4.4 Article

New insights on the late Pleistocene-Holocene lithic industry in East Kalimantan (Borneo): The contribution of three rock shelter sites in the karstic area of the Mangkalihat peninsula

期刊

QUATERNARY INTERNATIONAL
卷 416, 期 -, 页码 126-150

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.044

关键词

Lithic; Pleistocene-Holocene; Indonesia; Kalimantan; Austronesian

资金

  1. French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (French Archaeological Mission in Borneo)
  2. French Embassy in Indonesia through the Cultural and Cooperation Services (Institut Francais en Indonesie)
  3. French ANR [ANR-14-CE31-0013-01]
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-14-CE31-0013] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper aims to present some aspects of the Late Pleistocene-Holocene lithic industry in the inland East Kalimantan region by studying the assemblages found in three rock shelter sites in the karstic area of the Mangkalihat peninsula. This study analyzes these assemblages in their regional techno-complex taking into consideration the environmental components. It focuses on certain aspects of stone flaking technology and the trends in the reduction sequences of the assemblages. Our results shows that the reduction sequences, flaking technology and the typology of the blanks and tools, persisted across the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary, as revealed in Liang Abu where the lithic artifacts were found throughout the stratigraphic sequence (over at least 20,000 years). Other excavations in Liang Jon and Liang Pemalawan have confirmed this continuity until the historical eras. In addition, this research emphasizes the potential influence of the environmental and climatic stability (persistence of the rain forest) during at least the last 40,000 years in this region, as well as the inland geographical location, on the continuity of the local stone flaking technology. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. 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

4.4
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