2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102644
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Response to Aubert et al.'s reply ‘Early dates for ‘Neanderthal cave art’ may be wrong’ [J. Hum. Evol. 125 (2018), 215–217]

Abstract: Aubert et al. (2018) discuss and criticize age constraints for Paleolithic cave paintings recently published by Hoffmann et al. (2018). Aubert et al. (2018) reiterate the importance of demonstrating the human origin of the painting as well as the stratigraphic relationship between the dated calcite and the art. They argue that (1) in Ardales the red pigment found on curtain formations could be of natural origin, or accidentally transferred onto the speleothem

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Added to the evidence for jewelry, cave art and other forms of symbolic material culture and advances technology in the Middle Paleolithic of Europe (27,28,47,(182)(183)(184)(185)(186)(187), these data suggest that the major cognitive and behavioral gap once thought to separate Neandertals from modern humans is just another example that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Table S7.…”
Section: S103 Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Added to the evidence for jewelry, cave art and other forms of symbolic material culture and advances technology in the Middle Paleolithic of Europe (27,28,47,(182)(183)(184)(185)(186)(187), these data suggest that the major cognitive and behavioral gap once thought to separate Neandertals from modern humans is just another example that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Table S7.…”
Section: S103 Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…European ‘cave art’ forms the most robust set of visual culture for exploring the early evolution of human visual systems. At present an apparently non-figurative phase of body-extension art (hand stencils, finger dots and lines) predates U-Th minimum ages of ~64000 bp , at least in three Iberian caves, and maximum and minimum ages place a period of similar art between 45,000 and 43,000 bp (Hoffmann et al 2018a); we note that there are detractors who have criticized the former minimum age, mainly due to perceived errors in sampling strategy and hence relevance of dated calcites to the underlying art, and an apparent incompatibility with the existing archaeological record which as yet presents little evidence elsewhere for visual culture (see Aubert et al 2018; Slimak et al 2018: but also see replies from Hoffmann et al 2018b,c; 2019, who point out the errors of such critiques). Figurative art in Europe—overwhelmingly dominated by prey animals such as horse, bovids and cervids—appears after ~37000 cal.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Hand-stencil art from Borneo and a naturalistic painting from Sulawesi have yielded minimum ages of 39.9 ka and 43.9 ka (15)(16), convincingly demonstrating broad contemporaneity with the earliest European manifestations of this practice, as predicted (22). The Iberian evidence has been challenged (23)(24)(25)(26)(27), but all the criticisms have been exhaustively responded to (28)(29)(30)(31).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…S1). It has been suggested (23) suggested that the pigment could represent natural staining, which, macroscopic observation does not support (30) rejected as unsubstantiated. Secondly, we investigate whether patterns in pigment composition and technology can provide additional detail on the different phases of Middle Paleolithic artistic activity demonstrated by the dating.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%