0deec late middle and upper paleolithic

7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic

1/12

*Corresponding author.

JQI=526=Shantha=Venkatachala=BG

1040-6182/01/$20.00 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 1 0 40 - 6 1 8 2 (0 0 ) 0 0 0 75 - 6

Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40

The late Middle Paleolithic and earliest Upper Paleolithic in CentralEurope and their relevance for the Out of Africa hypothesis

Michael Bolus*, Nicholas J. Conard

Abteilung Altere Urgeschichte und Quarta(ro(kologie, Institut fu(r Ur- und Fru(hgeschichte und Archa(ologie des Mittelalters der Universita(t Tu(bingen,

Schloss Hohentu(bingen, Burgsteige 11, D-72070 Tu(bingen, Germany

Abstract

The available data from Central Europe is consistent with the hypothesis thatHomo sapiens sapiens evolved initially outside Europe

and colonized the di!erent regions of the continent previously occupied by Neanderthals between roughly 50 and 30 kyr BP. Di!erenttransitional industries in Central Europe, which show both Middle and Upper Paleolithic features, appear to root in the local Middle

Paleolithic assemblages. At present it is uncertain which hominids produced the transitional industries. While organic artifacts,

objects of personal ornamentation, and art objects are generally absent in these transitional assemblages, they become abundant in

the Aurignacian, which represents the"rst fully evolved Upper Paleolithic technocomplex spread over larger parts of Europe. Both

radiocarbon and TL dates indicate that the Aurignacian was present in Central Europe, including Germany, as early as about 40 kyr

ago. This means that coexistence of Neanderthals and anatomically modern hominids endured for a time span of some 10 kyr, since

with the appearance of the Aurignacian we "rst encounter the cultural remains ofHomo sapiens sapienswith fully developed artistic

and symbolic representations, ornaments, and abundant organic tools, while the last Neanderthals appear to have lived some 30 kyr

ago. 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

While it is generally accepted that the earliest hom-

inids have their roots in Africa and from there colonized

the low and middle latitudes of the Old World, no con-

sensus exists regarding the evolution and spread of ana-

tomically modern hominids. Scholars continue to debate

whether this evolution took place simultaneously on

di!erent continents or whether Homo sapiens sapiens,

after evolving initially in Africa, replaced existing archaic

populations including the Neanderthals in westernEurasia (Mellars and Stringer, 1989; Trinkaus, 1989;

BraKuer and Smith, 1992).

This paper cannot present the full story of the

transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic for the

whole of Central Europe. The cultural manifestations

during the period in question *approximately between

50,000 and 30,000 BP*are too diverse and uncertain in

their interrelations. By focusing on key aspects of the

archaeological record in Germany as well as in Eastern

and Southeastern Central Europe, we can provide

evidence relevant to the Out of Africa hypothesis, and

conclude that this hypothesis is supported by the

archaeological data.

2. The archaeological record in Eastern and Southeastern

Central Europe

In Eastern Central Europe, especially in Moravia,

there are two main transitional industries. The

Bohunician and the Szeletian both root in the local

Middle Paleolithic. The Bohunician has its geographiccenter in the region of Brno. The radiocarbon dates for

the important sites of Brno-Bohunice and StraH nska skaH la

(Fig. 1: 7 and 9) lie between 36 and 43 kyr BP and show

relatively high statistical uncertainties ranging from 1.1

to 3.1 kyr (Svoboda et al., 1996: Table 5.2). Noteworthy,

is the abundance of Levallois elements in these lithic

assemblages. This characteristic has led Svoboda et al.

(1996, p. 108) to postulate the existence of cultural a$n-

ities with the Near East and northern and central Asia.

The pattern of lithic reduction in the Bohunician com-

bines Upper Paleolithic concepts such as the reduction

along the edges of cores with the use of the Levalloisconcept. An abundance of blades ranges from 20 to 45%

of the larger debitage. The Bohunician appears to have


2/12

Fig. 1. Major sites with Early Upper Paleolithic industries in Central Europe mentioned in the text. 1, Schwalbenberg; 2, Gei{enkloKsterle and

Sirgenstein (Ach Valley); 3, Vogelherd, Hohlenstein, and Bockstein (Lone Valley); 4, Keilberg-Kirche; 5, Willendorf; 6, Galgenberg-Stratzing;

7, Brno-Bohunice; 8, Vedrovice; 9, StraH nska skaH la; 10, Mladec; 11, Vindija; 12, Velika Pecina; 13, Temnata and 14, Bacho Kiro.

developed out of the Mousterian and would thus seem to

have been produced by Neanderthals.

The Szeletian, in contrast to the Bohunician, shows

a broader distribution with a far greater number of sites.

Karel Valoch has argued that the Szeletian may haveevolved from earlier central European Micoquian and

Keilmesser industries as typi"ed by the"nds from Kulna

7 and 6a (Valoch, 1993, pp. 57}67). Szeletian assemblages

lack Levallois cores and debitage, but bifacial forms

including leaf points are abundant. Laminar debitage is

less common than in Bohunician assemblages. The best-

dated site is Vedrovice V (Fig. 1: 8), which has been

radiocarbon dated to between 35.15$0.65 and 39.5$

1.1 kyr BP (Svoboda et al., 1996, Table 5.3).

Both of these assemblage types include a tool spectrum

that is characterized by both Middle and Upper Paleo-lithic elements. The Bohunician is particularly domi-

nated by Upper Paleolithic forms, including end

scrapers, carinated scrapers, and burins. Less abundant

within the Bohunician are Middle Paleolithic forms in-

cluding scrapers and denticulates, and Levallois points.

Although leaf points or Blattspitzen are common in the

Szeletian, they occur only rarely in the Bohunician. Or-

ganic artifacts, which are often seen as characteristic of

the Upper Paleolithic, including bone, antler and ivory

tools, ornaments, and artworks are entirely unknown in

both the Bohunician and the Szeletian. While no human

skeletal material has been found in unambiguous associ-ation with these assemblages, it is at least plausible that

these assemblages were manufactured by Neanderthals.

Turning to the Aurignacian, the densest concentration

of sites from this period outside France is found in

Moravia, where numerous surface sites are well

documented, but remain undated. In Lower Austria,

strati"ed open-air sites are well known from WillendorfII, Galgenberg-Stratzing (Fig. 1: 5 and 6), Krems-

Hundssteig, and Langmannersdorf (Hahn, 1977, pp. 104}

109; Neugebauer-Maresch, 1996). Based on the available

chronostratigraphic data, it appears that the Aurignacian

in these parts of Central Europe covers a broad temporal

span between ca. 38 kyr radiocarbon years at Willendorf

II, Kulturschicht 3 (Haesaerts et al., 1996), to around

29 kyr at Milovice (Svoboda et al., 1996, Table 5.4).

Intermediate radiocarbon dates are known from sites

including Pod hradem at 33.3$1.1 kyr BP (Svoboda

et al., 1996, Table 5.4). These Aurignacian assemblagesare dominated by end scrapers, carinated and nosed end

scrapers, and burins; but side scrapers, notches, and den-

ticulates are also present. Unidirectional blade cores usu-

ally dominate the assemblages (Hahn, 1977, p. 194) and,

as Bon (1996) has demonstrated for the Aurignacian of

the Grotte des Hyenes near Brassempouy in France,

a number of the carinated scrapers may well have served

as blade cores. With the appearance of the Aurignacian

in Moravia, the systematic production of bone and antler

tools is documented, among which Mladec points

are noteworthy (Hahn, 1977, pp. 222}225). Additionally,

among others, ivory pendants and perforated teeth arepresent and demonstrate the"rst use of ornaments in the

region. Both in terms of the technology and typology of

Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC

30 M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40


3/12

the lithic artifacts and with the presence of numerous

organic artifacts, the Aurignacian seems to appear rela-

tively suddenly in this part of Central Europe, and sug-

gests a cultural development that arises independently of

the earlier Bohunician and Szeletian assemblage types.

When considering the connection between hominid

skeletal morphology and artifact assemblages, the impor-

tant human fossils from Mladec (Fig. 1: 10) are of onlymarginal help since they cannot be attributed with cer-

tainty to a particular assemblage type. The reexamina-

tion of these fossils by BraKuer and Broeg (1998) did not

identify any evidence for hybridization, as had been ar-

gued earlier (e.g. Frayer, 1986, 1992) and suggests that

they can be classi"ed as Homo sapiens sapiens.

In southeastern Europe, assemblages that belong to

the period of the transition from the Middle to the Upper

Paleolithic are also known. These assemblages can be

seen as analogous to the Bohunician in Moravia. In

Bulgaria, Temnata Cave (Fig. 1: 13) provides a transi-tional industry of Layer VI, Sector TD-II, radio-

carbon dated to at least 38.7 kyr (Ginter et al., 1996,

Table 1). The early Aurignacian from a di!erent part of

the same cave has yielded AMS radiocarbon ages in

excess of 40 kyr. The transitional assemblage from Tem-

nata is characterized by a temporal shift from Levallois

cores toward bi-directional Upper Paleolithic cores.

Ginter and colleagues see this assemblage as a continua-

tion of the Moustero-Levalloisian tradition (Ginter et al.,

1996, p. 190). Noteworthy, is an engraved stone from the

transitional assemblage that represents one of the very

few"nds that could perhaps be seen as an indication thatartworks are present before the Aurignacian (CreHmades

et al., 1995). The earliest Aurignacian from Temnata has

to be referred to as the Early Balkan Aurignacian or the

Bachokirian (Ginter et al., 1996, pp. 195}198).

Also in Bulgaria, the cave of Bacho Kiro (Fig. 1: 14)

has played a central role in the discourse about the

origins of the Aurignacian and modern humans in

Europe. Here, Cultural Horizon I of Level 11 has yielded

an early Upper Paleolithic assemblage, which Kozlowski

and colleagues have referred to as the Bachokirian or as

the Early Balkan Aurignacian (Kozlowski, 1982). Thishorizon was originally dated to in excess of 43 kyr with

conventional radiocarbon in Groningen (Mook, 1982).

Newer AMS dates from Oxford for Level 11/11a are

younger, with ages of 38.5$1.1, 37.7$1.5 and

34.8$1.2 and 33.8$0.9 kyr BP (Hedges et al., 1994,

pp. 347}348). A clear explanation for these diverse dates

is not yet available. This assemblage lacks bone points

and other organic artifacts of the Aurignacian, and both

side-scrapers and Levallois points are very rare. The

blade production is of Upper Paleolithic character.

Kozlowski and colleagues see no connection between the

Bachokirian assemblage and lower lying Middle Paleo-lithic assemblages, and emphasize the Upper Paleolithic

nature of this industry (Kozlowski, 1982, p. 163).

In Croatia and Slovenia there seems to be a relatively

continuous cultural development between 45 and 30 kyr

BP from late Middle Paleolithic to early Upper Paleo-

lithic industries which in most cases cannot be classi"ed

as Aurignacian (Karavanic and Smith, 1998).

The exact stratigraphic positions and cultural attribu-

tions, as well as the dates of the hominid remains from

Southwestern Central Europe belonging to this period,have been questioned (Mellars et al., 1999; Zilhao and

d'Errico, 1999a, b). Among others, this is true for the

Neanderthals from the early Upper Paleolithic level G1

of Vindija cave in Croatia (Fig. 1: 11) which yielded AMS

radiocarbon ages of 33$0.4 kyr BP (Karavanic and

Smith, 1998, Fig. 2) and 28}29 kyr BP (Smith et al., 1999)

respectively. These results suggest the presence of Nean-

derthals in the region signi"cantly after the appearance of

Aurignacian assemblages and modern Homo sapiens in

other parts of Central Europe. The lithic artifacts from

Vindija are dominated by quartz, with lesser amounts ofgraywacke, chert, and radiolarite. The abundance of raw

materials with irregular chipping characteristics contrib-

utes to the non-standardized nature of the Vindija lithic

assemblages. Both Middle and Upper Paleolithic tools

are present. The stratigraphic integrity of the site

has been questioned (see Karavanic and Smith, 1998,

pp. 233}236; Zilhao and d'Errico, 1999b, pp. 355}357)

and given the rich bone assemblages from the overlying

layers, there is still uncertainty about whether or not the

Neanderthal remains from Layer G1 are associated with

the worked bone industry.

Apart from the cranial fragment of Homo sapienssapiens from Layer j at Velika Pecina cave (Fig. 1: 12;

Malez, 1974, pp. 8}13; Karavanic and Smith, 1998,

pp. 239}241), this deposit yielded only one stone tool.

The lower lying Layer k contained what appears to be

a Middle Paleolithic assemblage. The overlying Layer

i yielded only seven lithic tools, including both Middle

and Upper Paleolithic forms. The latter deposit also

produced three bone points, which have led to the

assumption that this layer should be attributed to

the Upper Paleolithic (Karavanic and Smith, 1998,

pp. 238}

239).It must be stressed that all the dates mentioned so far

are radiocarbon dates, many of them lying outside the

reliable range of the method.

3. The archaeological record in Germany

In Germany, the entirety of the Middle Paleolithic

appears to have been accompanied by the evolution of

Neanderthals out of earlierHomo heidelbergensispopula-

tions. The fossil hominids start with Mauer (Wagner and

Beinhauer, 1997), include those from Bilzingsleben(Mania et al., 1980), Steinheim (Adam, 1988), and

Reilingen (Czarnetzki, 1989, 1991; Condemi, 1996), and

Jqi=526=SC=VVC

M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40 31


4/12

Fig. 2. Schwalbenberg near Remagen, Rhineland/Germany. Stone artifacts. 1}4, side scrapers; 5, 8, splintered pieces; 6, end scraper; 7, 9, pre-forms of

bifacially retouched tools; 10, discoidal core and 11, blade core (modi"ed after App et al., 1995).

"nally reach classical Neanderthals like those from Ne-

andertal itself (Krings et al., 1997). Recent "nds from

Ochtendung, dated to the penultimate glaciation (Berg,

1997; Condemi, 1997), and Warendorf-Neuwarendorf

(Czarnetzki, in press) "t well into this lineage, whichseems to represent a continuous line of evolution. How-

ever, there is no direct link between the Neanderthals and

early Homo sapiens sapiens fossils such as the one from

Vogelherd cave (Riek, 1932).

This conclusion is highlighted both by DNA analyses

conducted by a TuKbingen team comparing the Stetten

I fossil from Vogelherd cave with Neanderthals likeWarendorf and Krapina (Scholz et al., 1999; Pusch, pers.

comm.), and by DNA analyses conducted by a team in

Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC



5/12

Munich, using the type specimen itself (Krings et al.,

1997). In both cases the data support the hypothesis that

Neanderthals were not direct ancestors of anatomically

modern hominids.

The latest Middle Paleolithic of Germany is character-

ized by Blattspitzen assemblages which are, however, less

numerous than in Eastern Central Europe (Bolus and

RuKck, 2000; Conard and Fischer, in press). TheseGerman assemblages with Blattspitzen do not appear to

have evolved out of the local Middle Paleolithic. Autoch-

thonous transitional industries without or nearly without

Blattspitzen comparable to the Bohunician seem to be

absent in Germany, perhaps with the exception of the

small assemblage from Schwalbenberg in the Rhineland

(Fig. 1: 1), excavated by Joachim Hahn (App et al., 1995).

This site yielded both a discoidal core (Fig. 2: 10) and

a blade core (Fig. 2: 11); the number of blades is small.

Amongst the tools, side-scrapers (Fig. 2: 1}4) predomi-

nate, but there is one end-scraper (Fig. 2: 6) as well;splintered pieces (Fig. 2: 5 and 8) are relatively numerous.

It is noteworthy that splintered pieces also frequently

appear in Blattspitzen assemblages (e.g., Zeitlarn: Heinen

and Beck, 1997, and Vedrovice V: Valoch, 1993). Another

feature linking the Schwalbenberg assemblage with

Blattspitzen assemblages is the morphology of the

end-scraper with heavily retouched edges (Fig. 2: 6)

which was produced out of a thick #ake rather than out

of a blade. Thus, it can be stated that not a single genuine

Upper Paleolithic tool type can be found within the

Schwalbenberg assemblage. Two pre-forms of bifacially

retouched artifacts (Fig. 2: 7 and 9) also provide links toassemblages with Blattspitzen such as the Szeletian. In

contrast to the Middle Paleolithic tool types and blank

production, the patterns of raw material procurement

resemble those of Upper Paleolithic sites in the Middle

Rhine region. About 60% of the raw material used at the

Schwalbenberg site was obtained from within a distance

of up to 85 km (Floss, 1994, pp. 171}174) while for other

Middle Paleolithic sites of that region the amount of raw

materials from a greater distance is normally less than

3%. This value increases only slightly during the Aurig-

nacian and rises with the Gravettian, reaching its max-imum value during the Magdalenian (Floss, 1994).

One of the key sites in southern Germany is

Gei{enkloKsterle cave (Fig. 1: 2) in the Ach Valley near

Blaubeuren. As in most other sites of the region, there is

no continuous stratigraphic sequence from the Middle to

the Upper Paleolithic. Above a Middle Paleolithic hor-

izon, dated by ESR to a mean value of 43.3$4kyr BP

(Richter et al., 2000), which has, however, so far been

excavated for only a few square meters, there is an ar-

chaeologically sterile layer, followed by an Upper Paleo-

lithic sequence. This sequence starts with Aurignacian,

which Joachim Hahn subdivided into two horizons(Archaeological Horizons III and II: Hahn, 1988) and

is overlain by the Gravettian and Magdalenian.

In contrast to Hahn, who addressed the lowest Upper

Paleolithic horizon (Archaeological Horizon III) as

&Protoaurignacien'we refer to this horizon as the Lower

Aurignacian. Unidirectional blade production (Fig. 3: 16)

is well represented in both horizons (Hahn, 1988, pp.

144}147), and we "nd almost the same tool types. There

are, however, more carinated and nosed end scrapers in

the lower horizon (Fig. 3: 1}7) while in the upper (Archae-ological Horizon II) there are more simple end scrapers

on blades (Fig. 4: 5, 7 and 9). Burins, especially burins on

truncation, are represented in almost equal numbers in

both horizons (Fig. 3: 8, 11 and 12; Fig. 4: 10). The upper

horizon in turn yielded more blades with lateral retouch

(Fig. 4: 8) and pointed blades (Fig. 4: 19), as well as more

splintered pieces (Fig. 3: 9 and 10; Fig. 4: 13, 14 and 17).

There are only a few Dufour bladelets (Fig. 4: 15) in the

Upper Aurignacian, and they are lacking in the Lower

Aurignacian. Middle Paleolithic type tools are rare in

both horizons.The Lower Aurignacian yielded two perforated teeth

(Fig. 3: 17 and 18), two ivory pendants (Fig. 3: 14 and 15),

and a pre-form of a bone bead (Fig. 3: 13), while tools

made of bone, antler and ivory appear in considerable

numbers (Fig. 3: 19). Only art objects are absent. They

are in turn present in the Upper Aurignacian (Fig. 6: 13,

15, 16 and 18), representing some of the earliest art

objects known. In the Upper Aurignacian, artifacts made

of organic materials (Fig. 5: 5, 6 and 12) including bone

#utes (Fig. 6: 19), as well as objects of personal ornamen-

tation (Fig. 6: 1}5) are abundant.

While Zilhao and d'Errico *who have not studied theoriginals *reject the term Aurignacian or even Proto-

aurignacian for the lower horizon, which they tend to

label just as non-diagnostic early Upper Paleolithic

(Zilha o and d'Errico, 1999a), we do not hesitate to con-

"rm Hahn's assessment of the Aurignacian character of

the Level III assemblage. The lack of some tool types in

the Level III assemblage may well be due to the func-

tional context. An analysis of the faunal remains conduc-

ted by MuKnzel shows that in the Lower Aurignacian

there are numerous hints for working of organic mater-

ials, especially ivory, and the manufacture of organictools, even though the number of tools themselves is not

very high (MuKnzel, 1999). In 1977, Hahn already stressed

that di!erences in the frequency of special tool types as

well as the occurrence or non-occurrence of tool types

may be due to functional variability rather than to chro-

nological di!erences (Hahn, 1977, pp. 294}296).

Using the TL signal from burnt #ints, Daniel Richter

dated the Lower Aurignacian of Gei{enkloKsterle cave at

an average of 40.2$1.5 kyr BP, while the Upper Aurig-

nacian produced TL ages at about 37 kyr BP Radiocar-

bon AMS dates of bone samples from both horizons are

somewhat younger: for Level III a mean age of38.4$0.85 kyr BP was obtained, for Level II a mean age

of 33.5$0.35 kyr BP (Richter et al., 2000).

Jqi=526=SC=VVC



6/12

Fig. 3. Gei{enkloKsterle Cave, Southern Germany. Lower Aurignacian}Archaeological Horizon III. 1}3, carinated end scrapers; 4}7, nosed end

scrapers; 8, 11, 12, burins; 9, 10, splintered pieces; 13, pre-form of a bone bead; 14, 15, ivory pendants; 16, blade core with re"tted blades; 17, 18,

perforated teeth and 19, ivory projectile point (modi"ed after Hahn, 1988).

Only one other German Aurignacian assemblage has

been dated this early: the one from Keilberg-Kirche near

Regensburg in Bavaria (Fig. 1: 4), which yielded conven-

tional charcoal dates ranging between 37.5$1.45 and

38.6$1.2 kyr BP (Uthmeier, 1996).

In addition to Gei{enkloK sterle, Aurignacian art objectsand objects of personal ornamentation are well known

from the Lone Valley (Fig. 1: 3), at the cave sites of

Vogelherd (Fig. 6: 14 and 17; Riek, 1934; Hahn, 1977, pp.

87}91), Hohlenstein-Stadel (Fig. 6: 7 and 8; Hahn, 1977,

pp. 86}87), and Bockstein (Fig. 6: 9 and 12; Hahn, 1977,

pp. 82}85), excavated by Gustav Riek and Robert Wetzel

in the 1930s, and from the Ach Valley (Fig. 1: 2) at the

cave site of Sirgenstein (Fig. 6: 6), excavated by RobertRudolf Schmidt in 1906 (Hahn, 1977, pp. 92}94). In these

caves the ornaments and art objects were associated with

Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC



7/12

Fig. 4. Stone artifacts from the Upper Aurignacian/Archaeological Horizon II of Gei{enkloKsterle Cave (7}10, 13}15, 17, 19) and artifacts from

comparable cave sites in Southwestern Germany: Sirgenstein IV (1, 4), Sirgenstein V (2), Vogelherd V (3, 5, 6, 16, 18), and Bockstein-ToK rle VII (11, 12).

1}3, carinated end scrapers; 4, 6, nosed end scrapers; 5, 9, end scrapers; 7, burin combined with end scraper; 8, blade with retouched edges; 10 }12, 16,

burins; 13, 14, 17, splintered pieces; 15, Dufour bladelet; 18, 19, pointed blades (modi "ed after Hahn, 1977, 1988).

assemblages corresponding to the Upper Aurignacian of

Gei{enkloKsterle (Fig. 4: 1}6, 11,12, 16 and 18; Fig. 5: 1}4,

7}11).

The dates for the assemblages from Vogelherd andStadel caves range from about 30}32 kyr BP, suggesting

that they postdate the Upper Aurignacian from Gei{en-

kloKsterle. It must be stressed, however, that in contrast to

the other four sites mentioned, Gei{enkloKsterle cave has

been recently excavated with modern standards of docu-

mentation and a more systematic sampling, allowing theTL and C dates from Gei{enkloKsterle to be regarded as

much more reliable. We are just getting new dates for the

Jqi=526=SC=VVC



8/12

Fig. 5. Organic artifacts from the Upper Aurignacian/ArchaeologicalHorizon II of Gei{enkloK sterle Cave (5, 6, 12) and artifacts from comparable cave

sites in Southwestern Germany: Vogelherd V (1}4, 7, 9}11) and BocksteinhoKhle (8). 1}6, 8, projectile points with split base; 7, cave bear tooth used as

retoucher; 9, 10, bone points with massive base; 11, smoothing tool; 12, ba(ton perceH (modi"ed after Hahn, 1977, 1988).

other sites, using bones de"nitely worked by man, and

this will give us the possibility of checking the dates

obtained earlier.

While early Upper Paleolithic hominid remains are

absent in Gei{enkloK sterle and only a single tooth was

recovered from the Stadel Aurignacian, Vogelherd cave

yielded the very well-preserved specimen Stetten I

(Fig. 7), which was found at the base of the Aurignacian

sequence (Fig. 8) and thus represents one of the earliest"nds of Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe. This demon-

strates that anatomically modern hominids are respon-

sible for the fully developed Aurignacian, while no fossil

evidence is at present available for the earliest

Aurignacian from Gei{enkloKsterle.

4. Conclusions

Let us now look at the archaeological evidence with

regard to the Out of Africa hypothesis. Neither in East-ern or Southeastern Central Europe, nor in Germany can

an autochthonous evolution of anatomically modern hu-

Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC



9/12

Fig. 6. Ornamental objects, art objects, and a musical instrument from the Upper Aurignacian/Archaeological Horizon II of Gei{enkloK sterle Cave

(1}5, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19) and from comparable cave sites in Southwestern Germany: Sirgenstein IV (6), Hohlenstein-Stadel VI}V (7, 8), Bockstein-ToK rle

IV}VI (9}12), and Vogelherd V (14, 17). 1}6, pendants; 7, 8, perforated teeth; 9}11, stone beads; 12, stone pendant; 13}16, ivory "gurines; 17, 18,

ornamented objects and 19, bone#ute (modi"ed after Hahn, 1977, 1986, 1988; Hahn and MuKnzel, 1995).

mans from the existing Neanderthal populations be dem-

onstrated. An in situ development of Upper Paleolithic

features out of the local Middle Paleolithic industriesappears to be possible regarding the archaeological re-

cord in Central Europe. To what extent processes of

acculturation took place and in which direction a pre-

sumed acculturation was oriented remains subject to

controversial discussions. In any case, it is remarkablethat essential features of fully developed Upper Paleo-

lithic assemblages are lacking in the very places where

Jqi=526=SC=VVC



10/12

Fig. 7. Vogelherd Cave, Southwestern Germany.Homo sapiens sapiens

specimen &Stetten I' found at the base of the Aurignacian se-

quence/Layer V (modi"ed after Czarnetzki, 1983; Fig. 132).

Fig. 8. Vogelherd Cave, Southwestern Germany. Stratigraphic se-

quence at the southwestern entrance (modi"ed after Riek, 1934). I,

Holocene "nds; II, Magdalenian; III, Magdalenian; IV, Aurignacian;

V, Aurignacian; VI, "nd horizon of the specimen &Stetten I' and VII,

Middle Paleolithic.

early anatomically modern hominids are known in Africa

and the Near East. It may be discussed if this variety of

features, associated with `cultural modernitya includinga broad spectrum of artifacts made of bone, antler and

ivory and a pronounced production of varied decorative

objects as well as art objects, had been initiated by

contacts between Neanderthals and anatomically mod-

ern hominids. This seems especially true for Western

Europe, but may also hold for Southwestern Germany.

In this context, the western European Cha(telperronian

should be mentioned. On the basis of lithic technology

and various organic artifacts as well as objects of per-

sonal ornamentation, this appears to be Upper Paleo-lithic, but was obviously manufactured by Neanderthals,

as Neanderthal remains associated with Cha(telperronian

in Arcy-sur-Cure and St. CeH saire, both in France, reveal

(Ba$er, 1999). At present, it cannot be "nally stated

whether the Cha(telperronian is a genuine Neanderthal

creation (Zilha o and d'Errico, 1999a, b), or if it is rather

the result of acculturation processes.

Due to gaps in the fossil record, it remains uncertain

who was responsible for the transitional industries and

for the earliest Upper Paleolithic assemblages in Central

Europe. It should be kept in mind that between 40 and30 kyr BP there seems to have been a coexistence of

Neanderthals and anatomically modern hominids in

Europe. Examples of very late Neanderthals, for instance,

come from Zafarraya and CariguKela in Spain, Colum-

beira, Figueira Brava, and Salemas in Portugal (Straus,

1996), and Vindija Layer G, in Croatia (Karavanic and

Smith, 1998, pp. 239}241) while early Homo sapiens

sapiens specimens have been found in Vogelherd in

Southwestern Germany (Riek, 1932).

In summary, it can be stated that the archaeological

record in Central Europe, including Germany, appears to

support the replacement model rather than themultiregional model, thus providing evidence that Homo

sapiens sapiensoriginated outside Europe.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jean-Michel Geneste

(Bordeaux/France), Paul Haesaerts (Brussels/Belgium),

Jakov Radovcic (Zagreb/Croatia), Jack Rink (Hamilton/

Canada), Fred H. Smith (DeKalb, Illinois/USA), and

Nicolas Teyssandier (Paris-Nanterre/France) for provid-ing helpful information.

References

Adam, K.D., 1988. Der Urmensch von Steinheim an der Murr und seine

Umwelt. Ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit vor einer viertel Million

Jahren. Jahrbuch des RGZM 35, 3}23.

App, V., Au!ermann, B., Hahn, J., Pasda, C., Stephan, E., 1995. Die

altsteinzeitliche Fundstelle auf dem Schwalbenberg bei Remagen.

(With contributions by M. Baales, E. Bibus, W. RaKhle, R. RottlaKn-

der, W. Schoch, and K.-H. Steppan). Berichte zur ArchaKologie an

Mittelrhein und Mosel 4, 11}136.

Ba$er, D., 1999. Les derniers NeHandertaliens. Le Cha(telperronien,

Paris.

Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC



11/12

Berg, A.V., 1997. Die SchaKdelkalotte eines Neandertalers aus dem

Wannenvulkan bei Ochtendung, Kreis Mayen-Koblenz. Berichte

zur ArchaKologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 5, 11}22.

Bolus, M., RuKck, O., 2000. Eine Blattspitze aus Wittislingen, Lkr.

Dillingen a. d. Donau (Bayern). Zur suKdwestlichen Verbreitungs-

grenze spaKtmittelpalaKolithischer Blattspitzeninventare. ArchaKo-

logisches Korrespondenzblatt 30, 1}8.

Bon, F., 1996. L'industrie lithique aurignacienne de la couche 2A de la

grotte des Hyenes a Brassempouy (Landes). In: Delporte, H.,Clottes, J. (Eds.), PyreHneHes preHhistoriques * arts et socieH teH s, 118

Congres National des socieH teH s historiques et scienti"ques, Pau,

1993, pp. 439}455.

BraKuer, G., Broeg, H., 1998. On the degree of Neandertal *modern

continuity in the earliest Upper Palaeolithic crania from the Czech

Republic: evidence from non-metrical features. In: Omoto, K.,

Tobias, P.V. (Eds.), The Origins and Past of Modern Humans *

Towards Reconciliation. World Scienti"c, Singapore, pp. 106}125.

BraKuer, G., Smith, F.H. (Eds.), 1992. Continuity or Replacement. Con-

troversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Conard, N.J., Fischer, B. Are there recognizable cultural entities in the

German Middle Paleolithic? In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M.,

(Eds.), The Yabrudian and Micoquian in the Levant and in Europe.

BAR International Series, Oxford, in press.Condemi, S., 1996. Does the human fossil specimen from Reilingen

(Germany) belong to the Homo erectus or to the Neanderthal

lineage? Anthropologie 34(1) (Brno), 69}77.

Condemi, S., 1997. Preliminary study of the Calotte of the Ochtendung

cranium. Berichte zur ArchaKologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 5,

23}28.

CreHmades, M., Laville, H., Sirakov, N., Kozlowski, J.K., 1995.

Une pierre graveH e de 50,000 ans BP dans les Balkans. PaleHo 7,

201}209.

Czarnetzki, A., 1983. Zur Entwicklung des Menschen in SuKdwest-

deutschland. In: MuK ller-Beck, H. (Ed.), Urgeschichte in Baden-

WuK rttemberg. Stuttgart, pp. 217}240.

Czarnetzki, A., 1989. Ein archaischer Hominidencalvariarest aus einer

Kiesgrube in Reilingen, Rhein-Neckar-Kreis. QuartaKr 39/40,191}201.

Czarnetzki, A., 1991. Nouvelle deHcouverte d'un fragment de cra(ne d'un

hominideH archamKque dans le sud-ouest de l'Allemagne (rapport preH -

liminaire). L'Anthropologie 95, 103}111.

Czarnetzki, A. Das Fragment eines Os parietale des klassischen Nean-

dertalers aus Warendorf-Neuwarendorf. Ausgrabungen und Funde

in Westfalen-Lippe 10, in press.

Floss, H., 1994. Rohmaterialversorgung im PalaKolithikum des Mittel-

rheingebietes. Monographein des RGZM Z1, Dr. R. Habert, Bonn.

Frayer, D.W., 1986. Cranial variation at Mladec and the relationship

between Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic hominids. In: Novotny,

V.V., MizerovaH , A. (Eds.), Fossil Man. New Facts}New Ideas.

Anthropos, Brno, 23, pp. 243}255.

Frayer, D.W., 1992. Evolution at the European edge: Neanderthal and

Upper Paleolithic relationships. PreHhistoire EuropeH enne 2, 9}69.

Ginter, B., Kozlowski, J.K., Laville, H., Sirakov, N., Hedges, R.E.M.,

1996. Transition in the Balkans: news from the Temnata Cave,

Bulgaria. In: Carbonell, E., Vaquero, M. (Eds.), The Last Neander-

tals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans: a Tale About the

Human Diversity. Cultural Change and Human Evolution:

The Crisis At 40 ka BP. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona,

pp. 169}200.

Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Bachner, M., Trnka, G., 1996. Revised

stratigraphy and chronology of the Willendorf II sequence, Lower

Austria. Archaeologia Austriaca 80, 25}42.

Hahn, J., 1977. Aurignacien, das aK ltere JungpalaKolithikum in Mittel-

und Osteuropa. KoK ln/Wien.

Hahn, J., 1986. Kraft und Aggression. Die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im

Aurignacien SuKddeutschlands? Archaeologica Venatoria Band 7,

TuKbingen.

Hahn, J., 1988. Die Gei{enkloK sterle-HoKhle im Achtal bei Blaubeuren I.

Fundhorizontbildung und Besiedlung im MittelpalaKolithikum und

im Aurignacien. (With contributions by H. Gollnisch, A. Scheer, N.

Symens, R. Whallon, and J. Wei{haupt). Karl Theiss, Stuttgart.

Hahn, J., MuKnzel, S., 1995. Knochen#oK ten aus dem Aurignacien des

Gei{enkloK sterle bei Blaubeuren, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Fundberichte

aus Baden-WuKrttemberg 20, 1}12.

Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk Ramsey, C., van Klinken, G.J.,

1994. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Ar-chaeometry datelist 18. Archaeometry 36, 337}374.

Heinen, M., Beck, D., 1997. Ausgrabungenauf dem Szeletien-Fundplatz

Zeitlarn, Lkr. Regensburg. BeitraKge zur ArchaKologie in der Ober-

pfalz 1, 71}89.

Karavanic, I., Smith, F.H., 1998. The Middle/Upper Paleolithic inter-

face and the relationship of Neanderthals and early modern humans

in the Hrvatsko Zagorje, Croatia. Journal of Human Evolution 34,

223}248.

Kozlowski, J.K. (Ed.), 1982. Excavation in the Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria).

Final Report. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa.

Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R.W., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M.,

PaKaKbo, S., 1997. Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of

modern humans. Cell 90, 19}30.

Malez, M., 1974. Noviji rezultati istraz\ivanja paleolitika u VelikojPecini, Veternici i S[andalji. Neue Ergebnisse der PalaKolithikum-

Forschungen in Velika Pecina, Veternica und S[andalja (Kroatien).

Arheolocki radovi i rasprave 7, 7}44.

Mania, D., Toepfer, V., Vlcek, E., 1980. Bilzingsleben I. Homo erectus

*seine Kultur und seine Umwelt. Berlin.

Mellars, P., Otte, M., Straus, L.G., Zilhao, J., d'Errico, F., 1999. The

Neanderthal Problem Continued. Current Anthropology 40, 341}364.

Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (Eds.), 1989. The Human Revolution. Behav-

ioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Hu-

mans. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Mook, W.G., 1982. Radiocarbon Dating. In: Kozlowski, J.K. (Ed.),

Excavations in the Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria). Final Report,

Warszawa, p. 168.

MuKnzel, S., 1999. Die Gro{saKugerfauna aus dem Gei{enkloK sterle. Un-published "nal report for Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Neugebauer-Maresch, C., 1996. Zu Stratigraphie und Datierung der

Aurignacien-Station am Galgenberg von Stratzing/Krems-Reh-

berg, NOG. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.), Paleolithic in the Middle Danube

Region. Anniversary volume to Bohuslav Klima, Brno, Arche-

ologickyH uH stav AV, pp. 67}80.

Richter, D., Waiblinger, J., Rink, W.J., Wagner, G.A., 2000. Ther-

moluminescence, electron spin resonance and C-dating of the Late

Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic site of Gei{enkloK sterle Cave in

Southern Germany. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 71}89.

Riek, G., 1932. PalaKolithische Station mit Tierplastiken und men-

schlichen Skelettresten bei Stetten ob Lontal. Germania 16, 1}8.

Riek, G., 1934. Die EiszeitjaKgerstation am Vogelherd im Lonetal I. Die

Kulturen. TuKbingen.

Scholz, M., Bachmann, L., Nicholson, G.L., Bachmann, J., Hengst, S.,

Giddings, I., RuK scho!-Thale, B., Klostermann, J., Protsch von

Zieten, R.R., Czarnetzki, A., Pusch, C.M., 1999. Fossil}DNA based

classi"cation of the most northern Neanderthal man. In: Central

and Eastern Europe from 50,000}30,000 BP. Abstracts for the

International Workshop in the Neanderthal Museum, March

18}21, 1999, p. 72. Neandertal Museum, Neandertal, Germany.

Smith, F.H., Trinkaus, E., Pettitt, P.B., Karavanic, I., Paunovic, M.,

1999. Direct radiocarbon dates from Vindija G1 and Velika Pecina

Late Pleistocene Hominid remains. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences 96 (22), 12281}12286.

Straus, L.G., 1996. Continuity or rupture; convergence or invasion;

adaptation or catastrophe; mosaic or monolith: views on the Middle

to Upper Paleolithic transition in Iberia. In: Carbonell, E., Vaquero,

M. (Eds.), The last Neandertals, the First Anatomically Modern

Humans: a Tale About the Human Diversity. Cultural Change and

Jqi=526=SC=VVC



12/12

Human Evolution: the Crisis at 40 ka BP. Universitat Rovira i Vir-

gili, Tarragona, pp. 203}218.

Svoboba, J., Lozek, V., Vlcek, E., 1996. Hunters between East and West.

The Paleolithic of Moravia. Plenum Press, New York.

Trinkaus, E. (Ed.), 1989. The Emergence of Modern Humans. Biocul-

tural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Uthmeier, T., 1996. Ein bemerkenswert fruKhes Inventar des Aurignacien

von der Freilandfundstelle `Keilberg-Kirchea

bei Regensburg. Ar-chaKologisches Korrespondenzblatt 26, 233}248.

Valoch, K., 1993. Vedrovice V, eine Siedlung des Szeletien in

SuKdmaKhren. (With contributions by A. Kozi, W.G. Mook, E. Op-

ravil, J. v. d. Plicht, L. SmolmHkovaH , and Z. Weber). QuartaKr 43/44,

7}93.

Wagner, G.A., Beinhauer, K.W. (Eds.), 1997. Homo heidelbergensis von

Mauer. Das Auftreten des Menschen in Europa. Heidelberg.

UniversitaKtsverlag, Winter, 3165.

Zilhao, J., d'Errico, F., 1999a. The chronology and taphonomy of

the earliest Aurignacian and its implications for the understa-

nding of Neandertal extinction. Journal of World Prehistory 13,

1}68.Zilhao, J., d'Errico, F., 1999b. Reply. In: Mellars, P. et al. (Eds.), The

Neanderthal Problem Continued. Current Anthropology 40,

355}360.

Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC


0deec late middle and upper paleolithic

Documents