See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226864910The Emergence of Ornamentsand Art: An ArchaeologicalPerspective on the Origins ofBehavioral ModernityARTICLEinJOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FEBRUARY 2007DOI: 10.1007/s10814-006-9008-1CITATIONS104DOWNLOADS80VIEWS2501 AUTHOR:Joo ZilhoUniversity of Barcelona112 PUBLICATIONS 1,992CITATIONS SEE PROFILEAvailable from: Joo ZilhoRetrieved on: 24 July 2015J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154DOI 10.1007/s10814-006-9008-1ORI GI NALPAPERThe Emergence of Ornaments and Art:An Archaeological Perspective on theOrigins of Behavioral ModernityJo ao Zilh aoPublished online: 30 January 2007C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007Abstract Theearliest knownpersonal ornamentscomefromtheMiddleStoneAgeofsouthernAfrica, c. 75,000yearsago, andareassociatedwithanatomicallymodernhu-mans. In Europe, such items are not recorded until after 45,000 radiocarbon years ago, inNeandertal-associated contexts that signicantly predate the earliest evidence, archaeolog-ical or paleontological, for the immigration of modern humans; thus, they represent eitherindependentinventionoracquisitionoftheconceptbylong-distancediffusion, implyingin both casescomparable levels of cognitivecapability and performance. The emergenceof gurative art postdates c. 32,000 radiocarbon years ago, several millennia after the timeof Neandertal/modern human contact. These temporal patterns suggest that the emergenceof behavioral modernity was triggered by demographic and social processes and is not aspecies-specic phenomenon; a corollary of these conclusions is that the corresponding ge-netic and cognitive basis must have been present in the genus Homo before the evolutionarysplit between the Neandertal and modern human lineages.Keywords Art . Modern humans . Neandertals . OrnamentsIntroductionOver the last quarter century, it has become clear that the ancestry of present-day humanpopulations can be traced back to African people of the late Middle Pleistocene. In this con-text, the long-lasting geographical segregation between Neandertals and African modernsand the ultimate replacement of the former by the latter have led many scholars to acceptthe notion that the two taxa should be given species status. This view has been challengedin recent years, especially by the nding of early European modern human fossils bearingarchaic traits, which suggests extensive admixture with Neandertals at the time of contact(Trinkaus,2005).ThissuggestionisconsistentwithrecentgeneticstudiesofthenuclearJ. Zilh ao (

)Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Bristol,43 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UU, United Kingdome-mail: Joao.Zilhao@bristol.ac.ukSpringer2 J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154genome of living populations, which indicate that we carry genetic material inherited fromEurasian (in particular, east Asian) populations that had differentiated hundreds of thousandsof years before the mid-Late Pleistocene out-of-Africa dispersal of early modern humans(Templeton, 2002, 2005).Given that hybridization between closely related species is well known among mammalsin general and primates in particular, the evidence for admixture does not necessarily imply,however, that signicant biological differences, perhaps at the species level, did not existbetweenNeandertalsandmodernhumans. Moreover, under theparadigmaticviewthatspecies must differ in behavior as much as in morphology (Henshilwood and Marean, 2003),that evidencealsodoesnot sufcetoexcludethepossibilitythat signicant behavioraldifferences, with attendant cognitive implications, separated anatomically modern peoplefrom coeval archaic humans. In fact, the notion that such a separation existed underliesspeculations that certain features of complex human culture that are undocumented in thearchaeologicalrecordoftheMiddlePleistocenesuchasartorritualburialmusthaveemerged as a by-product of the biological processes involved in the speciation of the Africansapiens (Klein,1998, 2003; Mellars,2005; StringerandGamble, 1993). The assumptionis that the absence of those features reects the lack of the required cognitive capabilitiesand that it is only after the acquisition of the latter by the rst modern humans that thecorresponding behavioral correlates could be externalized in archaeologically visible ways.At the empirical level, this approach initially tended to date such an acquisition to thetime of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, the latter being dened as apackage of cultural traits appearing rather suddenly and at about the time when, in Europe,Neandertals were replaced by moderns. Among the listed traits, aspects of subsistence, settle-ment, and lithic technology used to feature prominently in different versions of the denitionof the Upper Paleolithic (for instance, Mellars, 1973; White, 1982). Recently, however, awide consensus seems to have been achieved that logistically organized hunting, as well asthe reliance on blade technology or the long-distance procurement of raw materials, are tobe found at different times and places during the Middle Paleolithic, and in unquestionableassociationwitharchaichumans(Bar-Yosef,2004;Bar-YosefandKuhn,1999;Burke,2004; Marean and Kim, 1998; R evillion and Tuffreau, 1994). On the other hand, the rstevidenceforcarefullyshapedbonetools, shellornaments, andabstractmarkingsisnowknown to come from the Middle Stone Age (MSA) of southern Africa, not from the UpperPaleolithic of Europe (Henshilwood et al., 2001, 2002, 2004).In this context, Henshilwood and Marean (2003), following up on Wadley (2001), arguedfor a modern human behavior different from that of the Neandertals, to which they proposedthe designation of fully symbolic sapiens behavior; in the archaeological record, it wouldmanifest itself when artifacts or features carry a clear symbolic message that is exosomaticforexample, personal ornaments, depictions, orevenatool clearlymadetoidentifyitsmaker. In this review, I use Henshilwood and Mareans denition to assess the distributionin space and time of the earliest evidence for behavioral modernity (ornaments and art),and the extent to which the human groups involved in the production of such early evidencewere biologically modern or archaic. In particular, I discuss the different explanationsthathavebeenproposedforthefactthatbothornamentsandartareknownamongsuchunquestionably anatomically nonmodern populations as the late Neandertals of Europe.In the following, calendar dates derived from the oceanic or ice-cap records or obtainedby thermoluminescence (TL), electromagnetic spin resonance (ESR), and uraniumthorium(UTh) methods are given in years or thousands of years (ka) BP, and radiocarbon dates areexpressed in years or thousands of years (ka)14C BP. The recognition that oscillations inthe production of atmospheric14C at this time were not as dramatic as once thought makesSpringerJ Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154 3preliminarycalibrationpossible, andit isnowwell establishedthat, inthistimerange,radiocarbon underestimates true calendar ages by three to ve millennia (Fairbanks et al.,2005; Hughen et al., 2004; Shackleton et al., 2004; Weninger and J oris, 2005). Because therelative ordering of the events is not affected, and to keep the discussion of chronologicalissues within reasonable limits, only uncalibrated ages are used here for the 3045 ka14CBP interval.Temporal and geographical patternsAfricaAs shown by different authors (Barham, 2002a, b; Henshilwood et al., 2001; McBrearty andBrooks, 2000; Villa et al., 2005), many of the innovations traditionally associated with theEuropean Upper Paleolithic are now known to appear signicantly earlier in Africa. This isthe case in particular with bone tools (such as the harpoons from Katanda, Congo, and theawls from Blombos, South Africa), but it also applies to such features of lithic technology asthe manufacture of geometrics (the lunates of the South African Howiesons Poort industry)and the production of bladelets from prismatic cores (documented in level RSP of the Sibudurockshelter, South Africa). Enough reliable dating evidence is now available to place thesedevelopments before c. 50 ka BP and, in some cases, even before c. 70 ka BP. However,these innovations did not form a package of co-occurring traits and did not become a stablefeature of human culture once they appeared. Instead, for many thousands of years thereafter,they were abandoned as piecemeal and suddenly as they were rst introduced, and the sameapplies to ornaments and abstract markings.Wherethelatterareconcerned,thekeyevidencecomesfromtheseasidecavesiteofBlombos, southern Cape (dErrico et al., 2003a, 2005; Henshilwood et al., 2002, 2004). Thissite features a sequence where the uppermost MSAlevel (M1) belongs to the Still Bay culture,characterized by foliate points, and is separated from the surcial Late Stone Age (LSA)deposits by a thick sterile sand dune. This stratigraphic conguration precludes contaminationfrom overlying, later occupations as an explanation for the presence of personal ornamentsand decorated pieces of ochre in level M1, dated to 74.9 3.8 ka BP by optically stimulatedluminescence (OSL), and to 74 5 ka BP by TL (Tribolo et al., 2005). The number ofutilized pieces of ochre is in excess of 8000, and two of them, in the shape of crayons, bearunequivocalabstractdesigns(engravedcross-hatchedmotifs)ononeofthefacets.LevelM1 also yielded personal ornaments, all perforated shells of the marine mollusk Nassariuskraussianus(Fig.1).Forty-onesuchitemshavebeendescribedsofar;allwerefoundinclusters of 217 beads showing similar size, color, wear, and perforation type, suggestingthat each cluster may correspond to a single beadwork item.IntheSouthAfricanculture-stratigraphicscheme, theStill Bayis replacedbytheHowiesonsPoort industry, whichTriboloet al. (2005) TL-datedto563kaBPatKlasiesRiverMouth(southernCape)andto5565kaBPatDiepkloof(westernCape).These results are consistent with the AAR (amino acid racemization) and ESR ages in thec. 6070 ka BP interval obtained for the corresponding levels of the Border Cave sequence,northernKwazulu-Natal, byMilleretal. (1999), Gr unandBeaumont(2001), andGr unet al. (2003). The latter also discuss (and reject) the possibility that the securely provenancedhuman remains found in this cavethe near complete infant skeleton BC3, and the largelycomplete lower jaw BC5could represent intrusions of later Pleistocene or even Holoceneage. Indeed, direct ESRdating of an enamel fragment fromBC5 yielded a result of 74 5 kaSpringer4 J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154Fig. 1 African personal ornaments: (a) modern Nassarius kraussianus shell; (b) N. kraussianus shell beadfrom MSA level M1 of Blombos (after Henshilwood et al., 2004, modied); (c) ostrich eggshell bead from theMSA site of Loiyangalani (after Hathaway, 2004, modied). Marine shells used as ornaments in the IUP andthe Early Ahmarian of the Near East: (df) perforated Nassarius gibbosula beads from layer H ofUca gizli(after Kuhn et al., 2001, modied)BP, which is consistent with similar results for faunal samples from the same levels. Thisevidence in turn strengthens the hypothesis that the BC3 burialwhose grave pit is reportedto have been entirely cut into the underlying MSAdeposits and to have had its lip lying belowan ash horizon at the very base of the Howiesons Poort levelsalso was in situ. Given itsstratigraphic position and accompanying dating evidence, it is thus quite possible that thisburial was broadly contemporary with the Still Bay occupation of Blombos. A perforatedConus bairstowi sea shell was reportedly associated with the BC3 skeleton and may havebeen a bead worn by the dead infant, in which case Border Cave would add a further ritualdimension to the use of personal ornaments at this time.Forthenext30,000years, however, nosimilarndsareknownineitherHowiesonsPoort or post-Howiesons Poort, later MSA contexts. Secure evidence for ornaments turnsup again only in eastern Africa, where the rockshelter of Enkapune ya Muto, Kenya, yieldedostricheggshell beadsinanearlyLSAcontext, withfragmentsfrombeadmanufacturedirectlydatedtoc. 3740ka14CBP(Ambrose, 1998). McBreartyandBrookss(2000)reviewoftheAfricanevidencementionssimilarndsinBoomplaas,inassociationwithstatistically identical (in the range of 42 ka14C BP) dates on charcoal, but in an MSA notLSA context, as is also the case at the recently reported but as yet undated Tanzanian site ofLoiyangalani (Hathaway, 2004). An ostrich eggshell fragment (but no beads) was found in theburial pit containing skeleton 1a from Nazlet Khater, in Upper Egypt, dated on associatedcharcoaltoc.38ka14CBP(Vermeersch,2002).Thesesitesarealllocatedfarfromthecoast, which could explain the absence of marine shell beads in the inventories. However, atleast where Boomplaas is concerned, the distance in question (c. 80 km) is identical to thatwhich separates Border Cave from the sea. The scant evidence available indicates that onlyperforated marine shells were in use c. 75 ka BP, and only ostrich eggshell beads were in usec. 40 ka BP; thus, changes through time in mobility patterns, exchange systems, or culturalpreferences also may have been involved.SpringerJ Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154 5InasecureHowiesonsPoortcontextfromDiepkloof,Parkington et al.(2005)foundabstract markings on small fragments of ostrich eggshells thought to have been used as waterasks. They noted that, although the fainter marks could result from use wear, the deeperones were clearly intentional and, in a few cases, formed compositions akin to the abstractdesigns made on the Blombos ochre crayons. The patterns, however, are said to be moresuggestive of intentional marking to denote ownership than of artistic decoration.In Africa, the earliest gurative art is represented by the much later painted slabs fromApollo 11 Cave in Namibia (Vogelsang, 1998; Wendt, 1974, 1976; Fig. 2). As argued byWendt, these hand-sized slabs are not exfoliated fragments of wall paintings but mobiliaryart. Their diverse geological nature and their shape are not consistent with the local bedrock,although similar slabs can be found in nearby slopes. Moreover, in at least two instances, therepresentations occupy the center of the slab, implying a pre-existing frame, and, in somecases, traces of color also could be observed on the face opposite that containing the gures.On three of the slabs, such gures can be identied and portray what seemto be a rhinoceros,a zebra, and a large animal, probably a feline with human-like hind legs.The site features an approximately 2-m-thick MSA-to-LSA sequence, and the slabs wererecoveredtowardtheupperpart ofthedeposits, some50cmbelowthesurface, at theinterfacebetweenthelatest MSAandtheearliest LSAlevel. Conventional radiocarbonresultsforassociatedcharcoalsamplesdatetheseslabstoc.2628ka14CBP,withthePta-1040 result (26,300 400 BP)obtained on a single large piece of carbonized woodrepresenting in all likelihood the best approximation of their chronology. In any case, thestratigraphic consistency of the series leaves no doubt that the slabs date to between c. 18and c. 34 ka 14C BP [only sample Pta-1032 is anomalous, probably due to the incorporationof younger material brought down by rodents nesting in adjacent sediments (Wendt, 1974,p. 36)].McBrearty and Brooks (2000) remark that the dates are anomalously young for an MSAcontext andarguethat theApollo11art issignicantlyolder basedonthe59kaBPostrich eggshell AAR age obtained by Miller et al. (1999) for the sites MSA deposits, inagreement with a direct AMS radiocarbon date of>41 ka14CBP for a single ostrich eggshellfragment. As Miller et al. caution, however, this apparent discrepancy does not invalidate theradiocarbon chronology, because the ostrich eggshell samples they analyzed were collectedin deposits from the mouth of the cave, where the MSA sequence may be abbreviated bycomparison to that observed in the area further inside from where the slabs came. Moreover,as Miller et al.s dating work also shows, individually dated eggshell fragments moved upand down the sequence as a result of intensive human occupation combined with very slowsedimentation rates (2 cm/millennium); thus, they cannot be relied on as a tool to date, byassociation, the different archaeological levels. Finally, the radiocarbon results obtained forthe immediate context of the painted slabs are not unexpectedly young; in the region, theMSA lasts until c. 20 ka14C BP (Deacon and Deacon, 1999), and the anomaly diagnosedby McBrearty and Brooks (2000) most likely resides in their expectations, not in any realproblems with the dating of the site.The only securely provenanced human remains fromthis time range in southern Africa arethose recovered from the SAS member of Klasies River Mouth, dated to c. 100 ka BP. Theirtaxonomic afnities are controversial. As Trinkaus (2005) sums up, the problem is that thedearth of comparable material precludes adequate assessment of whether the Klasies RiverMouth remains are modern or simply a southern African equivalent of late archaic humans,antedating the dispersal into the region of the anatomically modern populations that haddifferentiatedineasternAfricaduringthelaterMiddlePleistocene. ThemorecompleteBorder Cave material, however, compares well with the present-day San (Rightmire, 1984).Springer6 J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154Fig. 2 Top: slab from the late MSA levels of Apollo 11 cave (Namibia), representing a predatory big cat.Bottom: stratigraphic sequence in the 1972 extension to the main trench excavated in 1969; the provenience ofthe radiocarbon samples collected in this extension is indicated (dotted contours; note that sample Pta-1040corresponds to a single, large piece of wood charcoal), as is the exact location of the three painted slabs foundin situ during its excavation (black lled contours); layer 3 =layer D of the main trench (Early LSA), layer4 =layer E of the main trench (Latest MSA) (after Wendt, 1974, modied)If BC3andBC5areindeedinsitunds, thenpeoplewhowerefullymodernintheiranatomy had evolved in (or dispersed into) southern Africa by c. 75 ka BP, and the personalornaments and abstract designs from Blombos level M1 are indeed representative of theirbehavior.SpringerJ Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154 7AsiaThe Near East before c. 50 ka BPAlthough conceivable, the notion that two shell beads from the cave of Skuhl in northernIsrael (Vanhaeren et al., 2006) are of oxygen isotope stage (OIS) 5 age is controversial and,as discussed in the following section, at present is not the most parsimonious reading of theevidence. McBrearty and Brooks (2000) also mention the presence of perforated shells inassociation with Homo sapiens in nearby Qafzeh Cave, c. 100 ka BP. However, as recentlyshown by Taborin (2003), the perforations in these items (Glycymerys shells) are natural,and they were used as recipients for ochre, not as ornaments. Processing of ochre at the siteis particularly important in level XVII, which contained ve intentional burials. On the basisof this context, Hovers et al. (2003) argue that the Qafzeh ochre reects color symbolism,but use wear analyses of broadly contemporary South African MSAmaterial showthat ochrecould have served more practical functions (e.g., in the tanning of hides and the productionof hafting pastes), and that even when the abandoned pieces have a crayon shape, symbolism(for instance, related to body painting) is not necessarily involved (Wadley, 2005; Wadleyet al., 2004).Theoccupationof theNear East byearlymodernhumansat that timeispart of anortheastern extension of African environments and ceases with the return of cold conditionsduring OIS-4, after c. 75 ka BP. Human remains dated to OIS-4 and to the earlier part ofOIS-3 (after c. 59 ka BP) come from the sites of Amud and Kebara in Israel and Dederyiehin Syria, and all are of Neandertals; the youngest in chronology is the nearly complete adultskeleton buried in level B1 of Amud. The level is dated by TL and coupled ESR/U-Th toc. 53 ka BP(Kaufman, 2002; Rink et al., 2001; Valladas et al.,1999), which provides aterminus post quem for the burial itself and, hence, for the replacement of Neandertals bymodern humans in the region.Fromthe point of viewof lithic technology and adaptation, the cultural remains associatedwith OIS-5 moderns and OIS-4 Neandertals in the Near East are virtually indistinguishable(Shea, 2003). Where symbolic artifacts are concerned, if unambiguous evidence for personalornaments is lacking, the regional evidence for art and abstract design before the UpperPaleolithic is equivocal at best: a gurine from Berekhat Ram, an Acheulian open air siteintheGolanHeights, andtwoengravedcorticalfacesofintartifactsfromQafzehandQuneitra, another Golan Heights open air site of late Middle Paleolithic age.TheBerekhat Ramgurineisa3.5-cm-longpieceofbasalt whoseshapeevokesthefemale body and is vaguely reminiscent of the well-known Venus gurines of the Gravettian(Soffer et al., 2000). A recent study by dErrico and Nowell (2000) conrms some level ofdeliberate human modication (abrasion and grooving) but does not reject the hypothesisthat it served mere utilitarian purposes. In any case, the object dates to >200 ka BP and,therefore, if symbolic, it relates to archaic not modern people (the same applies to thenatural pebble from the Middle Acheulian site of Tan Tan, Morocco, described as a gurineby Bednarik, 2003a). The Qafzeh piece is part of the c. 100 ka BP context of the sites earlyHomo sapiens burials and consists of a broken Levallois core, 6.2 cm long, that bears a setof incised lines on its cortical face. The analysis of these lines by dErrico et al. (2003a)concludedthat theycouldnot beasimpleby-product oftasksperformedonthatsurfacewith cutting tools (such as butchering), but it produced no evidence that they represent adeliberate composition or part of some abstract design. The same applies to the Quneitraobject, a tabular piece of int cortex of broadly the same size and aspect and bearing fourconcentric semicircles surrounded by vertical lines (Marshack, 1996); the site is ESR-datedSpringer8 J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154to 4055 ka BP, which means that, depictive or not, this image could relate to either thelatest Neandertal or the earliest modern OIS-3 populations of the region.The Near East after c. 50 ka BPFrom level 1, at the bottom, to level 4, at the top, the Israeli open air site of Boker Tachtit inthe Negev desert (Marks, 1983; Marks and Ferring, 1988) provides a detailed picture of theregional technological transition fromthe Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. Level 4 is identicalto levels XXIXXV of the long sequence at the Lebanese rockshelter of Ksar Akil, the otherkey site for the transition in the Levant (Bergman and Stringer, 1989; Marks and Ferring,1988). Typologically, these assemblages are characterized by the Emireh pointelongated,triangular, morphologically Levallois items that, in the southern Levant, often bear ventral,thinning retouch of the base. In the northern Levant, the so-called chamfered pieces also areindex fossils of this assemblage type. For lack of a better term, these occurrences at presentareconsideredpartofasingleNearEasterntransitionaltechnocomplexdesignatedasInitial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) (Bar-Yosef, 2000; Kuhn, 2002, 2003).Two conventional charcoal dates for basal level 1 of Boker Tachtit place it at approximately47 ka14CBP, in spite of their large standard deviations, but no precise chronology is availablefor uppermost level 4. The latter must in any case date to>35 ka14CBPgiven the radiocarbonresult of 35,055 410014C BP (SMU-579), obtained on a charcoal sample from whichhumates could not be extracted, which means the result is probably a minimum age only(Marks, 1983) (Table 1). No dates are available for levels XXIXXV of Ksar Akil, but thecontemporaneity with the Negev site suggested by the lithics is consistent with a conventionalresult of c. 44 ka14C BP obtained for the immediately underlying Middle Paleolithic levelXXVI (Bergman and Stringer, 1989).The southern Turkish cave site ofUca gizli (Kuhn, 2002, 2003; Kuhn et al., 2001) providesa better x on the chronology of the Near Eastern IUP. Levels G and H, with a lithic industryidenticaltothatinKsarAkillevelXXI, yieldedaconsistentseriesofacceleratedmassspectrometry(AMS)radiocarbonresultsoncharcoal,placingtheirdepositioninthe3641 ka 14C BP interval. AtUca gizli, as elsewhere in other stratied Near Eastern occurrences,the IUP is followed by the Early Ahmarian, a fully Upper Paleolithic technocomplex. AtKsar Akil, suchEarlyAhmarianassemblagesarefoundinlevelsXVIXX, whicharestratigraphically and technologically very close to the preceding IUP (Kuhn, 2003). Theseindications of continuity are further strengthened by the resemblance between the industryfrom uppermost level 4 of Boker Tachtit and that contained in the nearby single-level site ofBoker A, which is clearly of Early Ahmarian afnities (Jones et al., 1983; Monigal, 2003).Two conventional charcoal results of>33.5 ka14CBPare available for Boker A, which agreewith the single nite date of 37,920 2810 14C BP (SMU-578), also on charcoal. Given thelarge standard deviation of the latter, the three results are consistent with the stratigraphicevidence that places the Early Ahmarian after the IUP and, hence, with a radiocarbon ageapproximately in the 3635 ka14CBPrange or younger. Technologically, the Early Ahmarianfeatures a single platform, soft-hammer production of blades and bladelets extracted fromprismatic cores in the framework of a continuous reduction system, and typologically it ischaracterized by the so-called El-Wad points, which are made on long, slender bladelets orsmall blades and laterally bear direct inverse or alternate retouch extending along at leastone of the blanks edges.At KebaraCaveinnorthernIsrael, theEarlyAhmarianlevels(UnitsIIIIV)yieldedsomewhat olderdates(asearlyasc. 43ka14CBP)(Bar-Yosef, 2000; Bar-Yosefetal.,1996). However, the results are widely scattered, and only one (of 35,600 160014C BP,SpringerJ Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154 9Table1RadiocarbondatesfortheMiddletoUpperPaleolithictransitionintheNearEastSiteProvenienceMaterialMethodLabno.ResultBPCultureUcagizliFcharcoalAMSAA3526034000690IUPFcharcoalAMSAA3762435020740IUPGcharcoalAMSAA37626391001500IUP(=KsarAkilXXI)HcharcoalAMSAA37623330401400IUP(=KsarAkilXXI)HcharcoalAMSAA3526135670730IUP(=KsarAkilXXI)HcharcoalAMSAA27995389001100IUP(=KsarAkilXXI)HcharcoalAMSAA27994394001200IUP(=KsarAkilXXI)HcharcoalAMSAA37625414001100IUP(=KsarAkilXXI)KsarAkilIV[layer9a]charcoalAMSOxA-180330250850AurignacianVI[layer10lower]charcoalAMSOxA-1804312001300AurignacianVI[layer11bm]charcoalAMSOxA-1805324001100AurignacianVIcharcoalconventionalMC-1192320001500AurignacianVIIVIII(67m)shellconventionalGrN-219528840380AurignacianXXVIdarkclay(charcoal?)conventionalGrN-2579437501500MousterianKebaraIcharcoalconventionalPta-426832200630AurignacianIsubsurfacecharcoalconventionalPta-424722900250AurignacianIbasecharcoalAMSOxA-397434510740AurignacianIItopcharcoalAMSOxA-397533920690AurignacianII,inburrowcharcoalconventionalPta-426331400480AurignacianII,inburrowcharcoalconventionalPta-426928700450AurignacianIIf(Q16d,4.70m,hearth)charcoalAMSOxA-1230360001600AurignacianIIfabovehearthcharcoalAMSGif-TAN-9015132670800AurignacianIIfhearthcharcoalAMSGif-TAN-90028343001100AurignacianIIfhearthcharcoalconventionalGx-17276428004800AurignacianIIIBcharcoalAMSOxA-3976435002200EarlyAhmarianIIIBcharcoalconventionalPta-4267361001100EarlyAhmarianIIIBfcharcoalAMSOxA-3977>43800EarlyAhmarianIIIBfcharcoalAMSGif-TAN-90037>42500EarlyAhmarianSpringer10 J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154Table1ContinuedSiteProvenienceMaterialMethodLabno.ResultBPCultureIIIBfcharcoalAMSGif-TAN-90168>41700EarlyAhmarianIIIBf(Q16d,5.38m,hearth)charcoalAMSOxA-1567356001600EarlyAhmarianIVBcharcoalconventionalPta-5002425001800EarlyAhmarianIVBcharcoalconventionalPta-4987421002100EarlyAhmarianIVB(adjacenttoburrow)charcoalAMSOxA-397828890400EarlyAhmarianIVVinQ16b/Q15dcharcoalconventionalPta-5141437001800Mousterian/EarlyAhmarianinterfaceVcharcoalAMSOxA-3979>44000MousterianVcharcoalAMSOxA-3980>44800MousterianVwcharcoalAMSGif-TAN-90030>46900MousterianV(Q16a/b,6.17m)charcoalAMSOxA-1568380002100MousterianBokerTachtit4charcoal(nohumatesremoved)conventionalSMU-579>350554100EarlyAhmarian1charcoalconventionalGY-3642>34950IUP(Emiran)1charcoalconventionalSMU-184>45570IUP(Emiran)1charcoalconventionalSMU-259469302400IUP(Emiran)1charcoalconventionalSMU-580472809050IUP(Emiran)BokerA1charcoalconventionalSMU-260>33420EarlyAhmarian1charcoalconventionalSMU-187>33600EarlyAhmarian1charcoalconventionalSMU-578379202810EarlyAhmarianUmmelTlelII2bcharcoalAMSGifA-9321232000580AurignacianXII(=II4?)charcoalconventionalGif-9004030790760Aurignacian+AhmarianIII2acharcoalAMSGifA-9321634530750IUPSpringerJ Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154 11OxA-1567; Hedges et al., 1990) was obtained on a hearth sample (in Unit IIIBf); signicantly,it agrees well with the chronometric and stratigraphic evidence fromUca gizli, Boker A, andKsar Akil. The excavators report problems with the integrity of the charcoal lenses fromwheretheKebarasamplescame, andthedatedmaterial maywell includeasignicantcomponent derived from underlying Middle Paleolithic Unit V. This hypothesis is consistentwith the fact that in the western part of the south prole the Upper Paleolithic levels ll a1.5-m-wide erosional channel cut into the Mousterian deposits; such a major unconformitymay also explain why no IUP contexts were recognized at Kebara.TheavailablechronostratigraphicevidencethereforeplacestheIUPoftheNearEastapproximately in the 3644-ka14C BP interval and the Early Ahmarian in the subsequenttwomillennia, c. 3635ka14CBP. Itwasatsometimeduringthesetenmillenniathatpersonal ornamentation, abundantlydocumentedinthecorrespondinglevelsof thekeysitesofKsarAkilandUca gizli(Fig. 1), rstappearedintheregion;theearliestactualevidence is that from level H ofUca gizli, for which available dates average c. 39 ka 14C BP.According to Kuhn et al. (2001), all such items, in both sites and in both the IUP and theEarly Ahmarian, are perforated marine shells, mostly from only three speciesNassarius( =Arcularia)gibbosula,Columbellarustica, andGlycymerissp., althoughthelatter, asdiscussed for Qafzeh, are more likely to represent containers rather than actual ornaments.Excluding themfromthe counts, 194 beads were recovered in IUP levels XXIXXIVof KsarAkil, 75% N. gibbosula and 11% C. rustica; the corresponding gures for Early Ahmarianlevels XIVXVIII are 364, 53%, and 36%, respectively. The published count for the IUPlevels ofUca gizli is 108, but the total is now several hundred, 90% of which belong to asingle species, N. gibbosula (Kuhn, personal communication, 2005).TheonlyevidenceconcerningtheauthorshipoftheIUPandtheEarlyAhmarianisEgbert, a juvenile modern human skeleton uncovered in 1938 at Ksar Akil, at a depth of11.46 m below datum; this elevation indicates that the bones pertain to the Early Ahmarianstrata between level XVI and the base of level XVIII (Bergman and Stringer, 1989). Theskeleton is now lost (only a cast of the skull is preserved in the Natural History Museum ofLondon), so direct dating is impossible, and the hypothesis that this was an intrusive burialfrom overlying occupations cannot be tested. As pointed out by Mellars (2004), however,the thickness of the deposits (the bones appear to have come from more than 1 m below thesurface of the uppermost unquestionable Early Ahmarian deposits, level XVI) argues againstthat possibility. No counterparts of the Ksar Akil human remains exist for the IUP, but itis not unreasonable to assume, on the basis of the apparent continuity in lithic technologybetween the latest IUP and the Early Ahmarian, that the people who manufactured the latteralso made the former. However, it cannot be excluded that Neandertals also were involved;the lesson from the Near Eastern record of OIS-5 and OIS-4 is that no necessary correlationexists between archaeological culture and physical types, and this caveat must hold as wellwhen interpreting the evidence from early OIS-3.Vanhaeren et al. (2006) argue that the two perforated N. gibbosula found at Skhul are fromlayer B (which contained the remains of ten anatomically modern humans) and, therefore,thattheirageshouldbeintherangeof100135kaBP.Theyfurtherarguethatanothersuch bead from Oued Djebbana (Algeria), the type site of the North African Aterian, is ofsimilar age. If their arguments are correct, personal ornamentation emerged at least 25,000years earlier than suggested by the evidence from Blombos. As they acknowledge, however,the chronology of the Aterian and Skhuls layer B is controversial. The Aterian is currentlyestimated to fall in the 3590 ka BP range (Deb enath, 2000; Wrinn and Rink, 2003), whereasthe U-Th chronology (Gr un et al., 2005) and the morphology of the skeletons (Stringer, 1998)indicate that two periods are represented in layer B of Skhul, which yielded several datesSpringer12 J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154in the 3050 ka BP interval. Because an overlap with the chronology of the IUP is clear inboth cases, and because the IUP features large amounts of the bead type in question, it isquite possible, and at least cannot be excluded at present, that the perforated N. gibbosulafromSkhulandOuedDjebanna,insteadofbeingoftheproposedOIS-5age,areinfactcontemporary with those fromUca gizli and Ksar Akil.Russia and central AsiaIUP-like assemblages are known in the Alta and other parts of central Asia in associationwith dates as early as c. 43 ka14C BP. Given the arguments in favor of an association ofthe Near Eastern IUP with modern humans, it is conceivable that such occurrences representafurtherrangeextensionofthelatterintomorenorthernlatitudes,buttheissueremainscontroversial (KrivoshapkinandBrantingham, 2004; Rybin, 2004). Becausethedirectlydated human material (mandible and postcrania) from Tianyuandong (near Beijing, China)documents people with a modern anatomy in the Far East c. 35 ka 14C BP (Trinkaus, 2005),inbroadcontemporaneitywithKsarAkilsEgbert,itmakessensetoassumethattheintervening regions of central Asia and the Alta also were settled by modern humans at thattime. Conversely, if Neandertals still inhabited the Near East c. 50 ka BP, as suggested bythe Amud data, any spread of modern humans into central Asia via a Near Eastern route canhave occurred only at a later date. In sum, the replacement process must have taken place incentral Asia somewhere between c. 50 and c. 35 ka BP but, as in the Near East, constrainingit with greater precision is impossible at present.Inanycase, onecancertainlyexpectmodernhumangroupsdispersingoutofAfricatohavecarriedwiththemthesocialorganizationandcorrespondingsociofactsthattheirancestors had developed. A rather convincing indication that an inux of ultimate Africanorigin is involved in the East Asian process is provided by the presence of ostrich eggshellbeads in the Mongolian site of D or olj 1 (Jaubert et al., 2004), dated to c. 32 ka14C BP.Aclearconnectionwithcultural developmentsintheNearEast alsoisapparent afewmillenniaearlierinsiteswest oftheUrals. Forinstance, aperforatedColumbellashell,modernrepresentativesofwhichareconnedtotheMediterraneanbasin,wasrecoveredinculturallayerIVb(welldatedbyAMSoncharcoalsamplestoc.36.5ka14CBP)ofKostenki 14 (Markina Gora), now situated more than 700 km from the shores of the BlackSea (Sinitsyn, 2003, 2004). Although the technological and typological features of the lithicassemblagerecoveredthereinareofafullUpperPaleolithicnature,itsculturalafnitiesremain unclear, and an isolated tooth is reportedly of modern human afnities. Sinitsyn alsodescribes an apparently shaped piece of mammoth ivory recovered in this level as the headof a female gurine; he acknowledges, however, that the surface is covered with tracesof natural damage and that the object is an obviously unnished product broken duringmanufacture. Thus, as with the Berekhat Ram gurine, the art may well be in the eye ofthe beholder.At an even earlier date, bone tools and ornaments are reported by Derevianko and Rybin(2003) from IUP-like contexts in Denisova cave (layer 11) and Kara-Bom (Horizon 5), buttheactual anatomical afnitiesofthemanufacturersoftheseassemblagesareunknown,and the ornaments (animal tooth pendants and bone beads) are not of the kind seen in theNearEastatthattime(whenonlymarineshellbeadswereinuse). Moreover, theexactstratigraphicprovenienceofthendsisnot devoidofambiguity. Amajordiscontinuityseparates OIS-3 layer 11 of Denisova from the immediately overlying OIS-2 level 9, andthe contact between the two is signicantly disturbed. Because the range of ornaments fromlevel 11 is identical to that found in both level 9 and the pockets containing level 9 lithics thatSpringerJ Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154 13penetrated deeply into level 11 (Derevianko and Shunkov, 2003, Fig. 7), their associationwith the IUP is questionable. At Kara-Bom, the material (namely, one perforated bovid toothand a pear-shaped bone bead) was found in a small depression that contained signicantamounts of goethite pigment; this feature was located 1 m away from a hearth excavated in1987 by Okladnikov in his Stratum 3, now correlated with the lower part of lithologicallevel 6, which contains Occupation Horizons 6 and 5. These occupations are both AMSdated on charcoal to c. 43 ka14C BP, but no more than approximately 30 cm above andinthesamelithologicalunit isthesignicantlyyounger OccupationHorizon4(c.34 ka14C BP). The excavation plan (Derevianko and Rybin, 2003, Fig. 8) makes it clear that thedepressionwiththepigmentandtheornamentswasbeyondtheboundariesofthelithicscatterassociatedwiththehearth,andthenatureofthendsisstronglysuggestiveofacache. Stratigraphically, this cache was excavated into the hearth level and, therefore, thetwo are not necessarily coeval; all that can be securely said is that the dates for Horizons 6and 5 provide a terminus post quem, and those for Horizon 4 a terminus ante quem.EuropeSymbolism in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic?As inthe Near Eastern, Russian, andcentral Asianregions reviewedabove, the evi-dence for symbolic artifacts before the Upper Paleolithic in European regions west of theRussian/Ukrainianplainsalsoisambiguous. WheretheLowerPaleolithicisconcerned,claims have been made that a small ensemble of animal bone remains fromthe open air site ofBilzingsleben (Germany), dated to>300 ka BP, are marked with motifs that carry a symbolicmeaning (Bednarik, 2003b; Mania and Mania, 1988; Meller, 2003). The markingsgroupsof ne strokes whose broadly parallel disposition indicates that they are unlikely to derivefrom ordinary utilitarian activities such as butchering or cuttingare clearly anthropic; thebest piece, a percussion tool manufactured from a spall of elephant tibia, bears two groups ofmarks, one with 7 strokes and another with 14, forming a suggestive rhythmical arrangement.However, unlike the ochre pieces from Blombos, it is not evident that these markings weremade to obtain a predesigned graphic composition with a specic even if elusive meaning.Where the Middle Paleolithic is concerned, two important objects come from the Hungar-ian open air site of Tata, dated to>70 ka BP (Moncel, 2003). One is a silicied nummulitecrossed at right angles by engraved lines on both sides, forming + motifs fully inscribedin the objects circular outline (Bednarik, 2003b). The other is an ivory plaque carefully sep-arated from a mammoth molar, shaped, beveled, and rubbed with red ochre. The edge-wearpolish indicates long-term use, and the overall shape evokes the sacred churinga (stonesor wooden boards associated with the wanderings of mythological ancestors) of AustralianAborigines (Marshack, 1976, 1989). It is not obvious, however, that the engraving on thenummulite is decorative, and a utilitarian explanation for the churinga (bone tool usedin the framework of ochre-processing tasks?) cannot be excluded either. Representationalstatus has been claimed for a int nodule featuring a natural tubular perforation into which abone splinter is wedged (Marquet and Lorblanchet, 2003); this Neandertal face, however,ismostlikelyanunmodied pierre-gure,andnaturalprocesscannotberuledoutasanexplanation for the wedged bone (Pettitt, 2003).Clear evidence for complex abstract thinking involving graphic modication of objectsin connection with ritual activities comes from the Mousterian graveyard of La Ferrassie inFrance (Deeur, 1993; Peyrony, 1934) (Fig. 3). Seven individuals (one fetus, two infants, twochildren, and two adults) were buried in the Ferrassie Mousterian levels of this rockshelter;Springer14 J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154Fig. 3 LaFerrassie:Above:Planandproleoftheburial ofindividual 6, a35-year-oldchild; belowleft, detail of the lower face of the stone slab that covered the burial pit, decorated with cupules virtuallyidentical to those found in blocks scattered in the habitation levels of the Evolved Aurignacian at the top ofthe stratigraphic sequence (see Fig. 10). Below right: Engraved bone found with the adult skeleton in burial 1(after Peyrony, 1934, modied)available dating evidence from southwestern France as a whole suggests that occurrencesofthisassemblagetypealldatetothec. 6570kaBPinterval(Mellars, 1996). TheLaFerrassie 1 individual, an adult male, was buried in a shallow pit together with a cylindricalbone fragment decorated with four sets of parallel incisions; the La Ferrassie 6 individual, a35-year-old child, had three int tools (a point and two very large sidescrapers) carefullySpringerJ Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154 15placed on top of his dead body, which had been interred in a deep pit covered by a limestoneslab whose inferior face was decorated with cupules.La Ferrassie thus sufces to establish a level of symbolic expression among EuropeanNeandertals at least identical to that seen in the African lineage at the same time; however,thefact that nocounterpartsoftheBlombosbeadshaveeverbeenfoundintheMiddlePaleolithic of Europe is a major difference between the two continents, and one that is allthemoresignicantbecauseofEuropescomparativelymuchlongerandmoreintensiveresearchhistory. Moreover, theirabsencefromthehundredsofMiddlePaleolithiccaveand rockshelter sites with favorable preservation settings excavated in Europe over the last150 years precludes taphonomic explanations; thus, it is legitimate to conclude that, in thiscase, the absence of evidence should indeed be considered as evidence of absence.Upper Paleolithic culture-stratigraphic frameworkThe earliest Upper Paleolithic of Europe corresponds to a diverse array of cultural entitiesfeaturing lithic technologies that, in one way or the other, t at least some aspects of thetechnological denition of the period and are often collectively designated as transitional.In the Franco-Cantabrian region there is the well-known Ch atelperronian, where blade pro-duction is oriented toward the production of blanks for curve-backed Ch atelperron points andknives. In Italy and Greece, there is the Uluzzian, a ake-based industry that also featuressome production of non-Levallois blade blanks but is mostly dened by the manufacture ofstandardized backed microlithsthick arched pieces, truncations, lunates, and some trapeze,all trimmed with sur enclume retouch. In Bulgaria there is the Bachokirian, where the Up-per Paleolithic cachet is mostly due to the preponderance of endscrapers that are made onLevalloisbladeblanks.InMoraviaandsouthernPolandthereistheBohunician,charac-terizedbytheproductionofmorphologicallyLevalloispointsobtainedbynon-Levalloismethods. Finally, in different parts of central and northern Europe, from southern EnglandtoPoland, thereistheSzeletian(anditsGermancousin, theAltm uhlian), characterizedbytheproductionofblattspitzen, whicharecarefullyaked, thin, fullybifacial foliatepoints, plano-convex or, more typically, biconvex in cross section; these foliate point com-plexes come after the Bohunician and then evolve to such unifacial blade point industriesas the so-called Lincombian of England and the Jerzmanovician of eastern Germany andPoland.In the wake of the extensive taphonomic critique of the evidence by dErrico et al. (1998),Zilh aoanddErrico(1999, 2003a, b), Rigaud(2001), Bordes(2002, 2003), Teyssandier(2003), and others, suggestions of a long-term contemporaneity between these earliest tran-sitionalUpperPaleolithicentitiesofEuropeandtheAurignacian,basedonradiocarbondates and on patterns of putative interstratication (Bernaldo de Quir os, 1982; Bordes andLabrot, 1967; Champagne and Espitali e, 1981; Gravina et al., 2005), have now been largelyabandoned(Zilh aoet al., 2006). Inparticular, themost vocal proponent of that notionhashimselfrecentlyconceded(Mellars, 2006)all themajorpointsmadebyZilh aoanddErrico (1999, 2003a, b) on the issues of interpretation raised by the application of radio-carbontothistimerange. Oncethenumeroussourcesoferrorareadequatelyltered, aclear picture emerges (Zilh ao, 2006a, b, c). (1) The transitional technocomplexes eitherunderlieorpredatetheearliest occurrencesoftheAurignaciananywhereinEurope. (2)The development of these technocomplexes took place in the interval between c. 45 and c.35 ka14C BP, whereas the earliest Aurignacian dates to no more than c. 36.5 ka14C BP(Table2). (3)Theslight chronometricoverlapisaninevitableconsequenceofthepoorprecisionofdatingtechniquesandofthefactthattheCh atelperronianisalmostentirelySpringer16 J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154Table2RadiocarbondatesfortheChatelperronian(AMSonly)andtheProtoaurignacian(AMSonbone,AMSandconventionaloncharcoal)aSiteLevelMaterialMethodLabnumberResultBPCultureKlissoura1V,hearth42organicresidueofhearthconventionalGd-10714>31100UluzzianV,hearth53organicresidueofhearthconventionalGd-10715>30800UluzzianV,hearth42burntboneAMSGifA-9916840010740UluzzianAbriDubalen(Brassempouy)EBC2boneAMSGifA-10104536130690ChatelperronianChatelperronB5boneAMSOxA-1362239150600ChatelperronianB5boneAMSOxA-1432039240380ChatelperronianB5boneAMSOxA-1362140650600ChatelperronianGrotteduRenneIXboneAMSOxA-3465451002800ChatelperronianXboneAMSOxA-346433820720ChatelperronianXaY11bone(mammoth)AMSOxA-8450/Ly-89325820280ChatelperronianXb1Y10bone(horse)AMSOxA-8451/Ly-894383001300ChatelperronianXb1Y10bone(reindeer)AMSOxA-9122/Ly-105533400600ChatelperronianXb2Y11bone(mammoth)AMSOxA-8452/Ly-89534450750ChatelperronianXcY11bone(mammoth)AMSOxA-8453/Ly-89633400600ChatelperronianCaunedeBelvis[7]boneAMSAA-7390354251140ChatelperronianCombeSauni`ereXboneAMSOxA-6503(tripeptide)381001000ChatelperronianGrotteXVIBboneAMSGifA-95581350001200ChatelperronianBboneAMSAA-2997381001670ChatelperronianBboneAMSAA-2674>39800ChatelperronianLaQuina,aval4boneAMSOxA-10261/Ly-136735950450ChatelperronianRoc-de-Combesq.K9,level8boneAMSGif-10126439540970Chatelperroniansq.K9,level8boneAMSGif-101266400001300Chatelperroniansq.K9,level8boneAMSGif-101265451002100ChatelperronianRoche-au-Loup5[b]charcoalconventionalGif-2414>40000ChatelperronianSpringerJ Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154 17Table2ContinuedSiteLevelMaterialMethodLabnumberResultBPCultureKrems-HundsteigbrownlayerwithhearthscharcoalconventionalKN-654355002000ProtoaurignacianGrottadiFumaneA2,nearhearthS14charcoalAMSUtC-204836500600ProtoaurignacianA2base,hearthS14charcoalAMSUtC-268836800/+1200/1400ProtoaurignacianA2base,hearthS14charcoalAMSOxA-805234120460ProtoaurignacianA2base,hearthS14charcoalAMSUtC-268935400/+1100/1300ProtoaurignacianA2base,hearthS14charcoalAMSUtC-269034200900ProtoaurignacianA2base,hearthS14charcoalAMSOxA-805333640440ProtoaurignacianRiparoMochieasttrench1959;G,Cut5657charcoalAMSOxA-359034680760Protoaurignacianeasttrench1959;G,Cut59charcoalAMSOxA-359135700850Protoaurignacianeasttrench1959;G,Cut60charcoalAMSOxA-359234870800ProtoaurignacianEsquicho-GrapaouSLC1bcharcoalconventionalMC-2161345402000ProtoaurignacianIsturitzU27,level4dburntboneAMSGifA-9823236510610ProtoaurignacianV126,level4dburntboneAMSGifA-9823334630560ProtoaurignacianMorin8charcoalAMSGifA-9626336590770ProtoaurignacianaResultsforlArbredaarenotincludedbecauseofuncertaintyregardingthestratigraphic/artifactualassociationsofthedatedsamplesand,whereFumaneisconcerned,onlysamplesfromlevelsA1A3andcollectedinsidethedriplineareincluded(foradiscussion,seeZilhaoanddErrico,1999,2003a).Springer18 J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154dated on samples of bone that were not pretreated with the recently developed ultraltra-tiontechnique(BronkRamsey et al.,2004)andthusareunderestimated(thekeysiteofthe Grotte du Renne is a particular case in point). (4) At the continental scale, it remainspossible that the Jerzmanovician/Lincombian may have emerged or survived in the northernEuropean plains at the time of the earliest Aurignacian settlement of European regions to thesouth, and it is certain (contra J oris et al., 2003) that the Middle Paleolithic continued untilmuch later in Iberian regions south of the Cantabro-Pyrenean mountain range (Zilh ao, 1993,2000, 2006a).Recent technological studies in France (Bon, 2002; Bordes, 2002; Chiotti, 1999; Lucas,2000)havealsoconrmedtraditional typology-basedviewsofAurignaciansystematics.Moreover, the evidence now clearly shows that the so-called Protoaurignacian, originallydened by G. Laplace and Italian authors (Palma di Cesnola, 1993) and generally consideredtobeacultural/geographicMediterraneanfaciesoftheclassicalAurignacian(Bon,2002), correspondsinsteadtoachronological phase.Infact, resultsfromtherecentre-excavationofthekeycavesiteofIsturitz(NormandandTurq,2005),ingoodaccordwiththerevisedstratigraphyofLePiage(Bordes,2002),suggestthatinFrance,aswellas in Italy and Spain, this Protoaurignacian stratigraphically and chronometrically precedestheclassical EarlyAurignacianor AurignacianI. Theformer ischaracterizedbyFont-Yvespointsandlong, slenderDufourbladeletsofDemarsandLaurents(1989)Dufoursubtype, which are extracted fromunidirectional prismatic cores in the framework of a single,continuous reduction sequence for both blades and bladelets. The latter is characterized bysplit-basedbonepointsandbytheuseof carinatedscrapersasspecializedcoresfortheextractionof straight or curvedbladelet blanksthat remainlargelyunretouched. Inthesubsequent EvolvedAurignacianor AurignacianII, thepreferredtypesof bladeletcores are thick burins (carinated or busked) and thick-nosed scrapers, which generatecharacteristic small, twisted blanks retouched into a particular Roc-de-Combe subtype ofDufour bladelets; other types of points made of ivory, bone, or deer antler emerged in thislater facies, all with massive bases, mostly featuring at or oval cross sections and an overalllozengic morphologythe Mlade c (Lautsch) points.Late Neandertals, early moderns, and their cultural associationsThe chronostratigraphic framework for the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Europeand its correlation with Near Eastern developments proposed in Fig. 4 provide the backgroundfor the discussion on the cultural associations of the human remains from the period. Theearly-mid Upper Pleistocene evidence from the Near East cautions against the establishmentof biunivocal correspondences between hominid taxa and archaeological cultures, but suchreservations do not apply in the same way to the geographical cul-de-sac of the Old Worldrepresented by the European continent, where the Neandertal lineage is unanimously agreedto have differentiated and evolved. As a result, it is legitimate to assume that until a time whenthe presence of modern humans is rst and unambiguously documented in the continentalfossilrecordbydiagnosticskeletalremains,Neandertalsareconsideredtobethehumanactors responsible for the features of the archaeological record.At present, the earliest such modern human material is the complete mandible recoveredin the cave site of Oase (Romania), directly dated to c. 35 ka 14C BP (Trinkaus et al., 2003a,b, 2006). The cave sites of Muierii and Cioclovina, also in Romania, have produced slightlylater modern human material (in the c. 2930 ka14C BP range), and the age of the largeensemble from the Moravian site of Mlade c has now been conclusively established by theSpringerJ Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154 19Fig. 4 Chronostratigraphic correlation scheme between key Early Upper Paleolithic stratied sequences ofEurope and the Near EastSpringer20 J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154direct dating of human teeth from four different individuals to c. 31 ka14C BP (Trinkaus,2005; Wild et al., 2005). Direct dating of other modern human fossils from central Europetraditionally considered to be of early Upper Paleolithic age has shown that, in fact, they allare of Magdalenian, Mesolithic, or even later prehistoric times (Conard et al., 2004a; Smithet al., 1999; Svoboda, 2003; Svoboda et al., 2002; Terberger and Street, 2003a, b).In western Europe, the only diagnostic modern human remains likely to predate c. 30 ka14C BP are at present the juvenile mandibles from La Quina Aval and Les Rois (Trinkaus,2005). The Les Rois sequence belongs entirely to the Evolved Aurignacian, whereas the LaQuina material comes from level 3 of the old excavations, at the interface between the sitesEarly and Evolved Aurignacian levels; a sample from the former, collected in the context ofmodern testing work, yielded an AMS bone date of 32,650 85014C BP (OxA-6147/Ly-256) (Dujardin, 2001) that provides a good terminus post quem for the mandible. The dentalmaterial from the Aurignacian I levels of Brassempouy, dated to c. 32 ka14C BP, also maybe of modern human afnities, but the issue remains controversial (Bailey and Hublin, 2005;Henry-Gambier et al., 2004). In any case, the conclusion is that, given the stratigraphic anddating context, none of these French fossils is older than c. 33 ka14C BP.Conversely, nowhere in Europe north of the Ebro River basin have Neandertal remainsbeen found for which an age postdating 36 ka14C BP can be suggested on rm grounds.Twoputativeexceptionsforwhichdirectradiocarbondatesofc. 2829ka14CBPhavebeenreported: thematerial fromlevel G1of theCroatiancavesiteof Vindija(Smithet al., 1999) and the infant skeleton from the cave of Mezmaiskaya in the northern Caucasus(Ovchinnikov et al., 2000). Where the latter is concerned, the excavators convincingly arguedthat the skeleton was found below intact Mousterian deposits reliably dated to>36 ka14CBP and that the direct date for the infant was therefore simply a minimum age, the burialbeing signicantly earlier (Golovanova et al., 1999). Where Vindija is concerned, severallines of reasoning also indicated that the results were minimumages (Zilh ao, 2006b), and thisinference has now been vindicated by redating of the original samples (Higham et al., 2006).This evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that after c. 35 ka 14C BP the archaeologicalrecord of Europe (except parts of the Iberian Peninsula) is entirely related to the activity ofanatomically modern people; by the same token, it also implies that one can legitimatelyassume that the technocomplexes of the earliest Upper Paleolithic (i.e., those predating theProtoaurignacian) were manufactured by Neandertals (Fig. 5).Sound evidence for this scenario is available for the Ch atelperronian, given the unques-tionably Neandertal afnities of (1) the individual buried in level EJOPsup of the St.-C esairerockshelter, TL-dated to 36.5 2.7 ka BP (average of six measurements on burnt ints), and(2) the fragmentary dental and cranial material from the Ch atelperronian levels of the GrotteduRenneatArcy-sur-Cure(BaileyandHublin, 2006;Hublinetal., 1996;L ev equeandVandermeersch, 1980). This conclusion has recently been strengthened by the direct datingtoc. 3841ka14CBP(i.e., inthetimerangeoftheCh atelperronian)ofthediagnosticNeandertal remains from the El Sidr on cave in Asturias, at the western end of the Franco-CantabrianregiontowhichtheCh atelperronianisconned(Fortea et al.,2003;Laluezaet al.,2005).HumanremainsassociatedwiththeUluzzianarelimitedtotwodeciduousteethfoundinlevelEoftheCavallocave,whicharesimilartoNeandertalteethinsize,cusp morphology, and taurodontism; this latter feature, in particular, is often present in Ne-andertal deciduous molars but has never been observed in early modern human juveniles,suggesting that the most parsimonious interpretation of this scarce material is that it belongsto Neandertals as well (Churchill and Smith, 2000).In central Europe, several important Neandertal fossils, most notably the two individualsfromthe type site itself, are directly dated to c. 3940 ka14CBP, but no direct evidence existsSpringerJ Archaeol Res (2007) 15:154 21Fig. 5 Key sites documenting the archaeological associations of late Neandertals and early European moderns(in Iberian regions south of the Ebro basin, Neandertals survived until well after the time of contact elsewherein Europe). Above: Latest reliably dated Ch atelperronian, late Micoquian, and Uluzzian sites (circles); siteswith Neandertal remains reliably directly dated to