LETTER LETTER The transition in southern Iberia: Insights from paleoclimatology and the Early Upper Palaeolithic The paper by Wood et al. (1) called attention is based on the industrial and paleoclimatic dating. The authors also required more de- to the dating methodology of ultrafiltration record, obtained from typology, paleontol- tailed discussion of the first industries related applied to Mousterian sites in the Southern ogy, sedimentology, and pollen studies (3, to the Early Upper Paleolithic. Iberian Peninsula. The dates of two sites, 4). Indeed, Carihuela’s stratigraphy has been 1 Jarama VI and Zafarraya, are older than correlated with other paleoclimatic proxies Paloma de la Peña expected, after the application of the au- such as that at Padul (4), and this limnetic Institute for Human Evolution and School of thors’ methodology to some of the bones sequence is, in turn, correlated with the Archaeology, Geography, and Environmental from the two sites. This result has impor- Alborán Sea Survey. Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, tant implications because the Southern Ibe- OtherMediterraneansitessuchasMal- Johannesburg 2050, South Africa; and Grupo rian Peninsula was formerly proposed as laetes, Cendres, and Bajondillo were cited to de Investigación en Geografía Física de Alta a unique area demonstrating the late sur- support the main argument by Wood et al. Montaña, Universidad Complutense de vival of Neanderthals in Eurasia (2, 3). In (1), even though the sites did not yield proper the case of former studies of Gorham and bone samples for the authors’ methodology. Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain Carihuela (2, 3), the main argument was Mallaetes and Cendres do not have Mouste- paleoclimatic, not radiometric. In contrast, rian levels, so they hardly offer weight to the 1 Wood RE, et al. (2013) Radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late most of the recent studies argue on the hypothesis defended in the paper. Neverthe- chronology of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southern basis of radiocarbon dates. less, citing Early Upper Paleolithic sites Iberia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(8):2781–2786. 2 Zeuner FE (1953) The chronology of the Mousterian at Gorham’s The paper by Wood et al. (1) is opportune makes sense if the authors can offer an ante Cave Gibraltar. Proc Prehist Soc XIX:180–188. because it drew attention to the need to treat quem relative chronology. Even so, a review 3 Vega Toscano LG, Hoyos M, Ruiz-Bustos A, Laville H (1988) radiocarbon dates with extreme caution. The of sites assigned to the Upper Paleolithic L’homme de Neandertal,L’environnement [Neanderthal ’ Man, The Environment], ed Otte M (Études et Recherches authors dating method may change the exact should be made cautiously because most of Archéologiquesde l’Université de Liège, Liege), Vol 2, chronology of many prehistoric events in these sites have backed industries as the first pp 169–180. French. 4 Fernández S, et al. (2007) The Holocene and Upper Pleistocene the Late Pleistocene, and yet the conclu- expression of the Upper Paleolithic. In other pollen sequence of Carihuela Cave, southern Spain. Geobios sions should not be taken as final. Only words, they appear to be Gravettian. For ex- 40(1):75–90. one line of argument (the dates) was pre- ample, El Palomar (Levels V, IV and III, re- 5 de la Peña Alonso P (2011) Sobre la unidad tecnológica del Gravetiense en la Península Ibérica: Implicaciones para el sented, and some of the sites used to sup- cently attributed to a technological tradition conocimiento del Paleolítico Superior inicial [About the port the authors’ conclusions still seem to of the Iberian Gravettian) or Nerja (NV13) technological unity of the Gravettian in the Iberian Peninsula: support previous arguments for the later and Bajondillo (11 and 10) were sites first Implications for understanding the Early Upper Paleolithic]. PhD thesis (Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain). survival of Neanderthals. attributed to the Aurignacian and later to Spanish. First, Carihuela Cave, although cited, was the Gravettian. Furthermore, most of Siret’s dealt with superficially, and its recent dates collection and even “indeterminate Early Up- were rejected by Wood et al. (1) because the per Paleolithic sites” (e.g., Cova Gran and sediment sampling was considered inappro- Foradada) also contain backed industries as priate. However, Carihuela has produced one of their earliest (5). Author contributions: P.d.l.P. performed research and wrote not only recent dates supporting a young In conclusion, the authors (1) should have the paper. chronology (4). Furthermore, the principal paid more attention to paleoclimatic relative The author declares no conflict of interest. argument for the survival of the Mousterian chronostratigraphy as a parallel argument to 1E-mail: [email protected]. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1303596110 PNAS Early Edition | 1of1 Downloaded by guest on September 30, 2021.