2011
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018938108
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revised age of late Neanderthal occupation and the end of the Middle Paleolithic in the northern Caucasus

Abstract: Advances in direct radiocarbon dating of Neanderthal and anatomically modern human (AMH) fossils and the development of archaeostratigraphic chronologies now allow refined regional models for Neanderthal–AMH coexistence. In addition, they allow us to explore the issue of late Neanderthal survival in regions of Western Eurasia located within early routes of AMH expansion such as the Caucasus. Here we report the direct radiocarbon ( 14 C) dating of a late Neanderthal specimen from a Late … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
62
0
3

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
62
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…S1 and S2). Detailed stratigraphic assessments clearly indicate that the Mezmaiskaya 1 skeleton and level 3 were deposited at the same time, both dating to very close to or greater than the effective measurement limit of radiocarbon (∼50 ka) and likely to 70-60 ka based on electron spin resonance mean early and late uptake model determinations for level 3 (11,40,61,62).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…S1 and S2). Detailed stratigraphic assessments clearly indicate that the Mezmaiskaya 1 skeleton and level 3 were deposited at the same time, both dating to very close to or greater than the effective measurement limit of radiocarbon (∼50 ka) and likely to 70-60 ka based on electron spin resonance mean early and late uptake model determinations for level 3 (11,40,61,62).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, envisaging a persistence of the Châtelperronian alongside the Protoaurignacian, with both falling in the same time interval but occupying different regions, amounts to positing an archeological impossibility, a point whose full signifi cance will become apparent below. (b) The second would be that the late dates for the last of the Belgian and Iberian Neandertals could simply be a byproduct of incomplete sample decontamination, leading to results that are too young (Pinhasi et al 2011 ;Wood et al 2013 ); therefore, such could well be also the case with the dates for Neandertal remains that place them, either directly or by stratigraphic association, in the time range of the Châtelperronian and coeval technocomplexes. However, the dates supporting the Neandertal/Châtelperronian link are, fi rstly, much older than those supporting late Neandertal persistence in Belgium and Iberia, and, secondly, fall in a period when Europe is entirely lacking in diagnostic modern human fossils; consequently, it is clear that no logical connection exists between the two propositions.…”
Section: 3mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Radiocarbon ( 14 C) dating is playing a crucial role is estimating the timing of the transition from the Middle Palaeolithic (MP) to the Upper Palaeolithic (UP) in Europe (e.g., Benazzi et al, 2007;Pinhasi et al, 2011;Douka et al, 2014;Higham et al, 2014;Wood et al, 2013). In doing so, it contributes towards an improved understanding of the nature of the transition, the process of Neanderthal extinction, and the peopling of Europe by early anatomically modern humans.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%