4.5 Article

Microremains from El Miron Cave human dental calculus suggest a mixed plant-animal subsistence economy during the Magdalenian in Northern Iberia

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 39-46

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2015.04.003

关键词

Upper Palaeolithic; Archaeobotany; Palaeolithic diet; Starch grains; Phytoliths; Fungus

资金

  1. Max Planck Society
  2. Generalitat Valenciana [VALi+d APOSTD/2014/123]
  3. BBVA Foundation (I Ayudas a investigadores, innovadores y creadores culturales)
  4. European Union (FP7 MSCA-COFUND, via Braudel-IFER-FMSH) [245743]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite more than a century of detailed investigation of the Magdalenian period in Northern Iberia, our understanding of the diets during this period is limited. Methodologies for the reconstruction of Late Glacial subsistence strategies have overwhelmingly targeted animal exploitation, thus revealing only a portion of the dietary spectrum. Retrieving food debris from calculus offers a means to provide missing information on other components of diet. We undertook analysis of human dental calculus samples from Magdalenian individuals (including the Red Lady) at El Miron Cave (Cantabria, Spain), as well as several control samples, to better understand the less visible dietary components. Dental calculus yielded a diverse assemblage of microremains from plant, fungal, animal and mineral sources that may provide data on diet and environment. The types of microremains show that the individuals at El Miron consumed a variety of plants, including seeds and underground storage organs, as well as other foods, including possibly bolete mushrooms. These findings suggest that plant and plant-like foods were parts of her diet, supplementing staples derived from animal foods. As faunal evidence suggests that the Magdalenian Cantabrian diet included a large proportion of animal foods, we argue here for a mixed subsistence pattern. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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