Palaeolithic Human Subsistence in Mount Carmel (Israel). A Taphonomic Assessment of Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic Faunal Remains from Tabun, Skhul and el-Wad

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. B. Marín-Arroyo
Keyword(s):  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Faunal Remains ◽  
Human Subsistence ◽  
Early Upper

An Early Upper Palaeolithic Open-air Station and Mid-Devensian Hyaena Den at Grange Farm, Glaston, Rutland, UK

2012 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 73-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.P. Cooper ◽  
J.S. Thomas ◽  
M.G. Beamish ◽  
A. Gouldwell ◽  
S.N. Collcutt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Damage ◽  
Good Evidence ◽  
Northern Europe ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Faunal Remains ◽  
Early Date ◽  
The North ◽  
Anatomically Modern Humans ◽  
Archaeological Work ◽  
Early Upper

Archaeological work preceding a housing development revealed mid-Devensian (MIS 3) deposits preserved in a geological fault, a graben feature, on an interfluve plateau. Rare evidence for Early Upper Palaeolithic open-air occupation was characterised by a scant lithic signature of the Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ) leaf-point techno-complex of the North European plain. The lithics included a complete leaf-point, another broken example with traces of impact damage, and knapping debitage indicating leaf-point maintenance. The site also preserved good evidence for an open-air hyaena den with abundant faunal remains. Discrete bone clusters were present, some of which probably represent meat caches for hyaena cubs in the burrows and scrapes of a maternity den. It is suggested that the hominins targeted the den site to forage the stored food. Their occupation is associated with a group of spirally-fractured wild horse bones thought to be the result of marrow extraction by humans, and these have been dated to 44,290–42,440 calibrated years before present (44.3–42.5 kyr calbp), comparable to the date range of continental LRJ sites. The early date of the LRJ techno-complex corresponds with that of the oldest Neanderthals in northern Europe, but possibly overlaps with the recently reported early dates for anatomically modern humans. However, it is concluded that the oldest Early Upper Palaeolithic technology in northern Europe was the product of final Neanderthals.

14C Dating of Early Upper Palaeolithic Human and Faunal Remains from Mladeč

2007 ◽  
pp. 149-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva M. Wild ◽  
Maria Teschler-Nicola ◽  
Walter Kutschera ◽  
Peter Steier ◽  
Wolfgang Wanek
Keyword(s):  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Faunal Remains ◽  
14C Dating ◽  
Early Upper

scholarly journals The role of small prey in human subsistence strategies from Early Upper Palaeolithic sites in Iberia: the rabbits from the Evolved Aurignacian level of Arbreda Cave

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 458-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lluís Lloveras ◽  
Julià Maroto ◽  
Joaquim Soler ◽  
Richard Thomas ◽  
Marta Moreno-García ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Subsistence Strategies ◽  
Small Prey ◽  
Human Subsistence ◽  
Early Upper

Early upper palaeolithic occupation at Gelimgoush cave, Kermanshah; West-Central Zagros mountains of Iran

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 103050
Author(s):  
Saman Heydari-Guran ◽  
Katerina Douka ◽  
Thomas Higham ◽  
Susanne C. Münzel ◽  
Katleen Deckers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Zagros Mountains ◽  
West Central ◽  
Early Upper

scholarly journals Eastern Europe’s “Transitional Industry”?: Deconstructing the Early Streletskian

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Dinnis ◽  
A. Bessudnov ◽  
N. Reynolds ◽  
T. Devièse ◽  
A. Dudin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Modern Human ◽  
East European Plain ◽  
Upper Palaeolithic ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
East European ◽  
Archaeological Material ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Layer V ◽  
Precise Relationship ◽  
Early Upper

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document