2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Overall, and as based on the comparison to current radiocarbon chronologies, the Mousterian occupation at Abrigo del Molino thus took place before the chronology suggested for the final Mousterian in Cueva Antón (Zilhão et al, 2016) and Gruta da Oliveira (Hoffmann et al, 2013), but after the final Mousterian in Cantabrian Spain (Higham et al, 2014; Wood et al, 2016). Apparently, it shows temporal overlap with the transitional Aurignacian of unit 18B at El Castillo, dated to between 45 and 42 cal BP (see discussion in Wood et al, 2016) and with the presumably Châtelperronian level 2 at La Güelga, where similar dating results were found (Menéndez et al, 2014). This temporal overlap may relate to methodological problems in radiocarbon dating or cultural attribution of lithic assemblages, or it may indicate co-existence of these techno-complexes over large geographical distances.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…Overall, and as based on the comparison to current radiocarbon chronologies, the Mousterian occupation at Abrigo del Molino thus took place before the chronology suggested for the final Mousterian in Cueva Antón (Zilhão et al, 2016) and Gruta da Oliveira (Hoffmann et al, 2013), but after the final Mousterian in Cantabrian Spain (Higham et al, 2014; Wood et al, 2016). Apparently, it shows temporal overlap with the transitional Aurignacian of unit 18B at El Castillo, dated to between 45 and 42 cal BP (see discussion in Wood et al, 2016) and with the presumably Châtelperronian level 2 at La Güelga, where similar dating results were found (Menéndez et al, 2014). This temporal overlap may relate to methodological problems in radiocarbon dating or cultural attribution of lithic assemblages, or it may indicate co-existence of these techno-complexes over large geographical distances.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…In La Güelga one of the dates goes beyond the timing determined for this cultural technocomplex in the region of 38 000–37 000 14 C a bp (Marín‐Arroyo et al ., 2018) and is dated at 40 300 ± 1200 14 C a bp (OxA‐27958). The archaeologists at this site proposed the attribution of these levels to a Châtelperronian technocomplex due to some guiding fossils highly characteristic of this period (Châtelperron points) (Menéndez et al ., 2018). Unfortunately, the lack of coherence in the dating of the other Châtelperronian level 10 identified in Cueva Morín and the absence of faunal assemblage in Aranbaltza prevented its inclusion in this analysis.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These results proved what the taphonomic studies also show. During the Mousterian, Amalda VII and Llonín VIII have the highest values, while during the Châtelperronian, Labeko Koba IX inf shows the highest value of the studied period, while there are no published data about carnivores in La Güelga, although the presence of panther is attested (Menéndez et al ., 2014). During the Aurignacian, according to the NISP, Labeko Koba VII has the highest values, followed by Ekain IXB, Aitzbitarte III Vb and Labeko Koba VI.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The chronology of these technocomplexes is one of the thorniest questions in these discussions, and one of the most prominent settings is the Cantabrian coast (northern Iberian Peninsula) (Maroto et al 2018). This is one of the European regions with the greatest density of archaeological sites from the period in question, contrasting with the bordering northern Submeseta (Álvarez-Alonso et al 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%