Siuren I Rockshelter: From the Late Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic to the Epipaleolithic in Crimea

Demidenko, Yuri E.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_1867

Cited by 9 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also undertook a new analysis of the Spitsynian lithic assemblage from Kostenki 17/II, to clarify its status as different from other known EUP assemblages. We focused particularly on the layer's retouched bladelets because these are the most diagnostic and chronoculturally sensitive aspect of EUP lithic assemblages (e.g., Bon, 2002;Bon and Bodu, 2002;Bordes, 2005;Le Brun-Ricalens et al, 2005;Demidenko and Noiret, 2012b;Nigst et al, 2014;Dinnis and Flas, 2016;Falcucci et al, 2017;Tafelmaier, 2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite its position adjacent to putative routes of AMH dispersal into Europe, the timing and dynamics of the Neanderthal-AMH transition in Eastern Europe are currently particularly unclear. A paucity of sites on the East European Plain is compounded by serious problems with the radiocarbon chronologies of key sites and sequences (Damblon et al, 1996;Sinitsyn, 1996;Sinitsyn et al, 1997;Douka et al, 2010;Demidenko and Noiret, 2012a;Marom et al, 2012). Additionally, uncertainty surrounds the Streletskian, which includes assemblages seen as representing a 'transitional' industry of Eastern Europe (Vishnyatsky, 2016;Dinnis et al, 2018).…”

Section: The Neanderthal-amh Transition In Eastern Europementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considerable problems with the radiocarbon chronologies of Kostenki and Sungir' have been demonstrated to be the result of incomplete removal of contaminant exogenous carbon (Damblon et al, 1996;Sinitsyn, 1996;Sinitsyn et al, 1997;Douka et al, 2010;Marom et al, 2012;Reynolds et al, 2017). Similar issues probably also explain the problematic dates for the generally well-stratified EUP material from Siuren I (Demidenko and Noiret, 2012a).…”

Section: Radiocarbon Dating the Eup And Problematic Bone Dates From Kmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further study of burins and bladelet production at these sites would help to assess these proposed similarities, although we can note that, in contrast to Kostenki 17/II, no Dufour bladelets have been described for any of these assemblages. Further south, the Ksar Akil Phase 3 assemblage (≈layers XIII-XI of the 1938 excavation) is, like Kostenki 17/II, characterized by Upper Paleolithic blade/bladelet production and is dominated by burins, including multifaceted burins on truncation (Bergman, 1988;Williams and Bergman, 2010 Mellars, 2006b;Demidenko, 2012;Kadowaki et al, 2015). No Proto-Aurignacian material has so far been identified on the East European Plain, but several candidate assemblages have been described at its margins (Demidenko, 2004(Demidenko, , 2009.…”

Section: The Place Of the Spitsynian In The Western Eurasian Early Upmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

New data for the Early Upper Paleolithic of Kostenki (Russia)

Dinnis

Bessudnov

Reynolds

et al. 2019

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) transition in Europe. The situation in Eastern Europe is generally less clear due to the relatively few sites and a dearth of reliable radiocarbon dates. 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 Kostenki-Borshchevo complex (European Russia) of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sites offers high-quality data to address these questions.Here we revise the chronology and cultural status of the key sites of Kostenki 17 and Kostenki 14. The Kostenki 17/II lithic assemblage shares important features with Proto-Aurignacian material, strengthening an association with AMHs. 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. 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. Kostenki 14's Layer in Volcanic Ash assemblage, on the other hand, compares to Early Aurignacian material. New radiocarbon dates targeting diagnostic lithics date to 39-37 ka cal BP. Overall, Kostenki's early EUP is in good agreement with the archaeological record further west. Our results are therefore consistent with models predicting interregional penecontemporaneity of diagnostic EUP assemblages. Most importantly, our work highlights ongoing challenges for reliably radiocarbon dating the period. Dates for Kostenki 14 agreed with the samples' chronostratigraphic positions, but standard pre-treatment methods consistently produced incorrect ages for Kostenki 17/II. 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. This suggests that for some sites compound-specific techniques are required to build reliable radiocarbon chronologies.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Neanderthal-amh Transition In Eastern Europementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Radiocarbon Dating the Eup And Problematic Bone Dates From Kmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Place Of the Spitsynian In The Western Eurasian Early Upmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

New data for the Early Upper Paleolithic of Kostenki (Russia)

Dinnis

Bessudnov

Reynolds

et al. 2019

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to a recently resurrected KremsDufour interpretation, the Banat sites belong to a specific Aurignacian facies, itself a 'genuine' part of a techno-typologically uniform pan-European technocomplex (Demidenko and Noiret 2012).…”

Section: Technocomplex Variability and Patterningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Danube Corridor Hypothesis and the Carpathian Basin: Geological, Environmental and Archaeological Approaches to Characterizing Aurignacian Dynamics

Chu

2018

J World Prehist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early Upper Paleolithic sites in the Danube catchment have been put forward as evidence that the river was an important conduit for modern humans during their initial settlement of Europe. Central to this model is the Carpathian Basin, a region covering most of the Middle Danube. As the archaeological record of this region is still poorly understood, this paper aims to provide a contextual assessment of the Carpathian Basin's geological and paleoenvironmental archives, starting with the late Upper Pleistocene. Subsequently, it compiles early Upper Paleolithic data from the region to provide a synchronic appraisal of the Aurignacian archaeological evidence. It then uses this data to test whether the relative absence of early Upper Paleolithic sites is obscured by a taphonomic bias. Finally, it reviews current knowledge of the Carpathian Basin's archaeological record and concludes that, while it cannot reject the Danube corridor hypothesis, further (geo) archaeological work is required to understand the link between the Carpathian Basin and Central and Southeastern Europe.

show abstract