4.7 Article

Rethinking stratigraphy and site formation of the Pleistocene deposit at Cueva Negra del Estrecho del Rio Quipar (Caravaca de la Cruz, Spain)

Journal

QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
Volume 80, Issue -, Pages 195-199

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.09.009

Keywords

Early Pleistocene; Rock-shelter; Alluvial sediment; Geoarchaeology

Funding

  1. Earthwatch Institute
  2. Murcia University
  3. Murcian Regional Government
  4. Spanish Government
  5. Murcian Association for the Study of Palaeoanthropology
  6. Quaternary

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cueva Negra del Estrecho del Rio Quipar (Caravaca de la Cruz, Murcia, Spain), hereinafter Cueva Negra, is a key-site for understanding the early peopling of Europe. Since 1990, systematic excavation has revealed an intriguing assemblage of lithic and faunal remains, and hominin teeth. It was deposited 0.99-0.78 Ma according to palaeomagnetic and biostratigraphical data; pollen data indicate warm moist conditions. Recently, possible evidence of thermal alteration was detected in a deep part of the deposit. We report here on our revision of the Cueva Negra stratigraphy, and offer information on site formation processes, based on new field observations and preliminary data from soil micromorphology. The Cueva Negra succession comprises three main stratigraphical complexes. Complex 1 is late Holocene. Complexes 2 and 3 are Pleistocene and are formed mainly of alluvial sediment, with subordinate inputs from the cave walls. Complexes 2 and 3 were accumulated almost without interruption, being separated by an erosive surface truncating a thin alluvial soil developed at the top of Complex 3. Our initial micromorphological findings indicate that anthropic inputs are mostly in derived positions, very likely having undergone inward displacement from the mouth of the rock-shelter. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available