Taphonomy of a Suggested Middle Paleolithic Bone Flute from Slovenia

Chase, Philip G.; Nowell, April

doi:10.1086/204771

Cited by 31 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Opinions differ as to whether the holes in the flute were made intentionally or are of natural origin (Turk I. et al 2003;2005;d'Errico et al 1998;Chase, Nowell 1998). Considering the convincing evidence, it is probable that the majority of holes were made by a Neanderthal (Turk I. et al 2003;2005).…”

Section: 'Art' and Ornamentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

I remember. Differences between the Neanderthal and modern human mind

Petru

2017

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: 'Art' and Ornamentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

I remember. Differences between the Neanderthal and modern human mind

Petru

2017

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although their hypothesis has become an absurdity (for one thing, the more than 20 recognized Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) tool traditions were by Neanderthaloid or partially robust people, not by any "invading Africans"; Bednarik 2007Bednarik , 2011 [30,31,36], it is illuminating to consider their arguments concerning specimens such as the Mousterian bone flute from Divje babe I, Slovenia (Turk et al 1995;Turk 1997; Turk and Dimkaroski 2011) [165][166][167]. Although it has a two and a half-octave compass that extends to over three octaves by over-blowing and its nicely circular holes are clearly not made by compression, the object was explained away as the result of animal gnawing by several replacement advocates (d'Errico and Villa 1997; Chase and Nowell 1998; d 'Errico et al 1998'Errico et al , 2003 [73,57,74,72]. Any tubular bone fragment with regularly spaced, circular holes from an Upper Paleolithic deposit is inevitably presented as a flute, but when an identical object is from a Middle Paleolithic layer it will be rejected, like many other "unwelcome" finds, by any means.…”

Section: Middle Paleolithic Paleoartmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pleistocene Paleoart of Europe

Bednarik¹

2014

Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As in Australia, Pleistocene rock art is relatively abundant in Europe, but it has so far received much more attention than the combined Ice Age paleoart of the rest of the world. Since archaeology initially rejected its authenticity for several decades, the cave art of France and Spain and the portable paleoart from various regions of Europe have been the subjects of thousands of studies. It is shown, however, that much of the published information is unreliable and subjective, and that fundamental trends in the evidence have been misunderstood. In particular, the data implies that the paleoart of the Early Upper Paleolithic, the work of robust humans such as Neanderthals, is considerably more sophisticated and developed that that of more recent times. Thus, the European paleoart demonstrates that the teleological model of cultural "evolution" is false, which is to be expected because evolution is purely dysteleological. This is confirmed by the extensive record of pre-Upper Paleolithic European paleoart, which is comprehensively reviewed in this paper.

show abstract

“…It is only within the last two decades, however, that taphonomic and experimental approaches have been systematically applied to symboling and music (e.g., d 'Errico, 1988a'Errico, ,b, 1991'Errico, , 1992a'Errico, ,b, 1996'Errico, , 2001Chase, 1990;Davidson, 1990;d'Errico and Cacho, 1994;d'Errico and Villa, 1997;Chase and Nowell, 1998;d'Errico et al, 1998a,b;Vanhaeren, 1999, 2002;d'Errico and Nowell, 2000;Vanhaeren et al, 2006; see also discussion in Chase and Dibble, 1987). These types of studies include projects that are oriented toward understanding techniques of manufacture (e.g., White, 2001White, , 2006Henshilwood, 2004;d'Errico et al, 2005) including the chronological ordering of marks in notation systems (e.g., Marshack, 1991;d'Errico, 1995 and those that are concerned with discerning anthropogenic from naturally produced "art objects" (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Art of Taphonomy and the Taphonomy of Art: Layer IV, Molodova I, Ukraine

Nowell

d’Errico

2007

J Archaeol Method Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Level IV of Molodova I, an open-air MiddlePaleolithic site in the Ukraine has been described by some researchers as a possible source of evidence for early symbolic behavior. We examined bone objects from this layer that were identified by Ukrainian researchers as exhibiting possible Neandertal produced engravings including two anthropomorphic figures. While we have determined that there is no evidence of symbolic activity at Molodova I, the database we have created, with its systematic recording of traces left by taphonomic agents on faunal remains, provides a better understanding of the overall site taphonomy.There has been a resurgence of interest in the emergence of behavioral modernity (McBrearty and BrooksZilhão et al., 2006.) and whether or not the sets of behaviors that comprise behavioral modernity are unique to anatomically modern humans or are more widely shared amongst hominin species. Twenty years ago it was argued that modern anatomy and modern behavior evolved in tandem. Modern humans were believed to have evolved in Europe 40,000 years ago coinciding with a revolution in art and technology and the introduction of "modern" behaviors (e.g., language, art, trade networks etc.). As mounting evidence pointed to an

show abstract

Taphonomy of a Suggested Middle Paleolithic Bone Flute from Slovenia

Cited by 31 publications

References 4 publications

I remember. Differences between the Neanderthal and modern human mind

I remember. Differences between the Neanderthal and modern human mind

Pleistocene Paleoart of Europe

The Art of Taphonomy and the Taphonomy of Art: Layer IV, Molodova I, Ukraine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About