3.8 Article

Amber wind and porpoise jaw: Resource use at Silinupe (fourth mill. BC) on the Baltic's Gulf of Riga Coast

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2022.2125127

关键词

Baltic Sea; Stone Age; Latvia; subsistence; amber

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article provides a comprehensive treatment of the excavations at the Silinupe site in present-day Latvia, dating back to the fourth millennium BC. It examines the use of food and non-food resources in the coastal region of the Gulf of Riga on the Baltic Sea. The site offered a wide range of wild food resources and had a diverse ecosystem. It also had a well-established exchange network, with amber and flint being important traded materials.
This article presents the first general treatment of the material from the 1954 and 1988-1989 excavations at the fourth millennium BC site of Silinupe, examined within a broad framework of food and non-food resource use on the Baltic Sea's Gulf of Riga coast, present-day Latvia. Located at the boundary of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial biotopes, the site offered a high abundance and diversity of wild food resources: marine and terrestrial mammals, birds, and fish. The aquatic environment of the gulf was enriched with nutrients from a wide drainage basin, ensuring very high biological productivity and a rich food chain, while also receiving marine water inflows that promoted the seasonal ingress of marine species. The spectrum of marine and freshwater resources would have permitted year-round habitation, while pottery vessels enabled food processing on a large scale, possibly for delayed consumption. Amber, collected from the beaches and made into jewelry on the site, circulated in an exchange network reaching far into the continental interior, where the major rivers flowing into the gulf served as traffic arteries. Conversely, flint brought from present-day southern Lithuania or Belarus provided the main lithic material for toolmaking.

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

3.8
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