The early Aurignacian at Lapa do Picareiro really is that old: A comment on ‘The late persistence of the Middle Palaeolithic and Neandertals in Iberia: A review of the evidence for and against the “Ebro Frontier” model’
The early Aurignacian at Lapa do Picareiro really is that old: A comment on ‘The late persistence of the Middle Palaeolithic and Neandertals in Iberia: A review of the evidence for and against the “Ebro Frontier” model’
复制标题
拉帕杜皮卡雷罗的早期奥里尼亚克人确实那么古老：对“伊比利亚旧石器时代中期和尼安德特人的晚期持续存在的评论：对支持和反对“埃布罗边境”模型的证据的回顾”
DOI：
10.1016/j.quascirev.2021.107261
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Talamo, Sahra
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haws, Jonathan A.;Benedetti, Michael M.;Bicho, Nuno F.;Cascalheira, João;Ellis, M. Grace;Carvalho, Milena M.;Friedl, Lukas;Pereira, Telmo;Talamo, Sahra
在对伊比利亚 MP-UP 转变的回顾中，Zilhão（2021：25）错误地更改了我们最近发表的两篇出版物（Benedetti 等人，2019；Haws 等人，2020）中提供的数据，使用 Benedetti 等人（2019）中的不精确（四舍五入）基准高程来重新配置 Lapa do 的人工制品、骨骼和放射性碳年代的关联。皮卡雷罗。他显然读到了这样的声明：“洞穴内和周围的高程与垂直基准面（海拔 571 m）相关……”（Benedetti et al. 2019：6）意味着基准面高程精确为 571.000 m asl。事实上，整个挖掘过程中使用的基准高程为 571.483 m asl。我们将海拔高度报告为低于该基准面米数（mbd；Benedetti et al. 2019）或高于海平面米数（masl；Haws et al. 2020）。这些文章中提供的数据完全一致，所有点相对于固定基准都保持相同的出处和地层关系。 Zilhão (2021: 25) 使用 571.000 m asl 的错误基准重新计算放射性碳测年骨骼的深度，重新绘制地层图（Haws 等人，2020：图 3），并重新解释该地点的重要性。Zilhão (2021) 可以轻松地根据我们提供的放射性碳测年确定基准高程。例如，注意到 Haws 等人在~ 565.1 m asl（准确地说是 565.083 m asl）处绘制了样本 Wk-32219。 2020 年（图 3），人们可以简单地添加相应的 6.40 mbd 深度（Benedetti 等人，2019：表 1）即可得到估计基准面高程，比海拔 571.000 米高约 50 厘米。
In his review of the MP-UP transition in Iberia, Zilhão (2021: 25) mistakenly altered the data presented in two of our recent publications (Benedetti et al. 2019; Haws et al. 2020) using an imprecise (rounded) datum elevation in Benedetti et al.(2019) to reconfigure the associations of artifact, bones, and radiocarbon dates at Lapa do Picareiro. He apparently read the statement,“Elevations in and around the cave are tied to a vertical datum (571 m above sea level)…”(Benedetti et al. 2019: 6) to mean the datum elevation is precisely 571.000 m asl. In fact, the datum elevation used throughout the excavation is 571.483 m asl. We reported elevations as either meters below this datum (mbd; Benedetti et al. 2019) or meters above sea level (m asl; Haws et al. 2020). The data presented in these articles are entirely consistent, with all points maintaining the same provenience and stratigraphic relationships relative to the fixed datum. Zilhão (2021: 25) used the incorrect datum of 571.000 m asl to recalculate the depths of radiocarbon dated bones, to redraft a stratigraphic diagram (Haws et al. 2020: Fig. 3), and to reinterpret the significance of the site.Zilhão (2021) could have easily determined the datum elevation from the radiocarbon dates we presented. For instance, noting that sample Wk-32219 was plotted at~ 565.1 m asl (565.083 m asl, to be precise) in Haws et al. 2020 (Fig. 3), one could simply add the corresponding depth of 6.40 mbd (Benedetti et al. 2019: Table 1) to arrive at an estimated datum elevation of~ 50 cm above 571.000 m asl.
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Benedetti, Michael M.;Haws, Jonathan A.;Ellwood, Brooks B.
通讯作者：
Ellwood, Brooks B.