4.5 Article

Short, but repeated Neanderthal visits to Teixoneres Cave (MIS 3, Barcelona, Spain): a combined analysis of tooth microwear patterns and seasonality

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 49, 期 -, 页码 317-325

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.06.002

关键词

Middle Palaeolithic; Ungulates; Tooth wear; Seasonality

资金

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (MINECO) [HAR2010-19957, CGL2012-38434-C03-03, CGL2012-38358, CGL-BOS-2012-34717]
  2. Generalitat de Catalunya
  3. European Union
  4. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new approach combining two proxies is presented with the aim to provide valuable data to better understand the patterns of human occupations in Palaeolithic sites. We employed the analysis of tooth microwear patterns combined with an estimation of the seasonality through tooth eruption and wear patterns of the ungulates. Each proxy brings different types of information. The variability in tooth microwear patterns allows for the estimation of the duration of occupational events at a site while the estimation of seasonality permits to situate temporally these events through the year. The research involved four Middle Palaeolithic archaeological levels from Teixoneres Cave (Moia, Spain). The combined analysis allowed for the identification of different patterns of occupation at the site: (1) short seasonal occupations at a single season such as in level ha at the beginning of the summer and in level Ilb in autumn and early winter, (2) repeated seasonal occupations of the site at all seasons such as in the underlying level ilia, and (3) repeated seasonal settlements at two specific seasons (summer and winter) as in level IIIb. Our results show congruence between the two methods which imply that combined approaches would allow a better knowledge about the occupations that occurred in the cave, in particular about the duration of Neanderthal occupations. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据