Le Gravettien ancien d’Europe centrale revisité : mise au point et perspectives

Moreau, Luc

doi:10.1016/j.anthro.2011.10.002

Cited by 36 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(Ward and Wilson 1978 , Case 1) carried out with Calib 6.1 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993 ) An Alternative Interpretation of the Geissenklösterle Stratigraphy In this framework, there can be little question that the intermediate and younger of the three episodes indicated by the set of anthropically modifi ed horse and reindeer bone samples are local manifestations of the Aurignacian I and Aurignacian II, respectively. Where the younger episode is concerned, this conclusion is further strengthened by the recent identifi cation of diagnostic Roc-de-Combe bladelets among the small fi nds from sieving (Moreau 2009(Moreau , 2012. The remaining issue is how to interpret the older episode.…”

Section: Vertical Distribution Of Index Fossils and Dating Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fi rst was that of a short-lived, logistical expedition by Protoaurignacian people leaving behind no diagnostic tools (or ones that remain to be identifi ed among the excavation's unsorted water-sieved sediments; cf. Moreau 2009Moreau , 2010Moreau , 2012 )-a possibility suggested by the contemporaneous presence of such people further downstream, in the middle and lower Danube basin (e.g., at KremsHundsteig, in Austria, or Tincova, in Romania). The second possibility was that of an expedition of a similar kind but related to the Altmühlian and refl ecting the activity of the latest Neandertal inhabitants of the region.…”

Section: Vertical Distribution Of Index Fossils and Dating Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neandertal-Modern Human Contact in Western Eurasia: Issues of Dating, Taxonomy, and Cultural Associations

Zilhão

2013

Dynamics of Learning in Neanderthals and Modern Humans Volume 1

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supporting Assimilation views of Neandertal/modern human interaction, chronostratigraphic reasoning indicates that the "transitional" industries of Europe predate modern human immigration, in agreement with their association with Neandertals in the Châtelperronian at the Grotte du Renne and St.-Césaire. Supporting the Neandertals' species separateness and less developed cognition, those industries are alternatively claimed to relate to pioneer groups of modern humans; the latter would have been the true makers of the precocious instances of symbolic material culture that, under Assimilation, are assigned to the Neandertals. However, the taxonomy of the Kent's Cavern and Grotta del Cavallo dental remains is uncertain, and their poor stratigraphic context precludes dating by association. The opposite happens at the Grotte du Renne, whose stratigraphic integrity is corroborated by both taphonomy and dating. Not questioning that the Early Ahmarian is a cultural proxy for modern humans and a source for the Protoaurignacian of Europe, its claimed emergence ~46-49 ka ago at Kebara refl ects the dating of Middle Paleolithic charcoal-to be expected, because the Early Ahmarian units at the back of the cave are made up of reworked Middle Paleolithic sediments derived from the entrance. The dating of inherited material also explains the old results for the Aurignacian of Willendorf II and Geissenklösterle. At the latter, the dates on anthropically modifi ed samples of the hunted taxa (reindeer and horse) place its Aurignacian occupations in the same time range as elsewhere in Europe, after ~40 ka ago. The hypothesis that Neandertal/modern human contact in Europe resulted in a process of assimilation in connection with the spread of the Protoaurignacian ~41.5 ka ago remains unfalsifi ed.

show abstract

Section: Vertical Distribution Of Index Fossils and Dating Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Vertical Distribution Of Index Fossils and Dating Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neandertal-Modern Human Contact in Western Eurasia: Issues of Dating, Taxonomy, and Cultural Associations

Zilhão

2013

Dynamics of Learning in Neanderthals and Modern Humans Volume 1

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8). The corresponding 1908-1909 assemblage includes (a) one soft-hammer blade that, in the technological context of the period (AH2 is a pre-Aurignacian horizon), feels clearly anomalous (Teyssandier 2007) and (b) more to the point, a bladelet core that has been refitted to a bladelet from the Gravettian in AH5 (Moreau 2012).…”

Section: Ah3: the Old Collectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Left: soft-hammer blade (after Teyssandier 2007). Right: refit between an AH5 bladelet and an AH2 core (after Moreau 2012) occupation-that indicated by the Aurignacian diagnostics. As pointed out above, that cannot be the case.…”

Section: Ah3: the Old Collectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Entity and Antiquity of the Aurignacian at Willendorf (Austria): Implications for Modern Human Emergence in Europe

Teyssandier

Zilhão

2018

J Paleo Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is defined through time (beginning about 30,000 BP), space (Europe - fig. 1.1), stone tools innovations linked to hunting (backed tools), a common symbolic thought as pointed out by burial grave goods, ornaments, and portable art such as the renowned Venus figurines (Palma di Cesnola,1993;Palma di Cesnola, 1998;Soffer & Praslov, 1993;Djindjian & Bosselin, 1994;Mussi, 2000;Oliva, 2005;Svoboda, 2007;Moreau, 2012;Otte, 2013;Sinitsyn, 2007;Kozłowski, 1986;Kozłowski, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hunting High and Low: Gravettian Hunting Weapons from Southern Italy to the Russian Plain

Borgia

2017

Open Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The current paper aims at describing and analysing the backed tools found in two Early Gravettian sites separated geographically from each other: Grotta Paglicci (layer 23-22) in Italy, and Kostenki 8 (layer II) in Russia. A similarity between the lithic assemblages of the two sites, and other cultural aspects, has been reported by authors over many decades. The analysis of the backed tools has created the opportunity to apply the same methodological approach to verify the resemblance and potential causes for the similarity, and also to address broader considerations on Gravettian hunting strategies and the modalities and timing of the spread of new techniques, whether related to physical movement of people or assimilation of ideas. The perception is that, during the Gravettian period, shared symbolic behaviours and subsistence strategies linked people living in completely different environments with completely different resources, from the temperate regions of southern Italy, to the very cold Russian plains. This point of view cannot be questioned, but it tends to flatten an articulated palimpsest of human generations and to underestimate the very low demographic density of Prehistoric Europe.

show abstract

Le Gravettien ancien d’Europe centrale revisité : mise au point et perspectives

Cited by 36 publications

References 17 publications

Neandertal-Modern Human Contact in Western Eurasia: Issues of Dating, Taxonomy, and Cultural Associations

Neandertal-Modern Human Contact in Western Eurasia: Issues of Dating, Taxonomy, and Cultural Associations

On the Entity and Antiquity of the Aurignacian at Willendorf (Austria): Implications for Modern Human Emergence in Europe

Hunting High and Low: Gravettian Hunting Weapons from Southern Italy to the Russian Plain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About