4.5 Article

Iron Age combustion structures in the north-eastern Iberian Peninsula: an interdisciplinary experimental study

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s12520-023-01772-x

关键词

Iron Age; Western Mediterranean; Archaeological science; Experimentation; Hearths

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this research is to investigate various aspects related to combustion structures in Iron Age archaeological sites, including efficiency, fuel types, structure maintenance, and domestic activities. An experimental programme was conducted using replica structures and different fuel sources, and variables such as heating and time were measured to determine their impact on the combustion process. Multiple methodologies were applied for integrated analyses, and observations and data recorded during the experiments contributed to a better understanding of Iron Age combustion structures.
The aim of this research is to investigate the efficiency of combustion structures, the fuels used, the structure maintenance and the range of related domestic activities. An experimental programme was carried out in which replicas of archaeological Iron Age combustion structures were put to work. Based on the available archaeobotanical records, various fuel types (wood, grasses, palm leaves and animal dung) were used. Variables such as increased heating and times were measured in order to determine whether variations occurred depending on the fuels used, the type of structure, the location, or the weather conditions. The possibility of their use for cooking was also tested. A combination of methodologies was applied for integrated analyses: anthracology, phytoliths, calcitic microfossils, Fourier transform infrared spectrometry, micromorphology and chemical analysis of hearth surfaces. Observations and data recorded during the experimental tasks, together with the results of the interdisciplinary analyses, contribute to a better understanding of the Iron Age archaeological combustion structures.

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