Access Restriction

Author Zilhão, João ♦ D'Errico, Francesco
Source Hyper Articles en Ligne (HAL)
Content type Text
Publisher Société des amis du Musée national de préhistoire et de la recherche archéologique — SAMRA
File Format PDF
Language English
Subject Keyword anatomically modern humans ♦ Aurignacian ♦ 14C dating ♦ behavioral modernity ♦ anatomically modern humans. ♦ Aurignacien ♦ datations 14C ♦ modernité culturelle ♦ hommes anatomiquement modernes. ♦ shs ♦ Humanities and Social Sciences/Archaeology and Prehistory
Abstract New radiocarbon dates and results of new analyses from Geissenklösterle (Conard and Bolus JHE, 40: 331-71) were recently used to suggest that the Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura dates back to 40 ka BP and that this evidence supports the Kulturpumpe model according to which cultural innovations of the Aurignacian and Gravettian in Swabia predate similar developments in the remainder of Europe. Here we conduct a critical analysis of new and old evidence, discuss the relevance of Conard and Bolus's hypothesis of a “Middle Paleolithic Dating Anomaly” to explain inconsistencies in the 14C determinations for Geissenklösterle, and conclude that the earliest Aurignacian occupation of this site does not predate ca 36.5 ka BP and probably took place between 35 and 33 ka BP. This interpretation is consistent with what we know about the taphonomy and environmental context of the site, with the technology and typology of the bone and lithic assemblages from its Aurignacian levels, and conforms well to the 14C dates on faunal remains modified by humans found therein. This interpretation is also consistent with the pattern of radiocarbon dates for the Aurignacian as a whole suggesting that the emergence of this technocomplex dates to ca 36.5 ka BP ; that the process appears to our eyes as simultaneous is to be expected in the first place due to the poor resolution of available dating methods. Modern behavior as inferred from the use of objects of personal ornamentation is documented in the Châtelperronian and the Initial Upper Paleolithic of the Levant; both predate the Aurignacian chronometrically and stratigraphically. The emergence of the Aurignacian and of modern behavior in Eurasia were considered for a long time as one and the same problem, but it is now clear that these are two independent issues that must be considered separately.
ISSN 11453370
Educational Use Research
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2003-01-01
e-ISSN 21010420
Journal PALEO Revue d'Archéologie Préhistorique
Volume Number 15
Page Count 18
Starting Page 69
Ending Page 86