A Lateglacial archaeological site in the far north-west of Europe at Rubha Port an t-Seilich, Isle of Islay, western Scotland: Ahrensburgian-style artefacts, absolute dating and geoarchaeology
A Lateglacial archaeological site in the far north-west of Europe at Rubha Port an t-Seilich, Isle of Islay, western Scotland: Ahrensburgian-style artefacts, absolute dating and geoarchaeology
复制标题
欧洲西北部远西北地区苏格兰西部艾莱岛鲁巴港和塞利奇的晚冰期考古遗址：阿伦斯堡风格的文物、绝对年代测定和地质考古学
DOI：
10.1002/jqs.2781
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
MITHEN S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
MITHEN S
在最后一个冰河时代结束后，人类重新殖民北欧的确切模式、过程和时间仍然存在争议。最近的研究为许多地区在北纬54°以上的纬度进行的至少先驱者勘探提供了越来越早的日期，但欧洲大陆的远西北苏格兰仍然是这种模式的一个无法解释的例外。尽管最近描述的来自Howburn的汉堡人工制品和来自Kilmelfort洞穴的拱形点群的组合已经确定了在冰川间冰期的早期阶段至少有零星的人类存在，但我们目前缺乏新仙女木/格陵兰岛第1期（GS‐1）活动的证据，除了罕见的零散发现，这些发现被声称与阿伦斯堡有联系，但很难单独解释。我们在此报告在苏格兰西部某地发现的具有技术和类型学特征与阿伦斯堡大陆相似的碎石质人工制品。对相关麻花、花粉和植物岩的初步分析以及微地层分析表明，这些人工制品代表了GS‐1下半期和前寒武纪时期的一个或多个人类活动时期。©2015作者。《第四纪研究》，John Wiley & Sons出版。
The exact pattern, process and timing of the human re‐colonization of northern Europe after the end of the last Ice Age remain controversial. Recent research has provided increasingly early dates for at least pioneer explorations of latitudes above 54°N in many regions, yet the far north‐west of the European landmass, Scotland, has remained an unexplained exception to this pattern. Although the recently described Hamburgian artefacts from Howburn and an assemblage belonging to the arch‐backed point complex from Kilmelfort Cave have established at least a sporadic human presence during earlier stages of the Lateglacial Interstadial, we currently lack evidence for Younger Dryas/Greenland Stadial 1 (GS‐1) activity other than rare stray finds that have been claimed to be of Ahrensburgian affiliation but are difficult to interpret in isolation. We here report the discovery of chipped stone artefacts with technological and typological characteristics similar to those of the continental Ahrensburgian at a locality in western Scotland. A preliminary analysis of associated tephra, pollen and phytoliths, along with microstratigraphic analysis, suggest the artefacts represent one or more episodes of human activity that fall within the second half of GS‐1 and the Preboreal period. © 2015 The Authors.Journal of Quaternary Sciencepublished by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.