Unraveling the spatial imprint of hominin and carnivore accumulations in Early Pleistocene African sites

IF 2.1 2区 地球科学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Amanda Merino-Pelaz, Lucía Cobo-Sánchez, Elia Organista, Enrique Baquedano, Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo
{"title":"Unraveling the spatial imprint of hominin and carnivore accumulations in Early Pleistocene African sites","authors":"Amanda Merino-Pelaz,&nbsp;Lucía Cobo-Sánchez,&nbsp;Elia Organista,&nbsp;Enrique Baquedano,&nbsp;Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo","doi":"10.1007/s12520-024-02020-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Reconstructions of palimpsest formation and dynamics in Early Pleistocene African archaeological deposits have undergone significant advances thanks to taphonomic research. However, the spatial imprint of different agents implicated in most of these accumulations still needs to be addressed. We hypothesize that different site formation dynamics may yield diverse spatial distributions of archaeological remains, reflecting the intervention of different agents (i.e., hominins, felids, hyaenids) in palimpsests. This study aims to investigate the spatial patterns of archaeological remains in a selected sample of Early Pleistocene accumulations with the goal of understanding and characterizing their spatial dynamics. Building on previous taphonomic interpretations of twelve paradigmatic archaeological deposits from Olduvai Bed I (FLK Zinj 22 A, PTK 22 A, DS 22B, FLK N 1–2 to 5, FLK NN 3, DK 1–3) and Koobi Fora (FxJj50, FxJj20 East and FxJj20 Main), we explore the spatial patterns of remains statistically and use hierarchical clustering on principal components analysis (HCPC) to group the highest-density spots at these sites based on a number of spatial variables. The results of this approach show that despite sharing a similar inhomogeneous pattern, anthropogenic sites and assemblages where carnivores played the main role display fundamentally different spatial features. Both types of spatial distributions also show statistical differences from modern hunter-gatherer campsites. Additional taphonomic particularities and differing formation processes of the analyzed accumulations also appear reflected in the classifications. This promising approach reveals crucial distinctions in spatial imprints related to site formation and agents’ behavior, prompting further exploration of advanced spatial statistical techniques for characterizing archaeological intra-site patterns.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8214,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","volume":"16 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12520-024-02020-6.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-024-02020-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reconstructions of palimpsest formation and dynamics in Early Pleistocene African archaeological deposits have undergone significant advances thanks to taphonomic research. However, the spatial imprint of different agents implicated in most of these accumulations still needs to be addressed. We hypothesize that different site formation dynamics may yield diverse spatial distributions of archaeological remains, reflecting the intervention of different agents (i.e., hominins, felids, hyaenids) in palimpsests. This study aims to investigate the spatial patterns of archaeological remains in a selected sample of Early Pleistocene accumulations with the goal of understanding and characterizing their spatial dynamics. Building on previous taphonomic interpretations of twelve paradigmatic archaeological deposits from Olduvai Bed I (FLK Zinj 22 A, PTK 22 A, DS 22B, FLK N 1–2 to 5, FLK NN 3, DK 1–3) and Koobi Fora (FxJj50, FxJj20 East and FxJj20 Main), we explore the spatial patterns of remains statistically and use hierarchical clustering on principal components analysis (HCPC) to group the highest-density spots at these sites based on a number of spatial variables. The results of this approach show that despite sharing a similar inhomogeneous pattern, anthropogenic sites and assemblages where carnivores played the main role display fundamentally different spatial features. Both types of spatial distributions also show statistical differences from modern hunter-gatherer campsites. Additional taphonomic particularities and differing formation processes of the analyzed accumulations also appear reflected in the classifications. This promising approach reveals crucial distinctions in spatial imprints related to site formation and agents’ behavior, prompting further exploration of advanced spatial statistical techniques for characterizing archaeological intra-site patterns.

Abstract Image

揭示非洲早更新世遗址中人和食肉动物聚居的空间印记
由于开展了叠层学研究,对非洲早更新世考古沉积中的叠层形成和动态的重建工作取得了重大进展。然而,与这些堆积有关的不同媒介的空间印记仍有待解决。我们假设,不同的遗址形成动态可能会产生不同的考古遗迹空间分布,这反映了不同媒介(即类人、鼬科动物、鬣狗科动物)对古墓群的干预。本研究旨在调查早更新世堆积样本中考古遗迹的空间模式,以了解和描述其空间动态。在之前对奥杜威第一床(FLK Zinj 22 A、PTK 22 A、DS 22B、FLK N 1-2 至 5、FLK NN 3、DK 1-3)和库比福拉(FxJj50、FxJj20 东部和 FxJj20 主体)的 12 个典型考古堆积进行的陶器学解释的基础上,我们对遗骸的空间模式进行了统计探索,并使用主成分分析的分层聚类(HCPC)方法,根据一系列空间变量对这些遗址中的最高密度点进行了分组。这种方法的结果表明,尽管具有类似的非均质性模式,但人为遗址和食肉动物扮演主要角色的集合体显示出根本不同的空间特征。这两种类型的空间分布也显示出与现代狩猎采集者营地的统计差异。所分析的堆积物的其他岩石学特征和不同的形成过程也反映在分类中。这种有前途的方法揭示了与遗址形成和人员行为有关的空间印记的重要区别,促使我们进一步探索先进的空间统计技术,以描述考古遗址内部模式的特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
18.20%
发文量
199
期刊介绍: Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences covers the full spectrum of natural scientific methods with an emphasis on the archaeological contexts and the questions being studied. It bridges the gap between archaeologists and natural scientists providing a forum to encourage the continued integration of scientific methodologies in archaeological research. Coverage in the journal includes: archaeology, geology/geophysical prospection, geoarchaeology, geochronology, palaeoanthropology, archaeozoology and archaeobotany, genetics and other biomolecules, material analysis and conservation science. The journal is endorsed by the German Society of Natural Scientific Archaeology and Archaeometry (GNAA), the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry (HSC), the Association of Italian Archaeometrists (AIAr) and the Society of Archaeological Sciences (SAS).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信