European Middle and Upper Palaeolithic radiocarbon dates are often older than they look: problems with previous dates and some remedies

Antiquity ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 85 (327) ◽  
pp. 235-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Higham

Few events of European prehistory are more important than the transition from ancient to modern humans around 40 000 years ago, a period that unfortunately lies near the limit of radiocarbon dating. This paper shows that as many as 70 per cent of the oldest radiocarbon dates in the literature may be too young, due to contamination by modern carbon. Future dates can be made more secure — and previous dates revised — using more refined methods of pre-treatment described here.

Radiocarbon ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 56 (02) ◽  
pp. 753-766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaroslav V Kuzmin ◽  
Susan G Keates

The corpus of radiocarbon dates run directly on Pleistocene-age human remains in Eurasia (∼120 values, with ∼80 of them found to be reliable) is analyzed and interpreted. The latest Neanderthals are dated to ∼34,000–30,500 BP (∼38,800–35,400 cal BP). They probably coexisted with the first modern humans at ∼36,200–30,200 BP (∼42,500–32,800 cal BP) in the western and central parts of Europe. The earliest direct14C dates on modern humans in Eurasia are ∼34,950–33,300 BP (∼40,400–37,800 cal BP). A paucity of14C dates corresponding to the LGM is evident for Europe, but Asia perhaps had larger populations during this timespan. The main criteria for the selection of bone/tooth material for direct14C dating as now widely accepted are (1) the collagen yield (generally, 1% or more) and (2) the C:N ratio (within the 2.9–3.4 range).


Radiocarbon ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 753-766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaroslav V Kuzmin ◽  
Susan G Keates

The corpus of radiocarbon dates run directly on Pleistocene-age human remains in Eurasia (∼120 values, with ∼80 of them found to be reliable) is analyzed and interpreted. The latest Neanderthals are dated to ∼34,000–30,500 BP (∼38,800–35,400 cal BP). They probably coexisted with the first modern humans at ∼36,200–30,200 BP (∼42,500–32,800 cal BP) in the western and central parts of Europe. The earliest direct 14C dates on modern humans in Eurasia are ∼34,950–33,300 BP (∼40,400–37,800 cal BP). A paucity of 14C dates corresponding to the LGM is evident for Europe, but Asia perhaps had larger populations during this timespan. The main criteria for the selection of bone/tooth material for direct 14C dating as now widely accepted are (1) the collagen yield (generally, 1% or more) and (2) the C:N ratio (within the 2.9–3.4 range).


Radiocarbon ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 243-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarosław Wilczyński ◽  
Tomasz Goslar ◽  
Piotr Wojtal ◽  
Martin Oliva ◽  
Ursula B Göhlich ◽  
...  

AbstractThe Middle Upper Palaeolithic (MUP) in eastern Central Europe (ECE) comprises three variants of Gravettian culture: Early Gravettian, Pavlovian, and Late Gravettian. While Early Gravettian and Pavlovian are merely located in Lower Austria and Moravia, the Late Gravettian occupations occurred over the entire territory of ECE. Compared to the number of sites the radiocarbon dating and the absolute chronology of the Late Gravettian is rather poor. The results presented here bring a new set of radiocarbon (14C) dates for the Late Gravettian period in ECE and propose that this period began and ended earlier than previously suggested.


Author(s):  
Francisco J. Ayala ◽  
Camilo J. Cela-Conde

This chapter deals with the similarities and differences between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, by considering genetic, brain, and cognitive evidence. The genetic differentiation emerges from fossil genetic evidence obtained first from mtDNA and later from nuclear DNA. With high throughput whole genome sequencing, sequences have been obtained from the Denisova Cave (Siberia) fossils. Nuclear DNA of a third species (“Denisovans”) has been obtained from the same cave and used to define the phylogenetic relationships among the three species during the Upper Palaeolithic. Archaeological comparisons make it possible to advance a four-mode model of the evolution of symbolism. Neanderthals and modern humans would share a “modern mind” as defined up to Symbolic Mode 3. Whether the Neanderthals reached symbolic Mode 4 remains unsettled.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Dinnis ◽  
A. Bessudnov ◽  
N. Reynolds ◽  
T. Devièse ◽  
A. Dudin ◽  
...  

AbstractThe Streletskian is central to understanding the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic on the East European Plain. Early Streletskian assemblages are frequently seen as marking the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) anthropological transition, as well as the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic archaeological transition. The age of key Streletskian assemblages, however, remains unclear, and there are outstanding questions over how they relate to Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic facies. The three oldest Streletskian layers—Kostenki 1 Layer V, Kostenki 6 and Kostenki 12 Layer III—were excavated by A. N. Rogachev in the mid-20th century. Here, we re-examine these layers in light of problems noted during Rogachev’s campaigns and later excavations. Layer V in the northern part of Kostenki 1 is the most likely assemblage to be unmixed. A new radiocarbon date of 35,100 ± 500 BP (OxA- X-2717-21) for this assemblage agrees with Rogachev’s stratigraphic interpretation and contradicts later claims of a younger age. More ancient radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 1 Layer V are from areas lacking diagnostic Streletskian points. The Kostenki 6 assemblage’s stratigraphic context is extremely poor, but new radiocarbon dates are consistent with Rogachev’s view that the archaeological material was deposited prior to the CI tephra (i.e. >34.3 ka BP). Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Kostenki 12 Layer III contains material of different ages. Despite some uncertainty over the precise relationship between the dated sample and diagnostic lithic material, Kostenki 1 Layer V (North) therefore currently provides the best age estimate for an early Streletskian context. This age is younger than fully Upper Palaeolithic assemblages elsewhere at Kostenki. Other “Streletskian” assemblages and Streletskian points from younger contexts at Kostenki are briefly reviewed, with possible explanations for their chronostratigraphic distribution considered. We caution that the cultural taxon Streletskian should not be applied to assemblages based simply on the presence of bifacially worked artefacts.


Nature ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 592 (7853) ◽  
pp. 253-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateja Hajdinjak ◽  
Fabrizio Mafessoni ◽  
Laurits Skov ◽  
Benjamin Vernot ◽  
Alexander Hübner ◽  
...  

AbstractModern humans appeared in Europe by at least 45,000 years ago1–5, but the extent of their interactions with Neanderthals, who disappeared by about 40,000 years ago6, and their relationship to the broader expansion of modern humans outside Africa are poorly understood. Here we present genome-wide data from three individuals dated to between 45,930 and 42,580 years ago from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria1,2. They are the earliest Late Pleistocene modern humans known to have been recovered in Europe so far, and were found in association with an Initial Upper Palaeolithic artefact assemblage. Unlike two previously studied individuals of similar ages from Romania7 and Siberia8 who did not contribute detectably to later populations, these individuals are more closely related to present-day and ancient populations in East Asia and the Americas than to later west Eurasian populations. This indicates that they belonged to a modern human migration into Europe that was not previously known from the genetic record, and provides evidence that there was at least some continuity between the earliest modern humans in Europe and later people in Eurasia. Moreover, we find that all three individuals had Neanderthal ancestors a few generations back in their family history, confirming that the first European modern humans mixed with Neanderthals and suggesting that such mixing could have been common.


Antiquity ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 84 (324) ◽  
pp. 299-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liubov V. Golovanova ◽  
Vladimir B. Doronichev ◽  
Naomi E. Cleghorn

New work from the Caucasus is revolutionising the timing and character of the shift from Neanderthals to early Modern humans in Eurasia. Here the authors reveal a powerful signal of that change from excavations at Mezmaiskaya: the abrupt appearance of a well-formed bone industry and ornaments.


2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lewis-Williams ◽  
E. Thomas Lawson ◽  
Knut Helskog ◽  
David S. Whitley ◽  
Paul Mellars

David Lewis-Williams is well-known in rock-art circles as the author of a series of articles drawing on ethnographic material and shamanism (notably connected with the San rock art of southern Africa) to gain new insights into the Palaeolithic cave art of western Europe. Some 15 years ago, with Thomas Dowson, he proposed that Palaeolithic art owed its inspiration at least in part to trance experiences (altered states of consciousness) associated with shamanistic practices. Since that article appeared, the shamanistic hypothesis has both been widely adopted and developed in the study of different rock-art traditions, and has become the subject of lively and sometimes heated controversy. In the present volume, Lewis-Williams takes the argument further, and combines the shamanistic hypothesis with an interpretation of the development of human consciousness. He thus enters another contentious area of archaeological debate, seeking to understand west European cave art in the context of (and as a marker of) the new intellectual capacities of anatomically modern humans. Radiocarbon dates for the earliest west European cave art now place it contemporary with the demise of the Neanderthals around 30,000 years ago, and cave art, along with carved or decorated portable items, appears to announce the arrival and denote the success of modern humans in this region. Lewis-Williams argues that such cave art would have been beyond the capabilities of Neanderthals, and that this kind of artistic ability is unique to anatomically modern humans. Furthermore, he concludes that the development of the new ability cannot have been the product of hundreds of thousands of years of gradual hominid evolution, but must have arisen much more abruptly, within the novel neurological structure of anatomically modern humans. The Mind in the Cave is thus the product of two hypotheses, both of them contentious — the shamanistic interpretation of west European Upper Palaeolithic cave art, and the cognitive separation of modern humans and Neanderthals. But is it as simple as that? Was cave art the hallmark of a new cognitive ability and social consciousness that were beyond the reach of previous hominids? And is shamanism an outgrowth of the hard-wired structure of the modern human brain? We begin this Review Feature with a brief summary by David Lewis-Williams of the book's principal arguments. There follows a series of comments addressing both the meaning of the west European cave art, and its wider relevance for the understanding of the Neanderthal/modern human transition.


2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 719-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
William C. Prentiss ◽  
Michael Lenert ◽  
Thomas A. Foor ◽  
Nathan B. Goodale ◽  
Trinity Schlegel

This paper provides an analysis of radiocarbon dates acquired during earlier and recent field seasons at the Keatley Creek site, southern British Columbia. Results indicate that early occupations predating 1900 cal. B.P. occurred, but were not likely associated with population aggregation and large housepits. The aggregated village appears to have emerged by approximately 1700 cal. B.P. and was abandoned at approximately 800 cal. B.P. A break in the occupational sequence is recognized at 1450-1350 cal. B.P. and one other short break may have occurred shortly after 1250 cal. B.P. Peak socioeconomic complexity appears to have been achieved between 1350 and 800 cal B.P. Climatic warming may have provided a selective environment favoring population aggregation and intensification during this time. The final abandonment of the Keatley Creek village appears to have been part of a regional phenomenon suggesting the possibility that climatic factors were important in this case as well.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document