种等）。- 不同物种的可燃性（包括湿/干/腐烂和树皮/芯材）在锥形量热仪上找到最佳燃料。通过人工埋藏过程（例如水渗透，破碎）的木炭降解，证明哪种燃料的木炭最容易变得无法识别。各种物种作为点火器/主要燃料，以检查产生的木炭的相对数量，从而确定尼安德特人选择作为点火燃料的相关物种。- 志愿者对某些物种的识别不足或错误识别的倾向，以及这种倾向是否因条件而异（新鲜/干燥/腐烂）。不同品种的干燥时间。如果炉膛功能/形状影响保存或解释。各种点火功能（睡觉时取暖、烹饪、吸烟、燧石热裂解等），在空间上绘制周围的石器碎片，并分析实验火坑中的遗骸，与已发表的Abric Romani材料进行比较。许多尼安德特人的木炭来自混合火灾，因此不清楚不同物种是否在一次事件中被一起燃烧或后来混合在一起。我将比较（1）多物种火灾和（2）同一炉膛内不同物种的多次再燃烧，以及相互燃烧的清洁事件。清理后幸存下来的东西将为炉膛清理提供替代品，从而为尼安德特人的遗址管理提供替代品。

Neanderthals had proficient control over fire, and Abric Romani (Capellades, Spain) is a key fire-using site from c.55ka BP. My project analyses charcoal from replica Abric Romani hearths, addressing questions of Neanderthal fuel choice, ecological knowledge and experimental bias. Individual fuel species will be tested for combustibility, and compared with Neanderthal data previously analysed in my Masters thesis (unpublished), to substantiate whether Neanderthals selected fuel by species or environmental availability. This has important implications for Neanderthal cognitive capacities and their similarity to our own species. More generally, my experiments will provide important benchmark samples for interpreting Palaeolithic and other hearth datasets.This research would address three key questions: 'Did Neanderthals select firewood based on its accessibility or combustibility?', 'Does charcoal production/survival vary between different fuel species?' and 'Were the Abric Romani hearths constructed for particular functions?' To assess the second question and its implications for the first, I will create benchmark databanks correlating charcoal production with archaeological preservation on twelve genera (Acer, Erica, Fraxinus, Hippophae, Juniperus, Olea, Prunus, Quercus, Salix, Sorbus, Betula and Pinus), to test:- Wood-to-charcoal conversion rates of various species, distinguishing between wet/dry/rotten and bark/core wood.- Fire-pit constructions (stone-enclosed, sunken/semi-sunken etc.) and fire-starting methods (brushwood, vegetation, no kindling etc.). - Different species' combustibility (including wet/dry/rotten and bark/core wood) on cone calorimeters to find optimal fuels.- Charcoal degradation through artificial taphonomic processes (e.g. water percolation, crushing), demonstrating which fuel's charcoal most easily becomes unrecognisable.- Various species as fire-starters/main fuels to examine relative quantities of charcoal produced, thus identifying relevant species Neanderthals chose as fire-starting fuels. - Volunteers' tendencies to under-identify or misidentify certain species, and if this varies with condition (fresh/dry/rotten).- Various species' drying times.- If hearth function/shape affects preservation or interpretation.- Various fire functions (warmth while sleeping, cooking, smoking, flint heat-cracking etc.), spatially mapping surrounding lithic fragments, and analysing remains in the experimental fire-pits with comparison to published Abric Romani material.Much Neanderthal charcoal is from commingled fires, making it unclear whether different species were burnt together in one event or became commingled later. I shall compare (1) multi-species fires and (2) multiple re-burnings of different species on the same hearth, with inter-burning cleaning episodes. What survives such cleaning will provide proxies for hearth clearances, and hence Neanderthal site management.