1999
DOI: 10.1006/jhev.1999.0368
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The woman from Tabun: Garrod's doubts in historical perspective

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Estimating the ages of the fossils from Tabun C have been complicated by uncertainties about the provenance of the Tabun C1 fossil. Garrod (1937) considered it possibly intrusive from Level B, and this inference seems supported by new radiometric dates for the fossil itself (Bar-Yosef and Callendar, 1999;Grün and Stringer, 2000). The most recent ESR and U-series estimate of its age is ca.…”
Section: Chronology and Models Of Mp Human Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Estimating the ages of the fossils from Tabun C have been complicated by uncertainties about the provenance of the Tabun C1 fossil. Garrod (1937) considered it possibly intrusive from Level B, and this inference seems supported by new radiometric dates for the fossil itself (Bar-Yosef and Callendar, 1999;Grün and Stringer, 2000). The most recent ESR and U-series estimate of its age is ca.…”
Section: Chronology and Models Of Mp Human Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…for BC1 and BC2 from Border Cave; Grün and Beaumont, 2001), but the stratigraphic positions are frequently stated as if they are confidently known. For many fossils this confidence is warranted, but doubts may have been forgotten, as happened with Tabun B1 (Bar-Yosef and Callander, 1999). With the more recent remains, there is the particular problem in which graves cut into lower levels but are not recognized as such during excavation, as demonstrated by the direct dating to the Neolithic of the supposedly Aurignacian human remains from Vogelherd (Conard et al, 2004).…”
Section: Problems With Chronological Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most authors consider all of these specimens to be Neandertal in form (Oakley et al, 1977). Bar Yosef and Callander (1999) reviewed the evidence for the stratigraphic position of C1 and suggested that there is a possibility that it originates from Layer B. Coppa et al (2005) reviewed all the dental material from Tabun and suggested that there is a new individual, BC7, from Layer B, although they identified the teeth with those that Garrod and Bate (1937) Animal tooth enamel from the archive of Garrod"s excavation has been dated using ESR Grün and Stringer, 2000), with external dose rates estimated from sediment samples attached to the teeth or otherwise in the archive. Subsequent excavations directed by Jelinek (1982) and Ronen (Ronen and Tsatskin, 1995) have also recovered datable material.…”
Section: Comment [Msu51]: Referencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The human remains consist of one nearly complete skeleton (Tabun CI) buried near the entrance of the cave, one adult mandible (Tabun 2) and a few isolated fragmentary specimens. The stratigraphic attribution of Tabun 2 to layer C seems to be least problematic than that of the skeleton (Bar-Yosef and Callender 1999). Effectively D. A. Garrod has firstly suggested in her book notes that the skeleton might be assigned to layer C; later she expressed a suspicion that the skeleton deposit might be either associated with layer C or intrusive from layer B into the top of layer C.…”
Section: Deliberate Burials In Archaeology and The Developments In Armentioning
confidence: 99%