TL Dates for the Neanderthal Site of the Amud Cave, Israel

Valladas, Hélène; Mercier, Norbert; Froget, L.; Hovers, Erella; Joron, Jean-Louis; Kimbel, William H.; Rak, Yoel

doi:10.1006/jasc.1998.0334

Cited by 107 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter papers contain inconsistencies in the chronometric data. Valladas et al (1999) gave uncertainties on the internal and external doses and uncertainties on their dates that are consistent with one another, but the overall dose rates received by the flints have uncertainties that are much greater than implied by the other data. The reported uncertainties on the overall dose rates were assumed to be incorrect and the consistent part of the data was used here.…”

Section: Mumbwa Zambiamentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Table 5 shows the results of the Bayesian stratigraphic models for Amud. In comparison to the summary of Valladas et al (1999), the new chronology is less certain, but in comparison to the averages presented by Rink et al (2001), the 95% probability intervals are more precise than their 1σ ranges. The age for layer B 1 , which contained the Amud I Neandertal, suggests that it is similar in age to the Kebara Neandertal or slightly younger.…”

Section: Mumbwa Zambiamentioning

confidence: 69%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominid fossils: I. Africa and the Near East 500–50ka

Millard¹

2008

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThe chronometric dating evidence for all hominid fossils from Africa and the Near East that have previously been dated to 500-50 ka is critically assessed using the concept of chronometric hygiene, and these dates are revised using Bayesian statistical analyses where possible. Sixteen relevant hominid sites lacking chronometric evidence are briefly discussed.Chronometric evidence from 37 sites is assessed in detail. The dates for many hominid fossils are poorly constrained, with a number dated by comparisons of faunal assemblages a method that does not have good chronological resolution for much of the last million years. For sites with stratigraphic sequences of dates, it is generally possible to refine the dating, but in some cases, the revised chronology is less precise than previous chronologies. Fossils over 200 ka in age tend to be poorly dated, but for the last 200 ka, dating is better due to the availability of electron-spinresonance and thermoluminescence dating. Consideration of the chronologies favored by the proponents of the out-of-Africa and multiregional hypotheses of human evolution shows their selectivity. The chronological assessment of the fossils here is compatible with either hypothesis.If evolutionary schemes that do not rely on the morphology of the hominid fossils to decide the sequence of fossils are to be built, then further dating is required, alongside full publication of existing dates.3

show abstract

Section: Mumbwa Zambiamentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Mumbwa Zambiamentioning

confidence: 69%

A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominid fossils: I. Africa and the Near East 500–50ka

Millard¹

2008

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The two human deposits originated from two different units (Tabun B-type), Kebara 1 from unit X (between 61.6±3.6 ka and 64±6 ka) and Kebara 2 from XII (59.9±3.5 ka). Radiometric dates for the Unit B2-8 which had contained the Amud 7 deposit gave a mean age of 57.6 ±3.7 ka BP (Valladas et al 1999;Rink et al 2001); following Hovers and colleagues, the adult Amud 1 deposit could be earlier (Hovers et al 1995).…”

Section: Chronological Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 96%

Levant Bölgesi̇nde Tekli̇, Çoklu Ve Toplu (?) Mezarlarin Varliği İle İlgi̇li̇ en Eski̇ Bulgular

Tillier¹

2011

tubaar

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, whether the Ehmiran itself was made by modern humans remains a moot point; given the lack of associated fossils, it could just as well have been made by Neanderthals, and all the more so given the terminus post quem for the latter's disappearance from the Near East provided by the TL date (about ifty-three thousand years ago) obtained for level B1 of Amud (Israel), which contained the burial of a Neanderthal adult (Valladas et al 1999;Rink et al 2001;see Chapter 3.1). Both cultures have roots in the preceding MP (as seen, for the core area of the Bohunician, in the technological transition to the UP documented across the different levels of the Piekary IIa site, in southern Poland; Sitlivy et al 2008), and their resemblance probably relects, therefore, convergent, independent invention.…”

Section: The Transitional Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

The Upper Palaeolithic of Europe

Zilhão¹

The Cambridge World Prehistory 3 Volume Set

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the later part of the MP were lake-based, whereas, after about forty-ive thousand years ago, blade/bladelet production became predominant, if not exclusive, and remained so for thirty millennia; (b) such blade/bladelet blanks were obtained in the framework of volumetric core reduction schemes, while the Levallois method, characteristic of the MP, was entirely abandoned, even for the production of lake blanks; (c) as a result, the domestic component of retouched tool assemblages became dominated by end-scrapers and retouched blades instead of side-scrapers, notches and denticulates; (d) a component of points and barbs designed to be mounted on projectile tips and shaped to recognisable templates became readily apparent (probably in relation to the widespread adoption of complex composite tools requiring standardised blanks); and (e) implements made of bone and antler became ubiquitous at about the same time, even in those parts of the continent where wood was never in short supply, not even when climatic conditions were at their harshest. Secondly, in terms of demography, society and culture, the evidence for territoriality and identity, both individual and social, rare prior to ~45,000 years ago, became widespread thereafter and until the end of the Palaeolithic (Gamble 1983(Gamble , 1999 Vanhaeren & d'Errico 2006).After a review of current knowledge concerning the climatic and environmental background, this chapter will discuss issues of human ecology, culture and history. Given the limitations of space, the geographical and chronological coverage is of necessity imbalanced, and the emphasis will lie on describing and proposing interpretations for perceived general patterns, using speciic case studies to support the arguments, rather than on the illustration of regional or temporal particularities. The aim is to bring into focus what the UP as a whole represents in evolutionary terms by comparison with preceding times, namely where (a) technological innovation and adaptive success relate to demographic growth and social complexiication, and (b) these and related factors set a base line for the momentous developments that led to the emergence of food production in the later prehistory of Europe and the Greater Mediterranean.Throughout, calendar ages before present will be used (i.e., when relying upon radiocarbon results, after calibration; Reimer et al. 2009). The location of all sites mentioned in the text is given in Map 3.19.1, and the units of analysis are the different techno-complexes recognised in the literature (Table 3.19.1), grouped into four major phases: Transitional, The Upper Palaeolithic of EuropeEarly, Full and Final. The irst phase begins some time between ifty thousand and forty-ive thousand years ago with a period during which European Neanderthals experimented with novel technological systems in regionally diverse ways, and ends with the Protoaurignacian intrusion, which at present seems to be devoid of local roots and thus may well represent the archaeological signature of the irst wave ...

show abstract

TL Dates for the Neanderthal Site of the Amud Cave, Israel

Cited by 107 publications

References 19 publications

A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominid fossils: I. Africa and the Near East 500–50ka

A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominid fossils: I. Africa and the Near East 500–50ka

Levant Bölgesi̇nde Tekli̇, Çoklu Ve Toplu (?) Mezarlarin Varliği İle İlgi̇li̇ en Eski̇ Bulgular

The Upper Palaeolithic of Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About