Additional chronometric data for the small flake assemblages ("Asinipodian") from Pech de l’Azé IV (France) and a comparison with similar assemblages at the nearby site of Roc de Marsal

The chronological positions of the technological and typological variants of the Mousterian in southwest France have been the subject of debate for over fifty years. While some relative stratigraphical sequences provide a (regional) pattern, which could be interpreted at least in parts as chronological succession, chronometric dating appears to falsify this hypothesis. On a linear time scale much of the data suggests broadly overlapping Mousterian variants in the late Middle Palaeolithic. New thermoluminescence data for a less common Mousterian variant (Asinipodian) are presented for Pech de l’Azé IV and discussed within the framework of similar assemblages from Roc-de-Marsal. The two Asinipodian assemblages at Pech de l’Aze IV provide TL mean ages for Layers 6A and 6B of 74 ± 4 ka and 70 ± 4 ka, respectively. This data fits well into the previously established geochronological framework for the site and the weighted context TL-age of 72 ± 3 ka is in excellent agreement with OSL age estimates for the same layer. The Asinipodian assemblage from layer 6 and the similar small flake assemblages at Roc de Marsal thus can be placed in MIS 5a to 4. The outstanding concurrency between several chronometric dating methods for the sequence of Pech IV, as well as for the cluster of Pech sites and elsewhere, suggests that chronometric ages provide reliable estimates for the interpretation of the timing of the dated occurrences. However, coherence on a chronostratigraphical succession of the technocomplexes/facies is only achieved on a local scale for the Pech sites and elsewhere. The Mousterian variants, as they are defined, overlap considerably in time, and call into question their interpretation as a succession of chronological units on a larger geographical scale, while a correlation with climate change of the technological units is not clear either.

The agreement in chronometry and interpretation of the lithic sequences on identical analytical grounds of these two sites might indicate that differences in lithic analysis/definitions at least contribute to, if not are, the general problem.