首页> 外文期刊>Archaeometry >FLINT AND QUARTZITE: DISTINGUISHING RAW MATERIAL THROUGH BONE CUT MARKS
【24h】

FLINT AND QUARTZITE: DISTINGUISHING RAW MATERIAL THROUGH BONE CUT MARKS

机译:燧石和石英岩:通过骨切割标记区分原料

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Since the 1980s, several experimental analyses have been able to differentiate some lithic tool types and some of their raw materials according to the morphology of cut marks imprinted by such tools when used for butchering activities. Thus, metal tool use has been differentiated in contexts with an abundance of lithic tools, or even the use of hand axes has been documented in carcass processing, in contrast with simple unretouched or retouched flakes. As important as this information is, there are still other important aspects to be analysed. Can cut marks produced with different lithic raw material types be differentiated? Can cut marks made with different types of the same raw material type be characterized and differentiated? The objective of this study is to evaluate if cut marks resulting from the use of different flints and different quartzites are distinguishable from each other. In the present work, an experimental analysis of hundreds of cut marks produced by five types of flint and five varieties of quartzite was carried out. Microphotogrammetry and geometric-morphometric techniques were applied to analyse these cut marks. The results show that flint cut marks and quartzite cut marks can be characterized at the assemblage level. Different types of flint produced cut marks that were not significantly different from each other. Cut marks made with Olduvai Gorge quartzite were significantly different from those produced with a set comprising several other types of quartzites. Crystal size, which is larger in Olduvai Gorge quartzites (0.5 mm) than Spanish quartzites (177-250 μm), is discussed as being the main reason for these statistically significant differences. This documented intra-sample and inter-sample variance does not hinder the resolution of the approach to differentiate between these two generic raw material types and opens the door for the application of this method in archaeological contexts.
机译:自20世纪80年代以来,几种实验分析能够根据使用在用于屠宰的活动的切割标记的形态来区分一些岩石刀具类型和一些原料。因此,金属工具在具有丰富的岩石工具的背景下已经区分,甚至甚至使用手轴的使用已经在胎体加工中记录,与简单的无沟或刷新的薄片相比。与此信息一样重要,仍有其他重要方面要分析。可以对不同的岩石原料类型产生不同的碎片切割吗?可以用不同类型的相同原材料类型切割制造的标记,表征和差异化?本研究的目的是评估使用不同燧石和不同的石英石产生的切割标记,彼此可区分。在目前的工作中,进行了数百种燧石产生的数百种切割标记和五种石英岩的实验分析。应用了微观步骤和几何形态学技术来分析这些切割标记。结果表明,燧石切割标记和石英岩切割标记可在组装水平上表征。不同类型的燧石产生的切割标记与彼此没有显着差异。用Olduvai峡谷石英石制成的切割标记与包含含有其他几种类型的石英岩的组产生的剪切标记。古代峡谷石英石(0.5毫米)晶体尺寸比西班牙石英石(177-250μm)更大,讨论了这些统计学上显着差异的主要原因。该文献的内部样本和采样间方差不妨碍分辨方法,以区分这两个通用原料类型,并在考古背景下打开该方法的门。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号