A part the chrono-stratigraphical position of the Baradostian (older) and the Aurignacian (younger) in Zagros, what other differences between those two Upper Paleolithic entities can we highlighted? Does the Aurignacian is intrusive in Zagros or locally developed from Baradostian? Continuity or discontinuity?
And the Rostamien why shall be a different `culture`of the EUP? Isn`t it a part of the Baradostian variability?
If the researcher call every EUP bladelet entity en Europe a Protoaurignacian why in Zagros we can`t call everything Baradostian?
As to Rostamian tradition, I believe that it is part of Baradostian simply because "place" cannot bear new tradition! It is part of Baradostian as it has same characteristics and features. Needles to say, differences you may find between so-called Rostamian and Baradostian might have to do with the environmental issues, and the requirements of people who manufactured them. However, those features are not so widespread to create "new tradition."
If Rostamian and Baradostian have similar chrono-stratigraphical position (at the base of the UP sequences), conceptually closed technologies (bladelet production, Arjeneh points,...UP tool types etc) , we can associate them as part of the variability of the Baradostian. And both entities are most likely product of AHM. Unfortunately collagen is very bad preserved in Zagros to establish a good chronologies and eventually DNA study on the human remains.
I do agree with you. However, without enough evidences, how can we introduce new tradition?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry, Organic
- Organic