Talk:Châtelperronian

BC, BCE, BP, c'mon!
How many systems do we need to reference years? BP will only work for a few hundred years, and I guess it's okay to make more work for our descendents to constantly update these "floating" references. Let's use the Holocene calendar. Xaxafrad 00:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is very true!!

Calibrating the confused "Radiocarbon dates BP" of the en/de.wikipedias (by OxCal, 2016-03-30; SD inüput, because not given, set to 100 a) we get the following results Remarkably, the "41,030 — 39,260 calibrated years BP" given in the right-hand overview of the en.wiki, after subtracting the due 1950 years giving 39080-37310 cal BC, would only roughly correspond to the raw date of 35 ka BP. HJJHolm (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ka "BP"→ cal centuries BC (1σ, rounded to the narrower century)
 * 45    → 471-458
 * 41	→ 429-425
 * 40	→ 421-416
 * 38	→ 405-401
 * 35	→ 380-373
 * 33	→ 356-346
 * 30	→ 323-319
 * 29	→ 316-309.

pov
The article mixed more than 'backdirt' in Grotte des Fées. Will be here will to sort it out ? Who want to join the task. Is it OK to deeply rearrange the art or not ? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What is now? The literature: newest is only Mellars 2007, rest is 10 + yeras old.

'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'4/2009
 * Z PaleoAnthropology 2008: 1−42
 * M http://paleoanthro.org/journal/content/PA20080043.pdf 2008
 * Z http://paleoanthro.org/journal/content/PA20080065.pdf 2008

comparison of the frequency of putative 'Aurignacian diagnostics' in this and nineteen other Chatelperronian assemblages from south-western France...analysis demonstrates that such implements are not abnormally more abundant at Chatelperronian assemblages, ...We propose alternative explanations for the presence of such curated tools made of exotic lithic raw materials... and conclude with some thoughts about the significance of interstratification in Paleolithic deposits. (2008)

90.202.211.191 (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

In Popular Culture section
Someone whose English is not quite good has obviously added the following without properly understanding what is being said: 'This comparison is not compatible wirth Recent African origin since Indians and conquistadors mixed and they descendant survive in subsequent generations. RAO postulate speciation and two species can not born kids.' What Jared Diamond proposes does not necessarily mean that any interbreeding occurred. 90.202.211.191 (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictonon (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Calibration
Any reason we aren't using calibrated dates? The dates presented in this article are about five thousand years out. 90.202.211.191 (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamrifis (talk • contribs) 10:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Related Paul Mellars claims: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021545 This paper by Caron et al (2011) basically explains why Mellar's claims are nosense. They also explain why that other article (Highham et al 2010) is also wrong: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/47/20234.short

Hope those references help improving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.240.53 (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Further support for the Châtelperronian industry being Neandertal
A recent (July 2016) paper (address below) demonstrates, using a new protein analysis technique, that bone fragments associated with the Châtelperronian artefacts at the Grotte du Renne site are unequivocally Neandertal.
 * http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/09/13/1605834113

I leave it to more expert editors to make any appropriate use of this in the Article (which is discussed further on John D. Hawks' weblog). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)