4.3 Article

Dating the last Middle Palaeolithic of the Crimean Peninsula: New hydroxyproline AMS dates from the site of Kabazi II

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
卷 156, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2021.102996

关键词

Micoquian; Mousterian; Crimea; Radiocarbon dating; Hydroxyproline; Neanderthals

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union
  2. ERC [324139]
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [UT 41/2-1, RI 936/3-3, RI 936/3-4]
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [324139] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Radiocarbon dating of bone and charcoal from Middle and Upper Paleolithic sites is challenging due to low residual levels of radiocarbon, which can be influenced by contaminating carbon. The reanalysis of Kabazi II site in Crimea using a new dating method suggests that the Western Crimean Mousterian culture may be older than previously thought, dating to over 50,000 cal BP. In the absence of reliable pretreatment methods, many Crimean sites are considered minimum ages, with little robust evidence to suggest Neanderthals were present in Crimea after 40,000 cal BP.
Radiocarbon dating of bone and charcoal from sites dating to the Middle and Upper Paleolithic is challenging due to low residual levels of radiocarbon. This means that small amounts of contaminating carbon can wield a great influence over accuracy unless they are fully removed. The site of Kabazi II in the Crimea is important because radiocarbon dates previously obtained from bones in archaeological horizons that date to the Western Crimean Mousterian (WCM) are surprisingly young. We redated the same samples using a single compound dating method that focuses on extracting and dating the amino acid hydroxyproline. We show that single amino acid dates produce significantly older determinations than those that use bulk collagen pretreatment procedures. Our results suggest that instead of dating to 35,000-40,000 cal BP, the bones actually date to >50,000 cal BP. This implies that the WCM at this site is much older than previously thought. In light of these current findings, we considered the dates of other key Crimean sites and concluded that in the absence of reliable pretreatment methods, it would be wise to consider many of them minimum ages. We conclude that there is little robust evidence to suggest Neanderthals were present in the Crimea after 40,000 cal BP. Crown Copyright (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据