首页> 外文OA文献 >What’s the difference? Results of a functional study of Aterian and Mousterian tools from the site of Ifri n’Ammar (Morocco)
【2h】

What’s the difference? Results of a functional study of Aterian and Mousterian tools from the site of Ifri n’Ammar (Morocco)

机译:有什么不同?来自Ifri n’Ammar(摩洛哥)站点的Aterian和Mousterian工具功能研究的结果

摘要

Until today, the definition of the North African Mousterian has been based on a systematic comparison with the European Mousterian. Particularly the “Aterian” and its tanged tools have been widely discussed. Researchers considered the tanged Aterian tools as early indications of the existence of hafting techniques [1]. It is currently not entirely understood how the Aterian relates to the Mousterian in North Africa, whether tanged tools can indeed be linked with hafting, and whether non-tanged tools were also hafted, which could indicate that a variety in hafting techniques existed. The site of Ifri n’Ammar presents an ideal chance to compare Aterian and Mousterian technocomplexes. The rock shelter is located in the eastern Moroccan Rif and has a rich and well preserved stratigraphy where Middle Paleolithic tools are abundantly represented [2]. At Ifri n’Ammar, the Aterian and Mousterian assemblages are inter-stratified, which means that the relationship of these industries cannot simply be explained in terms of chronological succession [2,3]. The density of retouched artefacts differs between the Aterian and the Mousterian levels and tanged tools are present in the denser Aterian levels only. These levels also show a higher overall tool frequency. We present the results of a functional study focusing on the artefacts from the upper levels (“Occupation supérieure”) of Ifri n’Ammar, dated between 83 ± 6 ka and 130 ± 8 ka [3]. The functional study was combined with a specific experimental program designed to address questions raised during the analysis of the archaeological material, with a specific focus on hafting. Diagnostic microscopic wear patterns confirm that the tanged tools were used while hafted. Tanged tools did not prove to be related to hunting activities only, but various tool uses could be identified. They all fit, however, within the context of hunting and animal processing activities. The reuse of hafted armatures for other activities is not evident in the present sample.
机译:直到今天,北非穆特人的定义都基于与欧洲穆特人的系统比较。特别是“ Aterian”及其缠结的工具已被广泛讨论。研究人员认为缠结的Aterian工具可以作为柄技术存在的早期迹象[1]。目前尚不完全了解Aterian与北非Mousterian的关系,是否确实可以将缠结的工具与柄连接在一起,以及是否也对不相缠结的工具进行了柄连接,这可能表明存在各种各样的柄接技术。 Ifri n’Ammar的站点为比较Aterian和Mousterian技术复合体提供了理想的机会。岩石掩体位于摩洛哥东部的里夫,地层丰富且保存完好,其中以中石器时代的工具为代表[2]。在Ifri n’Ammar,Aterian和Mousterian的组合是分层的,这意味着这些产业的关系不能简单地按时间顺序进行解释[2,3]。在Aterian和Mousterian层次之间,修饰后的伪像的密度有所不同,并且缠结的工具仅在密度较高的Aterian层次中存在。这些水平还显示出较高的整体工具频率。我们介绍了一项功能研究的结果,重点是Ifri n’Ammar的高层制品(“占领职业”),其日期为83±6 ka至130±8 ka [3]。功能研究与特定的实验程序相结合,旨在解决在分析考古材料过程中提出的问题,并特别着重于柄感。诊断性微观磨损模式确认缠结时使用了缠结的工具。纠结的工具不仅被证明仅与狩猎活动有关,而且可以确定各种工具的用途。但是,它们都适合狩猎和动物加工活动。在本样本中,没有将带柄电枢重新用于其他活动的情况。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

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