4.4 Article

HUMAN RESPONSES TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE LATE PREHISTORIC WESTERN LOESS PLATEAU, NORTHWEST CHINA

期刊

RADIOCARBON
卷 62, 期 5, 页码 1193-1207

出版社

UNIV ARIZONA DEPT GEOSCIENCES
DOI: 10.1017/RDC.2020.32

关键词

archaeobotanical analysis; climate change; late Neolithic and Bronze periods; radiocarbon dating; subsistence strategy

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFA0606402]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Pan-Third Pole Environment Study for a Green Silk Road (Pan-TPE) [XDA2004010101]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41671077, 41620104007]
  4. International Partnership Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [131C11KYSB20160061]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to assess late prehistoric human responses to climate change in the Western Loess Plateau (WLP), we investigated 13,567 charred plant seeds and 19 radiocarbon (C-14) dates obtained from 41 late prehistoric sites in the upper Wei River valley. Based on these new dating results as well as their cultural attributes, these sites could be confidently divided into four chronological phases (Phase 1: Late Yangshao and Majiayao culture; Phase 2: Qijia culture; Phases 3 and 4: Siwa culture) but a significant gap was identified at ca. 3600-3000 cal yr BP in this region. Comparison of this interval to high-resolution paleoclimate records from Tianchi Lake suggests it could be attributed to the dramatic drop in temperature at this time. Accordingly, archaeobotanical evidence with a refined chronology shows the adoption of cold-tolerant subsistence cereal grains such as barley on the NETP (Northeast Tibetan Plateau). Drawing from various lines of knowledge (chronology, palaeoclimate, archaeobotany, and archaeology), it is reasonable to conclude that, even when confronting a similar magnitude of climate change, local human societies could vary tremendously. Different subsistence strategies were brought in by the trans-Eurasia culture exchange of prehistoric times.

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

4.4
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