A gravetti időszak hagyományos és radiokarbon koradatai

Dobosi, Viola T.; Szántó, Zsuzsa

doi:10.1556/archert.128.2003.1-2.1

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The dates for Pilisszántó I Rockshelter lower layer complex are the first radiocarbon results for this site (Table 12). The dates from the lower layer complex, between 30.0 and 28.5 ka cal BP, are older than the age estimated by the biostratigraphy (Dobosi and Vörös 1987;Dobosi and Szántó 2003). These ages are in agreement with the Late Gravettian cultural affiliation (Lengyel 2016).…”

Section: Kraków Spadzista Layersupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Another date, 26.3 ka BP (Deb-2555), was obtained from a bulk charcoal sample retrieved from a 5 kg sample of the paleosol. Two dates on bone samples, 18.5 ka BP (Deb-3381) and 10.6 ka BP (Hv-12986), possibly were obtained from contaminated samples (Dobosi 2000;Dobosi and Szántó 2003). The site has been re-attributed to the Late Gravettian period on the basis of lithic tool typology (Lengyel 2015).…”

Section: Kraków Spadzista Layermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This division however was not used consistently. The age of the lower layer complex was also estimated to be as old as 23 ka BP, the middle layer 21 ka BP; the upper layer remained unclassified (Dobosi and Szántó 2003).…”

Section: Pilisszántó I Rocksheltermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

New Radiocarbon Dates for the Late Gravettian in Eastern Central Europe

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Middle Upper Palaeolithic (MUP) in eastern Central Europe (ECE) comprises three variants of Gravettian culture: Early Gravettian, Pavlovian, and Late Gravettian. While Early Gravettian and Pavlovian are merely located in Lower Austria and Moravia, the Late Gravettian occupations occurred over the entire territory of ECE. Compared to the number of sites the radiocarbon dating and the absolute chronology of the Late Gravettian is rather poor. The results presented here bring a new set of radiocarbon (14C) dates for the Late Gravettian period in ECE and propose that this period began and ended earlier than previously suggested.

show abstract

Section: Kraków Spadzista Layersupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Kraków Spadzista Layermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New Radiocarbon Dates for the Late Gravettian in Eastern Central Europe

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the sample submission form the lower archaeological layer is indicated as the sample's relative chronological position. This date appears inaccurately 18 700 ± 190 in summaries of hungarian 14 C dates (Gábori-Csánk 1970;Dobosi, Szántó 2003). The admixture at Arka also might have modified the original position of the organic remains sampled for dating.…”

Section: The Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The report on this radiocarbon date by Vogel and Waterbolk (1967) mentions that Vértes submitted the sample as taken from the lower layer but later changed the stratigraphic identity to the upper layer. henceforth, this date has been associated with the upper archaeological level (Gábori-Csánk 1970;Dobosi, Szántó 2003). The third date, 18 600 ± 1900 (A-518) (haynes et al 1966), was obtained from charcoals of the 1963 excavation season.…”

Section: The Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

Lithic analysis of the Middle and Late Upper Palaeolithic in Hungary

Lengyel¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A b s t r a c t. This paper presents lithic technology studies on the Middle and Late period of the Upper Palaeolithic in hungary between 26 and 13 ka BP. The studies aimed at describing and then comparing the technological processes from lithic raw material procurement to the formal tool making. An attempt was made to find correlations between technological features and chronological positions of the assemblages to see if lithic technology operated traditionally or opportunistically. The study found that technology was rather shaped toward efficiency with an adaptive behavior. Therefore, in most cases, the way how tools were made is useless to differentiate archaeological cultures, while the tools themselves, especially the armatures, can be markers of cultures as was shown earlier. This study found that the formation of the archaeological record and its variability most likely depended upon the dynamism of human ecology. K e y w o r d s: Lithic technology, technical behavior, raw material procurement, hunter-gatherers, subsistence strategy Publikacja jest udostępniona na licencji Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 PL)To the memory of Avraham Ronen

show abstract