Cal bp radiocarbon dating mens dating advice uk
They are certainly not enough to speak of a date for “Early Aurignacian” on this basis, there is no diagnosis of the industry here. Here’s a paper trying to make a big splash, by establishing the claim in the literature that we have Aurignacian-associated modern human remains earlier at Kent’s Cavern than anywhere else in Europe.
The reported date estimate is a clear outlier compared to human remains everywhere else.
The tooth was extracted from the maxilla and carefully sampled at the ORAU so that the external hole could not be seen from the exterior once the tooth had been replaced.
The Oase date is a mean of two determinations, one ultrafiltered and one not.We can look at Figure 3 of the paper to get an abbreviated picture of AMS dates for early Aurignacian human specimens in different parts of Europe.The new Kent’s Cavern maxilla date is way out of this distribution. Original caption: " Comparison of direct radiocarbon determinations of AMH bones from European Palaeolithic sites with the KC4 model age. Brackets under the distributions represent the 68.2 and 95.4% probability ranges, respectively.This produced 0.4% collagen after ultrafiltration pre-treatment, but the total amount extracted was too small for a reliable AMS measurement, so the sample was not dated (Table S2).paper is simply reporting this interpolation model.
I must admit, I was completely confused by the paper and had to read the entire thing several times!