![]() 40.0 and 30.0 ka 14C BP with reference to the stratigraphic evidence. This paper therefore examines the European radiocarbon- based chronometric record for the period between ca. Only a precise chronological/stratigraphical framework can enable an understanding of the dynamics of change underlying the replacement of Neanderthals by Anatomically Modern Humans and the emergence of what are recognized as Upper Palaeolithic technologies and behaviour. This suggests that for some sites compound-specific techniques are required to build reliable radiocarbon chronologies. Extraction of hydroxyproline from bone collagen using prep-HPLC, however, yielded results consistent with the samples’ chronostratigraphic position and with the layer’s archaeological contents. Dates for Kostenki 14 agreed with the samples’ chronostratigraphic positions, but standard pre-treatment methods consistently produced incorrect ages for Kostenki 17/II. Most importantly, our work highlights ongoing challenges for reliably radiocarbon dating the period. Our results are therefore consistent with models predicting interregional penecontemporaneity of diagnostic EUP assemblages. Overall, Kostenki’s early EUP is in good agreement with the archaeological record further west. New radiocarbon dates targeting diagnostic lithics date to 39–37 ka cal BP. Kostenki 14’s Layer in Volcanic Ash assemblage, on the other hand, compares to Early Aurignacian material. Dates of ≥41 ka cal BP from other Kostenki sites cannot be linked to diagnostic archaeological material, and therefore cannot be argued to date AMH occupation. ![]() New radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 17/II of ~41–40 ka cal BP agree with new dates for the recently excavated Kostenki 14/IVw, which shows some similarities to Kostenki 17/II. The Kostenki 17/II lithic assemblage shares important features with Proto-Aurignacian material, strengthening an association with AMHs. ![]() Here we revise the chronology and cultural status of the key sites of Kostenki 17 and Kostenki 14. The Kostenki-Borshchevo complex (European Russia) of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sites offers high-quality data to address these questions. Claims have been made for both notably early AMH and notably late Neanderthal presence, as well as for early AMH (Aurignacian) dispersal into the region from Central/Western Europe. ![]() The situation in Eastern Europe is generally less clear due to the relatively few sites and a dearth of reliable radiocarbon dates. Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) transition in Europe. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |