3 results
Thoughts on the Structure of the European Aurignacian, with Particular Focus on Hohle Fels IV
- Rob Dinnis, Alexander Bessudnov, Laurent Chiotti, Damien Flas, Alexandre Michel
-
- Journal:
- Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society / Volume 85 / December 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 22 October 2019, pp. 29-60
- Print publication:
- December 2019
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Western Europe is often used as the basis from which to understand the Aurignacian of other regions. For some there is good inter-regional chronocultural agreement, whereas others see significant difference. One region frequently argued to differ is the Swabian Jura (southern Germany). In a recent contribution to this issue Bataille and Conard (2018) describe the Aurignacian assemblage from Layer IV of Hohle Fels. They convincingly outline important similarities with the Western European Late Aurignacian. However, they also argue that it is older than, and different from, the most comparable Western European assemblages, and therefore that it contradicts an Aurignacian chronocultural framework built on Western European evidence. Here we assess this claim, focusing on the sites used by Bataille and Conard in their comparison. Radiocarbon dates for Hohle Fels IV of 33–30,000 uncal bp are no older than dates for Western European Late Aurignacian assemblages. Most of the features of Hohle Fels IV argued to demonstrate its dissimilarity are, in fact, evident in the Western European Late Aurignacian. One potential difference is the reported absence from Hohle Fels IV of microblades with inverse/alternate retouch. However, due to the near absence of laterally retouched microblades and uncertainty over whether the fine fraction has been searched we doubt the significance of this observation. Other recent publications have similarly suggested that the Western European chronocultural model is incompatible with other regions. In light of this we consider Eastern Europe. Despite some difference, reliable data point to the pene-contemporaneity of characteristic bladelet/microblade technologies between the two regions, a pattern that stratigraphies from sites across Europe are also consistent with. The biggest complicating factor is radiocarbon dating, which has created a culturally complex picture that is inconsistent with all chronostratigraphic data. We therefore offer some thoughts as to the use of radiocarbon dates for this period. Despite ongoing problems dates are still frequently presented with an unwarranted confidence in their accuracy. Their presentation should instead explicitly acknowledge the method’s fallibility and its inferiority to more reliable evidence such as chronostratigraphic patterning and tephra. When radiocarbon dates contradict a consistent chronostratigraphic picture the burden of proof falls to those arguing the dates’ veracity. In these cases, the reasons for the discrepancy between the radiocarbon and chronostratigraphic records require exploration.
Can we Use Calcined Bones for 14C Dating the Paleolithic?
- Antoine Zazzo, Matthieu Lebon, Laurent Chiotti, Clothilde Comby, Emmanuelle Delqué-Količ, Roland Nespoulet, Ina Reiche
-
- Journal:
- Radiocarbon / Volume 55 / Issue 3 / 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 09 February 2016, pp. 1409-1421
- Print publication:
- 2013
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
This work aims to test the reliability of calcined bones for radiocarbon dating of the Paleolithic. Fifty-five calcined bone samples coming from Aurignacian and Gravettian layers at Abri Pataud (Dordogne, France) were selected based on their macroscopic features. For each sample, the heating state was estimated on the basis of bone crystallinity (splitting factor [SF] using FTIR) and δ13C value. Twenty-seven bone samples (3 unburnt and 24 calcined) from 5 different levels were prepared for 14C dating. The majority (15/24) of the calcined samples had to undergo a sulfix treatment prior to graphitization, probably due to the presence of cyanamide ion in these samples. The comparison between our results and recently published dates on bone collagen for the same levels shows that unburned bone apatite is systematically too young, while a third of the calcined bones fall within or very near the range of expected age. No clear correlation was found between 14C age offset and δ13C value or SF. Most of the sulfixed samples (14/16) yielded ages that were too young, while almost all of the non-sulfixed samples (8/9) gave ages similar or <0.2 pMC from the expected minimum age. Although preliminary, these results suggest that sulfix should be avoided if possible and that clean CO2 gas from well-calcined Paleolithic bones can provide reliable 14C ages.
10 - The Upper Paleolithic of Fontéchevade
- Philip G. Chase , University of Pennsylvania, André Debénath, Université de Perpignan, France, Harold L. Dibble, University of Pennsylvania, Shannon P. McPherron, Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie, Germany
-
- Book:
- The Cave of Fontéchevade
- Published online:
- 03 May 2010
- Print publication:
- 22 December 2008, pp 154-169
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter describes some of the Upper Paleolithic lithic material recovered from Fontéchevade during the early part of the twentieth century. Upper Paleolithic remains, in varying amounts and from both inside and outside the cave, had been noted by several excavators. The first to uncover these industries was L. Durousseau-Dugontier, between 1902 and 1910, but unfortunately his results were never published and his excavation notes have been lost (Henri-Martin 1957). In 1913 and 1914, M. Vallade undertook more systematic excavations, uncovering three beds of Upper Paleolithic. G. Henri-Martin used Vallade's unpublished results when she published her own excavations (1957). In 1921, M. and Mme. de Saint-Périer opened a trench at the opening of the cave, which yielded some Upper Paleolithic elements (1957). In 1933, P. David (1933) carried out several tests that also produced some Aurignacian artifacts. Although the most significant excavations were carried out starting in 1937 by Henri-Martin, the Upper Paleolithic had already been almost entirely removed, with only two remnants of the Aurignacian bed found (Henri-Martin 1957). In the course of the 1994–1998 excavations, no Upper Paleolithic was found in situ, though several indisputably Upper Paleolithic elements were uncovered in disturbed contexts.
DATA FROM THE OLD EXCAVATIONS
The first excavations by Durousseau-Dugontier produced pottery sherds as well as Typical Aurignacian and Châtelperronian lithics, although it is impossible to know if the excavator recognized any stratigraphy.