4.7 Article

Dietary shift after 3600 cal yr BP and its influencing factors in northwestern China: Evidence from stable isotopes

期刊

QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 145, 期 -, 页码 57-70

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.05.041

关键词

Paleodiet; Climate change; Stable isotopes; Millet; Wheat; Barley; Northwestern China

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41271218, 41401091]
  2. National Social Science Foundation of China [12ZD151, 12XKG006]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [lzujbky-2015-k09]
  4. 111 Program [B06026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human diets rely on natural resource availability and can reflect social and cultural values. When environments, societies, and cultures change, diets may also shift. This study traced the extent of dietary change and the factors influencing such change. Through stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic analysis of late Neolithic and early Bronze Age human and animal bone collagen, we found that significant shifts in human diets were closely associated with intercontinental cultural exchanges in Eurasia and climate change in northwestern China. The isotopic evidence indicated that human diets mainly consisted of C-4 foodstuffs (presumably millet and/or animals fed with C4 foods) around 4000 calibrated years before the present (cal yr BP), corresponding to the flourishing of millet agriculture in the context of the optimal climate conditions of the mid-Holocene. Subsequently, more C-3 foods (probably wheat, barley, and animals fed with C3 foods) were added to human diets post-3600 cal yr BP when the climate became cooler and drier. Such dietary variation is also consistent with the increasing intensity of long-distance exchange after 4000 cal yr BP. While many factors can lead to human dietary shifts (e.g. climate change, population growth, cultural factors, and human migration), climate may have been a key factor in Gansu and Qinghai. (C) 2016 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

4.7
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