What roots for the Uluzzian? Modern behaviour in Central-Southern Italy and hypotheses on AMH dispersal routes

Moroni, Adriana; Boscato, Paolo; Ronchitelli, Anna María

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.10.051

Cited by 49 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 114 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given this, how can one reliably establish a chronological relationship between the ornamental shell and the human remains they are supposed to date by association (Zilhão 2013)? The interpretation that arose from this research redefined the entire Uluzzian as a product of modern humans, not Neanderthals, and by so doing back dated the arrival of Homo sapiens in Italy (Douka et al 2014;Moroni et al 2012). (2003) (2012) found support for this early age on the basis of Bayesian modelling of 23 new AMS radiocarbon measurements.…”

Section: Site Formation: Samples Must Derive From Reliable Stratigrapmentioning

confidence: 93%

Problematizing Bayesian approaches to prehistoric chronologies

Pettitt

Zilhão

2015

World Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. as human dispersals and extinctions, the spread of agriculture and culture change, the method can offer a powerful means to improve considerably the precision of prehistorians' investigation of some of the most major questions in human prehistory. As such its potential is profound -it has even been regarded as the third radiocarbon revolution -but its appropriateness is dependent on the assumptions that must be made of the samples selected for dating. How sound are these assumptions, and therefore how reliable are Bayesian analyses? Here, we introduce some aspects and assumptions that underline Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon measurements, and we problematise their application in Palaeolithic archaeology. We conclude that many existing models are faulty, and suggest some criteria for quality control in this field.

show abstract

Section: Site Formation: Samples Must Derive From Reliable Stratigrapmentioning

confidence: 93%

Problematizing Bayesian approaches to prehistoric chronologies

Pettitt

Zilhão

2015

World Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And even more so are, therefore, the speculations concerning the migration route followed by such putative pioneer moderns in order to travel from Africa to southern Italy (e.g., Moroni et al 2012 ).…”

Section: An Open Issuementioning

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

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

“…This geoarchaeological observation of stratigraphic discontinuity has been mentioned for different regions, including Spain, the Swabian Jura, Italy and the Caucasus (Mallol et al, 2012;Moroni et al, 2013). These are assumed to relate to a chronological gap and have been used as an argument against local Mousterian origin.…”

Section: Table 14mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…However, the appearance of laminar technologies is, especially in the LRJ, also a clear break from this local Mousterian (Flas, 2008(Flas, , 2014. For the Uluzzian, past studies, mainly favoured a local (Denticulate) Mousterian origin (Gioia, 1990), but recent studies stress potential, although also problematic, links with the Middle Stone Age (Moroni et al, 2013) or the occurrence of a hiatus between the Mousterian and Uluzzian levels .…”

Section: Table 14mentioning

confidence: 99%