Of course. And bone and antler, too. One of the primary techniques for manufacturing stone tools - shared by Neanderthals and probably other pre-human hominids - was (is?) using a piece of wood or bone, as the hammer. The wood is softer, but it's elastic, and it deforms when it impacts, and transfers the energy in a different way. The resulting tools are distinct, and the development of the soft hammer techniques might have been one of the first advances, beyond trying to make a rock with a sharp edge at all.
Very exciting to find actual evidence though. Organic implements almost never ever survive.
That’s interesting. Nowadays I think (although I’m certainly not very handy) soft faced hammers are mostly used to protect what you are hammering, right? So it is mostly an aesthetic thing.
Of course ancient humans also had a sense of beauty, but I guess I tend to assume they were much rougher with their construction. I wonder what they were trying not to scuff.
For stone age tools it would have been less for the aesthetics and more for: what else are you going to use? You can use stone to hit stone, but depending on the stones and the intent (and the technique), achieving the right results might be difficult or impossible.
Other options: you don't have metal really. You could grind stuff, maybe, but that's a _lot_ of effort.
So soft faced hammers should have had a place just by virtue of lack of other good options. My understanding is that for several things it'd be a lot of effort but relatively low technique required and relatively low risk of just cracking/smashing whatever you're trying to work on into uselessness.
Yes, but that still includes tools like woodworking and wood carving chisels, froes, axes, metal splitting wedges (to protect against metal splinters flying around),...
I think that's probably right but... that video basically says "you could use string for lots of things long ago, the movie Castaway proved it was necessary, we use string for lots of things today." Short-form videos are not a useful source of information.
At least for the Kebaran culture in the levante there is increasing evidence that a wood age in architecture preceded the stone temples of Gobekli Tepe. (Wadi Hammeh 27)
Here's the great thing about wood: every age is the wood age. We have always put the most advanced tool technology of the age toward working with wood, because wood has been eternally useful. And in turn, wood-based technology has advanced with the tools used to craft it. In a symbiotic relationship, those uses of wood advance the uses of other materials, too.
Almost every building today (most of them are small house-like structures) is made of wood, and it has been that way for recorded history. Wood shows up in many places where you would expect humans to have come up with a more advanced material today, too.
In that way, classifying a "wood age" is not all that useful.
Probably every, or at least almost every, age is the wood age by bulk. But in terms of high-tech manufacturing, every age could probably be called the ceramic age. Pottery, glass, spaceship tiles, computer chips.
Metals get outsized attention I think because we use them to kill each other, so switching to a new metal is quite dramatic.
You must have never lived outside of a city if that is your perception of buildings. Most of the buildings I have seen in the European countryside are made with a significant amount of wood. Even brick and stone buildings will often have a timber structure. Most buildings are not in cities, in general.
Scandanaivans use a particularly large amount of wood, even in their city centers and even for skyscrapers.
Good grief, which part of Europe are you from ... Concretia?
Even in the UK we describe our normal building habit as "sticks n bricks" and there are a lot of sticks. Under my feet, right now, there are wooden joists and a plywood subfloor. I live on a hill. Some ground floor (first floor) rooms have solid conc. sub floors but the other half has the usual (1930s) two foot cavity, involving brick piers on conc raft and wooden joists to slap the floor across.
We still have a large stock of wattle and daub cottages with thatched roof too.
Every other country in Europe I have ever visited has rather a lot of wooden buildings in it too. I lived in West Germany for some years, for example.
Sticks and bricks lends itself to an environment with plenty of mud and fewer trees. It is quite brittle so no earthquakes thank you. The UK's largest recent earthquake was basically a knee trembler.
That's actually part of the history of the new world. One of the primary uses of wood in Europe throughout the colonial period was boat-building. As such, one of the primary exports of early settlers and colonial corporations in the British colonies was timber, for boats. Eventually, it led to an indigenous boat-building industry, and from that, American mercantilism.
Depends where in Europe. I'd say in Northern Europe, especially in Scandinavia wood is more frequently used when building homes.
In other places the roof structure is often made of wood. And although technically it's not part of the building, concrete forms used for foundation/walls are mostly made of OSB/plywood.
Few buildings in Europe are today solely made from wood, but nearly every building will be part wood. From the frame on which walls and floors are built up with other materials up to the roof where for most houses the very structure is made from wood, it's clear wood is one of the most essential building components. To be honest I struggle to think of any building I've ever seen that has no wood - except for semi-subterranean structures or those built out of natural structures I can't think of any.
I have lived in multiple houses and flats in different parts of England, and all but one had wooden floors. I am pretty sure all but that had used in roofs and possibly some other places. The same is true for most houses I have been in.
most buildings in america are concrete and/or brick, though the usa is an exception. in most of america, wood is used only for roofs and illegal slums, and even most slums are mostly brick
i don't know what the situation is on other continents but i've sure seen a lot of photos and videos of concrete and brick buildings
Disregarding the houses, the most popular form of apartment building in the US right now is called a "5 over 1" which has a wood frame on top of a concrete first floor. The facades often aren't wood, but the buildings themselves are usually wood. Most "brick" houses in the US have a brick facade over a wooden house.
The few exceptions are in the densest cities in the US, like New York, where new construction is concrete and steel.
Canada, I am sure, is the same. Mexico and South America, not so sure. I have been around some places in Central America that have tons of wood construction, and so did the parts of Argentina and Brazil I have seen, but you may have better information. Many houses that you think are concrete or brick actually have a wood frame.
Many modern brick buildings, have a wood structure with steel brackets, and the brick is only facing, and is not what is holding up the roof. Older brick homes do have brick structural walls or pillars inside, but in recent decades those are usually re-enforced concrete blocks.
My impression is that concrete must be cheaper than wood, given that wood seems mostly used in high income countries and concrete is dominant in low income areas.
How would that even work? Both the wood and your fist will deform to absorb the impact. You may as well try to empty the ocean by scooping up water with your hands and throwing it on the beach.
It is about how wood is arguably the most important material in human history. Covers a lot of its useful material properties, and makes very compelling arguments for how wood was instrumental in each era of human development.
Readit News
Very exciting to find actual evidence though. Organic implements almost never ever survive.
Of course ancient humans also had a sense of beauty, but I guess I tend to assume they were much rougher with their construction. I wonder what they were trying not to scuff.
Deleted Comment
Other options: you don't have metal really. You could grind stuff, maybe, but that's a _lot_ of effort.
So soft faced hammers should have had a place just by virtue of lack of other good options. My understanding is that for several things it'd be a lot of effort but relatively low technique required and relatively low risk of just cracking/smashing whatever you're trying to work on into uselessness.
Yes, but that still includes tools like woodworking and wood carving chisels, froes, axes, metal splitting wedges (to protect against metal splinters flying around),...
Doesn't seem mentioned in the text or comments. This short video blew my mind: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/T4Couxopo2w
The small brother of a string is a threat
Almost every building today (most of them are small house-like structures) is made of wood, and it has been that way for recorded history. Wood shows up in many places where you would expect humans to have come up with a more advanced material today, too.
In that way, classifying a "wood age" is not all that useful.
Metals get outsized attention I think because we use them to kill each other, so switching to a new metal is quite dramatic.
Scandanaivans use a particularly large amount of wood, even in their city centers and even for skyscrapers.
Even in the UK we describe our normal building habit as "sticks n bricks" and there are a lot of sticks. Under my feet, right now, there are wooden joists and a plywood subfloor. I live on a hill. Some ground floor (first floor) rooms have solid conc. sub floors but the other half has the usual (1930s) two foot cavity, involving brick piers on conc raft and wooden joists to slap the floor across.
We still have a large stock of wattle and daub cottages with thatched roof too.
Every other country in Europe I have ever visited has rather a lot of wooden buildings in it too. I lived in West Germany for some years, for example.
Sticks and bricks lends itself to an environment with plenty of mud and fewer trees. It is quite brittle so no earthquakes thank you. The UK's largest recent earthquake was basically a knee trembler.
In other places the roof structure is often made of wood. And although technically it's not part of the building, concrete forms used for foundation/walls are mostly made of OSB/plywood.
i don't know what the situation is on other continents but i've sure seen a lot of photos and videos of concrete and brick buildings
The few exceptions are in the densest cities in the US, like New York, where new construction is concrete and steel.
Canada, I am sure, is the same. Mexico and South America, not so sure. I have been around some places in Central America that have tons of wood construction, and so did the parts of Argentina and Brazil I have seen, but you may have better information. Many houses that you think are concrete or brick actually have a wood frame.
https://www.amazon.com/Age-Wood-Material-Construction-Civili...
It is about how wood is arguably the most important material in human history. Covers a lot of its useful material properties, and makes very compelling arguments for how wood was instrumental in each era of human development.