Percorrer por autor "Cebeiro, Adela"
A mostrar 1 - 2 de 2
Resultados por página
Opções de ordenação
- Hominin glacial-stage occupation 712,000 to 424,000 years ago at Fordwich Pit, Old Park (Canterbury, UK)Publication . Key, Alastair; Clark, James; Lauer, Tobias; Bates, Jennifer; Sier, Mark-Jan; Nichols, Claire; Martín-Ramos, Carmen; Cebeiro, Adela; Williams, Eleanor; Kim, Sunghui; Stileman, Finn; Mika, Anna; Pope, Matthew; Bridgland, David; Redhouse, David; Leonardi, Michela; Smith, Geoff M.; Proffitt, TomosFew high-latitude archaeological contexts are older than marine isotope stage (MIS) 15 and even fewer provide evidence of early human occupation during a glacial period. New discoveries at Old Park, Canterbury (UK), provide evidence of both the oldest accessible artefact-bearing sediment in northern Europe and cold-stage adaptation. Radiometric and palaeomagnetic dating places the earliest suggested occupation of this site between 773 thousand years ago (ka) and 607 ka, with hominin presence inferred during MIS 17–16. Two additional artefact-bearing stratigraphic units, dated to around 542 ka and 437 ka, strongly align with the MIS 14 and 12 cold stages, respectively. The latter unit contains convincing evidence of glacial-stage occupation by Acheulean hominins; fresh, unabraded flakes (including biface-thinning) between clearly defined glacial-aged sediments displaying mixed grassland palaeoenvironmental evidence. An historically collected assemblage of more than 330 handaxes is argued to be derived from both the MIS 17–16 and MIS 12 sediments, providing evidence of the earliest known Acheulean bifaces in northern Europe, and re-occupation by Acheulean populations 200,000 years later. Together, Old Park provides evidence for Lower Palaeolithic hominins reoccupying a location over several mid-Pleistocene MIS cycles, early human presence above 51° latitude during a glacial stage and handaxe production in northern Europe from MIS 17 to 16.
- What can lithics tell us about hominin technology's ‘primordial soup’? an origin of stone knapping via the emulation of mother naturePublication . Eren, Metin I.; Lycett, Stephen J.; Bebber, Michelle R.; Key, Alastair; Buchanan, Briggs; Finestone, Emma; Benson, Joseph; Gürbüz, Rebecca Biermann; Cebeiro, Adela; Garba, Roman; Grunow, Anne; Lovejoy, C. Owen; MacDonald, Danielle; Maletic, Erica; Miller, G. Logan; Ortiz, Joseph D.; Paige, Jonathan; Pargeter, Justin; Proffitt, Tomos; Raghanti, Mary Ann; Riley, Teal; Rose, Jeffrey Ian; Singer, David M.; Walker, Robert S.The use of stone hammers to produce sharp stone flakes—knapping—is thought to represent a significant stage in hominin technological evolution because it facilitated the exploitation of novel resources, including meat obtained from medium-to-large-sized vertebrates. The invention of knapping may have occurred via an additive (i.e., cumulative) process that combined several innovative stages. Here, we propose that one of these stages was the hominin use of ‘naturaliths,’ which we define as naturally produced sharp stone fragments that could be used as cutting tools. Based on a review of the literature and our own research, we first suggest that the ‘typical’ view, namely that sharp-edged stones are seldom produced by nonprimate processes, is likely incorrect. Instead, naturaliths can be, and are being, endlessly produced in a wide range of settings and thus may occur on the landscape in far greater numbers than archaeologists currently understand or acknowledge. We then explore the potential role this ‘naturalith prevalence’ may have played in the origin of hominin stone knapping. Our hypothesis suggests that the origin of knapping was not a ‘Eureka!’ moment whereby hominins first made a sharp flake by intention or by accident and then sought something to cut, but instead was an emulative process by hominins aiming to reproduce the sharp tools furnished by mother nature and already in demand. We conclude with a discussion of several corollaries our proposal prompts, and several avenues of future research that can support or question our proposal.