Abstract
We received comments from Professor A. Jelinek on our article Frouin et al. (2017) regarding errors in our Figures 2 and 3. The corrected figures and captions appear below. [Figure presented] In addition, following the nomenclature of Debénath (1998) we now realise that the following errors are apparent: i) The upper sequence at La Quina is the “southern” deposit and the lower sequence is the “northern” deposits.ii) The bed designations published in Debénath (1998) and reported in our Figure 4 are wrong. Following Jelinek (2013) the corrected sample bed assignments are as follows: [Table presented] Consequently, our Figures 4 and 9 have been corrected as follows: [Figure presented] For other Tables and Figures, we recommend that the reader carefully consider these corrections. This does not influence the overall chronological model or have an impact on our conclusions regarding the age of the Quina lithic technocomplexes. Finally, we recognise that it was A. Debénath and not A. David who defined the stratigraphic sequence in 1987 for the lower beds and the upper beds in 1986.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 140-141 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Journal | Journal of Human Evolution |
| Volume | 124 |
| DOIs |
|
| State | Published - Nov 2018 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Corrigendum to “Dating the Middle Palaeolithic deposits of La Quina Amont (Charente, France) using luminescence methods” [Journal of Human Evolution 109 (2017) 30–45] (Dating the Middle Paleolithic deposits of La Quina Amont (Charente, France) using luminescence methods (2017) 109 (30–45), (S0047248417302130) (10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.05.002))'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver