Demidenko Y.E., Otte M. & Noiret P. (dir.) - Siuren i rock-shelter. From Late and Early to Epi-Paleolithic in Crimea. Liège, ERAUL 129, 2012, p. 343-357.

18 - The Siuren-I Aurignacian of Krems-Dufour Type Industries in the Context of the European Aurignacian

Yuri E. Demidenko & Pierre noiret

Introduction on truncation/lateral retouch burins over dihedral burins with a near-absence of carinated burins, and include some scaled After defining here the Siuren I Aurignacian industries as Early tools, truncations, perforators, retouched blades with only a and Late/Evolved Aurignacian of Krems-Dufour types, we single piece with “Aurignacian-like heavy retouch”, while “non- now present the arguments supporting such industrial attribu- geometric microliths” comprise from about 40% (in the 1920s tions. Moreover, as will be seen in the archaeological indus- Lower layer) to about 60% (in the 1990s Units H and G) of trial sequence summarized in the next chapter, of the seven all tools. The composition and morphology of “non-geomet- occupational events and associated assemblages, the Siuren I ric microliths” show that the most typical is the Aurignacian Aurignacian industries are the most understandable; their posi- “Dufour bladelet” sub-type with bilateral alternate micro-scalar tions within the European Upper Paleolithic and particularly and/or micro-stepped semi-abrupt retouch made on bladelets the European Aurignacian technocomplex can be established and microblades with basically “on-axis” removal direction and quite rigorously that unfortunately cannot be said for the other flat/incurvate/”weakly twisted” general profiles; the- occur Upper Paleolithic and Final Paleolithic industries at Siuren I. rence of Aurignacian “Font-Yves/Krems points” with similar So, given the presence of two different kinds of Aurignacian bilateral dorsal and bilateral alternate retouch and blank mor- of Krems-Dufour at Siuren I, they will be discussed separately, phology should be noted as well. starting with the Early Aurignacian. Thus, intensive bladelet/microblade production from bladelet The Siuren I Early Aurignacian of Krems-Dufour “regular” and “carinated” cores in flint primary flaking pro- type in 1990s Units H and G/1920s Lower layer cesses in conjunction with the rather rare representation of in the context of the European Aurignacian Aurignacian tool types (only some specific end-scrapers, very few retouched blades and no carinated burins) among the The absence of assemblages in the Crimea comparable to the “Indicative Upper Paleolithic Tool types”, many Aurignacian Early Aurignacian at Siuren I does not necessarily indicate its “Dufour bladelets” sub-type and some “Font-Yves/Krems uniqueness within the European Aurignacian as a whole. On points”, may serve as “industrial keys” for comparative lithic the contrary, there are quite a few Aurignacian complexes out- analysis, especially given the very different ways in which such side the Crimean peninsula in which share very similar information is published for European sites. Such “industrial or even identical techno-typological features, including the bone keys” can also be supplemented by a rather “simple set” of tools and non-utilitarian objects characteristic of the Siuren I bone tools (flat points and some shouldered awls) and non- Early Aurignacian. In this chapter, artifact analyses are aimed utilitarian objects (shell beads). at determining the geochronological positions of European Aurignacian related complexes and their spatial distribution The most obvious way to identify industries similar to the throughout Europe and, finally, the place that the Siuren I Early Siuren I Early Aurignacian is to focus first on the European Aurignacian may occupy among them. Aurignacian assemblages with many and/or characteristic “Dufour bl