Eurasian Preshistory 5,2 (2007), Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia

Joris, O., D. S. Adler (Guest Editors) 2008

Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia

a special issue of the Eurasian Prehistory 2007, 5 (2).

Eurasian Prehistory Vol.5, No.2. 2008

Contents

Adler, D. S., and O. Jöris. 2008. Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia. In Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia, edited by O. Jöris and D. S. Adler, a special issue of the Eurasian Prehistory 2007, 5(2): 5–18. Bolus, Michael, and Nicholas J. Conard. 2008. What can we say about the spatial-temporal distribution of early Aurignacian innovations? In Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia, edited by O. Jöris and D. S. Adler, a special issue of the Eurasian Prehistory 2007, 5(2): 19–29. Subils, Joaquim Soler, Masferrer, Narcís Soler, and Julià Maroto. 2008. L ’Arbreda’s Archaic Aurignacian dates clarified. In Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia, edited by O. Jöris and D. S. Adler, a special issue of the Eurasian Prehistory 2007, 5(2): 45–55. Fernández, Esteban Álvarez, and Olaf Jöris. 2008. Personal ornaments in the Early Upper Paleolithic of Western Eurasia: an evaluation of the record. In Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia, edited by O. Jöris and D. S. Adler, a special issue of the Eurasian Prehistory 2007, 5(2): 31–44. 2008. de Quiros, Federico Bernaldo, Maillo, Jose Manuel, and Ana Neira. 2008. The place of unit 18 of El Castillo Cave in the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. In Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia, edited by O. Jöris and D. S. Adler, a special issue of the Eurasian Prehistory 2007, 5(2): 57–71. Lengyel, György, and Zsolt Mester. 2008. A new look at the radiocarbon chronology of the Szeletian in Hungary. InDating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia, edited by O. Jöris and D. S. Adler, a special issue of the Eurasian Prehistory 2007, 5(2): 73–83. Elefanti, Paraskevi, Panagopoulou, Eleni and Panagiotis Karkanas. 2008. The transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the Southern Balkans: the evidence from the Lakonis I Cave, Greece. In Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia, edited by O. Jöris and D. S. Adler, a special issue of the Eurasian Prehistory 2007, 5(2): 85–95.

Kuzmin, Yaroslav V. 2008. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Siberia: chronological and environmental aspects. In Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia, edited by O. Jöris and D. S. Adler, a special issue of the Eurasian Prehistory 2007, 5(2): 97–108. Lbova, Ludmila V. 2008. Chronology and paleoecology of the Early Upper Paleolithic in the Transbaikal region (Siberia). In Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary Across Eurasia, edited by O. Jöris and D. S. Adler, a special issue of the Eurasian Prehistory 2007, 5(2): 109–114.

Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (2): 109–114.

CHRONOLOGY AND PALEOECOLOGY OF THE EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC IN THE TRANSBAIKAL REGION (SIBERIA) Ludmila V. Lbova Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Lavrentiev Ave, 17, Novosibirsk 630090, RUSSIA; [email protected] Abstract This paper presents current chronometric data on the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Transbaikal and Mongolia. The application of natural science methods and absolute dating techniques at a variety of Paleolithic sites in these regions indicate that the earliest evidence for early modern culture dates to approximately 40,000 14C BP.

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The region under investigation is located in a contact zone of different landscape areas in northern and central Asia (Fig.1). The territory is situated within the limits of the Mongolian-Siberian folded mountain belt, and the environment (geological structure, relief, climate, waters, biota, and landscapes) differs greatly (Lbova, 2000). The Transbaikal region is characterized by a combination of mountain ridges, smoothed watersheds, and intermountain basins, oriented in a north-east direction. In general the mountains occupy a highaltitude belt of 800–1,300 m above sea level. The region is viewed as the easternmost territory where Upper Paleolithic technocomplexes appear quite early, and its chronology is also relevant for adjacent regions. While the Transbaikal Upper Paleolithic sites are rather numerous (Lbova, 2000, 2002), it is so far difficult to estimate the beginning of this epoch due to the lack of reliably dated sequences and the absence of a detailed technological or typological analysis of the industries.

Within the Transbaikal region more than 100 absolute dates are available for Upper Paleolithic assemblages, based on traditional as well as new dating techniques (e.g., 14C, RTL, thermo-gravimetry) (Orlova et al., 2005; Lbova et al., 2003). Techno-typological and planigraphic characteristics representative of Early Upper Paleolithic (hereafter EUP) assemblages in the Transbaikal have been presented elsewhere (Lbova, 2000, 2002; Lbova et al., 2003). This paper attempts to provide reliable age estimates of archaeological complexes based on absolute and relative dating techniques. As of early 2006, there were 105 published 14C dates for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic complexes in the Transbaikal, and 42 14C dates for Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites in Mongolia. In this dataset, 44 dates are associated with cultural materials defined by researchers as EUP. 14C dates have been mainly obtained in Russia by the traditional liquid scintillation counting method (laboratories: SOAN, LE, GIN, IEMEG), and by the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method (laboratories: AA, RIDDL) (Orlova et al., 2005) (Table 1).

110

Fig. 1.

L.V. Lbova

Siberia with the Transbaikal region discussed in this paper highlighted in gray

The main materials dated at the Paleolithic sites of the Transbaikal were animal bone (n = 49) and charcoal (n = 42); humic acids (2%) were also dated. The RTL dating method was applied at several sites, however, the methodological principals of the RTL technique remain unclear. Therefore we rely on the results of 14C dating. Kamenka, one of the EUP sites in Siberia, corresponds to the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition or to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, based on absolute dates and on technotypological analysis (Lbova, 2000; Lbova et al., 2003). Available dates are: 26,760 ± 265 14C BP (SB RAS-3353), 30,220 ± 270 14C BP (SB RAS3052), 30,460 ± 430 14C BP (SB RAS-3354), 31,060 ± 530 14C BP (SB RAS-3133), 35,845 ± 695 14C BP (SB RAS-2904), and 40,500 ± 3,800 14 C BP (AA-26743) (Table 1). The variation of dates is wide, however, they cluster between 31,000–30,000 14C BP and 40,000–35,000 14C BP. Based upon stratigraphic data the older age range is preferred (Lbova, 2000) (Table 1). The site of Varvarina Gora, defined in the 1970s as containing an industry with both Middle and Upper Paleolithic elements, now seems to represent a more complex picture compared with that presented by Okladnikov and Kirillov (1980). In particular, three different occupations were

identified (Lbova, 2000). The chronology of layer 3 (EUP) is determined based on two AMS dates, >34,050 14C BP (AA-8875A) and >35,300 14C BP (AA-8893A) (Goebel and Aksenov, 1995), that are similar to the earlier estimate of 34,900 ± 780 14C BP (SB RAS-1524). For the overlying layer 2 the new date of 29,895 ± 1,790 14C BP (SB RAS-3054) is similar to the earlier estimate of 30,600 ± 500 14C BP (SB RAS-850). Likewise, the new date for layer 1 (17,035 ± 400 14C BP; SB RAS-3053) (Lbova, 2000) corresponds to the middle part of the Upper Paleolithic (Table 1). The Podzvonkaya site has produced dates of 22,675 ± 265 14C BP (SB RAS-3350), 26,000 ± 920 14C BP (SB RAS-3404), 38,900 ± 3,300 14C BP (AA-26741), >36,800 14C BP (AA-26742), 35,180 ± 1,100 14C BP (SB RAS-4122), 36,900 ± 1,300 14C BP (SB RAS-4123), and 37,000 ± 200 (SB RAS-4447), and 43,900 ± 960 14C BP (SB RAS-4445). The wide variation of 14C ages is evident, but the investigator prefers to estimate its age at 44,000–35,000 14C BP (Tashak, 2002) (Table 1). The Khotyk site, located in the Transbaikal, contains a stratified sequence with both Middle and Upper Paleolithic complexes (Lbova, 2000). The EUP complex of layer 3 has a date of 28,770 ± 245 14C BP (SD RAS-5082) (Table 1), and layer

Early Upper Paleolithic in the Transbaikal Region

111

Table 1 Chronometrically dated sites from the Transbaikal region discussed in this paper Site and publication

Layer

Lab Code

Sample

14

C

RTL

22,000 ± 2,500 Sand GIN SB RAS-242 26,220 ± 550 Charcoal AA-32669 32,700 ± 1,400 Bone AA-60266 26,000 ± 3,000 Sand GIN SB RAS-241 27,000 ± 3,000 Sand GIN SB RAS-245 32,000 ± 4,600 Sand GIN SB RAS-155 45,000 ± 6,800* Sand GIN SB RAS-243 49,000 ± 7,000* Sand GIN SB RAS-153 Khotyk 56,000 ± 4,000* Sand GIN SB RAS-154 (Lbova et al., 28,770 ± 245 Bone SD RAS-5082 3 2003; 38,200 ± 2,800 Bone AA-60267 Kuzmin et al., 35,100 ± 1,500 Bone AA-60613 4 2006) 34,000 ± 6,000 Sand GIN SB RAS-244 63,000 ± 9,500 Sand GIN SB RAS-235 65,000 ± 8,000 Sand GIN SB RAS-246 70,000 ± 13,000 Sand GIN SB RAS-236 >38,700 Bone AA-60614 5 85,000 ± 9,000 Sand GIN SB RAS-239 91,000 ± 3,000 Sand GIN SB RAS-157 98,000 ± 12,000 Sand GIN SB RAS-237 17,035 ± 400 Bone 1 SB RAS-3053 Varvarina 29,895 ± 1,790 Bone 2 SB RAS-3054 Gora (Orlova, 30,600 ± 500 Bone SB RAS-850 1995, 1998; 34,900 ± 780 Bone SB RAS-1524 3 Gobel & > 34,050 Bone AA-8875 Aksenov,1993; > 35,300 Bone AA-8893A Lbova, 2000) 26,760 ± 265 Charcoal SB RAS-3353 A 30,460 ± 430 Bone SB RAS-3354 31,060 ± 530 Bone SB RAS-3133 35,845 ± 695 Bone SB RAS-2904 Kamenka 40,500 ± 3,800 Bone AA-26743 B (Orlova, 1998; 24,625 ± 190 Bone SB RAS-3031 Lbova, 2000) 25,540 ± 300 Bone SB RAS-3355 28,060 ± 475 Bone SB RAS-2903 28,815 ± 150 Bone SB RAS-3032 30,220 ± 270 Bone SB RAS-3052 C 3 SB RAS-810 Bone 15,100 ± 520 Tolbaga 4 AA-8874 Bone 25,200 ± 260 (Orlova, 1998; SB RAS-3078 Bone 26,900 ± 225 Gobel, 1993) SB RAS-1523 Bone 27,210 ± 300 SB RAS-1522 Bone 34,860 ± 2,100 2\3 SB RAS-3350 Bone 22,675 ± 265 1\2 SB RAS-3404 Bone 26,000 ± 920 3 AA-26741 Bone 38,900 ± 3,300 Podzvonkaya 2.d SB RAS-4122 Bone 35,180 ± 1,100 (Tashak, 2002) AA-26742 Bone > 36,800 SB RAS-4123 Bone 36,900 ± 1,300 SB RAS-4445 Bone 43,900 ± 960 SB RAS-4447 Bone 37,100 ± 200 Lab codes are AA: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; GIN SD RAS: Geological Institution of Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; SB RAS: Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science, Novosibirsk, Russia; SD RAS: Institute of Geology and Mineralogy of Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Sand” refers to the quartz grains analyzed by RTL. *These samples may contain older quartz grains, possibly derived from diluvial slope deposits 1 2

112

L.V. Lbova

4 has a RTL date of 34,000 ± 6000 BPRTL (GIN SB RAS-244). Middle Paleolithic artifacts from layers 5 and 6 include orthogonal cores, side scrapers, points, and flakes. Based on geoarchaeological data, this complex may be placed within the early Karginian, and corresponds to the chronological interval of 60,000–40,000 years ago (Lbova et al., 2003). EUP artifacts from layers 3 and 4 include blade cores, points, carinated scrapers, burins, and evidence of symbolic behavior. New AMS dates for the Khotyk site are: layer 5: 38,700 14C BP (AA-60614), layer 4: 35,100 ± 1,500 14C BP (AA-60613), layer 3: 38,200 ± 2,800 14C BP (AA-60267), and layer 2: 32,700 ± 1,400 14C BP (AA-60266). We estimate the age of EUP complex of layer 3 at Khotyk site to ca. 38,000 14C BP (Kuzmin et al., 2006) (Table 1). Thus, the dating of Paleolithic sites in colluvial deposits in the Transbaikal remains a real problem. For example, the inversion of 14C dates at Khotyk in layer 4 (35,100 ± 1,500 14C BP; AA-60613) and layer 3 (38,200 ± 2,800 14C BP; AA-60267) may be explained by the relocation of bone by post-depositional cryogenic activity as evidenced by ice-wedge structures at the contact between layers 3 and 4, rodent burrowing, and site disturbance by digging storage pits from layer 2 downwards.

PALAEOENVIRONMENT Study of key geoarchaeological sections makes it possible to reconstruct the environmental conditions of Paleolithic human occupations and to build a general geoarchaeological scheme for the main developmental stages of nature and human culture. It is necessary to note that the majority of the sites mentioned above were studied by a variety of natural-scientific disciplines, the results of which are confirmed by the dating methods. In the Upper Pleistocene, at sites in the western Transbaikal (Khotyk, Kamenka, Varvarina Gora), climatic fluctuations were established. For the Zyryanka period (90,000–60,000 BP) palynological data indicates an open treeless landscape represented by steppe formations. At the end of the Zyryanka stage and the beginning of the Karginian stage there were characteristic conditions with cool and arid climate and semi-desert landscapes. It is necessary to note that during the Karginian

period (60,000–55,000 to 28,000–25,000 BP) a pedocomplex is allocated from two to five zones of soil genesis, with various characteristics of each formation. In warmer and less humid conditions of the middle Karginian period (40,000– 35,000 BP) soils characteristic for the steppe landscapes were formed, similar to the modern steppe types in the Transbaikal. The earliest EUP complexes (Kamenka A, Khotyk layers 3 and 4, Podzvonkaya layer 3) correspond to this time interval. The formation of soil horizons within the cultural complexes (e.g., Varvarina Gora layer 2; Tolbaga, Khotyk layer 2; Kamenka B; etc.) during the second half of the Karginian period (33,000–30,000 to 28,000–25,000 BP) occurred in moderately humid and warm conditions of forest-steppes and steppes, with relatively arid climate conditions; paleosoils similar to modern chernozem dominated (Lbova et al., 2003). Palynological spectra highlight the return of forest formations, with conifers, in particular pine and birch light forests dominating (birch with an admixture of broadleaf species such as elm, alder, and hazel; and meadow associations). Pollen data and the character of mammalian fauna at various localities of the Western Transbaikal indicate a mosaic landscape. The mammalian faunal composition indicates steppe and forest steppe landscapes. The following species are dominant in the EUP cultural complexes: horse (Equus caballus), Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa), woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatus), and wild sheep (Ovis ammon). Other species, such as woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), kulan (Equus hemionus), giant deer (Megaloceros giganteus), antelope (Spiroceros kiakhtensis), large bull (Bison priscus or Bos primigenius, or Poephagus baikalensis), camel (Camelus sp.), lion (Pantera leo), wolf (Canis lupus), steppe fox (Vulpes corsac), and hare (Lepus sp.) are also present (determinations of M. Germonpre and A. Klementyev).

CONCLUSIONS In recent years, we have discovered and examined a new series of Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic sites in the Transbaikal region (Lbova, 2005). Geoarchaeological methods, employed

Early Upper Paleolithic in the Transbaikal Region

with the intent to elaborate detailed local chronostratigraphic and cultural-historical schemes, have led to the identification of chronologically divergent sites in the southern Transbaikal. The preliminary organizational scheme of the Transbaikal Middle and EUP industries suggests the existence of several technological trends. The EUP of the Transbaikal is represented by two technological trends, the predominant one being based on blade production, and the secondary one being based on other reduction strategies (e.g., orthogonal cores and flake-tools). The pattern is less clear and more variable during the Middle Paleolithic. In our view, there is little if any continuity between the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic assemblages. Generally, cultural complexes associated with Anatomically Modern Humans appeared in the Transbaikal region around 40,000 14 C BP (e.g., Kamenka, Varvarina Gora layer 3, Khotyk layers 3 and 4, Podzvonkaya). However, the Upper Paleolithic complexes in the Transbaikal may be even older (43,900– 38,200 14C BP) as suggested by the recent 14C dating of the Podzvonkaya site and Khotyk (Tashak, 2002; Vasil’ev et al., 2002; Kuzmin et al., 2006). The appearance of art at this time in the Transbaikal (e.g., Khotyk, Kamenka-A, Podzvonkaya), the evidence for ritual activity (e.g., Khotyk) and the recent discovery of a rich non-utilitarian assemblage at Denisova Cave (Altai Mountains, southern Siberia) dated to about 37,000 14C BP (Derevianko and Shunkov, 2004), indicates the origin of symbolic behavior in Siberia much earlier than was previously thought. Derevianko (2001) and Kuzmin (2004) argue that Middle and Upper Paleolithic sites co-existed in Siberia for a long period of time, from about 43,000–27,000 14C BP. Obviously, more work needs to be done in order to better understand the chronological and archaeological patterns of this process, as recently shown in the discussion of Eurasian records on the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition and the origin of the Upper Paleolithic (Derevianko, 2005). Acknowledgments I am grateful to Drs. L. A. Orlova, Y. V. Kuzmin, and A. V. Perevalov (Russia), and Dr. A. J. T. Jull (USA) for sample pretreatment and dating. This study was partially supported by grants from the Russian

113

Academy of Sciences, Program No. 21.1, Project 1.5.; Integration Project SD RAS No. 7.3; Russian Foundation for Basic Sciences (RFFI, No. 06-06-80108); and Russian Foundation for Humanities (RGNF, No. 06-01-00527 and 07-01-00417).

REFERENCES DEREVIANKO, A. P. 2001. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Altai (Mongolia and Siberia). Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 2/3, 70–103. DEREVIANKO, A. P. (editor) 2005. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Eurasia: Hypotheses and Facts. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk. DEREVIANKO, A. P., SHUNKOV M. V. 2004. Formation of the Upper Paleolithic traditions in Altai. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 5/3, 12–40. GOEBEL T., AKSENOV M. 1995. Accelerator radiocarbon dating of the initial Upper Palaeolithic in southeast Siberia. Antiquity, 69, 349–357. KUZMIN, Y. V. 2004. Origin of Upper Paleolithic in Siberia: Geoarchaeological perspective. In: The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe, edited by P. J. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn and K. W. Kerry, pp. 196–206. University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles. KUZMIN Y.V., LBOVA L.V., JULL T. A. J., CRUZ R. J. 2006. The Middle-to-Upper-Paleolithic transition in Transbaikal, Siberia: The Khotyk site chronology and archaeology. Current Research 23, 23– 26 LBOVA, L. V. 2000. Paleolit Severnoi Zony Zapadnogo Zabaikalya [Paleolithic of the Northern Zone of Western Transbaikal]. Izdatelstvo Buriatskogo Nauchnogo Tsentra Sibirskogo Otdeleniya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, Ulan-Ude. LBOVA, L. V. 2002. The Transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in the western Transbaikal. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 3/1, 59–75. LBOVA, L. V. 2005. The Middle Paleolithic in the Transbaikal: Facts and hypotheses. In: Paleoliticheskie Kultury Zabaikalya i Mongolii: Novye Fakty, Metody i Gipotezy, edited by L. V. Lbova, pp. 17–29. Izdatelstvo Instituta Arkheologii i Etnografii Sibirskogo Otdeleniya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, Novosibirsk. LBOVA L.V., REZANOV I.N., KALMIKOV N.P., KOLOMIETZ V.L., SAVINOVA V.V., DERGACHEVA M.I., FEDENEVA I.N., VOLKOV P.V., BAZAROV B.A., NAMSARAEV D.V. 2003. Chelovek i prirodnaya sreda v Neopleistcene zapad-

114

L.V. Lbova

nogo Zabaikalya i yogo-vostochnogo Pribaikalya. [The Man and Environmental in Neoplestocene on west Zabaikalye and south-east Pribaikalye]. Izdatelstvo Buriatskogo Nauchnogo Tsentra Sibirskogo Otdeleniya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, Ulan-Ude. OKLADNIKOV A.P., KIRILLOV I.I. 1980. Jugovostochnoe Zabaikalye v epohu kamnya i ranney bronzy [South-east Zabaikalye in epoch of Stone and early Bronze age]. Izdatelstvo Nauka, Novosibirsk. ORLOVA L.A., KUZMIN Y.V., LBOVA L.V. 2005. Radiouglerodnye data pamyatnikov paleolita Zabaikalya i Mongolii [Radiocarbone data of Paleolithic site of Zabaikalye and Mongolia] In: Paleoliticheskie Kultury Zabaikalya i Mongolii: Novye Fakty, Metody i Gipotezy, edited by L. V. Lbova,

pp. 88–92. Izdatelstvo Instituta Arkheologii i Etnografii Sibirskogo Otdeleniya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, Novosibirsk. VASIL’EV, S. A., Y. V. KUZMIN, L. A. ORLOVA AND V. N. DEMENTIEV 2002 Radiocarbon-based chronology of the Paleolithic of Siberia and its relevance to the peopling of the New World. Radiocarbon 44, 503–530. TASHAK, V. I. 2002 Podzvonkaya: Paleoliticheskie Materialy Nizhnego Kompleksa (Buryatia) [The Podzvonkaya Site: Paleolithic Materials from the Lower Complex (Buryatia)]. In Arkheologiya i Kulturnaya Antropologiya Dalnego Vostoka i Tsentralnoi Azii, edited by N. N. Kradin, 25–33. Dalnevostochnoe Otdelenie Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, Vladivostok.

Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (2): 97–108.

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN SIBERIA: CHRONOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS Yaroslav V. Kuzmin Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Koptyug Ave. 3, Novosibirsk 630090, RUSSIA; [email protected] Abstract The chronological and environmental patterns of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition are considered in this review based on the results of recent excavations and studies done mostly in the 1990s and early 2000s. Radiocarbon dates, derived from both Middle Paleolithic (MP) and early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) complexes in Siberia were used after critical evaluation to reveal the main chronological features. Palynological, paleopedological, and paleontological data document past environmental conditions. It was found that the MP complexes existed in Siberia for a long time, until ca. 30,000–27,000 14C BP. The emergence of the EUP can now be dated to at least ca. 43,000 14C BP in the Altai Mountains, and to ca. 38,000 14C BP in the Transbaikal region. The presence of objects of personal adornment at both Kara-Bom and Khotyk, dated to ca. 43,000–38,000 14C BP, documents the very early appearance of symbolic behavior in the EUP of Siberia. Coexistence of MP and EUP complexes in Siberia between ca. 43,000–30,000 14C BP is evident from current data. The age of the EUP assemblage from Kara-Bom, concurrent with the Levantine EUP Ahmarian complex of Boker Tachtit and older than any EUP sites in Europe, requires the revision of existing models of the origin and spread of both modern humans and the Upper Paleolithic into Eurasia.

INTRODUCTION Since the end of the 1980s, when data on the origin of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) were synthesized (e.g., Nikecki and Nitecki, 1994), new information came to light, especially in Siberia and neighboring Asia. In Europe, several new finds were also made; comprehensive reviews of the available evidence on the earliest modern humans and Upper Paleolithic cultural complexes, which are closely related, were published (e.g., Churchill and Smith, 2000; Bar-Yosef, 2002; Conard and Bolus, 2003; Pavlov et al., 2004; Brantingham et al., 2004; Hoffecker, 2005; Mellars, 2004, 2006a, 2006b). Today we are equipped with enough material to reveal the main patterns of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition and the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic in Siberia. This paper touches upon two lines of evidence, chronology and envi-

ronment of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Siberia and neighboring Eurasia, and is based on the results of recent progress in this field (Derevianko, 2005). Some aspects of the chronology of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Siberia have been briefly mentioned before (Kuzmin, 2004, 2007a, 2007b).

MATERIAL AND METHODS The area under consideration includes the southern part of Siberia, from the Altai Mountains in the west to the Transbaikal region in the east (Fig. 1). Here both archaeological excavations and geoarchaeological studies were conducted mainly since the 1950s, and the results obtained up to the end of 1980s have been summarized (Derevianko et al., 1998a). Since the 1980s, several well-stratified Middle Paleolithic (MP) and early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) complexes were

98

Y. V. Kuzmin

Fig. 1. Location of key sites in Siberia related to the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition (most important sites in bold)

excavated and studied (Derevianko, 2005). In this review, original Russian sources and their English versions (when available) are used, and in cases where only Russian publications exist the translations of paper titles are given along with the transliteration of original volume titles, following the recent publication on the archaeology of far eastern Russia, edited by Nelson et al. (2006). In this overview, sites with well-established stratified sequences of both MP and EUP complexes are included. In the Altai Mountains, the primary sites are Denisova Cave, Kara-Bom, UstKarakol 1, and Strashnaya Cave (Fig. 1). In the Transbaikal, Khotyk 3 is the single well-documented site with MP superimposed by EUP cultural layers (Fig. 1). Besides these sites, there are some other Siberian localities which have less securely established sequences of the MP and EUP, Dvuglazka, Kurtak 4, and Arta 2 (Fig. 1), and their critical evaluation is also presented. As concerns the typological definition of the EUP complexes at the sites under consideration, several

well-accepted criteria were used (Bar-Yosef, 2002: 365–368; Vishnyatsky, 2004: 42): the presence of blade production; volumetric flaking; scrapers and chisel-like tools; bone tools, items of personal adornment, and art objects. Paleoenvironmental data are taken from two main sources: a) records of Upper Pleistocene vegetation and climate, derived from sediment sequences (see recent summary: Arkhipov et al., 2005: 80–83), and b) archaeological sites under investigation. Radiocarbon dates are also an important part of archaeological studies of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition within this large region. In order to evaluate quality and reliability of available 14C records, the ‘chronometric hygiene’ approach (see, for example: Kuzmin, 2006: 362–363) is applied. The main criteria for the evaluation of 14C measurements are: 1) stratigraphic integrity at the given site; 2) material dated (charcoal generally thought to be better than bone); and 3) correspondence of 14C dates compared with the general chronological framework.

Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Siberia

For comparison of 14C records between Siberia and Europe in terms of the emergence of the EUP, only uncalibrated 14C values are used. This is due to the fact that large uncertainties exist in the long calendar vs. 14C age datasets, such as cores from Lake Suigetsu and the Cariaco Basin, and the Bahamas speleothem (van der Plicht et al., 2004; Bronk Ramsey et al., 2006), preventing the proper calibration of 14C dates older than ca. 21,500 14C years ago (BP). Given this, only approximate ‘comparison’ (sensu Bronk Ramsey et al., 2006) of the calendric age of a 14C measurement is possible.

RESULTS Altai Mountains [Gorny Altai] In this region of southern Siberia, there are at least four sites with MP and UP cultural layers in superposition: the open-air sites Kara-Bom and Ust-Karakol 1, and the cave sites of Denisova and Strashnaya. Kara-Bom is one of the best studied sites (Derevianko, 2001; Derevianko and Rybin, 2003; Derevianko and Postnov, 2004; Derevianko et al., 2000, 2005a; Goebel, 2004; Goebel et al., 1993; Vasil’ev, 1993; Brantingham et al., 2001; see complete description: Derevianko et al., 1998b). The presence of objects of personal adornment, stone and bone pendants, and red ocher pigments and of a grinding pebble in the EUP layer 5 (Derevianko and Rybin, 2003) is worth mentioning. The uppermost MP cultural layer 1 (MP-1) is 14 C-dated to 42,000 14C BP (AA-8873A) and 44,000 14C BP (AA-8894A), both obtained on animal bone (e.g., Goebel et al., 1993; Kuzmin, 2004). The immediately overlaying lowest EUP of cultural layer 6 is dated to ca. 43,200 14C BP, and EUP layer 5 to ca. 43,300 14C BP (Table 1); both dates are run on charcoal collected from in situ hearths (Goebel et al., 1993: 454; Goebel, 2004: 172; Derevianko and Rybin, 2003: 33–38). Charcoal 14C values derived from primary contexts made the Kara-Bom EUP chronology quite secure, with the overlaying UP layers 4–3 14 C-dated to ca. 34,200–32,200 14C BP (e.g., Derevianko et al., 2000). Paleoenvironmental data for Kara-Bom are not numerous (see review: Derevianko et al.,

99

2005a: 61). At the end of MP-1, vegetation was represented by a mixture of conifers and pinebirch formations (with some broad leaf taxa) and steppe communities, and was cooler than today. Faunal remains from the MP cultural layers 2–1 belong to horse (Equus sp.), woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis), bison (Bison priscus), cave lion (Panthera spelaea), mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), cave hyena (Crocuta spelaea), and ibex (Capra sibirica) (Vasil’ev, 2003). The EUP vegetation was represented by conifer formations (with small admixture of broad leaf species) and steppes (Derevianko et al., 1998: 258–259), showing climatic conditions cooler than today. Mammal remains from EUP layers 6–5 were identified as horse, bison, ibex, and cave hyena (Derevianko et al., 2000: 38). In general, at the end of MP and during the EUP landscape structure of the Kara-Bom vicinity was of mosaic type, with steppes, forests, and forest steppes (Derevianko and Rybin, 2003). The Ust-Karakol 1 site contains well-excavated MP and EUP complexes (Derevianko, 2001; Derevianko and Postnov, 2004; Derevianko et al., 2003). According to Otte and Derevianko (2001) the EUP layers 8–11 at Ust-Karakol 1 represent one of the earliest complexes with Aurignacian features in Siberia. Unfortunately, neither the youngest MP cultural layer (13) nor the oldest EUP layer (11) has been 14C-dated. The upper part of EUP layer 10 is dated to ca. 35,100 14 C BP using hearth charcoal. From the lower part of EUP layer 9, several 14C dates were produced on hearth charcoal: ca. 33,400 14C BP, ca. 31,580 14 C BP, ca. 29,860 14C BP, and ca. 29,720 14C BP (Table 1) (Derevianko et al., 2005a: 59). The in situ position of the Ust-Karakol 1 cultural layers is reflected by the presence of undisturbed hearths in cultural layers 13, 11, and 9 (Derevianko et al., 2003: 244–246, 272), despite skepticism expressed by Dolukhanov et al. (2005: 1127), which in my opinion is based on two circumstances (see also Kuzmin and Keates, 2006: 890): 1) misunderstanding of the English translation of the original source, the guidebook of the 1998 field excursion (Derevianko et al., 1998c); and 2) unfamiliarity of P. M. Dolukhanov and co-authors (2005) with the original sources of the Ust-Karakol 1 material (Derevianko et al., 1998c: 60–67; Derevianko et al., 2003: 235–298). Instead, as

100

Y. V. Kuzmin

Table 1 Radiocarbon dates from the earliest EUP cultural complexes of Siberia (Altai Mountains and Transbaikal) (after Goebel et al., 1993; Derevianko et al., 2003, 2005a, 2005b; Kuzmin et al., 2006; Lbova et al., 2003) Region, site Altai Mountains Kara-Bom Kara-Bom Ust-Karakol 1 Ust-Karakol 1 Ust-Karakol 1 Ust-Karakol 1 Ust-Karakol 1 Denisova Cave, main chamber Denisova Cave, eastern gallery Denisova Cave, eastern gallery Transbaikal Khotyk 3 Khotyk 3 Khotyk 3 Khotyk 3 Khotyk 3 Khotyk 3

Layer

14

C date, yrs BP

Lab Code and No.

Material dated

6 5 10 (upper) 9 (lower) 9 (lower) 9 (lower) 9 (lower) 11.4 11 (upper) 11 (lower)

43,200 ± 1500 43,300 ± 1600 35,100 ± 2850 33,400 ± 1285 31,580 ± 470 29,860 ± 335 29,720 ± 360 >37,235 29,200 ± 360 48,650 +2380/-1840

GX-17597 GX-17596 SOAN-3259 SOAN-3257 AA-32670 SOAN-3358 SOAN-3359 SOAN-2504 AA-35321 KIA-25285

Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Bone Charcoal Bone

3 3 3 2 2 2

38,200 ± 2800 32,120 ± 340 29,310 ± 370 32,700 ± 1400 28,770 ± 245 26,220 ± 550

AA-60267 SOAN-5496 SOAN-5495 AA-60266 SOAN-5082 AA-32669

Bone Bone Bone Bone Bone Charcoal

shown here, the 14C chronology of Ust-Karakol 1 is highly consistent. Paleoenvironmental data for Ust-Karakol 1 are quite abundant (Derevianko et al., 2003). Large mammals from the MP layers 16–13 are represented mainly by horse (Equus przewalskii), red deer (Cervus elaphus), and bison, while in the EUP layers 12–7 horse, ibex, bison, and wild sheep (Ovis ammon) dominate. Rodent fauna and their paleoenvironmental interpretation shows that the MP layers 13 and 12 are characterized by cold, treeless conditions; the EUP layers 11–9 were formed during somewhat wetter environmental conditions with an increase of meadows and forest formations, compared with the latest MP occupations. Snails from the EUP layers 11–9 show the presence of coniferous-broad leaf forests in the immediate vicinity. Palynological data allow the reconstruction of forest steppe formations for the MP layers 13–12, with broad leaf species (elm, oak, linden, maple, and hornbeam), indicating generally mild climate. The EUP layers 11–9 existed in the environment of conifer forests

and cool climate, with most arid conditions documented in layer 11, and wetter climate in layers 10–9. Denisova Cave is one of the best-studied Paleolithic sites in Siberia, comprising a long sequence of human occupation, starting at least at the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene (Shunkov and Agadjanian, 2000) and possibly earlier (Derevianko et al., 2003: 110–111). It consists of a main chamber, an entrance area, and three smaller galleries (Derevianko et al., 2003: 67–68). The numerous objects of personal adornment from the EUP layers 11 and 9 in the main chamber, bone and stone beads, pendants, and rings (Derevianko and Shunkov, 2004), testify additionally in favor of the EUP type of the Denisova Cave assemblages from cultural layers 11–9. The recent finds of a bone ring, beads, pendants, eye needle, and polished stone bracelet made on serpentinite in the upper part of the EUP layer 11 in the eastern gallery of the Denisova Cave, sandwiched between levels 14C-dated to ca. 48,650 14C BP (lower part of layer 11) and ca. 29,200 14C BP

Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Siberia

(upper part of layer 11) (Table 1; Derevianko et al., 2005b, 2008), document the site’s potential for future research. The 14C record of the MP and EUP complexes at Denisova Cave is still poor, with a few 14 C measurements obtained from the site’s profiles. In the cave entrance area, the MP layer 9 is dated to 46,000 ± 2300 14C BP (GX-17602) using charcoal, but no 14C dates are available for the EUP complex. In the main chamber of the cave, the MP layers lack 14C age determinations, while the age of animal bone from the EUP layer 11.4 was determined as >37,235 14C BP (Table 1). Two 14C dates from the eastern gallery related to the EUP complex have been mentioned above. Mammal remains from Denisova Cave are plentiful (Derevianko et al., 2003: 178–234). The MP layers of the entrance (layer 9) and main chamber (layers 13–12) contain red fox (Vulpes vulpes, V. corsac), polar fox (Alopex lagopus), gray wolf (Canis lupus), cave bear (Ursus rossicus), cave hyena, mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, yak (Poephagus mutus), Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa), saiga (Saiga tatarica), horses (Equus hydruntinus & E. ferus), roe deer (Capreolus pygargus), red deer, ibex, bison, and wild sheep. The most numerous species are bears, gray wolf, cave hyena, horse, bison, and wild sheep. In the EUP layers (layers 8 and 7 in the entrance area and layers 9 and 11 in main chamber), red fox, polar fox, gray wolf, sable (Martes zibellina), cave hyena, brown bear (Ursus arctos), cave bear, cave lion, woolly mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, horse, roe deer, red deer, bison, Mongolian gazelle, yak, ibex, saiga, and wild sheep were found. Among them, horse, ibex, bison, wild sheep, and cave hyena dominate. Besides mammals, bird and fish bones were identified in the MP and EUP layers. Micromammal composition allows environmental reconstruction of the latest MP layers as cool and dry steppes, and of the EUP layers as cold steppes. Palynological data provide the opportunity to reconstruct human environment at the end of the MP and during the EUP at Denisova Cave. The latest MP layers were formed under a cool and dry climate, with the presence of conifer forests and steppes. The EUP complexes appear in landscapes of dark conifer forests with open spaces covered with meadows, with forests decreasing

101

through time, culminating in the climatic conditions of layer 9 (main chamber) which were the coldest and driest. Studies of Strashnaya Cave are still preliminary (e.g., Derevianko et al., 1998a: 86–87, 157–159). Here the MP layers with Levallois flakes and points are 14C-dated to 25,000 14C BP (SOAN-785) and to 31,510 ± 2615 14C BP (SOAN-3219), both run on bone (Kuzmin and Orlova, 1998; Vasil’ev et al., 2002). The association of the SOAN-785 sample with a particular cultural layer is hampered by the wide depth range from where the bulk sample was taken, from 3 to 4 m below surface (e.g., Vasil’ev et al., 2002: 521). Also, in the original report the cultural attribution is given as “Mousterian–Upper Paleolithic” (Orlova, 1995: 208). In light of newly obtained 14C dates of ca. 35,000 14C BP and even older from the EUP layers (A. N. Zenin, pers. comm. 2007), the SOAN-3219 date initially determined as from the MP layer 5 (Derevianko and Zenin, 1997) could now be associated with the EUP. Unfortunately, no 14C dates from the EUP layers were officially released at the time of writing this review. Taking into account recent finds of adornments (two bone pendants) in a layer that provided a “transitional” lithic industry at Strashnaya Cave (Zenin and Kandyba, 2006), it is essential to receive more chronometric determinations for both MP and EUP cultural complexes at this locality. Transbaikal [Zabaikal] East of Lake Baikal, Khotyk 3 has yielded evidence of both MP and EUP occupations (Lbova, 2000, 2002; Lbova et al., 2003). Layers 6 and 5 contain MP assemblages and layer 4 is of “transitional” character; layers 3 and 2 belong to the EUP (Lbova, 2002). From the MP layers, two 14 C dates were recently obtained on animal bone resulting in an age of 38,700 14C BP (AA-60614) for layer 5/2, and 35,100 ± 1500 14C BP (AA60613) for layer 4. The EUP layers yielded the following 14C ages on bone: ca. 38,200 14C BP and ca. 32,700 14C BP for layers 3 and 2, respectively (Table 1) (Kuzmin et al., 2006). Previously, 14 C bone dates were obtained from cultural layers 3 (ca. 32,120 14C BP and ca. 29,310 14C BP) and 2 (ca. 28,770 14C BP) (Table 1). A radiocarbon date

102

Y. V. Kuzmin

of ca. 26,220 14C BP was generated for cultural layer 2 (Table 1; Lbova et al., 2003). The explanation of the age inversion of layers 4 and 3 may be due to any of the following factors: relocation of bones by post-depositional cryogenic activity; burrowing by animals; and site disturbance during digging of pits from layer 2 downwards (Kuzmin et al., 2006). The finding of non-utilitarian objects in the EUP cultural layers 2 and 3, bone and stone beads and rings as well as pigment (Lbova et al., 2003: 85; Derevianko and Rybin, 2003), is important as evidence of symbolic behavior. The provisional boundary between the MP and EUP assemblages of the Khotyk 3 may be established as ca. 38,000 14C BP (Kuzmin et al., 2006). Mammal remains from the MP cultural layers 5 and 4 belong to woolly rhinoceros, horse (Equus sp.), bison, Mongolian gazelle, and wild sheep. In the EUP layers 3 and 2 bones of woolly rhinoceros, horse, red deer, roe deer, bison, wild sheep, and Mongolian gazelle were identified (Klementiev, 2005). Paleoenvironmental data show that MP cultural layers 5–4 were formed under dry steppic and semi-desert conditions; EUP layer 3 – in deteriorating conditions from steppes in the beginning to dry steppes and semi-deserts at the end, and EUP layer 2 – in forest steppes (Lbova et al., 2003: 171–172). Other Siberian sites There are some sites in southern Siberia with suggested MP and EUP cultural complexes in stratigraphic order: Dvuglazka, Kurtak 4, and Arta 2 (Fig. 1). However, they are quite obscure in terms of their cultural attribution, and are mentioned only briefly. The Dvuglazka rockshelter in the foothills of Kuznetsky Alatau Mountains is well-known (e.g., Derevianko et al., 1998a: 118, 200). The MP layer 7 has produced a 14C date on bone of 27,200 ± 800 14C BP (LE-4811), and UP level 4 was 14 C-dated to 26,580 ± 520 14C BP using bone (LE-4808; e.g., Vasil’ev et al., 2002). Also, there is a bone 14C value of 22,500 ± 600 14C BP (LE1433) from an unidentified context. The blade technology is typical for the cultural layer 4 at Dvuglazka (Lisitsyn and Svezhentsev, 1997: 87); however, a few artifacts, including prismatic cores and an ornamented bone polisher were

found in this layer. Based on such scanty data, it is hard to understand the nature of the MP-EUP transition at this site. Also, the use of the Dvuglazka as a hyena den (C. G. Turner II, pers. comm. 2004) throws into questions the stratigraphic integrity of the site. In cultural layer 17 at Kurtak 4 in the Upper Yenisei River basin a few Mousterian-looking artifacts were found: six flakes, two Levallois points, three large pebble-choppers, one core with negatives of blade flaking, and broken pebbles (Lisitsyn, 2000: 19–20). Associated mammal finds were represented by woolly rhinoceros, bison, horse (Equus caballus), and giant deer (Megaloceros giganteus). Two 14C values were obtained from this complex: an animal bone dated to 32,380 ± 280 14C BP (LE-3638), and a charcoal date of 31,650 ± 520 14C BP (LE-3352). The EUP cultural layers 12–11 provided a 14C date on charcoal of 27,470 ± 200 14C BP (LE-2833; Svezhentsev et al., 1992). The data of Arta 2 in the Transbaikal region are published in preliminary form only (Kirillov and Kasparov, 1990). The MP layer at the base of the sequence produced a 14C date on charcoal of 37,360 ± 2000 14C BP (LE-2967). The mammalian fauna is represented by mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, cave hyena, bison, and cave lion. Artifacts are not numerous; two Levallois-like blades and a single chopper-like tool were found. The upper part of the sequence contains a UP assemblage with a charcoal 14C date for layer 3 of 23,200 ± 2000 14C BP (LE-2966). The faunal material belongs to bison, woolly rhinoceros, horse, cave hyena, saiga, and rodents. Judging from very brief description of artifacts without drawings, it is impossible to derive any reliable conclusion about the nature of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition at this site.

DISCUSSION The available 14C records for MP and EUP sites in Siberia show that the latest MP assemblages may be dated to ca. 30,000–27,000 14C BP, while the earliest EUP complexes appeared by at least ca. 43,000 14C BP (e.g., Kuzmin, 2004), and possibly even earlier if we take into account the 14 C value of ca. 48,700 14C BP for layer 11 of the eastern gallery at Denisova Cave (Derevianko et

Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Siberia

al., 2005b). The environment of the MP-EUP transition corresponds in Siberia to the Karginian [Karginsky] interstadial that correlates with Oxygen Isotope Stage 3. Climatic conditions at that time were unstable, with several cold and warm stages, but in general cooler than today (Arkhipov et al., 2005: 82). There is a clear deficit of charcoal 14C dates for the EUP of the Transbaikal region which is partly true as well for the Altai Mountains (e.g. Kuzmin, 2004; Derevianko et al., 2005a; see also Table 1), where the major part of 14C values were run on bone material. This is due to the rare appearance of charcoal in EUP assemblages in Siberia. Obviously, the charcoal 14C dates are the most reliable because they are closely related to the time of human occupation. In this case, the 14C dates from Kara-Bom and Ust-Karakol 1 are the most secure age estimates for the beginning of EUP complexes in Siberia. Quite “young” 14C ages for some of the MP cultural complexes of Siberia contradict T. Goebel’s statements that “The Siberian Mousterian pre-dates 40,000 B.P.” (Goebel, 2002: 106) and “The early Upper Paleolithic in Siberia emerged by 40,000 BP, and possibly earlier. It does not appear to have been coincident with the Siberian Mousterian, expect perhaps in the Altai Mountains, where the two complexes may have coexisted for some time between 42,000 and 38,000 BP.” (Goebel, 2004: 193). Goebel (2002) rejected a series of 14C dates from Okladnikov Cave, ranging between ca. 37,800 14C BP and ca. 28,500 14C BP, arguing that – according to correlations with western Eurasia where the MP pre-dates ca. 40,000 14C BP – the assemblage of Okladnikov Cave must be older than 44,000– 37,000 14C BP (Goebel, 2002: 96). This is not entirely correct since the wide range of 14C dates from Okladnikov Cave from ca. 43,300 to ca. 28,500 14C BP shows clearly that the MP industries persisted for a long time parallel to the EUP of the region. T. Goebel argues against 14C dates from the Okladnikov Cave younger than ca. 37,800 14C BP by that it “…places too much weight on the conventional 14C dates obtained on bone.” (Goebel, 2002: 98) does not look convincing, because there are several other MP sites in Siberia with quite “young” 14C ages (e.g., Vasil’ev et al., 2002; Kuzmin, 2004). Recent direct 14C

103

dating of human remains from Okladnikov Cave yielded values of ca. 24,300 14C BP and ca. 34,200 14C BP (Krause et al., 2008), thus supporting younger 14C dates from this site. The long-term coexistence of MP and EUP complexes in Siberia is therefore evident. The same feature is currently observed in Europe. The latest Neanderthals at Vindija Cave (Croatia) are now directly 14C-dated to 31,390 ± 220 14C BP (OxA-9663; Higham et al., 2006), compared with a previous 14C measurement of 28,020 ± 360 14C BP (OxA-8295; Smith et al., 1999). The Mousterian cultural layers at Gorham’s Cave (Gibraltar, Iberian Peninsula) are dated to ca. 32,600– 28,400 14C BP and perhaps as young as ca. 24,000 14 C BP (Finlayson et al., 2006). The existence of “pockets” of late Mousterian assemblages at the time of EUP and modern humans appearance in Europe is now widely accepted (e.g., Bar-Yosef et al., 2006: 57, fig. 6). The very early age of the EUP complexes in Siberia, especially at Kara-Bom with the full EUP “package” (volumetric flaking, blade tools, scrapers, chisel-like burins, and objects of personal adornment) dated to ca. 43,000 14C BP, should be taken into account when the origin of the EUP in Eurasia is considered. The in situ position of the Kara-Bom EUP assemblages overrules some skepticism about the undisturbed nature of this site (Bar-Yosef, 2002: 372). From the viewpoint of 14 C dating, the Kara-Bom date of 43,200 ± 1500 14 C BP is statistically identical to the most reliable value of 46,930 ± 2420 14C BP (SMU-259; e.g. Phillips, 1994) for the earliest Ahmarian complex at Boker Tachtit. “Calibrated” ages for these sites (CalPal program, QuickCal 1.3.1. option; 68% range) are: 50,405–46,405 cal BP for Boker Tachtit, and 48,094–44,501 cal BP for Kara-Bom (see also Kuzmin, 2007b: 762). In Turkey and Europe, the oldest EUP complexes have been 14C-dated to ca. 41,400–38,900 14 C BP at UçaÈizli Cave in southeast Turkey (e.g,. Kuhn et al., 2001); ca. 41,700–39,500 14C BP at Willendorf II, layers 2 and 2/3; ca. 41,300 14C BP at Stránská skála IIIa (e.g., Tostevin and Škrdla, 2006); and ca. 40,200–37,300 14C BP at Geißenklösterle (Conard and Bolus, 2003), all in Central Europe; and to ca. 37,200–35,300 14C BP at Kostenki (Anikovich et al., 2007) and ca. 36,600 14C BP at Mamontovaya Kurya (Pavlov et al., 2004),

104

Y. V. Kuzmin

both on the Russian Plain. Therefore, if the Kara Bom 14C dates are contemporaneous with the Levantine complexes (Boker Tachtit) and are older than any EUP-associated 14C dates from sites in Europe, this may mean that the very early EUP of the Altai region reflects either the very quick spread of EUP from the Levant to Siberia as it was suggested by Bar-Yosef (2002: 372) and Goebel (2002: 108), or – more likely – the independent origin of the EUP in Siberia from regional MP complexes (Derevianko et al., 2000; Rybin, 2005: 85; Rybin, 2006: 329). In any event, the Siberian EUP record provokes substantial revision of existing models of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition and the origin of the EUP in Eurasia (e.g. Bar-Yosef, 2002; Dolukhanov et al., 2002; Mellars, 2006a, 2006b). The link between lithic assemblages and modern humans in Siberia at the end of the MP and of the beginning of the EUP is still unclear. A few human remains correspond to the late MP, but there are no well-identifiable human fossils yet associated with EUP sites. The species interpretation for human teeth from the MP complexes of Okladnikov and Denisova caves is that they belong to early modern humans (Derevianko and Shpakova, 2000; Shpakova, 2001), although they were initially associated with Neandertals (Turner, 1990: 241–242). The human DNA data from Okladnikov Cave support Turner’s (1990) determination as Neanderthals (Krause et al., 2008). In this situation, taking into account the late survival of MP cultural traits in Siberia, it is possible to assume that modern humans manufactured at least some of the Mousterian assemblages. The strict association of the MP of Siberia with Neandertals only, as was suggested by Pettitt (1999a, 1999b; Pettitt et al., 2000), now appears to be too simplistic an assumption.

riod when EUP complexes appeared all over Siberia, and this situation seems to be similar to that found in many other regions of Eurasia where the latest MP and EUP sites co-occur. The oldest EUP complex in Siberia at Kara-Bom may date as old as ca. 43,000 14C BP. In the Transbaikal region, the MP-EUP transition can be provisionally placed at around 38,000 14C BP. The very early EUP complexes with evidences of symbolic behavior, 14C-dated to ca. 43,000–30,000 14C BP, make Siberia an important region for understanding the origin and spread of modern humans throughout the Old World. It is obvious that more chronometric data are needed for the Siberian MP and EUP, especially for the Altai Mountains area where rich EUP assemblages with non-utilitarian artifacts can shed a new light on the origin of the Upper Paleolithic and modern human behavior. Acknowledgments I am grateful for the organizers of the session C57 at the 15th UISPP Congress in Lisbon, 2006, for their invitation to participate in this volume and editing of the earlier version of this paper. Several colleagues, Dr. Evgeny P. Rybin and Prof. Anatoly N. Zenin (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Novosibirsk, Russia); Prof. Ludmila V. Lbova (Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia); Prof. Sergei A. Vasil’ev and Dr. Andrei A. Sinitsyn (Institute of the History of Material Culture, St.-Petersburg, Russia) as well as Prof. Christy G. Turner II (Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA), contributed to discussion of different aspects of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Siberia and neighboring regions of Eurasia. This research was supported by a grant from the Russian Foundation for Basic Sciences (RFFI, No. 06-0680108). AMS 14C dating of some samples was supported by grants from the U.S. NSF (Nos. EAR9730699 and EAR01-15488) and Fulbright Program (Nos. 96-21230 and 03-27672).

REFERENCES CONCLUSION Based on current data, it is possible to reveal major spatial-temporal patterns of the MP to EUP change in Siberia. This transition was a long process of coexistence of both MP and EUP cultural entities, at least between ca. 43,000 14C BP and ca. 30,000 14C BP in predominantly cool climatic conditions, interrupted with some milder ameliorations. MP assemblages persisted into the pe-

ANIKOVICH M. V., SINITSYN A. A., HOFFECKER J. F., HOLLIDAY V. T., POPOV V. V., LISITSYN S. N., FORMAN S. L., LEVKOVSKAYA G. M., POSPELOVA G. A., KUZ’MINA I. E., BUROVA N. D., GOLDBERG P., MACPHAIL R. I., GIACCIO B., PRASLOV N. D. 2007. Early Upper Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and implications for the dispersal of modern humans. Science 315, 223– 226. ARKHIPOV S. A., VOLKOVA V. S., ZOLNIKOV I.

Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Siberia D., ZYKINA V. S., KRUKOVER A.A., KUL’KOVA I. A. 2005. West Siberia. In: A. A. Velichko, V. P. Nechaev (eds.) Cenozoic Climatic and Environmental Changes in Russia (Geological Society of America Special Paper 382). Geological Society of America, Boulder, 67–88. BAR-YOSEF O. 2002. The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 31, 363–393. BAR-YOSEF O., BELFER-COHEN A., ADLER D. S. 2006. The implications of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic chronological boundary in the Caucasus to Eurasian prehistory. Anthropologie 44/1, 49–60. BRANTINGHAM P. J., KRIVOSHAPKIN A. I., LI J., TSERENDAGVA Y. 2001. The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology 42, 735–747. BRANTINGHAM P. J., KUHN S. L., KERRY K. W. (eds.). 2004. The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles. BRONK RAMSEY C., BUCK C. E., MANNING S. W., REIMER P., VAN DER PLICHT H. 2006. Developments in radiocarbon calibration for archaeology. Antiquity 80, 783–798. CHURCHILL S. E., SMITH F. D. 2000. Makers of the Early Aurignacian of Europe. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 43, 61–115. CONARD N. J., BOLUS M. 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: New results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331– 371. DEREVIANKO A. P. 2001. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Altai (Mongolia and Siberia). Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 2/3 [no. 7], 70–103. DEREVIANKO A. P. (ed.). 2005. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Eurasia: Hypotheses and Facts. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk. DEREVIANKO A. P., AGADJANYAN A. K., BARYSHNIKOV G. F., DERGACHEVA M. I., DUPAL T. A., MALAEVA E. M., MARKIN S. V., MOLODIN V. I., NIKOLAEV S. V., ORLOVA L. A., PETRIN V. T., POSTNOV A. V., ULIANOV V. A., FEDENEVA I. N., FORONOVA I. V., SHUNKOV M. V. 1998c. Arkheologiya, Geologiya i Paleogeografiya Pleistotsena i Golotsena Gornogo Altaya [Archaeology, Geology, and the Pleistocene and Holocene Palaeogeography of the Mountainous Altai]. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk (in Russian). DEREVIANKO A. P., PETRIN V. T., RYBIN E. P. 2000. The Kara-Bom site and the characteristics of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in the Altai.

105

Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 1/2 [no. 2], 33–52. DEREVIANKO A. P., PETRIN V. T., RYBIN E. P. CHEVALKOV L. M. 1998b. Paleoliticheskie Kompleksy Stratifitsirovannoi Chasti Stoyanki KaraBom [The Paleolithic Complexes of the Stratified Part of the Kara-Bom Site]. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk (in Russian and English). DEREVIANKO A., POSTNOV A. 2004. The Middle Paleolithic of Gorny Altai. In: P. van Peer, P. Semal, D. Bonjean (eds.) Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of LiÀge, Belgium, 2-8 September 2001. Section 5: Le Paléolithique Moyen / The Middle Palaeolithic (B. A. R. International Series 1239). Archaeopress, Oxford, 105–115. DEREVIANKO A. P., POSTNOV A. V., RYBIN E. P., KUZMIN Y. V., KEATES S. G. 2005a. The Pleistocene peopling of Siberia: A review of environmental and behavioural aspects. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 25, 57–68. DEREVIANKO A. P., RYBIN E. P. 2003. The earliest representations of symbolic behavior by Paleolithic humans in the Altai Mountains. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 4/3 [no. 15], 27–50. DEREVIANKO A. P., SHIMKIN D. B., POWERS W. R. (eds.). 1998a. The Paleolithic of Siberia: New Discoveries and Interpretations. University of Illinois Press, Urbana & Chicago. DEREVIANKO A. P., SHPAKOVA E. G. 2000. The interpretation of odontological features on Pleistocene human remains from the Altai. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 1/1 [no. 1], 125–138. DEREVIANKO A. P., SHUNKOV M. V. 2004. Formation of the Upper Paleolithic traditions in Altai. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 5/3 [no. 19], 12–40. DEREVIANKO A. P., SHUNKOV M. V., AGADJANIAN A. K., BARYSHNIKOV G. F., MALAEVA E. M., ULIANOV V. A., KULIK N. A., POSTNOV A. V., ANOIKIN A. A. 2003. Prirodnaya Sreda i Chelovek v Paleolite Gornogo Altaya [Paleoenvironment and Paleolithic Humans of the mountainous Altai]. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk (in Russian and English). DEREVIANKO A. P., SHUNKOV M. V., VOLKOV P. V. 2008. The Paleolithic bracelet from the Denisova Cave. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 9/2 [no. 34], 13–25. DEREVIANKO A. P., SHUNKOV M. V., VOLKOV P. V., ULIANOV V.A., CHERNIKOV I. S. 2005b. Issledovaniya v ostochnoi galeree Denisovoi peshchery [Studies in the eastern gallery of the Deni-

106

Y. V. Kuzmin

sova Cave]. In: A. P. Derevianko, V. I. Molodin (eds.) Problemy Arkheologii, Etnografii, Anthropologii Sibiri i Sopredelnykh Territorii. Vol. 11, part 1. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk, 100–105 (in Russian). DEREVIANKO A. P., ZENIN A. N. 1997. The Mousterian to Upper Paleolithic transition through the example of cave and open air sites of the Altai. In: Y. -J. Lee (ed.) The 2nd International Symposium “Suyanggae and Her Neighbours”. Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, 243–254. DOLUKHANOV P. M., SHUKUROV A. M., TARASOV P. E., ZAITSEVA G. I. 2002. Colonization of northern Eurasia by modern humans: Radiocarbon chronology and environment. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 593–606. DOLUKHANOV P. M., SHUKUROV A. M., TARASOV P. E., ZAITSEVA G. I. 2005. Reply to Y. V. Kuzmin, S. G. Keates (Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004) 141–143). Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1125–1130. FNILAYSON C. 2004. Neanderthals and Modern Humans: An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. FINLAYSON C., PACHECO F. G., RODRÍGUEZVIDAL J., FA D. A., GUTIERREZ LÓPEZ J. M., PÉREZ A. S., FINLAYSON G., ALLUE E., PREYSLER J. B., CÁCERES I., CARRIÓN J. S., JALVO Y. F., GLEED-OWEN C. P., JIMENEZ ESPEJO F. J., LÓPEZ P., LÓPEZ SÁEZ J. A., RIQUELME CANTAL J. A., MARCO A. S., GUZMAN F. G., BROWN K., FUENTES N., VALARINO C. A., VILLALPANDO A., STRINGER C. B., RUIZ F. M.. SAKAMOTO T. 2006. Late survival of Neanderthals at the southernmost extreme of Europe. Nature 443, 850–853. GOEBEL T. 2002. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Siberia. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska (New Series) 2(1), 94–114. GOEBEL T. 2004. The Early Upper Paleolithic of Siberia. In: P. J. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn, K. W. Kerry (eds.) The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles, 162–195. GOEBEL T., DEREVIANKO A. P., PETRIN V. T. 1993. Dating the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition at Kara-Bom. Current Anthropology 34, 452– 458. HIGHAM T., BRONK RAMSEY C., KARAVANIÆ I., SMITH F. H., TRINKAUS E. 2006. Revised direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Paleolithic Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 103, 553–557. HOFFECKER J. F. 2005. Innovation and technological knowledge in the Upper Paleolithic of northern Eur-

asia. Evolutionary Anthropology 14, 186–198. KIRILLOV I. I., KASPAROV A. K. 1990. Arkheologiya Zabaikalya. Problemy i perspektivy (epokha Paleolita) [Archaeology of the Transbaikal. Problems and perspectives (Paleolithic epoch)]. In: A. P. Derevianko (ed.) Khronostratigrafiya Paleolita Severnoi, Tsentralnoi i Vostochnoi Azii i Ameriki. Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy, Novosibirsk, 194–198 (in Russian). KLEMENTIEV A. M. 2005. Kopytnye mlekopitayuschie i mamont v paleolite Zapadnogo Zabaikalya [Ungulate mammals and mammoth in the Paleolithic of the western Transbaikal]. In: L. V. Lbova (ed.) Paleoliticheskie Kultury Zabaikalya i Mongolii (Novye Fakty, Metody i Gipotezy). Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk, 126–133 (in Russian). KRAUSE J., ORLANDO L., SERRE D., VIOLA B., PRÜFER K., RICHARDS M. P., HUBLIN J.-J., HÄNNI C., DEREVIANKO A. P., PÄÄBO S. 2008. Neanderthals in Central Asia and Siberia. Nature 449, 902–904. KUHN S. L., STINER M. C., REESE D. S., GÜLEÇ E. 2001. Ornaments of the earliest Upper Paleolithic: New insights from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 98, 7641–7646. KUZMIN Y. V. 2004. Origin of Upper Paleolithic in Siberia: Geoarchaeological perspective. In: P. J. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn, K. W. Kerry (eds.) The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles, 196–206. KUZMIN Y. V. 2006. Chronology of the earliest pottery in East Asia: Progress and pitfalls. Antiquity 80, 362–371. KUZMIN Y. V. 2007a. The timing of Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition in Eurasia: The Siberian contribution to the origin of modern humans. The Review of Archaeology 27, 30–37. KUZMIN Y. V. 2007b. Chronological framework of the Siberian Paleolithic: Recent achievements and future directions. Radiocarbon 49, 757–766. KUZMIN Y. V., KEATES S. G. 2006. Response to ‘‘Reply to Y.V. Kuzmin, S.G. Keates (Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004) 141–143)’’ by P.M. Dolukhanov, A.M. Shukurov, P.E. Tarasov, G.I. Zaitseva (Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1125–1130). Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 889–892. KUZMIN Y. V., LBOVA L. V., JULL A. J. T., CRUZ R. J. 2006. The Middle-to-Upper-Paleolithic transition in Transbaikal, Siberia: The Khotyk site chronology and archaeology. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23, 43–46.

Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Siberia KUZMIN Y. V., ORLOVA L. A. 1998. Radiocarbon chronology of the Siberian Paleolithic. Journal of World Prehistory 12, 1–53. LBOVA L. V. 2000. Paleolit Severnoi Zony Zapadnogo Zabaikalya [Paleolithic of the Northern Zone of Western Transbaikal]. Buriat Scientific Center Press, Ulan-Ude (in Russian). LBOVA L. V. 2002. The transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in the western Trans-Baikal. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 3/1 [no. 9], 59–75. LBOVA L. V., REZANOV I. N., KALMYKOV N. P., KOLOMIETS V. L., DERGACHEVA M. I., FEDENEVA I. N., VASHUKEVICH N. V., VOLKOV P. V., SAVINOVA V. V., BAZAROV B. A., NAMSARAEV D. V. 2003. Prirodnaya Sreda i Chelovek v Neopleistotsene (Zapadnoe Zabaikalye i YugoVostochnoe Pribaikalye) [Environment and Humans in the Neopleistocene (Western Transbaikal and South-Eastern Cis-Baikal)]. Buriat Scientific Center Press, Ulan-Ude (in Russian). LISITSYN N. F. 2000. Pozdny Paleolit ChulymoEniseiskogo Mezhdurechya [The Late Paleolithic of the Chulym-Yenisei Interfluve]. Center “Petersburg’s Oriental Studies”, St.-Petersburg (in Russian). LISITSYN, N. F., SVEZHENTSEV Y. S. 1997. Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya verkhnego paleolita Severnoi Azii [Radiocarbon chronology of the Upper Palaeolithic of the northern Asia]. In: A. A. Sinitsyn, N. D. Praslov (eds.) Radiouglerodnaya Khronologiya Paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy i Severnoi Azii: Problemy i Perspektivy. Institute of History of the Material Culture, St.-Petersburg, 67–108 (in Russian). MELLARS P. 2004. Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe. Nature 432, 461–465. MELLARS P. 2006a. A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of modern humans in Eurasia. Nature 439, 931–935. MELLARS P. 2006b. Going East: New genetic and archaeological perspectives on the modern human colonization of Eurasia. Science 313, 796–800. NELSON S. M., DEREVIANKO A. P., KUZMIN Y. V., BLAND R. L. (eds.). 2006. Archaeology of the Russian Far East: Essays in Stone Age Prehistory. BAR International Series, Archaeopress, Oxford. NITECKI M. H., NITECKI D. V. (eds.). 1994. Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans. Plenum Press, New York. ORLOVA L. A. 1995. Radiouglerodnoe datirovanie arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka [Radiocarbon dating of archaeological sites in Siberia and the Russian Far East]. In: A. P. Derevianko, Y. P. Kholushkin (eds.) Metody Este-

107

stvennykh Nauk v Arheologicheskikh Rekonstruktsiyakh. Chast 2. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk, 207–232 (in Russian). OTTE M., DEREVIANKO A. 2001. The Aurignacian in Altai. Antiquity 75, 44–48. PAVLOV P., ROEBROEKS W., SVENDSEN J. I. 2004. The Pleistocene colonization of Northeastern Europe: A report on recent research. Journal of Human Evolution 47, 3–17. PETTITT P. B. 1999a. Disappearing from the World: An archaeological perspective on Neanderthal extinction. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 217– 240. PETTITT P. B. 1999b. Neanderthal extinction: Radiocarbon chronology, problems, prospects and an interpretation of the existing data. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 26, 165–170. PETTITT P. B., BRONK RAMSEY C., HEDGES R. E. M., HODGINS G. W. L. 2000. AMS radiocarbon dating at Oxford and its contribution to issues of the extinction of Neanderthals and the spread of Homo sapiens sapiens across Eurasia. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B172, 751–755. PHILLIPS J. L. 1994. The Upper Paleolithic chronology of the Levant and the Nile Valley. In: O. BarYosef, R. S. Kra (eds.) Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean. Radiocarbon, University of Arizona, Tucson, 169– 176. RYBIN E. P. 2005. Land use and settlement patterns in the mountain belt of South Siberia: Mobility strategies and the emergence of “cultural geography” during the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 25, 79–87. RYBIN E. P. 2006. Rannya pora verkhnego paleolita yuzhnoi Sibiri: K probleme sootnosheniya verkhnepaleoliticheskoi kamennoi tekhnologii i srednepaleoliticheskikh traditsii [The early time of the Upper Paleolithic in Southern Siberia: To the problem of relationship between the Upper Paleolithic stone technology and Middle Paleolithic traditions]. In: M. V. Anikovich (ed.) Rannya Pora Verkhnego Paleolita Evrazii: Obshchee i Lokalnoe. NestorIstoriya, St.-Petersburg, 326–345 (in Russian). SHPAKOVA E. G. 2001. Odontological materials from the Paleolithic in Siberia. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 2/4 [no. 8], 64–76. SHUNKOV M. V., AGADJANIAN A. K. 2000. Paleoenvironmental reconstruction of the Paleolithic period at Denisova Cave (Gorny Altai, Siberia). Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 1/2 [no. 2], 2–19. SMITH F. H., TRINKAUS E., PETTITT P. B.,

108

Y. V. Kuzmin

KARAVANIÆ I., PAUNOVIÆ M. 1999. Direct radiocarbon dates for Vindija G1 and Velika Peæina Late Pleistocene hominid remains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96, 12281–12286. SVEZHENTSEV Y. S., LISITSYN N. F., VASIL’EV S. A. 1992. Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya eniseiskogo Paleolita [Radiocarbon chronology of the Yenisei River Paleolithic]. In: A. P. Derevianko (ed.) Khronostratigrafiya Paleolita Severnoi, Tsentralnoi, Vostochnoi Azii i Ameriki. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk, 57–67 (in Russian). TOSTEVIN G. B., ŠKRDLA P. 2006. New excavations at Bohunice and the question of the uniqueness of the type-site for the Bohunician industrial type. Anthropologie 44/1, 31–48. TURNER C. G., II. 1990. Paleolithic teeth of the central Siberian Altai Mountains. In: A. P. Derevianko (ed.) Chronostratigraphy of the Paleolithic in North, Central, East Asia and America. Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy, Novosibirsk, 239–243. VAN ANDEL T. H., DAVIES W., WENINGER B. 2003. The human presence in Europe during the Last Glacial Period I: Human migrations and the changing climate. In: T. H. van Andel, W. Davies (eds.) Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape during the Last Glaciation: Archaeological Results of the Stage 3 Project. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, 31–56. VAN DER PLICHT J., BECK J. W., BARD E., BAILLIE M. G. L., BLACKWELL P. G., BUCK C.

E., FRIEDRICH M., GUILDERSON T. P., HUGHEN K. A., KROMER B., MCCORMAC F. G., BRONK RAMSEY C., REIMER P. J., REIMER R. W., REMMELE S., RICHARDS D. A., SOUTHON J. R., STUIVER M., WEYHENMEYER C. E. 2004. NotCal04—Comparison/calibration 14C records 26–50 cal kyr B.P. Radiocarbon 46, 1225– 1238. VASIL’EV S. A. 1993. The Upper Palaeolithic of Northern Asia. Current Anthropology 34, 82–92. VASIL’EV S. A. 2003. Faunal exploitation, subsistence practices and Pleistocene extinctions in Paleolithic Siberia. In: J. W. F. Reumer, J. de Vos, D. Mol (eds.) Advances in Mammoth Research. Natural History Museum, Rotterdam, 513–556. VASIL’EV S. A., KUZMIN Y. V., ORLOVA L. A., DEMENTIEV V. N. 2002. Radiocarbon-based chronology of the Paleolithic of Siberia and its relevance to the peopling of the New World. Radiocarbon 44, 503–530. VISHNYATSKY L. B. 2004. The experience in evolutionary ranging of the Late Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic industries. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 5/3 [no. 19], 41–50. ZENIN A. N., KANDYBA A. V. 2006. Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v peshchere Strashnaya v 2006 godu [Archaeological investigations in the Strashnaya Cave in 2006]. In: A. P. Derevianko, V. I. Molodin (eds.) Problemy Arkheologii, Etnografii, Anthropologii Sibiri i Sopredelnykh Territorii. Vol. 12, Part 1. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk, 141–145 (in Russian).

Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (2): 85–95.

THE TRANSITION FROM THE MIDDLE TO THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC IN THE SOUTHERN BALKANS: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE LAKONIS I CAVE, GREECE Paraskevi Elefanti1, Eleni Panagopoulou2 and Panagiotis Karkanas3 1

Royal Holloway, University of London, Department of Geography, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK; [email protected] 2 Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology, Athens, Greece; [email protected] 3 Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology, Athens, Greece; [email protected]

Abstract Current models of interaction between Neandertals and modern humans, and the nature and timing of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in western Eurasia suggest a complex, regionally-differentiated process. The lack of diagnostic fossil remains and associated lithic industries limit the extent to which the transition can be modeled, whether a result of overlap, acculturation or independent invention, or quite possibly a combination of all three. Fossil remains in southeastern Europe tend to be fragmentary, isolated, and poorly dated. This paper presents evidence from Greece where excavations at the recently discovered cave site of Lakonis have revealed a continuous stratigraphic sequence dated to between 120 ka and 43 ka BP. During the last glacial the site would have consisted of a series of small caves overlooking a large open plain; however, with erosion and sea level rise, its roof has been lost and it is now at the water’s edge. The majority of deposits are dominated by Middle Paleolithic assemblages associated with a series of overlapping hearth structures. Above this, however, the uppermost unit produced a lithic assemblage with clear mixed Middle and Upper Paleolithic affinities. On this basis it has been defined as transitional with the presence of either or both modern humans and Neandertals suggested. Support for the latter was found during the 2002 field season when a well-preserved Neandertal molar was discovered in the uppermost unit. Both the lithics and the tooth are relevant to the current debate concerning Neandertal and modern human interaction, and suggest that in this area, the makers of this transitional assemblage were Neandertals.

INTRODUCTION Human settlement history in Europe during the period spanning the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic is one of the most debated topics in Paleolithic archaeology (Mellars, 1996; Zilh±o and d’Errico, 2003; van Andel and Davies, 2003; Brantingham et al., 2004; Straus, 2005; Conard, 2006). Issues pertinent to this debate include hominin associations with late Mousterian and early Upper Paleolithic cultural manifestations, the origin of the Initial Upper Paleolithic and the Aurignacian, and the possibilities for contact between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans (Smith et al., 2005). As new evi-

dence and refinements in dating methods accumulate, the complexity of this phase becomes increasingly apparent, primarily as a result of the immense cultural and demographic diversity characterising the period (Kuhn, 2004), as well as of the lack of sufficient records of anatomical human remains (Smith et al., 2005), which allow us only a fragmentary idea of the identity of the makers of these cultures. It has been repeatedly argued that Neandertals and modern humans did coexist in parts of Europe (van Andel et al., 2003; Conard, 2006), and therefore a range of possible cultural relationships and contacts are likely to have been developed between them (Straus, 2005). The extent of

86

Fig. 1.

P. Elefanti et al.

View of Lakonis I cave from the sea

these relationships is likely to have been variable. A recent review of the dating evidence suggests that the duration of coexistence was shorter and more limited than previously thought, as “little” as a couple of thousand years in some places (Mellars, 2006). This implies that any cultural or genetic interaction between the two groups would have been limited (Delson and Harvati, 2006). It is within this context of modern humanNeandertal interaction in Europe, that this paper presents new evidence from the Lakonis I cave in southern Greece. The site has yielded an uninterrupted stratigraphic sequence spanning the Middle to Early Upper Paleolithic. The uppermost part of the site’s sequence, Unit Ia, has yielded dates between ca. 48 ka cal BP (44 ka 14C BP) and 42 ka cal BP (38 ka 14C BP) and comprises a stratigraphically intact, but industrially mixed horizon with elements reminiscent of both periods. On these grounds, this layer has been interpreted

as an Initial Upper Paleolithic cultural manifestation (Panagopoulou et al., 2004). The presence in this stratigraphic unit of a well-preserved Neandertal tooth (Harvati et al., 2003), one of the very few in the human fossil record of southeastern Europe for this period (Trinkaus et al., 2006), provides an insight into the manufacturers of the industry. Continuation of the research program at Lakonis I cave, including dating refinements and post-excavation study will provide more data that will allow hypotheses and scenarios about the evolutionary history of Neandertals and modern humans in this part of Europe to be further assessed.

THE SITE Lakonis I is located on the eastern coast of the Mani peninsula, in the south-east Peloponnese, which is the southernmost edge of the Greek

The Lakonis I Cave

mainland (Fig. 1). It is in an intensively karstic environment that allowed for the preservation of many caves and rockshelters, often with Pleistocene archaeological and fossil-bearing deposits (Darlas and de Lumley, 2004; Pitsios and Liebhaber, 1995). Lakonis I is an east-facing collapsed cave with a floor area of about 250 m2, which forms part of a larger karstic complex consisting of another four caves, some of which have yielded evidence of human presence during the late Upper Paleolithic (Panagopoulou et al., 2004). Excavations at the site have been conducted since 1999 under the auspices of the Greek Ephoreia of Paleoanthropology and Speleology, with the contribution of local and foreign research institutions. The cave is currently a littoral site, although during the time of its occupation which coincided with the sea level regression of MIS 4 and 3, it would have been well placed at the edge of a coastal plain extending out into what is today the northern part of the Lakonic Gulf. This coastal environment would have consisted of a mosaic of habitats including grass and parkland, dense woodland, lagoons and marshes, all providing plentiful food resources for both prey and predators. The fauna from the site consists mainly of cervids, as well as Sus and Bos cf. primigenius, and testifies to the presence of a diverse ecological setting around the cave (Panagopoulou et al., 2004). The presence of a currently submerged fresh-water spring immediately below the site suggests that drinking water would have been easily available. This, in conjunction with the proximity of good quality lithic raw materials currently found within a short distance of the site as both primary and secondary deposits highlight the optimal settlement position that Lakonis I once occupied in the local landscape.

STRATIGRAPHY OF THE SITE Lakonis I preserves a stratigraphic sequence of approximately 7 m in the form of a steeply inclined wave-eroded remnant, which is stronglycemented as a result of post-depositional calcite precipitation. The sequence consists of five layers which have been designated from the top down as Units I to V. The lowermost layer, Unit V, is a beach conglomerate and archaeologically sterile.

87

It is preserved in limited areas of the site at an average height of 2.5 m and is associated with a costal environment very similar to the present one. It is directly overlain by travertine formations, suggesting that sedimentation began soon after the onset of MIS 5 regression. Overlying this layer is Unit IV, a bone breccia with lithic artifacts and charcoal fragments in a reddish clayey matrix cemented by calcite, which extends as a continuous unit along the southern and eastern areas of the cave. The bone breccia gives way in the central part of the sequence to a crudelystratified stony layer, Unit III, which consists of angular roofspall cemented in a reddish brown sandy clay matrix. It is separated from the overlying Unit II by large boulders derived from a roof collapse episode. Unit II is characterised by a reddish- brown sandy clay matrix rich in angular marble fragments. Finally, the uppermost part of the sequence is sealed by Unit I, which consists of two superimposed hearth complexes, called Ia and Ib. The thickness of the lower complex (Ib), which is associated with a terminal Middle Paleolithic occupation, is about 50 cm, while the upper complex (Ia), attributed on the basis of its technological affinities to the Initial Upper Paleolithic, has a preserved thickness of about 30 cm. The multi-sequence burnt layers consist of heavilycemented superimposed white, gray, black and grayish brown layers, each of which is a few centimeters thick. The two hearth complexes are separated by a ca. 15 cm thick layer whose character is not as yet fully understood, but most probably represents the detritus from accumulated hearth clearouts of the lower subunits (Panagopoulou et al., 2004).

CHRONOLOGY OF THE SITE The beach rock underlying the cultural sequence (Unit V) has been preliminarily dated by OSL to the Last Interglacial (N. Mercier and H. Valladas, pers. comm.), although further treatment is required to refine the chronology. In addition, the speleothems capping the beachrock were dated by U-Series/TIMS to the same time interval (M. Bar-Matthews, pers. comm.), confirming previous age determinations and suggesting that site’s initial occupation started sometime after 130–120 ka BPTL & U-series (Panagopoulou et al.,

88

P. Elefanti et al.

Fig. 2. Northern profile of Trench A (Unit Ia) showing the location of the tooth below a gray ashy layer (white circle) and the location of the dated sample (LC 146)

2004). Dating of the uppermost part of the sequence, Unit Ia and Ib, was based on charcoal material taken from the bottom charcoal layers of well-defined combustion zones (Figs 2–3). The three dates from the upper complex (Unit Ia), 48,060 ± 2560 cal BP (44,500 ± 2330 14C BP, RTT 3846), 42,600 ± 720 cal BP (38,240 ± 1160 14 C BP, RTT 3847) and 46,190 ± 1750 cal BP (42,800 ± 1700 14C BP, RTT 4601), are statistically not different from those of the lower com-

plex (Unit Ib), 43,490 ± 770 cal BP (39,640 ± 1000 14C BP, RTT 3525), 46,740 ± 1920 cal BP (43,335 ± 1800 14C BP, RTT 3844) and 46,560 ± 1890 cal BP (43,150 ± 1790 14C BP, RTT 3845) (Table 1). There is a growing consensus about the limitations and errors of radiocarbon calibration between 50 and 30 thousand years ago, due to significant 14C fluctuations in the atmosphere and the effects of this on our understanding of the evolu-

Fig. 3. Southern profile of Trench A (Unit Ia) showing overlapping gray and black burnt layers and the location of the dated samples (LC 142 and LC 143)

The Lakonis I Cave

89

Table 1 Lakonis I cave radiocarbon dates. Calibrated dates were obtained by using Cal Pal 2007HULU (www.calpal.de) Unit Ib Ib Ib Ia Ia Ia

Sample LC143 LC145 LC144 LC143 LC142 LC146

Laboratory code RT 3525 RTT 3844 RTT 3845 RTT 3846 RTT 3847 RTT 4601

Technique Conv. AMS AMS AMS AMS AMS

tionary and cultural development of hominins around this time (Conard and Bolus, 2003; van Andel et al., 2003; Giaccio et al., 2006; Weniger, 2006; Mellars, 2006). Refinements in dating techniques are expected to improve chronological resolution, while the use of complementary dating methods such as TL and tephrochronology will provide a more solid chronological framework for the site. Greece is located within the tephra fallout zone of the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption dated to approximately 40,000 years ago (Giaccio et al., 2006); therefore, we are optimistic that future analysis of tephra samples from the site will provide an additional temporal marker for the Unit I horizon.

INITIAL UPPER PALAEOLITHIC PRESENCE AT LAKONIS I On the basis of technological criteria, Unit Ib has been attributed to the Middle Paleolithic and Unit Ia to a more mixed tradition or complex of traditions combining elements of both the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. On this basis Unit Ia was designated a transitional (sensu Kuhn, 2003) Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) occupational phase of the site (Panagopoulou et al., 2004), which places the site at the heart of discussions regarding the bio-cultural traits of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. In order to establish the stratigraphic integrity of this Unit and to rule out the possibility of it being a palimpsest resulting from post-depositional mixing of both units, three different lines of evidence have been pursued, including micromorphological, taphonomic and contextual data. The latter two include evidence in the form of four cervid sesamoids (foot bones) which were found

Material Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal

14

C BP 39,640±1000 43,335±1800 43,150±1790 44,500±2330 38,240±1160 42,800±1700

cal BP 43,490±770 46,740±1920 46,560±1890 48,060±2560 42,600±720 46,190±1750

in articulation in the same stratigraphic context, as well as a number of refits and conjoins which were excavated in close proximity within the same 50 x 50 cm square by 5 cm thick spits. This is consistent with the results of the micromorphological analysis which suggests that the unit is intact. The analysis has identified only very minimal post-depositional disturbance of Unit Ia, with consolidation prior to being covered by the overlying layers. This conclusion is further supported by the intact condition of the upper contact of the ashy layers, the fact that wood ashes retain fragile pseudomorphs of original plant structures, and the presence of only very minimal root disturbance. Moderate microfauna activity is observed, but not to the degree that would obliterate the original macrostructure of the sequence.

IUP LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE AT LAKONIS I Until finer chronological resolution is available from Lakonis I, our main method in establishing cultural differences between Unit Ia and Table 2 IUP Lakonis I: Main lithic categories N Unworked raw materials Cores Debitage >20 mm Debitage 20-10 mm Tools (any size) Chips £10 mm Debris (any size) Total

2 28 589 872 147 1,968 3,311 6,917

% 0.03 0.5 8.4 12.6 2.1 28.4 47.8 100

90

P. Elefanti et al.

Fig. 4. Lakonis I Initial Upper Paleolithic assemblage. 1) Refit: Prismatic core with core tablet; 2) Prismatic core/tournant; 3) Change of orientation core; 4) Bladelet core on Levallois flake; 5) Core tablet; 6) Crested blade; 7) “Elongated” point; 8–9) Retouched bladelets; 10) Carinated scraper/core; 11) Nosed scraper; 12) Bifacial tool; 13) Mousterian point; 14) Aurignacian blade with truncation. Drawings by D. Pakogiannaki

the underlying deposits remains the study of the lithic collection. In the following discussion the main technological and morphological characteristics of Unit Ia are presented, which suggest that although it contains elements characteristic of both the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, there is a predominance of those associated with the Upper Paleolithic. Ongoing comparative study of the lithic collection from the complete stratigraphic sequence of the site should isolate more clearly

any evolutionary changes in the lithic technology of the two cultural phases. The lithic assemblage from Unit Ia was recovered during the 2000 to 2003 field seasons and derives from only six quarter-meter squares excavated to a depth of 30 cm. Analysis of the assemblage recovered during subsequent seasons is well underway. In total the assemblage amounts to 6,917 pieces (Table 2), of which those larger than 20 mm or with secondary retouch (n = 766)

The Lakonis I Cave

Table 3 IUP Lakonis I: Core reduction sequence Cores (n = 28) Core on blank (flake or blade) Change of orientation Two opposed platform Prismatic/subprismatic Technical pieces D 20 mm (n = 105) Core tablets Crested blanks Rejuvenation and plunging blanks Débordant blanks Pseudo-Levallois blanks "Burin spall" like technical pieces Blank categories including unretouched D 20 mm and retouched pieces of any size* (n = 726) Flakes Blades Bladelets (W 30 mm in length) Levallois points Indeterminate blanks Levallois vs. prismatic production based on retouched pieces D 20 mm and retouched pieces of any size* (n = 726) Artifacts related to Levallois production Artifacts related to prismatic production Bladelets Other blanks i.e., Kombewa, PSL Blank indeterminate Tool index (all sizes) (n = 147) Sidescrapers Bifacial tools (including scrapers) Endscrapers Carinated scrapers Nosed scrapers Retouched flakes Retouched blades Retouched bladelets Burins Elongated Levallois points Mousterian points Notches/Denticulates Truncations Borers Aurignacian blades Composite tools (notch/scraper) Resharpening pieces

n 12 11 3 2 n 28 5 38 29 1 4

% 42.8 39.3 10.7 7.1 % 27 4.8 36.2 27.6 0.9 3.8

n

%

557 62 52 6 49

77 8.5 7.2 0.8 6.7

112 507 52 6 49

15.4 70 7.2 0.8 7.2

37 6 5 3 1 43 8 10 13 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 6

25.5 4.1 3.4 2.1 0.7 29.6 5.4 6.8 8.8 1.4 1.4 2.1 2.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 4.1

91

Table 3 continued Tool fragments Tool per debitage category (n = 147) Tools on flakes non-Levallois Tools on blades non-Lavallois Tools on Levallois flakes Tools on Lavallois blades Tools on bladelets Cores Chunk/indeterminate blanks * Tools made on cores and debris/chunk ( n = cluded

2

1.4

75 51 16 10.9 28 19 4 2.7 12 8.2 6 4.1 6 4.1 10) were ex-

were selected for detailed study. Attributes studied included raw material, blank morphology, tool type, fragmentation and dimensions. Lithic production at the site was based predominantly on the use of silicified volcanic rock of varying quality (77%). Such materials are currently found within a radius of up to 10 km from the site, and occur as primary outcrops; however collection from derived river gravel deposits closer to the site is also a distinct possibility. The second most common rock type in use (13%) was white-to-pinkish-grey or yellow water-rolled quartz pebbles, followed by fine-grai- ned black and grey flint (3.7%), and very rare schist and limestone (1%). There appears to have been no significant shift in the use of non-flint rock types between Unit Ia and what was in use during the Middle Paleolithic. Conversely, the use of flint, although in low quantities overall, almost doubles in Unit Ia. This shift may suggest an increased emphasis on the use of finer-grained rocks better suited to blade/bladelet production. As opposed to the other rock types used, flint originates from areas further inland although the actual source remains unknown. The increase in its frequency may suggest more extensive use of the landscape. The variety of core forms, technical pieces and blank characteristics indicate that more than one method of blank production was employed in Unit Ia, with Levallois and prismatic (laminar volumetric) being the most prominent. Traces of discoidal core-working in the form of short, thick pseudo-Levallois and Kombewa flakes also occur in small percentages (Table 3). The Levallois reduction sequence (n = 29, 28% of technical

92

P. Elefanti et al.

pieces; n = 112, 16% of debitage and tools) appears to have been primarily geared towards the production of flakes and blades from recurrent uni- and bi-directional cores, as suggested by dorsal scar patterns and occasional refits. The absence of actual Levallois cores is incommensurate with the rest of the assemblage, which points to continuing use of Levallois at the site. Assuming that this is not simply sampling error, it may suggest that cores were undergoing several cycles of reduction with a concomitant change of their morphology. Moreover, the possibility of Levallois cores being removed from the site as curated pieces has also to be considered. Nevertheless, all the elements typically associated with Levallois core reduction including débordants, enlÀvements II blanks, etc. are present (Table 3). The most striking feature of the laminar volumetric core reduction sequence in Unit Ia is the increasing emphasis on bladelet manufacture through two conceptually distinct chaînes opératoires. The first encompassed the use of different types of cores, exploited volumetrically around most of their periphery or flaked with the semi-rotating method removing blanks from their thickness. Cores of this type could be classified in terms of their shape into ones with two opposed platforms, “change of orientation cores” (i.e., specimens with more than two platforms, one of which being at a right angle to the main axis of percussion), and small sized prismatic cores (Table 3, Fig. 4). Their use life was maintained through frequent striking platform and flaking surface rejuvenation, as indicated by the range of technical pieces identified, including core tablets, crested blades and rejuvenation/plunging blanks. The latter often retained distal remnants of the opposed striking platform which they set out to remove. The second bladelet production sequence was based on the use of blanks, occasionally of Levallois morphology, as cores for the detachment of bladelets and small flakes. In this process, as suggested by several refits and conjoins, the striking platform and dorsal ridges were used as guides for removals without further modification of the blank’s geometry. The small core sample attributed to the IUP does not allow us to determine if the above – essentially different – volumetric concepts were applied simultaneously on nodules of different sizes

and shapes depending on the desired end product, or sequentially as part of the same reduction continuum. Judging by the presence of technical pieces of variable sizes, the variety of core forms, the number of striking platforms and the presence of occasional core refits, it seems likely that raw materials underwent several cycles of exploitation prior to discard, suggesting that the two basic reduction sequences were not strictly separated. This is better exemplified by the presence in the assemblage of bladelets produced on Levallois blanks. The mixed character of Unit Ia is further emphasized by the range of tools present (Table 3, Fig. 4). Mousterian and retouched Levallois points, often with thinned proximal ends, as well as a range of side scrapers (single, double, transverse, déjeté and Quina) and notches/denticulates represent a relatively small part (32%, n = 46 out of 147) of the tool inventory, and are all considered distinctive of the Middle Paleolithic. The Levallois points resemble those from other transitional sites including ÜçaÈÏzlÏ in Turkey and Umm el Tlel in Syria (Kuhn, 2004). Despite their similarities to Middle Paleolithic tool morphologies, it seems that these artifacts originated in the context of prismatic core reduction, judging by their bi-directional scar patterns, platform characteristics and rectilinear profiles. The bifacial component of the assemblage bears affinities to the Bohunician of Central Europe which is dated to between 43–35 ka 14C BP (Svoboda, 2004). The most numerous category of artifacts with secondary modification is blanks with linear retouch (flakes, blades, bladelets), which together with burins comprise 51% (n = 74) of the identified tools. Endscrapers, truncations and tool markers of the Aurignacian, such as carinated and nosed scrapers as well as Aurignacian blades, are present but rare. The few carinated scrapers present in the assemblage are not related to the production of bladelets since the latter do not exhibit the characteristic curved profile. Dufour bladelets or tools made on organic materials are totally absent from the assemblage. The majority of tools were fashioned on blanks from prismatic core reduction (62%, n = 91), with Levallois blanks present at a relatively low frequency (22%, n = 32). Laminar elements in the form of blades and bladelets constitute approximately 20% of tool blanks.

The Lakonis I Cave

In all, analysis of the IUP tool sample of Lakonis I suggests that Upper Paleolithic tool types constitute approximately two thirds of the assemblage and that the required blanks including elongated blanks, points, blades and bladelets could be obtained by using a number of strategies, but with a marked reliance on those characteristic of the Upper Paleolithic.

CONCLUDING REMARKS The cave of Lakonis I in southern Greece has yielded a long Middle Paleolithic sequence with its uppermost unit containing a transitional, Initial Upper Paleolithic assemblage associated with a Neandertal tooth. Evidence for occupation postdating this period has not been recovered at the site, and therefore we are unable to estimate the duration of the transitional period and whether it evolved into a phase more characteristic of the Upper Paleolithic. Further excavation at the site combined with analysis of the lithic collection at finer stratigraphic resolution is planned, along with new dates in order to improve our understanding of the chronology of the upper Unit Ia in particular. At the moment 14C dates for the Initial Upper Paleolithic occupation fall within the same chronological range with those from the terminal Middle Paleolithic deposits at the site, and are close to the limits of the method. Part of the difficulty in drawing conclusions about the evolutionary status of Initial Upper Paleolithic assemblages is related to typological classificatory systems, which are poor analytical tools for investigating what are continuous and gradual evolutionary processes (Kuhn, 2003). It is becoming increasingly clear that in addition to lithics, emphasis should be placed on other forms of behavior, for instance land use and food procurement strategies, which will provide a clearer picture of the character of the transition. At Lakonis, a multidisciplinary approach is being applied that aims to develop an understanding of the role of the site within the southern Balkans region in general. One element of this has been strontium isotope analysis which has been applied to Neandertal tooth enamel (Richards et al., 2008). The results indicate that the enamel was formed in the vicinity of radiogenic volcanic rocks, as opposed to local limestone found around the cave.

93

The closest potential location of rocks of this type is 20 km inland to the north, and probably reflects the minimum scale of Neandertal mobility in the area. A key question in regard to Initial Upper Paleolithic technology of western Eurasia concerns their makers. Some suggest that the assemblages reflect a degree of acculturation on the part of Neandertals under the influence of modern humans (Hublin et al., 1996). Others suggest that they represent an incipient Aurignacian (Otte and Kozlowski, 2003; Bar-Yosef, 2006), while some have suggested that Neandertals independently developed cultural traits similar to those of modern humans (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 2003). Even though our data cannot at present support any of the above hypotheses and should of course be correlated with data from other sites, the presence at Lakonis of an uninterrupted cultural sequence spanning the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic makes the site especially relevant to the understanding of the internal dynamics of the period. Furthermore, the presence of the Neandertal tooth (Harvati et al., 2003), in direct association with an Initial Upper Paleolithic assemblage is suggestive of its manufacturers. Compared to other parts of western Eurasia, Paleolithic sites in Greece are rare, let alone those that have been excavated and dated. This limits the extent to which the evidence from Lakonis I can be placed within a regional context. However at Klisoura cave in southern Greece, we have both Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic occupational horizons preserved, the latter dated to ca. 40 ka 14 C BP (Koumouzelis et al., 2001). Furthermore, a range of late Middle Paleolithic and early Upper Paleolithic open-air sites, estimated on the basis of lithic material to fall between 44 and 28 ka 14C BP, have been identified on the mainland (Runnels and van Andel, 1993), while open air sites with Aurignacian affinities have also been reported from other parts of Greece (Darlas, 1999; Runnels et al., 2003). This admittedly fragmentary record points to human presence in Greece during the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic. Further excavations at Lakonis, along with new dates and comparative analysis will shed light on the role of the site within the region in terms of cultural developments during the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic.

94

P. Elefanti et al.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to Daniel Adler, Olaf Jöris and William Davies for their constructive comments on earlier drafts of the paper. Research at Lakonis I Cave is made possible through generous grants from the Greek Ministry of Culture, the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, the Institute for the Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), the L. S. B. Leakey Foundation (EP) and the Dr. M. Aylin Cotton Foundation (PE).

REFERENCES BRANTINGHAM P. J., KUHN S .L., KERRY K. W. (eds.). 2004. The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. Berkeley, University of California Press. CONARD N .J. (ed.). 2006. When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory. Tübingen, Kerns Verlag. CONARD N. J., BOLUS M. 2003. Radiocarbon Dating the appearance of Modern Humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: New results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331– 371. DARLAS A. 1999. Palaeolithic research in Western Achaia. In: G. N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. PerlÀs, K. Zachos (eds.), The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas. Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, September 1994. British School at Athens Studies 3. London: British School at Athens, 303–310. DARLAS A., DE LUMLEY H. 2004. La Grotte de Kalamakia (Areolopis, Grece). Sa contribution ´ la connaissance du Paleolithique Mouen de GrÀce. In: Ph. Van Peer, P. Semal, D. Bonjean (eds.), Le Paleolithique Moyen. Sessions Generales et posters. Actes du XIVÀme CongrÀs UISPP, Université de LiÀge. Belgique, 2–8 Septembre 2001. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1239, 255–234. DELSON E., HARVATI K. 2006. Return of the last Neanderthal. Nature 443, 762–763. GIACCIO B., HAJDAS I., PERESANI M., FEDELE F. G., ISAIA R. 2006. The Campanian Ignimbrite Tephra and its relevance for the timing of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic shift. In: N.J. Conard (ed.) When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory. Tübingen, Kerns Verlag, 343–375. HARVATI K., PANAGOPOULOU E., KARKANAS P. 2003. First Neanderthal Remains from Greece: The evidence from Lakonia. Journal of Human Evolution 45, 465–473. HUBLIN J., SPOOR F., BRAUN M., ZONNEVELD

F., CONDEMI S. 1996. A Late Neanderthal Associated with Upper Paleolithic Artifacts. Nature 381, 224–226. KOUMOUZELIS M., GINTER B., KOZLOWSKI J., PAWLIKOWSKI M., BAR-YOSEF O., ALBERT R.-M., LITYNSKA-ZAJAC M., STWORZEWICZ E., WOJTAL P., LIPECKI G., TOMEK T., BOCHENSKI Z., PAZDUR A. 2001. The Early Upper Palaeolithic in Greece: The excavations in Klisoura Cave. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 515–539. KUHN S. L. 2003. In what sense is the Levantine Upper Paleolithic a “transitional” industry? In: J. Zilh±o and F. d’Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of the XIVth Congress of the UISPP (University of LiÀge, Belgium, September 2–8, 2001). Lisbon, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 61–69. KUHN S. L. 2004. The Early Upper Paleolithic and the origins of Modern Human behaviour. In: P. Brantigham, S. L. Kuhn, K. W. Kerry (eds.) The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Eastern Europe. Berkeley, University of California Press, 242–248. MELLARS P. 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy. An Archaeological Perspective of Western Europe. Princeton, Princeton University Press. MELLARS P. 2006. A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of Modern Humans in Eurasia. Nature 439, 931–935. PANAGOPOULOU E., KARKANAS T., TSARTSIDOU G., KOTJABOPOULOU E., HARVATI K., NTINOU M. 2004. Late Pleistocene archaeological and fossil human evidence from Lakonis Cave, Southern Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 29, 323–349. PITSIOS T., LIEBHABER B. 2005. Research conducted in Apidima and the surrounding region 1/N Taenarios Man. Acta Anthropologica (Athens) 1, 175–179. RICHARDS M., HARVATI K., GRIMES V., SMITH C., SMITH T., HUBLIN J-J., KARKANAS, P., PANAGOPOULOU E. 2008. Strontium isotope evidence of Neanderthal mobility at the site of Lakonis, Greece using laser-ablation PIMMS. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1251–1256. RUNNELS C., VAN ANDEL T. J. H. 1993. The Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Thessaly, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 20, 299–317. RUNNELS C., KARIMALI E., CULLEN B. 2003. Early Upper Palaeolithic Spilaion: An artifact-rich surface site. In: J. Wiseman, K. Zachos (eds.) Landscape Archaeology in Southern Epirus, Greece I. American School of Classical Studies at Athens,

The Lakonis I Cave Hesperia Supplement 32, 135–156. SMITH F. H., JANKOVIÆ I., KARAVANIÆ I. 2005. The assimilation model, Modern Human origins in Europe, and the extinction of Neandertals. In: L. G. Straus (ed.) Armagedon or Entente? The Demise of the European Neandertals in Isotope Stage 3. Quaternary International 137, 7–19. STRAUS L. G. (ed.). 2005. Armagedon or entente? The demise of the European Neandertals in Isotope Stage 3. Quaternary International 137. SVOBODA J. A. 2004 Continuities, discontinuities, and interactions in Early Upper Palaeolithic technologies: A view from the Middle Danube. In: P. Brantigham, S. L. Kuhn, K. W. Kerry (eds.) The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. Berkeley, University of California Press, 30–40. TRINKAUS E., ZILH‚O J., ROUGIER H., RODRIGO R., MILOTA S., GHERASE M., SARCINA L., MOLDOVAN O., BALTEAN I. O., CODREA V., BAILEY S.R., FRANCISCUS R. G., DE LEÓN M. P., ZOLLIKOFER C. P. E. 2006. The Peºtura cu Oase and Early Modern Humans in Southeastern Europe. In: N.J. Conard (ed.). When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory. Tübingen, Kerns Verlag, 145–164. ZILH‚O J., D’ERRICO F. (eds.). 2003. The Chronol-

95

ogy of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional technocomplexes. Dating, stratigraphies, Cultural implications. Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of the XIVth Congress of the UISPP (University of LiÀge, Belgium, September 2–8, 2001). Lisbon, Trabalhos de Arqueologia. VAN ANDEL T. J. H., DAVIES W. (eds.). 2003. Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape during the Last Glaciation. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. VAN ANDEL T. J. H., DAVIES W., WENINGER B. 2003. The human presence in Europe during the last Glacial period I: Human immigrations and changing climate. In: T. J. H., van Andel, W. Davies (eds.) Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape During the Last Glaciation. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 31–56. WENIGER G.-CH. 2006. Neanderthals and Early Moderns-Human contacts on the borderline of archaeological visibility. In: N.J. Conard (ed.) When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory. Tübingen, Kerns Verlag, 21–32.

Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (2): 73–83.

A NEW LOOK AT THE RADIOCARBON CHRONOLOGY OF THE SZELETIAN IN HUNGARY György Lengyel1 and Zsolt Mester2 1

University of Miskolc, Institute of Historical Sciences, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, 3515 Miskolc-Egyetemváros, Hungary; [email protected] 2 Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church, Department of Ancient History, 1088 Budapest, Reviczky u. 4/c, Hungary; [email protected] Abstract The Szeletian is widely known as a transitional industry between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. Szeleta Cave, the eponymous site, is located in northeastern Hungary in the Bükk Mountains and is the only site in Hungary that produced 14 C dates for Szeletian levels, lying between 43.0 and 11.0 ka 14C BP. In this paper we critically review the 14C samples obtained at Szeleta and discuss the age of the Szeletian in Hungary. In our evaluation of the data we focus on stratigraphy, the composition of layers, and the archeological context of the samples.

INTRODUCTION The age of the Szeletian is of key importance for the understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Eastern Central Europe (Allsworth-Jones, 1986; Svoboda and Simán, 1989; Adams, 1998). Szeleta Cave represents the only site at which the Szeletian has been documented in two distinct phases and, consequently, most research on the Szeletian in Hungary was focused on this site. As a result, Szeleta Cave possesses about one-fifth of all radiocarbon dates available for the Hungarian Paleolithic. According to scholars who have been working on Szeleta (Adams, 2002; Adams and Ringer, 2004, Ringer, 2002a, 2002b), the chronology of the Szeletian in Hungary seems to be well established between ca. 43.0 and 22.0 ka 14C BP. Here, we claim that the proposed absolute chronological framework for the Szeletian within the region results from the uncritical interpretation of sample provenance in terms of both stratigraphic and archeological contexts. Therefore, we critically evaluate the radiocarbon dates from Szeleta Cave according to modern standards for the interpretation of sample context and validity

(Waterbolk, 1971; Pettitt et al., 2003; Vermeersch, 2005) by considering the 1) stratigraphic integrity of the samples, and 2) their archeological context, in order to shed light on crucial problems within the age estimates for the Hungarian Szeletian.

SZELETA CAVE STRATIGRAPHY Szeleta Cave, some 60 m in length, is located on the eastern side of Bükk Mountains, at an elevation of 349 m a.s.l. (Fig. 1). The cave is divided into four parts: the “Hall” is situated immediately north of the “Entrance”, the “Main Corridor” opens to the northwest of the “Hall”, and the “Side Corridor” is situated to the west (Fig. 3). Szeleta cave was first excavated between 1906 and 1913 by Kadiæ (1916), then in 1928, 1936, 1947, 1966, 1989, 1999 by several scholars including international teams (Mester, 2002; Ringer, 2002b; Adams and Ringer, 2004). Kadiæ illustrated 11 layers among which 9 were of Pleistocene age (Kadiæ, 1916), labeled from bottom to top (Fig. 2). The layers were distinguished according to color, content and structure. The most complete sequence of layers was

74

G. Lengyel & Z. Mester

Fig. 1. Location of Szeleta Cave in the Bükk Mountains (NE Hungary)

recovered in the Hall, where the excavation reached the bedrock (Table 1). The cave fill was the thickest here (12.5 m), thinning out towards the corridors to as little as 2 m. In the Main Corridor the excavation did not reach the bedrock and did not go deeper than layer 2, thus the thickness of fill is unknown in this part of the cave. In the Side Corridor the bedrock also was exposed to some extent at the rear. The Entrance was excavated down to layer 3. The nine Pleistocene layers were not found in the same order in each part of the cave (Table 2). It is remarkable that in these early years of Paleolithic research in Hungary

Kadiæ paid attention to features that bear information on the formation of the cave sediments. For example, Kadiæ recorded the type of edge-weather and the degree of weathering of lime debris and bones. Some layers of the cave fill were further divided into sub-layers. In the case of layer 3, three hearth levels (3a, 3b, 3c) up to 0.25 m thickness, two in the Hall (3a, 3b) and one in the Side Corridor (3c), were considered. In Layer 2, two 0.2 m thick distinct horizontal debris levels in the center of the Hall were separated (Layers 2a, 2b). Stone tools from Layer 2 in the Hall were exclusively associated with debris levels 2a and 2b. Debris in Layer 2 in the Main Corridor was found scattered in the sediment.

SZELETA CAVE LITHIC INDUSTRIES The first excavations between 1906 and 1913 removed about 2,500 cubic meters of sediment and recovered a total of about 2,000 items, including retouched tools, debitage, cores and knapping debris (Kadiæ, 1916; Szeleta Archives at the Hungarian National Museum). Today, 1,364 lithics can be associated authentically with the Pleistocene fill sediments (Ringer and Szolyák, 2004). The lithic assemblages of Szeleta Cave were first classified as “Solutrean”, and attributed to

Table 1 Layers of Szeleta after Kadiæ 1916 Layer 9 8 7 6 6a, 6b 5 4

Color

black grey light yellow reddish brown dark grey

3

light brown

1.5-3.5

2

dark brown

2.5-6.0

1 red "creek" sediment

Thickness [m] 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0 0.2-0.5 0.5

1.0

Content bat guano calcareous tuff humus clay, sharp stones of small size boulders clay, mostly sharp and a few abraded bones and stones clay, fifty percent of the bone assemblage and the stones are abraded clay, three organic rich hearth horizons in Hall (3a, 3b, 3c), heavy abrasion on bones and stones and also on flint artifacts clay, two debris levels in Hall (2a, 2b), a few animal bones, mainly abraded, high phosphoric acid content clay, similar to "terra rossa"

2.0

silt and pebbles

Radiocarbon chronology of the Szeletian in Hungary

Fig. 2.

75

Longitudinal section of Szeleta Cave, after Mottl’s unpublished drawings of 1937

the Upper Paleolithic (Kadiæ, 1916). Kadiæ distinguished three types of “Solutrean”: an “Early Solutrean” from Layer 3, an “Intermediate Solutrean” from Layer 4, and a “Developed Solutrean” from Layers 5, 6, 6a, and 6b. The “Early Solutrean” was characterized by rough, irregular leaf points, while the “Developed Solutrean” was characterized by fine, regular laurel leaf points. The “Intermediate Solutrean” comprised both types. This division represented a lineage between the “Early Solutrean” and the “Developed Solutrean”. As Kadiæ claimed, the Solutrean phases of Szeleta besides the bifacial tools were characterized by other Upper Paleolithic types such as blades, burins, end-scrapers, borers, and a few backed blades and a Gravette point. The industry from Layer 2 was described as indeterminate. After World War II, the classification for the Paleolithic occupations at Szeleta was changed. First, the Central Eastern European laurel leaf point industries were defined independent of the Solutrean, and Szeleta Cave was chosen to be the eponymous site of what is today known as the “Szeletian” (Prošek, 1953). Then new studies by Vértes attributed Layer 3 to an “Early” Szeletian, Layers 4 and 5 to an “Intermediate” Szeletian, and Layer 6 to a “Developed” Szeletian (Vértes, 1965: 138). Gábori (1964, 1990) emphasized that the

“Developed” Szeletian industry without leaf points resembled the Aurignacian and, in addition, showed Gravettian influence in the presence of backed bladelets and a Gravette point. In the new classification, Layer 2 was assigned to the Middle Paleolithic Mousterian (Vértes, 1965). Except for the Intermediate Szeletian, this classification of the lithic assemblages with leaf points is still in use today.

Fig. 3. Location of the excavation trenches of Vértes (1968) and Adams and Ringer (2004) in Szeleta Cave

76

G. Lengyel & Z. Mester

Table 2 Distribution of layers in the cave after Kadiæ 1916 Layer

Entrance

Hall

9 8 7 6 6a, b 5 4 3 2 1 "creek" sediment bedrock

+ + + + + unexcavated unexcavated

+ + + + + +

Side corridor + + + + + + + + + + + + + unexcavated -

unexcavated

+

unexcavated

-

unexcavated

+

unexcavated

+

Main corridor

Concerning the “makers” of the Szeletian, Allsworth-Jones (1986) and Svoboda and Simán (1989) have claimed that the Central European Szeletian represents the product of Middle Paleolithic Neanderthals that went through an acculturation process around the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition, explaining the presence of Upper Paleolithic types within the Szeletian as due to external influences of the Aurignacian. Svoboda and Simán (1989) argued for interaction between Neandertals and Modern Humans by highlighting the presence of an embedded Aurignacian occupation level in the upper part of the “Early” Szeletian (Layer 3c) (Svoboda and Simán, 1989: 301). In addition, Simán (1990) went deeper into the question of the evolution of the Szeletian phases, and suggested, on technological and typological grounds, that the “Early” and “Developed” Szeletian were unrelated stages. Simán (1995) finally stated that the “Developed” Szeletian indeed represents a Gravettian industry with laurel-shaped leaf points. Contrasting these views, Ringer claimed that the Szeletian is the Upper Paleolithic derivative of the Middle Paleolithic Bábonyian; therefore the “BábonyianSzeletian complex” was proposed to distinguish this lineage (Ringer et al., 1995). Besides the Bábonyian and Szeletian, defined on the presence of “fossil markers”, Ringer distinguished several other occupations, such as the Taubachian, Mid-

Table 3 Distribution of lithic “fossil markers” in the Pleistocene stratigraphy of Szeleta after Ringer and Mester, 2000 Archaeological “fossil markers” Gravettian Aurignacian Developed Szeletian Early Szeletian Jankovichian Mousterian Taubachien Bábonyien

6

6a/b

5

4

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+

+

+

+

3 3 2 upper lower upper + +

+ + +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ + + +

+ + + +

dle Paleolithic and even Upper Paleolithic aged Mousterian, Jankovichian, Aurignacian, and Gravettian, spanning from the Last Interglacial to the Last Glacial Maximum (Table 3) (Ringer, 1989, 1993; Ringer et al., 1995; Ringer and Mester, 2000). Contrary to the interpretations outlined above, and based on comparative lithic studies of the caves of Szeleta and Istállóskõ, Adams (1998) suggested that the Szeletian and the Aurignacian were the products of the same Upper Paleolithic population. Recent reinterpretation suggests that the archeological sequence of Szeleta has been largely misunderstood. The cultural “fossil markers” distributed throughout several layers of the stratigraphic sequence at Szeleta reflect severe post-depositional disturbances and indicate that Szeleta should not be considered the type site of Szeletian lithic assemblages.

SZELETA RADIOCARBON DATES Sampling of organic remains from the Hungarian Szeletian for radiocarbon dating began in the 1960s by Vértes (Geyh et al., 1969). After Vértes, Adams and Ringer (2004) were involved with radiocarbon dating of the Szeletian. To date a total of 10 radiocarbon dates are known from Szeleta Cave (Table 4). Nine dates can be divided into two groups according to their sample prove-

Radiocarbon chronology of the Szeletian in Hungary

77

Table 4 Radiocarbon dates of the Szeleta Cave. ISGS-A codes indicate application of AMS method Lab no GXO-197 GrN-6058 ISGS-4464 GrN-5130 ISGS-A-0131 ISGS-A-0189 ISGS-4460 ISGS-A-0128 ISGS-A-0129 Unknown

14C age BP >41,700 43,000 ± 1100 42,960 ± 860 32,620 ± 400 22,107 ± 130 26,002 ± 182 >25,200 11,761 ± 62 13,885 ± 71 37,260 ± 760

Material bone bone bone bone bone charcoal bone bone bone unknown

Excavation Area unknown Hall Hall Entrance Entrance Entrance Entrance Entrance Entrance Entrance

nances: two from the junction of the Main and Side corridors in the Hall, and seven from the trenches at the Entrance. Among the ten dates one (> 41,700 14C BP, GXO-197) was obtained from a bone sample of unknown provenance. The only available information is that the sample was selected by Vértes from the faunal remains of Kadiæ’s excavation and the bone was retrieved from the top of the light brown Layer 3 (Geyh et al., 1969). Dates from the Hall In the Hall of Szeleta, Vértes took a bone sample in 1966 from the dark brown Layer 2, located just above the bedrock (Vértes, 1968: 384) and 6 meters below the original surface, resulting in an age of 43,000 ± 1,100 14C BP (GrN-6058; Vogel and Waterbolk, 1972: 62). According to Vértes this date is associated with the lowest occurrence of the “Early” Szeletian (Vogel and Waterbolk, 1972: 62). Another sample, again on bone, was taken in 1999 at the border between Layers 2 and 3 in a trench dug parallel to that of Vértes’ excavation. The sample produced the similar date of 42,960 ± 860 14C BP (ISGS-4464; Adams, 2002; Adams and Ringer, 2004; Ringer, 2002b). Dates from the Entrance During the 1966 excavation, Vértes observed three layers at the Entrance: a gray, a grayish brown, and a brown one, that were correlated to Layers 6, 4, and 3, respectively, of Kadiæ’s exca-

Layer 3 2 2/3 interface section collapse section collapse 3 3 3 3 3

Reference Geyh et al. 1969 Vogel & Waterbolk 1972 Adams & Ringer 2004 Vogel & Waterbolk 1972 Adams & Ringer 2004 Adams & Ringer 2004 Adams & Ringer 2004 Adams & Ringer 2004 Adams & Ringer 2004 Ringer 2002b

vations (Vértes, 1968). Vértes sampled a bone found 3 m beneath the original surface from the gray layer (claiming correspondence to Kadiæ’s Layer 6), resulting in an age of 32,620 ± 400 14C BP (GrN-5130; Vogel and Waterbolk, 1972: 62). At the Entrance, Adams and Ringer in 1999 continued excavating the 1966 trench of Vértes southwards. In 1999, five dates were obtained from the layers of the Entrance. In the correlation of the sampled layers to the stratigraphy of Kadiæ’s excavation there was no complete agreement between Adams and Ringer. Of the five samples only the stratigraphic position of the first was interpreted as being in accordance. This sample, a bone, taken from 0.7 m beneath the actual surface, from a layer that was correlated with Layer 6a of Kadiæ, gave an AMS date of 22,107 ± 130 14C BP (ISGS-A-0131; Adams, 2002; Adams and Ringer, 2004; Ringer, 2002b). The four other dates were obtained from deeper levels of the Entrance stratigraphy. Two of these four samples, one charcoal and one bone, were taken between 2.50 and 2.60 m beneath the actual surface and provided ages of 26,002 ± 182 14C BP (ISGS-A0189) and >25,200 14C BP (ISGS-4460), respectively (Adams, 2002; Adams and Ringer, 2004). In the first publication of these dates, Adams (2002: 53) attributed the samples to Kadiæ’s Layer 3, while Ringer (2002b: fig 2) first correlated both samples, and then only ISGS-A-0189 (Ringer’s 2nd footnote in Adams, 2002), with Layer 4. No explanation was given why Ringer altered the stratigraphic attribution of samples. In the most recent publication of Szeleta dating, Ad-

78

G. Lengyel & Z. Mester

Fig. 4. Reconstruction of the state of excavations in the Entrance of Szeleta Cave before 1966 with the sections of Vértes (1968) and Adams and Ringer (2004)

ams and Ringer (2004) connected both these dates to Kadiæ’s Layer 3. About 10 cm beneath the former samples, two bones from a thin hearth feature were dated, resulting in ages of 11,761 ± 62 14C BP (ISGS-A-0128) and 13,885 ± 71 14C BP (ISGS-A-0129; Adams, 2002). Adams (2002: 53) correlated this hearth to the “hearth” of Kadiæ’s Layer 3b. In contrast to this, Ringer claimed that the hearth is to be attributed to Layer 3c of Kadiæ’s excavation (Ringer’s 3rd footnote in Ad-

ams, 2002), which indeed was recovered in the Hall and did not extend to the Entrance area of the cave (Ringer and Szolyák, 2004). Regardless of stratigraphic attribution, both dates are significantly younger than those from 10 cm above, which is likely due to post-depositional contamination (Adams and Ringer, 2004). From the 1999 Entrance trench, Ringer (2002b: 50) published a further date of 37,260 ± 760 14C BP from the top of Kadiæ’s Layer 3, but unfortunately did not in-

Radiocarbon chronology of the Szeletian in Hungary

79

Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the state of excavations in the Hall of Szeleta Cave before 1966 with the sections of Vértes (1968) and Adams and Ringer (2004)

clude a laboratory code or any more detailed sample description.

DISCUSSION Stratigraphic context of the dates Layer 2 It was earlier claimed, based on petrography (Vértes, 1959: 85), that Layer 2 was formed from redeposited material of an older layer that is otherwise not preserved at the site. Decades later, based mainly on the archaeological assignment of Layer 2 and the lower part of Layer 3 to a Middle Paleolithic of Taubachian and Bábonyian types, a Last Interglacial age was assumed by Ringer (Ringer 1993: 129, 2002b; Ringer et al., 1995;

Ringer and Mester, 2000). If this attribution were accepted, then the great age of these layers would rule out the possibility of any radiocarbon dating and would invalidate any such date obtained from these layers. Evidence against an Oxygen Isotope Stage 5 age for Layers 2 and 3 at Szeleta include the vertebrate mammal remains of both layers within which cave bear bones dominate and other glacial species such as mammoth and reindeer are also present (Kadiæ 1916; Vörös, 2000: 190). This spectrum of faunal remains correlates to Oxygen Isotope Stage 4 of Suba-lyuk Cave (Mester 1994: 52, fig. 2.17.). The single date from Layer 2, 43,000 ± 1100 14 C BP (GrN-6058), came from a sample taken from the junction of the Hall and the Main Corri-

80

G. Lengyel & Z. Mester

dor. Here, Layer 2 was 1 m thick, while a few meters away it thickens to a maximum of 6 meters. Although the sample was taken from just above the bedrock, it remains unknown from which stratigraphic position within Layer 2 the sample is derived. The date of 42,960 ± 860 14C BP (ISGS4464) lacks a clear geological context since the sample was taken from the interface of Layers 2 and 3, which is marked by a clear unconformity resulting from of a major hiatus in the stratigraphic sequence. Thus, the stratigraphic integrity of this date is to be regarded with scepticism. Layer 3 Layer 3 appears to have suffered greatest from post-depositional disturbances. For example, all bones and limestone debris found in Layer 3 have heavily weathered surfaces. Similar abrasion can also be observed on the lithics, which appears as post-knapping abrupt pseudo-retouch. Also, the surfaces of the artifacts and the ridges between the flake scars are often weathered. The weathering of all archaeological material in Layer 3 most likely results from cryoturbation (Kadiæ, 1916; Allsworth-Jones, 1986), described also as “cryodeformation” (Ringer, 1988). In addition to cryoturbation, Szolyák’s study of the “hearth levels” (Layer 3a, 3b, 3c) (Ringer and Szolyák, 2004) demonstrates that these hearth features extended horizontally up to several meters and were most likely due to ancient water flow in the cave. The post-depositional disturbance of this layer is also evidenced by the chronometric range and reversed sequence of dates in the Entrance trench. It is thus clear that sampling “in situ” material from Layer 3 for radiocarbon dating is and was impossible. Uncertain geological context The stratigraphic integrity of two dates from the Entrance, 32,620 ± 400 14C BP (GrN-5130) from Vértes’ excavation and 22,107 ± 130 14C BP (ISGS-A-0131) from the excavation of Adams and Ringer, cannot be assumed. Reconstruction of the location and the volume of the excavated areas (Figs 3–5) in the Entrance indicates that the area between the cave mouth and the valley slope was last excavated in 1913 (Mester, 2002: 70, Fig.

16). The excavations in 1906–1913 removed the upper 2 m of the cave fill (Levels I–IV) and stopped at the top of Layer 3. The location of the 1966 and 1999 Entrance trenches falls exactly within this excavated area. Thus, their stratigraphy should start here in Kadiæ’s Layer 3, without any overlying layers being evident. Nevertheless, the 1966 and 1999 sections reveal layers containing large limestone blocks above Layer 3. It is known from Mottl (1945: 1553) that the sections of Kadiæ’s excavations at the Entrance were collapsed to the extent that they could not be correlated with the original drawings. Since this area was not exposed again, and Vértes emphasized in his report the lack of a fine sediment fraction among the stones but did not recognize that this was due to the recent infilling of the area, the upper members of the 1966 and 1999 excavations must represent part of the sections that collapsed sometime between 1913 and the 1960s. Consequently, the dates of 32,620 ± 400 14C BP (GrN-5130) and 22,107 ± 130 14C BP (ISGS-A0131) most likely derive from mixed stratigraphic material dating to disparate periods. Archaeological context of the dates Almost all of the dates discussed here lack clear archaeological contexts. For example, Vértes did not find any lithics in the sampled layers during his 1966 excavation (Vértes, 1968: 382–383), and the archaeological material from the 1999 excavation, except one obsidian bladelet core found 20 cm above the sample dated to 26.0 ka 14C BP (ISGS-A-0189; Adams, 2007: 65), remains unpublished. One date linked to archaeological material, GXO-197 (> 41,700 14C BP), was obtained from a sample of Kadiæ’s excavation of the upper part of Layer 3. Unfortunately, this date, as mentioned above, has no relevant provenance, and thus could be associated with any part of the cave where Layer 3 was observed and with any artifacts found within this layer. Previously, all lithics from Layer 3 were associated with the “Early” Szeletian (Vértes, 1965; Allsworth-Jones, 1986), and then with the “Early” Szeletian and Aurignacian (Svoboda and Simán 1989). Since Ringer’s recent review of the lithic artifacts from Kadiæ’s Layer 3 highlights the presence of several “fossil

Radiocarbon chronology of the Szeletian in Hungary

markers” (Ringer, 2002a, b; Ringer and Mester, 2000), the GXO-197 date (> 41,700 14C BP) could be linked with Mousterian, Jankovichian, “Early” Szeletian, Gravettian, and Aurignacian artifacts. The sample from Layer 3 dated to 26.0 ka 14C BP date (ISGS-A-0189) by Adams and Ringer was found in close association with the published obsidian bladelet core. The use of obsidian for laminar production in the territory of Hungary appeared first in the Early Gravettian context of Bodrogkeresztúr-Henye, located in northeastern Hungarian Zemplén Mountains, and has been dated to ca. 28.0 ka 14C BP (Dobosi, 2000). Therefore the association of an obsidian bladelet core with Mousterian type implements (Szeletian and Jankovichian leaf points) in Layer 3 must, as shown by Ringer, result from mixing between these and Gravettian lithic assemblages. Admixture of different types of lithic tools is not exceptional to Layer 3. Each dated layer contains a mixture of remains from at least four Paleolithic cultural entities (Table 3). Although Ringer and Mester (2000) claim the contemporaneous and/or alternate presence of several Upper and Middle Paleolithic cultural entities in Szeleta, the taphonomy of the lithics, including refittings between Layers 4 and 6a in the Entrance by one of us (Zs. M.) (Ringer and Mester, 2000: 266) imply that archaeological cultural interstratifications are best explained by post-depositional disturbances that vertically displaced artifacts between layers (e.g., Bordes, 2003; Villa, 1982). These data emphasize the fact that none of the dated samples are derived from secure, in situ archaeological contexts.

CONCLUSION At Szeleta Cave, evidence for the presence of several Paleolithic “fossil markers” within a single layer indicates extensive stratigraphic displacement of artifacts over thousands of years. The agency of displacement in the cave, as yet unknown, also displaced organic remains that were used for radiocarbon dating, as evidenced for instance by the wide range of dates from > 41,700 to ca. 11,000 14C BP within Layer 3. In such a case, it is impossible to assign dates to specific archeological entities.

81

Uncertain correlations between layers excavated recently and those exposed by Kadiæ are also of significance. Such uncertainties are best represented by the 1999 excavation, during which the excavators could not agree how to correlate the samples taken for 14C dating with Kadiæ’s original stratigraphy. Based on the apparent mixture of both organic and lithic remains, and serious uncertainties in linking 14C dates to geological and especially archeological units, none of the radiocarbon dates can be securely associated with any occupation of the cave. Taking also into account the rigorous requirements for taking and selecting samples for 14 C dating (Waterbolk, 1971; Pettitt et al., 2003; Vermeersch, 2005), we claim that at present the absolute chronological position of the Szeletian in Hungary remains unknown. Acknowledgments We wish to express our thanks to László Kordos who kindly permitted use of plan and section drawings of Hungarian caves that are kept at the Hungarian Geological Institute. We are grateful to the two reviewers of an earlier draft of this paper for their constructive comments and to the editors of this volume for improving our English text. This study was supported by the “János Bolyai” Research Fellowship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

REFERENCES ADAMS B. 1998. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Central Europe. The record from the Bükk Mountain region. BAR International Series 693, Archaeopress, Oxford. ADAMS B. 2002. New radiocarbon dates from Szeleta and Istállóskõ caves, Hungary. Praehistoria 3, 53–55. ADAMS B. 2007. Gulyás archaeology: the Szeletian and the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Hungary and Central Europe. In: J. Riel-Salvatore, G. A. Clark (eds.) New approaches to the study of Early Upper Palaeolithic ‘transitional’ industries in Western Eurasia. Transitions great and small. BAR International Series 1620, Archaeopress, Oxford, 91–110. ADAMS B., RINGER Á. 2004. New C14 dates for the Hungarian Early Upper Palaeolithic. Current Anthropology 45, 541–551. ALLSWORTH-JONES P. 1986. The Szeletian and the transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

82

G. Lengyel & Z. Mester

BORDES J.-G. 2003. Lithic taphonomy of the Châtelperronian/Aurignacian interstratifications in Roc de Combe and Le Piage (Lot, France). In: J. Zilh±o, F. d’Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33, Instituto PortuguÃs de Arqueologia, Lisbon, 223–244. DOBOSI V.T. (ed.) 2000. Bodrogkeresztúr–Henye (NE Hungary), Upper Palaeolithic site. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. GÁBORI M. 1964. A késoi paleolitikum Magyarországon. Régészeti tanulmányok III, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. GÁBORI M. 1990. Aperçus sur l’origine des civilisations du Paléolithique supérieur en Hongrie. In: C. Farizy (dir.) Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe. Ruptures et transitions : examen critique des documents archéologiques. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile de France 3, Ed. A.P.R.A.I.F., Nemours, 103–106. GEYH M. A., SCHWEITZER F., VÉRTES L., VOGEL J. C. 1969. A magyarországi würmi eljegesedés új kronológiai adatai. (Neue chronologische Angaben zur Würm-Vereisung in Ungarn.) Földrajzi Értesíto 18, 5–18. KADIÆ O. 1916. Ergebnisse der Erforschung der Szeletahöhle. Mitteilungen aus dem Jahrbuch der kgl. Ungarischen Geologischen Reichsanstalt 23, 161–301. MESTER Zs. 1994. A bükki moustérien revíziója. CSc. Thesis, Budapest, manuscript. MESTER Zs. 2002. Excavations at Szeleta Cave before 1999: Methodology and overview. Praehistoria 3, 57–78. MOTTL M. 1945. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabungen der Jahre 1936/38, sowie über die Tätigkeit der Vertebratenabteilung der kgl. ung. Geol. Anstalt. Jahresberichte der Ung. Geologischen Anstalt über die Jahre 1936-1938, IV. Band, 1553–1585. PETTITT P. B., DAVIES W., GAMBLE C. S., RICHARDS M. B. 2003. Palaeolithic radiocarbon chronology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 1685–1693. PROŠEK F. 1953. Szeletien na Slovensku. (Le Szeletien en Slovaquie.) Slovenská Archeologia 1, 133–194. RINGER Á. 1988. Possible correlations between loess and cave deposit stratigraphies for the Upper Pleistocene in Hungary. In: M. Pécsi, L. Starkel (eds.) Paleogeography of Carpathian Regions. Proceedings of the Polish-Hungarian Paleogeographical Seminar, Tata, Hungary, October 16-22. Geographical Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy

of Sciences, Budapest, 65–85. RINGER Á. 1989. L’origine du Szélétien de Bükk en Hongrie et son évolution vers le Paléolithique supérieur. Anthropologie (Brno) 27, 223–229. RINGER Á. 1993. Északkelet-magyarországi geomorfológiai szintek és régészeti adataik. Felso-pleisztocén folyóteraszok, löszök és barlangi üledékek kronosztratigráfiai rendszere. CSc. Thesis, Miskolc, manuscript. RINGER Á. 2002a. The chronostratigraphy and palaeo-humanecology of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Northeast Hungary, between 130,000 and 10,000 BP. Praehistoria 3, 39–46. RINGER Á. 2002b. The new image of Szeleta and Istállós-ko caves in the Bükk Mountains: a revision project between 1999-2002. Praehistoria 3, 47–52. RINGER Á., MESTER Zs. 2000. Résultats de la révision de la grotte Szeleta entreprises en 1999 et 2000. Anthropologie (Brno) 38, 261–270. RINGER Á., SZOLYÁK P. 2004. A Szeleta-barlang tuzhelyeinek és paleolit leleteinek topográfiai és sztratigráfiai eloszlása. Adalékok a leletegyüttes újraértékeléséhez. (The topographic and stratigraphic distribution of the Palaeolithic hearths and finds in the Szeleta Cave. Contribution to re-interpretation of the assemblage). Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 43, 13–32. RINGER Á., KORDOS L., KROLOPP E. 1995. Le complexe Bábonyien-Szélétien en Hongrie du nordest dans son cadre chronologique et environnemental. In: Les industries ´ pointes foliacées d’Europe centrale. Actes du Colloque de Miskolc, 10-15 septembre 1991. Paléo – Supplément n° 1, 27–30. SAÁD A. 1929. A Bükk-hegységben végzett újabb kutatások eredményei. Archaeologiai Értesíto 43, 238–247. SIMÁN K. 1990. Considerations on the “Szeletian unity”. In: J. K. Kozlowski (éd.) Feuilles de pierre. Les industries ´ pointes foliacées du Paléolithique supérieur européen. E.R.A.U.L. 42, LiÀge, 189–198. SIMÁN K. 1995. La grotte Szeleta et le Szélétien. In: Les industries ´ pointes foliacées d’Europe centrale. Actes du Colloque de Miskolc, 10-15 septembre 1991. Paléo – Supplément n° 1, 37–43. SVOBODA J., SIMÁN K. 1989. The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Southeastern Central Europe (Czechoslovakia and Hungary). Journal of World Prehistory 3, 283–322. VERMEERSCH P. M. 2005. European population changes during Marine Isotope Stages 2 and 3. Quaternary International 137, 77–85. VÉRTES L. 1959. Untersuchungen an Höhlensedimenten. Methode und Ergebnisse. Régészeti Füze-

Radiocarbon chronology of the Szeletian in Hungary tek Ser. II 7, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum – Történeti Múzeum, Budapest. VÉRTES L. 1965. Az oskokor és az átmeneti kokor emlékei Magyarországon. A Magyar Régészet Kézikönyve I, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. VÉRTES L. 1968. Szeleta-Symposium in Ungarn 4.–11. September 1966. Quartär 19, 381–390. VILLA P. 1982. Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. American Antiquity 47, 276–290. VOGEL J. C., WATERBOLK H. T. 1972. Groningen

83

radiocarbon dates X. Radiocarbon 14, 6–110. VÖRÖS I., 2000. Macro-mammal remains on Hungarian Upper Pleistocene sites. In: V. T. Dobosi (ed.) Bodrogkeresztúr–Henye (NE Hungary), Upper Palaeolithic site. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 186–212. WATERBOLK H. T. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37, 15–33.

Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (2): 57–71.

THE PLACE OF UNIT 18 OF EL CASTILLO CAVE IN THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION Federico Bernaldo de Quiros1, Jose Manuel Maillo2 and Ana Neira3 2

1 Area de Prehistoria, Universidad de Leon, Spain; [email protected] Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid; [email protected] 3 Area de Prehistoria, Universidad de Leon, Spain; [email protected]

Abstract The interpretative difficulties underlying discussions of the site of El Castillo Cave (Cantabrian Spain) are to a large degree based on the character of the assemblages themselves and their place within the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition of the region than to the accuracy of the radiocarbon dates. Unit 18 at El Castillo contains evidence for the early presence of Upper Paleolithic elements alongside a strong Middle Paleolithic “matrix”, thus justifying the assignment of the assemblage to an “Aurignacian of Transition”. Nevertheless, the stratigraphy of the site, the integrity of the assemblage, and the character of some of the worked bone items have been repeatedly criticized. Here, we present arguments that weaken these criticisms and reaffirm the importance of El Castillo in the context of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition.

INTRODUCTION El Castillo Cave is located in the municipality of Puente Viesgo (Cantabria, Spain), on a hillside of the same name that dominates the Pas river valley (Fig. 1). The mountain is markedly conical in shape and thus forms a point of reference for all routes between the coast and the Meseta. The presence of a series of fault lines has given rise to closed valleys such as Puente Viesgo, so that, from the cave, both the previously mentioned routes and the movement of herds of animals can be seen (Fig. 2). The site of El Castillo provides a unique opportunity to study the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition within the region. It contains 26 stratigraphic units that alternate between sterile and archaelogical, reaching a total depth of 18–20 m at some points. This is in accord with earlier estimates made by H. Obermaier during his initial excavations, carried out by the Institute of Human Paleontology (IPH) between 1910 and 1914. Following the work of V. Cabrera (1984), El Castillo’s stratigraphic sequence contains three Early

Middle Paleolithic units (26, 25, 24), two Mousterian units (22, 20), two Aurignacian units (18, 16), two Upper Perigordian units (14, 12), a Middle Solutrean unit (10), two Magdalenian units (8, 6), and an Azilian unit (4). Early excavations carried out at the beginning of the twentieth century lacked present-day excavation methods. Nonetheless, the layers were analyzed horizontally, as documented in the field notebooks, and in the drawings, sketches and photographs made at the time, where each “anthropogenic” layer was considered a cultural unit (Cabrera, 1984). The stratification in El Castillo is very clear, and the cultural units, which are of black color, can easily be distinguished from the reddish sterile beds with which they alternate. Today, with refined methods, it is possible to distinguish different occupations within the different archaelogical find horizons. V. Cabrera (1984) assigned the stratigraphic levels currently in use, and compiled all of the stratigraphic information gathered initially by Obermaier (Obermaier, 1925). Since 1980, hori-

58

Fig. 1.

F. B. de Quiros et al.

Location of El Castillo in regional context

zontal excavations have been centered on the area directly in front of the cave entrance. Here, Unit 18 (of Obermaier and Cabrera) is exposed over a total area of 40 m2. However, owing to the morphology of the cave (Fig. 3) only 24 m2 of the most distal part of Unit 18, furthest away from the cave entrance, have been excavated. Additionally, 3 m2 along the longitudinal section of the profile wall left by Obermaier were also excavated. Despite the fact that the present area of excavation is restricted, the results obtained are similar to those

of Obermaier, allowing for the subdivision of Unit 18 into three levels (from top to bottom: 18a, 18b, 18c). Level 18a is sterile and overlies level 18b. In the exterior area, where only level 18b is present, a large concentration of bones has been found in association with a lithic industry that is predominantly made on limestone (cursorily knapped), rather than on quartzite or silicates. Dispersed fragments of carbon and abundant animal cranial remains – principally jawbones – have been found

El Castillo Cave

Fig. 2.

59

View of the mountain of “El Castillo”

together with the axial parts of the skeletons and show numerous marks of dismemberment (Pumarejo and Cabrera Valdés, 1992; Dari, 2003). This area can thus be considered to have been the primary area for butchering animals, using large, expedient cutting tools which can easily be replaced (Cabrera, Lloret and Bernaldo de Quirós, 1996). For such tasks, limestone appears to be the ideal raw material as it is abundant in larger pieces at the site and it is easily worked, whereas flint and fine-grained quartzite are available only as small-sized nodules. Level 18c is best documented in the longitudinal cut and contains abundant concentrations of charcoal. Thin layers of charcoal (<1 cm) can be observed, and are rich in lithic artifacts and burned bone, but the structural proof that these concentrations represent in situ hearths, is lacking. Instead they could equally represent refuse areas (Leroi-Gourhan, 1972: 239 and Fig. 172; O’Connell, Hawkes and Jones, 1991) where waste materials from living zones within the site

were deposited following successive clean-ups carried out in the central habitation area. This latter interpretation is also supported by the location of these external areas in the cave: beside a large block, to one side of the cave’s entrance. In addition, the workshop residues are surprisingly numerous compared to the number of tools found. Thus, we surmise that the tools were worked close to the hearths, and that when these areas were cleaned; workshop and charcoal residues were collected and deposited together in this part of the cave. Results obtained since 1980 have led to the proposal of a model of transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic at a local scale, with the presence of an industry that we called “Aurignacian of Transition” in the levels corresponding to Unit 18. This “Aurignacian of Transition”, which could be related to the Neandertals, is sandwiched between the Charentian Middle Paleolithic of the underlying Unit 20 and the Archaic Aurignacian with Dufour bladelets from the overlying level 16.

60

Fig. 3.

F. B. de Quiros et al.

Situation of the Layers 18b and 18c in the mouth of the cave

RADIOCARBON DATES A large number of radiocarbon and ESR dates have been made (Rink et al., 1997) from Unit 18 at El Castillo, with a total of ten AMS radiocarbon dates measured by three different laboratories: Tucson (Cabrera and Bischoff, 1989), Oxford (Hedges et al., 1994) and Gif-sur-Yvette

(Cabrera Valdés et al., 1996). As a whole the results show no significant discrepancies (Table 1), despite being derived from different laboratories and from two different methods. Based on these dates the base of Unit 18 (18c) can be estimated at around 40.0 ka 14C BP, while level 18b is assigned to ca. 38.5 ka 14C BP. These Table 1

Radiocarbon and ESR dates from El Castillo Level

Context

18b

“Aurignacian of Transition”

18c

Date BP 38,500 ± 1,800 37,100 ± 2,200 37,700 ± 1,800 38,500 ± 1,300 40,700 ± 1,600 39,800 ± 1,400 40,000 ± 2,100 40,700 ± 1,500 41,100 ± 1,700 42,200 ± 2,100 40,000 ± 5,000

Method C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS ESR 14

Sample Material Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Teeth

Laboratory Code AA-2406 OxA-2473 AA-2407 OxA-2474 OxA-2475 OxA-2478 AA-2405 OxA-2476 OxA-2477 GifA-89147

El Castillo Cave

61

dates, based on two different methods, leave little doubt as to the chronostratigraphical position and integrity of Unit 18. Criticism has repeatedly been leveled against our hypothesis on the nature of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition at El Castillo, as well as the characterization of the assemblages from levels 18b and 18c. This criticism (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 1999, 2003; Zilh±o, 2006a, b) was based on doubts regarding: 1) the integrity of the stratigraphic sequence of El Castillo; 2) the integrity and validity of the radiometric dates; 3) the composition of the lithic industry; and 4) the character and nature of the bone industry and artifacts displaying symbolic expression. Here we present new arguments that weaken the validity of this specific critique.

STRATIGRAPHY AND RADIOMETRIC DATING Roof collapses are of major importance for the formation of sediments at El Castillo, repeatedly creating “ramparts” that separated “closed sedimentary basins” towards the interior of the cave where deposits would be trapped, not eroded. These aspects of the cave’s morphology are responsible for clear and continuous sedimentation without any hiatuses and for special physical and chemical conditions (Goldberg and Sherwood, 2006) resulting from periods when water level rose and pools formed. These hydrological conditions affected the taphonomy of the site following the collapse of the roof that covered level 20. Unit 18 of El Castillo is located between two sterile beds that result from the partial collapse of the cave’s roof (Fig. 4). Towards the base of the sequence, Unit 19 separates Unit 18 from the underlying Mousterian Unit 20. Unit 19 is composed of a large cone of blocks from the rock fall, which forms an external rampart on which were deposited yellowish-brown sandy clays, derived from low-energy sheet wash. This unit is overlain by sediments forming levels 18c, 18b and 18a (Fig. 5), which contain extensive evidence of repeated hominin occupation, and whose depths vary according to the area excavated. A further collapse of the roof is documented above unit 18 (Unit 17), which caused significant

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the formation processes of Units 20 to 17

retreat of the cave mouth and the alteration of the morphology of the site via the creation of a new exterior rampart, similar to that documented in Unit 19. This succession – sterile, anthropic, sterile – supports the claim that archaeological material did not move between units. Unit 17 was covered by unit 16, which con-

62

Fig. 5.

F. B. de Quiros et al.

View of the stratigraphy of “El Castillo”

tains a typical Archaic Aurignacian assemblage with Dufour bladelets. In summary, Unit 18 was sealed by sterile levels (Unit 17), thus impeding contamination from either underlying Mousterian or overlying Archaic Aurignacian deposits (Fig. 5). The integrity of the unit’s archaeological materials is therefore unquestionable. One of the principal criticisms repeatedly forwarded by J. Zilh±o (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 1999; Zilh±o 2006a, b) addresses the existence of a “third” level within Unit 18 that would have contained the well-known Aurignacian I industry of Obermaier’s 1910–1914 excavations, and which was characterized by split-base bone points. It should be noted that in 2002 exhaustive cleaning re-exposed Obermaier’s sections as part of a new project to install a museum at the site, and which provided the possibility to document the full extent of the stratigraphy (Fig. 5). At that time no

different stratigraphy could be observed that would point towards the existence of a new, hitherto–undetected, layer. It should also be noted that the idea of a third level within Unit 18 is based on texts by Obermaier that were later cited by V. Cabrera (1984), where the existence of a “Mousterian at the base” has repeatedly been quoted. This quotation should be taken in context, and it should not be forgotten that during the 1911 season, Obermaier had named what is today Unit 18 “Mousterian Alpha”. Following the discovery of the first split-base bone points in 1912, he renamed the layer “Aurignacian Delta”. This description implies, first, that Mousterian types are present from the base of the level onwards and, second, that Aurignacian material is also present in the lower part of Unit 18. In recent excavations, the authors have been able to establish that larger artifacts exist in the lower part of the level, which suggests that this phenomenon is due to the char-

El Castillo Cave

acteristics of the formation. Because this was an area that could be in-filled with water, it is logical to think that the largest pieces – and therefore the heaviest – would be those that would be most likely to sink in a muddy environment. This phenomenon would explain the opinion of Obermaier, and his constant preoccupation with “Mousterian at the base”, without necessarily implying the existence of another level. We must remember that Obermaier was writing in the beginning of twentieth century when “Mousterian” was considered to be a crude, big industry compared to the Upper Paleolithic.

LITHIC INDUSTRY Another argument that questions the importance of Unit 18 for the understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition within the region is related to the nature and integrity of the lithic assemblage. First, it was argued that the Unit 18 levels were “Chatelperronian”, possibly mixed with Mousterian (d’Errico et al., 1998). This simplistic assumption was based on the discovery of a single Chatelperronian point in level 18b, although such a cultural re-assignment would require a greater quantity of technological and typological evidence (cf. Pelegrin, 1995). In fact, many Aurignacian assemblages contain a few Chatelperronian points, but are not considered to be Chatelperronian, for example Cierro level 7 (n = 1), Arcy-sur-Cure level VII (n = 3), Roc-de Combe level 7 (n = 2), Labeko Koba level 7 (n = 2), Morín levels 8 (n = 5 atypical) and 9 (n = 4), Vascas (n = 3 gravettes) and Gatzarria level Cjn 2 (n = 3). Similar cultural re-assignments were proposed for other Aurignacian assemblages pre-dating 36,500 14C BP so as to fit the hypothesized “arrival time” of the Aurignacian in Europe (d’Errico et al., 1998). Such was the case with L’Arbreda, one of the most important and bestdefined Archaic Aurignacian sites on the Iberian Peninsula, with radiocarbon measurements in a range similar to that of El Castillo (Bischoff et al., 1989; Hedges et al., 1994), The Aurignacian characteristics of levels 18b and 18c were questioned on the grounds of a supposed lack of diagnostic Upper Paleolithic elements. Apparently the end-scrapers and burins presented by us in various publications do not

63

qualify as “Upper Paleolithic”. Likewise, the lack of Dufour bladelets, which – in reality – are not particularly abundant in archaic, classical or typical Aurignacian contexts, is taken to indicate the “non-Upper Paleolithic” nature of the levels. In addition, it is argued that: “Some (end-scrapers, burins, borers) are Upper Paleolithic-like, but these types are common occurrences, albeit in small numbers, in Middle Paleolithic contexts (after all, Bordes’ type-list for the Middle Paleolithic does include an “Upper Paleolithic group” of retouched tools” (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 2003: 317–318). Naturally we are aware of an Upper Paleolithic-type group in Middle Paleolithic industries, but in such cases we are not aware of an Upper Paleolithic component that reaches 40.1% and 43.25%, as is the case in levels 18c and 18b, respectively (Cabrera et al., 2001). A further argument employed to refute the integrity of the “Aurignacian of Transition” was that the assemblage presents a large percentage of pieces from the Mousterian substratum, namely, 49% in 18c, and 43.7% in 18b. For critics, this fact is a reflection of the Mousterian nature of these levels. However, we argue that this is not a reflection of their Mousterian nature, but of their Mousterian roots. Apart from epistemological considerations, there are many important Aurignacian assemblages with significant Mousterian content, such as Morín levels 9 (44%) and 8 (24.7%); L’Arbreda level H (18%); La Laouza level 2b (± 17%); Pataud levels 12 (46%) and 11 (29%) (Chiotti, 1999; Bazile and Sicard, 1999; Maíllo Fernández, 2003; Maroto et al., 1996). It is paradoxical that the arguments given against the “Aurignacian of Transition” are so confused, for example, in relation to the industrial attribution of the collections. First, Mousterian and Chatelperronian (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 1999), then Mousterian with occasional Upper Paleolithic type tools (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 2003: 317) or Mousterian and Aurignacian (Zilh±o and D’Errico, 2003: 317) are all put forward as alternative interpretations to explain the composition of the assemblage, the latter two even found on the same page! It is incomprehensible that the Aurignacian component of El Castillo’s Unit 18 has been minimized, whilst simultaneously placing so much emphasize on its being the product of a mixture between Mousterian and Aurignacian levels.

64

F. B. de Quiros et al.

Fig. 6. Correspondence analysis: Ax (Axlor); C (Castillo); Lz (Lezetxiki); Mo (Morin); Pn (Pendo). The letters correspond to the typological sets defined in Neira and Cabrera, 1994

In order to place the discussion on the [claimed] Mousterian character of Unit 18 on a firmer footing, we performed a correspondence analysis using the statistical package SPSS 13.0 for Windows. The initial cross-table was done using 33 Cantabrian Paleolithic assemblages as rows (30 Middle Paleolithic assemblages in addition with 3 assemblages from El Castillo [Cst18b, Cst18c, and CstDelta, analyzed by Cabrera in 1984 from Obermaier’s 1914 excavations]). The columns were the absolute frequencies of 13 types of the Bordian type-list. The arrangement was the same used by Neira and Cabrera (1994) on correspondence analysis for the Cantabrian Middle Paleolithic, excluding the set O that corresponds to the numbers 55 and 62 of the Bordes type-list. The contingency table was submitted to a symmetrical normalization provided by the SPSS package. The total inertia for the first two dimen-

sions was 61.4 %, and was considered acceptable. The types that contributed more to the first dimension’s inertia were the simple side scrapers, convergent side scrapers, notches, denticulates and retouched pieces. Those that contributed to the second dimension were the Upper Paleolithic types. The same results were obtained when the analysis was repeated using a principal normalization. Accordingly, the El Castillo Aurignacian assemblages (Obermaier’s CstDelta and the new Cst18c and Cst18b) were clearly separated from the Mousterian and were more related with the Upper Paleolithic spectrum of assemblages (Fig. 6). This also invalidates claims by J. Zilh±o who argued that we were digging in a Mousterian level, and who propagated the existence of a “ghost level”, containing Aurignacian material to

El Castillo Cave

explain the origin of split-base bone points that Obermaier had found during his excavation of the “Aurignacian Delta”.

BONE INDUSTRY AND SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS The bone industry from El Castillo is small but significant. Level 18c has yielded two distal spearhead fragments made from deer antler, a “fish hook” made from a bone fragment similar to those found in the Aurignacian levels at Castanet (Aberbouth and Cleyet-Merle, 1995), a poinçon made from an antler splinter, and some artifacts showing incisions and engravings in both levels 18b and 18c. This bone industry would place these levels alongside Unit 18 (Obermaier’s “Aurignacian Delta”) studied by V. Cabrera and the collection of ten split-base bone points which were uncovered in Obermaier’s excavations (Cabrera Valdés, 1984). Level 18c contained a distal fragment of a chisel, showing a series of short, rectilinear incisions on the left edge of the upper side, with a transversal orientation with respect to the longitudinal axis of the tool (Cabrera et al., 2001). A mesial fragment of an ungulate metapodial showing a series of incisions on the upper face was also found. The incisions comprise three deep marks with irregular outlines, two of which are parallel and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the piece, whilst the third takes an oblique direction, diverging in relation to the others. Of most interest is a fragment of flat bone that shows painted lines on the upper face. These form a figurative representation that can be interpreted as the head of an animal facing the right flank of the conserved bone fragment. Using SEM composition analysis, the presence of natural graphite has been detected. Level 18b contained various pieces, the most important being a proximal fragment of a hyoid bone, possibly from Cervus elaphus, decorated on the upper face with engraved and painted lines (Cabrera et al., 2001; Tejero et al., 2005). The decoration comprises lines that have been engraved and painted in black, representing what has been interpreted as the front leg of an animal. Analysis of the pigments that make up the painted lines has revealed the presence of manganese,

65

which in turn suggests the use of a “pencil” made from this mineral, whose use would have left the marks present on the inner face of the bone. It should be added that the presence of manganese is only observed in the lines, and not in the marks left by roots that are also present on the surface of the piece. Also found on this level was a triangular plaque of sandstone, showing four lines engraved on one of the faces. These lines appear on the flat side of the object, whilst the opposite side is naturally concave. The incisions are U-shaped in profile, and would seem to have been made with a thick-edged stone tool. Continuing with marked bones, a fragment of deer metacarpus shows a series of parallel incisions (V-shaped in cross-section), transversal to the longitudinal axis of the piece. The location of the lines on the surface of the epiphysis do not seem to coincide with previously-observed butchery patterns; thus, for the moment, this fragment is included in the catalogue of incised bones, although without any apparent butchery purpose. These pieces are related to others found in Obermaier’s excavations, which had deep incisions on their upper faces (Cabrera, 1984; Corchón, 1986). Some of these pieces have been criticized by Zilh±o and d’Errico (2003) on the basis of a number of ad hoc considerations, including discussion of pieces that we had already rejected. Regarding the chisel, they proposed an explanation based on marks arising from the cutting action, although the model referred to for comparison (Defleur et al., 1999) does not present the regularity observed in this piece. In the same way, the observation that the incisions shown in this piece and in the metapodial are different from those of the other pieces retrieved from Unit 18 during Obermaier’s excavations is surely disingenuous, given that even in the Magdalenian, when engraving techniques were more standardized, different techniques can still be observed, even within the same specimen (Fritz, 1999). The same can be said with respect to the sandstone plaque, given that the lines are undulating rather then straight, such as those found on other sites which had been used as spearhead sharpeners (De Beaune, 2003).

66

F. B. de Quiros et al.

TERMINOLOGY AND NOMENCLATURE Lastly, Zilh±o and D’Errico (2003: 326) lament the use of our “Aurignacian of Transition” appellation, arguing that it is confusing and proposing instead two different names: either “Evolved Mousterian” or “Transitional Mousterian”. In proposing a new classification for the assemblage retrieved from El Castillo’s Unit 18, they are implicitly admitting the homogeneity of the assemblage and, therefore, of the necessity of applying a new classification. If the opposite would be true, as they have repeatedly claimed, levels 18b and 18c would merely be the result of severe post-depositional alterations and would not require any new classification. Bearing in mind this qualification, the authors of this paper would like to observe that both “Evolved Mousterian” and “Transitional Mousterian” could also lead to confusion, given the implications that could be extracted, in the same way as they could be from the classification originally proposed. The adjective “evolved” implies that this is a special facies of the final Mousterian, attaining a “superior level” of development, in this case that of the Upper Paleolithic. On the other hand, “Transitional Mousterian” is inevitably linked to the question, transitional to what? Such a classification implies, just as the classification proposed by the authors of this paper does, an intermediate stage on the way to the Upper Paleolithic. Defining the assemblage of Unit 18 as “Transitional Mousterian” and not as “Aurignacian of Transition” must be linked to the widely accepted but unproven axiom that – in southwestern Europe – modern humans were the authors of the Upper Paleolithic in general and – more specifically – of the Early Aurignacian.

CONCLUSIONS The results obtained from recent excavation of Unit 18 at El Castillo indicate that it is necessary to reconsider some of the traditional paradigms regarding the transition between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. Based on the data presented thus far, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1) Unit 18 in El Castillo has not been affected by post-depositional processes to any significant degree; 2) typologically, levels 18b

and 18c contain a significant quantity of Mousterian characteristics, combined with pieces that are typical of the Upper Paleolithic (e.g., endscrapers, burins, and borers); and 3) repeated dating, performed on different samples, from different areas within the levels, and carried out in different laboratories, provides a consistent set of data that places the “Aurignacian of Transition” of Unit 18 of El Castillo roughly between ca. 40.0 ka 14C BP for level 18c and 38.5 ka 14C BP for level 18b. From these data it can be seen that the transition between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic in Cantabria presents a series of local peculiarities that should be taken into account. Basically, they represent the transmission of ideas from the most recent Mousterian into the Archaic Aurignacian. These ideas include the persistence of discoid type débitage (in different forms) from the end of the Mousterian to the Archaic Aurignacian at sites such as El Castillo or Morín (Cabrera et al., 2001, 2004; Maíllo Fernández et al., 2004, in press; Maíllo Fernández, 2003). Game management strategies, on the other hand, are reported to have been quite similar during both the Mousterian and Early Upper Paleolithic in the Cantabrian region (Pike-Tay et al., 1999), suggesting some kind of “behavioral continuity”. Innovations include the appearance of débitage using bladelets from prismatic cores, beginning in the late Mousterian (Cabrera et al., 2000; Maíllo Fernández, 2001; Maíllo et al., 2004), with some of the bladelets being inversely retouched in a semi-abrupt manner. The manipulation of some pieces in terms of symbolic expression, such as the decorated cobble from level 21a of El Castillo, must also be related to the engraved hyoid bone fragment, or the incised bone fragment from levels 18 at the same site. In this respect, other pieces could be added, such as the remains of malacofauna interpreted as pendants, at the Lezetxiki site (Arrizabalaga, 2006). Given all the above, the model used until now to explain the transition between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, and the gradual replacement of Neandertals by Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) must be questioned. The arrival of the Cro-Magnons from the Near East, carrying with them the Aurignacian, has been questioned by numerous authors. For example, the Kulturpumpe

El Castillo Cave

67

Table 2 Material Culture represented in each Archaeological period

Discoid débitage Bone industry Ornaments Bladelets Blades Carinated cores Burins Backed pieces

Late Mousterian X X X

"Aurignacian of Transition" X X X X X X X X?

model suggests that modern behavior and the Aurignacian has its origins in southern Germany (Conard and Bolus, 2003), from where it spreads across Europe via the Danube corridor as modern humans expanded and adapted to new environments (Svoboda, 2004). Another model proposes the origin of the Aurignacian in the Asiatic steppes (Otte and Kozlowski, 2003; Otte, 2004). Nevertheless, all these proposals have a common, unchanging bias, which is that modern humans are the protagonists, whether they come from the Asiatic steppes or whether they first settled in southern Central Europe. In the case of the latter, it would not be unreasonable to ask what archaeological data exist to support the proposal that they arrived in Germany and created the Aurignacian. Or, to put it another way, what industry did modern humans produce before creating the Aurignacian that has passed unnoticed? The most plausible answer is that the traditional industry produced by Modern Humans was the Mousterian, as witnessed in the Near East (Vandermeersch, 1988; Bar-Yosef, 2000). This idea is of particular importance if we take into account the fact that modern human fossil remains are scarce in the archaeological record until ca. 35.0 / 30.0 ka 14C BP (Garralda and Vandermeersch, 2004). On the other hand, we have access to numerous Neandertal remains which present a very late chronology, such as the Vindija remains (Smith et al., 1999; cf. discussion on Oase 2; Rougier et al., 2007). In case of the Cantabrian coast, the infant remains found in level 18b, although not identified to species, could prove to be Neandertal (Garralda, 2006).

Chatelperronian X X

Archaic Aurignacian X X

X? X

X X X X X?

X X

In our view, the data presented in this paper supports the hypothesis of an autochthonous Upper Paleolithic and of its associated so called modern behavior in the Cantabrian region. Unit 18 (layers 18b and 18c) corresponds stratigraphically to the “Aurignacian Delta” from Obermaier’s excavations, although the current spatial interpretation of this unit is different (Cabrera et al., 2001). Nevertheless, the cultural character of these layers and the data gathered thanks to methodological improvements since the 1910–1914 excavations have led us to label layers 18b and 18c as “Aurignacian of Transition”. We consider this technocomplex to represent a transitional industry. We propose a mosaic Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition model (Cabrera et al., 2001). This model supports the view that the Upper Paleolithic is not a homogeneous package, neither culturally nor chronologically (McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Henshilwood and Marean, 2003). Accordingly, in the Cantabrian region we find traditional Upper Paleolithic elements within late Mousterian assemblages, as well as Middle Paleolithic elements within Aurignacian ones (Table 2). The former are exemplified by the bladelet production schemes found at sites such as El Castillo, Cueva Morín, Covalejos or Esquilleu (MaílloFernández et al., 2004; Sánchez-Fernández and Maíllo-Fernández, 2006; Matín et al., 2006; Baena et al., 2006). Other examples are the evidence for symbolic expression in El Castillo and Lezetxiki (Cabrera et al., 2004; Arrizabalaga, 2006). Among the Middle Paleolithic elements in later contexts we can highlight the presence of

68

F. B. de Quiros et al.

discoid technical schemes during the Early Aurignacian (Maíllo-Fernández, 2006) or the persistence of the same hunting strategies from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic (Pike-Tay et al., 1999). Essentially, we are dealing with a problem of definition. We must establish what we mean by “Upper Paleolithic”, “modern behavior” and “Aurignacian”. First, the Upper Paleolithic is presented to us as a package of specific features that in Europe correspond to the Aurignacian (Mellars, 2006). Such features have been documented in numerous cases (McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Henshilwood and Marean, 2003). Second, modern behavior as we understand it from the definition of the Upper Paleolithic was already present in Neandertal settings (d’Errico et al., 1998; Zilh±o, 2006a, b). Lastly, although there seems to be a consensus for the definition of the Early Aurignacian, there is a great deal of controversy over its earliest phases. As a result, we encounter a great variety of terms for the preceding industries, which are traditionally linked to the first arrival of AMH in Europe. For example, Mochien Mediterranée (Cheynier, 1965), Correcian (Pradel, 1956), Protoaurignacian (Laplace, 1966), Archaic Aurignacian, Aurignacian 0, or, more recently, Early Aurignacian or Mediterranean Early Aurignacian (Bazile, 2002), and Fumanian (Mellars, 2006), terms that all refer to the same technocomplex. Added to this problem is the existence of technocomplexes such as the Szeletian, Bohunician, Bachokirian and all of the other so called transitional industries (BarYosef, 2006), which are of key importance depending on the model favored. The debate is triggered by the unknown biological authors of each of these industries, including the Aurignacian. The oldest remains of AMH are those from Peêtera cu Oase, dated to around 35.0 ka 14C BP (Trinkaus et al., 2006), and these entail several taphonomic and chronostratrigraphic issues. The human remains from Mladeè have yielded similar dates. However, they do not provide an explanation for the creators of the different industries during the period 40.0–30.0 ka 14 C BP and their interaction. A mosaic model encompasses a great variety of possibilities at a regional scale. Hence, conclusions obtained for the Cantabrian region should

not be simplistically applied to other regions of Europe, as their “Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition” could have been different.

REFERENCES AVERBOUH A., CLEYET-MERLE J. J. 1995. Fiche hameçons. In: A. Averbouh, C. Bellier, A. Billamboz, P. Cattelain, J.-J. Cleyet-Merle, M. Julien, L. Mons, D. Ramseyer, M.-R. Seronie-Vivien, A. C. Welte (eds.) Eléménts Barbelés et apparéntes. (Fiches typologiques de l’Industrie osseuse Prehistorique. Cahier VII ). Comission de Nomenclature sur l’Industrie de l’Os prehistorique. UISPP. Treignes, 83–99. ARRIZABALAGA A. 2006. Lezetxiki (Arrasate, País Vasco). Nuevas preguntas acerca de antiguo yacimiento. In: V. Cabrera, F. Bernardo de Quirós, and J. M. Maíllo (eds.) En el centenario de la cueva de El Castillo: el ocaso de los Neandertales. Santander, UNED-Caja Cantabria, 291–309. BAENA J., CARRIÓN E., VELÁZQUEZ R. 2006. Tradición y coyuntura: claves sobre la variabilidad del musteriense occidental a partir de la cueva del Esquilleu. In: V. Cabrera, F. Bernardo de Quirós, and J. M. Maíllo (eds.) En el centenario de la cueva de El Castillo: El ocaso de los Neandertales. Santander, UNED-Caja Cantabria, 249–267. BAR-YOSEF O. 2006. Defining the Aurignacian. In: O. Bar-Yosef, and J. Zilh±o (eds.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 45, Lisboa, 11–18. BAR-YOSEF O. 2000. The Middle and the Early Upper Paleolithic in southwest Asia and Neighboring Regions. In: O. Bar-Yosef, and D. Pilbeam (eds.) The Geography of Neanderthal and Moderns Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Peabody Museum Bulletin, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 107–156. BAZILE F. 2002. Le premier Aurignacien en France Méditerranéenne. Un bila. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, serie I. Madrid, 215–236. BAZILE F., SICARD S. 1999. Le prémier Aurignacien du Languedoc oriental dans son contexte méditerranéen. In: D. Sacchi (ed.) Les facies leptolithiques du nord-ouest méditerranéen : Milieux naturels et culturels. Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique Française, 117–125. BERNALDO DE QUIRÓS F., CABRERA VALDÉS V., LLORET M., PIKE-TAY A. 2001. New kids on the block? Some comments on the Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition in Cantabrian Spain. In: M. Hays and P. Thacker (eds.) Questioning the Answers: Re-solving Fundamental Problems of the Early Upper Paleolithic. BAR International Series,

El Castillo Cave Archaeopress, Oxford, 27–38. CABRERA VALDÉS LLORET M., BERNALDO DE QUIRÓS F. 1996. Materias primas y formas líticas del Auriñaciense arcaico de la Cueva del Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria). Espacio, Tiempo y Forma 9, 141–158. CABRERA VALDÉS V. 1984. El yacimiento de la Cueva de “El Castillo” (Santander). Biblioteca Praehistorica Hispana 22, Madrid. CABRERA VALDÉS V., MAÍLLO J. M., LLORET M., BERNALDO DE QUIRÓS F. 2001. La transition vers le paléolithique supérieur dans la grotte du Castillo (Cantabrie, Espagne): La couche 18. L´Anthropologie 105, 505–532. CABRERA V., BISCHOFF J. 1989. Accelerator 14C ages for basal Aurignacien at El Castillo Cave. Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 577–584. CABRERA V., PIKE-TAY A., BERNALDO DE QUIRÓS F. 2004. Trends in Middle Paleolithic settlement in Cantabrian Spain: The Late Mousterian at Castillo cave. In: N. Conard (ed.) Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Tübingen, 437–460. CABRERA V., VALLADAS H., BERNALDO DE QUIRÓS F., HOYOS M. 1996. La transition Paléolithique moyen-Paléolithique supérieur ´ El Castillo, Cantabrie: Nouvelles datations par le carbone-14. Comptes Rendus Académie Sciences de Paris 322, 1093–1098. CHEYNIER A. 1965. Commentvivait l´hommedes cavernnes ´ l´âge du renne. Paris. CHIOTTI L. 1999. Les industries lithiques des niveaux aurignaciens de l´Abri Pataud, Les-Eyzies-deTayac (Dordogne): Etude technologique et typologique. ThÀse de Doctorat. Museum National de Histoire Naturelle. CONARD N., BOLUS M. 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: New results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331– 371. CORCHÓN M. S. 1986. EL Arte mueble Paleolítico Cantábrico: contexto y análisis interno. Monografías del Centro de investigación Museo de Altamira 16. Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos. Madrid. D’ERRICO F., ZILH‚O J., JULIEN M., BAFER, D., PELEGRIN J. 1998. Neanderthal acculturation in western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. Current Anthropology (Supplement) 39, S1–S44. DARI A. 2003. Comportaments de subsistance pendant la transition Paléolithique Moyen-Paléolithique Supérieur en Cantabrie ´ partir de l’etude archéozoologique des restes osseux des gends mam-

69

miferes de la grotte d’El Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Espagne). These pour obtenir le grade de Docteur du Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Paris. DE BEAUNE S. 2003. Du grain ´ moudre sur les Néandertaliens. La Recherche (Paris) 360, 56–57. DEFLEUR A., WHITE T., VALENSI P., SLIMAK L., CRÉGUT-BONNOURE E. 1999. Neanderthal Cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, ArdÀche, France. Science (Washington) 286, 128–131. FRITZ C. 1999. La gravure dans l’art mobilier magdalenien. DAF, Paris. GARRALDA Ma. D. 2006. ¿Y si fueran neandertales las gentes del nivel 18? In: V. Cabrera Valdés, F. Bernaldo de Quirós, J. M. Maíllo Fernández (eds.) Ante el centenario de la cueva de El Castillo: el ocaso de los neandertales. Publisher, City, 435– 452. GARRALDA Ma. D., VANDERMEERSCH B. 2004. El origen del hombre moderno en Europa. Más preguntas que respuestas. In: Miscelánea en Homenaje a Emiliano Aguirre Vol. IV. Publisher, Madrid, 196–203. GOLDBERG P., SHERWOOD S. C. 2006. Deciphering human prehistory through the geoarchaelogical study of cave sediments. Evolutionary Anthropology 15, 20–36. HEDGES R. E. M., HOUSLEY R. A., BRONK RAMSEY C., VAN KLINKEN G. J. 1994. Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaemetry Datelist 18. Archeometry 36/2, 337– 374. HENSHILWOOD C. S., MAREAN C. W. 2003. The origin of modern behavior. Critique of the models and their test implications. Current Anthropology 44, 627–637. LAPLACE G. 1966. Recherches sur l´origine et l´évolution des complexes leptolithiques. Paris. LEROI-GOURHAN A. 1972. Fouilles de Pincevent, Essai d’analyse ethnographique d’un habitat magdalénien (La section 36). VII supplément ´ Gallia Prehistoire. LEROY-PROST CH. 1975. L’Industrie osseuse aurignacienne. Essai régional de classification: Poitou, Charentes, Périgord. Gallia Préhistoire 18, fasc. I. C.N.R.S., 65–156. MAÍLLO FERNÁNDEZ J. M. 2001. El fenómeno laminar del Paleolítico Medio: El ejemplo de Cueva Morín. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma 14, 79–105. MAÍLLO FERNÁNDEZ J. M. 2003. La Transición Paleolítico Medio-Superior en Cantabria: análisis tecnológico de la industria lítica de Cueva Morín. Tesis Doctoral, UNED. MAÍLLO-FERNÁNDEZ J. M. 2006. Archaic Aurignacian lithic technology in Cueva Morin (Cantabria, Spain). In: O. Bar-Yosef, J. Zilh±o (eds.) Towards a

70

F. B. de Quiros et al.

Definition of the Aurignacian 109–128. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, IPA, Lisboa. MAÍLLO FERNÁNDEZ J. M., CABRERA VALDÉS V., BERNALDO DE QUIRÓS F. 2004. Le débitage lamellaire dans le Moustérien final de Cantabrie (Espagne) : Le cas de El Castillo et Cueva Morín. L´Anthropologie 108, 367–393. MAROTO J., SOLER N., FULLOLA J. M. 1996. Cultural change between Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Catalonia. In: Carbonell, Vaquero (eds.) The Last Neandertals and the First Anatomically Modern Humans. Publisher, City, 219–250. MARTÍN P., MONTES R., SANGUINO J. 2006. La tecnología lítica del Musteriense final en la región cantábrica: los datos de Covalejos (Velo de Piélagos, Cantabria, EspaÔa). In: V. Cabrera, F. Bernaldo de Quirós, J. M. Maíllo (eds.) En el centenario de la cueva de El Castillo: el ocaso de los Neandertales. Santander, UNED-Caja Cantabria, pp. 231–248. MCBREARTY S., BROOKS A. S. 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453–563. MELLARS P. A. 2006. Archaeology and the dispersal of Modern Humans in Europe: deconstructing the “Aurignacian”. Evolutionary Anthropology 15, 167–182. NEIRA CAMPOS A., CABRERA VALDES Y V. 1994. Los conjuntos líticos del paleolítico medio cantábrico según el análisis de componentes principales. In: Homenaje al Dr. Joaquín González Echegaray. Museo y Centro de Investigación de Altamira 17, Santander, 55–60. O’CONNELL J. F., K. HAWKES, N. B. JONES 1991. Distribution of refuse-producing activities at Hadza residential base camps. In: Kroll, Price (eds.) The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning. Plenum Press, 61–76. OBERMAIER H. 1925. El Hombre Fósil. C.I.P.P. Madrid. OTTE M., KOZLOWSKI J. 2003. Constitution of the Aurignacian through Eurasia. In: J. Zilh±o, F. d´Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Trabalhos de Arqueología, 33. OTTE M. 2004. The Aurignacian in Asia. In: J. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn, K. Kerry (eds.) The Early Upper Paleolíthic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, 144–150. PELEGRIN J. 1995. Technologie lithique: Le Châtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de La Côte (Dordogne). Cahiers du Quaternaire 20, 297. PIKE-TAY A., CABRERA VALDÉS V., BER-

NALDO DE QUIRÓS F. 1999. Seasonal variations of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition at El Castillo, Cueva Morin and El Pendo (Cantabria, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 36, 283–317. PUMAREJO P., CABRERA VALDÉS V. 1992. Huellas de descarnado sobre restos de fauna del AuriÔaciense de la cueva de El Castillo. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma 5, 39–52. RINK W. J., SCHWARCZ H. P., LEE H. K., CABRERA VALDÉS V., BERNALDO DE QUIRÓS F., HOYOS M. 1997. ESR dating of Mousterian levels at El Castillo Cave, Cantabria, Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 593–600. RINK W. J., SCHWARTZ H. P., LEE H. K., CABRERA V., BERNALDO DE QUIRÓS F., HOYOS M. 1995. ESR Dating of tooth enamel: Comparison with AMS 14C at El Castillo Cave, Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 23, 945– 952. ROUGIER H., MILOTA S., RODRIGO R., GHERASE M., SARCINA L., MOLDOVAN_ O., ZILH‚O J., CONSTANTIN S., FRANCISCUS R. G., ZOLLIKOFER C., PONCE DE LEÓN M., TRINKAUS E. 2007. Peêtera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology of early modern Europeans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104/4, 1165–1170. SMITH F. H., TRINKAUS E., PETTITT P., KARAVANIÈ I., PAUNOVIÆ M. 1999. Direct radiocarbon dates for Vindija G1 and Velika Pecina Late Pleistocene hominid remains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96, 12281–12286. SVOBODA J. 2004. Continuities, discontinuities and interactions in Early Upper Paleolithic technologies. A view from Middle Danube. In: J. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn, K. Kerry (eds.) The Early Upper Paleolíthic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, 30–49. TEJERO J. M., MORÁN N., CABRERA V., BERNALDO DE QUIROS F. 2005. Industria ósea y arte mueble de los niveles Auriñacienses de la Cueva del Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Santander). PYRENAE 36/1, 35–56. TRINKAUS E., ZILH‚O J., ROUGIER H., RODRIGO R., MILOTA S., GHERASE M., SARCINA L., MOLDOVAN O., CORNEL BALTEAN I., CODREAV., BAILEY S., FRANCISCUS R. G., PONCE DE LEÓN M., ZOLLIKOFER C. 2006. The Peêtera cu Oase and Early Modern Humans in Southeastern Europe. In: N. Conard (ed.) When Neanderthals and Modern Humans met. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, 145–164. SÁNCHEZ FERNÁNDEZ G., MAÍLLO FERNÁNDEZ J. M. 2006. Soportes laminares en el muste-

El Castillo Cave riense final cantábrico: El nivel 20e de la cueva de El Castillo (Cantabria). In: J. M. Maíllo Fernández, E. Baquedano (eds.) Miscelánea en Homenaje a Victoria Cabrera Vol. I, 264–273. VANDERMEERSCH B. 1989. L’extinction des Neanderthaliens. L’homme de Neanderthal Vol. 7. Liege, 11–21. ZILH‚O J., D´ERRICO F. 1999. The chronology and taphonomy of the Earliest Aurignacian and its implications for the understanding of Neanderthal extinction. Journal of World Prehistory 13, 1–68. ZILH‚O J., D’ERRICO F. 2003. The chronology of the Aurignacian and Transitional technocomplexes. Where do we stand? In: J. Zilh±o, F. D’Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the tran-

71

sitional technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of the XIVth Congress of the UISPP. University of LiÀge, Belgium, September 2–8, 2001. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, 313–349. ZILH‚O J. 2006a. Chronostratigraphy of the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic Transition in the Iberian Peninsula. PYRENAE 37/1, 7–84 ZILH‚O J. 2006b. Aurignacian, behavior, modern: Issues of definition in the emergence of the european Upper Palaeolithic. In: O. Bar-Yosef, J. Zilh±o (eds.) Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisboa, 53–69.

Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (2): 31–44.

PERSONAL ORNAMENTS IN THE EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC OF WESTERN EURASIA: AN EVALUATION OF THE RECORD Esteban Álvarez Fernández1 and Olaf Jöris2 1

Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria. Unidad Asociada al CSIC. Edif. Interfacultativo de la Universidad de Cantabria. Av. de los Castros S/N. 39005 Santander (Spain); [email protected] 2 Forschungsbereich Altsteinzeit des RGZM. Schloss Monrepos. D-56567 Neuwied, Germany; [email protected] Abstract The earliest occurrences of personal ornaments in Western Eurasia are known from assemblages that are placed at the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition (Chatelperronian, Uluzzian, Blattspitzengruppen, Bachokirian). However, the paucity of sites dating to this period which have produced such ornaments, the often doubtful contextual association of the finds, and the limited number of personal ornaments known to date from this period, bring into question their utilization prior to the Protoaurignacian. In contrast, personal ornaments are a regular component of Aurignacian assemblages, showing a broad spectrum of form, raw material and techniques of attachment. In this paper we argue that personal ornaments did not occur in Europe before about 38.0 ka 14C BP and that their appearance on the continent is linked to the arrival of Anatomically Modern Humans.

INTRODUCTION The first evidence of symbolic behavior among hominins has repeatedly been addressed by prehistorians during the last decade (see e.g., Bednarik, 1998; Lorblanchet, 1999; d’Errico et al., 2003; Hovers et al., 2003; Álvarez Fernández, 2006, in press; Zilh±o, 2007; Jöris et al., in press). Personal ornaments and pendants are the most characteristic artifacts that help to trace human symbolic behavior. They are made from a variety of materials, sometimes ornamented or stained with pigments, and they are frequently found in archaeological contexts. These objects are regularly prepared for suspension as indicated by the high frequency of perforations and grooves. The “perforation” may sometimes be a natural hole, providing a simple means for suspension. However, their recognition as suspended objects of adornment (SOA) is not always straightforward, as traces left by the process of perforation or

use-wear of suspension are not always well preserved. The earliest securely dated evidence of the manufacture and use of SOA comes from North Africa. A total of 13 perforated gastropods belonging to the species Nassarius gibbosulus were found in levels ascribed to the Middle Stone Age (MSA) at Grotte des Pigeons (Taforat, Morocco) dated to about 82,000 BPTL/ESR/U-series (Bouzouggar et al., 2007). Perforated Nassarius kraussianus were found in levels ascribed to the MSA phase M1 at Blombos Cave, dated to about 77– 75,000 BPTL (Henshilwood et al., 2004; d’Errico et al., 2005). Two perforated shells (Nassarius gibbosulus) reported from layer B at Skuhl (associated with the burials of Anatomically Modern Humans) as well as one of the same species at Oued Djebbana (Aterian), in Algeria (Vanhaeren et al., 2006), are probably as old as ca 100 ka BP. However, this antiquity is controversial due to the

32

E. Álvarez Fernández & O. Jöris

largely unknown chronology of the Aterian and doubts as to the age of layer B at Skuhl (Zilh±o, 2007). Nevertheless, both sites can be assigned to OIS5. Perforated shells (mainly Arcularia gibbosula and Columbella rustica) are recorded in high frequencies from the Near Eastern sites of ÜçaÈizli (Levels G–H–I), Turkey (Kuhn et al., 2001; Stiner, 2003), and Ksar ‘Akil (Level XXI– XXIV), Lebanon (Kuhn et al., 2001), both attributed to the Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP). A single, double-perforated marine shell (Columbellidae sp.) of similar age is recorded from the Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) level IVb at Kostenki 14 (Markina Gora) (Anikovich et al., 2007). As regards Central Asia, the oldest SOA come from the sites of Dörölj 1 (Mongolia), where beads made of ostrich egg shells have been reported (Jaubert et al., 2004), and Kara Bom (Russia) in the Altai region, where a perforated bovine tooth and several perforated bones were found (Derevianko and Rybin, 2003). Both sites have been ascribed to the EUP.

THE EARLIEST EVIDENCE OF SYMBOLIC BEHAVIOR IN WESTERN EURASIA Earliest evidence of symbolic behavior? At a variety of European sites evidence indicates that Neandertals collected fossil and recent molluscs. In all cases, none of the shells display any artificial perforations. Knapped cobbles with fossils and marine molluscs used for the manufacture of artifacts in Italy during the Middle Paleolithic (e.g., Lorblanchet, 1999; Stiner, 1994) have repeatedly been interpreted as evidence for Neandertals collecting ‘curious’ items. Nevertheless, the existence of a few objects with natural holes indicates their potential for suspension. However, the absence of research on possible wear marks means we cannot be certain whether or not these objects were indeed used as SOA. The only unambiguously perforated mollusc (an example of L. obtusata) known from a presumably Middle Paleolithic site comes from level Vc at El Ruso I, Spain. A recent study of the lithic assemblage suggests that the material should instead be assigned to the early Aurignacian (Castanedo Tapia, 1997). Given that post-depositional

erosion at this site may have mixed archaeological material from different periods (Muñoz Fernández and San Miguel Llamosas, 2001) the cultural affiliation of the perforated mollusc must remain in question. Similar contextual doubts concern a bear tooth grooved at the root collected by Courtier in the first part of the twentieth century from the Mousterian deposits of La Rochette, France (Taborin, 1990). The early age of the excavations and poor documentation, and the presence of overlaying Aurignacian layers at the site, raises the question whether this item should be assigned to the Aurignacian instead. The Middle Paleolithic context of a perforated lynx canine within level D1 at Cova Beneito (Iturbe Polo et al., 1993) is also in question (Villaverde Bonilla et al., 1998). In a recent review of the Middle–Upper Paleolithic sequence it was shown that the canine could also derive from the overlying Aurignacian layer B8 (Doménech Faus, 2004), which contains a single perforated object of this kind. Suspended Objects of Adornment (SOA) at the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Europe? A number of researchers have repeatedly claimed that the earliest evidence of SOA in Western Eurasia date at the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition (e.g., d’Errico et al., 1998, 2003; Taborin, 1990, 2004). However, the number of SOA assigned to this period is limited (cf. Fig. 1), and their archaeological context is problematic (Álvarez Fernández, 2006, in press; Gioia, 1990; Hahn, 1977; Jöris et al., in press; White, 2001, 2002; Zilh±o, 2007). In addition, few radiocarbon dates have been obtained for samples from levels containing such finds, and of those available many have large standard deviations and are of questionable validity (Jöris et al., 2003, in press). In Western Europe, SOA have been reported from only a few Chatelperronian levels (d´Errico et al., 1998; Taborin, 1990, 1993; White, 1993), while in total more than 120 Chatelperronian inventories have been recorded in France and Cantabrian Spain (Demars, 1996) lacking any SOA. Among these the Grotte du Renne at Ary-surCure, France, is most central to the discussion of SOA and the context of the so called “transitional” industries. In the Chatelperronian layers

Personal ornaments in the Early Upper Paleolithic

(X–VIII) a fairly large number of personal ornaments (perforated and grooved teeth of different species) and some evidence of ivory working were found (d’Errico et al., 1998; Taborin, 1990; White, 2002). According to White (2002), who restudied Leroi-Gourhan’s original documentation, the Chatelperronian and Aurignacian levels were stratigraphically mixed. White further argues that many SOA found at Arcy-sur-Cure were not recorded precisely with respect to their three dimensional spatial orientation (White, 2001, 2002; Álvarez Fernández, 2006; Jöris et al., in press; cf. Zilh±o, 2007) Whether two perforated teeth found during excavations by Poirier, Bailleau and Delporte in level B4 of the Grotte des Fees, France, may indeed belong to the Chatelperronian remains unclear, since the sequence (Layers B4–B1) also contains several tool types which are characteristic for the Aurignacian (Álvarez Fernández, 2006) as Delporte had already argued (cf. Delporte, 1999). Unfortunately, due to limited contextual information, the recently obtained radiocarbon samples from Layers B4–B1 (Gravina et al., 2005) have not silenced the debate (Zilh±o et al., 2006; cf. Mellars et al., 2007). Other perforated pendants from French sites that date to this time period, such as those from Roche au Loup, Grotte du Trilobite, and Roc du Combe, are also associated with questionable archaeological contexts (Álvarez Fernández, 2006; Rigaud, 2001; cf. Bordes and Labrot, 1967; Sonneville Bordes, 2002; Taborin, 1990, 1993). In 1968, Lévêque identified four Chatelperronian layers at Quinçay, France, which he grouped into two sequences, a lower one containing an “Archaic Chatelperronian” and an “Early Chatelperronian” and an upper one with “Evolved Chatelperronian” and Chatelperronian “´ caracteres régressifs”. The site does not contain any Mousterian levels (Lévêque and Miskovski, 1983). Three fox canines, a wolf canine, and two atrophied red deer canines, all perforated, were recovered from the upper part of the sequence (Granger and Lévêque, 1997), but the lack of a detailed site report makes it impossible to evaluate the archaeological provenance of the SOA (Álvarez Fernández, 2006). Several unpublished “dentalium beads” found within a Chatelperronian context at St. Ce-

33

saire are claimed to be associated with a Neandertal burial (Zilh±o and d´Errico, 1999; Zilh±o, 2007). Two Turritella temprina fossil shells were reported from level 7 at Cauna de Belvis (Sacchi, 1986; Taborin, 1993), but it remains unclear whether any of these specimens were artificially modified (cf. Zilh±o, 2007) Out of approximately thirty sites attributed to the Uluzzian, SOA have only been found at Grotta del Cavallo in Italy (Palma di Cesnola, 2004) and in the ‘Uluzzian-like’ assemblage of level V of Klisoura Cave I in Greece (Koumouzelis et al., 2001). Grotta del Cavallo was dug by Palma di Cesnola, who identified several Middle Paleolithic layers (MIV–FI) below a layer with volcanic ash (Fa), which was overlain by a series of Uluzzian layers: Archaic Uluzzian (layer E-III: levels E7–E5), Evolved Uluzzian (layer E-II-I: levels E4–E2 and layer E-D: level E-1) and late to final Uluzzian (layer D-II: levels D4 and D3 and layer DIb: levels D2 and D1), with the uppermost Uluzzian levels displaying “Aurignacian elements“. Romanellian layers (levels BII–BI) were superimposed above the Uluzzian. Recent scaphopods were found in the Archaic Uluzzian (E-III) and perforated specimens of the marine gastropods (Cyclope neritea and Columbella rustica) were found in the Evolved (level E1) and Late Uluzzian (layers DII and DIb) (Palma di Cesnola, 1966, 1989, 2001). Goia, who studied the Uluzzian lithic assemblage at the site, describes carinated and snout-shaped scrapers, blades with Aurignacian retouch, and backed bladelets from layer D, and suggests that an Aurignacian layer may have existed but has not been identified in the course of excavation. Layer D was disturbed by animal burrows and by trenches and structures of the more recent Romanellian layers (Gioia, 1990). Therefore, it is possible that the examples of C. neritea and C. rustica, presumed to originate from the Evolved and Late Uluzzian levels, may actually derive from Aurignacian or Romanellian layers (Álvarez Fernández, 2006). Regarding some scaphopods (Dentalium entalis) from the Archaic Uluzzian of Grotta del Cavallo (Level E-III), no indication is given whether they were actually modified by humans; they may have been simply collected as curiosities, without being used as SOA (Álvarez Fernández, 2006). Similarly, it is unclear whether the

34

E. Álvarez Fernández & O. Jöris

mollusc shells (one of them of Pecten sp.) in Level 4 of Castelcivita, Italy (Gambassini, 1997), and “Dentalium beads” found in Level V at Klisoura Cave (Koumouzelis et al., 2001) were modified and used as SOA. However, at Grotta dell Caballo, Castelcivita, and Klisoura, Ulluzian or Uluzzian-like levels are overlain by layers ascribed to the Aurignacian, where remains of marine molluscs have also been documented, some of which were transformed into SOA. In Central Europe, transitional industries, grouped together under the term “Blattspitzenindustrien” or “Blattspitzengruppen”, are characterized by leaf-shaped semi or fully bifacially worked tools. These industries include the Szeletian, the Jerzmanowician, the Bohunician and the Altmühlgruppe (Bosinski, 2000–2001; Hahn, 1993; Jöris, 2004). The only Central European Blattspitzen assemblage that produced SOA is Level X at Ranis 2, Germany. This level yielded a punch and a disc, both of ivory, although the latter broke and dissolved during excavation (Hülle, 1977: 29; Bosinski, 2000–2001: 128). While Hahn claims that Level X represents a deposit mixed with material from the overlaying Aurignacian (Hahn, 1977: 103), the later monograph by Hülle (1977) argues that the disc may indeed be attributed to the leaf point assemblage. Recently published 14C AMS dates for Ranis (Grünberg, 2006) do not clarify the absolute age of the stratigraphic sequence (Jöris et al., in press). A fish-tail ivory pendant associated with leaf points and a laminar lithic technology (Ketraru, 1973: Fig. 29; Kozlowski, 1992: Fig. 31) has been found in Level 3 of Brynzeny I in Moldavia, and ascribed to the Szeletian. Its decorated pattern of dots is characteristic of the Aurignacian, which led Bosinski (1982, 1990) to place the object in a EUP context. The Bachokirian is the term applied to a series of archaeological occurrences located in caves such as Temnata Dupka and at the eponymous cave site of Bacho Kiro, both located in Bulgaria. According to Hahn (1993: 67) this term is not sufficient to define a “technocomplex“, although recent work defines the “transitional” character of the Bachokirian in greater detail, and suggests an origin in the (not necessary regional) Levallois Mousterian, combined with a laminar

lithic scheme of production that resembles Upper Paleolithic technology (Teyssandier, 2007). The site of Bacho Kiro was excavated by Kozlowski between 1971 and 1975. The basal part of the sequence (levels 11 and 9) was attributed to the “Bachokirian“ or “Pre-Aurignacian“, and is overlain by Aurignacian and younger levels (Kozlowski et al., 1982; cf. Kozlowski, 1992; Rigaud, 2001). Level 11 yielded two fragmented perforated teeth belonging to bear and fox, while Level 9 yielded a perforated rib fragment with oval cross-section that was cut at its distal end (Kozlowski et al., 1982: 141; cf. Ginter and Kozlowski, 1982: 170). The first radiocarbon sample obtained from Level 11 dated to > 43,000 14 C BP (GrN-7545). Later radiocarbon samples from the same level failed to clarify the chronology, producing results between 33,750 ± 850 14C BP (OxA-3184) and 38,500 ± 1700 14C BP (OxA-3213) (Hedges et al., 1994; Table 1). Finally, Zilh±o (2007) argues that a perforated fossil gastropod found during Felgenhauer’s excavations (1956–1959) in Level 2 at Willendorf II (Lower Austria) should be ascribed to the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. However, this level provided only a very small lithic assemblage (n = 32) lacking “typical Aurignacian or transitional forms” (Teyssandier et al., 2006). Perhaps the gastropod shell is identical to the perforated “marine snail” mentioned by Papp (1956–1959) in his study of the molluscs recovered from Levels 1 to 4 at Willendorf II (Viviparus sp. with a dubious perforation and questionable identification). The same researcher also records the presence of local fossils in these levels (Dentalium badense PRATSCH and Dentalium bouei DESHAYES).

EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC SUSPENDED OBJECTS OF ADORNMENT (SOA) From the outset of the Upper Paleolithic, a large number of SOA, made on a wide variety of raw materials have been recorded (Álvarez Fernández, 2006; cf. Vanhaeren and d´Errico, 2006). In addition to the examples from Level 11 at Bacho Kiro, the earliest unambiguous evidence of SOA in Europe has been documented in Proto-

Personal ornaments in the Early Upper Paleolithic

35

Fig. 1. European “transitional“ industries. Black – sites with Suspended Objects of Adornment (SOA) discussed in text; Grey and italics – sites with dubious evidence of SOA. Map based on SRTM data (space radar topography measurements); sea level lowered by 75 m

aurignacian contexts (Fig. 1). The Protoaurignacian is technologically and typologically distinct from the preceding European technocomplexes; it is defined by a lithic technology geared toward the production of blades and bladelets within a single chaîne opératoire, where the fossil-director is dufour blades. It is dated to ca 38.3–34.2 ka 14C BP (Table 1) and likely the product of Anatomically Modern Humans (Jöris et al., in press; cf. Maíllo Fernández, 2002). Some of the assemblages ascribed to the Protoaurignacian (Table 1) have yielded abundant SOA, manufactured from marine shell of different species (the most frequent are Homalopoma sanguineum, Littorina obtusata, Nassarius mutabilis, Nassarius gibosulus, Nassarius reticulatus, Cyclope sp.), and mammal teeth. The latter category includes grooved red deer incisors from Fumane, a perforated carnivore tooth and beads of soft stone from Mocchi, perforated herbivore incisors and a bead of amber from Isturitz, a pierced red deer canine and steatite bead from Rothschild, and an atrophied red deer canine and some fish vertebrae from Romaní (Álvarez Fernández, 2006; Vanhaeren and d´Errico, 2006; Zilh±o, 2007).

The number of SOA in Aurignacian contexts is much greater than in the Protoaurignacian. In addition (Fig. 2), the Aurignacian provides the earliest undeniable evidence for complex figurative art and the emergence of standardized bone, antler and ivory weapon technology. The oldest radiocarbon dates available for this period date to about 35.0 ka 14C BP (Jöris et al. in press), i.e. about 3,000 radiocarbon years younger than the oldest dates for the Protoaurignacian, to be estimated to ca 38.3 ka 14C BP (weighted mean of six measurements from level H[B1] of L’Abreda; cf. Table 1). During the Aurignacian, various non-fossil marine mollusc shells of Atlantic and Mediterranean origin, including gastropods, bivalves and scaphopods, were modified and used for SOA (Álvarez Fernández, 2006; cf. Vanhaeren and d´Errico, 2006). These were shells without any nutritional value, collected at beaches (since they are eroded by wave action (Taborin, 1993; Stiner, 1999; Álvarez Fernández, 2006) for shape (globular as the Naticidae family, tubular as Antalis sp.) and color (red as H. sanguineum, yellow as Turritella sp.).

36

E. Álvarez Fernández & O. Jöris

Table 1 Earliest evidence of Suspended Objects of Adornment (SOA) in Western Eurasia Layer Method

N

Laboratory number

Age

STD

Material

Source

SOA type shell teeth bone ivory stone

Chatelperronian? Granger and LévÃque, 1997

Quinçai, F no reliable dates Leaf / blade point industries? Ranis 2, D X no reliable dates Bachokirian

Hülle, 1977 Jöris et al., in press

14

C C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14

1 2 3 4 (1-3)

OxA-3212 OxA-3183 OxA-3213 GrN-7545 wm: t = 1.19

34800 37650 38500 <43000 36471

9 no reliable dates Protoaurignacian Isturitz, F 14 4d C 1 GifA-98233 14 4d C 2 GifA-98232 14 4d C (1-2) wm: t = 1.39

C C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14 C U-series 14

14

C C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14

Mook, 1982

X

X

Saladié and Aímene, 2000 1 2 3 4 5 (1-5)

AA-8037A AA-8037B NZA-2311 AA-6608 AA-7395 wm: t = 1.39

35400 37900 36590 36740 37290 36644 43000

1 2 3 4 5 6 (3-6)

OxA-3730 OxA-3729 AA-3779 AA-3780 AA-3782 AA-3781 wm: t = 1.13

35480 37340 37700 37700 38700 39900 38307

L’Arbreda, E H (B1) H (B1) H (B1) H (B1) H (B1) H (B1) H (B1)

Hedges et al., 1994

X

X

Normand and Turq, 2005

Abric Romaní, E 2 (A) 2 (A) 2 (A) 2 (A) 2 (A) 2 (A) 2 (A)

1150 tooth 1450 charcoal 1700 bone charcoal 796

X

Kozlowski et al., 1982; Ginter and Kozlowski, 1982

Bacho Kiro, layer 9, BG

14

X

Kozlowski et al., 1982; Ginter and Kozlowski, 1982

Bacho Kiro, layer 11, BG 11 11 11 11 11

X

810 1000 640 charcoal Bischoff et al., 1994 920 990 374 1000 travertine Bischoff et al., 1994 Maroto Genover X et al., 1996 820 bone 1000 1000 Bischoff et al., 1989 1000 charcoal 1200 1300 552

X

X

Personal ornaments in the Early Upper Paleolithic

37

Table 1 continued Layer Method

N

Grotte Tournal, F 14 G C

Laboratory number

Age

Ly-1898

>35800

STD

Material

charcoal

Rothschild, F

Source Taborin, 1993 Evin et al., 1983 Barge, 1983; Taborin, 1993

SOA type shell teeth bone ivory stone X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

no reliable dates La Laouza, F Riparo Mochi, I 14 G C 1 14 G C 2 14 G C 3 14 G C 4 14 G C 5 14 G C (3-5) Grotta di Fumane, I 14 A2 C 1 14 A2 C 2 14 A2 C (1-2) 14 A2 C 1 14 A2 C 2 14 A2 C 3

Taborin, 1993 Stiner, 1999 OxA-3588 OxA-3589 OxA-3590 OxA-3592 OxA-3591 wm: t = 0.68

32280 33400 34680 34870 35700 35045

OS-5999 OS-5871 wm: t = 3.11 UtC-2048 OxA-6566 OxA-8052

32000 32700 32205 36500 31900 34120

A2

14

C

4

UtC-2688

36800

A2

14

C

5

UtC-2689

35400

6 7 8 (3-6, 8)

UtC-2690 OxA-6465 OxA-8053 wm: t = 2.14

34200 31620 33640 34164

14

A2 C 14 A2 C 14 A2 C 14 A2 C Castelcivita, I 1a/II

580 750 760 800 850 462

charcoal

Fiocchi, 1996 90 marine Giaccio et al., 2006 140 shell, SOA 76 600 1100 460 +1200 -1400 charcoal Giaccio et al., 2006 +1100 -1300 900 500 440 281 Gambassini, 1995

brown 14 C layer EUP of Kostenki 14

Álvarez Fernández, 2006 KN-654

35500

2000 charcoal

C C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14

1 2 3 4 5 (2-5)

OxA-9568 GrA-13302 OxA-9569 GrA-15957 GrA-15961 wm: t = 1.89

32600 34940 35280 36040 36540 35970

280 630 330 250 270 155

charcoal

X

Hahn, 1977

Anikovich et al., 2007

Kostenki 14, RU IVb IVb IVb IVb IVb IVb

X

no reliable dates

Krems-Hundssteig*, AUT

14

Mussi et al., 2006

X

Sinitsyn, 2003

Anikovich et al., 2007 * association of SOA with Protoaurignacian or Mid Upper Paleolithic assemblage unclear; wm – weighted mean IVb

IRSL

UIC-1128

47730

3480

38

E. Álvarez Fernández & O. Jöris

Fig. 2. Aurignacian sites in Europe. Black – sites with Suspended Objects of Adornment (SOA). Map based on SRTM data (space radar topography measurements); sea level lowered by 75 m

Few examples of gastropod species of exclusively Mediterranean origin (mainly H. sanguineum, Cyclope sp., C. rustica) have been found at various sites in Europe. So far, no examples of these have been found in Cantabrian Spain. In the Pyrenees, these Mediterranean species are practically absent, whereas they are more abundant in the French Midi. For example, in the Dordogne such shells were found at Castanet and Blanchard I, both of which are located 250 km from the Mediterranean coast. Along the Mediterranean coast of Spain, the Italian Peninsula and Greece, gastropods of exclusively Mediterranean origin predominate (e.g., Beneito and Foradada in Mediterranean Spain; Bombrini and Cala in Italy; and Klisoura in Greece). The sites located near the Atlantic coast contain exclusively Atlantic species, particularly L. obtusata (e.g., El Ruso I in Cantabria, and Isturitz in southwest France). Gastropods that currently live in the Atlantic are known from French sites (Perigord, Charente and Gironde) that in some cases are located more than 300 km from the Atlantic coast (e.g., Souquette, La Combe). In the case of L. obtusata, SOA of this species are only present at sites in the Center-West of France (e.g., Blanchard I, Casta-

net) and the French Pyrenees (e.g., Tuto de Camalhot). Non-fossil bivalves and scaphopods were rarely used as SOA during the Aurignacian. One of the most commonly used bivalves is Glycymeris sp. (e.g., at Beneito in Mediterranean Spain; and Isturitz in the Western Pyrenees). Non-fossil scaphopod species are found further to the south (e.g., Blanchard I and Castanet, and Klisoura). With regards to fresh water gastropods, the genus Teodoxus has been found in EUP levels at sites in Mediterranean Spain, such as Cova Foradada and Beneito. Similarly, perforated examples of Teodoxus sp. have been recovered at Klisoura, Siuren I, and in the EUP of Kostenki 14. They are probably specimens collected from nearby rivers. SOA were also manufactured from different kinds of teeth from a variety of mammals, mainly artiodactyls, and to a lesser degree carnivores and perissodactyls. Human (e.g., La Combe) and rodent teeth were used more rarely as SOA. Certain kinds of teeth were selected, depending on the animal species, with a preference for canines and incisors of red deer, horse, carnivores, and other species. In France, the teeth used most frequently for SOA were the canines of large or medium

Personal ornaments in the Early Upper Paleolithic

sized predators, mainly fox (e.g., La Souquette) but also wolf (e.g., Isturitz) and cave lion (e.g., Fourneau du Diable). Deer atrophied canines are also known (e.g., La Combe), while the incisors of other species, such as of reindeer (e.g., La Ferrassie), ibex (e.g, Gatzarria), horse (e.g., La Quina) and red deer (e.g., Gatzarria) were utilized far less frequently. The teeth most frequently used as SOA during the Aurignacian in Central Europe were fox canines (e.g., Trou Renard, Breitenbach, Willendorf II), however teeth of large predators were also used (e.g., hyena incisors at Hohle Fels, bear canines at Tischofer-Hohle): it is more unusual to find deer atrophied canines (e.g., Hohle Fels), horse (e.g., Willendorf II) or ibex incisors (e.g., Hohle Fels). Such objects are rarer further to the east (e.g., deer atrophied canines at Romualdova Peèina, fox canines at Mamutowa, bear canines at Cioclovina, horse incisors at Mladeè, beaver and reindeer incisors at Mladeè, wolf incisors at Bordu Mare in Ohaba Ponor, badger incisors at Sandalja II). In Cantabrian Spain, deer atrophied canines are most frequently encountered (e.g., El Pendo). In Mediterranean Spain, it is important to note the use of lynx canines, for example at Foradada. Red deer atrophied canines are also present at Romaní. In the rest of Mediterranean Europe, perforated teeth of the same species have been recorded at Klisoura. Bone fragments with perforations, presumably used for suspension have been recorded at Mladeè (a mammal rib) and Abri Pataud (reindeer epiphysis). Beads, especially those made from bird diaphysis (e.g., La Garma A, Kostenki 14), and fish vertebrae (e.g., Romaní, Gatzarria) have also been discovered. Finally, bone fragments manipulated to imitate red deer atrophied canines have been found at sites such as Les Rois and Blanchard I. Antler was modified more frequently than bone, especially at sites in western France and the Pyrenees, to produce, for example, “basket-type” beads (e.g., Gatzarria). Perforated objects made from this material have also been recorded in Central Europe (e.g., retouchers at Geissenklösterle), and assegais were re-used as SOA (e.g., La Souquette). Imitations of deer atrophied canines were also made of antler at Gatzarria. However, during the Aurignacian, mammoth

39

ivory was the material most frequently used for SOA production. Above all, ivory was used to make beads of different types and size, or perforated plaques (e.g., Trou Magrite), sculptures of animals (e.g., Vogelherd, Hohle Fels) and other pendants. Nonetheless, the most characteristic SOA of ivory during the Aurignacian are basket-shaped ivory beads (perles ´ panier); such beads were also occasionally produced out of other materials such as soft stone, antler or bone. This type of bead is small in size, between 5 and 10 mm, although examples as large as 15 mm; it is found in Belgium (e.g., Spy), the German Lower Rhineland (e.g., Lommersum) and along the Upper Danube (e.g., Geissenklösterle). In addition, imitations of animal teeth made of ivory, such as deer atrophied canines, have been found at Gatzarria, and imitations of molluscs belonging to the Nassaridae family have been found at La Souquette and Tuto de Camalhot, and to the Cerithidae family have been found at Spy. During the Aurignacian, a wide variety of minerals were employed in the production of SOA. Basket-shaped beads, for example, were made of soft stone (gypsum or limestone), for example at Gatzarria. Similar objects, but of different morphology and made of volcanic rocks, have been found at Spy. Comparable finds come from Isturitz and Wildscheuer. Beads were also made of ochre (e.g., Isturitz), clayey schist and nephrynite (e.g., Wildscheuer), jet e.g., Geissenklösterle), and sandstone (e.g., Vogelherd). Another organogenic raw material, amber, was used during the Aurignacian perhaps also in the production of SOA (Álvarez Fernández et al., 2005) With the onset of the Upper Paleolithic there is continuous and ample evidence for the use of marine fossils as SOA (e.g., different species of gastropods, bivalves, scaphopods, belemnites, ammonites, sea urchins). Such finds are documented at French sites (in the Dordogne, Pyrenees and Midi), but are particularly abundant at sites in the interior of the European continent. At some sites (e.g., Blanchard I), non-fossil shells from the Atlantic and from the Mediterranean and fossil beads have been recorded. Fossil scaphopods are only found in Aurignacian contexts in Central Europe (e.g., Willendorf II, Langmannersdorf, Potoèka Zijalka, Istállóskö). Perforated fossils have also been recorded. Ammonites are de-

40

E. Álvarez Fernández & O. Jöris

scribed for the Aurignacian at La Souquette, belemnites at Blanchard I, sea urchins at the latter site and at La Ferrassie and shark teeth at La Piage. It is difficult to determine from which geological deposits the different fossil species came. These fossils may have been gathered from the Tertiary beds of the Paris, Mainz, Vienna, Horn and Steinheim basins (Taborin, 1993; Álvarez Fernández, 2006). Beginning with the Upper Paleolithic, ochre also appears to have been used side by side with SOA; in some cases SOA were stained with ochre either intentionally or indirectly through contact with clothing. SOA were in continuous use from the Aurignacian to the later European Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic, and the raw materials, manufacturing techniques, decorations, and use of ochre remained consistent.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Considering only the solid, unambiguous stra -tigraphical association, we argue that Anatomically Modern Humans were the only hominins to manufacture SOA. Early Homo sapiens were likely the producers of SOA at sites in Africa (e.g., Tofaralt, Blombos, Enkapune Ya Muto), the Near East (e.g., Skuhl, ÜçaÈizli and Ksar ‘Akil), at Kostenki 14, and at sites in Central Asia (e.g., Dörölj 1 and Kara Bon). They are also responsible for the first SOA identified in Europe which are attributed to the Protoaurignacian and Aurignacian technocomplexes. A critical analysis of SOA found in archaeological contexts ascribed to the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition (e.g., Chatelperronian, Blattspitzengruppen, Uluzzian and Bachokirian) indicates that the earliest SOA are only associated with the Protoaurignacian and Aurignacian (Fig. 1); no unambiguous evidence for the intentional perforation of objects is found for the entire European pre-Upper Paleolithic record. Likewise no debris associated with SOA production or SOA broken during manufacture have been identified in Middle Paleolithic or older contexts. Concerning the “transitional” sites (e.g., Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure, Grotte des Fées, Roc de Combe, Grotta del Cavallo and Ra-

nis 2) several researchers have suggested that some of these transitional contexts likely result from admixture with Aurignacian or later material (Álvarez Fernández, 2006, in press; Gioia, 1990; Hahn, 1977; Jöris et al., in press; White, 2001, 2002; Zilh±o, 2007). Such taphonmic problems may also apply to material from Roche au Loup and Trilobite Cave, however these sites were excavated in the early twentieth century and so this issue cannot be tested. To summarize, out of approximately 200 assemblages ascribed to the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition, SOA have only been found at St. Césaire, Klisoura I, and Quinçay. At Quinçay six perforated animal teeth were found in the upper part of the Chatelperronian sequence (evolved Chatelperronian and Chatelperronian “´ caractÀres régressifs”). In the case of the “Dentalium shells” from the Saint Césaire burial and Klisoura I, it is not clear whether any of these shells were artificially modified, or if they were used. They may simply have been collected as curiosities. The absence of a site monograph of Saint Césaire makes a critical assessment of the context of these finds impossible. Layers 11 and 9 at Bacho Kiro produced few SOA and have not been studied in detail. However, the presence of overlaying Aurignacian levels with SOA suggests that younger material may have contaminated the transitional assemblages. Based on these results, we argue that the earliest evidence of SOA in Europe is related to the spread of Anatomically Modern Humans into this territory, and may be ascribed to the Bachokirian and Protoaurignacian. The earliest radiocarbon dated sites with SOA range from ca 38.3–34.2 ka 14 C BP (Table 1; ca 42–40 ka cal BPHulu; Weniger et al., 2007), with the greatest frequency of material dated from ca 36.0 ka 14C BP onwards (Jöris et al., in press). From the start of the EUP we find that SOA were made from a wide range of materials (mainly shell and teeth of different species, but also bone, antler, ivory, and a variety of minerals). At the same time we can observe the use of different techniques to perforate and shape objects, with a great variety of decorations that continue to be used throughout the subsequent phases of the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. In addition, some of these SOA, specifically various species

Personal ornaments in the Early Upper Paleolithic

of marine shell, prove the existence of large social networks distributed over several hundred kilometers. We believe such networks reflect social capabilities (probably neurologically predetermined) unique to Homo sapiens sapiens and that the lack of such behaviors among the Neandertals contributed significantly to their extinction. Acknowledgements We kindly acknowledge Daniel Adler for his editorial work and William Davies for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

REFERENCES ÁLVAREZ FERNÁNDEZ E. 2006. Los objetos de adorno-colgantes del Paleolítico superior del Mesolítico en la Cornisa Cantábrica y en el Valle de del Ebro. Ed. Universidad de Salamanca (Colección Vítor, No. 195), Salamanca. ÁLVAREZ FERNÁNDEZ E. in press. Personal ornaments made from molluscs shells in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic: News and Views. In: C. ÇakÏrlar. V. Stosel (eds.) Shells of Mollusca: Environmental Adaptations, Ideological Expressions. International Council for Archaeozoology ICAZ 2006 (Mexico, August 23–28th 2006), Oxbow, Oxford. ÁLVAREZ FERNÁNDEZ E., PENALVER MOLLÁ E., DELCL0S X. 2005. Presencia de ámbar local en los niveles auriÔacienses de Cueva Morín y El Pendo (Cantabria, EspaÔa). In: R. Montes Barquín, J. A. Lasheras Corruchaga (eds.) Neandertales cantábricos. Estado de la cuestión. Monografías del Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira 22, Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid, 385–395. ANIKOVICH M. V., SINITSYN A. A., HOFFECKER J. F., HOLLIDAY V. T., POPOV V. V., LISITSYN S. N., FORMAN S. L., LEVKOVSKAYA G. M., POSPELOVA G. A., KUZ´MINA I. E., BUROVA N. D., GOLDBERG P., MACPHAIL R. I., GIACCIO B., PRASLOV N. D. 2007. Early Upper Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and implications for the dispersal of modern humans. Science 315, 223– 225. BARGE H. 1983. Essai sur les parures du Paléolithique supérieur dans le sud de la France. La faune malacologique aurignacienne de l´abri Rothschild (CabriÀres, Hérault). Bulletin du Musée d´Anthropologie Préhistorique de Monaco 27, 69–83. BEDNARIK R. G. 1998. Über die Urkunst der Welt. Almogaren XXIX, 21–49. BORDES F., LABROT J. 1967. La stratigraphie du gisement de Roc de Combe (Lot) et ses implica-

41

tions. Bulletin de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française LXIV(1), 15–28. BOSINSKI G. 1982. Die Kunst der Eiszeit in Deutschland und in der Schweiz. Kataloge Vor- und Frühgeschichte Altertümer, Band 20. Rudolf Habelt GMBH, Bonn. BOSINSKI G. 1990. Homo sapiens. L´histoire des chasseurs du Paléolitique supérieur en Europe (40 000–10 000 av. J.-C.). Ed. Errance, Paris. BOSINSKI G. 2000–2001. El Paleolítico medio en Europa Central. Zephyrus LIII–LIV, 77–140. BOUZOUGGAR A., BARTON N., VANHAEREN M., d´ERRICO F., COLLCUTT S., HIGHAM T., HODGE E., PARFITT S., RHODES E., SCHWENNINGER J.-L., STRINGER C., TURNER E., WARD S. MOUTMIR A., STAMBOULI A. 2007. 82,000-year-old shells beads from North Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104/24, 9964–9969. CASTANEDO TAPIA I. 1997. Aproximación a las cadenas operativas líticas del Paleolítico en Cantabria: Las cuevas de La Flecha y de El Ruso I. Trabajo de Investigación del Tercer Ciclo. Departamento de Ciencias históricas. Universidad de Cantabria, Santander (Inedit). DELPORTE H. 1999. Entre Neandertal et Cromagnon. Châtelperron, un grand gisement préhistorique de l´Allier. Ed. Conseil General de L´Allier, Direction Régionale des Affaires Culturelles d´Auvergne et Asociation pour le Développement de l´Archéologie en Auvergne, Aurillac. DEMARS P.-Y. 1996. La place du Piage et de Roc-deCombe (Lot) dans la transition du Paléolithique moyen au Paléolithique supérieur. Bulletin Préhistorique du Sud-Ouest 3, 11–35. DEREVIANKO A. P., RYBIN E. P. 2003. The earliest representations of symbolic behaviour by Palaeolithic humans in the Altai Mountains. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 3/15, 27–50. DOMÉNECH FAUS E. M. 2004. Le Paléolithique moyen et supérieur dans le levant espagnol: La séquence de la Cova Beneito (Muro, Alicante, Espagne). In: Actes du XIVÀme CongrÀs UISPP, Université de LiÀge, Belgique, 2–8 septembre 2001. Section 6: Paléolithique supérieur (Sessions générales et posters). BAR International Series 1240, Oxford, 1–5. d´ERRICO F., HENSHILWOOD C., LAWSON G., VANHAEREN M., TILLIER A.-M., SORESSI M., BRESSON F., MAUREILLE B., NOWELL A., LAKARRA J., BACKWELL L., JULIEN M. 2003. Archaeological evidence for the emergence of language, symbolism, and music: An alternative multi-

42

E. Álvarez Fernández & O. Jöris

disciplinary perspective. Journal of World Prehistory 17(1), 1–70. d´ERRICO F., HENSHILWOOD C., VANHAEREN M., VAN NIEKERK K. 2005. Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: Evidence for symbolic behaviour in the Middle Stone Age. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 3–24. d´ERRICO F., ZILH‚O J., JULIEN M., BAFFIER D., PELEGRIN J. 1998. Neanderthal Acculturation in Western Europe? A Critical Review of the Evidence and Its Interpretation. Current Anthropology 39 (Supplement, June 1998), 1–44. GAMBASSINI P. 1997. Il Paleolitico di Castelcivita, culture e ambiente. 5. Materia. Electra Napoli, Elemond Editori Associati, Napoli. GINTER B., KOZLOWSKI J. K. 1982. Conclusions. In: J. K. Kozlowski (ed.) Excavation in the Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria). Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, 169–172. GIOIA P. 1990. La transition Paléolithique moyen/ Paléolithique supérieur en Italie et la question de l´uluzzien. In: C. Farizy (dir.) Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe. Colloque international de Nemours (Nemours, 9–11 mai 1988), Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d´Ille-de-France 3, Paris, 241–250. GRANGER J.-M., LÉVEQUE F. 1997. Parure castelperronienne et aurignacienne: Étude de trois séries inédites de dents percées et comparations. Compte Rendu Academie Sciences Paris, Sciences de la terre et des planÀtes 325, 537–543. GRAVINA B., MELLARS P., BRONK RAMSEY C. 2005. Radiocarbon dating of interstratified Neanderthal and early modern human occupations at the Chatelperronian type site. Nature 438, 51–56. GRÜNBERG J. 2006. New AMS dates for Palaeolithic and Mesolithic camp sites and single finds in Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia (Germany). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72, 95–112. HAHN J. 1977. Aurignacien. Das Ältere Jungpaläolithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Fundamenta A/9, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität zu Köln, Böhlau Verlag, Köln-Wien. HAHN J. 1993. L´origine du Paléolithique supérieur en Europe Centrale: Les datations 14C. In: V. Cabrera Valdés (ed.) El origen del Hombre Moderno en el Suroeste de Europa. UNED, Madrid, 61–80. HEDGES R. E. M., HOUSLEY R., RAMSEY C. B., VAN KLINKEN G. J. 1994. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry datelist 18. Archaeometry 36, 337–374. HENSHILWOOD C., d´ERRICO F., VANHAEREN M., VAN NIEKERK K., JACOBS Z. 2004. Middle Stone Age shell beads from South Africa. Science 304, 404.

HOVERS E., ILANI S., BAR-YOSEF O.,VANDERMEERSCH B. 2003. An early case of color symbolism. Ochre use by modern humans in Qafzeh Cave. Current Anthropology 44(4), 491–522. HÜLLE W. 1977. Die Ilsenhöhle unter Burg Ranis/ Thüringen. Eine paläolitische Jägerstation. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart and New York. ITURBE POLO G., FUMANAL M., CARRIÓN J. S., CORTELL E., MARTÍNEZ R., GUILLEM P. M., GARRALDA M. D.; VANDERMEERSCH B. 1993. Cova Beneito (Muro, Alicante): Una perspectiva interdisciplinar. Recerces del Museu d´Alcoi II, 23–88. JAUBERT J., BERTRAN P., FONTUGNE M., JARRY M., LACOMBE S., LEROYER C., MARMET E., TABORIN Y., TSOGTBAATAR B. 2004. Le Paléolithique supérieur anciÀn de Mongolie, Dörölj 1 (EgiÎn Gol): Analogies avec les dones de l´Altai et de Sibérie. In: Actes du XIVÀme CongrÀs UISPP, Université de LiÀge, Belgique, 2–8 Septembre 2001. Section 6: Paléolithique supérieur (Sessions générales et posters). BAR International Series 1240, Oxford, 225–241. JÖRIS O. 2004. Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der spätmittelpaläolithischen Keilmessergruppen. Der Versuch einer kulturgeographischen Abgrenzung einer mittelpaläolitischen Formengruppe. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 84, 49–153. JÖRIS O., ÁLVAREZ FERNÁNDEZ E., WENINGER B. 2003. Radiocarbon evidence of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition on the Iberian Peninsula. Trabajos de Prehistoria 60/2, 15–38. JÖRIS O., TERBERGER T., WENINGER W., STREET M. in press. Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition. On the timing and dynamics of cultural change, the demise of the last Neanderthals and the first appearance of Anatomically Modern Humans: A critical review of the radiocarbon record. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. KETRARU N. A. 1973. Pamiatniki epoh paleolita, mezolita. Arheologhiceskaia carta Moldavscoi. SSR, VipI, Kishinev. Shtiintsa. KOZLOWSKI J. K. 1992. L´Art de la Préhistoire en Europe Orientale. CNRS, Paris. KOZLOWSKI J. K., DAGNAN-GINTER A., GATSOV I., SIRAKOVA S. 1982. Upper Palaeolithic Assemblages. In: J. K. Kozlowski (ed.) Excavation in the Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria). Pañstwowe wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, 119–167. KOUMOUZELIS M., GINTER B., KOZLOWSKI J. K., PAWLIKOWSKI M., BAR-YOSEF O., ALBERT R. M., LITYNSKA-ZAJAC M., STWORZEWICZ E., WOJTAL P., LIPECKI G., TOMEK

Personal ornaments in the Early Upper Paleolithic T., BOCHENSKI Z. M., PAZDUR, A. 2001a. The Early Upper Palaeolthic in Greece: The Excavations in Klisoura Cave. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 515–539. KUHN S. L., STINER M. C., REESE D. S., GÜLEÇ E. 2001. Ornaments of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic: New insights from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98/13, 7641–7646. LÉVEQUE F., MISKOVSKI J.-C. 1983. Le Castelperronien dans son environnement géologique. Essai de synthÀse ´ partir de l´étude lithostratigraphique du remplissage de la grotte de la Grande Roche de la Plématrie (Quinçay, Vienne) et d´autres dépôts actuellement mis au jour. L´Anthropologie 87/3, 369–391. LORBLANCHET M. 1999. La Naissance de l´Art. GenÀse de l´art préhistorique. Ed. Errance, Paris. MAÍLLO FERNÁNDEZ J. M. 2002. Tecnología lítica en el Auriñaciense arcaico de Cueva Morín (Villanueva de Villaescusa, Cantabria. In: F. Bon, J. M. Maíllo Fernández, D. Ortega i Cobos (eds.) En Torno a los conceptos de ProtoauriÔaciense, AuriÔaciense Arcaico, inicial y antiguo. Unidad y variabilidad de los comportamientos tecnológicos de los primeros grupos humanos modernos en el Sur de Francia y norte de EspaÔa. (actas de la mesa Redonda celebrada en Toulouse, 27 de Febrero-1 de Marzo de 2003), UNED (Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie I, Prehistoria y Arqueología, 14), Madrid, 87–116. MAROTO I., GENOVER J., SOLER I MASFERRER N., FULLOLA I., PERICOT J. M. 1996. Cultural Change between Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Catalonia. In: E. Carbonell, M. Vaquero (eds.) The Last Neanderthals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans: A Tale about the Diversity. Cultural Change and Human Evolution: the Crisis at 40 KA BP. Fundació Catalana per la Recerca, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, 219–250. MELLARS P., GRAVINA B., BRONK-RAMSEY C. 2007. Confirmation of Neanderthal/Modern Human interstratification at the Chatelperronian type-site. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 3657–3662. NORMAND C., TURQ A. 2005. L´Aurignacien de la Grotte d´ Isturitz (France): La production lamellaire dans la séquence de la Salle de Saint-Martin. In: F. Le Brun-Ricalens, J.-G. Bordes, F. Bon (eds.) Productions lamellaires attribuées ´ l´Aurignacien: châines opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles. Archéologiques, 1, Musée National d´Histoire et d´Art, Luxembourg, 375–394. MUÑOZ FERNÁNDEZ E., SAN MIGUEL LLAMOSAS C. 2001. La arqueología de Camargo. In A.

43

Peña Fernández (ed.) Camargo. Historia y Patrimonio. Actas de los Encuentros de Historia de Camargo (Herrera, 2–7 Noviembre 1998; Muriedas, 8–12 Noviembre 1999), Ayuntamiento de Camargo, Santander, 36–56. PALMA DI CESNOLA A. 1966. Il Paleolitico superiore arcaico, facies uluzziana della Grotta del Cavallo, Leche. Rivista di Scienze Prehistoriche XXI (1), 3–59. PALMA DI CESNOLA A. 1989. L´Uluzzien: FaciÀs italien du Leptolithique Archaique. L´Anthropologie 93/4, 783–812. PALMA DI CESNOLA A. 2001. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Italie. Ed. Jérôme Millon, Collection L´Homme des Origines, Serie “Préhistoire d´Europe” 9. Paris. PALMA DI CESNOLA A. 2004. Raports entre l´Aurignacien et l´Uluzzien en Italie, In: Actes du XIVÀme CongrÀs UISPP, Université de LiÀge, Belgique, 2–8 septembre 2001. Section 6: Paléolithique supérieur (Sessions générales et posters). BAR International Series 1240, Oxford, 7–12 PAPP A. 1956–1959. Die Schmuckschnecken von Willendorf i. d. Warchau, N.-Ö. In: Felgenhauer, F.: Willendorf in der Wachau. Monographie der Paläolith-Fundstellen I–VII. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, VIII und IX Band 1. Teil. R. M. Rohrer. Wien, 128–131. RIGAUD J.-P. 2001. A propos de la contemporanéité du Castelperronien et de l´Aurignacien ancien dans le nord-est de l´Aquitaine: une révision des données et ses implications. In: J. Zilh±o, T. Aubry, A. Carvalho (eds.) Les premieres hommes modernes de la Péninsule Ibérique. Actes du Colloque de la Commission VIII de l´UISPP (Vila Nova de Foz Côa, 22–24 octobre 1998), Instituto PostuguÃs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, 61–68. SACCHI D. 1986. Le Paléolithique supérieur du Languedoc Occidental et du Roussillon. XXI supplément ´ “Gallia Préhistoire”, MinistÀre de la Culture, CNRS, Paris. SALADIÉ I BALLESTÉ P., AÍMENE M. 2000. Análisis arqueozoológico de los niveles superiores del Abric Romaní (CataluÔa): actividad antrópica. In: R. Balbín, N. Bicho, E. Carbonell, B. Hockett, A. Moure, A., L. Raposo, M. Santonja, G. Vega (Coord.): Actas del 3° Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular (Vila Real, 21–27 de Setembro de 1999), Vol. 2: Paleolítico da Península Ibérica. ADECAPUTAD, Porto, 188–201. SONNEVILLE-BORDES D. de 2002. Les industries du Roc-de-Combe (Lot). Périgordien et Aurignacien. Bulletin Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest 9/2, 121– 161.

44

E. Álvarez Fernández & O. Jöris

STINER M. C. 1994. Honor among Thieves. A zooarchaeological Study of Neandertal Ecology. Princeton Universty Press. Princeton, New Jersey. STINER M. C. 1999. Palaeolithic mollusc exploitation at Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi, Italy): Food and Ornaments from the Aurignacian through Epigravettian. Antiquity 73, 735–754. STINER M. C. 2003. “Standardization” in Upper Paleolithic Ornaments at the Coastal Sites of Riparo Mochi and ÜçaÈizli Cave. In: J. Zilh±o, F. d´Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Proceedings of Symposium 6.I of the XIVth Congress of the UISPP (University of LiÀge, Belgium, September 2–8, 2001). Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 33. Instituto PortuguÃs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, 49–59. TABORIN Y. 1990. Les prémices de la parure. In: C. Farizy (dir.) Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe. Colloque international de Nemours (Nemours, 9-11 mai 1988). Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d´Ille-de-France 3, Paris, 335–344. TABORIN Y. 1993. La parure en coquillage au Paléolithique. XXIX Supplément “Gallia Préhistoire”, CNRS, Paris. TABORIN Y. 2004. Langage sans parole. La parure aux temps préhistoriques. La Maison des Roches, Paris. TEYSSANDIER N. 2007. En route vers l’Ouest. Les débuts de l’Aurignacien en Europe. BAR International Series 1638. TEYSSANDIER N., BOLUS M., CONARD N. J. 2006. The Early Aurignacian in Central Europe and its place in a European perspective. In: O. BarYosef, J. Zilh±o (eds.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian (Proceedings of the Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002). Trabalhos de Arqueología 45. Instituto PortuguÃs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, 241–256. VANHAEREN M., d´ERRICO F. 2006. Aurignacien ethno-linguistic: geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Sci-

ence 33, 1105–1128. VANHAEREN M., d´ERRICO F., STRINGER C., JAMES S. L., TOOD J. A., MIENIS H. K. 2006. Middle Palaeolithic Shell Beads in Israel and Algeria. Science 312, 1785–1788. VILLAVERDE BONILLA V., AURA TORTOSA E., BARTON M. 1998. The Upper Paleolithic in Mediterranean Spain: a review of current evidence. Journal of World Prehistory 12/2, 121–198. WENINGER B., JÖRIS O., DANZEGLOCKE U. 2007. CalPal-University of Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration Program Package. CalPal–2007– HULU. Institut der Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Universität zu Köln, Köln. WHITE R. 1993. A social and technological View of Aurignacian and Castelperronian Personal Ornaments in SW Europe. In: V. Cabrera Valdés (ed.) El origen del Hombre Moderno en el Suroeste de Europa. UNED, Madrid, 327–357. WHITE R. 2001. Personal Ornaments from the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure”, Atena Review 2/4, 41–46. WHITE R. 2002. Observations technologiques sur les objets de parure. In: B. Schmider (dir.) L´Aurignacien de la Grotte du Renne. Les fouilles d´André Leroi-Gourhan ´ Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). XXXIVe Supplément ´ Gallia Préhistoire, CNRS, Paris, 257–266. ZILH‚O J. 2007. The Emergence of Ornaments and Art: An Archaeological Perspective on the Origins of “Behavioral Modernity”. Journal of Archaeological Research 15/1, 1–54. ZILH‚O J., d´ERRICO F. 1999. The Chronology and Taphonomy of the Earliest Aurignacian and Its Implications for the Understanding of Neandethal Extinction. Journal of World Prehistory 13, 1–68. ZILH‚O J., D´ERRICO F., BORDES J.-G., LENOBLE A., TEXIER J.-P., RIGAUD J.-P. 2006. Analysis of Aurignacian interstratification at the Châtelperronian-type site and implications for the behavioural modernity of Neanderthals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America103/33, 12643–12648.

Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (2): 45–55.

L’ARBREDA’S ARCHAIC AURIGNACIAN DATES CLARIFIED Joaquim Soler Subils, Narcís Soler Masferrer and Juli´ Maroto Universitat de Girona, Facultat de Lletres, Plaça Ferrater i Mora 1, 17071 Girona, Spain [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract In recent years several authors have expressed their doubts as to the validity of L’Arbreda’s Archaic Aurignacian dates. In this paper we reaffirm their validity and address recent criticisms on the early age of the assemblage. To support our arguments, we provide further data on the spatial context of both finds and dated samples.

INTRODUCTION The Paleolithic sites of Seriny´ (Catalonia, Spain) (Fig. 1) provide a fairly complete record of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic from the northeastern Iberian peninsula. Most of the sites in Seriny´ have long stratigraphies and together offer valuable insights into the prehistory of this area during the last 250,000 years. The most significant sites are Bora Gran d’en Carreres (Upper Madalenian), Reclau Viver cave (Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean, Neolithic and Metal Ages), L’Arbreda Cave (Middle Paleolithic, Upper Paleolithic, Neolithic and Metal Ages), Pau Cave (Gravettian, Solutrean, Neolithic and Metal Ages) and Mollet Cave (Middle Paleolithic and Aurignacian) (Soler, 1999). Another relevant find near Seriny´ is the Neandertal mandible from Banyoles (Maroto, 1993). It was found in 1887 in the vicinity of Mata, in a lacustrine area in Banyoles. Recently, combined non-destructive ESR and U-series analysis yielded an age of 66,000 ± 7000 BPESR & U-series for this mandible (Grün et al., 2006). The lake of Banyoles also provides a 30,000 year record of climate changes (Pérez-Obiol and Juli´, 1994), which complement the results obtained in neighboring caves (Burjachs and Renault-Miskovsky, 1992). L’Arbreda Cave preserves one of the longest continuous stratigraphic and cultural sequences in

this area and provides the most accurate information in the eastern Pyrenees about the changes that occurred between the late Middle and early Upper Paleolithic (Maroto et al., 1996). Of special interest are the 14C AMS dates which document the chronology of this rupture. In short, they indicate an early presence of the Archaic Aurignacian in the eastern Pyrenees, which, combined with other archaeological data, indicates a very abrupt local change between the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic. The dates for L’Arbreda’s level H (Archaic Aurignacian) cluster around ca. 38,300 ± 500 14C BP and those for level I (Late Mousterian) around 39,900 ± 600 14C BP (Bischoff et al., 1989; Soler and Maroto, 1993; Maroto et al., 1996) (Table 1). The Archaic Aurignacian level H has been studied from several perspectives: the typology and technology of the lithic and bone artifacts (Soler, 1986; Ortega, 2002; Ortega et al., 2005), the overall cultural distinction between the late Mousterian and the Archaic Aurignacian (Maroto, 1994), palynology (Burjachs and Renault-Miskovsky, 1992), anthracology (Ros, 1987) and zooarchaeology (Maroto, 1994; Maroto et al., 1996). We assume that those changes parallel the arrival of Homo sapiens sapiens in the eastern Pyrenees (Maroto et al., 1996).

46

Fig. 1.

J. Soler et al.

Location of Seriny´ in the eastern Pyrenees

From level H, four different samples of charcoal gave the following AMS dates: 37,700 ± 1,000 14C BP (AA-3779), 37,700 ± 1,000 14C BP (AA-3780), 39,900 ± 1,300 14C BP (AA-3781), 38,700 ± 1,200 14C BP (AA-3782) (Bischoff et al., 1989). A conventional 14C date yielded a result of >33,500 14C BP (Beta-46690) (Soler and Maroto, 1993), which does not contradict the first dates. Finally, two more AMS dates were obtained on bones from level H: 37,340 ± 1,000 14C BP (OxA-3729) and 35,480 ± 820 14C BP (OxA3730) (Hedges et al., 1994) (Table 1). The average of 38,300 ± 500 14C BP has been calculated excluding the date of 35,480 ± 820 14C BP because it does not overlap with the other dates, and that of 33,500 14C BP (Maroto et al., 1996: 227). For the latest Mousterian (level I) there were three AMS dates from three different samples of charcoal: 39,400 ± 1,400 14C BP (AA 3776), 34,100 ± 750 14C BP (AA-3777) and 41,100 ±

1,600 14C BP (AA-3778) (Bischoff et al., 1989; cf. Soler and Maroto, 1993). A later AMS date on bone yielded a result of 44,560 ± 2,400 14C BP (OxA-3731) (Hedges et al., 1994) (Table 1). The average of 39,900 ± 600 14C BP has been calculated using all four available dates because all of them are similarly dispersed (Maroto et al., 1996: 221). A conventional 14C date of 25,830 ± 400 14C BP (Gif-6422) for level H was reported earlier by Delibrias et al. (1987), which we reject because it falls outside the mean temporal range of the Archaic Aurignacian. It has since become apparent that this recent age results from the sampling of different squares, some of which were situated within the younger, Evolved Aurignacian of level G (Soler and Maroto, 1993). Aside from this one exception, we believe all other dates are valid and consistent with L’Arbreda’s stratigraphy and with the cultural contexts they date. Dates from L’Arbreda have become controversial because of their importance to debates surrounding the chronological boundary between the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic in Mediterranean Western Europe. The chronometric results from L’Arbreda are not isolated. In Catalonia, the sites of Reclau Viver (near L’Arbreda in Seriny´) and Abric Romaní (Capellades) have also yielded very early dates for the Archaic Aurignacian. The Archaic Aurignacian level A from Reclau Viver gave an age of 40,000 ± 1,400 14C BP (Maroto et al., 1996) and that from Abric Romaní 37,000 ± 2,000 14C BP (Bischoff et al., 1994). These sites offer comparable, coherent, and, from our point of view, acceptable dates for the Archaic Aurignacian in Spain. On the other hand, for historical reasons they do not provide the same secure context as those coming from L’Arbreda. Reclau Viver and Abric Romaní were dug with stratigraphic controls, but from Reclau Viver there is no detailed documentation of the specific location of the finds and the dated samples. At Abric Romaní, the samples were collected from the rock-shelter’s wall. The dates from both sites are in accord with the dates from L’Arbreda, and the 14 C dates from Abric Romaní do not contradict the associated U-Series dates (Bischoff et al., 1994). However, because of these concerns, we argue that the most acceptable dates for the interface between the Middle and the Upper

L’Arbreda’s Archaic Aurignacian

47

Table 1 C dates associated with the Mousterian and Aurignacian boundary from sites in Seriny´

14

Square Level Depth (cm) Cultural Attribution Cova de l'Arbreda D2 & Archaic D3 H* 505 - 540* Aurignacian* & ES* E2 & E3

H

E3

H

E2

I

Method

E3: 510-520 E2: 515-535 514 550.5 550-555 550-555 550-555 550-555 575-580 575-580 575-580

latest Mousterian

578-579

Lab-code

Date

STD

Reference

400

Delibrias et al., 1987

14

C

charcoal

Gif 6422

25,830

14

C

charcoal

Beta-46690

>33,500

1 bone OxA-3729 1 bone OxA-3730 1 charcoal AA-3779 1 charcoal AA-3780 1 charcoal AA-3181 1 charcoal AA-3182 1 charcoal AA-3776 1 charcoal AA-3777 1 charcoal AA-3778 1 bone (3 OxA-3731 frags)

37,340 35,480 37,700 37,700 39,900 38,700 39,400 34,100 41,400

14

Archaic Aurignacian

Sample

C AMS C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS 14 C AMS

14

14

C AMS

14

C AMS

1 bone

OxA-3728

33,780

14

C AMS C AMS

1 bone 1 bone

OxA-3726 OxA-3727

30,190 40,000

44,560

Soler & Maroto, 1993 1,000 Maroto 820 et al., 1996 1,000 1,000 Bischoff 1,300 et al., 1989 1,320 750 Bischoff 750 et al., 1989 1,600 Maroto 2,400 et al., 1996

Cova de Mollet Aurignacian Reclau Viver B Level B Typical Aurignacian A Level A Archaic Aurignacian * mixed with the Evolved Aurignacian of level G

14

Paleolithic in the eastern Pyrenees come from the modern excavations at L’Arbreda (Table 1). However, the dates from L’Arbreda’s Archaic Aurignacian level H have been questioned (d’Errico et al., 1998) and eventually rejected (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 1999, 2000, 2003; Zilh±o, 2006). The apparent reason for their rejection is because the dates are too early to support two of their hypotheses: a) Castelperronian inventories with personal ornaments pre-date those in Aurignacian contexts, and b) modern humans arrive in Iberia at a later date. Most disturbing is the fact that the same dates that Zilh±o and d’Errico discard, are later recruited in favor of their hypothetical biocultural frontier along the Ebro river: “It would therefore seem that the valley of the Ebro functioned for some 5000–10,000 years as a major biocultural frontier: to the north, Western Europe, was occu-

730

Maroto et al., 1996

500 Maroto 1,400 et al., 1996

pied from ca. 40,000–38,000 years B.P. (as unequivocally shown by the dates obtained for L’Arbreda and Abric Romaní [Bischoff et al. 1989, 1994]), by modern humans producing an Aurignacian material culture; to the south, the rest of Iberia continued to be occupied ca. 30,000–28,000 years B. P., by Neanderthals with a Middle Paleolithic material culture” (d’Errico et al., 1998: 19). In order to invalidate L’Arbreda’s chronostratigraphic sequence, Zilh±o and d’Errico focused on issues of possible sample contamination, potential stratigraphic disturbances, and inconsistencies in the interpretation of site formation. These criticisms are highly inconsistent with our field data, and because they continue to be espoused (Zilh±o 2006), we address them systematically.

48

J. Soler et al.

L’ARBREDA’S ARCHAIC AURIGNACIAN (PROTOAURIGNACIAN) L’Arbreda’s level H has been excavated along a surface of 14 m2. No spatial management structure was identified during the excavation, perhaps because the level has been only partially excavated. However, level H shows a high degree of integrity as indicated by the diversity of the faunal and lithic remains. Because of the low NMI of large mammals in a diversified spectrum, the absence of intensive lithic reduction, and the overrepresentation of retouched bladelets, we interpret level H as resulting from short-term occupations by small human groups. In total, the lithic remains of level H consist of about 2,300 objects longer than 1 cm and many more small lithic fragments. From a typological point of view the level is characterized by a high proportion of Dufour bladelets, which represent 40.0% (n = 92) of the retouched products. Retouched blades represent 11% of the tools (n=25). Burins, most of them flat or dihedral, are abundant (9.6%, n = 22) and are only slightly better represented than end-scrapers (7%, n = 16), which are mostly thick (bladelet cores). Simple end-scrapers are rare. We find Aurignacian blades (4.4%, n = 10), composite tools (mostly end-scrapers and burins on blade, 2.2%, n = 5), Font-Yves bladelets (0.9%, n=2) and some truncated elements (0.4%, n= 1) in low frequencies. Scrapers (7.5%, n = 17), denticulates and notches (10.5%, n = 24), most of them produced on flakes of local raw materials other than flint, represent the remainder of the retouched tools (Maroto et al., 1996, Ortega et al., 2005). The bone industry is not abundant but is diverse in the typological forms identified and it is characteristic of the Archaic and Ancient (or Typical) Aurignacian. There are three bone points with split bases, two spatulas, two awls, and a proximal fragment of a probable ivory spear point (Maroto et al., 1996). The presence of three split-base bone points in L’Arbreda indicates that such artifacts were already present in the Archaic Aurignacian (Protoaurignacian), as the Ancient or Typical Aurignacian are not represented here. The level above, level G, is clearly an Evolved Aurignacian with losangic bone points and household features (hearths).

Level H, as in all the other Upper Paleolithic levels, is dominated by a high proportion of raw materials (71% of the lithics >1 cm) coming from very far away. They are mostly flints with fine knapping qualities which do not occur in this north-eastern region of Catalonia but were transported over distances of more than 100 km. Most come from the northern slopes of the Pyrenees and the southern areas of the Mediterranean Languedoc (Ortega, 2002, Ortega et al., 2005). Blade and bladelets were primarily produced on these imported raw materials. This fact allows us to easily isolate the products of such operational chains from those focusing on the production of flakes, which always relied on local raw materials such as quartz and quartzite. L’Arbreda’s level H has all the attributes characteristic of the Archaic Aurignacian (Protoaurignacian): large, rectilinear Dufour bladelets, the marginal presence of the director types of a Typical Aurignacian, and the implementation of diverse bladelet production methods, with flakes used as cores for the production of the big and rectilinear Dufours (Ortega et al., 2005). In comparison, the Mousterian level I differs significantly from the Archaic Aurignacian level H, both in terms of typological and technological characteristics, displaying different lithic raw material procurement and management strategies (Maroto et al., 1996).

SAMPLE CONTAMINATION AND CONTEXT In their discussion on the supposed general chemical contamination of bones from L’Arbreda Zilh±o and d’Errico refer to the conventional date on charcoal from the Archaic Aurignacian level H of 25,830 ± 400 14C BP (Gif-6422). In the original publication of this sample the authors declared clearly that “seul l’âge du niveau le plus profond ´ l’Arbreda: 25830 ± 400 ans (Gif-6422), niveau attribué ´ l’Aurignacien ancien paraît un peu jeune. Mais les dates satisfaisantes obtenues pour les niveaux supérieurs indiquent que la grotte de l’Arbreda est un gisement bien protégé, apparemment ´ l’abri des contaminations récentes; et ce résultat ne paraît donc pas, ´ priori, plus suspect que ceux qui ont été obtenus pour les niveaux sus-jacents” (Delibrias et al., 1987: 135). We

L’Arbreda’s Archaic Aurignacian

have already explained the reason for such a young date. Therefore, in the absence of any other aberrant date and, on the basis of the coherence shown by the rest of dates, claims about any supposed general contamination of L’Arbreda cannot be supported. With respect to L’Arbreda’s dates, Zilh±o and d’Errico also address the controversy regarding possible discrepancies between 14C AMS dates on bone and those on charcoal. In response to the radiocarbon results on charcoal for L’Arbreda’s level H that date to around ca. 38.0 ka 14C BP, Zilh±o and d’Errico affirm that the earliest northern Spanish Aurignacian never pre-dates ca. 35.0 ka 14C BP when bone samples are considered. In reality, no inconsistencies have been observed between the dates on charcoal and those on bone at L’Arbreda. Instead, claimed differences between both kinds of sample are not exclusively related to a single site, but have to be attributed to lab equipment and sample preparation methods (Jöris et al., 2003). However, Zilh±o and d’Errico’s arguments are faulty because they omit an AMS date on bone from L’Arbreda’s level H of 37,340 ± 1,000 14C BP (OxA-3729; Maroto et al., 1996). Having omitted sample OxA-3729, they suggest a series of possible reasons why the charcoal dates from level H turned out much older than the remaining bone date of 35,480 ± 820 14C BP (OxA-3730). The first argument is that the charcoal samples could reflect the presence of an inherited soil component in the sediments (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 1999: 21). In this way, “the topographic features of the site suggest that what has been dated is the samples of inherited charcoal from eroded soils older than and not associated with the archaeological components of the levels where they have been collected. In the framework of the extreme climatic instability of oxygen-isotope stage 3, erosion and redeposition must have affected soil covers and karstic fills, particularly at sites such as l’Arbreda, a very open rock-shelter where the finer element in the deposits corresponds to the redeposition, through washing or gravity of the sedimentary cover of the plateau above the shelter’s overhang” (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 1999: 21). As the excavators of L’Arbreda, we are not aware of any eroded soil related to the levels in

49

Fig. 2. Plan view of the excavation area in L’Arbreda Cave. The gray areas represent the length and width of the trenches and should be correlated with figures 3 and 4

question that could lead to such conclusions. Our observations are confirmed by sedimentological (Bischoff et al., 1989) and magnetic susceptibility analyses (Harrold et al., 2003). It is also unclear as to how the climatic instability of oxygen-isotope stage 3 (OIS 3), which is not reflected in L’Arbreda’s sediments, should have affected the site, as it remains unknown whether L’Arbreda was an open cave, a closed rock-shelter, or a closed cave at that time. What is true is that L’Arbreda, due to its infilling, the collapse of its roof during the late Solutrean, and its Holocene sediment cover, looks very different now from its OIS 3 appearance. In particular, Zilh±o and d’Errico speculate that some unspecified topographic similarities with the site of El Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria) explain possible re-deposition of the charcoals sampled at L’Arbreda. We, the excavators of the site, cannot understand what they mean by this “topographic parallelism” (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 1999). Here, we repeat our claim that the archaeological context of the dated samples is secure and clear, a contention we support by providing distributions of the finds and the provenance of the dated samples (Figs 2–4).

50

Fig. 3.

J. Soler et al.

Distribution of the finds from L’Arbreda Cave along Profile D/E (north-south, 60 cm wide)

THE SEDIMENTOLOGICAL NATURE OF L’ARBREDA’S LEVELS Zilh±o and d’Errico go on to focus their criticism on the integrity of L’Arbreda’s stratigraphy. For their purposes they resurrect the date of ca. 37.0 ka 14C BP, which they have previously omitted, and consider the dates against the stratigraphy. They say that, “the fact that the AMS date on bone for the lowermost Aurignacian of l’Arbreda (35.480 ± 820 BP) [OxA-3730] is younger than that obtained for another bone sample in intermediate position between the early and the late Aurignacian (37,340 ± 1000 BP [OxA-3729] and the existence of a 34,100 ± 1000 BP (AA-3777) result on charcoal for the underlying Mousterian suggest a complex stratigraphic situation” (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 1999: 23). In general, the criticism centers on our excavation and interpretative techniques as well as on

a confused stratigraphy. They claim that “because of the way the site was excavated (by artificial horizontal spits that could not account for the natural inclination of the strata), and because of the stratigraphic inversion of some results, picking only the earliest of them as those really associated with the first Aurignacian of the site was an erroneous procedure” (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 2003: 316). We agree that many of our common concerns could be resolved more easily if L’Arbreda showed clear sedimentological differences between the different levels, but this is not always the case: most of the recent Pleistocene filling of L’Arbreda, from the Mousterian until the late Solutrean, is too similar to allow for the distinction of any clear sedimentological facies. The reason for this homogeneity is likely the common source of the sediments and the nature of trans-

L’Arbreda’s Archaic Aurignacian

Fig. 4.

51

Distribution of the finds from L’Arbreda Cave along Profile 4/3 (east-west, 20 cm wide)

port. The vast majority of the material infilling L’Arbreda originates from the Usall lacustrine platform located near the site. In fact, the travertine cliff where the caves in Seriny´ are found constitutes the western edge of this lacustrine area. The terra rossa sediments found at L’Arbreda originate from the Usall’s Quaternary limestones, and other sediments originate from two small Eocenic hills composed of marls and sandstones. Due to constant stream activity and overflows related to the proximity of a lacustrine area and a cliff, water was more or less continuously streaming from the neighboring Usall lacustrine platform and represents the main source of sediment accumulation. The effects of climatic variation on the sediments never altered the composition of the source sediments enough to create any sedimentological break in the cave. Excavation at L’Arbreda is not only difficult due to this sedimentological context, but also because of the slope of some levels and the presence

of many decimetric and metric blocks of travertine, which combine to hamper efforts to trace the extension of particular levels. In the absence of any clear sedimentological boundaries on the vertical axis and the discontinuous nature of levels on the horizontal axis, we proceeded to excavate the levels by artificial 5 cm thick spits. All lithic objects larger than 1 cm were plotted, and the spit system allowed us to delimit spatial orientation of all objects including those without coordinates. When possible, we combined this method with a true excavation in extension of the levels. In some squares where two levels are in close stratigraphic proximity, this method has problems because a few objects from two different levels may be found in the same spit. But this situation did not result in the confusion that Zilh±o and d’Errico claim. Those spits never provided samples for radiometric analysis. Samples were never collected from such contexts because we were aware of L’Arbreda’s characteristics and the con-

52

J. Soler et al.

straints of our excavation strategy. In the case of square E2, where the charcoal samples from level H and level I were collected, four spits (20 cm) between levels H and I were not sampled in order to avoid any potential contamination. Therefore, we are confident that we dated only samples from secure contexts. We only sampled charcoal and bones from the splits that contained only Aurignacian or Mousterian objects.

Zilh±o and d’Errico miss the point, the levels are defined by their archaeological remains (vestiges) and not by their sedimentological components. The levels are separated from each other by archaeologically-impoverished spaces and travertine blocks. In some places the levels are very near one another or are in close contact. In these cases, the spits with such contact were defined and their contents omitted when the radiocarbon sampling took place.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL NATURE OF L’ARBREDA’S LEVELS

SPATIAL PLOTS

The delineation of L’Arbreda’s levels is one of the main concerns of the critics. In general, Zilh±o and d’Errico claim, incorrectly, that L’Arbreda and other key sites are palimpsests and that the dates from such sites are not so clear as others. In fact, palimpsests are only “the cumulative products of intermittent episodes of deposition resulting from high residential mobility” (Galanidou, 1997: 1). Most of the Paleolithic record is composed of palimpsests and we learn to deal with them without considering them a defect of the record (Galanidou, 1997). At L’Arbreda there are remains from several occupations, spanning the Middle Paleolithic to the Bronze Age. In that sense, we could describe it as a palimpsest (and still a moderate one, with good preservation of the remains), but that does not imply that the occupations are disturbed. Precisely for this reason, L’Arbreda is an interesting place to study cultural and temporal changes during the Paleolithic, particularly those that occurred at the boundary between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. Our excavation methods and interpretations reflect an appreciation of this fact. Our concept of what is an archaeological level coincides with the Dictionnaire de la Préhistoire. “Niveau: Ensemble d’élements (vestiges, sédiment) qui se trouvent dans la mÃme position stratigraphique” (Leclerc and TarrÃte, 1988). In the same way, at L’Arbreda, the results of many different intermittent occupations have been identified in situ and grouped in levels, which are archaeostratigraphic units as valid as any other. Sometimes we could follow them along their horizontal extension, but usually we could not. Therefore, at L’Arbreda, and here is where

Because some of the questions and suppositions raised by the critics can be answered and rejected with the distributions of the finds, we introduce them here. The spatial plots from L’Arbreda presented in figures 2–4 display all piece-plotted objects that were contained in a variable strip from the cave, which we always mapped in situ (Fig. 2). The width of the slice is different in every plot in order to account for the slope of the levels and to include only the pertinent data. The raw data displayed come from the excavation profiles and field books, which are regularly digitized, entered in a database, and analysed and displayed with a GIS program (GRASS Development Team 2007). The criticisms we consider here are twofold: first the existence and nature of L’Arbreda’s levels and, second, the issue of miss-sampling. The second criticism has been expressed in several ways: “Les assemblages lithiques et fauniques ont été attribués ´ un «Moustérien récent», ´ un «Aurignacien inférieur» et ´ un «Aurignacién évolué» une fois la fouille terminée et ne sont donc pas associés ´ des horizons stratigraphiques définis. Par conséquent, l’association entre le matériel archéologique et les échantillons datés, qu’ils proviennent d’os ou de charbons, n’est pas établie” (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 2000: 28). On the contrary, in the first publication of the AMS dates in 1989, the assemblages of objects related to the dated spits were already presented, showing in every case the clear Mousterian or Aurignacian nature of each spit sampled (Bischoff et al., 1989). However, because the distribution of the finds and the samples, and their relationship to the levels has been published, the plots

L’Arbreda’s Archaic Aurignacian

presented here will enhance the amount of data available. Interpretation of plot near profile (D/E) In this plot the finds found between the eastern 10 cm from the D squares’ row and the western 50 cm of the E squares’ row are plotted (Fig. 3). The filled black rectangular symbols represent the bone samples dated by 14C AMS (Maroto et al., 1996). The dashed boxes indicate the spits where charcoal samples were collected and dated in a previous dating effort (Bischoff et al., 1989). The open rectangular symbol indicates a splitbase bone point. The distribution of the finds shows that in all cases the samples were clearly collected in the H and I levels. There is a very low possibility of contamination or miss-sampling, because, to the south, a huge travertine block separates the H and I levels. To the north, some splits between the two levels were left aside and not sampled (light grey points). Therefore, in square E2, the levels are in direct contact, but those spits were not sampled, as has been claimed (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 2000). Because of the huge travertine block mentioned, level H slopes slightly towards the north. The plot clearly shows the association between the samples (OxA-3730 and OxA-3729) and the level H which they are supposed to date. Finally, the dates of 37,340 ± 1,000 14C BP (OxA-3729) and 35,480 ± 820 14C BP (OxA-3730) could only be considered inverted if the latter one was dating the underlying level, but in fact they both date the same level. Furthermore, both dates are statistically identical at 2s and should be read as contemporary (Hedges et al., 1994). The age difference is minimal and we are near the limit of the dating method. Only those expecting too much precision from 14C dating could suggest such inversions (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 2003: 316). Interpretation of plot near profile 4/3 In this plot the finds comprise a 20 cm slice between the columns of rows 3 and 4 (Fig. 4). It has been chosen to show the association between level H, containing a typical Aurignacian splitbase bone point, and a large travertine block isolating this level from the underlying Mousterian level I.

53

A black filled rectangular symbol marks the bone sample in level H (Archaic Aurignacian) that gave a date of 37,340 ± 1,000 14C BP (OxA-3729). Very close to it, a black stroked rectangular symbol represents an Aurignacian split-base bone point. Therefore, the distribution of the finds clearly illustrates, yet again, the correct association between the samples and the levels which we wanted to date, and the isolated position of this sample in regard to the Mousterian level I. No “direct contact” (Zilh±o and d’Errico, 2000) between levels H and I existed here. Therefore, we reject the criticism of miss-sampling and reassert the archaeological significance of the results and of our interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS In this paper we have presented a wide variety of data regarding criticisms that arose during the last few years, almost exclusively by Zilh±o and d’Errico who expressed their doubts on the validity of the dates of L’Arbreda’s Archaic Aurignacian. In order to reject these criticisms we have clarified aspects of the site’s stratigraphy and excavation methods. We have also presented new stratigraphic and horizontal distributions of the finds and the samples dated. In light of these new data, concerns regarding the coherence of L’Arbreda’s stratigraphy, chronometric misssampling, and the cultural attribution of level H can no longer exist. Therefore, as long as confidence in the radiocarbon method remains, the significance of the dates from L’Arbreda cannot be discounted. Acknowledgments The research at L’Arbreda is supported by the Culture Department of the Generalitat de Catalunya, the Archaeological Museum of Catalonia, l’Institut d’Estudis Catalans, the County of the Pla de l’Estany and the University of Girona. The work of Joaquim Soler Subils is sustained by a postdoctoral grant from the Spanish Ministry for Education and Science and the research facilities of the University of Tübingen. The authors would also like to thank the project El noreste peninsular desde el primer auriñaciense hasta la fin del solutrense (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, HUM 2007-63435/HIST). We thank Anthony Marks for the advices and the revision of this text.

54

J. Soler et al.

REFERENCES BISCHOFF J. L., SOLER N., MAROTO J., JULIƒ R. 1989. Abrupt Mousterian/ Aurignacian Boundary at c. 40 ka bp: Accelerator 14C dates from L’Arbreda Cave (Catalunya, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 563–576. BISCHOFF J. L., LUDWIG K., GARCIA J. F., CARBONELL E, VAQUERO M., STAFFORD T. W., JULL A. J. T. 1994. Dating of the Basal Aurignacian Sandwich at Abric Romaní (Catalunya, Spain) by radiocarbon and uranium-Series. Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 541–551. BURJACHS F., RENAULT-MISKOVSKY J. 1992. Paléonvironnement et Paléoclimatologie de la Catalogne durant pres de 30.000 ans (du Würmien ancien au début de l’HolocÀnce) d’aprés la palinologie du site de l’Arbreda (Gérone, Catalogne). Quaternaire 3/2, 75–85. DELIBRIAS G., ROMAIN O., LE HASIF G. 1987. Datation par la méthose du carbone 14 du remplissage de la grotte de l’Arbreda, Cypsela 6, 133– 135. D’ERRICO F., ZILH‚O J., JULIEN M., BAFFIER D., PELEGRIN J. 1998. Neandertal acculturation in Western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation, Current Anthropology 39, 1– 44. GALANIDOU N. 1997. ‘Home is Where the Hearth is’. The Spatial Organisation of the Upper Paleolithic Rockshelter Occupations at Klithi and Kastritsa in Northwest Greece. BAR International Series 687, Oxford. GRASS Development Team 2007. Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS), ITC-irst, Trento, http://grass.itc.it. GRÜN R., MAROTO J., EGGINS S., STRINGER Ch., ROBERTSON S., Lois TAYLOR, MORTIMER G., McCULLOCH M. 2006. ESR und U-Series analyses of enamel and dentine fragments of the Banyoles mandible. Journal of Human Evolution 50, 347– 358. HARROLD F. B., ELLBOOD B. B., THACKER P. T., BENOIST S. L. 2003. Magnetic Susceptibility analysis of sediments at the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition for two cave sites in northern Spain. In: J. Zilh±o and F. d’Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and transitional technocomplexes. Dating stratigraphies, cultural implications, Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of the XIVth Congress UISPP, Trabalhos de Arqueología 33, 301–310. HEDGES R. E. M., HOUSLEY R. A., RAMSEY C. B., VAN KLINKEN G. J. 1994. Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: datelist 18, Archaeometry 36/2, 337–374. JÖRIS O., ÁLVAREZ FERNÁNDEZ E., WENINGER

B. 2003. Radiocarbon evidence of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Southwestern Europe, Trabajos de Prehistoria 60/2, 15–38. LECLERC J., TARRETE J. 1988. Niveau. In: A. Leroi-Gourhan (dir.), Dictionnaire de la Préhistoire, Presses Universitaires de France, 753. MAROTO J. (ed.) 1994. La mandíbula de Banyoles en el context dels fàssils humans del PleistocÀ. SÀrie Monogr´fica, 13, Centre d’Investigacions Arqueolàgiques, Girona. MAROTO J. 1994. El pas del paleolític mitj´ al paleolític superior a Catalunya i la seva interpretació dins del context geogr´fic franco-ibric. Tesi Doctoral, Universitat de Girona. MAROTO J., SOLER N., FULLOLA J. M. 1996. Cultural change between Middle and Upper Paleolithic in Catalonia. In: E. Carbonell and M. Vaquero (eds.), The Last Neandertals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans: a Tale about the Human Diversity. Cultural Change and Human Revolution at 40 ka BP. Capellades, 210–250. ORTEGA D. 2002. Mobilitat i desplaçaments dels grups caçadors-recollectors a inicis del paleolític superior a la regió pirinenca oriental, Cypsela 14, 11– 26. ORTEGA D., SOLER N., MAROTO J. 2005. La production des lamelles pendant l’aurignacien archaÎque dans a grotte de l’Arbreda: organisation de la production variabilité des méthodes et des objectives. In: F. Le Brun-Ricalens (coord) Production lamellaires attribuées ´ l’Aurignacien: Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles, Archéologiques, 1, Luxembourg, 359–373. PÉREZ-OBIOL R., JULIƒ R. 1994. Climate change on the Iberian Peninsula recorded in a 30.000 yr pollen record from Lake Banyoles. Quaternary Research 41, 91–98. ROS M. T. 1987, An´lisi antracolàgica de la cova de l’Arbreda, Cypsela 6, 67–71. SOLER N. 1986. Les indústries del Paleolític Superior en el Nord de Catalunya, Tesi de Doctorat, Universitat de Barcelona. SOLER N. 1999. Le Paléolithique des grottes de Seriny´ (Gérone, Catalogne, Espagne). In: D. Sacchi (ed.) Les faciÀs leptolithiques du nord-ouest méditerranéen: milieux naturels et culturels. XXIVe CongrÀs Préhistorique de France, Société Préhistorique Française, MinistÀre de la Culture, Carcassonne, 195–220. SOLER N., MAROTO J. 1993. Les nouvelles datations de l’Aurignacien dans la Péninsule Ibérique. In: L. Bánesz and J. K. Kozlowski (eds.), Aurignacien en Europe et au Proche Orient. Actes du XIIe CongrÀs International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques 2. Bratislava, 162–173.

L’Arbreda’s Archaic Aurignacian ZILH‚O J., D’ERRICO F. 1999. The chronology and taphonomy of the earliest Aurignacian and its implications for the understanding of Neandertal extinction, Journal of World Prehistory 13, 1–68. ZILH‚O J., D’ERRICO F. 2000. La nouvelle bataille aurignacienne. Une révision critique de la chronologie du Châtelperronien et de l’Aurignacien ancien, L’Anthropologie 104/1, 17–50. ZILH‚O J., D’ERRICO F. 2003. The chronology of the Aurignacian and Transitional technocomplexes.

55

Where do we stand?. In: J. Zilhao and F. d’Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and transitional technocomplexes. Dating stratigraphies, cultural implications, Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of the XIVth Congress UISPP, Trabalhos de Arqueología, 33, 313–349. ZILH‚O J. 2006. Chronostratigraphy of the Middleto-Upper Paleolithic Transition in the Iberian Peninsula, PYRENAE 37/1, 7–84.

Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (2): 19–29.

WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT THE SPATIAL-TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF EARLY AURIGNACIAN INNOVATIONS? Michael Bolus and Nicholas J. Conard Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters, Abteilung Ältere Urgeschichte und Quartärökologie, Schloss Hohentübingen, D-72070 Tübingen, Germany; [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract In order to analyze the spatial-temporal distribution of early Aurignacian innovations, this paper addresses two major research questions: how the early Aurignacian artifact assemblages are characterized and what cultural innovations provide useful markers for the development and spread of the Aurignacian. Based on ESR and TL dates and a large number of radiocarbon dates from the Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura in southwestern Germany, we argue that some innovations of the Aurignacian are documented at an early date in this region. The Swabian Aurignacian also provides a distinctive regional signature for lithic and organic technology, ornaments, figurative art and musical instruments. We view the early Aurignacian and Fumanian as separate technocomplexes of similar ages with distinct spatial distributions and distinct signatures in material culture. The Danube Corridor and Kulturpumpe models, used to explain the situation in the Swabian Jura, are discussed. In order to test these models this paper compares the spatial-temporal patterns of Aurignacian innovations in western Eurasia. The Upper Danube Valley is seen as one key center of cultural development during the early Upper Paleolithic. Other centers of innovation are indicated by the early appearance of Upper Paleolithic innovations in other regions such as northern Italy and northeastern Spain. Special attention is given to the split-based points as one of the major type-fossils of the early Aurignacian.

INTRODUCTION The Aurignacian is the first Upper Paleolithic technocomplex documented over large parts of Europe (Hahn, 1977; Delporte, 1998). Although these assemblages show distinct regional signals, they are characterized by numerous common features, both technological and behavioral, especially a number of innovations which we associate with anatomically modern humans. To answer the question raised in the title, this paper will address two major research questions: 1) what characterizes the earliest Aurignacian artifact assemblages? 2) what cultural innovations provide useful markers for the development and spread of the Aurignacian? The first focus will be on the Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura in southwestern Germany and its implications for the diffusion of early Upper Paleolithic innovations. The results will be com-

pared with data from other regions. The largest part of the paper will be dedicated to the discussion and the conclusions which can be drawn with regard to the spatial-temporal distribution of early Aurignacian innovations. Useful markers for the development and spread of the Aurignacian are innovations which appear together with this technocomplex and which are unknown or very rare in the preceding Middle Paleolithic. Among these innovations are both new lithic and organic technologies and tool types. Much more impressive, however, are art objects, personal ornaments, and musical instruments which were used to store and transfer symbolic information and therefore are often viewed as indicators for cultural and behavioral modernity (see for instance Wadley, 2001; d’Errico et al., 2003; Conard and Bolus, 2003; Bolus, 2004; Mellars, 2005; Conard, 2006; Zilh±o, 2007).

20

M. Bolus & N. J. Conard

THE EVIDENCE FROM THE SWABIAN JURA The Swabian Jura, with its famous cave sites in the Ach and Lone Valleys (Fig. 1) is one of the key regions for the discussion about early Aurignacian innovations. The fact that some of the innovations mentioned above are documented at an early date there led to the Danube Corridor and the Kulturpumpe hypotheses which see Swabia as one center of early Upper Paleolithic innovations (Conard and Bolus, 2003, 2006). While during the last years these models have been rejected by several authors including Jo±o Zilh±o and Francesco d’Errico (2003, 2004), and Alexander Verpoorte (2005), this paper presents data to test these models. ESR and TL dates and a large number of radiocarbon dates confirm the antiquity of the Swabian Aurignacian: While at Gei¢enklösterle Richter et al. (2000) have dated the Aurignacian of Archaeological Horizon (AH) III to ca 40 ka BPTL using the thermoluminescence signal of

Fig. 1.

burnt chert, the radiocarbon signature for the Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura ranges between 40 and 29 ka 14C BP, with most dates falling between 30 and 35 ka 14C BP (Conard and Bolus, 2003, 2006; for the most recent and complete datelists see Conard and Bolus, 2008). At each site where data are available, a stratigraphic break and an occupational hiatus separates the Aurignacian from the underlying Middle Paleolithic strata (Conard et al., 2006). Aside from stratigraphy, radical differences in lithic and organic technologies as well as in other classes of artifacts, including ornaments, figurative art, and musical instruments, separate Middle Paleolithic and Aurignacian assemblages. Since the Swabian Aurignacian appears suddenly in a highly developed form containing numerous regionally unique signatures, this material culture must have developed quickly with the makers of the Aurignacian, which in our view were anatomically modern humans. Moreover, it must have in part local roots, since many of its most prominent characteristics are unknown

Map of southwestern Germany with the principal Aurignacian sites in the Ach and Lone Valley

Early Aurignacian innovations

Fig. 2. Hohle Fels, Swabian Jura. Aurignacian ivory figurine depicting a water bird. Dimensions are 47 × 13 × 9 mm. Photo: H. Jensen. © University of Tübingen

in neighboring areas. For a detailed discussion of the variability in the artifact assemblages of the Swabian Aurignacian, see the text and figures presented in Conard and Bolus (2006). Four sites, Vogelherd and Hohlenstein-Stadel in the Lone Valley, and Gei¢enklösterle and

21

Hohle Fels in the Ach Valley (Fig. 1), have produced examples of carefully carved ivory figurines (Hahn, 1986; Schmid, 1989; Conard, 2003a; Conard et al., 2007). These works of figurative art are among the oldest examples known worldwide (Fig. 2). They fall into the time range between ca 35 and 30 ka 14C BP and are only lacking in the oldest Aurignacian deposits in Swabia (i.e., AH III of Gei¢enklösterle and AH Va of Hohle Fels). Personal ornaments from the Swabian Aurignacian include a wide array of perforated and grooved teeth from different carnivores and herbivores. The sites have also produced a broad variety of beads and pendants made from mammoth ivory (Conard, 2003b). Specific forms including finely carved double perforated beads are present in both the Ach and Lone Valley sites, but are un-

Fig. 3. Personal ornaments from the Swabian Aurignacian. 1–2 – Hohle Fels AH V; 6–14, 17–20 – Hohle Fels AH IV; 3–5 – Hohle Fels AH III; 21 – Gei¢enklösterle AH III; 15 – Gei¢enklösterle AH II; 16 – Bocksteinhöhle; 1–2, 9–10 – double perforated ivory beads; 3 – basket-shaped ivory bead; 4–5 – toggle shaped ivory objects; 6–7 –perforated fox canines; 8, 19–20 – half-finished ivory beads; 11–12 – disc-shaped ivory beads; 13 – ivory bead; 14 – perforated tooth; 15 – retoucher of antler used as pendant; 16 – perforated cave bear canine; 17 – perforated upper eyetooth from red deer; 18 – violin-shaped ivory pendant; 21 – bone bead. After Conard et al., 2006

22

M. Bolus & N. J. Conard

are earlier examples of musical instruments known, and both the traditions of figurative art and musical instruments from the Swabian Aurignacian are key examples of radical cultural changes that accompanied the appearance of the Aurignacian. These finds show that artifacts with symbolic meaning expressing cultural and behavioral modernity are much more common in the Aurignacian than in earlier periods.

ORNAMENTS AND FIGURATIVE ART FROM OTHER REGIONS

Fig. 4. Gei¢enklösterle, Swabian Jura. Ivory flute from the Aurignacian AH II. Photo: J. Lipták. © University of Tübingen

known in the Aurignacian of other regions. They appear throughout the whole temporal range of the Aurignacian in the Swabian Jura (Fig. 3). Finally, musical instruments have to be mentioned. Three flutes have been recovered from AH II at Gei¢enklösterle. Two are made from swan bones, and the third one (Fig. 4) was carefully carved from mammoth ivory (Hahn and Münzel, 1995; Conard et al., 2004). Additionally, three fragments from what appear to be a bone flute have recently been recovered during the re-excavations of Vogelherd (Conard and Malina, 2006). We assume that music was part of the daily culture of Swabian Aurignacian people. Nowhere

We know that anatomically modern humans outside Europe produced ornaments that are considerably older than those found in the Aurignacian. Recently, ca 100,000-year-old Middle Paleolithic shell beads from Skhul in Israel have been published (Vanhaeren et al., 2006) which add to the evidence of similar age from Qafzeh, also in Israel (Taborin, 2003); perforated shells from the MSA at Blombos cave in South Africa have an age of ca 75,000 years (Henshilwood et al., 2004). Only slightly older than, if not contemporaneous with the Aurignacian are ornaments from the Initial Upper Paleolithic and the Ahmarian of ÜçaÈÏzlÏ in Turkey (Kuhn et al., 2001) and perhaps from Ksar ‘Akil in the Lebanon (Mellars and Tixier, 1989), both with ages of ca 40 ka 14C BP. Roughly as old as the ornaments from the Swabian Aurignacian are grooved teeth from the so-called “Proto-Aurignacian” or, as we prefer to call it (Conard and Bolus, 2006), the Fumanian of Grotta di Fumane in northern Italy (Broglio et al., 2002; Broglio and Dalmeri, 2002), shell and non-shell ornaments from Riparo Mochi, also in northern Italy (Stiner, 2003), perforated marine mollusks from Arbreda in northeastern Spain (Maroto et al., 1996), and perhaps a variety of ornamental objects from the Early Upper Paleolithic deposits of Kara-Bom and Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains (Derevianko and Rybin, 2005; Derevianko and Shunkov, 2005). The earliest ornaments from southwestern France at sites including Castanet, Brassempouy, and Les Rois appear to be of similar age or slightly younger than the ornaments from the earliest Aurignacian of Swabia (White, 2007). The oldest unambiguous examples of figurative art are those from the Swabian Jura and sev-

Early Aurignacian innovations

eral monochrome depictions from Fumane (Broglio and Dalmeri, 2005). The spectacular paintings from Grotte Chauvet (Clottes, 2001) probably slightly postdate the oldest figurines from the Swabian Aurignacian by a couple of millennia. This means that figurative art does not appear in Europe, or for that matter anywhere else, prior to the Aurignacian or the Fumanian.

DISCUSSION: THE SPATIALTEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF EARLY AURIGNACIAN INNOVATIONS In accordance with the Danube Corridor and the Kulturpumpe models, there is good evidence of early Aurignacian innovations from the Swabian Jura, and nowhere in Europe is there clear evidence for earlier manifestations of a fully developed Aurignacian. Many artifact types, especially specific forms of ornaments, figurative art, and musical instruments are unique to Swabia, and the organic and lithic technologies show a strong local signature as has already been stated. As far as other regions are concerned, based on the work of colleagues including François Bon (2002), Alberto Broglio’s research team (Broglio

23

et al., 2002), and Nicolas Teyssandier (2007), it is becoming increasingly clear that the early Upper Paleolithic assemblages described as ‘ProtoAurignacian’ are different from the early Swabian Aurignacian and the Aurignacien ancien of southwestern France, while the technological and typological links between southwestern France and Swabia are obvious. The long, narrow laminar debitage and especially finely retouched and backed tools from the Fumane type assemblages (Fig. 5) are absent in the Swabian Aurignacian. Similarly, abundant evidence contrasts the art, ornaments and organic tools of the two regions. Marian Vanhaeren and Francesco d’Errico’s (2006) work on personal ornaments from the Aurignacian also points to links between the Swabian and southwestern French Aurignacian, as well as to the Belgian Aurignacian. Based on a number of technological and stylistic characteristics, these groups of sites are more closely related than those of other regions. The early dates from Swabia and the many innovations that characterize the Aurignacian of the region point to the Upper Danube Valley as one key center of cultural development during the early Upper Paleolithic between ca 40 and 35,000 years (Fig. 6). The Danube Corridor hypothesis

Fig. 5. Grotta di Fumane, Italy. Stone tools from the Fumanian deposits: 1–8 –backed points; 9–10 – truncated points; 11–13 – backed bladelets; 14 – carinated burin. After Broglio et al., 2002

24

M. Bolus & N. J. Conard

Fig. 6. Map showing Aurignacian and Fumanian sites dating to the time-span between ca 40 and 35 ka BP. This period reflects the initial phase of the development and spread of the Aurignacian

argues that modern humans migrated into central Europe via the Danube Valley. This would help to explain the early dates for the Swabian Aurignacian, as well as the early dates for the sites of Willendorf II and Keilberg-Kirche, and the fact that the Aurignacian represents a radical break in the cultural sequence of the region. We argue that modern humans arrived in a depopulated Swabian Jura, roughly 40,000 calendar years ago. The apparent absence or low population density of Neanderthals could be related to climatic stress associated with Heinrich cold event 4. The fossil evidence for the earliest anatomically modern Europeans, though very sparse, does not contradict the Danube Corridor hypothesis. With an age of ca 35 ka 14C BP, the directly dated human remains from Peºtera cu Oase in Romania (Trinkaus et al., 2003), unfortunately found without archaeological context, are the oldest anatomically modern humans, while the Aurignacian fossils from Mladeè in Moravia have been directly dated to ca 31 ka 14C BP (Wild et al., 2005) and thus are clearly younger. The oldest fossils from French Aurignacian sites such as La Quina Aval, Brassempouy, and Les Rois seem to be older than

Mlade¹ but younger than Oase (see Trinkaus, 2007 with references). Of course, other routes and other centers of innovation are probable, as indicated by the early appearance of Upper Paleolithic innovations in other regions such as northern Italy and northeastern Spain (Fig. 6). From these centers, the innovations spread rapidly as Upper Paleolithic populations occupied larger parts of Europe as is shown by the increasing number of Aurignacian and Fumanian sites between 35 and 32 ka 14C BP (Fig. 7). This process was accompanied by the displacement and eventual extinction of the indigenous Neanderthal populations, although a slight degree of interbreeding cannot be ruled out. The role of Eastern Europe and Central Asia where some relatively old dates for early Upper Paleolithic assemblages have been established (see Sinitsyn, 2003; Derevianko and Rybin, 2005; Derevianko and Shunkov, 2005), has yet to be determined. At present we do not have the chronological resolution to rigorously confirm or refute models for the origins of the Aurignacian and the other early Upper Paleolithic technocomplexes (for discussion see Bon 2002; Conard and Bolus,

Early Aurignacian innovations

25

Fig. 7. Map showing Aurignacian and Fumanian sites dating to the time-span between ca 35 and 32 ka BP. This period reflects the early phases of the expansion of the Aurignacian

2003, 2006, 2008; Conard et al., 2003a; Zilh±o and d’Errico, 2003; Teyssandier et al., 2006; Zilh±o, 2006; Teyssandier, 2007. This being said, the evidence for one of the early Upper Paleolithic innovations, the splitbased point which is often regarded as the most typical early Aurignacian type-fossil (Fig. 8) is of relevance here. None of the directly dated splitbased bone points or points of Mlade¹ type from the Swabian Jura and from Austria produced dates older than about 32,500 14C BP (Bolus and Conard, 2006). These data correspond with those from the French site of Trou de la MÀre Clochette (Brou, 1997, 2001), the British site of Uphill Quarry (Jacobi and Pettitt, 2000), Potoèka cave in Slovenia (Hofreiter and Pacher, 2004; Rabeder and Pohar, 2004), and several sites in eastern central Europe (Natural Environment Research Council, 2007). One serious problem is that up to now only a few points have been directly dated. What is obvious in any case is the fact that splitbased points are lacking in the oldest Aurignacian deposits from the Swabian Jura. Instead we find straight ivory points with solid bases (Fig. 9),

Fig. 8. Vogelherd, Swabian Jura. Aurignacian split-based points from AH V. Photo: H. Jensen. © University of Tübingen

26

M. Bolus & N. J. Conard

his conclusions on the basis of stratigraphic and geographic evidence. Although Mellars indicates in his map that the split-based points are not necessarily directly associated with the adjacent age estimates, his manner of illustration is very suggestive. In the light of new results from the directly dated split-based points mentioned above it must be stressed, however, that the diffusion of split-based points did not run parallel to the initial east-west dispersal of modern humans in Europe, at least as far as the eastern half of Europe is concerned. The initial dispersal of modern humans across much of Europe including Swabia predates the advent of split-based bone projectiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Fig. 9. Ivory points from the earliest Aurignacian assemblages of the Swabian Jura: 1 – Hohle Fels AH Va; 2 – Gei¢enklösterle AH III. After Bolus and Conard, 2006

which may be regarded as another regional signature of the earliest Swabian Aurignacian. These points have not yet been directly dated, but clearly underlay deposits bearing split-based points. A map recently published by Paul Mellars (2006) presents possible dispersal routes of modern populations across Europe and shows the distribution of split-based points. Some dates given in this map were produced using the Oxford ultrafiltration technique, and all values represent calibrated dates, thus tending to be older than the uncalibrated dates usually given. These dates argue for an east to west dispersal of modern humans, thus giving support to the Danube Corridor model. This work is in agreement with the results of a much earlier study by Henri Delporte (1958). Analyzing the distribution of split-based points, Delporte concluded that such points from central Europe were older than those from western Europe. He also argued that their distribution reflected an east-west diffusion of this innovation. In contrast to Mellars, Delporte could not argue on the basis of radiocarbon dates but had to draw

To conclude, the major points of the present paper be summarized in the following way: 1) the European early Upper Paleolithic is characterized by both early Aurignacian and Fumanian assemblages of similar ages with distinct spatial distributions and distinct signatures in material culture; when both technocomplexes are present at one and the same site, the Aurignacian always overlies the Fumanian; 2) there is clearly an Aurignacian predating the split-based point horizon; 3) considerable data point to Swabia as a key center of Aurignacian innovations with some unique innovations so far only documented in the Swabian record; and 4) having the evidence from other regions and other early Upper Paleolithic technocomplexes such as the Fumanian in mind, we envision a high degree of polycentric innovations in the early Upper Paleolithic of Europe. What we need now are precise local cultural stratigraphic sequences from well dated contexts. Additional field work such as that underway at Hohle Fels and Fumane are needed to produce the high resolution data to sort out the spatial and temporal patterns of population dynamics and cultural innovations in the early Upper Paleolithic of Europe. As we have sketched out here, regional patterns of variation are beginning to emerge. We are confident that future research will allow the processes discussed here to be refined to a point where we can identify local signatures and gradually piece together a coherent picture of cultural change at this unique threshold in prehistory in which anatomically and culturally fully modern

Early Aurignacian innovations

humans displaced Neanderthal populations across Europe (Conard et al., 2006). Acknowledgements We thank Dan Adler, Olaf Jöris and William Davies for the invitation to participate in session C57 during the 15th UISPP congress 2006 in Lisbon. We also thank all those many persons who contributed both in the field and the laboratory to gain the high-resolution data from the Swabian Jura. Moreover we thank Maria Malina for technical support.

REFERENCES BOLUS M. 2004. Der Übergang vom Mittel- zum Jungpaläolithikum in Europa. Eine Bestandsaufnahme unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Mitteleuropas. Germania 82, 1–54. BOLUS M., CONARD N. J. 2006. Zur Zeitstellung von Geschossspitzen aus organischen Materialien im späten Mittelpaläolithikum und Aurignacien. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 36, 1–15. BON F. 2002. L’Aurignacien entre Mer et Océan. Réflexion sur l’unité des phases anciennes de l’Aurignacien dans le sud de la France. Société Préhistorique Française, Paris. BROGLIO A., BERTOLA S., DE STEFANI M., MARINI D. 2002. L’Aurignaziano della Grotta di Fumane. In: A. Aspes (ed.) Preistoria Veronese. Contributi e Aggiornamenti. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona – 2A Serie. Sezione Scienze dell’Uomo 5. Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona – Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, Verona, 29–36. BROGLIO A., DALMERI G. (eds.) 2005. Pitture Paleolitiche nelle Prealpi Venete. Grotta di Fumane e Riparo Dalmeri. Memorie del Museo di Storia Naturale di Verona – 2A Serie, Sezione Scienze dell’Uomo 9. Preistoria Alpina, Nr. Speciale. Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona – Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, Verona. BROU L. 1997. L’industrie aurignacienne du “Trou de la MÀre Clochette“, ´ Rochefort-sur-Nenon, Jura. Présentation des donnees. In: A. Thévenin, A. Villes (eds.) Le Paléolithique supérieur de l’Est de la France: de l’Aurignacien ´ l’Ahrensbourgien. Mémoire de Société Archéologique Champenoise 13, supplément au bulletin no2, 15–35. BROU L. 2000. Le niveau Aurignacien du Trou de la MÀre Clochette ´ Rochefort-sur-Nenon, Jura. Programme de datation 14C AMS. In: P. Bodu, F. Bon, L. Brou (eds.) Le Paléolithique supérieur ancien au centre et au sud du Bassin parisien: des systÀmes techniques aux comportements. Projet Collectif de Recherche dans le cadre du programme

27

P4, Région Centre-Nord, UMR 7041 CNRS, MAE Nanterre. Rapport dactylographié année 2000, 58–68. CLOTTES J. (ed.) 2001. La Grotte Chauvet. L’art des origines. Éditions du Seuil, Paris. CONARD N. J. 2003a. Palaeolithic ivory sculptures from southwestern Germany and the origins of figurative art. Nature 426, 830–832. CONARD N. J. 2003b. Eiszeitlicher Schmuck auf der Schwäbischen Alb. In: S. Kölbl, N. J. Conard (eds.) Eiszeitschmuck – Status und Schönheit. Urgeschichtliches Museum Blaubeuren, Museumsheft 6. Urgeschichtliches Museum, Blaubeuren, 15–49. CONARD N. J. 2006. Die Entstehung der kulturellen Modernität. In: N. J. Conard (ed.) Woher kommt der Mensch? 2nd, revised edition. Attempto Verlag, Tübingen, 197–228. CONARD N. J., BOLUS M. 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: New results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331– 371. CONARD N. J., BOLUS M. 2006. The Swabian Aurignacian and its place in European Prehistory. In: O. Bar-Yosef, J. Zilh±o (eds.) Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. American School of Prehistoric Research/Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisboa, 211–239. CONARD N. J., BOLUS M. 2008. Radiocarbon dating the late Middle Paleolithic and the Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura. In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 886–897. CONARD N. J., MALINA M. 2006. Schmuck und vielleicht auch Musik am Vogelherd bei Niederstotzingen-Stetten ob Lontal, Kreis Heidenheim. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 2005, 21–25. CONARD N. J., DIPPON G., GOLDBERG P. 2003. Chronostratigraphy and Archeological Context of the Aurignacian Deposits at Gei¢enklösterle. In: J. Zilh±o, F. d’Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto PortuguÃs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, 165–176. CONARD N. J., MALINA M., MÜNZEL S. C., SEEBERGER F. 2004. Eine Mammutelfenbeinflöte aus dem Aurignacien des Gei¢enklösterle. Neue Belege für eine musikalische Tradition im frühen Jungpaläolithikum auf der Schwäbischen Alb. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 34, 447–462. CONARD N. J., BOLUS M., GOLDBERG P.,

28

M. Bolus & N. J. Conard

MÜNZEL S. C. 2006. The Last Neanderthals and First Modern Humans in the Swabian Jura. In: N. J. Conard (ed.) When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, 305–341. CONARD N. J., LINGNAU M., MALINA M. 2007. Einmalige Funde durch die Nachgrabung am Vogelherd bei Niederstotzingen-Stetten ob Lontal, Kreis Heidenheim. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 2006, 20–24. DELPORTE H. 1958. Notes de géographie préhistorique: I – Les pointes d’Aurignac. Pallas 7, 11–29. DELPORTE H. 1998. Les Aurignaciens – premiers hommes modernes. La maison des roches, Paris. DEREVIANKO A. P., RYBIN E. P. 2005. The earliest representations of symbolic behavior by Paleolithic humans in the Altai Mountains. In: A. P. Derevianko (ed.) The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Eurasia: Hypotheses and Facts. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk, 232–255. DEREVIANKO A. P., SHUNKOV M. V. 2005. Formation of the Upper Paleolithic traditions in the Altai. In: A. P. Derevianko (ed.) The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Eurasia: Hypotheses and Facts. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk, 283–311. D’ERRICO F., HENSHILWOOD C., LAWSON G., VANHAEREN M., TILLIER A.-M., SORESSI M., BRESSON F., MAUREILLE B., NOWELL A., LAKARRA J., BACKWELL L., JULIEN M. 2003. Archaeological evidence for the emergence of language, symbolism, and music – An alternative multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of World Prehistory 17, 1–70. HAHN J. 1977. Aurignacien – das ältere Jungpaläolithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Böhlau- Verlag, Köln/Wien. HAHN J. 1986. Kraft und Aggression. Die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im Aurignacien Süddeutschlands? Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria, Tübingen. HAHN J., MÜNZEL S. 1995. Knochenflöten aus dem Aurignacien des Gei¢enklösterle bei Blaubeuren, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 20, 1–12. HENSHILWOOD C., D’ERRICO F., VANHAEREN M., VAN NIEKERK K., JACOBS Z. 2004. Middle Stone Age shell beads from South Africa. Science 304, 404. HOFREITER M., PACHER M. 2004. Using ancient DNA to elucidate raw material origin of bone points from Poto¹ka zijalka (Slovenia): Preliminary results. In: M. Pacher, V. Pohar, G. Rabeder (eds.) Poto¹ka zijalka. Palaeontological and Archaeological Results of the Campaigns 1997–2000. Mittei-

lungen der Kommission für Quartärforschung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 13, Wien, 201–209. JACOBI R. M., PETTITT P. B. 2000. An Aurignacian point from Uphill Quarry (Somerset) and the earliest settlement of Britain by Homo sapiens sapiens. Antiquity 74, 513–518. KUHN S. L., STINER M. C., REESE D. S., GÜLEÇ E. 2001. Ornaments of the earliest Upper Paleolithic: New insights from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98, 7641–7646. MAROTO J., SOLER N., FULLOLA J. M. 1996. Cultural change between Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Catalonia. In: E. Carbonell, M. Vaquero (eds.) The Last Neandertals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans. Cultural Change and Human Evolution: the Crisis at 40 ka BP. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, 219–250. MELLARS P. 2005. The impossible coincidence. A single-species model for the origins of modern human behavior in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology 14, 12–27. MELLARS P. 2006. A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of modern humans in Eurasia. Nature 439, 931–935. MELLARS P., TIXIER P. J. 1989. Radiocarbon-accelerator dating of Ksar’ Akil (Lebanon) and the chronology of the Upper Palaeolithic sequence of the Near East. Antiquity 63, 761–768. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL 2007. The chronology of the Aurignacian in Eastern Europe: The changing distribution of modern humans in the environmental context (summary compiled by W. Davies) (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/efched/results/hedges.asp). RABEDER G., POHAR V. 2004. Stratigraphy and chronology of the cave sediments from Poto¹ka zijalka (Slovenia). In: M. Pacher, V. Pohar, G. Rabeder (eds.) Potoèka zijalka. Palaeontological and Archaeological Results of the Campaigns 1997– 2000. Mitteilungen der Kommission für Quartärforschung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 13, Wien, 235–245. RICHTER D., WAIBLINGER J., RINK W. J., WAGNER G. A. 2000. Thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance and 14C-dating of the Late Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic site of Gei¢enklösterle Cave in southern Germany. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 71–89. SCHMID E. 1989. Die altsteinzeitliche Elfenbeinstatuette aus der Höhle Stadel im Hohlenstein bei Asselfingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis. With contributions by J. Hahn, U. Wolf. Fundberichte aus BadenWürttemberg 14, 33–118.

Early Aurignacian innovations SINITSYN A. A. 2003. The most ancient sites of Kostenki in the context of the Initial Upper Paleolithic of northern Eurasia. In: J. Zilh±o, F. d’Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Portugues de Arquologia, Lisboa, 89–107. STINER, M. C. 2003. “Standardization“ in Upper Paleolithic ornaments at the coastal sites of Riparo Mochi and Üçagizli cave. In: J. Zilh±o, F. d’Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto PortuguÃs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, 49–59. TABORIN Y. 2003. La mer et les premiers hommes modernes. In: B. Vandermeersch (ed.) Échanges et diffusion dans la préhistoire méditerranéenne. 121e CongrÀs national des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Nice 1996. Éditions du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, Paris, 113–122. TEYSSANDIER N. 2007. En route vers l’Ouest. Les débuts de l’Aurignacien en Europe. BAR International Series 1638, Oxford. TEYSSANDIER N., BOLUS M., CONARD N. J. 2006. The Early Aurignacian in central Europe and its place in a European perspective. In: O. BarYosef, J. Zilh±o (eds.) Toward a definition of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Instituto Portugues de Arquologia/American School of Prehistoric Research, Lisboa, 241–256. TRINKAUS E. 2007. European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 7367–7372. TRINKAUS E., MILOTA ª., RODRIGO R., MIRCEA G., MOLDOVAN O. 2003. Early modern human cranial remains from Peºtera cu Oase, Romania. Journal of Human Evolution 45, 245–253. VANHAEREN M., D’ERRICO F. 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 1105–1128. VANHAEREN M., D’ERRICO F., STRINGER C., JAMES S. L., TODD J. A., MIENIS H. K. 2006.

29

Middle Paleolithic shell beads in Israel and Algeria. Science 312, 1785–1788. VERPOORTE A. 2005. The first modern humans in Europe? A closer look at the dating evidence from the Swabian Jura (Germany). Antiquity 79, 269– 279. WADLEY L. 2001. What is cultural modernity? A general view and a South African perspective from Rose Cottage Cave. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11, 201–221. WHITE R. 2007: Parures aurignaciennes en Aquitaine: quelques nouvelles observations/Aurignacienzeitlicher Schmuck aus Aquitanien: Einige neue Beobachtungen. In: H. Floss, N. Rouquerol (eds.) Les chemins de l’art aurignacien en Europe/Das Aurignacien und die Anfänge der Kunst in Europa. Actes du colloque 2005 d’Aurignac. Éditions Musée-forum Aurignac, Aurignac, 249–258. WILD E.M., TESCHLER-NICOLA M., KUTSCHERA W., STEIER P., TRINKAUS E., WANEK W. 2005. Direct dating of Early Upper Palaeolithic human remains from Mladec. Nature 435, 332–335. ZILH‚O J. 2006. Aurignacian, behaviour, modern: issues of definition in the emergence of the European Upper Paleolithic. In: O. Bar-Yosef, J. Zilh±o (eds.) Toward a definition of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Instituto Portugues de Arquologia/American School of Prehistoric Research, Lisboa, 53–69. ZILH‚O J. 2007. The emergence of ornaments and art: An archaeological perspective on the origins of “behavioral modernity”. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 1–54. ZILH‚O J., D’ERRICO F. 2003. The chronology of the Aurignacian and Transitional technocomplexes. Where do we stand? In: J. Zilh±o, F. d’Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Portugues de Arquologia, Lisboa, 313–349. ZILH‚O J., D’ERRICO F. 2004. An Aurignacian “Garden of Eden” in Southern Germany? An alternative interpretation of the Geissenklösterle and a critique of the Kulturpumpe model. Paléo 15, 69–86.

Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (2): 5–18.

DATING THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALAEOLITHIC BOUNDARY ACROSS EURASIA Daniel S. Adler1 and Olaf Jöris2 1

Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, 354 Mansfield Road, Unit 2176, Storrs, CT 06269; [email protected] 2 Forschungsbereich Altsteinzeit des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, Schloss Monrepos. D-56567 Neuwied, Germany; [email protected]

Neanderthal origins are rooted deeply in the Middle Pleistocene (e.g., Hublin, 2007; cf. Arsuaga et al., 1997; Condemi, 2000), and while these archaic humans share many genetic and behavioral traits in common with Modern Humans (e.g., Zilh±o, 2006a), they are generally perceived to have lived fundamentally different lives (e.g., Verpoorte, 2006; cf. Roebroeks, 2008). Recent data obtained from the nuclear (Noonan et al., 2006; cf. Green et al., 2006) and mtDNA (Green et al., 2008; cf. Beerli and Edwards, 2002; Krings et al., 1999; Ovchinnikov et al., 2000) of Neanderthals suggest that both lineages separated 660,000 ± 140,000 years (Green et al., 2008) ago when Eurasia north of the Alpine mountains (ca. north of 46° N) was occupied for the first time (Parfitt et al., 2005; cf. Jöris, 2005). Further genetic exchange between both lineages – Neanderthals and African populations that subsequently evolved into Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) – was limited (Green et al., 2006), and it appears that Neanderthals did not significantly contribute to the modern human gene pool (cf. Serre et al., 2004; Excoffier, 2006; cf. Eswaran et al., 2005). In addition to the fossil genetic evidence, both mtDNA (Kivisild, 2007) and Y-chromosome (Underhill et al., 2007) studies of recent Modern Humans allow the reconstruction of the routes taken by expanding populations of Early Anatomically Modern Humans (eAMH) into Eurasia (e.g., Forster and Matsumura, 2005; Forster et al., 2004) and the parallel extinction of all other archaic hominins (Trinkaus, 2007; cf. Fig. 1).

The routes taken by eAMH into Eurasia are also a subject of considerable debate within the archaeological community (Bar-Yosef, 2007; Mellars, 2006a; Otte, 2007). Since direct evidence for the invention of watercraft appears relatively late in the archaeological record (e.g., Burov, 1996; cf. Breunig, 1996; Andersen, 1996; see also discussion in Pickard and Bonsall, 2004), most marine channels likely represented significant barriers to prehistoric human expansion. For example, the Strait of Gibraltar functioned as a paleodemographic and cultural barrier, probably until the Mesolithic (cf. discussion in Derricourt, 2005), implying that eAMH entered Eurasia primarily, if not solely over land through the Near and Middle East (Bar-Yosef, 2007), ultimately reaching the southwestern tip of Europe, i.e., the Iberian Peninsula (Mellars 2004, 2006b, 2006c; Zilh±o, 2006a, 2006b; contra: Jöris et al., 2003). While Gorham’s Cave, Gibraltar, currently represents a key site at the center of this discussion (Finlayson et al., 2006), the interpretation of the radiocarbon data derived from the site is highly controversial (Zilh±o and Pettitt, 2006). However, the early appearance of eAMH in Sahul by roughly 45–42,000 years ago (O’Connell and Allen, 2007) indicates that the knowledge of watercraft may have already existed when eAMH were expanding into Eurasia (cf. discussion in Derricourt, 2005). But the fossil data also suggest that the spread of eAMH was not straightforward (Fig. 1; Shea, 2007; Svoboda, 2007). While eAMH may have

6

D. S. Adler & O. Jöris

Fig. 1. Modern Human expansion “Out of Africa” as reflected in the Middle and early Upper Pleistocene fossil hominin record (compiled after various sources). Map based on Space Radar Topography Measurements (SRTM), with ice cover and proglacial lakes during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and sea levels lowered by 120 m to adjust for LGM palaeogeography (compiled after various sources). During most of OIS 3, ice sheets were significantly smaller and sea level was 60–70 m below that of the present day. Note that reconstruction of Central Asian ice sheet is contentious

reached the Near East (Shea, 2007; cf. Grün et al., 2005) and probably even southern China (Shen and Michel, 2007) as early as 100,000 years ago (cf. Schillaci, 2008), their ultimate spread into the north (i.e., north of 33° N) may have started only as late as 43–42,000 years ago (Jöris and Street, 2008; cf. Zilh±o et al., 2007; Shang et al., 2007). This is the period during which eAMH and Neanderthals, or other late archaic humans may have met (Figs. 2–4). How long this period of contact lasted is, however, a matter of ongoing debate (e.g., Mellars, 2006b; Turney et al. 2006; Mellars, 2006d), and depends not only on the earliest evidence of eAMH in Europe (Fig. 2), but also, and to a large degree on the interpretation of the youngest securely dated Neanderthals (Fig. 4; Jöris and Street, 2008; Jöris et al., 2008, with references therein). The directly 14C-dated remains from Mezmaiskaya and Vindija suggest additional refugia for late Neanderthals, distinct from the Iberian Peninsula (see above). While late Nean- derthal survival in the latter region is a plausible scenario within the wider frame of the eAMH spread into Europe, claims that Mezmaiskaya (Ovchinnikov et al., 2000) and Vindija

(Smith et al., 1999) harbored late surviving Neanderthals are far less convincing, and the extremely divergent dates recently produced by three different laboratories from the same Neanderthal bone (humerus) from Okladnikov (Fig. 4) imply serious problems in dissolving remnant contaminants (cf. Krause et al., 2007). Stratigraphic, contextual and dating issues at Mezmaiskaya, for example, all contradict the young 14C date obtained directly from the infant Neanderthal and suggest a far older age (see discussion in: Adler et al., 2008; Jöris et al., in press; cf. Skinner et al., 2005). Concerning the age of the Vindija hominin fossils it is hard to imagine that a small ‘cell’ of Neanderthals persisted in the region for several millennia after eAMH were already established along the Danube (see discussion in: Jöris et al., in press; cf. Conard and Bolus, 2003; 2008) or in Northern Italy (Giaggio et al., 2006; cf. Broglio, 2001). In other parts of Italy and in Bulgaria, Protoaurignacian and Bachokirian contexts stratigraphically fixed below tephras assigned to the Campanian Ignimbrite (Giaggio et al., 2006; cf. Fedele et al., 2008) that erupted some 40,000 years ago in Central Italy (i.e., some 35.0 ka 14C

Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary

BP; cf. Weninger and Jöris, 2008; cf. Fedele et al., 2008; Giaggio et al., 2006) provide no evidence for late Neanderthal survival in neighboring regions. To the contrary, the similarities of these industries with Aurignacian inventories may indicate the establishment of eAMH populations within these regions (cf. discussion in Teyssandier, 2007) and even further to the east (Hoffecker et al., 2008) at an early date. If correct, this would make the late survival of Neandertals in some ‘island population’ at and around Vindija extremely unlikely. In comparison to the first series of 14C measurements obtained directly from Neanderthal bones (Smith et al., 1999), the recent direct re-dating of the Vindija layer G1 fossils with new “ultrafiltration” pre-treatment technology resulted in significantly older age estimates (Higham et al., 2006a), making the specimens slightly older than the Mladec eAMH remains (Wild et al., 2005). Nevertheless, the new dates from Vindija are still younger than those obtained from the Pestera cu Oase eAMH remains (Zilh±o et al., 2007). In this context even the newly ‘corrected’ Vindija dates might be regarded as minimum age-estimates only (Higham et al., 2006a). On the other hand the Oase fossils are not associated with any archaeological material (Zilh±o et al., 2007), thus the makers of the early Aurignacian remain unknown (cf. Roebroeks, 2008). With the establishment of AMH and the termination of Neanderthal settlement in Eurasia, the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic boundary also marks an important threshold in human cultural evolution (Mellars et al., 2007, and papers therein). As such the demographic and cultural processes underlying this “transition” throughout Eurasia are among the most debated issues in Palaeoanthropology (e.g., Trinkaus, 2007) and Palaeolithic archaeology (e.g., Mellars, 2006e). These debates often center on only a few key issues, which will be addressed below. Since the available chronometric data can be interpreted in a variety of ways, researchers tend to perceive the “transition” as either a biological process of population replacement (in terms of a strict ‘boundary’) or as a ‘true’ transition represented by fossils and/or material culture intermediate between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic. In this regard the degree to which Neanderthals and eAMH can be equated with the Middle

7

and/or Upper Palaeolithic techno-complexes, respectively (discussion in Jöris and Street, 2008; Kozlowski, 2007), is of crucial importance. Concerning the Near Eastern record, it seems that both hominins produced Middle Palaeolithic assemblages (cf. Shea, 2007), which eventually evolved into industries assigned to the “Initial Upper Palaeolithic” (IUP). However, the lack of associated hominin fossils dating to between ca. 38–32 ka 14C BP (Trinkaus, 2005) makes it impossible to know which hominin species produced the Near Eastern IUP, just as in Europe the producers of the early Aurignacian remain unknown (cf. Roebroeks, 2008). The ‘innovative’ aspects of material culture that differentiate the Upper from the Middle Palaeolithic depends on the interpretation of certain expressions in material culture, in particular those connected with symbolic behavior often interpreted as part of the ‘modern human behavioral repertoire’. In addition to apparently more functional innovations, such as split-based points (c.f. Soler Sublis et al., 2008), some authors view art (cf. discussion in Pettitt, 2008) and/or the use of personal ornaments as a behavior restricted to Modern Humans (Álvarez Fernández and Jöris, 2008), while others argue that it reflects an interspecific behavior found among both Neanderthals and Modern Humans (d’Errico, 2003). Because the earliest evidence of personal ornaments dates to the early Upper Pleistocene and (given the early evidence on the African continent) appears to be associated with eAMH (Vanhaeren et al., 2006; cf. Bouzouggar et al., 2007; Henshilwood, 2007), one could argue that only Modern Humans developed a state of cognition suitable for higher levels of abstraction, such as that underlying the production and use of personal ornaments, art, music, and various forms of ritual (cf. Dunbar, 2004, 2007). In contrast, other authors repeatedly argue for a regional evolution of personal ornaments within the European Final Middle Palaeolithic (FMP), independent of and chronologically preceding the first appearance of eAMH within specific regions, for example the Châtelperronian in France (Zilh±o, 2007). A third group of researchers argues that Neanderthals became acculturated through their imitation of specific aspects of material culture, namely personal ornaments, introduced by eAMH spreading into Europe (cf.

8

D. S. Adler & O. Jöris

Fig. 2. The “transition”/replacement period in Europe as addressed in chapters of this volume. Directly 14C-dated hominins are in bold (legend: cf. Fig. 3; see also Fig. 4). Most other sites are selected for inclusion based on the presence of personal ornaments (cf. Álvarez Fernández and Jöris, 2008). Sites with personal ornaments of uncertain context are italicized. For further explanations see Fig. 3 (cf. Fig. 1)

Hublin et al., 1996; Mellars, 2000; cf. discussion in d’Errico et al., 1998). Personal ornaments are the most common non-utilitarian objects regularly found within Protoaurignacian and Aurignacian contexts (Álvarez Fernández and Jöris, 2008; cf. White, 2001; 2007), however in several isolated cases they are associated with FMP assemblages (Zilh±o, 2007). This implies that personal ornaments should be regarded as integral elements of Protoaurignacian and Aurignacian material culture (the latter of which is most likely the product of eAMH; Bailey and Hublin, 2005, 2006; cf. reviews by Jöris and Street, 2008; Jöris et al., in press), while they were of limited importance during the FMP. Nevertheless, the occasional discovery of personal ornaments in FMP sites is inevitably interpreted as resulting from either the contamination of a specific FMP layer with material from later occupations (e.g., White, 2001) or the independent invention of ‘aboriginal’ European Neanderthals (Zilh±o, 2007). Indeed, recent excavations at European FMP sites have yet to produce any evidence for personal ornaments, while excavations

in Protoaurignacian and Aurignacian contexts routinely recover such material, sometimes in high frequencies (e.g., White, 2007; cf. Bolus and Conard, 2008). In contrast, researchers who claim personal ornament use during the FMP (e.g., Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 2008), that is prior to and independent of any eAMH influence, have yet to prove the antiquity of the relevant FMP layers. Directly relevant to this discussion, which has thus far focused almost exclusively on European finds, is material recently discovered in Siberia indicating the use of personal ornaments at an equally early, if not earlier age (cf. discussion in Kuzmin, 2008; cf. Lbova, 2008). If future research confirms these early discoveries, it will become necessary to reconsider just how pervasive certain culturally mediated ideas can be and how rapidly these may spread – even over long distances (cf. discussion in Bolus and Conard; 2008; Álvarez Fernández and Jöris, 2008). Time helps to structure the past, however, dramatically different interpretations of absolute age determinations have been proposed to explain what can be characterized as a fundamental shift

Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary

9

Fig. 3. The “transition”/replacement period in Eurasia as addressed in chapters of this volume (inlay represents location of Fig. 2). Directly 14C-dated hominins are in bold (see also Fig. 4). For further explanations see Fig. 2 (cf. Fig. 1)

in the way humans conceived of and interacted with one another and the world around them. Since the large chronological overlap (10,000 radiocarbon years) observed between unfiltered 14 C-data series of FMP and Protoaurignacian/ Aurignacian assemblages (e.g., van Andel and Davies, 2003, and papers therein; cf. Jöris et al., 2003, 2006, and discussion in Jöris and Street, 2008; Jöris et al., in press) allows different interpretations of the relationship between Late Neanderthals and eAMH, the building of a reliable chronology for this period, which is at the very limits of the radiocarbon method, is of paramount importance (Blockley et al., 2008; cf. Weninger and Jöris, 2008). Many researchers interpret the chronometric data as evidence for a relatively slow, gradual spread of eAMH “Out of Africa” and into Eurasia via particular routes (i.e., the “Danube corridor”; Conard and Bolus, 2003) and their later expansion into surrounding areas (e.g., Boquet-Appel and Demars, 2000; Zilh±o, 2006a; cf. Zilh±o, 1993, 2000; Vega Toscano, 1990, 1993), with the great temporal depth allowing for both cultural and biological intermixture (Zilh±o, 2006a). Only the later phase of AMH population expansion is argued to have instigated the extinction of Neanderthals in their last remaining refugia (Boquet-Appel and Demars, 2000; discussion in d’Errico and Sánchez Goni, 2003; Finlay-

son et al., 2006). Each model developed to explain the relationship between Neanderthals and eAMH and the differences between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic is based not only on the interpretation of hominin fossils and material culture from specific sites, but also, and to a large degree, on our perception of the underlying chronological schemes (see discussion in Mellars, 2006b; Turney et al. 2006; Mellars, 2006d). Recent progress within the geosciences, specifically in palaeonvironmental studies that aim to establish an absolute chronological framework for Last Glacial climate change (e.g., GICC05chronology: Andersen et al., 2006, 2007; Svensson et al., 2006; Hulu-chronology: Wang et al., 2001), have significantly altered our temporal perception of the Palaeolithic. Ongoing research on the age calibration of the radiocarbon timescale – although disputed by some (e.g., Bronk Ramsey et al., 2006) and not entirely understood at the very limits of the radiocarbon method (cf. discussion in Balter, 2006) – indicates that, over much of the Last Glacial Cycle, radiocarbon age determinations underestimate calendar age estimates by several thousand years (Weninger and Jöris, 2008; cf. Hughen et al., 2006). This in turn makes “calibrated” radiocarbon ages older and shifts them closer to the calendar age scale established by other methods of dating that do not re-

10

D. S. Adler & O. Jöris

Fig. 4. Compilation of directly 14C-dated Eurasian hominins (compiled after various sources; cf. Jöris and Street, 2008; Jöris et al., in press; Semal et al., 2008). The most plausible age ranges for hominins from Middle Palaeolithic (Neanderthal) and Aurignacian (eAMH) sites are highlighted in grey. The eAMH fossils from Oase have no archaeological association (cf. Zilh±o et al., 2007), while Tianyuan (Shang et al., 2007), Paviland (after Jacobi and Higham, 2008), and Cro Magnon (see discussion in: Henri-Gambier, 2002) are of unclear archaeological contexts. Mid-Upper Palaeolithic (MUP) humans (AMH) are compiled after Trinkaus, 2005. Although the new dates from Paviland are significantly older than any other dated MUP burial, the grave appears to be of similar character as most other MUP burials identified throughout Western Eurasia (cf. Aldhouse-Green and Pettitt, 1998)

Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary

quire calibration (i.e., TL/OSL, ESR, U/Th; cf. Richter et al., 2008). In addition, technical advances within different dating techniques, especially in the pre-treatment of radiocarbon samples (e.g., Bronk Ramsey et al., 2004; Higham et al., 2006b), will continue to significantly alter the interpretation of the radiometric record at the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic boundary. Against this background, the selective highlighting of particular radiometric dates from archaeological contexts or the uncritical use of bulk collections of unfiltered data in support of any of the models outlined above, should be viewed as too simplistic, and thus unable to resolve the complex factors involved at the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic boundary. Archaeologists must be aware that radiometric dates provided by the ‘hard sciences’ cannot simply be accepted at face value. Instead, such estimates always require critical evaluation against their stratigraphic, archaeological, and taphonomic contexts. This awareness demands the development of a systematic apparatus of quality control and its adoption by the larger archaeological community (e.g., Blockley et al., 2008; Lowe and Walker, 2000; Pettitt et al., 2003) as the only way to assure an improved spatio-temporal understanding of the demographic and cultural processes underlying the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic boundary in Eurasia. It was with these issues in mind that session C57, entitled “Setting the Record Straight: Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary in Eurasia”, was organized for the 15th meeting of the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (UISPP), on the 5th of September 2006 in Lisbon, Portugal. The session addressed recent advances in radiometric dating and interpretation against which existing and new regional Middle and Upper Palaeolithic chronometric records were referenced. Though many questions concerning the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic boundary remain unanswered, some common ground was identified, notably that concerning the adjustment of time scales against which chronometric records are referenced. Radiocarbon “age-calibration”, or radiocarbon age “comparison” as some term it (e.g., van der Plicht et al., 2004), produces age estimates in close agreement with dates obtained by

11

other dating methods (see above), and allows researchers to reference the archaeological record against regional and inter-regional palaeoclimate signatures developed during the last 15 years (e.g., Zilh±o et al., 2007). For example, the Campanian Ignimbrite tephras, which erupted roughly 40,000 years ago in the vicinity of Naples, Italy, are central to this discussion, since they form a wide-spread chronostratigraphic marker horizon that allows inter-calibration of records between different regions of Europe (cf. Blockley et al., 2008). Papers from session C57 that contribute to this broad issue (Fedele et al., 2008; Hoffecker et al., 2008), including long cross-dated stratigraphic sequences (Ortvale Klde: Adler et al., 2008) and key sites that are so important to our understanding of the “transitional” period (Bohunice: Richter et al., 2008), are summarized in a special issue of the Journal of Human Evolution (2008, 55/5) which is published in tandem with the present volume. The eight papers assembled in this special issue of Eurasian Prehistory are a sample of those presented in Lisbon, and represent case studies of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic and the timing of the “transition”/replacement within specific regions of Eurasia (Fig. 1). While they span a range of research traditions and geographic regions, from Siberia to Western Europe (Figs. 2–3), the goal of each paper is to clarify the chronological and cultural aspects of the periods, populations and cultures in question. This approach does not allow a comprehensive, interregional consideration of site-specific archaeological records. Therefore this special issue does not provide a synthetic overview of the key events associated with this boundary, but, rather, highlights and recasts several important issues related to specific sites that so often dominate studies of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic. In this respect, the papers assembled in this special issue represent a diversity of views on the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic boundary which have a strong focus on site-specific data. Several papers present detailed discussions of the stratigraphic and chronometric records of sites that feature prominently in debates surrounding the “transition” on the one hand, and the appearance of the Initial/Early Upper Palaeolithic/Aurignacian on the other (Elefanti et al., 2008; Lengyel

12

D. S. Adler & O. Jöris

and Mester, 2008; Soler Sublis et al., 2008; Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 2008). These site-specific studies are complemented by two regional syntheses (Kuzmin, 2008; Lbova, 2008) that address the Siberian record and so offer broader perspectives on the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic “transition”/ replacement that provide important challenges to traditional models that are often based exclusively on Western Eurasian data. Other papers critically review the available archaeological, chronometric and taphonomic data, and in two cases (Soler Sublis et al., 2008; Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 2008) the authors do so with an eye toward answering recent critics, while in another (Lengyel and Mester, 2008) they question the archaeological and cultural reality of a classic “transitional” industry. The two introductory papers (Bolus and Conard, 2008; Álvarez Fernández and Jöris, 2008) focus on the spatio-temporal dimensions of Upper Palaeolithic “innovations” within material culture and symbolic behavior. Several independent centers of Upper Palaeolithic innovation are proposed by Bolus and Conard (2008: e.g., Swabian Jura: early Aurignacian; Spain: Fumanian), while Álvarez Fernández and Jöris (2008) argue that personal ornaments appear in Europe only with the arrival of eAMH after roughly 38,000 14C BP. Both papers are contrasted and in some respects challenged by subsequent papers that address some of the same case studies in further detail. As might be expected, the results of this common exercise in critical reanalysis are in no way uniform and perhaps reflect the specific paradigms within which researchers operate as much as any real Palaeolithic behavioral variability. As such no consensus is attempted regarding major issues such as the makers of “transitional” industries (in those cases where such industries have survived close scrutiny; cf. discussion in Jöris and Street, 2008; Jöris et al., in press), the definition or origin of the Aurignacian (Bar-Yosef, 2006; Bar-Yosef and Zilh±o, 2006, and papers therein; cf. discussion in Zilh±o and d’Errico, 2003), or the precise timing of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic “transition”/replacement (cf. papers in Adler and Jöris, 2008). Such precise definitions and associations, which have been the traditional goal of Palaeolithic research, are flawed in that they seek to establish a narrow, static understand-

ing of what was surely a complex process of population movement, interaction, and replacement that varied across space and time. The best way to appreciate the inherent variability in this continental process of Neanderthal extinction and Modern Human ascendancy is to expand the available patchwork of high-quality regional data. Together, the nineteen papers published here and in the Journal of Human Evolution (2008, 55/5) sample the latest chronometric and archaeological advances in Middle and Upper Palaeolithic research in Eurasia, and contribute to our ongoing understanding of the biological, cultural, and demographic processes that underlie the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic “transition”/replacement. Acknowledgments We are grateful to the editors of Eurasian Prehistory, Ofer Bar-Yosef and Janusz Kozlowski, for publishing this special issue, and to Wren Fournier for her editorial efforts. William Davies (Univ. Southampton) assisted us in organizing and running the UISPP session, and vetting the papers published here.

REFERENCES ADLER D. S., BAR-YOSEF O., BELFER-COHEN A., TUSHABRAMASHVILI N., BOARETTO E., MERCIER N., VALLADAS H., RINK W. J. 2008. Dating the Demise: Neanderthal Extinction and the Establishment of Modern Humans in the Southern Caucasus. In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 817–833. ADLER D. S., JÖRIS O. (eds.) 2008. Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 761–926. ALDHOUSE-GREEN S., PETTITT P. B. 1998. Paviland Cave: contextualizing the “Red Lady”. Antiquity 72, 756–772. ÁLVAREZ FERNÁNDEZ E., JÖRIS O. 2008. Personal Ornaments in the Early Upper Paleolithic of Western Eurasia: an Evaluation of the Record. Eurasian Prehistory 5/2, this volume. ANDERSEN K. K., BIGLER M., CLAUSEN H. B., DAHL-JENSEN D., JOHNSEN S. J., RASMUSSEN S. O., SERERSTAD I., STEFFENSEN J. P., SVENSSON A., VINTHER B. M., DAVIES S.M.,

Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary MUSCHELER R., PARRENIN F., RÖTHLISBERGER R. 2007. A 60000 year Greenland stratigraphic ice core chronology. Climate of the Past Discussions 3, 1235–1260. ANDERSEN K. K., SVENSSON A., JOHNSEN S. J., RASMUSSEN S. O., BIGLER M., RÖTHLISBERGER R., RUTH U., SIGGAARD-ANDERSEN M.-L., STEFFENSEN J. P., DAHL-JENSEN D., VINTHER B. M., CLAUSEN H. B. 2006. The Greenland ice core chronology 2005, 15–42 kyr. part 1: constructing the time scale. Quaternary Science Reviews 25, 3246–3257. ANDERSEN S. H. 1996. Coastal adaptation and marine exploitation in Late Mesolithic Denmark – with special emphasis on the Limfjord region. In: A. Fischer (ed.) Man & Sea in the Mesolithic. Coastal settlement above and below present sea level. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Kalundburg, Denmark 1993. Oxbow Monograph 53 (Oxford), 41–66. ARSUAGA J. L., MARTÍNEZ I., GARCIA A., LORENZO C. 1997. The Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain) Skulls. a Comparative Study. Journal of Human Evolution 33, 219–281. BAILEY S., HUBLIN J.-J. 2005. Who made the Early Aurignacian? Reconsideration of the Brassempouy dental remains. Bulletin Mémoires de la Société Anthropologique Paris 17, 115–121. BAILEY S., HUBLIN J.-J. 2006. Dental remains from the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Journal of Human Evolution 50, 485–508. BALTER M. 2006. Radiocarbon dating’s final frontier. Science 313, 1560–1563. BAR-YOSEF O. 2006. Defining the Aurignacian. In: O. Bar-Yosef, J. Zilh±o (eds.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia.Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Artes Graficas, 11–18. BAR-YOSEF O. 2007. The Dispersal of Modern Humans in Eurasia: a Cultural Interpretation. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 207–217. BAR-YOSEF O., ZILH‚O J. (eds.) 2006. Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002, Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Istituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon. BEERLI P., EDWARDS S. W. 2002. When Did Neanderthals and Modern Humans Diverge? Evolutionary Anthropology, Suppl. 1, 60–63.

13

BERNALDO DE QUIROS F., MAÍLLO J. M., NEIRA A. 2008. The place of unit 18 of El Castillo Cave in the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. Eurasian Prehistory 5/2, this volume. BLOCKLEY S. P. E., BRONK RAMSEY C., HIGHAM T. F. G. 2008. The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition: dating, stratigraphy and isochronous markers. In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 764–771. BOLUS M., CONARD N. J. 2008. What can we say about the spatial-temporal distribution of early Aurignacian innovations? Eurasian Prehistory 5/2, this volume. BOCQUET-APPEL J.-P., DEMARS P.-Y. 2000. Neanderthal contraction and Modern Human colonization of Europe. Antiquity 74, 544–552. BOUZOUGGAR A., BARTON N., VANHAEREN M., D’ERRICO F., COLLCUTT S., HIGHAM T., HODGE E., PARFITT S., RHODES E., SCHWENNINGER J.-L., STRINGER C., TURNER E., WARD S. MOUTMIR A., STAMBOULI A. 2007. 82,000-year-old shell beads from North Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 9964– 9969. BREUNIG P. 1996. The 8000-year-old dugout canoe from Dufuna (NE Nigeria). In: G. Pwiti, R. Soper (eds.) Aspects of African Archaeology. Papers from the 10th Congress of the PanAfrican Association for Prehistory and related Studies. University of Zimbabwe Publications (Harare), 461–468. BROGLIO A. 2001. Discontinuity between the Mousterian and the Aurignacian: the archaeological sequence from Grotta di Fumane in the Veneto Prealp. In: B. Ginter, B. Drobniewicz, B. Kazior, M. Nowak, M. Poltowicz, M. (eds.) Problems of the Stone Age in the Old World. Jubilee Book Dedicated to Professor Janusz K. Kozlowski on his 40th Scientific Work in Jagiellonian University. Kraków, 119–129. BRONK RAMSEY Chr., BUCK C. E., MANNING St. W., REIMER P., VAN DER PLICHT H., 2006. Developments in radiocarbon calibration for archaeology. Antiquity 80, 783–798. BRONK RAMSEY Chr., HIGHAM T., BOWLES A., HEDGES R. 2004. Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46, 155–163. BUROV G. M. 1996. On Mesolithic means of water transportation in northeastern Europe. Mesolithic Miscellany 17/1, 5–15. CONARD N. J., BOLUS M. 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of

14

D. S. Adler & O. Jöris

cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331– 371. CONARD N. J., BOLUS M. 2008. Radiocarbon dating the late Middle Paleolithic and the Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura. In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 886–897. CONDEMI S. 2000. The Neanderthals: Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis? Is there a Contradiction between the Paleogenetic and the Paleoanthropological Data? In: J. Orschied, G.-Chr. Weninger (eds.) Neanderthals and modern Humans – Discussing the Transition. Central and Eastern Europe from 50.000–30.000 BP: Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Neanderthal-Museums 2, 287–295. DERRICOURT R. 2005. Getting “Out of Africa”: Sea Crossings, Land Crossings and Culture in the Hominin Migrations. Journal of World Prehistory 19, 119–132. D’ERRICO F. 2003. The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin of behavioural modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12, 188–202. D’ERRICO F., SÁNCHEZ GONI M. F. 2003. Neanderthal extinction and the millennial scale climatic variability of OIS 3. Quaternary Science Reviews 22, 769–788. D’ERRICO F., ZILH‚O J., BAFFIER D., JULIEN M., PELEGRIN J. 1998. Neanderthal acculturation in Western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. Current Anthropology 39, Supplement, 1–44. DUNBAR R. 2004. The Human Story. A New History of Mankind’s Evolution. London. DUNBAR R. I. M. 2007. The Social Brain and the Cultural Explosion of the Human Revolution. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 91–98. ELEFANTI P., PANAGOPOULOU E., KARKANAS P. 2008. The transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the Southern Balkans: the evidence from the Lakonis I Cave, Greece. Eurasian Prehistory 5/2, this volume. ESWARAN V., HARPENDING H., ROGERS A. R. 2005. Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans. Journal of Human Evolution 49, 1– 18. EXCOFFIER L. 2006. Neandertal Genetic Diversity: A

Fresh Look from Old Samples. Current Biology. 16/16, R650–R652. FEDELE F. G., GIACCIO B., HAJDAS I. 2008. Timescales and cultural process at 40,000 BP in the light of the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption, Western Eurasia. In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 834–857. FINLAYSON C, GILES PACHECO F., RODRÍGUEZ-VIDAL J., FA D. A., GUITERREZ LÓPEZ J. M., SANTIAGO PÉREZ A., FINLAYSON G., ALLUE E., BAENA PRYSLER J., CÁCERES I., CARRIÓN J. S., FERNÁNDEZ-JALVO Y., GLEED-OWEN C. P., JIMENEZ ESPEJO F. J., LÓPEZ P., LÓPEZ SÁEZ J. A., RIQUELME CANTAL J. A., SÁNCHEZ MARCO A., GILES GUZMAN F., BROWN K., FUENTEZ N., VALARINO C. A., VILLALPANDO A., STRINGER Chr. B., MARTINEZ RUIZ F., SAKAMOTO T. 2006. Late survival of Neanderthals at the southernmost extreme of Europe. Nature (advance online publication, 13 September, doi:10.1038/nature 05195). FORSTER P. 2004. Ice Ages and the mitochondrial DNA chronology of human dispersals: a review. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society. London B 359, 255–264. FORSTER P., MATSUMURA S. 2005. Did Early Humans Go North or South? Science 308, 965–966. GIACCIO B., HAJDAS I., PERESANI M., FEDELE F. G., ISAIA R. 2006. The Campanian Ignimbrite tephra and its relevance for the timing of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic shift. In: N. J. Conard (ed.) When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, 343–375. GREEN R. E., KRAUSE J., PTAK S. E., BRIGGS A. W., RONAN M. T., SIMONS J. F., Du L., EGHOLM M., ROTHBERG J. M., PAUNOVIC M., PÄÄBO S. 2006. Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA. Nature 444, 330–336. GREEN R. E., MALASPINAS A.-S., KRAUSE J., BRIGGS A. W., JOHNSIN Ph. L. F., UHLER C., MEYER M., GOOD J. M., MARICIC T., STENZEL U., PRÜFER K., SIEBAUER M., BURBANO H. A., RONAN M., ROTHBERG J. M., EGHOLM M., RUDAN P., BRAJKOVIC D., KUCAN Z., GUSIC I., WIKSTRÖM M., LAAKKONEN L., KELSO J., SLATKIN M., PÄÄBO S. 2008. A Complete Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Sequence Determined by High-Throughput Sequencing. Cell 134, 416–426. GRÜN R., STRINGER C., McDERMOTT F., NATHAN R., PORAT N., ROBERTSON S., TAYLOR L., MORTIMER G., EGGINS S., McCULLOCH

Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary M. 2005. U-series and ESR analyses of bones and teeth relating to the human burials from Skhul. Journal of Human Evolution 49, 316–334. HENRY-GAMBIER D. 2002. Les fossiles de CroMagnon (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne): nouvelles données sur leur position chronologique et leur attribution culturelle. Paléo 14, 201–204. HENSHILWOOD Chr. St. 2007. Fully Symbolic Sapiens Behaviour: Innovation in the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 123–132. HIGHAM T., BRONK RAMSEY Chr., KARAVANIC I., SMITH F. H., TRINKAUS E. 2006a. Revised direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Palaeolithic Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103, 553–557. HIGHAM T. F. G., JACOBI R. M., BRONK RAMSEY C. 2006b. AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient bone using ultrafiltration. Radiocarbon 48, 179– 195. HOFFECKER J. F., ANIKOVICH M. V., SINITSYN A. A., HOLLIDAY V. T., LEVKOVSKAYA G. M., POSPELOVA G. A., FORMAN S. L., GIACCIO B. 2008. From the Bay of Naples to the River Don: The Campanian Ignimbrite eruption and the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Eastern Europe. In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 858–870. HUBLIN J.-J. 2007. What Can Neanderthals Tell Us About Modern Human Origins? In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 235–248. HUBLIN J.-J., SPOOR F., BRAUN M., ZONNEVELD F. W., CONDEMI S., 1996. A late Neanderthal associated with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. Nature 381, 224–226. HUGHEN K., SOUTHON J., LEHMAN S., BERTRAND C., TURNBULL J. 2006. Marine-derived 14C calibration and activity record for the past 50,000 years updated from the Cariaco Basin. Quaternary Science Reviews 25, 3216–3227. JACOBI R. M., HIGHAM T. F. G. 2008. The “Red Lady” ages gracefully: new ultrafiltration AMS de-

15

terminations from Paviland. In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 898–907. JÖRIS O. 2005. Aus einer anderen Welt – Europa zur Zeit des Neandertalers. In: N. J. Conard, St. Kölbl, W. Schürle (eds.) Vom Neandertaler zum modernen Menschen. Alb und Donau – Kunst und Kultur 46, 47–70, 200. JÖRIS O., ÁLVAREZ FERNÁNDEZ E., WENINGER B. 2003. Radiocarbon evidence of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Southwestern Europe. La transición del Paleolítico medio as superior en el sureste de Europa en base a las dataciones radiocarbónicas. Trabajos de Prehistoria 60, 15–38. JÖRIS O., STREET M. 2008. At the End of the 14C Time Scale – the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Record of Western Eurasia. In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 782–802. JÖRIS O., STREET M., TERBERGER Th., WENINGER B. 2006. Dating the transition. In: W. von Koenigswald, S. Condemi, Th. Litt, F. Schrenk (eds.) 150 years of Neanderthal discoveries. Early Europeans – Continuity & Discontinuity. Terra Nostra 2006/2, 68–73. JÖRIS O., TERBERGER Th., WENINGER B., STREET M., in press. Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition. On the timing and dynamics of cultural change, the demise of the last Neanderthals and the first appearance of Anatomically Modern Humans in Europe: A critical review of the radiocarbon record. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. KIVISILD T. 2007. Complete MtDNA Sequences – Quest on ‘Out-of-Africa’ Route Completed? In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 21–32. KOZLOWSKI J. K. 2007. The Significants of Blade Technologies in the Period 50–35 kya BP for the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Central and Eastern Europa. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 317–328.

16

D. S. Adler & O. Jöris

KRAUSE J., ORLANDO L., SERRE D., VIOLA B., PRÜFER K., RICHARDS M. P., HUBLIN J.-J., HÄNNI C., DEREVIANKO A. P., PÄÄBO S. 2007. Neanderthals in central Asia and Siberia. Nature 49, 902–904. KRINGS M., GEISERT H., SCHMITZ R. W., KRAINITZKI H., PÄÄBO S. 1999. DNA Sequence of the Mitochondrial Hypervariable Region II from the Neandertal Type Specimen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96, 5581–5585. KUZMIN Y. V. 2008. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Siberia: chronological and environmental aspects. Eurasian Prehistory 5/2, this volume. LBOVA L. V. 2008. Chronology and paleoecology of the Early Upper Paleolithic in the Transbaikal Region (Siberia). Eurasian Prehistory 5/2, this volume. LENGYEL G., MESTER Zs. 2008. A new look at the radiocarbon chronology of the Szeletian in Hungary. Eurasian Prehistory 5/2, this volume. LOWE J. J., WALKER M. J. C. 2000. Radiocarbon dating the last glacial-interglacial transition (ca. 14–9 14C ka BP) in terrestrial and marine records: the need for new quality assurance protocols. Radiocarbon 42/1, 53–68. MELLARS P. A. 2000. Châtelperronian chronology and the case for Neanderthal / Modern Human “acculturation” in Western Europe. In: C. B. Stringer, R. N. E. Barton, J. C. Finlayson (eds.) Neanderthals on the Edge. Papers from a conference marking the 150th anniversary of the Forbes’ Quarry discovery, Gibraltar. Oxbow Books (Oxford), 33–39. MELLARS P. 2004. Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe. Nature 432, 461–465. MELLARS P. 2006a. Going East: New Genetic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Modern Human Colonization of Eurasia. Science 313, 796–800. MELLARS P. 2006b. A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of modern humans in Eurasia. Nature 439, 931–935. MELLARS P. 2006c. Archeology and the Dispersal of Modern Humans in Europe: Deconstructing the Aurignacian. Evolutionary Anthropology 15, 167– 182. MELLARS P. 2006d. Mellars replies. Nature 443, E4. MELLARS P. 2006e. Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103, 9381–9386. MELLARS P., BOYLE K., BAR-YOSEF O., STRINGER Chr. (eds.) 2007. Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald

Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK. NOONAN J. P., COOP G., KUDARAVALLI S., SMITH D., KAUSE J., ALESSI J., CHEN F., PLATT D., PÄÄBO S., PRITCHARD J. K., RUBIN E. M. 2006. Sequencing Analysis of Neanderthal Genomic DNA. Science 314, 1113–1118. O’CONNELL J. F., ALLEN J. 2007. Pre-LGM Sahul (Pleistocene Australia-New Guinea) and the Archaeology of Early Modern Humans. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 395–410. OTTE M. 2007. Arguments for Population Movements of Anatomically Modern Humans from Central Asia to Europe. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 359–366. OVCHINNIKOV I. V., GÖTHERSTRÖM A., ROMANOVA G. P., KHARITONOV V. M., LIDÉN K., GOODWIN W. 2000. Molecular Analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus. Nature 404, 490–493. PARFITT S. A., BARENDREGT R. W., BREDA M., CANDY I., COLLINS M. J., COOPE G. R., DURBRIDGE P., FIELD M. H., LEE J. R., LISTER A. M., MUTCH R., PENKMAN K. E. H., PREECE R. C., ROSE J., STRINGER Chr. B., SYMMONS R., WHITTAKER J. E., WYMER J. J., STUART A. J. 2005. The earliest record of human activity in northern Europe. Nature 438, 1008–1012. PETTITT P. B., DAVIES W., GAMBLE C. S., RICHARDS M. B. 2003. Radiocarbon chronology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 30, 1685–1693. PETTITT P. B. 2008. Art and the Middle to Upper Transition in Europe: comments on the archaeological arguments for an Early Upper Palaeolithic antiquity of the Grotte Chauvet art. In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 908–917. PICKARD C., BONSALL Cl. 2004. Deep-Sea Fishing in the European Mesolithic: Fact or Fantasy? European Journal of Archaeology 7/3, 273–290. RICHTER D., TOSTEVIN G., ŠKRDLA P. 2008. Bohunician technology and the thermolumines-

Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Boundary cence dating of the type locality of Brno-Bohunice (Czech Republic). In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 871–885. ROEBROEKS W. 2008. Time for the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic Transition in Europe. In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 918–926. SCHILLACI M. A. 2008. Human cranial diversity and evidence for an ancient lineage of modern humans. Journal of Human Evolution 54, 814–826. SEMAL P., ROUGIER H., CREVECOER I., JUNGLES C., FLAS D., HAUZEUR A., MAUREILLE B., GERMONPRÉ M., BOCHERENS H., PIRSON St., CAMMERET L., DE CLERCK N., HAMBUCKEN A., HIGHAM Th., TOUSSAINT M., VAN DER PLICHT J. 2008. New Data on the Late Neandertals: Direct Dating of the Belgian Spy Fossils. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. SERRE D., LANGANEY A., CHECH M., TESCHLER-NICOLA M., PAUNOVIC M., MENNECIER Ph., HOFREITER M., POSSNERT G., PÄÄBO S. 2004. No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans. PLoS Biology 2/3, 313–317. SHANG H., TONG H., ZHANG Sh., CHEN F., TRINKAUS E. 2007. An early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 6573–6578. SHEA J. J. 2007. The Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Evolutionary Discontinuity in the Late Pleistocene Levant. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 219– 232. SHEN G., MICHEL V. 2007. Position chronologique des sites de l’homme moderne en Chine d’aprÀs la datation U-Th. Chronological position of modern Homo sapiens sites in China based on U-series dating. L’Anthropologie 111, 157–165. SKINNER A. R., BLACKWELL B. A. B., MARTIN S., ORTEGA A., BLICKSTEIN J. L. B., GOLOVANOVA L. V., DORONICHEV V. B. 2005. ESR dating at Mezmaiskaya Cave, Russia. Applied Radiation and Isotopes 62, 219–224. SMITH F. H., TRINKAUS E., PETTITT P. B., KARAVANIC I., PAUNOVIC M. 1999. Direct Ra-

17

diocarbon dates for Vindija G1 and Velika Pecina late Pleistocene hominid remains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96, 12281–12286. SOLER SUBILS J., SOLER MASFERRER N., MAROTO J. 2008. L’Arbreda’s Archaic Aurignacian Dates Clarified. Eurasian Prehistory 5/2, this volume. SVENSSON A., ANDERSEN K. K., BIGLER M., CLAUSEN H. B., DAHL-JENSEN D., DAVIES S. M., JOHNSEN S. J., MUSCHELER R., RASMUSSEN S. O., RÖTHLISBERGER R., STEFFENSEN J. P., VINTHER B. M. 2006. The Greenland ice core chronology 2005, 15–42 kyr. part 2: comparison to other records. Quaternary Science Reviews 35, 3258–3267. SVOBODA J. 2007. On Modern Human Penetration into Northern Eurasia: the Multiple Advances Hypothesis. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 329–339. TEYSSANDIER N. 2007. En route vers l’Ouest. Les débuts de l’Aurignacien en Europe. BAR International Series 1638, Archaeopress, Oxford. TRINKAUS E. 2005. Early Modern Humans. American Review of Anthropology 34, 207–230. TRINKAUS E. 2007. European Early Modern Humans and the fate of the Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 7367–7372. TURNEY Chr. S. M., ROBERTS R. G., JACOBS Z. 2006. Progress and pitfalls in radiocarbon dating. Nature 443, E3. UNDERHILL P. A., MYRES N. M., ROOTSI S., CHOW CH.-E. T., LIN A. A., OTILLAR R. P., KING R., ZHIVOTOVSKY L. A., BALANOVSKY O., PSHENICHNOV A., RITCHIE K. H., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L., KIVISILD T., VILLEMS R., WOODWARD S. R. 2007. New Phylogenetic Relationships for Y-chromosome Haplogroup I: Reappraising its Phylogeography and Prehistory. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 33– 42. VAN ANDEL Tj., DAVIES W. (eds.) 2003. Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European landscape during the Last Glaciation: Archaeological re-

18

D. S. Adler & O. Jöris

sults of the Stage 3 Project. Oxbow Monographs 104 (Oxford). VAN DER PLICHT J., BECK J. W., BARD E., BAILLIE M. G. L., BLACKWELL P. G., BUCK C. E., FRIEDRICH M., GUILDERSON T. P., HUGHEN K. A., KROMER B., McCORMAC F. G., BRONK RAMSEY C., REIMER P. J., REIMER R. W., REMMELE S., RRICHARDS D. A., SOUTHON J. R., STUIVER M., WEYHEN- MEYER C. E. 2004. NotCal04. Comparison/calibration 14C records 26–50 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1225–1238. VANHAEREN M., D’ERRICO F., STRINGER Chr., JAMES S. L., TODD J. A., MIENIS H. K. 2006. Middle Paleolithic shell beads in Israel and Algeria. Science 312, 1785–1788. VEGA TOSCA+O L. G. 1990. La fin du Paléolithique moyen au sud de l’Espagne: ses implications dans le contexte de la péninsule ibérique. In: C. Farizy (ed.) Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe. Ruptures et transitions: examen critique des documents archéologiques. Colloquium Nemours 1988. Mém. du Musée de Préhist. D’lle de France 3. A.P.R.A.I.F., Nemours, 169–176. VEGA TOSCA+O L. G. 1993. El tránsito del Paleolítico Medio al Paleolítico Superior en el sur de la Península Ibérica. In: V. Cabrera Valdés (ed.) El origen del Hombre Moderno en el suroeste de Europa. UNED, Madrid, 147–170. VERPOORTE A. 2006. Neanderthal energetics and spatial behaviour. Before Farming 2006/3 article 2, 1–6. WANG Y. J., CHENG H., EDWARDS R. L., AN Z. S., WU J. Y., SHEN C., DORALE J. A. 2001. A highresolution absolute-dated Late Pleistocene monsoon record from Hulu Cave, China. Science 294, 2345– 2348. WENINGER B., JÖRIS O., 2008. A 14C age calibration curve for the last 60 ka: The Greenland-Hulu U/Th time-scale and its impact on understanding the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Western Eurasia. In: D. S. Adler, O. Jöris (eds.) Setting the Record Straight. Toward a Systematic Chronological Understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55/5, 772–781. WHITE R. 2001. Personal ornaments from the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure. Athena Review 2, 41– 46. WHITE R. 2007. Systems of Personal Ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological Challenges and New Observations. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dis-

persal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 287–302. WILD E. M., TESCHLER-NICOLA M., KUTSCHERA W., STEIER P., TRINKAUS E., WANEK W. 2005. Direct dating of early Upper Palaeolithic human remains from Mladec. Nature 435, 332–335. ZILH‚O J. 1993. Le passage du Paléolithique moyen au Paléolithique supérieur dans le Portugal. In: V. Cabrera Valdés (ed.) El origen del hombre moderno en el suroeste de Europa. Colloquium Madrid 1991. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, 127–145. ZILH‚O J. 2000. The Ebro Frontier: a model for the late extinction of Iberian Neanderthals. In: C. B. Stringer, R. N. E. Barton, C. Finlayson, C. (eds.), Neanderthals on the Edge, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 111–121. ZILH‚O J. 2006a. Genes, fossils, and culture. An overview of the evidence for Neandertal-Modern Human interaction and admixture. Proceedings of Prehistoric Society 72, 1–20. ZILH‚O J. 2006b. Chronostratigraphy of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic Transition in the Iberian Peninsula. PYRENAE 37/1, 1–78. ZILH‚O J. 2007. The Emergence of Ornaments and Art: An Archaeological Perspective on the Origins of “Behavioral Modernity”. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 1–54. ZILH‚O J., D’ERRICO F. 2003. The chronology of the Aurignacian and Transitional technocomplexes. Where do we stand? In: J. Zilh±o, F. d’Errico (eds.) The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of the XIVth Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisboa, 313–349. ZILH‚O J., PETTITT P. 2006. On the new dates for Gorham’s Cave and the late survival of Iberian Neanderthals. Before Farming 2006(3) article 3, 1–9. ZILH‚O J., TRINKAUS E., CONSTANTIN S., MILOTA T., GHERASE M., SARCINA L., DANCIU A., ROUGIER H., QUILCS J., RODRIGO R. 2007. The Peêtera cu Oase People, Europe’s Earliest Modern Humans. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, Chr. Stringer (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution. New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute Monographs. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research. Cambridge, UK, 249–262.