Who made the Aurignacian and other early Upper Paleolithic industries?

The Aurignacian is typically taken as a marker of the spread of anatomically modern humans into Europe. However, human remains associated with this industry are frustratingly sparse and often limited to teeth. Some have suggested that Neandertals may, in fact, be responsible for the Aurignacian and the earliest Upper Paleolithic industries. Although dental remains are frequently considered to be taxonomically undiagnostic in this context, recent research shows that Neandertals possess a distinct dental pattern relative to anatomically modern humans. Even so, it is rare to find mandibles or maxillae that preserve all or most of their teeth; and, the probability of correctly identifying individuals represented by only a few teeth or a single tooth is unknown. We present a Bayesian statistical approach to classifying individuals represented exclusively by teeth into two possible groups. The classification is based on dental trait frequencies and sample sizes for ‘known’ samples of 95 Neandertals and 63 Upper Paleolithic modern humans. In a cross validation test of the known samples, 89% of the Neandertals and 89% of the Upper Paleolithic modern humans were classified correctly. We then classified an ‘unknown’ sample of 52 individuals: 34 associated with Aurignacian or other (non-Châtelperronian) early Upper Paleolithic industries, 15 associated with the Châtelperronian, and three unassociated. Of the 34 early Upper Paleolithic-associated individuals, 29 were assigned to modern humans, which is well within the range expected (95% of the time 26-33) with an 11% misclassification rate for an entirely modern human sample. These results provide some of the strongest evidence that anatomically modern humans made the Aurignacian and other (non-Châtelperronian) early Upper Paleolithic industries.     

Metrical reconsideration of the Skhul IV and IX and Border Cave 1 crania in the context of modern human origins.

The "out-of-Africa" models for origins of modern Homo sapiens incorporate Skhul as one site documenting that early origination. However, only Skhul V is usually considered in the comparative craniology of the question, neglecting the other substantial crania, Skhul IV and IX. Craniometric comparison demonstrates that IV and IX amplify the picture of continuous gradations of Neandertal-to-modern variations throughout the Levant; much variation is thus represented within this one site, raising serious questions about Neandertals and moderns being discrete and long-separated species. Qafzeh 6 too is craniophenetically closer to Neandertals than to the true anatomically modern people of the European Upper Paleolithic. Proper distance analysis of Border Cave 1 cranium shows it is actually far removed from modern African populations. References to Qafzeh, Skhul, and Border Cave as "fully anatomically modern" require reconsideration.     

Modern Human Origins in the Levant and Western Asia: The Fossil and Archeological Evidence

Upper Pleistocene human fossil and archeological evidence from the Levant and western Asia indicates continuity over the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition and the transition from archaic to modern Homo sapiens. It also indicates that these transitions did not coincide with each other in time. Both data sets are examined in light of recent claims from molecular biology invoked by replacement advocates in support of the position that morphologically modern humans develop (or arrive) first in the Levant, coexist with archaic Homo sapiens, and then displace or extirpate archaic Homo sapiens. Replacement models that assume no admixture are not supported by the archeological or the human paleontological evidence. Those who would argue for replacement without gene flow must show how it could have occurred without leaving traces of disjunction in the typological and technological aspects of Levantine archeological assemblages, in those aspects of the archeofaunal record that monitor subsistence, and in the evidence from settlement pattern studies.     

The place of Neandertals in the evolution of hominid patterns of growth and development

This study uses the two developmental fields of dental maturation and femoral growth to determine if the pattern of growth and development in Neandertals (archaic Homo sapiens) was intermediate between that of Homo erectus and recent modern humans. Specimens used in the analysis included Neandertals and Upper Palaeolithic early modern Homo sapiens from Europe and individuals from two recent modern human populations. Ontogenetic data for the H. erectus adolescent KNM-WT 15000 and for Gorilla gorilla were included for comparison. Previous reports have indicated that H. erectus demonstrates a pattern of ontogeny characterized by earlier and more rapid linear growth than in modern humans. Results reported here demonstrate that Upper Paleolithic early modern Homo sapiens display a growth trajectory indistinguishable from that of recent modern humans. The pattern of Neandertal ontogeny is not intermediate between the pattern displayed in H. erectus and the derived pattern seen in the modern reference samples and the early modern H. sapiens sample. The Neandertal growth trajectory is consistent with either slow linear growth or advanced dental development.     

Hominid cranial remains from upper Pleistocene deposits at Aduma, Middle Awash, Ethiopia

The Upper Pleistocene localities of Aduma and Bouri have yielded hominid fossils and extensive Middle Stone Age (MSA) archaeological assemblages. The vertebrate fossils recovered include parts of four hominid crania from Aduma and a complete right parietal from Bouri. Archaeological associations and radiometric techniques suggest an Upper Pleistocene age for these hominids. The more complete cranium from Aduma (ADU-VP-1/3) comprises most of the parietals, the occipital, and part of the frontal. This cranium is compared to late Middle and Upper Pleistocene hominid crania from Africa and the Middle East. The Aduma cranium shows a mosaic of cranial features shared with "premodern" and anatomically modern Homo sapiens. However, the posterior and lateral cranial dimensions, and most of its anatomy, are centered among modern humans and resemble specimens from Omo, Skhul, and Qafzeh. As a result, the Aduma and Bouri Upper Pleistocene hominids are assigned to anatomically modern Homo sapiens.     

A critical review of the German Paleolithic hominin record

We review the hominin fossil record from western Central Europe in light of the recent major revisions of the geochronological context. The mandible from Mauer (Homo heidelbergensis), dated to circa 500,000 years ago, continues to represent the earliest German hominin and may coincide with the occupation of Europe north of the high alpine mountain chains. Only limited new evidence is available for the Middle Pleistocene, mostly in the form of skull fragments, a pattern that may relate to taphonomic processes. These finds and their ages suggest the gradual evolution of a suite of Neandertal features during this period. Despite new finds of classic Neandertals, there is no clear proof for Neandertal burial from Germany. Alternatively, cut marks on a skull fragment from the Neandertal type site suggest special treatment of that individual. New Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dates of previous finds leave little reliably dated evidence for anatomically modern humans (AMH) in Europe before 30,000 BP; the remains from Hahn?fersand, Binshof-Speyer, Paderborn-Sande, and Vogelherd are now of Holocene age. Thus, a correlation of AMH with the Aurignacian remains to be proven, and the general idea of a long coexistence of Neandertals and AMH in Europe may be questioned. In western Central Europe, evidence of Gravettian human fossils is also very limited, although a new double grave from lower Austria may be relevant. The only dated burial from the German Upper Paleolithic (from Mittlere Klause) falls into a time period (circa 18,600 BP) represented by only a few occupation sites in western Central Europe. A number of human remains at Magdalenian sites appear to result from variable (secondary) burial practices. In contrast, the Final Paleolithic (circa 12,000-9600 cal. BC) yields an increase of hominin finds, including multiple burials (Bonn-Oberkassel, Neuwied-Irlich), similar to the situation in western and southern Europe.     

Metric dental change in the European upper paleolithic and mesolithic.

Evolutionary trends for dental reduction are presented for European Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic samples. The analysis demonstrates that the greatest decrease in tooth size occurs between the two divisions of the Upper Paleolithic, while little and insignificant change characterizes the Late Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic transition. Trends for tooth size over this period indicate that (1) human evolution does not stop with the appearance of "anatomically modern Homo sapiens," (2) changes in tooth size fluctuate with increases in the efficiency and complexity of cultural systems, and (3) the Early Upper Paleolithic sample should be considered transitional between Wurm II European Neanderthals and later Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic groups.     

Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe.

The existence of shaped bone and ivory points, to be used as awls or with wooden hafts, has been suggested for the Lower Paleolithic sites of Torralba and Ambrona and for several Middle Paleolithic sites, such as Vaufrey, Combe Grenal, Pech de l'Azé I and Camiac. The use of hafted bone and ivory points would imply a spear armature technology similar to that well documented in the Upper Paleolithic, often considered an innovation introduced to Europe by anatomically modern humans.The controversial ivory points from the two Spanish sites, whose fracture morphology is considered natural by G. Haynes (1991), have been reanalyzed, checking for putative traces of human manufacture and utilization as described by Howell & Freeman (1983), i.e., polish, flaking of stem, ground edges, striations from manufacture and contact with a haft or binding. We have been able to study 19 new proboscidean tusk tips from the ongoing Ambrona excavations by a Spanish team. For these and nine other Middle Paleolithic bone and antler points we use optical and SEM microscope analysis, taphonomic analysis, comparative observations of Upper Paleolithic bone points, experimental observations of manufacturing traces, modern tusk samples, and data on several bone and antler pseudo-points from carnivore accumulations.We show that none of the objects we have studied can be interpreted as an intentionally shaped point. The absence of hafted bone points in the Middle Paleolithic of Europe is contrasted with evidence of the use of hafted stone points since OIS 5 or earlier in Eurasia and Africa. We suggest that the absence of organic spear armatures in the Middle Paleolithic is not due to a deficiency in the technology of Neandertals but may be tied to the organizational strategies of the hunters and to patterns of game choice and capture.     

Is human longevity a consequence of cultural change or modern biology?

Increased longevity, expressed as the number of individuals surviving to older adulthood, represents a key way that Upper Paleolithic Europeans differ from earlier European (Neandertal) populations. Here, we address whether longevity increased as a result of cultural/adaptive change in Upper Paleolithic Europe, or whether it was introduced to Europe as a part of modern human biology. We compare the ratio of older to younger adults (OY ratio) in an early modern human sample associated with the Middle Paleolithic from Western Asia with OY ratios of European Upper Paleolithic moderns and penecontemporary Neandertals from the same region. We also compare these Neandertals to European Neandertals. The difference between the OY ratios of modern humans of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic is large and significant, but there is no significant difference between the Neandertals and early modern humans of Western Asia. Longevity for the West Asian Neandertals is significantly more common than for the European Neandertals. We conclude that the increase in adult survivorship associated with the Upper Paleolithic is not a biological attribute of modern humans, but reflects important cultural adaptations promoting the demographic and material representations of modernity.     

New data on the late Neandertals: Direct dating of the Belgian Spy fossils

In Eurasia, the period between 40,000 and 30,000 BP saw the replacement of Neandertals by anatomically modern humans (AMH) during and after the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. The human fossil record for this period is very poorly defined with no overlap between Neandertals and AMH on the basis of direct dates. Four new ¹⁴C dates were obtained on the two adult Neandertals from Spy (Belgium). The results show that Neandertals survived to at least ≈36,000 BP in Belgium and that the Spy fossils may be associated to the Lincombian–Ranisian–Jerzmanowician, a transitional techno‐complex defined in northwest Europe and recognized in the Spy collections. The new data suggest that hypotheses other than Neandertal acculturation by AMH may be considered in this part of Europe. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2009. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Dental remains from the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne)

Human remains associated with the earliest Upper Paleolithic industries are sparse. What is preserved is often fragmentary, making it difficult to accurately assign them to a particular species. For some time it has been generally accepted that Neandertals were responsible for the Chatelperronian and anatomically modern humans for the early Aurignacian industries. However, the recent re-dating of several of the more-complete modern human fossils associated with the early Aurignacian (e.g., Vogelherd) has led some to question the identity of the makers and the context of these early Upper Paleolithic industries. The Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure, France has yielded many hominin remains, from Mousterian, Chatelperronian, Aurignacian, and Gravettian layers. Previously, a child's temporal bone from the Chatelperronian Layer Xb was recognized as belonging to a Neandertal; however, most of the teeth from Chatelperronian layers VIII-X remain unpublished. We describe the dental remains from the Chatelperronian layers, place them in a comparative (Mousterian Neandertal and Upper Paleolithic modern human) context, and evaluate their taxonomic status. The teeth (n = 29) represent a minimum of six individuals aged from birth to adult. The permanent dental sample (n = 15) from the Chatelperronian layers of Arcy-sur-Cure exhibits traits (e.g., lower molar mid-trigonid crest) that occur more frequently in Neandertals than in Upper Paleolithic modern humans. Furthermore, several teeth show trait combinations, including Cusp 6/mid-trigonid crest/anterior fovea in the lower second molar, that are rare or absent in Upper Paleolithic modern humans. The deciduous teeth (n = 14) significantly increase the sample of known deciduous hominin teeth and are more similar to Mousterian Neandertals from Europe and Asia than to Upper Paleolithic modern humans. Thus, the preponderance of dental evidence from the Grotte du Renne strongly supports that Neandertals were responsible for the Chatelperronian industry at Arcy-sur-Cure.     

At the end of the 14C time scale--the Middle to Upper Paleolithic record of western Eurasia

The dynamics of change underlying the demographic processes that led to the replacement of Neandertals by Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) and the emergence of what are recognized as Upper Paleolithic technologies and behavior can only be understood with reference to the underlying chronological framework. This paper examines the European chronometric (mainly radiocarbon-based) record for the period between ca. 40 and 30 ka ¹⁴C BP and proposes a relatively rapid transition within some 2,500 years. This can be summarized in the following falsifiable hypotheses: (1) final Middle Paleolithic (FMP) “transitional” industries (Uluzzian, Chatelperronian, leaf-point industries) were made by Neandertals and date predominantly to between ca. 41 and 38 ka ¹⁴C BP, but not younger than 35/34 ka ¹⁴C BP; (2) initial (IUP) and early (EUP) Upper Paleolithic “transitional” industries (Bachokirian, Bohunician, Protoaurignacian, Kostenki 14) will date to between ca. 39/38 and 35 ka ¹⁴C BP and document the appearance of AMH in Europe; (3) the earliest Aurignacian (I) appears throughout Europe quasi simultaneously at ca. 35 ka ¹⁴C BP. The earliest appearance of figurative art is documented only for a later phase ca. 33.0/32.5-29.2 ka ¹⁴C BP. Taken together, the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition appears to be a cumulative process involving the acquisition of different elements of “behavioral modernity” through several “stages of innovation.”     

The Big Deal about Blades: Laminar Technologies and Human Evolution

Despite the rapid expansion of archaeological knowledge of the Paleolithic over the past several decades, some generalized interpretive frameworks inherited from previous generations of researchers are remarkably tenacious. One of the most persistent of these is the assumed correlation between blade technologies, Upper Paleolithic industries, and anatomically (and behaviorally) modern humans. In this paper, we review some of the evidence for the production of early blade technologies in Eurasia and Africa dating to the late Lower and the Middle Paleolithic. The basic techniques for blade production appeared thousands of years before the Upper Paleolithic, and there is no justification for linking blades per se to any particular aspect of hominid anatomy or to any major change in the behavioral capacities of hominids. It is true that blades came to dominate the archaeological records of western Eurasia and Africa after 40,000 years ago, perhaps as a consequence of increasing reliance on complex composite tools during the Upper Paleolithic. At the same time, evidence from other regions of the world demonstrates that evolutionary trends in Pleistocene Eurasia were historically contingent and not universal. [Middle Paleolithic, Upper Paleolithic, blade technology, human evolution, hominid behavior and capacities]     

Neanderthal markers of the frontal bone--a conspicuous Hallstatt cranium of the burial field Dietfurt/Oberpfalz

Between the skulls from early Iron Age cemeteries of the Hallstatt period (Beilngries, Dietfurt, Schirndorf and some other localities) in the Upper Palatinate (Bavaria) the skull Dietfurt 13/1 attracted attention because of its archaic traits at the viscerocranium and because of its extraordinarily large cranial capacity (1654 cm3). Such large cranial capacities were well known from Neandertals. Therefore this skull was examined for other neandertaloid traits: It was shown that the values for the angle of inclination and the vault-angle of the frontal bone fell into the neandertaloid range. With regard to the traits of the frontal bone Dietfurt 13/1 takes a more intermediate position between Homo sapiens sapiens and the Neandertals than the frontal bone from Hahn?fersand, which is dated about 36.300 +/- 600 years B.P. (Br?uer 1980). It is discussed, whether the specific traits of the frontal bone of Dietfurt 13/1 could fall within the variability of the subfossil Homo sapiens sapiens without postulating a phase of hybridization between Neandertals and anatomically modern man. Consequently, in the compilation of prehistorical skeleton-series more attention should be given to measures of the frontal bone.     

Neandertals,competition, and the origin of modern human behavior in the Levant

The East Mediterranean Levant is a small region, but its paleoanthropological record looms large in debates about the origin of modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals. For most of the twentieth century, the Levantine paleoanthropological record supported models of continuity and evolutionary transition between Neandertals and early modern humans. Recent advances in radiometric dating have challenged these models by reversing the chronological relationship between Levantine Neandertals and early modern humans. This revised chronostratigraphy for Levantine Middle Paleolithic human fossils raises interesting questions about the evolutionary relationship between Neandertals and early modern humans. A reconsideration of this relationship moves us closer to understanding the long delay between the origin of morphologically modern‐looking humans during the Middle Paleolithic (>130 Kyr) and the adaptive radiation of modern humans into Eurasia around the time of the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic (50 to 30 Kyr).     

The beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in the Iranian Zagros. A taphonomic approach and techno-economic comparison of Early Baradostian assemblages from Warwasi and Yafteh (Iran)

Southwest Asia is a key region in current debates surrounding the appearance of the first cultures attributed to anatomically modern humans, particularly the Aurignacian and preceding cultural units of the Iranian Zagros, Levant, and the Balkans (Baradostian, Ahmarien, Kozarnikien, etc.). The Zagros mountain range encompasses an immense territory that remains understudied with regard to the Upper Paleolithic as well as the first bladelet industries traditionally presumed to be the work of anatomically modern humans. Concerning the emergence of the Aurignacian, the sites of Warwasi rockshelter and Yafteh cave in the central Zagros are considered to show evidence of in situ evolution of the Upper Paleolithic from the local Mousterian. This hypothesis is tested by way of a taphonomic, techno-typological and economic approach applied to the Upper Paleolithic levels of Warwasi (spits LL–AA) and Yafteh (the series from the lower part of the sequence). A comparison of the techno-economic features of both assemblages demonstrates a conceptual bond with contemporaneous techno-complexes from Levant and Europe (Ahmarian, Protoaurignacian, etc.). The techno-typological Middle Paleolithic character of the Warwasi lithic assemblage permits a discussion of a possible in situ dependence/continuum from the Mousterian or perhaps particular activities linked to the type of the occupation of the site. However, bladelet technology cannot be considered as rooted in the Zagros Mousterian. Consequently the origin of the Aurignacian sensu stricto has to be reconsidered.     

Throwing in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic: inferences from an analysis of humeral retroversion

When in evolutionary history did long-range projectile weapons become an important component of hunting toolkits? The archeological evidence for the development of projectile weaponry is complex and generally indirect, and has led to different conclusions about the origin and spread of this technology. Lithic evidence from the Middle Stone Age (MSA) has led some researchers to suggest that true long- range projectile weaponry developed in Africa perhaps as early as 80,000 years ago, and was part of the subsistence toolkit carried by modern humans who expanded out of Africa after 50,000 years ago. Alternatively, temporal patterns in the morphology of pointed lithics has led others to posit an independent, convergent origin of projectile weaponry in Africa, the Near East, and Europe during the interval between 50,000-40,000 years ago. By either scenario, projectile weapons would not have been a component of the hunting arsenal of Neandertals, but may have been in use by European early modern humans and thus, projectile technology may have entered into the competitive dynamics that existed between these two groups. The origins of projectile weapons can be addressed, in part, through analyses of the skeletal remains of the prehistoric humans who made and used them. Habitual behavior patterns—including those related to the production and use of technology—can be imprinted on the skeleton through both genetic and epigenetic pathways. Recent studies in the field of sports medicine indicate that individuals who engage in habitual throwing have increased humeral retroversion angles in their throwing arms and a greater degree of bilateral asymmetry in retroversion angles than do non-throwers. This contribution investigates humeral torsion through analysis of the retroversion angle in samples of Eurasian Neandertals, European early modern humans of the middle and late Upper Paleolithic, and comparative samples of recent humans. This analysis was conducted under the assumption that if throwing-based projectile weaponry was used by early modern Europeans but not Neandertals, Upper Paleolithic samples should be similar to recent human groups engaged in habitual throwing in the degree of humeral retroversion in the dominant limb and in bilateral asymmetry in this feature. Neandertals on the other hand, would not be expected to show marked asymmetry in humeral retroversion. Consistent with other studies, Neandertals exhibit increased retroversion angles (decreased humeral torsion or a more posteriorly oriented humeral head) relative to most modern human samples, although this appears more likely related to body form and overall activity levels than to habitual throwing. Although Neandertals with bilaterally preserved humeri sufficient for measurement are rare (consisting of only two males and one female), levels of bilateral asymmetry in humeral retroversion are low, suggesting a lack of regular throwing. While patterning across fossil and comparative samples in levels of humeral retroversion was not clear cut, males of both the middle and late Upper Paleolithic demonstrate a high level of bilateral asymmetry, comparable to or in excess of that seen in samples of throwing athletes. This may indicate habitual use of throwing-based projectile weaponry by middle Upper Paleolithic times. Small sample sizes and relatively great variance in the fossil samples makes these results, however, suggestive rather than conclusive.     

The absolute dating of Upper Pleistocene subSaharan fossil hominids and their place in human evolution

In the evolution of anatomically modern man and his subspecies most specialists have concentrated on investigating geographical areas other than Africa as the possible area of origin.In this study 20 fossil hominids and associated faunal remains from South and East Africa were dated by microanalysis, radiocarbon, and amino-acid dating in order to see whether modern man appears later, was sympatric, or even predated Neandertal man.These dates indicate that anatomically modern man occurs sympatrically and possibly even predates the Rhodesian group of Neandertals in Africa. Modern man might also be contemporary to and possibly even predate the occurrence of Neandertal in Europe.This would indicate that modern man did not evolve from but possibly gave rise to the Neandertals as off-shoots.Two possibilities for the evolution of modern man are suggested. First, that Homo sapiens capensis evolved about 90,000 to 100,000 years ago from possibly Homo erectus by way of a “basic” Homo sapiens and later gave rise to Homo sapiens rhodesiensis, Homo sapiens afer, and possibly Homo sapiens palestinus around 50,000 years ago with Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens capensis evolving separately from Homo erectus. In this case Homo neanderthalensis would be a different species from Homo sapiens which includes Homo sapiens capensis, Homo sapiens rhodesiensis, Homo sapiens afer, and possibly Homo sapiens palestinus.Secondly, Homo sapiens capensis evolved by way of a “basic” Homo sapiens with Homo sapiens rhodesiensis and Homo sapiens palestinus branching off from Homo sapiens capensis around 50,000 years ago. Before that, around 90,000 to 100,000 years ago Homo sapiens capensis evolved first and was then followed by Homo sapiens neanderthalensis from a “basic” Homo sapiens stock, but diverged. This means, all Neandertals, Homo sapiens capensis, Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens afer can be considered as subspecies of Homo sapiens.The author favors the first scheme since on relative dating grounds the existence of Neandertal man in Europe before the earliest date of Homo sapiens capensis and a “basic” Homo sapiens seems to be fairly well documented. Irrespective of either one of these possibilities, modern man evolved in Africa and seems to have migrated into Europe and other parts of the world.New absolute dating techniques are mentioned in detail like the new radiocarbon-collagen method and amino acid dating.     

晋西南旧石器考古学研究现状及其展望

晋西南古称河东,位于汾渭地堑中部,包括临汾盆地、运城盆地以及中条山南麓黄河沿岸。这里自古就是中华民族文明重要发祥地,也是研究人类起源、发展、演化的重要地区。20世纪50年代以来,考古工作者在山西地堑发现了300余处旧石器时代遗址和地点。这些发现业已证明晋西南的临汾、运城以及中条山南麓黄河沿岸,从早更新世初期直到更新世结束一直有人类在这片土地上繁衍生息。其中西侯度遗址、匼河遗址群、丁村遗址群、下川遗址群、柿子滩遗址群,代表了东亚旧石器时代人类200万年以来从能人→直立人→早期智人→晚期智人各个不同发展阶段一个完整的演化历程。因此,这里成为中国大陆一个非常重要的远古人类演化场。本文试图通过对这一区域旧石器考古的回顾,找出我们工作中的不足以及需要努力的方向,并向本地区考古学研究的开拓者贾兰坡、王建、王择义等老一辈考古学家致敬。     

Reassessment of TL age estimates of burnt flints from the Paleolithic site of Tabun Cave, Israel

The stratigraphy of Tabun Cave (Mt. Carmel), which comprises one of the longest sequences of Lower and Middle Paleolithic of the Near East, is widely used as a reference in debates on the evolution of Paleolithic industries and on the origin of modern humans and their relationship to the Neandertals. Considering the methodological improvements during the last ten years, the thermoluminescence (TL) dates of heated flints frequently quoted in the literature require an update. New TL results are discussed and compared with radiometric data recently obtained for this site, in particular by the ESR method, and with those obtained for other Levantine sites. The chronological framework previously proposed for the Paleolithic industries of the area is then re-examined.