探索产地假设的局限性:匈牙利大平原青铜时代陶瓷的化学和矿物学特征描述

IF 2.1 2区 地球科学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Mark Golitko, Danielle J. Riebe, Attila Kreiter, Paul R. Duffy, Györgyi Parditka
{"title":"探索产地假设的局限性:匈牙利大平原青铜时代陶瓷的化学和矿物学特征描述","authors":"Mark Golitko,&nbsp;Danielle J. Riebe,&nbsp;Attila Kreiter,&nbsp;Paul R. Duffy,&nbsp;Györgyi Parditka","doi":"10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Determining the provenience of archaeological objects relies on the so-called “provenience postulate,” namely, that sources of these objects are more compositionally distinct from each other than they are internally variable. For ceramics, it can be relatively straightforward in geologically heterogeneous environments to determine where vessels were produced, and whether they were traded or not. In geologically homogeneous regions, this can be far more complicated. In this study, we mineralogically and chemically compare Bronze Age ceramics (primarily Middle Bronze Age) from five archaeological sites on the Great Hungarian Plain to a large regional clay sample. The Great Hungarian Plain is comprised almost entirely of Pleistocene loess deposits, yet prior compositional studies have identified patterned variability between ceramics from different sites. Our results show that chemical variation in the region is continuous and clinal, making it difficult to strictly apply the provenience postulate to identify distinct production locations. However, we show that this clinal chemical variability can be used to make broad statements about whether most ceramics at any given site were produced relatively locally or were obtained from further distances (c. 50 km or more). We show that while production at most of our study sites was likely relatively localized, in one instance (the tell at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár), many ceramics may have been obtained from other Bronze Age communities, including those in the Körös River drainage.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8214,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","volume":"16 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the limits of the provenience postulate: chemical and mineralogical characterization of Bronze Age ceramics from the Great Hungarian Plain\",\"authors\":\"Mark Golitko,&nbsp;Danielle J. Riebe,&nbsp;Attila Kreiter,&nbsp;Paul R. Duffy,&nbsp;Györgyi Parditka\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Determining the provenience of archaeological objects relies on the so-called “provenience postulate,” namely, that sources of these objects are more compositionally distinct from each other than they are internally variable. For ceramics, it can be relatively straightforward in geologically heterogeneous environments to determine where vessels were produced, and whether they were traded or not. In geologically homogeneous regions, this can be far more complicated. In this study, we mineralogically and chemically compare Bronze Age ceramics (primarily Middle Bronze Age) from five archaeological sites on the Great Hungarian Plain to a large regional clay sample. The Great Hungarian Plain is comprised almost entirely of Pleistocene loess deposits, yet prior compositional studies have identified patterned variability between ceramics from different sites. Our results show that chemical variation in the region is continuous and clinal, making it difficult to strictly apply the provenience postulate to identify distinct production locations. However, we show that this clinal chemical variability can be used to make broad statements about whether most ceramics at any given site were produced relatively locally or were obtained from further distances (c. 50 km or more). We show that while production at most of our study sites was likely relatively localized, in one instance (the tell at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár), many ceramics may have been obtained from other Bronze Age communities, including those in the Körös River drainage.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences\",\"volume\":\"16 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4","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

摘要

确定考古物品的来源依赖于所谓的 "来源假设",即这些物品的来源在成分上的差异要大于其内部的差异。就陶瓷而言,在地质异质的环境中,确定器皿的生产地以及是否进行过贸易相对比较简单。而在地质均质地区,情况就复杂得多。在这项研究中,我们将来自匈牙利大平原五个考古遗址的青铜时代陶瓷(主要是青铜时代中期)与一个大型区域粘土样本进行了矿物学和化学比较。匈牙利大平原几乎完全由更新世黄土沉积物组成,但之前的成分研究却发现不同遗址的陶瓷之间存在模式化的差异。我们的研究结果表明,该地区的化学变异具有连续性和宗族性,因此很难严格应用产地推定来确定不同的生产地点。不过,我们的研究表明,这种支系化学变异可以用来概括说明任何特定遗址的大多数陶瓷是在相对较近的地方生产的,还是从更远的地方(约 50 公里或更多)获得的。我们的研究表明,虽然大多数研究遗址的陶瓷生产可能相对集中在当地,但有一个遗址(Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár 的出土地点)的许多陶瓷可能是从其他青铜时代遗址获得的,包括柯罗斯河流域的遗址。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring the limits of the provenience postulate: chemical and mineralogical characterization of Bronze Age ceramics from the Great Hungarian Plain

Determining the provenience of archaeological objects relies on the so-called “provenience postulate,” namely, that sources of these objects are more compositionally distinct from each other than they are internally variable. For ceramics, it can be relatively straightforward in geologically heterogeneous environments to determine where vessels were produced, and whether they were traded or not. In geologically homogeneous regions, this can be far more complicated. In this study, we mineralogically and chemically compare Bronze Age ceramics (primarily Middle Bronze Age) from five archaeological sites on the Great Hungarian Plain to a large regional clay sample. The Great Hungarian Plain is comprised almost entirely of Pleistocene loess deposits, yet prior compositional studies have identified patterned variability between ceramics from different sites. Our results show that chemical variation in the region is continuous and clinal, making it difficult to strictly apply the provenience postulate to identify distinct production locations. However, we show that this clinal chemical variability can be used to make broad statements about whether most ceramics at any given site were produced relatively locally or were obtained from further distances (c. 50 km or more). We show that while production at most of our study sites was likely relatively localized, in one instance (the tell at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár), many ceramics may have been obtained from other Bronze Age communities, including those in the Körös River drainage.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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