https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2320484121

Ethnographic records show that wooden tools
played a pivotal role in the daily lives of
hunter-gatherers including food procurement
tools used in hunting (e.g., spears, throwing
sticks) and gathering (e.g. digging sticks,
bark peelers), as well as, domestic tools
(e.g., handles, vessels). However, wood
rarely survives in the archeological record,
especially in Pleistocene contexts and
knowledge of prehistoric hunter-gatherer
lifeways is strongly biased by the
survivorship of more resilient materials
such as lithics and bones. Consequently,
very few Paleolithic sites have produced
wooden artifacts and among them, the site
of Schöningen stands out due to its number
and variety of wooden tools. The recovery
of complete wooden spears and throwing
sticks at this 300,000-y-old site (MIS 9)
led to a paradigm shift in the hunter vs.
scavenger debate. For the first time and
almost 30 y after their discovery, this
study introduces the complete wooden
assemblage from Schöningen 13 II-4 known
as the Spear Horizon. In total, 187 wooden
artifacts could be identified from the Spear
Horizon demonstrating a broad spectrum of
wood-working techniques, including the
splitting technique. A minimum of 20
hunting weapons is now recognized and two
newly identified artifact types comprise
35 tools made on split woods, which were
likely used in domestic activities.
Schöningen 13 II-4 represents the largest
Pleistocene wooden artifact assemblage
worldwide and demonstrates the key role
woodworking had in human evolution.
Finally, our results considerably change
the interpretation of the Pleistocene
lakeshore site of Schöningen.

Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
The recovery
> of complete wooden spears and throwing
> sticks  at  this  300,000-y-old site (MIS 9)
> led to a paradigm shift in the hunter vs.
> scavenger debate.

This was at first and for many years dated to some
400,000 years in age. And I find this new dating
disturbing. No, NOT because I need the cite to be
of a specific age but because there are older
examples, yet this one and this age is being
presented as authoritative.

..."This goes back THIS far!"

No. It goes back a lot further.

REGARDLESS of what the age is here, for this one
site.

> Finally, our results considerably change
> the interpretation of the Pleistocene
> lakeshore site of Schöningen.

This seems to be important to them. As it is the
only matter of any significance, why not explore
those claims, specifically?

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5