...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Archaeological Science >Arguments in favour of an anthropogenic origin of Mesolithic pit hearths. A reply to Crombe anu Langohr (2020)
【24h】

Arguments in favour of an anthropogenic origin of Mesolithic pit hearths. A reply to Crombe anu Langohr (2020)

机译:赞成有利于沉思坑壁炉的人为的争论。 回复Crombe Anu Langohr(2020)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

In response to the comment by Crombe and Langohr (2020) on our micmmorphological study of Mesolithic pit hearths, we argue that these features are most likely anthropogenic in origin, and that it is therefore unlikely that they are the remains of burned ant nests. Arguments for an anthropogenic origin centre around (1) their regional and temporal distribution, (2) their spatial distribution within archaeological sites, (3) their charcoal spectrum and (4) the presence of cultural remains in the pits. We argue that the absence of fire-related features and apparent discrepancies in dating can be attributed to site-formation and taphonomic processes. Finally, we indicate that, due to a lack of actual observations of the subsurface morphology of burned ant nests, it is impossible to make a valid comparison. Based on the existing literature on ant nests fires, we come to a different model of this morphology than do Crombe and Langohr (2020). We conclude that these pit hearths form an important component of the Mesolithic archaeological record and that new research into their formation and their use may shed more light on their origin and purpose.
机译:为了回应Crombe和Langohr(2020)对岩石坑壁炉的麦哲工学研究的评论,我们认为这些特征最有可能原产地是人为的,因此它们不太可能是烧伤蚂蚁巢的遗体。争论的争论(1)其区域和时间分布(2)考古遗址内的空间分布,(3)它们的木炭谱和(4)文化留在坑中存在。我们认为,缺乏与日期有关的特征和明显的差异可以归因于现场形成和撰写的过程。最后,我们表明,由于缺乏烧伤蚂蚁巢的地下形态的实际观察,因此无法进行有效的比较。基于现有的蚂蚁巢火灾的文献,我们来到这种形态的不同模型,而不是Crombe和Langohr(2020)。我们得出结论,这些坑壁炉形成了沉思主义考古学记录的重要组成部分,并将新的研究进入其形成及其使用可能会对他们的起源和目的进行更多的光线。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号