Reassessing the Aurignacian of Slovenia: Techno-economic behaviour and direct dating of osseous projectile points

Moreau, Luc; Odar, Boštjan; Higham, Thomas; Horvat, Aleksander; Pirkmajer, Darja; Turk, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.09.007

Cited by 31 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Per Szmidt et al (2010: 3328), the latter would bear Bscraping marks which are less visible on its exterior surface due to the presence of cancellous material, but much more obvious ones on its lateral edge facets.^However, no such marks are apparent in the published illustrations. Moreau et al (2015) claim that Ba strict sequential order of appearance of these type-fossils (split-based and massive-based) in Central Europe, in comparison with the culture-stratigraphic framework of SW France, is unlikely.^However, in no way can the dated specimen (Moreau et al 2015, Fig. 6) be considered a split-based point.…”

Section: Modification Of Bladelet Blanksmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Entity and Antiquity of the Aurignacian at Willendorf (Austria): Implications for Modern Human Emergence in Europe

Teyssandier

Zilhão

2018

J Paleo Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Modification Of Bladelet Blanksmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Entity and Antiquity of the Aurignacian at Willendorf (Austria): Implications for Modern Human Emergence in Europe

Teyssandier

Zilhão

2018

J Paleo Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beyond the general consensus that Proto-and Early Aurignacian assemblages were created by AMHs, much remains unclear about how and when Neanderthal extinction and initial AMH occupation occurred. Substantial disagreements exist over: a) the attribution to AMH or Neanderthals of earlier or penecontemporary assemblages (Bohunician, Uluzzian, Châtelperronian, Streletskian, Spitsynian: Anikovich et al, 2007;Hoffecker, 2009;Benazzi et al, 2011;Müller et al, 2011;Zilhão, 2011;Hublin, 2015;Hoffecker et al, 2016;Vishnyatsky, 2016;Bataille, 2017); b) the validity of particular artifacts as markers of specific archaeological assemblages (and, by extension, of AMHs/Neanderthals; e.g., Slimak et al, 2011;Zwyns et al, 2012;Nigst et al, 2014;Moreau et al, 2015;Teyssandier and Zilhão, 2018); and the association of dated samples with diagnostic material (e.g., Nigst et al 2014;Teyssandier and Zilhão 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New data for the Early Upper Paleolithic of Kostenki (Russia)

Dinnis

Bessudnov

Reynolds

et al. 2019

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) transition in Europe. The situation in Eastern Europe is generally less clear due to the relatively few sites and a dearth of reliable radiocarbon dates. Claims have been made for both notably early AMH and notably late Neanderthal presence, as well as for early AMH (Aurignacian) dispersal into the region from Central/Western Europe. The Kostenki-Borshchevo complex (European Russia) of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sites offers high-quality data to address these questions.Here we revise the chronology and cultural status of the key sites of Kostenki 17 and Kostenki 14. The Kostenki 17/II lithic assemblage shares important features with Proto-Aurignacian material, strengthening an association with AMHs. New radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 17/II of ~41-40 ka cal BP agree with new dates for the recently excavated Kostenki 14/IVw, which shows some similarities to Kostenki 17/II. Dates of ≥41 ka cal BP from other Kostenki sites cannot be linked to diagnostic archaeological material, and therefore cannot be argued to date AMH occupation. Kostenki 14's Layer in Volcanic Ash assemblage, on the other hand, compares to Early Aurignacian material. New radiocarbon dates targeting diagnostic lithics date to 39-37 ka cal BP. Overall, Kostenki's early EUP is in good agreement with the archaeological record further west. Our results are therefore consistent with models predicting interregional penecontemporaneity of diagnostic EUP assemblages. Most importantly, our work highlights ongoing challenges for reliably radiocarbon dating the period. Dates for Kostenki 14 agreed with the samples' chronostratigraphic positions, but standard pre-treatment methods consistently produced incorrect ages for Kostenki 17/II. Extraction of hydroxyproline from bone collagen using prep-HPLC, however, yielded results consistent with the samples' chronostratigraphic position and with the layer's archaeological contents. This suggests that for some sites compound-specific techniques are required to build reliable radiocarbon chronologies.

show abstract

“…The artifact types throughout the sequence are consistent with Bánesz's collection, an assemblage with flake and blade production and many endscrapers including a nosed endscraper. Combined with the artifacts from Bánesz's excavation, we can (re-)ascribe this assemblage to the Aurignacian from central Europe based on blade production, burins, and endscrapers (including typical carinated/−nosed endscrapers; Davies 2001) and the absence of both earlier and later fossiles directeurs such as leaf points for the Szeletian, Levallois-like core technology for the Bohunician, and backed bladelets for the Gravettian (Moreau et al 2015;Škrdla 2017b;Svoboda 2006). Due to the relative absence of further diagnostic tools (e.g., specific burin types, Góra Puławska II-type microliths; Demidenko et al 2017), it is currently not possible to ascribe it further to subindustries.…”

Section: Excavationmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Chronostratigraphy of the Aurignacian in the Northern Carpathian Basin Based on New Chronometric/Archeological Data from Seňa I (Eastern Slovakia)

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The northern Carpathian Basin has important geological, paleoenvironmental, and archeological records that are key to our understanding of the first modern human occupation of Europe. However, the nature and timing of hominin settlements in the region during the Late Pleistocene remain poorly understood. New fieldwork at Seňa I, Slovakia, has identified the only known stratified open-air Aurignacian site in the region and assigned the assemblage to at least 33.5 ± 2.4 ka ago through infraredstimulated luminescence dating. Additionally, new archeological and geoscientific data are presented. This paper discusses the Seňa I findings in the context of the regional archeological record and shows how they contribute to the establishment of clear time constraints for the Aurignacian in eastern central Europe.

show abstract

Reassessing the Aurignacian of Slovenia: Techno-economic behaviour and direct dating of osseous projectile points

Cited by 31 publications

References 69 publications

On the Entity and Antiquity of the Aurignacian at Willendorf (Austria): Implications for Modern Human Emergence in Europe

On the Entity and Antiquity of the Aurignacian at Willendorf (Austria): Implications for Modern Human Emergence in Europe

New data for the Early Upper Paleolithic of Kostenki (Russia)

The Chronostratigraphy of the Aurignacian in the Northern Carpathian Basin Based on New Chronometric/Archeological Data from Seňa I (Eastern Slovakia)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About