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

尼安德特人熟练地控制着火，Abric Romani(西班牙卡佩拉季斯)是公元前55ka左右的关键用火地点。我的项目分析了复制品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。将对个别燃料物种进行可燃性测试，并与我之前在硕士论文(未发表)中分析的尼安德特人的数据进行比较，以证实尼安德特人是根据物种还是环境可用性来选择燃料的。这对尼安德特人的认知能力以及他们与我们人类的相似性有着重要的影响。更广泛地说，我的实验将为解释旧石器时代和其他壁炉数据提供重要的基准样本。这项研究将解决三个关键问题：尼安德特人选择柴火是基于其可及性还是可燃性？以及不同燃料种类的木炭产量/存活率是否有所不同？以及“阿布里克·罗曼尼壁炉是为特定功能而建造的吗？”为了评估第二个问题及其对第一个问题的影响，我将创建基准数据库，将木炭生产与考古保护联系起来，涉及12个属(宏、杜鹃属、白蜡树、沙棘、李属、栎属、柳属、花杉属、桦树属和松属)，以测试：-不同物种的木炭转化率，区分湿/干/腐烂和树皮/芯木。-火坑建筑(石围、沉没/半沉没等)。以及点火方法(灌木丛、植被、不生火等)。-在锥形量热计上测试不同物种的燃烧性能(包括湿/干/腐烂和树皮/芯材)，以寻找最佳燃料。-通过人工挖掘过程(如渗水、粉碎)使木炭降解，展示哪种燃料的木炭最容易变得无法识别。-各种作为引火剂/主要燃料的物种，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起火燃料的相关物种。-志愿者倾向于低估或错误识别某些物种，如果这随条件而异(新鲜/干燥/腐烂)。-各种物种的干燥时间。-壁炉功能/形状是否影响保存或解释。-各种火功能(睡觉时的温暖、烹饪、吸烟、打火石热裂等)，空间映射周围的石块碎片，并分析实验火坑中的遗骸，与发表的Abric Romani材料进行比较。许多尼安德特人的木炭来自混合的火，因此不清楚不同的物种是在一次事件中被烧毁，还是后来被混合在一起。我将比较(1)多物种火灾和(2)不同物种在同一炉膛上的多次再燃烧，以及燃烧间的清洁事件。在这种清理中幸存下来的东西将为壁炉清理提供代理，从而为尼安德特人的遗址管理提供依据。

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species will be tested for combustibility, and compared with Neanderthal data previously analysed in my Masters thesis (unpublished), to substantiate whether Neanderthals selected fuel by species or environmental availability.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.