4.4 Article

Late Neolithic-Chalcolithic socio-economical dynamics in Northern Iberia. A multi-isotope study on diet and provenance from Santimamine and Pico Ramos archaeological sites (Basque Country, Spain)

期刊

QUATERNARY INTERNATIONAL
卷 481, 期 -, 页码 14-27

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2017.05.049

关键词

Carbon, nitrogen and strontium isotopes; Palaeodiet; Mobility; Mesolithic; Neolithic; Chalcolithic

资金

  1. Basque Government
  2. Spanish Science Ministry [HAR 2014-53536-P]
  3. University of the Basque Country [IT-622-13]
  4. Government of Aragon
  5. European Social Fund [BOA20150701025]
  6. BBVA Foundation (I Ayudas a Investigadores, Innovadores y Creadores Culturales)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are few carbon and nitrogen isotope ratio studies for prehistoric periods in the northern part of the Iberian Peninsula, none of strontium isotopes. While most of the questions so-far addressed have been concerned with the transition to farming, the transition to social complexity has been greatly ignored even if multi-isotope studies could shed new light on internal socioeconomical dynamics during the emergence of complex societies in the region. The present study analyses a total of 67 archaeological samples (28 from human bones, 13 from animal bones and 26 from human tooth enamel) obtained from the deposits at Santimamirie (Kortezubi, Bizkaia) and Pico Ramos (Muskiz, Bizkaia) dated to the Mesolithic, Late-Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, and samples from different geological areas to characterize the bioavailable strontium of the region. These analyses provide new data about the diet on the coast of the Basque Country, confirming that the consumption of seafood was irrelevant already during the later stages of the Neolithic. The first Sr-87/Sr-86 analyses suggest the possibility of migration movements from other parts of Northern Iberia (i.e. Navarra) to the sites being studied. (C) 2017 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