Talk:Aurignacian

Untitled

Were these people Cro-magnons or what species?--Sonjaaa 01:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reindeer Age (Aurignacian) Engravings & Carvings

Hello, I never heard or read about "La Paquette"... Is that a joke ? I suppressed the opposite picture because there is nothing in it related to Aurignacian ! (the engravings and the horse head are Magdalenian, the woman's head and the stone statuettes are Gravettian and the painted pebbles are azilian). Best regards, I20 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Date Issues

Dates given for several of the artifacts do not parse with dates given for the era. There needs to be reconciliation.Mzmadmike (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple edits created nonsense on Neanderthal vs. Cro-Magnon question

Someone editing the file at some point introduced the claim that the modern human identity of these remains has been refuted. To bolster this claim, they offered a footnote citing the abstract of a 2004 "Nature" article that raised questions about similar remains found in a cave in Germany. However, the remains being discussed previously were a set found in France, so the issue of problems with the date of remains in a German cave are not germaine, the border between those two countries not having shifted since World War II. In addition, the text of the entry at this point has been rendered nonsensical. Unless the reference to France in the original was an error (which may be the case), the entire footnoted portion about the German caves should be omitted. If the reference to France was the error, then these sentences need revision to read harmoniously. Since I'm not sure which is the case, I will not attempt the edit myself at this time. I have noticed a problem with NPOV in several entries where someone has tried to imply a paradigm shift toward greater Neanderthal contribution to modern human genetics and culture than is currently accepted by geneticists and anthropologists. I'm concerned that someone is trying to skew these entries with misleading documentation to support spurious claims. Ftjrwrites (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/news/protsched.html

I assume this is some of what was being discussed. Definitely the dates line up with neanderthal and with anatomically modern humans. Also we now know most humans have several % of neanderthal genes. I feel some rewriting is in order but it's not absolutely clear what that should be at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.231.44 (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Music

• An interesting article about flutes found: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090624/sc_afp/sciencearcheologymusicgermany_20090624174002 I don't have enough background to work this into a contribution on the main article page -- 24.64.172.21 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

ref

Niven, ʺThe Early Upper Palaeolithic Occupation of Vogelherd Cave (Germany): Human Subsistence and Cultural Innovation During the Aurignacianʺ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Venus figurines and Gravettians

The Aurignacians and Gravettians both produced venus figurines. They are obviously the same or closely related cultures. Gravettians and The Venus Figurines should be in the SEE ALSO section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.243.125 (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Agrarian Culture Map

I think the current and past extents of land are reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.159.234 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What is going on with the dates

It seems the Aurignacian has been receding a couple of millennia into the past every year or so? I have no problem with this as long as it is based on generally accepted results, but somehow people just seem to sneak in alternative dates. this map is given as the source of the map we use here (image description: "Translating from :File:Aurignacian culture map-fr.svg"). So, we must conclude, "35000" is the French for "47000"? And "26000" is the French for "41000"? --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems the claim that the 45 to 35 kya range is based on the "uncalibrated radiocarbon timescale" is simply wrong. It is a calibrated timescale, the uncalibrated dates being 35 to 26 kya. It just seems that an article entitled "Deconstructing the Aurignacian" (2006) has suggested a different calibration which results in the 47 to 41 kya range. Well, it seems that in the zeal to "deconstruct", these authors pick the earliest dates at all possible. This article (2011) suggests 44 kya as the early date according to the revised calibration.

By all means discuss these issues. But don't just switch around digits in maps or in article texts. --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Were they Negroids?

Böri (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Only in a sense so wide that it carries little meaning and is not particularly helpful, as all human beings are ultimately of African origin, and all human beings (in any case those living in Europe at the time) were probably dark-skinned back then and may have had other features associated with (Sub-Saharan) Africans, such as tightly coiled afro hair. (Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians, Veddahs, South Indians or South East Asian Negritos are not "Negroid" in the narrower "Congoid" sense, but in the wider sense "vaguely African-looking" they are, despite not originating directly from Africa, but from Asia.) See Light skin. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"Oldest musical instrument" clarification needed

I just fixed the grammar on a paragraph (diff). Here's the old version:

A flute (~22 cm long and 2.2 cm in diameter; from the hollow wing-bone of a giant vulture) along with fragments of ivory flutes found at the same Hohle Fels Cave in 2009 are the oldest undisputed musical instruments: but see who state that "there is also controversy surrounding whether this fossil was in fact used for music, as puncture holes are occasionally made in bones by carnivores in pursuit of the marrow inside, and there is no clear evidence that the holes in the fossil were made by hominids".

However, if the flute fragments were found in 2009, how could McDermott and Hauser have made any claims about them in a book published in 2005? Perhaps they were talking about a different fossil. Also, perhaps their opinions have changed in the past eight years. --Quuxplusone (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Flute

This seems to be wrong. See Paleolithic flutes and Divje Babe Flute. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aurignacian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930140128/http://www.ice-age-art.de/anfaenge_der_kunst/vogelherd.php to http://www.ice-age-art.de/anfaenge_der_kunst/vogelherd.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of 'is this date calibrated' notices

I have removed the 'is this date calibrated' notices. In at least one case [1] the source states that the dates are calibrated and in others e.g. [2] it is implied. I do not think that the notice should be added without editors checking the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I agree. The template is useful for flagging dates that are definitely uncalibrated, but shouldn't be used just for the possibility. See related discussion at Help:Radiocarbon calibration#Original research and other concerns. – Joe (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of the term "Ice Age." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)