4.5 Article

Le Grand Abri aux Puces, a Mousterian site from the Last Interglacial: paleogeography, paleoenvironment, and new excavation results

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 37, 期 11, 页码 2747-2761

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.010

关键词

Mousterian; Eemian; Lithics; Fauna; Paleogeography; Paleoenvironment; France

资金

  1. Departmental Service for Archaeology of Vaucluse
  2. Regional Service for Archaeology of Aix-en-Provence
  3. Stanford University's Department of Anthropology
  4. Stanford Archaeology Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Le Grand Abri aux Puces (GAP), located on the right bank of the Ouveze River of southern France, has been known to contain well-preserved stone tools and faunal remains, but our work in 2008 was the first professional, controlled excavation at the site and has exposed at least 1 archaeological layer with a very rich and diverse faunal assemblage (23 macrofaunal species, as many for the microfauna, 27 land snail species), abundant charcoals (fragments are large and preserve small twigs with their pith and bark still intact), and stone tools with immaculate surface preservation (retaining their original freshness and preserving microscopic use wear). The information issuing from paleontology, micropaleontology, malacology, and anthracology all place the principle GAP human occupation unambiguously in a temperate climatic phase. Different biometric and biochronological characters of the fauna converge to place the layers found thus far from before the last glacial, and most likely in MIS 5e (127-117 kya). The lithic elements, mainly composed of tools of superior quality, demonstrating particular technical investment, and made from widely distributed raw material sources, lead us to hypothesize brief passages of hunting groups in the cave focused around an anticipated activity. This hypothesis will be refined and tested during further excavations. (C) 2010 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