2016
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-024-0874-4_10
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recent Research on the Croatian Middle/Upper Paleolithic Interface in the Context of Central and Southeast Europe

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
2

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Late Upper Palaeolithic (Epigravettian) sites appear in larger numbers after the LGM and are present on the Adriatic coast and its hinterland and offshore islands, with evidence for movement of raw materials between northern Italy, Istria, and inland Croatia (Malez 1979;Cancellieri 2011;Vukosavljević et al 2011Vukosavljević et al , 2015Karavanić et al 2013Karavanić et al , 2015. It is likely that there was extensive activity on a landscape that is now submerged at depths of 60-110 m below present sea level and that many sites present there have been submerged by subsequent sea-level rise (Šegota 1982;Miracle 1995;Whallon 2007 Glycymeris, and Dentalium, collected for decorative purposes, is evidence of visits to a coastline that would have been more distant than today (Benjamin and Črešnar 2009;Vujević and Parica 2009;Vukosavljević and Karavanić 2015).…”
Section: Archaeological Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Late Upper Palaeolithic (Epigravettian) sites appear in larger numbers after the LGM and are present on the Adriatic coast and its hinterland and offshore islands, with evidence for movement of raw materials between northern Italy, Istria, and inland Croatia (Malez 1979;Cancellieri 2011;Vukosavljević et al 2011Vukosavljević et al , 2015Karavanić et al 2013Karavanić et al , 2015. It is likely that there was extensive activity on a landscape that is now submerged at depths of 60-110 m below present sea level and that many sites present there have been submerged by subsequent sea-level rise (Šegota 1982;Miracle 1995;Whallon 2007 Glycymeris, and Dentalium, collected for decorative purposes, is evidence of visits to a coastline that would have been more distant than today (Benjamin and Črešnar 2009;Vujević and Parica 2009;Vukosavljević and Karavanić 2015).…”
Section: Archaeological Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These are of Middle Palaeolithic type including typical Mousterian centripetal cores and side scrapers, with the addition of some possible Upper Palaeolithic tools ( Fig. 18.3; Karavanić et al 2009Karavanić et al , 2015Karavanić 2015;Janković et al 2011;Barbir 2015). Most of the artefacts are on the seabed surface and have been disturbed by marine currents but probably not moved very far from their original position.…”
Section: Kaštel šTafilić-resnikmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Layer G1 is sometimes attributed to the Aurignacian on the basis of four bone points and a handful of Aurignacian tools. However, the authenticity of the artifacts and the level of mixing is still debated (Karavanić et al 2016;Karavanić and Patou-Mathis 2009) and the lithic collection has also been suggested to be either Mousterian, Szeletian or Olschewian Smith 2011, 2013;Zilhão 2009). To complicate matters further, there are conflicting radiocarbon dates from this level that place the layer anywhere between 39 and 32 ka cal BP (see Ahern et al 2004;Higham et al 2006;Smith et al 1999).…”
Section: Croatian Zagorjementioning
confidence: 99%