At the End of the 14C Time Scale—The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Record

Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol

At the end of the 14C time scaledthe Middle to Upper Paleolithic record of western Eurasia

Olaf Jo¨ris*, Martin Street

Forschungsbereich Altsteinzeit des Ro¨misch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Schloß Monrepos, D-56567 Neuwied, Germany article info abstract

Article history: The dynamics of change underlying the demographic processes that led to the replacement of Nean- Received 9 July 2007 dertals by Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) and the emergence of what are recognized as Upper Accepted 24 April 2008 Paleolithic technologies and behavior can only be understood with reference to the underlying chronological framework. This paper examines the European chronometric (mainly radiocarbon-based) Keywords: record for the period between ca. 40 and 30 ka 14C BP and proposes a relatively rapid transition within Neandertals some 2,500 years. This can be summarized in the following falsifiable hypotheses: (1) final Middle Pa- Anatomically Modern Humans leolithic (FMP) ‘‘transitional’’ industries (Uluzzian, Chatelperronian, leaf-point industries) were made by Cultural change Neandertals and date predominantly to between ca. 41 and 38 ka 14C BP, but not younger than 35/34 ka Radiocarbon dating 14C BP; (2) initial (IUP) and early (EUP) Upper Paleolithic ‘‘transitional’’ industries (Bachokirian, Bohu- nician, Protoaurignacian, Kostenki 14) will date to between ca. 39/38 and 35 ka 14C BP and document the appearance of AMH in Europe; (3) the earliest Aurignacian (I) appears throughout Europe quasi simultaneously at ca. 35 ka 14C BP. The earliest appearance of figurative art is documented only for a later phase ca. 33.0/32.5–29.2 ka 14C BP. Taken together, the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition appears to be a cumulative process involving the acquisition of different elements of ‘‘behavioral modernity’’ through several ‘‘stages of innovation.’’ Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction In both the anthropological and the archaeological discussion it is clear that meaningful models can only be created within a reli- The replacement of Neandertals by Anatomically Modern able chronological framework defined by highly accurate strati- Humans (AMH) and the change from the Middle to the Upper Pa- graphic records and chronometric age estimates. However, it is leolithic in western Eurasia mark crucial developments in human increasingly clear that the database for constructing a chronology biological and cultural history and are among the most debated for the period under consideration (ca. 40–30 ka 14C BP) is flawed, issues in paleoanthropology and archaeology. The frequently and that major contextual and methodological problems have been heated discussion by specialists in many fields is often dominated underestimated (cf. Blockley et al., 2008). This paper discusses by the assumption that the two topics are synchronous and causally critically the available chronometric records, taking into account linked. Hypotheses range from the idea that behavior is clearly recent advances in radiocarbon dating and interpretation, and ad- species-related (e.g., Lahr and Foley, 1998), implying that re- dresses their implications for specific problems in both the physical placement of Middle Paleolithic technologies by Upper Paleolithic anthropological and cultural records. ones was an intrusive and ‘‘revolutionary’’ process that spread relatively rapidly from a specific core area (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1998; cf. Scenario Bar-Yosef, 2001), to the proposal that the observed cultural changes are trans-specific, with aspects of Upper Paleolithic technology The hypothesis that all modern humans ultimately descend being invented independently by Neandertals and AMH (Zilhaõ and from a small population of African origin is consistently supported d’Errico, 1999; d’Errico, 2003; Zilhaõ, 2006a) and/or adopted by the by the analysis of both recent human mitochondrial and nuclear former following contact with the latter (e.g., Hublin et al., 1996; DNA (Forster, 2004) and also by the early ages established for early Mellars, 2000). African and Near Eastern AMH (White et al., 2003; Gru¨ n et al., 2005; McDougall et al., 2005; Trinkaus, 2005). Near Eastern data suggest a northward expansion of early AMH as early as 135– * Corresponding author. 100,000 years ago (Gru¨ n et al., 2005; cf. Shen and Michel, 2007), in E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O. Jo¨ris), [email protected] (M. Street). what was apparently only a temporary incursion into Eurasia since

Fig. 1. Key sites with hominin remains around the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition, and sites associated with the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) marker horizon (modiﬁed from Giaccio et al., 2006; Pyle et al., 2006). Map based on SRTM data; sea level lowered by 75 m.

younger hominin fossils from Amud, Kebara, and Dederiyeh (e.g., Given the great geographical extent of Europe it seems plausible Akazawa et al., 1998; Hovers, 2006) are Neandertals of western that the last Neandertals may have been contemporaries of Euro- Eurasian origin (cf. Fig. 1). Based on studies of fossil mtDNA it has pean early AMH, and repeated claims have been made for late been argued that Neandertals made no recognizable contribution Neandertal survival in refugial situations most distant to early AMH to the gene pool of modern Homo sapiens, suggestive of a rapid penetration into the continent (Zilhaõ, 2006b). In similar form, replacement scenario (Serre et al., 2004; Excoffier, 2006), although Neandertal refugial survival has been suggested for the southern recently, limited genetic transfer between the two lineages has European peninsulas of Iberia (e.g., Vega Toscanõ, 1990, 1993; been suggested as a possible scenario (cf. Eswaran et al., 2005; Zilhaõ, 1993, 2000, 2006b), Italy (Kuhn and Bietti, 2000), the Green et al., 2006). Crimea (Marks and Monigal, 2000), and for the Caucasus region It has been suggested that certain morphological features of (Bar-Yosef et al., 2006). Most recently, radiocarbon dates from Neandertal and ancient AMH skeletons provide evidence for at Gorham’s Cave on Gibraltar have led Finlayson et al. (2006) to least some intermixture of the two hominin types (Rougier et al., propose survival of the Middle Paleolithic anddimplicitlydof the 2007), an interpretation contradicted by the most recent mor- last Neandertals at the southern tip of the Iberian Peninsula until as phological analysis of the early AMH calvaria from Cioclovina, recently as 28 ka, and probably even 24 ka 14C BP, although context Romania, which emphasizes their entirely modern character and relevance of the dated samples for the age of the Middle Pa- (Harvati et al., 2007). Should, however, the first scenario be ac- leolithic levels at Gorham’s Cave were immediately questioned cepted, the absence of genetic evidence for admixture would imply (Zilhaõ and Pettitt, 2006). A large proportion of the radiocarbon that there was a subsequent loss of overall genetic diversity in the data available for the southern Iberian Middle Paleolithic is of poor surviving present day human population (Zilhaõ, 2006a: 8). quality, with measurements often obtained several decades ago For any discussion of Neandertal extinction and their potential and/or displaying high standard deviations; frequently, they are merging with AMH (Fig. 1), the timing and duration of possible contradicted by results obtained by other dating methods (e.g., contact between them are of critical importance. A brief period of Zafarraya: Hublin et al., 1995) and they often derive from poorly interaction would suggest practically instantaneous replacement of recorded contexts (Jo¨ris et al., 2003; cf. Vaquero et al., 2006). Neandertals by AMH (Currat and Excoffier, 2004), whereas co- As is exemplified in this discussion, our perception of the existence over several thousands of years would imply only relationship between Neandertals and early AMH reflects the a gradual diffusion of AMH into Eurasia (Zilhaõ, 2006b). For the course of European Paleolithic research, which led to the recogni- latter scenario it has been stated that AMH moved into Europe from tion of two distinct monolithic blocks, the Middle and the Upper the East (Bar-Yosef, 2001; Bolus and Conard, 2001; Conard and Paleolithic, believed to be essentially different and implicitly Bolus, 2003; Mellars, 2004, 2006a,b), possibly across a broad front associated with the two hominin types. Stratigraphic observations (e.g., Bocquet-Appel and Demars, 2000), or by penetration along and improved absolute dating methods, in combination with specific axes such as the major river systems of the Danube (Conard detailed techno-/typological studies, today show that change from and Bolus, 2003) and the Don (Anikovich et al., 2007: 225). For the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in western Eurasia was far more many authors these movements seem to be mirrored in the spatio- complex in both time and space than could be expressed by simple temporal patterns of the Aurignacian, which is occasionally asso- models of replacement. ciated with early AMH (Churchill and Smith, 2000; Paunescu, 2001; It is now generally recognized that the late Middle Paleolithic Trinkaus et al., 2003; Bailey and Hublin, 2005; Trinkaus, 2005; Wild (LMP) is quite heterogeneous, comprising diverse and regionally et al., 2005). different assemblages, which can be defined as distinct 784 O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802

Fig. 2. a. European ‘‘transitional’’ industries. Map based on SRTM data; sea level lowered by 75 m. IUP ¼ initial Upper Paleolithic; EUP ¼ early Upper Paleolithic; the broken line divides the FMP ‘‘transitional’’ industries of northern Europe (leaf-point assemblages) from those of southern Europe (Chatelperronian, Uluzzian, Klisoura). b. Earliest radiocarbon dated evidence for European Aurignacian industries. Map based on SRTM data; sea level lowered by 75 m.

spatio-chronological entities such as the western European Mous- elements often regarded as reflecting ‘‘behavioral modernity,’’ such terian of Acheulian tradition (MTA; Soressi, 2002), the Central as the systematic production of blades and higher frequencies of European Keilmessergruppen (Bosinski, 1967; Jo¨ris, 2004), or the ‘‘progressive’’ or ‘‘Upper Paleolithic’’ lithic tool types, such as end- Eastern European Micoquian and various other industries on the scrapers, burins, or backed pieces (cf. e.g., Bar-Yosef and Zilhaõ, Crimean peninsula, Russian Plain, and Caucasus (e.g., Chabai, 2003; 2006). Although there is no consensus on the defining criteria for Sinitsyn, 2003; Monigal, 2006; Usik et al., 2006). From all these this group (cf. Bar-Yosef, 2006a), use of the term ‘‘transitional cultural contexts, only Neandertal skeletal remains are known. industries’’ is often steered by an evolutionist concept of cultural Beyond this, there exist ‘‘transitional’’ assemblage types that change, with the implication that these assemblages represent postdate the LMP but fall stratigraphically and chronometrically some form of developmental stage between the Middle and the before the Aurignacian (Fig. 2a, b), and which are characterized by Upper Paleolithic. An alternate interpretation of the term regards O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 785 these industries as ‘‘transitional’’ only because they fall chrono- securely documented from Aurignacian contexts (Floss and Rou- logically between preceding unambiguous Middle and subsequent querol, 2007; cf. Zilhaõ, 2007). unambiguous Upper Paleolithic assemblages. Between these perspectives is room for a broad spectrum of views, which are often Radiocarbon dating at the limits of the 14C-scaledproblems fundamentally influenced by a preference for either ‘‘cultural con- and perspectives tinuity’’ or ‘‘cultural hiatus.’’ The appearance of innovative features within the ‘‘transitional’’ For a better understanding of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic industries has been discussed as particularly relevant for the transition and the last Neandertals/first AMH it is necessary to emergence of ‘‘behavioral’’ (or even cognitive, cf. d’Errico, 2003) examine their absolute and relative chronological relationship at modernity, for the question of respective Neandertal and AMH the highest possible level of accuracy. However, before the themes abilities and their potential interactions and for the origins of the outlined above can be discussed with regard to their chronology, Aurignacian. Among the major innovations commonly seen as some methodological questions pertinent to radiometric dating milestones in the emergence of ‘‘modern’’ human behavior are the must be addressed. first appearance of personal ornaments; the emergence of a stan- Together with reliable stratigraphic controls, radiocarbon dating dardized bone, antler, and ivory weapon technology; and the ear- provides the backbone for current anthropological and archaeo- liest undeniable evidence for figurative art. logical models, due to both its wide applicability and its high an- The earliest appearance of personal ornaments in association alytical precision. Other radiometric evidence is still applied quite with specific pre-Aurignacian contexts has repeatedly provoked unsystematically (but cf. Richter et al., 2008), and many methods controversial discussion (for recent reviews see Alva´rez Ferna´ ndez, have only limited suitability for the dating of archaeological or 2006; Zilhaõ, 2007). If personal ornament is regarded as the pre- paleoanthropological samples and/or are of only relatively poor rogative of AMH, its presence in ‘‘transitional’’ contexts apparently precision due to their large inherent standard deviations. On the associated with Neandertals, such as the Chatelperronian and re- other hand, the interpretation or assessment of radiocarbon dating lated complexes with curved-backed pieces, requires explanation. results is greatly influenced by factors such as the choice of material A number of researchers interpret the presence of personal orna- sampled, the context of the sample within the site, and the pre- ments as due to contamination from younger, AMH-associated treatment process applied to the sample (Jo¨ris et al., in press). The deposits (e.g., White, 2001). An opposed interpretation sees the fact that the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition and the re- presence of ornaments in ‘‘transitional’’ contexts as evidence for an placement of the last Neandertals by early AMH lie close to the limit independent evolution of ‘‘behavioral modernity’’ among in- of the dating method leads to greater imprecision expressed as digenous Neandertals (d’Errico et al., 1998; d’Errico, 2003). An in- increasingly high standard deviations or infinite measurements. termediate viewpoint accepts that Neandertals possessed personal The choice of sample is among the most important parameters ornaments but only acquired the cognitive skills implicit in their for the measurement of radiocarbon ages, and their meaningful use as a result of acculturation following contact with intrusive interpretation can only be based on rigorous procedures and pro- AMH populations (e.g., Hublin et al., 1996; Mellars, 2000). In fact, tocols (e.g., Lowe and Walker, 2000; Pettitt et al., 2003). The specific the evidence for personal ornaments in ‘‘transitional’’ contexts at- location of a sample within a site can influence the interpretation of tributed to Neandertals is generally quite limited. radiocarbon results and lead to discrepant age series within By contrast, personal ornaments in the form of shell beads and, closely-related site contexts. Bones from Middle Paleolithic hori- more rarely, animal teeth are regularly described from slightly zons inside the southern German Sesselfelsgrotte rockshelter pro- younger Protoaurignacian ‘‘transitional industries’’ around the duced radiocarbon ages in stratigraphical order, whereas samples Northern Mediterranean (for recent reviews see Koz1owski, 1982; from equivalent strata outside the rockshelter drip line gave sig- Kuhn and Stiner, 1998; Alva´rez Fernańdez, 2006; Vanhaeren and nificantly younger ages (Richter, 2004). The different methods ap- d’Errico, 2006; Zilhaõ, 2007; Jo¨ris et al., in press). Evidence of plied in sample pre-treatment and removal of contaminants also similar age comes from the southern Russian site of Kostenki 14 directly influence results, and thus, the comparability of the (Markina Gora) on the Don River, where a double-perforated ma- different laboratories. For example, dates produced quite recently rine shell (Columbella sp.), apparently ‘‘.derived from a source no for the Upper Paleolithic burials of Sun’gir by different laboratories closer than the Black Sea.’’ (more than 500 km distant), was found (Oxford: Pettitt and Bader, 2000; Arizona: Kuzmin et al., 2004) in a pre-Aurignacian context (Anikovich et al., 2007: 225). That the differ by several thousand radiocarbon years. Despite dedicated occurrence of marine shell personal ornaments does not simply inter-laboratory comparison programs (e.g., Scott, 2003), the repeat reflect proximity to the sea is also demonstrated by their consid- dating of specific samples by different laboratories is rare so that erable presence at the Protoaurignacian site of Grotta di Fumane independent testing of the validity of a result is the exception not (Broglio and Gurioli, 2004; Broglio and Dalmeri, 2005), even today the rule. 200 km from the Ligurian coast and at that time still more distant Although charcoal has traditionally been the preferred material from the low-sea-level Adriatic coastline. for dating the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic, the advent of Bone artifacts associated with ’’transitional’’ contexts, such as AMS dating technology has made it possible to use the much the Chatelperronian of Grotte du Renne (e.g., d’Errico et al., 2003)or smaller amount of datable carbon in bone or antler. These materials Kostenki 14, level IVb (Sinitsyn, 2003), largely comprise whittled have become increasingly important since they are more com- down bone awls with often rudimentary modification. They seem monly available and often show clear traces of human modification. less a proof of ‘‘behavioral modernity’’ than continuation of the In consequence, there has been a strong emphasis on dating bone methods used since the Lower and Middle Paleolithic to produce samples, and less on charcoal, so that many of the AMS dates today wooden or bone artifacts (e.g., Thieme, 1997; Gaudzinski, 1999). accepted as highly relevant for the discussion of the Middle to This is in contrast to standardized Aurignacian projectile points of Upper Paleolithic transition are from carefully-selected hominin bone, antler, or ivory (cf. Albrecht et al., 1972) that are the result of and humanly-modified bone samples. a complex chain of production (cf. Liolios, 2006). Comparison of charcoal and bone date series from equivalent The most conclusive evidence for the appearance of ‘‘fully’’ de- Middle and earlier Upper Paleolithic contexts has demonstrated veloped modern human behavior or cognition in the western a methodological problem, with significant differences between Eurasian Paleolithic is provided by figurative art in the form of the two (cf. Jo¨ris et al., 2003, in press). The large series of available carved figurines, painted images, and picked engravings, first bone dates show an extremely broad distribution, with age 786 O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 overlaps far beyond the associated statistical dating errors. This has and/or inappropriate pre-treatment, and must accept that, at the often been taken as supporting a major temporal overlap (>10 ka limits of the dating method, an unknown proportion of radiocarbon 14C BP) between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic within specific results, both on these bone samples and on charcoal dated without parts of Europe, often interpreted in favor of late Neandertal sur- ABOX-SC techniques, may be in many cases (much) too young and vival (e.g., Zilhaõ, 2006b). By contrast, results on charcoal tend to be must therefore be regarded as minimum ages only (e.g., Turney significantly older and consistently date the latest Middle Paleo- et al., 2006). lithic sites to before ca. 38 ka 14C BP, whereas both IUP and EUP The relevance of a dated sample for an archaeological/anthro- charcoal dates post-date ca. 38 ka 14C BP, suggestive for their suc- pological context cannot be assumed simply on grounds of spatial cessive appearance. The blurred picture given by bone measure- proximity, but must be supported by critical examination of its ments is most probably a result of younger contaminant carbon. context and the taphonomic environment. Dates on samples from Recent developments in bone collagen extraction and purification older excavations frequently have no or inadequate stratigraphic/ (e.g., ‘‘ultrafiltration’’ pre-treatment: Bronk Ramsey et al., 2004) spatial context control in comparison with today’s generally ac- demonstrate convincingly that it is now possible to remove a far cepted standards (e.g., Pettitt et al., 2003). The often large bulk larger amount of younger contaminants from bone samples than was samples necessary for conventional ß-decay radiocarbon dating previously possible. In most cases the results are older ages for the (often composed of a variety of undiagnostic fragments) need to be same bone specimens previously dated without these procedures treated with particular caution. (Higham et al., 2006a,b; Jacobi et al., 2006;cf.Jacobi and Higham, The archaeological/paleoanthropological relevance of a sample 2008), leading to optimism that such techniques may indeed achieve is most clearly given when it is unambiguously altered by human more reliable measurements. On balance, this suggests that recently modification (e.g., cut marks on bone), and since the introduction of measured 14C-ages on bone produced by laboratories utilizing the AMS 14C method, the much smaller sample required has comparable state-of-the-art technology can be regarded with more allowed many such documents of human activity to be dated (in- confidence in terms of precision and reliability, although we must cluding valuable single objects of art or adornment), albeit with the accept that we are only beginning to fully understand the diverse provisos described above. Even then, direct dates on ‘‘significant’’ problems of sample contamination, and that further improvements cultural proxies (e.g., artifacts such as bone, antler, or ivory points) and corrections of the data are to be expected. can rarely be associated with a specific form of hominin and, in the Over the past decade it has become increasingly evident that not majority of cases, direct dates on hominin fossils have no demon- only bone samples, but also charcoal from contexts at the older age strated relevance for the cultural/archaeological record (cf. Jo¨ris limit of the radiocarbon method, potentially yield results which are et al., in press). far too young. This is a result of imperfect removal of modern or As has long been recognized, a direct comparison of the time younger carbon from the sample by standard ABA (acid-base-acid) scale provided by radiocarbon measurements with ages scaled to charcoal pretreatment. The presence of only a very small amount of true calendar years is impossible without calibration, which be- recent contaminant will significantly reduce the age of a sample comes most evident when comparing with the age estimates containing little remnant original 14C and can create a ‘‘barrier given from other dating methods supplying absolute (calendric) effect’’ with dates peaking at around 40 ka 14C BP and no older. This ages (e.g., U/Th-series, TL). Despite lingering skepticism towards presents a problem analogous to that of bone samples. radiocarbon age calibration for most of the Last Glacial period Development of a new method (Bird et al., 1999), so-called acid- (e.g., Reimer et al., 2004; van der Plicht et al., 2004; Bronk base-oxidation pretreatment followed by stepped combustion Ramsey et al., 2006), it now seems that remaining problems are (ABOX-SC), suggested that it is possible to eliminate practically all far less significant than are errors due to sample contamination contaminant carbon and push the effective limits of reliable char- and context. Indeed, most recent progress has focused on the coal dating back to at least 50 ka 14C BP, with subsequent re- elaboration of a near-to-absolute age-model incorporating a syn- finements suggesting possible extension of its application back to chronization of paleoclimate archives for the last 75 ka BP and 60 ka 14CBP(Pigati et al., 2007). promises a breakthrough in the calibration of the 14C time scale The development of the ABOX-SC method took place against the back to the technical limits of the method (cf. www.calpal.de; background of discussions of the timing of human colonization of Weninger and Jo¨ris, 2004, 2008; Hughen et al., 2006; cf. Blockley the Australian continent, and much of its application has been in et al., 2008). this context (Turney et al., 2001a,b,c; Bird et al., 2002, 2003a; Gillespie, 2002; O’Connell and Allen, 2004), although it has sub- sequently been employed in other contexts and geographical set- Direct dates for western Eurasian hominins at the Middle to tings (e.g., Bird et al., 2003b; Santos et al., 2003; synthesis in Bird Upper Paleolithic transition et al., 2004; Barker et al., 2007). Although this significant im- provement in methods of charcoal radiocarbon dating covers ex- Very few Neandertals or early AMH specimens have been di- actly the period crucial to the questions addressed here (cf. Blockley rectly dated. Of those relevant for the Middle to Upper Paleolithic et al., 2008), we are not aware of any published ABOX results from transition in western Eurasia, only 19 direct radiocarbon mea- sites around the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in western surements from 5 different sites and 2 uranium-series measure- Eurasia. However, dating work is reported in progress for layers ments have been made on Neandertal specimens, and 13 relevant to this question at the key site of Willendorf II in Lower radiocarbon analyses have been made on European pre-Mid-Upper Austria (Nigst et al., 2008: 12). Paleolithic AMH. The recent improvements in the application of ultrafiltration or Dates from five Neandertal sites form a coherent group (Fig. 3; ABOX techniques will surely lead to further advances in the alle- See Table 1 in Supplementary Online Material [SOM]), demon- viation or resolution of the described problems and will become strating the presence of these hominins shortly before 38 ka 14CBP standard procedures for radiocarbon dating at the Middle to Upper at the Kleine Feldhofer Grotte type locality in the Du¨ ssel Valley of Paleolithic boundary. Nevertheless, we suggest that at present the Germany (Schmitz et al., 2002), El Sidro´ n in Cantabrian Spain accuracy of charcoal samples from this time range can probably be (Lalueza-Fox et al., 2005), Rochers-de-Villeneuve, France (Beauval accepted as generally higher than that of bone (see above, cf. Jo¨ris et al., 2005, 2006), the Ku˚ lna Cave in the Czech Republic (Mook, et al., 2003, in press). We recommend caution in the interpretation 1988), and in layer G3 at the Croatian site of Vindija (Krings et al., of 14C ages, particularly on bone samples with undemonstrated 2000; Serre et al., 2004). O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 787

Fig. 3. Direct radiocarbon age determinations for hominin remains from around the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition (see: Supplementary Online Material [SOM] Table 1), given with 1s -standard deviation. The weighted mean for Paviland places the burial of the ‘‘Red Lady’’ appreciably earlier than the series of Mid-Upper Paleolithic (MUP) burials (cf. Jacobi and Higham, 2008); the Cro Magnon date on marine shell (Henry-Gambier, 2002) is included since the specimen derives from an Aurignacian level, but the interpretation of the date is complicated due to unknown reservoir effects (cf. Mellars, 2006a). Dates on bone ¼ circles; dates on shell ¼ squares; AMH ¼ Anatomically Modern Humans; MUP ¼ Mid- Upper Paleolithic; dark grey shading ¼ most likely dating range.

Appreciably younger are the direct radiocarbon results for two During the last few years direct dating has revised the paleo- specimens (Vi-207, Vi-208) from layer G1 of the Vindija Cave and anthropological record of supposedly key-specimens for the a single measurement for the Mezmaiskaya Neandertal infant question of early European AMH (Terberger et al., 2001; Terberger (Russia) (Fig. 3; SOM Table 1) that have been interpreted as evi- and Street, 2003; Conard et al., 2004; Street et al., 2006) with only dence for prolonged survival of Neandertals in southeastern and a few directly dated fossils remaining relevant (SOM Table 1; cf. Eastern Europe (e.g., Smith et al., 1999). However, anomalies in Churchill et al., 2000; Trinkaus, 2005, 2007; Jacobi and Higham, dating at the two sites cast doubt on the validity of the younger 2008). measurements (cf. Jo¨ris et al., in press). Repeat radiocarbon mea- Because of the fragmentary state of the Kent’s Cavern 4 maxilla, surements of the same Vindija specimens produced significantly there is doubt as to its taxonomic affinity (Jacobi et al., 2006); higher ages, which are still only considered to be minimum age however, the specimen has been linked with the Aurignacian ma- estimates (Higham et al., 2006a: 555). Context ages for Vindija terial found at the site. Repeat dating of the specimen after ultra- ascertained by independent dating methods (Karavanic´ and Smith, filtration pre-treatment failed, but dates on stratified material 1998) also reveal discrepancies. Cave bear bone from level G1 14C bracketing its find horizon suggest that a previously obtained date dates to between ca. 46.8 and 18.3 ka 14CBP(Higham et al., 2006a) (SOM Table 1) must be regarded as a minimum age estimate only, and implies that complex taphonomic processes were involved in and that the true radiocarbon age might fall between ca. 37 and 35 the formation of this layer (cf. Zilhaõ and d’Errico, 1999). The direct ka 14CBP(Higham et al., 2006b). radiocarbon measurement of the Mezmaiskaya layer 3D infant With a combined radiocarbon age of 34,950 þ 990/890 14CBP (Ovchinnikov et al., 2000) is contradicted by a stratigraphically (SOM Table 1), the Pes¸tera cu Oase 1 mandible provides the earliest consistent series of older radiocarbon measurements from over- reliable dating evidence for AMH in Europe (Trinkaus et al., 2003), lying layers and an infinite radiocarbon measurement >45 ka 14C which is comparable in age with the directly 14C-dated early AMH BP (LE-3841) from layer 3D itself (Golovanova, 1998). Recent ESR- from the Chinese Tianyuan Cave (Shang et al., 2007). The specimens dating also challenges the validity of the claimed late date of the from Mladecˇ, Czech Republic, date to ca. 31.2 ka 14C BP and are child bones (Skinner et al., 2005). appreciably younger (Wild et al., 2005; SOM Table 1). Viewed from 788 O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 the circumstances of the discovery it appears that the latter re- types by curved-backed pieces. Supported by a similar geographical mains are associated with an Aurignacian characterized by bone distribution of sites and by techno-typological features, it has been points of the eponymous Mladecˇ type of the later Aurignacian claimed that the Chatelperronian arises from the latest regional (Hahn, 1988a; Svoboda, 2000, 2003). AMH remains from the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition (e.g., Bordes, 1961; Pelegrin, Romanian sites of Pes¸tera Muierii de la Baia de Fier and Pes¸tera 1995; Soressi, 2002; cf. Bosinski, 1989, 1990). Other ‘‘transitional’’ Mare-Cioclovina (Trinkaus, 2007) are also probably associated with industries with curved-backed piecesdamong them the Uluzzian the Aurignacian and are directly dated to ca. 30 ka and 29 ka 14CBP, of the Italian Peninsula (Palma di Cesnola, 1982) and the Layer V respectively (Paunescu, 2001; Soficaru et al., 2006; SOM Table 1). industry from Klisoura Cave 1 in Greece (Koumouzelis et al., They are about the same age as the ‘‘Red Lady’’ AMH burial from 2001a,b)dmay also be the result of filiation from a regional LMP, Paviland, recently re-dated following ultrafiltration pre-treatment although others see a clear break between the Uluzzian and the (Jacobi and Higham, 2008). preceding Italian Middle Paleolithic (e.g., Gioia, 1990). The direct dating evidence for western Eurasian Neandertal/ In southern Italy, it seems certain that the Middle to Upper early AMH specimens at present can be summarized as follows: Paleolithic ‘‘transition’’ includes an Uluzzian curved-backed point phase followed by laminar industries ascribed to the Proto- (1) Reliable dates for Neandertal fossils are found only before ca. aurignacian. Since Middle Paleolithic, Uluzzian, and Proto- 38 ka 14CBP. aurignacian assemblages have never been demonstrated to overlie (2) AMH fossils are not reliably dated to before ca. 35 ka 14C BP; deposits of the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) marker horizon (Fig. 1; however, the association of AMH with the Aurignacian can be Fedele et al., 2002, 2003, 2008; Giaccio et al., 2006), they must be accepted (e.g., Churchill and Smith, 2000; Paunescu, 2001; more than ca. 40,000 calendar years old and should therefore date Trinkaus et al., 2003; Bailey and Hublin, 2005; Trinkaus, 2005; slightly before ca. 34.8–34.7 ka 14C BP, the approximate radiocarbon Wild et al., 2005). age of the CI eruption (Jo¨ris et al., in press; Weninger and Jo¨ris, (3) The interval 38–35 ka 14C BP in western Eurasia has not yet 2008; cf. Fedele et al., 2008). If the Middle Paleolithic and Uluzzian provided unambiguous anthropological evidence for either are accepted to have been made by Neandertals, the survival of Neandertals or early AMH, leaving room for discussion of cul- these hominins on the Central and Eastern Mediterranean penin- tural and/or genetic transfer between the two groups. An iso- sulas later than ca. 39.6 ka BPHulu (cf. Weninger and Jo¨ris, 2008) lated context dated tooth from Kostenki 14, level IVb is appears increasingly unlikely. This is also implied by the age of the discussed as AMH (Sinitsyn, 2003: 91), and in the Near East an Uluzzian-like inventory of level V at Klisoura Cave 1 in Greece, early AMH burial (‘‘Egbert’’) uncovered at the site of Ksar’Akil which stratigraphically pre-dates a long Aurignacian sequence. The (Bergman and Stringer, 1989) in an Early Ahmarian context is next overlying Aurignacian levels IV and IIIg / IIIe’ are dated as early placed into this gap (cf. Mellars, 2004; Zilhaõ, 2007). as ca. 34.7 ka 14CBP(SOM Table 2) and provide a date before which the Uluzzian assemblage must have been deposited, corresponding approximately with the radiocarbon age of CI. The age of the un- Chronology of ‘‘transitional industries’’ derlying level V itself can only be inferred from two infinite dates obtained from two hearths and by a more recently obtained single As frequently argued, the technological and typological features finite measurement on a burnt bone of ca. 40.0 ka 14CBP(Kou- of certain ‘‘transitional’’ lithic industries suggest that they de- mouzelis et al., 2001a,b). veloped regionally from LMP substrates and can perhaps be In contrast to the poorly dated FMP industries of the Eastern and regarded most parsimoniously as the last expression of indigenous Central Mediterranean, the western European Chatelperronian has Middle Paleolithic development (Bosinski, 1967; Bolus, 2004; Jo¨ris, produced a relatively large number of radiocarbon dates (Fig. 4; 2004). In other words, these industries represent a diverse and SOM Table 2), the majority of them from French sites. With one more differentiated ‘‘Final Middle Paleolithic’’ (FMP). We see no exception all dates are on bone when the material is known. The need to regard these industries as ‘‘transitional’’ in the sense of Chatelperronian radiocarbon dataset is, however, heterogeneous foreshadowing the ‘‘behavioral modernity’’ of subsequent Upper with regard to the laboratories involved, the date of sample sub- Paleolithic assemblages. With the exception of Neandertal remains mission, and the range of ages produced (from ca. 45 to 25 ka 14C from the two Chatelperronian contexts at St. Ce´saire (Le´veˆque and BP). Many results have large standard deviations and several are Vandermeersch, 1980; Morin et al., 2005; but see also discussion in clearly erroneous (for a recent compilation see Jo¨ris et al., in press). Bar-Yosef, 2006b) and the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure (Leroi- The most comprehensive series of dates for the Chatelperronian Gourhan, 1958; Bailey and Hublin, 2006), none of the FMP group of comes from the site of Grotte du Renne (Arcy-sur-Cure: Fig. 4; ‘‘transitional industries’’ is associated with unambiguous or sig- SOM Table 2), where numerous radiocarbon determinations are nificant hominin remains. It nevertheless seems probable that all available throughout a continuous stratigraphic sequence from the were made by the aboriginal Neandertal population. LMP to the Aurignacian (David et al., 2001). The site is of key- Close in time to these FMP foliate and backed-point industries importance in the discussion of late Neandertals due to the re- exist other southern and southeastern European ‘‘transitional in- covery of the greatest number of personal ornaments attributed to dustries’’ characterized by a significant blade component and a Chatelperronian context (cf. discussion in Zilhaõ, 2007) and the ‘‘Upper Paleolithic’’ tool types, which appear to represent a break preservation of Neandertal remains (Hublin et al., 1996; cf. Bailey with previous Middle Paleolithic regional traditions. These in- and Hublin, 2006). The oldest Chatelperronian level X at Grotte du dustries have often been perceived as the earliest evidence for the Renne provided a number of impossibly young dates. Although Upper Paleolithic within the region (e.g., Koz1owski, 1982). other results from the same level form a more plausible cluster around 34–33 ka 14C BP, it might be questioned whether the single FMP curved-backed piece industries date of 38,300 1,300 14C BP (OxA-8451/Ly-894) on a horse bone from layer Xb1 does not imply a much older age, similar to results The southwestern European Chatelperronian, initially consid- from level B5 at Grotte des Feés or level 8 at Roc-de-Combe. While ered to be fully Upper Paleolithic (e.g., de Sonneville-Bordes, 1960) the middle Chatelperronian at Grotte du Renne (level IX) has but later shown to display Middle Paleolithic features as well widely discrepant dates, seemingly too young relative to the (Leroi-Gourhan, 1968; Guilbaud, 1993; d’Errico et al., 1998; dis- stratigraphic sequence, dates for the youngest level (VIII) again cussion in Zilhaõ and d’Errico, 1999), is characterized among other form a group with ages between ca. 33.9 and 32.0 ka 14C BP. Due to O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 789

Fig. 4. Selection of results from radiometric dating of Chatelperronian and Uluzzian assemblages (see: SOM Table 2), given with 1s-standard deviation. Dates on bone ¼ circles (open–without traces of hominin activity); dates on charcoal ¼ diamonds; unknown material ¼ x; dark grey shading ¼ most likely dating range; light grey shading ¼ divergent dates.

these inconsistencies, the Grotte du Renne radiocarbon dataset 1977; but see objection in Jacobi, 1990), Jerzmanovician, Altmu¨ hl- does not resolve the debate on the age of the Chatelperronian at gruppe/‘‘Ranisian,’’ or ‘‘Szeletian’’1 (e.g., Allsworth-Jones, 1986; this site. The fact that results are based on conventional measure- Bolus, 2004; Jacobi et al., 2006: 567). These ‘‘transitional in- ment, often on bulked bone, suggests that their contextual, if not dustries’’ can convincingly be argued to have emerged from the indeed their methodological validity, must be viewed critically. LMP Keilmessergruppen industries of Central and Eastern Europe (cf. Bosinski, 1967; Jo¨ris, 2004) and, in the view of the authors, can therefore be regarded as an autochthonous FMP development. FMP leaf/blade point industries

The northwestern and Central European leaf-point industries or 1 Blattspitzengruppen (cf.. Freund, 1952), characterized by (semi-) The limited stratigraphic information, the questionable integrity of the lithic assemblages, and the unclear provenance of the radiocarbon-dated sample material bifacially-worked foliate tools (leaf points and blade points: e.g., from Szeleta Cave, Hungary, do not provide conclusive information on the age of Jacobi, 1990), occur to the north of the high alpine mountain chains. the Szeletian (cf Lengyel and Mester, submitted). It might even be considered The industries are variously described as Lincombian (Campbell, whether the term ‘‘Szeletian’’ should not be rejected completely. 790 O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802

Fig. 5. Selection of results from radiometric dating of leaf/blade point assemblages (only pre-Aurignacian contexts; see: SOM Table 3), given with 1s -standard deviation. Dates on bone ¼ circles (open–without traces of hominin activity); dates on charcoal ¼ diamonds; dark grey shading ¼ most likely dating range; light grey shading ¼ less likely dating range.

Although limited, the most important stratigraphic evidence for and Bordes, 2003; Teyssandier, 2006, 2007), and are generally the age of leaf point industries at the Middle to Upper Paleolithic grouped together into an ‘‘Initial Upper Paleolithic’’ (IUP; e.g., Bar- transition comes from the German sites of the Weinbergho¨hlen Yosef, 2003; Kuhn, 2003). The Bachokirian might, therefore, be close to Mauern (von Koenigswald et al., 1974) and the Ilsenho¨hle in classified as an ‘‘IUP transitional industry’’ that, although clearly Ranis (Hu¨ lle, 1977). Here there is no doubt that leaf point industries rooted in the (not necessarily regional) Middle Paleolithic, already were below any Upper Paleolithic layers present (Bolus, 2004). To presents some aspects of Upper Paleolithic technology. The eastern date, no reliable absolute dates are available for these sites. Central European Bohunician is interpreted similarly (Sˇkrdla, 1996, Recently obtained 14C AMS dates for the Ilsenho¨hle at Ranis 2003; Svoboda, 2003; Svoboda and Bar-Yosef, 2003), but usually (Gru¨ nberg, 2006) are unable to clarify the age of the foliate point contains some foliates. assemblage. Results for supposedly distinct ’’Blattspitzen,’’ Auri- The Bacho-Kiro layer 11 industry is associated with three gnacian, and Gravettian contexts 2, 3, and 4 place all three entities radiocarbon dates giving a weighted mean of 36,471 796 14CBP indiscriminately within the period 33.5–27.0 ka 14C BP. The early (Fig. 6; SOM Table 4). At Temnata, the Bachokirian (Ginter et al., date of the excavations (Hu¨ lle, 1977) and the complicated and 1996) is overlain by the Y5 tephra layer of the CI and is dated by probably-disturbed site stratigraphy might explain why the sam- a series of radiocarbon measurements, mostly on charcoal, to pled bones do not reliably date specific cultural units. between 39,100 1,800 14C BP (OxA-5169: TD-I inf.) and With reservations, a limited number of radiocarbon dates for 36,900 1,300 14C BP (OxA-5173: TD-V inf.), as well as by two TL leaf point industries forms a consistent group between ca. 40.0 and measurements (SOM Table 4). Three radiocarbon results from 37.5 ka 14CBP(Fig. 5; SOM Table 3). Five charcoal dates from context TD-I (interior) give a weighted mean of 38,642 954 14CBP. Vedrovice V in the Czech Republic (Valoch, 1993, 1996; Svoboda Radiocarbon dates from the Czech site of Strańska´ ska´la obtained on et al., 1996) give a weighted mean of ca. 37,100 350 14CBP charcoal from the ‘‘upper paleosol’’ (Damblon et al., 1996; Valoch, andddespite high standard deviationsdagree well with pioneer- 1996; Svoboda, 2003) date the Bohunician here with a weighted ing measurements of charcoal samples from Nietoperzowa (level mean of 35,726 213 14CBP(SOM Table 4). The assemblage of 6), Poland, and Certova Pec, Slovakia of ca. 38.5 ka 14C BP and Korolevo II, layer II, in Transcarpathian Ukraine (Usik et al., 2006), 38.4 ka 14C BP (pooled mean of two measurements), respectively also identified as a ‘‘Bohunician-type’’ industry, dates to (SOM Table 3; Vogel and Waterbolk, 1964). 38,500 1,000 14C BP ([GIN-2774] Fig. 6; SOM Table 4). Assumed to Material closely associated with British leaf- and blade point be of comparable age is the non-Aurignacian EUP of Korolevo I, sites (Campbell, 1977; Jacobi, 1990, 1999) has been re-dated during I-a (Usik et al., 2006), while the blade-dominated industry from area the last few years following ultrafiltration pre-treatment. Whereas A, level 3, at Sokirnitsa I is dated by a highly consistent series of first 14C AMS results initially assigned these industries to ca. charcoal radiocarbon measurements to around 38,880 110 14CBP 29–27 ka 14CBP(Aldhouse-Green and Pettitt, 1998), the new AMS (KI-10837) (Fig. 6; SOM Table 4; Usik et al., 2006). dates provide significantly older estimates (Jacobi et al., 2006). The sites of Pin Hole, Badger Hole, and Bench Quarry are now dated Pre-Aurignacian EUP to between 37.8 and > 36.0 ka 14CBP(Fig. 5; SOM Table 3), (Protoaurignacian/‘‘Aurignacien 0’’/‘‘Fumanian’’; Kostenki 14) which compares well with the most robust radiocarbon age determinations from Vedrovice V, Certova Pec, and Nietoperzowa. Around the northern Mediterranean a very early appearance of the Upper Paleolithic is suggested by dates for ‘‘Aurignacian 0’’/ IUP early laminar industries ‘‘Protoaurignacian’’/‘‘Fumanian’’ horizons (Broglio and Laplace, 1966; Laplace, 1966; Mellars, 2006b) at sites such as L’Arbreda The laminar ‘‘Bachokirian’’ assemblages from the Bulgarian sites (Bischoff et al., 1989; Canal i Roquet and Carbonell i Roura, 1989; Bacho Kiro, level 11, and Temnata TD-I and TD-V, layer 4, were Ortega Cobos et al., 2005) and Abric Romanı´ (Canal i Roquet and originally assigned to the early Upper Paleolithic and seen as close Carbonell i Roura, 1989; Bischoff et al., 1994) in Catalonian Spain or to but distinct from the succeeding Aurignacian (e.g., Koz1owski, Riparo Mochi and Grotta di Fumane (Laplace, 1977; Broglio, 1996, 1992, 2006). Recent studies of their technology show that blade 2000, 2001) in northern Italy. Here too, detailed technological production differs in important details from that of the Aurignacian analyses reveal close similarities with laminar production systems and is instead close to an evolved Levallois Mousterian. They dis- that derive from the Levallois Mousterian and suggest a relation- play particular parallels to Near Eastern assemblages (e.g., Tsanova ship between the Mediterranean industries and broadly O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 791

Fig. 6. Selection of results from radiometric dating of Bachokirian and Bohunician assemblages (see: SOM Table 4), given with 1s -standard deviation. Dates on bone ¼ circles (open–without traces of hominin activity); dates on charcoal ¼ diamonds; dark grey shading ¼ most likely dating range; light grey shading ¼ less likely dating range. contemporary EUP industries of the Near East (e.g., Ohnuma, 1988; Mochi (Mussi et al., 2006) radiocarbon dating places the Proto- Boe¨da and Muhesen, 1993; Marks, 1993; Bourguignon, 1996; Kuhn aurignacian close to 35.0 ka 14C BP, with the three oldest Mochi et al., 1999; Bar-Yosef, 2000, 2003; Kuhn, 2004). dates forming a tight cluster between 35.7–34.7 ka 14CBP(Fig. 7; In the long stratigraphy of the southern Russian site of Kos- SOM Table 5). tenki 14, Aurignacian levels overlie two EUP horizons (‘‘Cultural At Isturitz in southwestern France, the Protoaurignacian as- Layer IVb’’ and the ‘‘Horizon of Hearths’’) distinct from both the semblage of layer 4d (Zilhaõ and d’Errico, 1999) is dated by the Aurignacian and the underlying LMP in their lithic technology weighted mean of two radiocarbon measurements on charcoal to (Anikovich et al., 2007). This EUP is characterized by the pro- 35,490 413 14CBP(Fig. 7; SOM Table 5), while the oldest date for duction of blades and bladelets from prismatic cores, bone, and Aurignacian level G at Tournal provides a minimum age >35,800 ivory working. 14C BP (Ly-1898) for the underlying Protoaurignacian levels F and C Nicolas Teyssandier justifiably cautions that, in the case of (Tavoso, 1976). European pre-Aurignacian blade assemblages, such as the At Abric Romanı´ in Spain, Protoaurignacian layer 2 (‘‘level A’’), Bachokirian, Bohunician, and Protoaurignacian/Fumanian, ‘‘the which most likely represents a living floor sealed by overlying question remains totally open whether or not these typo-tech- travertine, produced ‘‘abundant faunal remains, dispersed char- nological similarities represent technical convergences, diffu- coal, and artifacts’’ (Bischoff et al., 1994: 544), allowing seven sion of ideas, or human migrations’’ (Teyssandier, 2006:14).We radiocarbon measurements to be obtained on charcoal at three nevertheless suggest that they most probably do represent the different locations of the site (Fig. 7; SOM Table 5). Five of these transfer of Near Eastern technologies and ideas into Europe by produced a weighted mean of 36,644 373 14C BP and are immigrating AMH. stratigraphically consistent with a radiocarbon date of 36,600 The largest series of Protoaurignacian radiocarbon dates (Fig. 7; 1,300 14C BP (USGS-2839) on charcoal embedded in the traver- SOM Table 5) comes from layer A2 at Grotta di Fumane in northern tine, which is itself dated to between 42.9 and 39.1 ka BPU/Th Italy, which overlies a long Middle Paleolithic sequence dated by (Bischoff et al., 1994; Carbonell et al., 1994). The Protoaurignacian charcoal samples to between ca. 42.0 ka 14C BP (layer A11) and horizon at L’Arbreda has produced consistent radiocarbon age slightly older than 33.0 ka 14C BP (layer A4; Giaccio et al., 2006). determinations significantly older than 36.5 ka 14CBP(Bischoff Protoaurignacian horizon A2 is dated to between 36.8 and 31.3 ka et al., 1989; Canal i Roquet and Carbonell i Roura, 1989; Fig. 7; 14C BP, with the best contextual information provided by Hearth SOM Table 5). Four charcoal samples from a 5 cm spit at the base S14 (Fig. 7; SOM Table 5; cf. Jo¨ris et al., in press). Of seven charcoal of the Protoaurignacian deposits (Bischoff et al., 1989) produced samples taken here, five measurements give a pooled mean of a weighted mean of 38,307 552 14CBP(Jo¨ris et al., in press)3. 34,164 281 14CBP2. In northwestern Italy at the site of Riparo Since the samples derive from the deepest part of the Proto- aurignacian level it is unclear whether they date the

2 The fact that some of the Protoaurignacian radiocarbon measurements from the Grotta di Fumane produced dates signiﬁcantly older than those of the underlying 3 A radiocarbon measurement on bone assigned to the same cultural unit Middle Paleolithic horizons has been interpreted as resulting from extreme varia- produced a somewhat younger age for this level (OxA-3730: 35,480 820 14C BP), tions of past atmospheric 14C levels at the time of the Laschamp geomagnetic ex- although a radiocarbon measurement on bone located a few meters distant (CE cursion (Giaccio et al., 2006). Similar arguments have been put forward to explain 103) dates this level (H) to 37,340 1,000 14C BP (OxA-3729). A further mea- the high radiocarbon ages from Aurignacian layers at the Geißenklo¨sterle (Conard surement (Gif-6422) obtained earlier is considered to be too young (Fig. 7; SOM and Bolus, 2003). Table 5). 792 O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802

Fig. 7. Selection of results from radiometric dating of Protoaurignacian assemblages and the early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) of Kostenki 14 (see: SOM Table 5), given with 1s -standard deviation. Dates on bone ¼ circles (open–without traces of hominin activity); dates on charcoal ¼ diamonds; dark grey shading ¼ most likely dating range; light grey shading ¼ less likely dating range.

Protoaurignacian itself or simply provide a maximum age for the Origins and innovations of the Aurignacian occupation (Zilhaõ and d’Errico, 1999; Zilhaõ, 2006b; cf. Soler Sublis et al., submitted). The consistency of radiometric dating In contrast to the scenario of the spread of ‘‘progressive and stratigraphic evidence at both L’Arbreda and Abric Romanı´ ideas’’ from the East to the West with the advent of early AMH strongly indicates that the earliest Protoaurignacian assemblages in western Eurasia, recent studies of lithic technologies in in the north of the Iberian Peninsula probably appear as early as southwestern France have instead suggested in situ evolution of 38.0–37.0 ka 14CBP. the Aurignacian from the preceding Protoaurignacian and Cha- A similar early appearance of the Protoaurignacian is suggested telperronian substrate as a possibility (Bordes, 2006: 165). It can at the Grotta di Paina (Veneto, Italy), where two dates of also be argued that ‘‘the Aurignacian’’ is not monolithic and that 38,600 þ 1,400/1,800 14C BP (UtC-2042) and 37,900 800 (UtC- uncritical use of the term may artificially unite diverse chrono- 2695) on bone from the base of archaeological level 9 (Fig. 7; SOM logical, technological, social, and possibly ethnic units. Equally, Table 5) provide a maximum age for the Protoaurignacian (Mussi many elements that supposedly characterize the Aurignacian are et al., 2006). regionally restricted, and hence, absent at some sites identified At Kostenki 14 (Markina Gora) the two EUP horizons with this entity (cf. Vanhaeren and d’Errico, 2006). While lam- (‘‘Cultural Layer IVb’’ and the ‘‘Horizon of Hearths’’), overlain by inar lithic technology and the use of personal ornaments may be the CI Y5 volcanic ash horizon (Anikovich et al., 2007), are elements ‘‘inherited’’ from earlier AMH traditions, such as the dated to ca. 36,167 176 14C BP (weighted mean of three dates Protoaurignacian or Bachokirian (and ultimately the eastern from Layer IVb) and 35,964 121 14C BP (weighted mean of five Mediterranean initial Upper Paleolithic), other features seem to dates from the ‘‘Horizon of Hearths’’), respectively (Fig. 7; SOM represent specifically Aurignacian innovations that characterize Table 5). almost all of the Aurignacian assemblages. Among these are the O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 793 systematic production of (backed) bladelets by a distinct ‘‘chaine Of great importance for the earliest Aurignacian in Central ope´ratoire’’; highly specific lithic tool-kits; elaborate and stan- Europe is the stratigraphic sequence of archaeological horizons dardized antler, bone, and ivory projectile point technology; and (AH) III and II at Geißenklo¨sterle in southwestern Germany (Hahn, figurative art, music, anddprobablydspecific belief or ritual 1988b; Conard et al., 2003). Recent excavations and comprehensive systems (cf. Zilhaõ, 2007). At latest by the Aurignacian II phase refitting work have confirmed the integrity of the different as- we commonly find the full spectrum of ‘‘behaviorally modern’’ semblages and the previous stratigraphic interpretations of the site traits listed above. In this context it is important to examine (Conard et al., 2003, 2006; contra Zilhaõ and d’Errico, 1999). Joa- claims based on the radiocarbon record for a precocious ap- chim Hahn distinguished the Aurignacian of AH II, which provided pearance of the Aurignacian in certain regions of Europe. all the Geißenklo¨sterle figurative art, from the stratigraphically Arguments for a very early appearance of the Aurignacian in earlier AH III (Hahn, 1988b) and suggested that AH II compares southern Central Europe (i.e., significantly before 35.0 ka 14C BP; favorably with the French early Aurignacian (Aurignacian I), par- the so-called ‘‘Danube Corridor’’ hypothesis of Conard and Bolus, ticularly due to the similarities of the organic technology. The in- 2003) have focused in particular on radiocarbon dates from the terpretation of AH III is more difficult. Although Hahn eventually Lower Austrian site of Willendorf II, cultural layer (Kulturschicht: came to designate AH III as ‘‘Protoaurignacian’’ (Hahn, 1995), this KS) 3, and the southern German sites of Keilberg-Kirche and was perhaps under the influence of the first 14C AMS ages for the Geißenklo¨sterle (AH III - II). horizon, which were unexpectedly old and similar to results for the The chronostratigraphy of the Willendorf II site is well-estab- Spanish Protoaurignacian. Such ages suggested that AH III might lished (Damblon et al., 1996) and the basal horizons (KS 1–KS 4) fall represent an early ‘‘true’’ Aurignacian phase chronologically pre- at the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. While ceding the ‘‘classical Aurignacien I’’ (Hahn, 1988b: 246). Recent basal KS 1 and KS 2 produced very small assemblages lacking di- analyses of technological aspects of both the lithic and organic agnostic artifacts (Haesaerts and Teyssandier, 2003:144; material have confirmed that the entire Geißenklo¨sterle sequence Teyssandier et al., 2006: 247), the youngest, unquestionably Auri- from horizons AH IIIb–IIa is fully Aurignacian in character, without gnacian KS 4 has radiocarbon dates between ca. 32.0 and 30.0 ka any ‘‘Protoaurignacian’’ characteristics (e.g., Bolus, 2003; Teys- 14C BP. KS 3 is stratified below KS 4 and has traditionally been sandier and Liolios, 2003; Teyssandier, 2006, 2007; Teyssandier assigned to an (early) Aurignacian (e.g., Felgenhauer, 1959; Broglio et al., 2006). and Laplace, 1966; Hahn, 1977; Teyssandier, 2007). Preliminary The large series of radiocarbon measurements on bone and evaluation of numerous, hitherto unpublished artifacts from the charred bone from the Geißenklo¨ sterle Aurignacian sequence excavations of Szombathy, Bayer, and Obermaier (Nigst, 2004) spans the period between 40,200 1,600 14C BP (OxA-4595) support an attribution to a fully Aurignacian context (Nigst, 2004, and 28,640 þ 380/360 14C BP (KIA-8962) and is therefore 2006). claimed to provide some of the earliest evidence for the Au- Of three radiocarbon charcoal measurements for KS 3 (Damblon rignacian in Central Europe (Hahn, 1995; Bolus and Conard, et al., 1996), two provide a weighted mean slightly older than 2001; Conard and Bolus, 2003; Conard et al., 2003). AH III is 14 14 38.1 ka C BP (GrN-17805: 38,880 þ 1,530/1,280 C BP; GrA-896: also dated to ca. 40 ka BPTL by thermoluminescence measure- 37,930 750 14C BP), while a third measurement produced a signif- ments on burnt artifacts (Richter et al., 2000). It is important to icantly younger date of 34,100 þ 1,200/1,000 14CBP(GrN-11192). note that the Geissenklo¨ sterle radiocarbon results are often Whereas most recent studies (Haesaerts and Teyssandier, 2003; inconsistent with the stratigraphic provenance of the sample, Nigst, 2006) tend to accept the older age of around 38.0 ka 14CBP with a number of the older dates coming from higher levels for KS 3, Zilhaõ and d’Errico (1999) have suggested that the older than much younger measurements (Conard et al., 2003: 173). samples may be reworked and that GrN-11192 represents the These age-distortions have been explained as resulting from ‘‘true’’ age of the assemblage. The submission of new radiocarbon a ‘‘Middle to Upper Paleolithic dating anomaly’’ (cf. Conard and samples from recent fieldwork at the site (www.willendorf- Bolus, 2003), indications for which have been claimed in project.org; Nigst, pers. comm.) may help to clarify this problem a speleothem record from the Bahamas (Beck et al., 2001). In (Nigst et al., 2008: 12). fact, the majority of radiocarbon dates for Geißenklo¨ sterle AH Charcoal samples from a small (4 m2) rescue excavation carried IIIb–AH IIa are bracketed between 34,800 þ 290/280 14CBP out in 1987 at Keilberg-Kirche, close to Regensburg in Bavaria, (KIA-13074) for AH IIIa, and 29,800 240 14C BP (KIA-8960) for provided three statistically identical radiocarbon measurements AH IIb. A critical examination of the radiocarbon samples with with a weighted mean of 37,922 743 14CBP4 (i.e., approximately reference to their relevance for hominin activity and their the same age as the older age estimates for Willendorf II, KS 3). The stratigraphy suggests that the best estimate for the age of the charcoal and burnt bone were associated with what was probably Geißenklo¨ sterle Aurignacian is between ca. 34.8–33.2 ka 14CBP an in situ hearth, together with 215 artifacts including typically for the older phase (AH III) and around 33.2–29.8 ka 14CBPfor Aurignacian forms and burnt pieces (Uthmeier, 1996, 2004). In 1991 the younger phase (AH II; cf. Zilhaõ and d’Errico, 2003a; a test excavation over an area of some 250 m2 recovered a further Teyssandier, 2005; Verpoorte, 2005; Jo¨ ris et al., in press). 721 artifacts (Uthmeier, 1996). On balance, the radiocarbon record for the Swabian Aurignacian The presence in some test pits of a few, not very diagnostic but agrees well with the dating of other Aurignacian sites (cf. Zilhaõ and probable Middle Paleolithic artifacts (Uthmeier, 1996) led to the d’Errico, 1999; Djindjian et al., 2003; Jo¨ris et al., in press). The suggestion that the hearth might be linked to an older occupation Aurignacian appears quasi simultaneously across the whole of phase at this locality (Zilhaõ and d’Errico, 1999). However, since Europe from ca. 35 ka 14CBP(Fig. 2b), which is around the age of typical Aurignacian artifacts were documented in spatial associa- the CI eruption. Wherever this stratigraphic marker is present, the tion with areas of burnt loess around the hearth, the most parsi- Aurignacian consistently overlies it. In Eastern Europe the Auri- monious interpretation would be that the dates apply to the gnacian overlays the CI Y5 tephra at Temnata and is found at Kos- Aurignacian (Uthmeier, 1996). This interpretation is unsupported tenki mixed with Y5 tephra in a cryoturbated layer thatdmost by independent dating methods. likelydformed during the Heinrich 4 cold interval (Hoffecker et al., 14 2008) shortly after ca. 40.0 ka BPHulu (w34.8/34.7 ka C BP; cf. Weninger and Jo¨ris, 2008). It is tempting to seek a causal associa- 4 KN-4692: 38,600 1,200 14C BP; KN-4690: 37,500 1,450 14C BP; KN-4691: tion between the sudden appearance of the Aurignacian and the CI 37,500 1,250 14CBP(Uthmeier, 1996). eruption, possibly in the form of forced translocation of populations 794 O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 into areas outside the fall out. This would have had a far reaching blocks recovered at the Grotta di Fumane in northeastern Italy from and, in the medium-term, probably catastrophic influence on an Aurignacian horizon dated to between 32.3 and 30.3 ka 14CBP southern and southeastern European environments (Fedele et al., show at least five red figurative depictions, among these possibly 2002, 2003, 2008). two anthropomorphs (Broglio et al., 2005: 46–47). The supposed age of all this evidence is in agreement with contextual dates for limestone blocks from southwestern France with deeply picked Aurignacian innovations: figurative and symbolic depictions that led Andre´ Leroi-Gourhan standardized weapon technology and figurative art (1971) to the definition of his ‘‘Style 1’’ art. When stratigraphic control is adequate, these also appear to be associated with the later Following its first appearance the Aurignacian develops greater Aurignacian, dating younger than ca. 32.0 ka 14C BP (cf. Zilhaõ, cultural complexity, with different aspects of the full canon of Au- 2007). rignacian material culture accumulating with time (Zilhaõ, 2007). In summary, on the evidence of directly dated material; stan- Series of direct radiocarbon dates on Aurignacian bone, antler, dardized bone, antler, and ivory weapon technology; and figurative and ivory projectile points place the split-based points character- art featuring anthropomorphs, therianthropes, and a particular istic of Aurignacian I or points with massive bases of so called suite of animal depictions were not part of the primary Aurignacian ‘‘Mladecˇ’’ (aka ‘‘Lautsch’’) type (regarded as typical for the later ‘‘package,’’ but represent later developments within specific Aurignacian; e.g., Hahn, 1988a,c; Hofreiter and Pacher, 2004; Bolus (interlinked) Western and Central European Aurignacian core and Conard, 2006) into a fairly narrow time range between 32.5– regions (cf. ‘‘Aurignacian Homeland’’: Bar-Yosef, 2006a). 29.2 ka 14C BP (KIA-19551: 32,470 þ 270/260 14C BP; Bolus and Conard, 2006; OxA-13048: 29,210 210 14C BP; Gru¨ nberg, 2006)5. Late Neandertal survival? A context radiocarbon measurement (GifA-101459: 32,650 540 14C BP) for an ivory point with massive base from the ‘‘Galerie des The dating evidence compiled above shows that the temporal Me´gace´ros’’ at Grotte Chauvet (Valladas et al., 2005) is only mar- overlap of the Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic must have ginally older than directly-dated Central European specimens, been limited to a few thousand radiocarbon years. If, as discussed suggesting that the emergence of standardized bone, antler, and above, the Protoaurignacian, Bachokirian, and the somewhat ivory projectile point technology occurs at around 32.6/32.5 ka 14C younger Aurignacian were produced by immigrating AMH, BP in both Central and southwestern Europe. Bolus and Conard whereas FMP industries were the work of the last aboriginal (2006) point out that the stratigraphical distinction between older European Neandertals, the period for interaction between the two (Aurignacien I) split-based and younger Aurignacian massive-based hominin forms would have been, at most, of brief duration. In fact, points recognizable in southwestern Europe (cf. Djindjian et al, over most of Europe, stratified sequences with Middle Paleolithic or 2003) is not reflected by the direct dates for Central European ‘‘transitional’’ and Aurignacian or other Upper Paleolithic assem- Aurignacian projectiles. However, in Central Europe, unambiguous blages show an unambiguous succession with the former un- direct dating evidence for split-based points is restricted to the derlying the latter and only sparse and controversial arguments for single specimen T-143 from Tischoferho¨hle (Bolus and Conard, interstratification (Jo¨ris et al., in press). Indeed, sites in the Swabian 2006) securely attributed to this type. Jura regularly show a clear hiatus between Middle and Upper The oldest known portable figurative art originates from Auri- Paleolithic horizons (Conard et al., 2006) and it seems clear that gnacian levels at Geißenklo¨sterle (AH II), Vogelherd, Hohle Fels, Aurignacian assemblages here postdate the Middle Paleolithic Hohlenstein-Stadel in southwestern Germany (Hahn, 1987), and industries by an appreciable length of time. Stratzing (Krems-Rehberg) in Lower Austria (Neugebauer-Maresch, Despite the idea that AMH would arrive latest on the Iberian 1989). Geißenklo¨sterle AH II dates to between 33.2 and 29.8 ka 14C Peninsula at the western extremity of the proposed AMH ex- BP (see above), with similar radiocarbon ages for comparable pansion, radiocarbon dates for both the Aurignacian and the horizons at the other sites (Jo¨ris et al., in press). Protoaurignacian in the northern part of the peninsula are no Although portable figurative art is unknown in Aurignacian younger than elsewhere in Europe (Fig. 2a, b). For the southern contexts outside southern Central Europe, it is now generally ac- part of the Iberian Peninsula, where neither Protoaurignacian cepted that the parietal figurative art from Grotte Chauvet is nor Aurignacian I sites with characteristic split-based points are approximately contemporary (Valladas et al., 2001, 2005; but see known, it is conceivable that the Aurignacian only arrives at Zu¨ chner, 1996, 2003; Pettitt and Bahn, 2003; Pettitt, 2008). Ra- a later date (Vega Toscanõ, 1990; Zilhaõ, 1993, 2006b). On the diocarbon direct dating of charcoal paintings produced results be- other hand, although the radiometric evidence for the period is tween 32,410 720 14C BP (GifA-95132) and 29,670 950 14CBP particularly poor in this region (cf. Zilhaõ, 2006b), radiocarbon (GifA-98160) in complete agreement with other dating evidence dates from Cova Beneito (AA-1388: 33,900 1,100 14C BP) in the for pre-Mid-Upper Paleolithic hominin presence in the cave. It is region of Valencia and at Bajondillo (Ua-17150: 33,690 1,195 also noteworthy that the suite of animal species depicted at 14C BP) in Andalucia suggest an Aurignacian presence only Chauvet is in close agreement with those selected for the south- marginally younger than to the north (Fig. 2b). In this case, the west German ivory carvings (cf. Floss and Rouquerol, 2007). absence of split-based points in Southern Iberia might simply The dating results for the Grotte Chauvet paintings suggest that characterize a particular Aurignacian facies rather than a chro- polychrome figurative parietal art first appears in western Europe nological stage within the Aurignacian succession. within a younger phase of the Aurignacian, as is the case for the On the above evidence, we can neither confirm late Neandertal intentionally-colored limestone fragments that have been un- survival nor do we recognize a significant delay in the appearance covered from Aurignacian horizons at several caves and rock- of the Protoaurignacian/Aurignacian on the Iberian Peninsula. The shelters, among these Abri Blanchard (Breuil, 1952; Delluc and scarcity of well-dated archaeological evidence in Southern Iberia Delluc,1978), Abri Pataud (Movius, 1975), and at the base of horizon during the crucial period from ca. 38–35/34 ka 14C BP might suggest AH II (AH IIb) at Geißenklo¨sterle (Hahn, 1988b). Painted limestone alternative models. Regional population shifts due to climatic and environmental change at a millennial to centennial scale may have partially or wholly emptied the region of humans between the LMP 5 The direct result on a bone point from Aurignacian level V at Sirgenstein is slightly younger (KIA-13082: 26,730 þ 170/160 14C BP; Bolus and Conard, 2006), and the Aurignacian (Jo¨ris et al., 2003). Such a scenario could but the distal fragment does not permit a more precise typological attribution. explain the absence of ‘‘transitional’’ industries, such as the O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 795

Chatelperronian and/or the Protoaurignacian, to the south of the 41 and 38 ka 14C BP, although the majority of measurements Ebro River. By contrast, the dense presence of both groups in has turned out significantly younger. While the limited radio- southwestern France and the northern Iberian Peninsula suggests carbon evidence for the Uluzzian appears to suggest ages as that these were probably the regions and contexts in which contact young as 32–31 ka 14C BP, Uluzzian assemblages are strati- between Neandertals and AMH would potentially have taken place. graphically overlain by the Campanian Ignimbrite (Castelcivita) In Western Europe, the stratigraphic evidence consistently or tephras correlated with this, placing the Uluzzian earlier 14 shows that the Chatelperronian lies between LMP and Proto- than ca. 34.8/34.7 ka C BP (i.e., w40.0 ka BPHulu; cf. Weninger aurignacian levels around the Pyrenees and in Mediterranean and Jo¨ris, 2008; Fig. 8)7. The single finite date for the Uluzzian- France (Djindjian et al., 2003) and between LMP and Aurignacian I like assemblage of Klisoura V in Greece (GifA-99168: levels in the rest of France (Demars, 1996; Djindjian et al., 2003). 40,010 740 14C BP) supports a comparably high age. Of similar The most comprehensive radiometric evidence for apparently age are the blade and leaf point assemblages of northern younger Chatelperronian assemblages (dated significantly after ca. Europe, which are placed between 40.0 and 37.5 ka 14CBPby 35 ka 14C BP; Fig. 4) comes from layers X–VIII of the Grotte du the available radiocarbon dating evidence. Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure. However, the extreme range of variation (2) In contrast to the FMP ‘‘transitional’’ industries, a second group shown by the radiocarbon dates (David et al., 2001) may indicate with specific laminar lithic production strategies displays major stratigraphical and taphonomical problems at this locality technological similarities with the Near Eastern initial (IUP) and (cf. White, 2001; Jo¨ris et al., in press). early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) and is, in our opinion, best inter- Although claims for interstratification of the Chatelperronian and preted as of exogenous origin. Radiocarbon dates for the Aurignacian have been made at El Pendo in northern Spain and at the southeastern European Bachokirian IUP at the type locality and French sites of Roc de Combe and Le Piage, these have been con- at Temnata cluster tightly between ca. 39.1 and 36.9 ka 14CBP vincingly refuted in the recent past (d’Errico et al., 1998; Zilhaõ and (Fig. 8). The Bachokirian overlaps in time with the Bohunician to d’Errico, 1999, Zilhaõ and d’Errico2003b; Rigaud, 2001; Djindjian the north, which covers the time span ca. 38.5–36.4 ka 14CBP, et al., 2003; Bordes, 2006). Renewed claims for interstratification of although a small group of dates is as young as ca. 34.5 ka 14CBP both types of assemblages within the sequence of the Grotte des Feés (Fig. 8). The Bohunician resembles the Bachokirian but contains (Chaˆtelperron type site; Gravina et al., 2005) have been similarly foliate points suggestive of affinities with FMP leaf-point in- challenged, with doubts regarding the integrity of both the strati- dustries. Although undemonstrated, the Bohunician might graphic sequence and lithic inventories (Zilhaõetal.,2006)6. represent transfer or mixing of technology between pre-exist- At present there is no convincing radiometric evidence and, ing Neandertal populations and an AMH population responsible perhaps more importantly, no proven case of interstratification for the appearance of the Bachokirian in Eastern Europe. which would support the contemporaneity of AMH and Neander- The EUP Protoaurignacian (‘‘Aurignacian 0’’) found along the tals. Proposed evidence for the survival of Neandertals on the northern Mediterranean is dated to ca. 37.9–34.7 ka 14CBPor Southern European peninsulas (most recently in Zilhaõ, 2006b)or only slightly younger (Fig. 8). It is characterized by a lithic in other supposed geographical refugia significantly later than ca. technology focusing on the production of both blades and bla- 38 ka 14C BP appears highly suspect. delets within the same chaine ope´ratoire, which is technologi- cally and typologically distinct from preceding industries in the Conclusions region but similar to the Eastern Mediterranean IUP. Equally old radiocarbon dates have been obtained for the EUP level IVb Current radiometric and stratigraphic evidence suggests that industry at Kostenki 14, falling between ca. 36.5 (or possibly Neandertal extinction was a rapid process that probably started 37.2) and 35.0 ka 14C BP. These EUP industries are associated 14 around 39–37 ka C BP ago. The first appearance of Upper Paleo- with the regular use of marine shell ornaments. lithic technologies suggest that Anatomically Modern Humans Personal ornaments from layer H at U¨ çag˘izli in southeastern 14 (AMH) arrive in Europe at around this time. At latest by ca. 35 ka C Turkey (e.g., Kuhn et al., 2001; Stiner, 2003; Stiner et al., 2003) ago AMH were the only European hominins. This scenario supports are the earliest securely dated ornaments outside Africa8. neither a long coexistence of Neandertals and AMH nor the per- Layer H is dated to between 41.4 and 35.7 ka 14C BP with sistence of long-term geographical boundaries/borders during the a weighted mean of four dates of 38,036 487 14CBP(Jo¨ris process of AMH expansion (e.g., Vega Toscanõ, 1993; Zilhaõ, 1993). et al., in press). Less well-dated shell beads from IUP levels at the Instead, the chain of demographic ‘‘events’’ within this period Lebanese site of Ksar’Akil may be slightly older (Kuhn et al., might be summarized as follows (Fig. 8): 2001; Kuhn, 2004). The practically simultaneous appearance of marine shell per- (1) Industries such as the Chatelperronian and the Uluzzian in the sonal ornaments at the western end of the Mediterranean southern part of Europe and the leaf or blade point industries to (L’Arbreda and Abric Romanı´), in the Danube Basin (Krems- the north (all here interpreted as a ‘‘final Middle Paleolithic,’’ Hundssteig), and areas adjacent to the Black Sea (Kostenki 14, FMP) largely derive from regional late Middle Paleolithic sub- IVb) so close in time to their occurrence at U¨ çag˘izli (e.g., Stiner, strates. The only hominin evidence from these contexts is 2003; Stiner et al., 2003) implies a very rapid diffusion of this provided by Neandertal remains from Arcy-sur-Cure and Saint concept. This phenomenon probably reflects the emergence of Ce´saire, both associated with the Chatelperronian. Available dates place Chatelperronian assemblages broadly between ca.

7 It has been discussed (Giaccio et al., 2006) that due to an age inversion in- 6 It is claimed that stratigraphical problems at the Grotte des Feés were under- dicated for the critical period around 40.5 ka BPHulu towards the end of the La- estimated and that typological arguments are questionable (Zilhaõ and Pettitt, schamps geomagnetic excursion, radiocarbon ages as young as 32.5 ka 14CBPmay 2006:7;Zilhaõ et al., 2006). Nevertheless, Mellars et al. (2007) insist that an represent technically accurate measurements, even when their true age is de- ephemeral Aurignacian presence is documented stratigraphically between two monstrably older (cf. Fedele et al., 2008; Weninger and Jo¨ris, 2008). Chatelperronian layers, interpret two consistent series of bone radiocarbon results 8 The small amount of evidence for bead ornaments from appreciably older as dating older and younger Chatelperronian occupations, and conclude that the contexts (cf. Vanhaeren et al., 2006) represents a distinct, earlier but temporary Aurignacian at the site ‘‘.could easily date from as late as, say, 36,000–37,000 BP’’ dispersal of AMH out of Africa where the use of these items seems to have origi- (Mellars et al., 2007: 3662). nated (Bouzouggar et al., 2007, and discussion therein). 796 O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802

Fig. 8. Radiocarbon data compilation for ‘‘transitional’’ and Aurignacian industries in the northern and southern parts of Europe. For further explanation see text. Dark grey shading ¼ most likely dating range; light grey shading ¼ less likely dating range; CI ¼ Campanian Ignimbrite.

large scale and elaborate social networks at this time, most contemporary with both the Bachokirian and the Protoaurignacian, plausibly established by newly arrived human groups that however the radiometric database is not very solid (see discussion rapidly spread through Europe. The taxonomic identity of the above) and the industries are in no way transitional. Viewed criti- groups might be indicated by an apparently AMH tooth from cally, the radiocarbon evidence speaks, instead, overwhelmingly for Kostenki 14, level IVb (Sinitsyn, 2003) and an AMH burial from the simultaneous appearance of Aurignacian lithic technology Ksar’Akil (‘‘Egbert’’: Bergman and Stringer, 1989). Intriguingly, it across Europe at ca. 35.0 ka 14C BP (more likely starting from 34.8 ka has been recently suggested that the Protoaurignacian assem- 14C BP; Fig. 8). Aurignacian figurative art is not documented before blage of Le Piage level K shows affinities with the underlying ca. 33.0/32.5 ka 14C BP, which broadly corresponds to the later Au- Chatelperronian (Bordes, 2006: 165), raising the possibility of rignacian ‘‘Mladecˇ phase’’ (32.5–29.2 ka 14C BP). some technological influence between FMP and EUP traditions Following calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, the entire comparable to the scenario considered above for the Bohunician chain of demographic ‘‘events’’ suggested by the archaeological and in eastern Central Europe. paleoanthropological record can be referred to the course of cli- mate change provided by the Greenland ice cores (Fig. 9). (3) The third element in the proposed sequencedthe Aurignacian FMP ‘‘transitional’’ industries (Uluzzian, Chatelperronian, leaf- sensu stricto (excluding the Protoaurignacian/Aurignacian point industries) are centered around Greenland Interstadial (GI) 0/Fumanian) dis fully Upper Paleolithic in character. Regional 11. The youngest reliably dated remains of Neandertals, the prob- variations within a number of ‘‘cultural’’ categories (e.g., or- able makers of these industries, are no younger than ca. 42.5 ka cal ganic technology, art, etc.) show that the label unites diverse BP at the transition from GI 11 to Greenland Stadial (GS) 11. The social and ethnic entities across its broad geographical and Hulu IUP/EUP ‘‘transitional’’ industries (Bachokirian, Protoaurignacian, chronological range. Contrasted with this diversity, the lithic Kostenki 14, IVb) first appear across the southern half of Europe at technological unity of the Aurignacian phenomenon has been approximately the same time. Remains of AMH, the probable repeatedly recognized. makers of the IUP/EUP, are first directly dated to ca. 40.0 ka cal BPHulu. Among ideas advanced for the origins of Aurignacian technology Throughout Europe the EUP is replaced by the Aurignacian some is a ‘‘.non-European origin for industries of Aurignacian type’’ 40,000 years ago, coincident with the Campanian Ignimbrite corresponding ‘‘to the migration of the first modern humans to eruption at the onset of the Heinrich 4 cold interval (GS 9; Fig. 9). It Europe’’ (Koz1owski and Otte, 2000: 513). However, an in situ evo- is certain that both events would have had a major impact on lution of the Aurignacian from the preceding Protoaurignacian has western Eurasian ecosystems (cf. Fedele et al., 2002, 2003, 2008), recently been suggested for the sites of Le Piage (Bordes, 2006) and, leading to a serious loss of territory available to hominins. In pen- possibly, Arcy- sur- Cure (Bon, 2006). Similarly, it has been proposed insular Italy the CI event marks a rupture in settlement continuity that the Eastern European Aurignacian might have developed from between the EUP and the Mid-Upper Paleolithic (Fedele et al., 2002, earlier laminar industries, such as the Bachokirian (Koz1owski, 2003, 2008), while the climatic decline, which culminates in the 2006: 33). The earliest appearance of fully Aurignacian lithic tech- Heinrich 4 event, led to deforestation of boreal environments in nology has been claimed for the Central European assemblages of northern Europe (cf. Sirocko et al., 2005) and increased aridity on Keilberg-Kirche and Willendorf II, KS 3, with radiocarbon ages be- the Iberian Peninsula (cf. e.g., d’Errico and Sańchez Gon˜i, 2003) and tween ca. 38.9 and 37.5 ka 14C BP. This would make them partially possibly over much of southern Europe. O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 797

Fig. 9. Compilation of calibrated radiocarbon dating ranges for ‘‘transitional’’ and Aurignacian industries in the northern and southern parts of Europe, shown against the background of climatic change recorded in the Greenland GRIP ice core (data from Johnsen et al., 2001) and scaled against the U/Th-dated Hulu-chronology (Wang et al., 2001) via 18 synchronization of d O signatures (Weninger and Jo¨ris, 2008: CalPal-2007Hulu; cf. www.calpal.de), with Greenland Interstadial (GI) and Stadial (GS) oscillations labeled in bold grey numbers (cf. Johnsen et al., 1992). H4 ¼ Heinrich event 4; CI ¼ Campanian Ignimbrite marker horizon (after Fedele et al., 2002, 2003, 2008; Giaccio et al., 2006); La- schamp ¼ Laschamp geomagnetic excursion (cf. Voelker et al., 2000; Southon, 2004; Giaccio et al., 2006); Hatching separates the most probable dating ranges of FMP ‘‘transitional’’ industries (centered around GI 11), IUP/EUP ‘‘transitional’’ industries (42.5 ka cal BPHulu–CI event), the early Aurignacian (CI event–36.0 ka cal BPHulu), and the younger Aurignacian (ca. 36.0–33.5 ka cal BPHulu). For reference the uncalibrated radiocarbon equivalence ages are also shown.

This may have caused regional hominin extinctions in some necessary corrections to our data tables. For all remaining mistakes parts of Europe and migrations of populations between different only we are responsible. regions. In the case of AMH, increased regional concentration of individuals served as a catalyst for the sudden pan-European ap- Appendix Supplementary materials pearance of the Aurignacian. Once set in motion, an accelerated ﬂow of information ultimately led, not only to continued techno- Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in logical progress, but also, during the later Aurignacian, to in- the online version at doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.04.002. novative social adaptations in the form of art, music and, probably, religious beliefs. References Acknowledgements Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), 1998. Neandertals and Modern Humans in We are greatly thankful to Tjeerd van Andel and an anonymous Western Asia. Colloquium Tokyo 1995. New York and London. Albrecht, G., Hahn, J., Torke, W.G., 1972. Merkmalanalyse von Geschoßspitzen des reviewer for their fruitful comments on an earlier draft of this pa- mittleren Jungpleistoza¨ns in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Archaeologica Venatoria 2. per. We are also in debt to Daniel Adler and, especially, to Susan Verlag Kohlhammer, Tu¨ bingen. Anto´ n who carefully edited this paper and supplied us with various Aldhouse-Green, S., Pettitt, P.B., 1998. Paviland Cave: contextualizing the ‘‘Red Lady’’. Antiquity 72, 756–772. suggestions from which the present paper has greatly proﬁted. We Allsworth-Jones, P., 1986. The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to Upper also thank Philipp Nigst for information, especially in the case of Palaeolithic in Central Europe. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 798 O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802

Alva´rez Fernańdez, E., 2006. Los objetos de adorno-colgantes del Paleolı´tico supe- Bischoff, J.L., Soler, N., Maroto, J., Julia`, R., 1989. Abrupt Mousterian / Aurignacian rior del Mesolı´tico en la Cornisa Canta´brica y en el Valle de del Ebro. Ed. Uni- boundary at c. 40 ka bp: accelerator C14 dates from L’Arbreda Cave (Catalunya, versidad de Salamanca. Coleccio´ nVı´tor 195 Salamanca. Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 16, 563–576. Anikovich, M.V., Sinitsyn, A.A., Hoffecker, J.F., Holliday, V.T., Popov, V.V., Lisitsyn, S.N., Blockley, S.P.E., Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T.F.G., 2008. The Middle to Upper Pa- Forman, S.L., Levkovskaya, G.M., Pospelova, G.A., Kuz’mina, I.E., Burova, N.D., laeolithic transition: dating, stratigraphy and isochronous markers. J. Hum. Goldberg, P., Macphail, R.I., Giaccio, B., Praslov, N.D., 2007. Early Upper Paleolithic Evol. 55, 764–771. in Eastern Europe and implications for the dispersal of modern humans. Science Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., Demars, P.-Y., 2000. Neanderthal contraction and modern 315, 223–315. human colonization of Europe. Antiquity 74, 544–552. Bailey, S., Hublin, J.J., 2005. Who made the Early Aurignacian? Reconsideration Boe¨da, E´ , Muhesen, S., 1993. Umm el Tlel (El Kowm, Syrie): E´ tude pre´liminaire des of the Brassempouy dental remains. Bull. Me´m. Soc. Anthropol. Paris 17, industries lithiques du Paleólithique moyen et supe´rieur 1991–1992. Cahiers de 115–121. l’Euphrate 7, 47–91. Bailey, S., Hublin, J.J., 2006. Dental remains from the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur- Bolus, M., 2003. The cultural context of the Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura. Tra- Cure (Yonne). J. Hum. Evol. 50, 485–508. balhos de Arqueologia 33. In: Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Barker, G., Barton, H., Bird, M., Daly, P., Datan, I., Dykes, A., Farr, L., Gilbertson, D., Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Harrisson, B., Hunt, C., Higham, T., Kealhofer, L., Krigbaum, J., Lewis, H., Cultural Implications. Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 153–164. McLaren, S., Paz, V., Pike, A., Piper, P., Pyatt, B., Rabett, R., Reynolds, T., Rose, J., Bolus, M., 2004. Der U¨ bergang vom Mittel- zum Jungpalaölithikum in Europa. Eine Rushworth, G., Stephens, M., Stringer, C., Thompson, J., Turney, C., 2007. The Bestandaufnahme unter besonderer Beru¨ cksichtigung Mitteleuropas. Germania ‘human revolution’ in lowland tropical Southeast Asia: the antiquity and be- 82, 1–54. havior of anatomically modern humans at Niah Cave (Sarawak, Borneo). J. Hum. Bolus, M., Conard, N., 2001. The late Middle Palaeolithic and earliest Upper Palae- Evol. 52, 243–261. olithic in Central Europe and their relevance for the Out of Africa hypothesis. Bar-Yosef, O., 1998. On the nature of transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Quatern. Int. 75, 29–40. and the Neolithic Revolution. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 8, 141–163. Bolus, M., Conard, N., 2006. Zur Zeitstellung von Geschoßspitzen aus organischen Bar-Yosef, O., 2000. The Middle and Upper Paleolithic in Southwest Asia and Materialien im spa¨ten Mittelpalaölithikum und Aurignacien. Archaölogisches neighbouring regions. In: Bar-Yosef, O. Pilbeam, D. (Eds.), The Geography of Korrespondenzblatt 26, 1–15. Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Bon, F., 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of the in- Colloquium Cambridge (Mass.) 1997. Peabody Museum Bulletin 8. Cambridge dustries of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, MA, pp. 107–156. O., Zilhaõ, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Bar-Yosef, O., 2001. Dating the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic. In: Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002. Instituto Portugueˆsde Barrandon, J.-N., Guibert, P., Michel, V. (Eds.), Datation. XXIe Rencontres In- Arqueologia. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, ternationals d’Archeólogie et d’Histoire d’Antibes. Editions APDCA, Antibes, pp. Artes Graficas, pp. 133–144. 279–293. Bordes, F., 1961. Mousterian cultures in France. Science 134, 803–810. Bar-Yosef, O., 2003. Away from home: prehistoric colonizations, exchanges and Bordes, J.-G., 2006. News from the West: a reevaluation of the classical Aurignacian diffusions in the Mediterranean Basin. In: Vandermeersch, B. (Ed.), E´ changes et sequence of the Pe´rigord. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhaõ, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition diffusion dans la pre´histoire me´diterraneénne. CTHS, Paris, pp. 71–81. of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June Bar-Yosef, O., 2006a. Defining the Aurignacian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhaõ, J. (Eds.), 25–30, 2002. Instituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Artes Graficas, pp. 147–171. Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002. Instituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia. Tra- Bosinski, G., 1967. Die mittelpalaölithischen Funde im westlichen Mitteleuropa. balhos de Arqueologia 45. Artes Graficas, pp. 11–18. Fundamenta A/4. Bo¨hlau Verlag, Ko¨ln / Graz. Bar-Yosef, O., 2006b. Neanderthals and modern humans: a different interpretation. Bosinski, G.,1989. Die große Zeit der Eiszeitja¨ger. Europa zwischen 40 000 und 10 000 In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Tu¨ bingen v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Ro¨misch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 34, 3–139. Publications in Prehistory. Kerns Verlag, Tu¨ bingen, pp. 467–482. Bosinski, G., 1990. Homo sapiens. L’histoire des chasseurs du Paleólithique supe´rieur Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., Adler, D.S., 2006. The implications of the Middle- en Europe (40.000-10.000 av. J.-C.). E´ ditions Errance, Paris. Upper Paleolithic chronological boundary in the Caucasus to Eurasian pre- Bourguignon, L., 1996. Un Mouste´rien tardif sur le site d0Umm el Tlel (Bassin d’el history. Anthropologie XLIV, 49–60. Khowm, Syrie)? Exemples des niveaux IIBase’ et III2A’. In: Carbonell, E., Va- Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhaõ, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Pro- quero, M. (Eds.), The Last Neandertals - The First Anatomically Modern Humans. ceedings of the Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002, Tra- Cultural Change and Human Evolution: The Crisis at 40 KA BP. Colloquium balhos de Arqueologia 45. Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisbon. Capellades 1995. Barcelona, pp. 317–336. Beck, J.W., Richards, D.A., Edwards, R.L., Silverman, B.W., Smart, P.L., Donahue, D.J., Bouzouggar, A., Barton, N., Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Collcutt, S., Higham, T., Hererra-Osterheld, S., Burr, G.S., Calsoyas, L., Jull, A.J.T., Biddulph, D., 2001. Ex- Hodge, E., Parfitt, S., Rhodes, E., Schwenninger, J.-L., Stringer, C., Turner, E., tremely large variations of atmospheric 14C concentration during the Last Ward, St., Moutmir, A., Stambouli, A., 2007. 82,000-year-old shell beads from Glacial Period. Science 292, 2453–2458. North Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior. Proc. Beauval, C., Lacrampe-Cuyaube`re, F., Maureille, B., Trinkaus, E., 2006. Direct radio- Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 9964–9969. carbon dating and stable isotopes of the Neandertal femur from Les Rochers- Breuil, H., 1952. Quatre cents sie`cles d’art parie´tal. Les cavernes orneés de l’aˆge du de-Villeneuve (Lussac-les-Chateaux, Vienne) / Datation absolue (14C) et iso- renne. Centre d’E´ tudes de la Documentation Pre´historique, Montignac. topes stables du fe´mur neándertalien des Rochers-de-Villeneuve (Lussac-les- Broglio, A., 1996. Le punte a dorso del Protoaurignaziano mediterraneo: i reperti Chateaux, Vienne). Bull. Me´m. Soc. d’Anthropol. Paris 18, 35–42. della Grotta di Fumane (Prealpi venete). In: Montet-White, A., Palma di Beauval, C., Maureille, B., Lacrampe-Cuyaube`re, F., Serre, D., Peressinotto, D., Cesnola, A., Valoch, K. (Eds.), Colloquium 12: The Origin of the Gravettian. U.I.S. Bordes, J.-G., Cochard, D., Couchoud, I., Dubrasquet, D., Laroulandie, V., P.P., Section 6: The Upper Palaeolithic. 13th International Congress of Prehistoric Lenoble, A., Mallye, J.-B., Pasty, S., Primault, J., Rohland, N., Paä¨bo, S., Trinkaus, E., and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlı´ 1996. ABACO, Forlı´, pp. 237–248. 2005. A late Neandertal femur from Les Rochers-de-Villeneuve, France. Proc. Broglio, A., 2000. Considerations on the Aurignacian industries from Krems- Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102, 7085–7090. Hundssteig in the Middle Danube Basin and Fumane in the Adige Basin. In: Bergman, C.A., Stringer, C.B., 1989. Fifty years after: Egbert, an early Upper Palae- Mester, Z., Ringer, A´ . (Eds.), A` la recherche de l’homme pre´historique. Volume olithic juvenile from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Paleórient 15, 99–111. comme´moratif de Miklos Ga´bori et de Veronika Ga´bori-Csańk. E´ tudes et Re- Bird, M., Ayliffe, L.K., Fifield, K., Cresswell, R., Turney, C., 1999. Radiocarbon dating of cherches Archeólogiques de l’Universite´ de Lie`ge 95. Lie`ge, pp. 311–319. ‘old’ charcoal using a wet oxidation, -stepped combustion procedure. Radio- Broglio, A., 2001. Discontinuity between the Mousterian and the Aurignacian: the carbon 41 (2), 127–140. archaeological sequence from Grotta di Fumane in the Veneto Prealp. In: Ginter, Bird, M.I., Fifield, L.K., Santos, G.M., Beaumont, P.B., Zhou, Y., di Tada, M.L., B., Drobniewicz, B., Kazior, B., Nowak, M., Poltowicz, M. (Eds.), Problems of the Hausladen, P.A., 2003b. Radiocarbon dating from 40 to 60 ka BP at Border Cave, Stone Age in the Old World. Jubilee Book Dedicated to Professor Janusz K. South Africa. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 22, 943–947. Koz1owski on his 40th Scientific Work in Jagiellonian University. Krako´ w, pp. Bird, M.I., Fifield, L.K., Turney, C.S.M., Santos, G.M., 2004. Dating close to the ra- 119–129. diocarbon ‘barrier’, paper presented at 1st Physics and Archaeology Meeting - Broglio, A., Cremaschi, M., Peresani, M., Stefanide, M., Bertola, S., Gurioli, S., Marini, D., discoveries and dated chronology, April 26 to 29, 2004, Capivara National Park, Anastasio, G., 2005. Le Pietre dipinte dell’aurignaziano. In: Broglio, A., Dalmeri, G. Brazil. English version online. www.st-andrews.ac.uk/gg/Research/FEEA/Pro- (Eds.), Pitture Paleolitiche nelle prealpi venete. Grotta di Fumane e Riparo Dal- jects/ABOXdating.shtml. meri. Museo Civico di storia naturale di Verona, Verona, pp. 38–63. Bird, M.I., Turney, C.S.M., Fifield, L.K., Jones, R., Ayliffe, L.K., Palmer, A., Cresswell, R., Broglio, A., Dalmeri, G., 2005. Pitture Paleolitiche nelle prealpi venete. Grotta di Robertson, S., 2002. Radiocarbon analysis of the early archaeological site of Fumane e Riparo Dalmeri. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Nauwalabila I, Arnhem Land, Australia: implications for sample suitability and Verona, 2. Serie. Sezione Scienze dell’Uomo 9. Preistoria Alpina, Nr. Speciale. stratigraphic integrity. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 21, 1061–1075. Cierre, Verona. Bird, M.I., Turney, C.S.M., Fifield, L.K., Smith, M.A., Miller, G.H., Roberts, R.G., Broglio, A., Gurioli, F., 2004. The symbolic behaviour of the first modern humans: Magee, J.W., 2003a. Radiocarbon dating of organic- and carbonate-carbon in the Fumane cave evidence (Venetian pre-Alps). In: Otte, M. (Ed.), La Spiritualite´. Genyornis and Dromaius eggshell using stepped combustion and stepped Actes du Colloque de la Commission 8 de l’U.I.S.P.P. (Paleólithique supe´rieur), acidification. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 22, 1805–1812. Lie`ge, 10–12 dećembre 2003, E´ tudes et Recherches Archeólogiques de l’Uni- Bischoff, J.L., Ludwig, K., Garcia, J.F., Carbonell, E., Vaquero, M., Stafford, T.W., versite´ de Lie`ge 106, Lie`ge, pp. 97–102. Jull, A.J.T., 1994. Dating of the basal Aurignacian sandwich at Abric Romani Broglio, A., Laplace, G., 1966. E´ tudes de typologie analytique des complexes lep- (Catalunya, Spain) by radiocarbon and uranium-series. J. Archaeol. Sci. 21, tolithiques de l’Europe centrale. I. Les complexes aurignacoı¨des de la Basse 541–551. Autriche. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 21, 60–121. O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 799

Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Manning, S.W., Reimer, P., van der Plicht, H., 2006. Finlayson, C., Giles Pacheco, F., Rodrı´guez-Vidal, J., Fa, D.A., Guiterrez Lo´ pez, J.M., Developments in radiocarbon calibration for archaeology. Antiquity 80, Santiago Pe´rez, A., Finlayson, G., Allue, E., Baena Preysler, J., Caćeres, I., Carrio´ n, J.S., 783–798. Fernańdez-Jalvo, Y., Gleed-Owen, C.P., Jimenez Espejo, F.J., Lo´ pez, P., Lo´ pez Saéz, Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T., Bowles, A., Hedges, R., 2004. Improvements to the J.A., Riquelme Cantal, J.A., Sańchez Marco, A., Giles Guzman, F., Brown, K., pretreatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46, 155–163. Fuentez N., Valarino, C.A., Villalpando, A., Stringer, C.B., Martinez Ruiz, F., Campbell, J.B., 1977. The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain. A Study of Man and Nature in Sakamoto, T., 2006. Late survival of Neanderthals at the southernmost extreme the Late Ice Age. 2 Volumes. Clarendon Press, Oxford. of Europe. Nature [advance online publication, 13 September], doi:10.1038 / Canal i Roquet, J., Carbonell i Roura, E. 1989. Catalunya paleolitica. Patronat Francesc nature05195. Eiximenis, Girona. Floss, H., Rouquerol, N. (Eds.), 2007. Les chemins de l’Art aurignacien en Europe/Das Carbonell, E., Giralt, S., Vaquero, M., 1994. Abric Romani (Capellades, Barcelone, Aurignacien und die Anfa¨nge der Kunst in Europa. Colloque international/In- Espagne: Une importante se´quence anthropiseé du Pleístoce`ne supe´rieur). Bull. ternationale Fachtagung Aurignac 2005. E´ ditions Museé-forum Aurignac Cahier Soc. Pre´hist. Fr. 91, 47–55. 4. Aurignac. Chabai, V., 2003. The chronological and industrial variability of the Middle to Upper Forster, P., 2004. Ice Ages and the mitochondrial DNA chronology of human dis- Palaeolithic transition in Eastern Europe. Trabalhos de Arquelogia 33. In: Zilhaõ, persals: a review. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 359, 255–264. J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Freund, G., 1952. Die Blattspitzen des Palaölithikums in Europa. Quarta¨r-Bibliothek Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Proceedings of 1, Bonn. Symposium 6.1 of the 14. Congress of the U.I.S.P.P., Lie`ge 2001. Istituto Por- Gaudzinski, S., 1999. Knochen und Knochengera¨te der mittelpalaölithischen Fund- tugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lissabon, pp. 71–86. stelle Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Deutschland). Jahrbuch des Ro¨misch-Germani- Churchill, S., Formicola, V., Holliday, T., Holt, B., Schumann, B., 2000. The Upper schen Zentralmuseums Mainz 45 (1), 163–221. Palaeolithic population of Europe in an evolutionary perspective. In: Giaccio, B., Hajdas, I., Peresani, M., Fedele, F.G., Isaia, R., 2006. The Campanian Ig- Roebroeks, W., Mussi, M., Svoboda, J., Fennema, K. (Eds.), Hunters of the Golden nimbrite tephra and its relevance for the timing of the Middle to Upper Pa- Age. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000-20,000 BP. University Leiden, laeolithic shift. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Leiden, pp. 31–57. Met. Kerns Verlag, Tu¨ bingen, pp. 343–375. Churchill, S.E., Smith, F.H., 2000. Makers of the early Aurignacian of Europe. Yearb. Gillespie, R., 2002. Dating the first Australians. Radiocarbon 44 (2), 455–472. Phys. Anthropol. 43, 61–115. Ginter, G., Kozlowski, J.K., Laville, H., Sirakov, N., Hedges, R.E.M., 1996. Transition in Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern hu- the Balkans: news from the Temnata Cave, Bulgaria. In: Carbonell, E., Vaquero, mans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new M. (Eds.), The Last Neandertals - The First Anatomically Modern Humans. challenges. J. Hum. Evol. 44, 331–371. Cultural Change and Human Evolution: The Crisis at 40 KA BP. Colloquium Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., Goldberg, P., Mu¨ nzel, S., 2006. The last Neanderthals and first Capellades 1995. Barcelona, pp. 169–200. modern humans in the Swabian Jura. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), When Neanderthals Gioia, P., 1990. An aspect of the transition between Middle and Upper Paleolithic in and Modern Humans Met. Kerns Verlag, Tu¨ bingen, pp. 305–341. Italy: the Uluzzian. In: Farizy, C. (Ed.), Paleólithique moyen rećent et Paleó- Conard, N., Dippon, G., Goldberg, P., 2003. Chronostratigraphy and archaeological lithique supe´rieur ancien en Europe. Me´moires du Museé de Pre´histoire de l’Ile context of the Aurignacian deposits at Geißenklo¨sterle Cave. Trabalhos de Ar- de France 3, 241–250. E´ dition A.P.R.A.I.F., Nemours. queologia 33. In: Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian Golovanova, L.V., 1998. Anthropological finds from the Palaeolithic sites of the and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Im- Northern Caucasus. In: Peretto, C., Giunchi, C. (Eds.), Atti del 13. Congresso, plications. Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 165–178. Volume 2. U.I.S.P.P. Colloquium Forlı` 1996. ABACO, Forlı`, pp. 397–400. Conard, N.J., Grootes, P.M., Smith, F.H., 2004. Unexpectedly recent dates for human Gravina, B., Mellars, P., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2005. Radiocarbon dating of interstratified remains from Vogelherd. Nature 430, 198–201. Neanderthal and Early Modern Human occupations at the Chatelperronian type Currat, M., Excoffier, L., 2004. Modern humans did not admix with Neanderthals site. Nature 438, 51–56. during their range expansion into Europe. PloS Biology 2, 2264–2274. Green, R.E., Krause, J., Ptak, S.E., Briggs, A.W., Ronan, M.T., Simons, J.F., Du, L., Damblon, F., Haesarts, P., van der Plicht, J., 1996. New datings and considerations on Egholm, M., Rothberg, J.M., Paunovic, M., Svante Paä¨bo, S., 2006. Analysis of one the chronology of Upper Palaeolithic sites in the Great Eurasiatic Plain. Pre´- million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA. Nature 444, 330–336. histoire Europeénne 9, 177–231. Gru¨ n, R., Stringer, C., McDermott, F., Nathan, R., Porat, N., Robertson, S., Taylor, L., David, F., Connet, N., Girard, M., Lhomme, V., Miskovsky, J.-C., Roblin-Jouve, A., 2001. Mortimer, G., Eggins, S., McCulloch, M., 2005. U-series and ESR analyses of Le Chaˆtelperronien de la grotte du Renne a` Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Donneés bones and teeth relating to the human burials from Skhul. J. Hum. Evol. 49 (3), se´dimentologiques et chronologiques. Bull. Soc. Pre´hist. Fr. 98, 207–230. 316–334. Delluc, B., Delluc, G., 1978. Les manifestations graphiques aurignaciennes sur sup- Gru¨ nberg, J.M., 2006. New AMS dates for Palaeolithic and Mesolithic camp sites and port rocheux des environs des Eyzies (Dordogne). Gallia Pre´hist. 21, 213–332. single finds in Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia (Germany). Proc. Prehist. Soc. 72, Demars, P.-Y., 1996. La place du Piage et de Roc de Combe (Lot) dans la transition du 95–112. Pa1eólithique moyen au Pa1eólithique supe´rieur. Bulletin Pre´historique du Sud- Guilbaud, M., 1993. Debitage from the Upper Castelperronian level at Saint-Ce´saire: Ouest. Nouvelles E´ tudes 3, 11–35. methodological approach and implications for the transition from Middle to Djindjian, F., Koz1owski, J., Bazile, F., 2003. Europe during the Early Upper Palae- Upper Paleolithic. In: Le´veque, F., Backer, A., Guilbaud, M. (Eds.), Context of olithic (40000–30000 BP): a synthesis. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. In: Zil- a Late Neandertal. Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 37–58. haõ, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Haesaerts, P., Teyssandier, N., 2003. The Early Upper Paleolithic occupations of Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Willendorf (Lower Austria): a contribution to the chronostratigraphic and Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 29–48. cultural context of the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe. d’Errico, F., 2003. The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin of Trabalhos de Arqueologia; 33. In: Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of behavioral modernity. Evol. Anthropol. 12, 188–202. the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigra- d’Errico, F., Julien, M., Liolios, D., Vanhaeren, M., Baffier, D., 2003. Many awls in our phies, Cultural Implications. Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of the XIVth Con- argument. Bone tool manufacture and use in the Chatelperronian and Auri- gress of the U.I.S.P.P. Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 133–151. gnacian levels of the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure. Trabalhos de Arqueo- Hahn, J., 1977. Aurignacien. Das a¨ltere Jungpalaölithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa. logia 33. In: Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and Fundamenta Reihe A 9 Bo¨hlau Verlag, Ko¨ln/Wien. of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implica- Hahn, J. 1987. Kraft und Agression. Die Botschaft der Eiszeit-Kunst im Aurignacien tions. Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 247–270. Su¨ ddeutschlands? Archaeologica Venatoria. Tu¨ bingen. d’Errico, F., Sańchez Gon˜i, M.F., 2003. Neanderthal extinction and the millennial Hahn, J., 1988a. 1. Fiche sagaie a` base simple de tradition aurignacienne. In: Del- scale climatic variability of OIS 3. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 22, 769–788. porte, H., Hahn, J., Mons, L., Pinçon, G., de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (Eds.), Fiches d’Errico, F., Zilhaõ, J., Baffier, D., Julien, M., Pelegrin, J., 1998. Neanderthal accultur- typologiques de l’industrie osseuse pre´historique. Paleólithique supe´rieur. Ca- ation in Western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its in- hier I. Universite´ de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 1–17. terpretation. Curr. Anthropol. 39 (Suppl), 1–44. Hahn, J., 1988b. Die Geißenklo¨sterle-Ho¨hle im Achtal bei Blaubeuren I. Fundhor- Eswaran, V., Harpending, H., Rogers, A.R., 2005. Genomics refutes an exclusively izontbildung und Besiedlung im Mittelpalaölithikum und im Aurignacien. African origin of humans. J. Hum. Evol. 49, 1–18. Forschungen und Berichte zu Vor- und Fru¨ hgeschichte in Baden-Wu¨ rttemberg Excoffier, L., 2006. Neandertal genetic diversity: a fresh look from old samples. Curr. 26. Konrad Theiss, Stuttgart. Biol. 16, 650–652. Hahn, J., 1988c. 2. Fiche sagaie a` base fendue. In: Delporte, H., Hahn, J., Mons, L., Fedele, F.G., Giaccio, B., Hajdas, I., 2008. Timescales and cultural process at 40,000 Pinçon, G., de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (Eds.), Fiches typologiques de l’industrie BP in the light of the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption, Western Eurasia. J. Hum. osseuse pre´historique. Paleólithique supe´rieur. Cahier I. Universite´ de Provence, Evol. 55, 834–857. Aix-en-Provence, pp. 1–21. Fedele, F.G., Giaccio, B., Isaia, R., Orsi, G., 2002. Ecosystem impact of the Campanian Hahn, J., 1995. Neue Beschleuniger-14C-Daten zum Jungpalaölithikum in Su¨ dwest- Ignimbrite eruption in late Pleistocene Europe. Quatern. Res. 57, 420–424. deutschland. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 45, 86–92. Fedele, F.G., Giaccio, B., Isaia, R., Orsi, G., 2003. The Campanian Ignimbrite eruption, Harvati, K., Gunz, P., Grigorescu, D., 2007. Cioclovina (Romania): affinities of an early Heinrich Event 4, and the Palaeolithic change in Europe: a high-resolution in- modern European. J. Hum. Evol. 53, 732–746. vestigation. In: Robock, A., Oppenheimer, C. (Eds.), Volcanism and the Earth’s Henry-Gambier, D., 2002. Les fossiles de Cro-Magnon (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dor- Atmosphere. Geophys. Mon. 139. American Geophysical Union, Washington dogne): nouvelles donneés sur leur position chronologique et leur attribution (DC), pp. 301–325. culturelle. Paleó 14, 201–204. Felgenhauer, F., 1959. Willendorf in der Wachau. Monographie der Palaölith- Higham, T., Bronk Ramsey, C., Karavanic, I., Smith, F.H., Trinkaus, E., 2006a. Revised Fundstellen I-VII. Mitteilungen der Pra¨historischen Kommission der O¨ s- direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Palaeolithic Neandertals. terreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 8 & 9, 1956–1959. Rohrer, Wien. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103, 553–557. 800 O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802

Higham, T.F.G., Jacobi, R.M., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2006b. AMS radiocarbon dating of the XIVth Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. ancient bone using ultrafiltration. Radiocarbon 48, 179–195. 61–69. Hoffecker, J.F., Anikovich, M.V., Sinitsyn, A.A., Holliday, V.T., Levkovskaya, G.M., Kuhn, S.L., 2004. From Initial Upper Paleolithic to Ahmarian at U¨ çagizli Cave, Turkey. Pospelova, G.A., Forman, S.L., Giaccio, B., 2008. From the Bay of Naples to the Anthropologie XLII (3), 249–262. River Don: the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption and the Middle-Upper Paleo- Kuhn, S.L., Bietti, A., 2000. The Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic in Italy. In: lithic transition in Eastern Europe. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 858–870. Bar-Yosef, O., Pilbeam, D. (Eds.), The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Hofreiter, M., Pacher, M., 2004. Using ancient DNA to elucidate raw material origin Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Harvard University Press, of bone points from Potocka zijalka (Slovenia): preliminary results. In: Pacher, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 49–76. M., Pohar, V., Rabeder, G. (Eds.), Potocka zijalka - Palaeontological and Ar- Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M., 1998. The earliest Aurignacian of Riparo Mochi (Liguria, Italy). chaeological Results of the Excavation Campaigns 1997-2000. Mitt. Komm. Curr. Anthropol. 39, 175–189. Quarta¨rforsch. O¨ sterr. Akad. Wiss. 13. Wien, pp. 201–210. Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Gu¨ leç, E., 1999. Initial Upper Palaeolithic in South-central Hovers, E., 2006. Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the Middle Paleolithic of the Turkey and its regional context: a preliminary report. Antiquity 73, 505–517. Levant: what kind of interaction? In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), When Neanderthals and Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Reese, D.S., Gu¨ leç, E., 2001. Ornaments of the earliest Upper Modern Humans Met. Kerns Verlag, Tu¨ bingen, pp. 65–85. Paleolithic: new insights from the Levant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, Hublin, J.J., Barroso, R.C., Medina Lara, F., Fortugne, M., Reyss, J.L., 1995. The 7641–7646. Mousterian site of Zafarraya (Andalucia, Spain): dating and implications on the Kuzmin, Y.V., Burr, G.S., Jull, A.J.T., Sulerzhitsky, L.D., 2004. AMS 14C age of the Upper Palaeolithic peopling processes of Western Europe. C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris se´rie IIa, Palaeolithic skeletons from Sungir Site, Central Russian Plain. Nuclear In- 931–937. struments and Methods in Physics Research B 223–224, 731–734. Hublin, J.-J., Spoor, F., Braun, M., Zonneveld, F.W., Condemi, S., 1996. A late Nean- von Koenigswald, W., Mu¨ ller-Beck, H., Pressmar, E., 1974. Die Archaölogie und derthal associated with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. Nature 381, 224–226. Palaöntologie in den Weinbergho¨hlen bei Mauern (Bayern) - Grabungen 1937– Hughen, K., Southon, J., Lehman, S., Bertrand, C., Turnbull, J., 2006. Marine-derived 1967. Archaeologia Venatoria 3. Archaeologia Venatoria, Tu¨ bingen. 14C calibration and activity record for the past 50,000 years updated from the Lahr, M.M., Foley, R.A., 1998. Towards a theory of modern human origins: geogra- Cariaco Basin. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 25, 3216–3227. phy, demography, and diversity in recent human evolution. Yearb. Phys. An- Hu¨ lle, W.M., 1977. Die Ilsenho¨hle unter Burg Ranis/Thu¨ ringen. Eine palaölithische thropol. 41, 137–176. Ja¨gerstation, Stuttgart/New York. Lalueza-Fox, C., Lourdes Sampietro, M., Caramelli, D., Puder, Y., Lari, M., Calafell, F., Jacobi, R.M., 1990. Leaf-points and the British Early Upper Palaeolithic. In: Ko- Martinez-Maza, C., Bastir, M., Fortea, J., Rasillade la, M., Bertranpetit, J., Rosas, A., z1owski, J.K. (Ed.), Feuilles de Pierre. Les industries a` pointes foliaceés du pa- 2005. Neandertal evolutionary genetics: mitochondrial DNA data from the leólithique supe´rieur europeén. Actes du Colloque de Cracovie 1989. E´ tudes et Iberian Peninsula. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 1077–1081. Recherches Archeólogiques de l’Universite´ de Lie`ge 42. Lie´ge, pp. 271–289. Laplace, G., 1966. Recherches sur l’origine et l’e´volution des complexes lep- Jacobi, R.M., 1999. Some observations on the British earlier Upper Palaeolithic. In: tolithiques. E´ cole Française de Rome, Me´langes d’Archeólogie et d’Histoire, Davies, W., Charles, R. (Eds.), Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Palae- Supple´ments 4. E´ ditions de Boccard, Paris. olithic Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and Europe. Laplace, G., 1977. Il Riparo Mochi ai Balzi Rossi di Grimaldi (Fouilles 1938-1949): Les Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 35–40. industries leptolithiques. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 32, 3–131. Jacobi, R.M., Higham, T.F.G., 2008. The ‘‘Red Lady’’ ages gracefully: new ultrafiltra- Lengyel, G., Mester, Z., submitted. A new look at the radiocarbon chronology of the tion AMS determinations from Paviland. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 898–907. Szeletian in Hungary. In: Jo¨ris, O., Adler, D.S. (Eds.), 2008. Eurasian Prehistory. Jacobi, R.M., Higham, T.F.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1958. E´ tude des restes humains, fossiles provenant des grottes Middle and Upper Palaeolithic bone in the British Isles: improved reliability d’Arcy-sur-Cure. Annls. Paleónt. (Vert.) 44, 87–148. using ultrafiltration. J. Quatern. Sci. 21, 557–573. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1968. Le petit racloir chaˆtelperronien. In: La pre´histoire, prob- Johnsen, S.J., Clausen, H.B., Dansgaard, W., Fuhrer, K., Gundestrup, N., Hammer, C.U., le`mes et tendances, 275–282. CNRS, Paris. Iversen, P., Jouzel, J., Stauffer, B., Steffensen, J.P., 1992. Irregular glacial in- Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1971. Pre´histoire de l’art occidental. Paris. terstadials recorded in a new Greenland ice core. Nature 359, 311–313. Le´veˆque, F., Vandermeersch, B., 1980. Paleóntologie humaine: Dećouverte de restes Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H. humains dans un niveau Castelperronien a` Saint-Ce´saire (Charente Maritime). , Masson-Dulmeotte, V., Sveinbjørndottir, A.E., White, J., 2001. Oxygen isotope C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris D 291, 187–189. and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Liolios, D., 2006. Reflections on the role of bone tools in the definition of the early Century, Dye-3, GRIP GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. J. Quatern. Sci. 16 (4), 299– Aurignacian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Au- 307. rignacian. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, Jo¨ris, O., 2004. Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der spa¨tmittelpalaölithischen 2002. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Lisbon, pp. 37–51. Keilmessergruppen. Der Versuch einer kulturgeographischen Abgrenzung einer Lowe, J.J., Walker, M.J.C., 2000. Radiocarbon dating the last glacial-interglacial mittelpalaölithischen Formengruppe in ihrem europaïschen Kontext. Berichte transition (ca. 14–9 14C ka BP) in terrestrial and marine records: the need for der Ro¨misch-Germanischen Kommission 84, 49–153. new quality assurance protocols. Radiocarbon 42 (1), 53–68. Jo¨ris, O., A´ lvarez Fernańdez, E., Weninger, B., 2003. Radiocarbon evidence of the Marks, A.E., 1993. The early Upper Paleolithic: the view from the Levant. In: Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southwestern Europe. Trabajos de Knecht, H., Pike-Tay, A., White, R. (Eds.), Before Lascaux. The Complex Record Prehistoria 60, 15–38. of the Early Upper Paleolithic. Boca Raton, Ann Arbor, London and Tokyo, pp. Jo¨ris, O., Terberger, Th., Weninger, B., Street, M., in press. Dating the Middle to Upper 5–21. Palaeolithic transition. On the timing and dynamics of cultural change, the Marks, A., Monigal, K., 2000. The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic interface at Buran- demise of the last Neanderthals and the first appearance of Anatomically Kaya III, Eastern Crimea. In: Orschiedt, J., Weniger, G.-C. (Eds.), Neanderthals Modern Humans in Europe: a critical review of the radiocarbon record. Vert. and Modern Humans - Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern Europe Paleobiol. Paleoanthropol. from 50,000–30,000 B.P. Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Neanderthal Mu- Karavanic´, I., Smith, F.H., 1998. The Middle/Upper Paleolithic interface and the re- seums 2. Neanderthal Museum, Mettmann, pp. 212–226. lationship of Neanderthals and early Modern Humans in the Hrvatsko Zagorje, McDougall, I., Brown, F.H., Fleagle, J.G., 2005. Stratigraphic placement and age of Croatia. J. Hum. Evol. 34, 223–248. modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia. Nature 433, 733–736. Koumouzelis, M., Ginter, B., Kozlowski, J.K., Pawlikiwski, M., Bar-Yosef, O., Albert, R. Mellars, P.A., 2000. Chaˆtelperronian chronology and the case for Neanderthal/ M., Litynska-Zajac, M., Stworzewicz, E., Wojtal, P., Lipecki, G., Tomek, T., Modern Human ‘‘acculturation’’ in Western Europe. In: Stringer, C.B., Barton, R. Bochenski, Z.M., Pazdur, A., 2001a. The early Upper Palaeolithic in Greece: the N.E., Finlayson, J.C. (Eds.), Neanderthals on the Edge. Papers from a conference excavations in Klisoura Cave. J. Archaeol. Sci. 28, 515–539. marking the 150thanniversary of the Forbes´ Quarry discovery, Gibraltar. Oxbow Koumouzelis, M., Kozlowski, J., Escutenaire, C., Sitlivy, V., Sobczyk, K., Valladas, H., Books, Oxford, pp. 33–39. Tisnerat-Laborde, N., Wojtal, P., Ginter, B., 2001b. La fin du Paleólithique moyen Mellars, P.A., 2004. Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe. et le de´but du Paleólithique supe´rieur en Gre`ce: la se´quence de la grotte 1 de Nature 432, 461–465. Klissoura. L’Anthropologie 105, 469–504. Mellars, P.A., 2006a. A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of modern Koz1owski, J.K. (Ed.), 1982. Excavation in the Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria). Final Re- humans in Eurasia. Nature 439, 931–935. port. Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw. Mellars, P.A., 2006b. Archeology and the dispersal of modern humans in Europe: Koz1owski, J.K., 1992. The Balkans in the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic: the gate to deconstructing the ‘‘Aurignacian.’’ Evol. Anthropol. 15, 167–182. Europe or a cul-de-sac. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 58, 1–20. Mellars, P., Gravina, B., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2007. Confirmation of Neanderthal/ Koz1owski, J.K., 2006. A dynamic view of Aurignacian technology. Trabalhos de modern human interstratification at the Chatelperronian type-site. Proc. Natl. Arqueologia 45. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 3657–3662. Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25– Monigal, K., 2006. Transit lounge of Eastern Europe: multicultural Crimea during the 30, 2002. Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 21–34. late Middle Paleolithic and early Upper Paleolithic. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), When Koz1owski, J.K., Otte, M., 2000. The formation of the Aurignacian in Europe. J. An- Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Kerns Verlag, Tu¨ bingen, pp. 189–211. thropol. Res. 56, 513–534. Mook, W.G., 1988. Radiocarbon-Daten aus der Ku˚ lna-Ho¨hle. In: Valoch, K., Die Er- Krings, M., Capelli, C., Tschentscher, F., Geisert, H., Meyer, S., von Haeseler, A., forschung der Ku˚ lna-Ho¨hle 1961–1976. Anthropos N.S. 16. Brno, pp. 285–286. Grossschmidt, K., Possnert, G., Paunovic, M., Paä¨bo, S., 2000. A view of Nean- Morin, E., Tsanova, T., Sirakov, N., Rendu, W., Mallye, J.-B., Le´veˆque, F., 2005. Bone dertal genetic diversity. Nature Genetics 26, 144–146. refits in stratified deposits: testing the chronological grain at Saint-Ce´saire. J. Kuhn, S.L., 2003. In what sense is the Levantine Initial Upper Palaeolithic a ‘‘tran- Archaeol. Sci. 32, 1083–1098. sitional’’ industry? Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33 In: Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), Mussi, M., Gioia, P., Negrino, F., 2006. Ten small sites: the diversity of the Italian The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhao, J. (Eds.), Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Symposium Held in O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802 801

Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002. Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisbon, 2007. Pes¸tera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology of early modern Europeans. pp. 189–209. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 104 (4), 1165–1170. Movius, H., (Ed.), 1975. Excavation of the Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies (Dordogne). Santos, G.M., Bird, M.I., Parenti, F., Fifield, L.K., Guidon, N., Hausladen, P.A., 2003. A American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 30. Harvard University, revised chronology of the lowest occupation layer of Pedra Furada Rock Shelter, Cambridge (Mass). Piauı´, Brazil: the Pleistocene peopling of the Americas. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 22, Neugebauer-Maresch, Chr, 1989. Zum Neufund einer weiblichen Statuette bei den 2303–2310. Rettungsgrabungen an der Aurignacien-Station Stratzing/Krems-Rehberg, Nie- Schmitz, R.W., Serre, D., Bonani, G., Feine, S., Hillgruber, F., Krainitzki, H., Paä¨bo, S., dero¨sterreich. Germania 67, 551–559. Smith, F.H., 2002. The Neandertal type site revisited: interdisciplinary in- Nigst, P.R., 2004. Neue alte Funde aus Willendorf II, Schicht 3. Archaölogie O¨ s- vestigations of skeletal remains from the Neander Valley, Germany. Proc. Natl. terreichs 15(1), 23–25. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 13342–13347. Nigst, P.R., 2006. The first modern humans in the Middle Danube area? New Scott, E.M., 2003. The Third International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (TIRI) and evidence from Willendorf II (Eastern Austria). In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), When the Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI), 1990-2002. Re- Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Kerns Verlag, Tu¨ bingen, pp. 269–304. sults, analyses, and conclusions. Radiocarbon 45 (2), 135–408. Nigst, P.R., Viola, T.B., Haesaerts, P., Blockley, S., Damblon, F., Frank, C., Fuchs, M., Serre, D., Langaney, A., Chech, M., Teschler-Nicola, M., Paunovic, M., Mennecier, Ph., Go¨tzinger, M., Hambach, U., Mallol, C., Moreau, L., Niven, L., Richards, M., Hofreiter, M., Possnert, G., Paä¨bo, S., 2004. No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Richter, D., Zo¨ller, L., Trnka, G., Hublin, J.-J., 2008. New research on the Auri- contribution to early modern humans. PLoS Biology 2, 313–317. gnacian of Central Europe: a first note on the 2006 fieldwork at Willendorf II. Shang, H., Tong, H., Zhang, S., Chen, F., Trinkaus, E., 2007. An early modern human Quarta¨r 55, 9–15. from Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104 (16), O’Connell, J., Allen, J., 2004. Dating the colonization of Sahul (Pleistocene Australia - 6573–6578. New Guinea): a review of recent research. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 835–853. Shen, G., Michel, V., 2007. Position chronologique des sites de l’homme moderne en Ohnuma, K., 1988. Ksar Aqil, Lebanon: A technological study of the earlier Upper Chine d’apre`s la datation U-Th. Chronological position of modern Homo sapiens Paleolithic levels of Ksar Aqil, Levels XXV–XIV. British Archaeological Reports sites in China based on U-series dating. L’Anthropologie 111, 157–165. (International Series) 426. Oxford. Sinitsyn, A., 2003. The most ancient sites of Kostenki in the context of the Initial Ortega Cobos, D., Soler Masferrer, N., Maroto Genover, J., 2005. La production des Upper Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. In: lamelles pendant l’Aurignacien archaı¨que dans la Grotte de l’Arbreda: Organisa- Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the tion de la production, variabilite´ des me´thodes et des objectifs. In: Le Brun- Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Ricalens, F., Bordes, J.-G., Bon, F. (Eds.), Productions lamellaires attribueés a` Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 89–107. l’Aurignacien. Chaıˆnes ope´ratoires et perspectives technoculturelles. Actes du XIVe Skinner, A.R., Blackwell, B.A.B., Martin, S., Ortega, A., Blickstein, J.L.B., Golovanova, L.V., congre`s de l’UISPP September 2001 Session 6, Upper Palaeolithic, Symposium Doronichev, V.B., 2005. ESR dating at Mezmaiskaya Cave, Russia. Applied Radi- C6.7. ArcheóLogiques 1. Faber Mersch, Grand Duche´ du Luxemburg, pp. 359–373. ation and Isotopes 62, 219–224. Ovchinnikov, I.V., Go¨therstro¨m, A., Romanova, G.P., Kharitonov, V.I., Lideń, K., Sirocko, F., Seelos, K., Schaber, K., Rein, B., Dreher, F., Diehl, M., Lehne, R., Ja¨ger, K., Goodwin, W., 2000. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Krbetschek, M., Degering, D., 2005. A late Eemian aridity pulse in Central Eu- Caucasus. Nature 404, 490–493. rope during the last glacial inception. Nature 436, 833–836. Palma di Cesnola, A., 1982. Le leptolithique archaı¨que en Italie. In: Aurignacien et Sˇkrdla, P., 1996. The Bohunician reduction strategy. Quaternaria Nova 6, 93–107. Gravettien en Europe. E´ tudes et Recherches Archeólogiques de l’Universite´ de Sˇkrdla, P., 2003. Comparison of Boker Tachtit and Strańska´ ska´la MP/UP transitional Lie`ge 13(1). ABACO, Forlı´, pp. 119–143. industries. J. Israel Prehist. Soc. 33, 37–73. Paunescu, A., 2001. Paleoliticul si mezoliticul din spatiul transilvan. Academia Ro- Smith, F.H., Trinkaus, E., Pettitt, P.B., Karavanic, I., Paunovic, M., 1999. Direct radio- mana Institutul de Arheologie ‘‘Vasile Parvan,’’ Bucures¸ti. carbon dates for Vindija G1 and Velika Pecina late Pleistocene hominid remains. Pelegrin, J., 1995. Technologie lithique: Le Chaˆtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 12281–12286. at de la Coˆte (Dordogne). Cahiers du Quaternaire 20 Paris. Soficaru, A., Dobos, A., Trinkaus, E., 2006. Early modern humans from the Pestera Pettitt, P.B., 2008. Art and the Middle to Upper transition in Europe: comments on Muierii, Baia de Fier, Romania. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103, 17196–17201. the archaeological arguments for an Early Upper Palaeolithic antiquity of the Soler Sublis, J., Soler Masferrer, N., Maroto, J., submitted. The Arbreda’s archaic Grotte Chauvet art. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 908–917. Aurignacian dates clarified. In: Jo¨ris, O., Adler, D.S. (Eds.), 2008. Eurasian Pettitt, P.B., Bader, N.O., 2000. Direct AMS radiocarbon dates for the Sungir Mid Prehistory. Upper Palaeolithic burials. Antiquity 74, 269–270. Sonneville-Bordes, D. de, 1960. Le paleólithique supe´rieur en Pe´rigord. Paris. Pettitt, P., Bahn, P., 2003. Current problems in dating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo Soressi, M., 2002. Le Mouste´rien de tradition acheuleénne du sud-ouest de la and Chauvet. Antiquity 77, 134–141. France. Discussion sur la signification du facie`sa` partir de l’e´tude compareéde Pettitt, P.B., Davies, W., Gamble, C.S., Richards, M.B., 2003. Radiocarbon chro- quatre sites: Pech-de-l’Aze´ I, Le Moustier, La Rochette et la Grotte XVI. Ph.D. nology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. J. Archaeol. Sci. 30, Dissertation, University of Bordeaux. 1685–1693. Southon, J., 2004. A radiocarbon perspective on Greenland ice-core chronologies: Pigati, J.S., Quade, J., Wilson, J., Jull, A.J.T., Lifton, N.A., 2007. Development of low- can we use ice-cores for 14C calibration? In: Reimer, P. (Ed.), IntCal04: Cali- background vacuum extraction and graphitization systems for 14C dating of old bration Issue. Radiocarbon 46, 1239–1259. (40–60 ka) samples. Quatern. Int. 166 (1), 4–14. Stiner, M.C., 2003. ‘‘Standardization’’ in Upper Paleolithic ornaments at the coastal Pyle, D.M., Ricketts, G.D., Margari, V., van Andel, T.H., Sinitsyn, A.A., Praslov, N.D., sites of Riparo Mochi and U¨ çagizli Cave. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. In: Lisitsyn, S., 2006. Wide dispersal and deposition of distal tephra during the Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Pleistocene ‘Campanian Ignimbrite/Y5’ eruption, Italy. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 25, Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. 2713–2728. Istituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 49–59. van der Plicht, J., Beck, J.W., Bard, E., Baillie, M.G.L., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Stiner, M.C., Pehlevan, C., Sagir, M., O¨ zer, I., 2003. Zooarchaeological studies at Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Bronk U¨ çagızlı Cave: preliminary results on Paleolithic subsistence and shell orna- Ramsey, C., Reimer, P.J., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Richards, D.A., Southon, J.R., ments. Aras¸terma Sonuçları Toplantısı 17, 29–36. Stuiver, M., Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004. NOTCAL04-Comparison/calibration 14C Street, M., Terberger, T., Orschiedt, J., 2006. A critical review of the German Paleo- records 26-50 ka cal BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1225–1238. lithic hominin record. J. Hum. Evol. 51, 551–579. Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Warren Beck, J., Bertrand, C.J.H., Svoboda, J., 2000. The depositional context of the early Upper Palaeolithic human Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L., fossils from the Koneprusy (Zlatky Kun) and Mladecˇ Caves, Czech Republic. J. Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Hum. Evol. 38, 523–536. Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R.W., Svoboda, J., 2003. The Bohunician and the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de arqueologia Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J., 33. In: Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004. INTCAL04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0– Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. 26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058. Instituto portugueˆs de arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 123–131. Richter, J., 2004. Die 14C-Daten aus der Sesselfelsgrotte und die Zeitstellung des Svoboda, J., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), 2003. Strańska´ ska´la. Origins of the Upper Paleo- Micoquien/M.M.O. Germania 80, 1–22. lithic in the Brno Basin, Moravia, Czech Republic. American School of Prehistoric Richter, D., Tostevin, G., Sˇkrdla, P., 2008. Bohunician technology and the thermo- Research Bulletin 47. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. luminescence dating of the type locality of Brno-Bohunice (Czech Republic). J. Svoboda, J., Lozek, V., Vlcek, E., 1996. Hunters between East and West. The Palae- Hum. Evol. 55, 871–885. olithic of Moravia, New York and London. Richter, D.-J., Waiblinger, J., Rink, W.J., Wagner, G.A., 2000. Thermoluminescence, Tavoso, A., 1976. La grotte Tournal ou grande grotte de Bize (Bize, Aude). In: Pro- electron spin resonance and 14C-dating of the late Middle and Early Upper vence et Languedoc me´diterraneén sites paleólithiques et neólithiques. Livret- Palaeolithic site of Geissenklo¨sterle Cave in Southern Germany. J. Archaeol. Sci. Guide de l’excursion C 2 du IX Congre`s U.I.S.P.P., Nice, pp. 232–239. 27, 71–89. Terberger, Th., Street, M., 2003. Jungpalaölithische Menschenreste im westlichen Rigaud, J.-Ph., 2001. A propos de la contemporaneíte´ du Castelperronien et de Mitteleuropa und ihr Kontext. In: Burdukiewicz, J.M., Fiedler, L., Heinrich, W.-D., l’Aurignacien ancien dans le nord-est de l’Aquitaine: une re´vision des donneés Justus, A., Bru¨ hl, E. (Eds.), Erkenntnisja¨ger. Kultur und Umwelt des fru¨ hen et ses implications. In: Zilhao, J., Aubry, Th., Carvalho, A.F. (Eds.), Les premiers Menschen. Festschrift fu¨ r Dietrich Mania. Vero¨ffentlichungen des Landesamtes hommes modernes de la Peńinsula Ibe´rique. Actes de Colloque de la Com- fu¨ r Archaölogie Sachsen-Anhalt - Landesmuseum fu¨ r Vorgeschichte 57, Halle mission VIII de l’U.I.S.P.P. Colloquium Vila Nova de Foz Coâ 1998. Trabalhos de (Saale), pp. 579–592. Arqueologia 17. Lissabon, pp. 61–68. Terberger, Th., Street, M., Braüer, G., 2001. Der menschliche Scha¨delrest aus dem Rougier, H., Milota, S., Rodrigo, R., Gherase, M., Sarcina, L., Moldovan, O., Zilhaõ, J., Elbmu¨ ndungsgebiet bei Hahno¨fersand und seine Bedeutung fu¨ r die Steinzeit Constantin, S., Franciscus, R.G., Zollikofer, C.P.E., Ponce de Leo´ n, M., Trinkaus, E., Norddeutschlands. Archaölogisches Korrespondenzblatt 31, 521–526. 802 O. Jo¨ris, M. Street / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 782–802

Teyssandier, N., 2005. Neue Perspektiven zu den Anfa¨ngen des Aurignacien. Mit- human meeting in Iberia: a critical view of the cultural, geographical and chro- teilungen der Gesellschaft fu¨ r Urgeschichte (Blaubeuren) 14, 11–24. nological data. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Teyssandier, N., 2006. Questioning the first Aurignacian: mono- or multicultural Met. Kerns Verlag, Tu¨ bingen, pp. 419–439. phenomenon during the formation of the Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe Vega Toscanõ, L.G., 1990. La fin du Paleólithique moyen au sud de l’Espagne: ses and the Balkans? Anthropologie 44, 9–29. implications dans le contexte de la peńinsule ibe´rique. Me´m. du Museéde Teyssandier, N., 2007. En route vers l’Ouest. Les de´buts de l’Aurignacien en Europe. Pre´hist. d’lle de France 3. In: Farizy, C. (Ed.), Paleólithique moyen rećent et British Archaeological Reports (International Series) 1638, Oxford. Paleólithique supe´rieur ancien en Europe. Ruptures et transitions: examen Teyssandier, N., Bolus, M., Conard, N.J., 2006. The early Aurignacian in Central Eu- critique des documents archeólogiques. Colloquium Nemours 1988. A.P.R.A.I.F, rope and its place in a European perspective. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhaõ, J. (Eds.), Nemours, pp. 169–176. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Vega Toscanõ, L.G., 1993. El trańsito del Paleolı´tico Medio al Paleolı´tico Superior en Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Instituto el sur de la Penıńsula Ibe´rica. In: Cabrera Valde´s, V. (Ed.), El origen del Hombre Portugueˆs de Arqueologia., Artes Graficas, pp. 241–256. Moderno en el suroeste de Europa. UNED, Madrid, pp. 147–170. Teyssandier, N., Liolios, D., 2003. Defining the earliest Aurignacian in the Swabian Verpoorte, A., 2005. The first modern humans in Europe? A closer look at the dating Alp: the relevance of the technological study of the Geissenklo¨sterle (Baden- evidence from the Swabian Jura (Germany). Antiquity 79, 269–279. Wu¨ rttemberg, Germany) lithic and organic productions. Trabalhos de Arqueo- Voelker, A.H.L., Grootes, P.M., Nadeau, M.-J., Sarnthein, M., 2000. 14C Levels in the logia 33. In: Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and Iceland Sea from 25–53 kyr and their link to the Earth’s magnetic field intensity. of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implica- Radiocarbon 42, 437–452. tions. Instituto portugueˆs de arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 179–196. Vogel, J.C., Waterbolk, H.T., 1964. Groningen radiocarbon dates V. Radiocarbon 6, Thieme, H., 1997. Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature 385, 349–369. 807–810. Wang, Y.J., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., An, Z.S., Wu, J.Y., Shen, C.-C., Doralee, J.A., 2001. Trinkaus, E., 2005. Early Modern Humans. A. Rev. Anthropol 34, 207–230. High-resolution absolute-dated Late Pleistocene monsoon record from Hulu Trinkaus, E., 2007. European Early Modern Humans and the fate of the Neandertals. Cave, China. Science 294, 2345–2348. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 7367–7372. Weninger, B., Jo¨ris, O., 2004. Glacial radiocarbon age calibration: the CALPAL pro- Trinkaus, E., Moldovan, O., Milota, S., Bıˆlgar, A., Sarcina, L., Athreya, S., Bailey, S.E., gram. In: Higham, Th., Bronk Ramsey, Ch. (Eds.), Radiocarbon and Archaeology. Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., Higham, T., Bronk Ramsey, C., van der Plicht, J., 2003. An Proceedings of the 4th Symposium, Oxford 2002. Oxford University School of Early Modern Human from the PeS¸tera cu Oase, Romania. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Archaeology Monograph 62. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 9–15. U. S. A. 100, 11231–11236. Weninger, B., Jo¨ris, O., 2008. A 14C age calibration curve for the last 60 ka: the Tsanova, T., Bordes, J.-G., 2003. Contribution au de´bat sur l’origine de l’Aurignacien: Greenland-Hulu U/Th time-scale and its impact on understanding the Middle to principaux re´sultats d’une e´tude technologique de l’industrie lithique de la Upper Paleolithic transition in Western Eurasia. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 772–781. couche 11 de Bacho Kiro. In: Tsonev, T., Montagnari Kokelj, E. (Eds.), The Hu- White, R., 2001. Personal ornaments from the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure. manized Mineral World: Towards Social and Symbolic Evaluation of Prehistoric Athena Review 2, 41–46. Technologies in South Eastern Europe. E´ tudes et Recherches Archeólogiques de White, T.D., Asfaw, B., DeGusta, D., Gilbert, H., Richards, G.D., Suwa, G., Howell, F.C., l’Universite´ de Lie`ge 103. Lie`ge, pp. 41–50. 2003. Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423, 742– Turney, C.S.M., Bird, M.I., Fifield, L.K., Kershaw, A.P., Cresswell, R.G., Santos, G.M., di 747. Tada, M.L., Hausladen, P.A., Youping, Z., 2001b. Development of a robust 14C Wild, E.M., Teschler-Nicola, M., Kutschera, W., Steier, P., Trinkaus, E., Wanek, W., chronology for Lynch’s Crater (North Queensland, Australia) using different pre- 2005. Direct dating of early Upper Palaeolithic human remains from Mladecˇ. treatment strategies. Radiocarbon 43 (1), 45–54. Nature 435, 332–335. Turney, C.S.M., Bird, M.I., Fifield, L.K., Roberts, R.G., Smith, M., Dortch, C.E., Gru¨ n, R., Zilhaõ, J., 1993. Le passage du Paleólithique moyen au Paleólithique supe´rieur dans Lawson, E., Ayliffe, L.K., Miller, G.H., Dortch, J., Cresswell, R.G., 2001a. Early le Portugal. In: Cabrera Valde´s, V. (Ed.), El origen del hombre moderno en el human occupation at Devil’s Lair, Southwestern Australia 50,000 years ago. suroeste de Europa. Colloquium Madrid 1991. Universidad Nacional de Educa- Quatern. Res. 55 (1), 3–13. cio´ n a Distancia, Madrid, pp. 127–145. Turney, C.S.M., Kershaw, A.P., Moss, P., Bird, M.I., Fifield, L.K., Cresswell, R.G., Zilhaõ, J., 2000. The Ebro Frontier: a model for the late extinction of Iberian Ne- Santos, G.M., di Tada, M.L., Hausladen, P.A., Zhou, Y., 2001c. Redating the onset anderthals. In: Stringer, C.B., Barton, R.N.E., Finlayson, C. (Eds.), Neanderthals on of burning at Lynch’s Crater (North Queensland): implications for human set- the Edge. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 111–121. tlement in Australia. J. Quatern. Sci. 16 (8), 767–771. Zilhaõ, J., 2006a. Genes, fossils, and culture. An overview of the evidence for Turney, C.S.M., Roberts, R.G., Jacobs, Z., 2006. Archaeology: progress and pitfalls in Neandertal-Modern Human interaction and admixture. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 72,1–20. radiocarbon dating. Arising from: P. Mellars, Nature 439, 931–935(2006). Na- Zilhaõ, J., 2006b. Chronostratigraphy of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition ture 443, doi:10.1038/nature05214 14 September 2006Published online 13 in the Iberian Peninsula. Pyrenae 37, 7–84. September 2006. Zilhaõ, J., 2007. The emergence of ornaments and art: an archaeological perspective Usik, V.I., Monigal, K., Kulakovskaya, L., 2006. New perspectives on the Trans- on the origins of ‘‘behavioral modernity.’’ J. Archaeol. Res. Original Paper, online, carpathian Middle to Upper Paleolithic boundary. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), Springer. When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Kerns Verlag, Tu¨ bingen, pp. Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F., 1999. The chronology and taphonomy of the earliest Auri- 213–232. gnacian and its implications for the understanding of Neandertal extinction. J. Uthmeier, T., 1996. Ein bemerkenswertes fru¨ hes Inventar des Aurignacien von der World Prehist. 13, 1–68. Freilandfundstelle, ‘‘Keilberg-Kirche’’ bei Regensburg. Archaölogisches Korres- Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F., 2003a. An Aurignacian Garden of Eden in southern Germany? pondenzblatt 26, 233–248. An alternative interpretation of the Geissenklo¨sterle and a critique of the Kul- Uthmeier, T., 2004. Micoquien, Aurignacien und Gravettien in Bayern. Eine re- turpumpe model. Paleó 15, 69–86. gionale Studie zum U¨ bergang vom Mittel- zum Jungpalaölithikum. Arch- Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F., 2003b. The chronology of the Aurignacian and Transitional aölogische Berichte 18, Bonn. technocomplexes. Where do we stand? In: Zilhaõ, J, d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Valladas, H., Tisne´rat, N., Arnold, M., E´ vin, J., Oberlin, Ch, 2001. Les dates des fre´- Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dat- quentations. In: Clottes, J. (Ed.), La Grotte Chauvet. L’art des origines. Seuil, Paris, ing, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of the pp. 32–33. XIVth Congress of the U.I.S.P.P Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Portugueˆs Valladas, H., Tisne´rat-Laborde, N., Cachier, H., Kaltnecker, E´ ., Arnold, M., Oberlin, C., de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 313–349. E´ vin, J., 2005. Bilan des datations carbone 14 effectueés sur des charbons de Zilhaõ, J., d’Errico, F., Bordes, J.-G., Lenoble, A., Texier, J.-P., Rigaud, J.-P., 2006. bois de la Grotte Chauvet. Bull. Soc. Pre´hist. Fr. 102, 109–113. Analysis of Aurignacian interstratification at the Chaˆtelperronian type-site and Valoch, K., 1993. Vedrovice V, eine Siedlung des Szeletien in Su¨ dma¨hren. Quarta¨r implications for the behavioral modernity of Neandertals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 43/44, 7–93. U. S. A. 103, 12643–12648. Valoch, K., 1996. Das Mittelwu¨ rm in den Lo¨ssen Su¨ dma¨hrens und seine palaöli- Zilhaõ, J., Pettitt, P., 2006. On the new dates for Gorham’s Cave and the late survival thischen Kulturen. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 46, 54–64. of Iberian Neanderthals. Before Farming 2006/3, 11–19. Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe Zu¨ chner, Ch., 1996. The Chauvet Cave: radiocarbon versus archaeology. In- revealed by personal ornaments. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 1105–1128. ternational Newsletter on Rock Art 13, 25–27. Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Stringer, C., James, S.L., Todd, J.A., Mienis, H.K., Zu¨ chner, Ch., 2003. La cueva Chauvet y el problema del arte aurinãciense y grave- 2006. Middle Paleolithic shell beads in Israel and Algeria. Science 312, tiense. In: de Balbıń Behrmann, R., Bueno Ramı´rez, P. (Eds.), El arte prehisto´ rico 1785–1788. desde los inicios del siglo XXI. Primer symposium internacional de arte pre- Vaquero, M., Maroto, J., Arrizabalga, A., Baena, J., Baquedano, E., Carrio´ n, E., Jorda`,J.F., histo´ rico de Ribadesella. Kolloquium Asociacio´ n Cultural Amigos de Ribadesella Martino´ n, M., Meneńdez, M., Montes, R., Rosell, J., 2006. The Neandertal-modern 2002. Ribadesella, pp. 41–51.