The documentation of archaeological excavations represents the foundation for studying chrono-cultural developments of human behaviour in the past. The quality and resolution of excavations significantly influence how researchers investigate the archaeological record. The stratigraphic units identified in the field usually form the basis of investigations but are rarely evaluated to determine if they represent meaningful units of evaluation. In this study, we present an updated record of lithic refits to reassess the chronostratigraphy of the Aurignacian at Geißenklösterle in Southwestern Germany. Our findings show that the majority of previously reported refits coming from different stratigraphic units originate from excavation errors. While some refits relate to unclear stratigraphic boundaries between the layers, very few document evidence of mixing. As a result of the excavation errors the layers identified in the field do not represent closed stratigraphic units. However, the refitted record underlines the validity of Hahn’s division of the Aurignacian layers. This work forms the foundation to build a more robust chronostratigraphic framework of the Aurignacian at Geißenklösterle to facilitate the study of chrono-cultural dynamics of early Homo sapiens and the development of early symbolic behaviour in the Swabian Jura. Overall, this study highlights the need to critically reassess the layers identified in the field and the importance of refitting as a crucial tool to study stratigraphic contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schray et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: