close

Academia.edu uses cookies to personalize content, tailor ads and improve the user experience. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy.

Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Figures
Introduction
Discussion
Conclusions
References
All Topics
History
Ancient History

Douka, K., Perles, C., Valladas, H., Vanhaeren, M., Hedges, R.E.M. 2011. Franchthi Cave revisited: the age of the Aurignacian in south-eastern Europe. Antiquity 85 : 1131–1150.

Profile image of Katerina DoukaKaterina Douka
visibility

…

description

20 pages

Abstract

The Aurignacian, traditionally regarded as marking the beginnings of Sapiens in Europe, is notoriously hard to date, being almost out of reach of radiocarbon. Here the authors return to the stratified sequence in the Franchthi Cave, chronicle its lithic and shell ornament industries and, by dating humanly-modified material, show that Franchthi was occupied either side of the Campagnian Ignimbrite super-eruption around 40 000 years ago. Along with other results, this means that groups of Early Upper Palaeolithic people were active outside the Danube corridor and Western Europe, and probably in contact with each other over long distances.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. Franchthi Cave provides significant insights into the Aurignacian occupation around 40,000 years ago.
  2. New radiocarbon dating suggests Early Aurignacian presence predating the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption.
  3. Three distinct Aurignacian phases are identified: Protoaurignacian, Early Aurignacian, and Evolved Aurignacian.
  4. Franchthi Cave's lithic assemblages indicate contact among Early Upper Palaeolithic groups beyond Western Europe.
  5. Ornamental shell artifacts reveal cultural practices consistent with Aurignacian traditions in the region.
Figures (12)
BERJAYA
Figure 1. Map of Greece at current and at Late Glacial (-100m) sea levels (courtesy of A. Colonese). The location of Franchthi and Klissoura Cave 1 in Argolid is indicated.
Figure 1. Map of Greece at current and at Late Glacial (-100m) sea levels (courtesy of A. Colonese). The location of Franchthi and Klissoura Cave 1 in Argolid is indicated.
Figure 2. a) Longitudinal section of Franchthi Cave; b) plans of excavated trenches; c) profile sections of FAS and HH1 (modified after Farrand 2000).
Figure 2. a) Longitudinal section of Franchthi Cave; b) plans of excavated trenches; c) profile sections of FAS and HH1 (modified after Farrand 2000).
BERJAYA
Figure 3. Lithic elements from stratum Q, units FAS 220 (n° 1-5, 12-14, 16) and FAS 219 (n° 6-11, 15, 17-20) Carinated-core lateral preparation or rejuvenation flakes: n° 1-9; twisted lateral preparation bladelets: n° 10-11, 20; straigh bladelet: n° 12; curved bladelets: n° 13, 16-19; twisted bladelets: n° 14-15.
Figure 3. Lithic elements from stratum Q, units FAS 220 (n° 1-5, 12-14, 16) and FAS 219 (n° 6-11, 15, 17-20) Carinated-core lateral preparation or rejuvenation flakes: n° 1-9; twisted lateral preparation bladelets: n° 10-11, 20; straigh bladelet: n° 12; curved bladelets: n° 13, 16-19; twisted bladelets: n° 14-15.
Figure 4. Carinated cores (n° 1-5) and carinated-core preform (n° 6) from the lower units of stratum R, FAS 217 (n° 1) and HIB 210 (n° 2-6).
Figure 4. Carinated cores (n° 1-5) and carinated-core preform (n° 6) from the lower units of stratum R, FAS 217 (n° 1) and HIB 210 (n° 2-6).
Figure 5. Lithic elements from stratum R, units FAS 217 (n° 3), HIB 210 (n° 1-2, 4-12, 16-19) and H1B 208 (n° 13-15). Carinated-core lateral preparation or rejuvenation flakes and bladelets: n° 1-3; twisted bladelets: n° 4-17; straight bladelets: n° 18-19.
Figure 5. Lithic elements from stratum R, units FAS 217 (n° 3), HIB 210 (n° 1-2, 4-12, 16-19) and H1B 208 (n° 13-15). Carinated-core lateral preparation or rejuvenation flakes and bladelets: n° 1-3; twisted bladelets: n° 4-17; straight bladelets: n° 18-19.
BERJAYA
post-mortem recrystallisation — one of the major hindrances in the reliab revealed no recrystallisation. The two charcoal samples were dated at t Acid protocol, while FRA 2, from FAS 221, underwent a more rigorous pre-treatment protocol for shell carbonates (Brock et al, 2010; Douka et al. 2010a). With the exception of Fra 6 (OxA-22270) and Fra 9 (OxA-21351), all shells were checked fot e dating of marine carbonates — using high-precision X-Ray diffraction (XRD). Such mineralogical analysi: he Gif Laboratory France). FRA 1 from FAS 217 was a charcoal sample dated using the routine Acid-Base- cleaning protoco ABOx). The latter was a compact fragment of black matter, which was s hown to be mostly composed of well-crystallised calcite grains rather than burnt organic matter. The connection of the dated sample with the human activities taken place at the site, uncertain. therefore, remains
post-mortem recrystallisation — one of the major hindrances in the reliab revealed no recrystallisation. The two charcoal samples were dated at t Acid protocol, while FRA 2, from FAS 221, underwent a more rigorous pre-treatment protocol for shell carbonates (Brock et al, 2010; Douka et al. 2010a). With the exception of Fra 6 (OxA-22270) and Fra 9 (OxA-21351), all shells were checked fot e dating of marine carbonates — using high-precision X-Ray diffraction (XRD). Such mineralogical analysi: he Gif Laboratory France). FRA 1 from FAS 217 was a charcoal sample dated using the routine Acid-Base- cleaning protoco ABOx). The latter was a compact fragment of black matter, which was s hown to be mostly composed of well-crystallised calcite grains rather than burnt organic matter. The connection of the dated sample with the human activities taken place at the site, uncertain. therefore, remains
Table 3. Contextual information of dated samples, and associated raw and calibrated radiocarbon dates at 68.2% and 95.4% probability. P perforated, nP = not perforated, NT = natural perforation (tube morphology), ind. = indeterminate.
Table 3. Contextual information of dated samples, and associated raw and calibrated radiocarbon dates at 68.2% and 95.4% probability. P perforated, nP = not perforated, NT = natural perforation (tube morphology), ind. = indeterminate.
Figure 7. Macrophotos illustrating state of preservation and distinct features of the dated shells. Scale bars within macrophotos are 100jum.
Figure 7. Macrophotos illustrating state of preservation and distinct features of the dated shells. Scale bars within macrophotos are 100jum.
Figure 8. Bayesian model built using OxCal v.4.1.7 including all 13 shell and charcoal radiocarbon dates for the lowermost strata of Franchthi Cave. Two are previously obtained determinations and marked with an asterisk (*). Outlier detection analysis identified four determinations as being certain outliers and these are shown in red. The age of the CI eruption, following De Vivo et al. (2001), is indicated as a light grey line. The dates are compared to the NGRIP 5 18 © record (Svensson et al. 2006), and the Greenland interstadials are numbered.
Figure 8. Bayesian model built using OxCal v.4.1.7 including all 13 shell and charcoal radiocarbon dates for the lowermost strata of Franchthi Cave. Two are previously obtained determinations and marked with an asterisk (*). Outlier detection analysis identified four determinations as being certain outliers and these are shown in red. The age of the CI eruption, following De Vivo et al. (2001), is indicated as a light grey line. The dates are compared to the NGRIP 5 18 © record (Svensson et al. 2006), and the Greenland interstadials are numbered.

Related papers

The Early Aurignacian in central Europe and its place in a European perspective
Nicholas John Conard

Toward a Definition of the Aurignacian, 2006

This paper places the current research on the Aurignacian of the Upper and Middle Danube region in a broader European context. Technological and typological studies show that the Swabian Aurignacian, particularly as documented in the well-dated deposits from Geißenklösterle, closely resemble the assemblages of Peyrony’s Aurignacian I. We use the term Early Aurignacian in this context to distinguish the well-documented Swabian assemblages including Geißenklösterle, Hohle Fels, and Vogelherd from other early Upper Paleolithic cultural groups including the Proto-Aurignacian of southern Europe. Although the assemblage from Willendorf II, layer 3, is very small, it also appears to belong to the Early Aurignacian. The early phases of the Aurignacian date to about 35 000 radiocarbon years ago and about 40 000 calendar years ago based on TL measurements. These dates indicate a great antiquity of the upper and middle Danubian Early Aurignacian, but similar radiocarbon ages are also known from the Early Aurignacian of the Aquitaine region. Thus, for now, questions about the poly- or monocentric origin of the Aurignacian remain open. The available data, however, do not support the claims for an origin of the Aurignacian in the Balkans or other regions of eastern Europe.

View PDFchevron_right
Hublin, J.-J. (2015) The modern human colonization of western Eurasia: when and where? Quaternary Science Reviews. DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.08.011
Jean-Jacques Hublin
View PDFchevron_right
Placing the Aurignacian from Banat (Soutwestern Romania) into the European Early Upper Paleolithic context
Mircea Anghelinu

During the 1983 UISPP congress in Liège, F. Mogoșanu presented the results of his earlier investigations on the Paleolithic in the Romanian Banat. The Upper Paleolithic of this area was viewed as a chronologically late manifestation of the Central European Krems-Dufour type Aurignacian. After a long break in research, new investigations in the settlements at Coșava, Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa and Tincova have been undertaken, leading to an improved knowledge of the regional Upper Paleolithic. The present contribution reports the first results of the comparative techno-typological and attribute analysis of the lithic assemblages at Tincova, Coșava and Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa, involving both old and recently excavated collections. Strengthening the conclusions reached by the lithic studies, the first chronometric assessments (TL and OSL) for the recently excavated open-air site of Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I place the Aurignacian of this site into an early stage of this technocomplex. However, the attempt for incorporating the regional record into the European Early Upper Paleolithic context remains difficult and raises serious issues regarding the acknowledged divisions of the European Aurignacian and, consequently, the expansion of this cultural phenomenon across Europe.

View PDFchevron_right
Conard, N. J. und M. Bolus (2008): Radiocarbon dating the late Middle Paleolithic and the Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 886-897.
Michael Bolus

Many lines of evidence point to the period between roughly 40 and 30 ka BP as the period in which modern humans arrived in Europe and displaced the indigenous Neandertal populations. At the same time, many innovations associated with the Upper Paleolithic -including new stone and organic technologies, use of personal ornaments, figurative art, and musical instruments -are first documented in the European archaeological record. Dating the events of this period is challenging for several reasons. In the period about six to seven radiocarbon half-lives ago, variable preservation, pre-treatment, and sample preparation can easily lead to a lack of reproducibility between samples and laboratories. A range of biological, cultural, and geological processes can lead to mixing of archaeological strata and their contents. Additionally, some data sets point to this period as a time of significant spikes in levels of atmospheric radiocarbon. This paper assesses these questions in the context of the well-excavated and intensively studied caves of Geißenklö sterle and Hohle Fels in the Swabian Jura of southwestern Germany. We conclude that variable atmospheric radiocarbon production contributes to the problems of dating the late Middle Paleolithic and the early Upper Paleolithic. To help establish a reliable chronology for the Swabian Aurignacian, we are beginning to focus our dating program on short-lived, stratigraphically secure features to see if they yield reproducible results. This approach may help to test competing explanations for the noisy and often non-reproducible results that arise when trying to date the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic.

View PDFchevron_right
Aurignacian dynamics in Southeastern Europe based on spatial analysis, sediment geochemistry, raw materials, lithic analysis, and use-wear from Românești-Dumbrăvița
Wei Chu, Wei Chu, Alexandru Ciornei

Springer Nature, 2022

The Aurignacian is one of the first cultural-technological traditions commonly associated with the expansion of Homo sapiens in Europe. Early Homo sapiens demographics across the continent are therefore typically inferred using the distribution of Aurignacian assemblages. Western Romania has been used as a tie-point to connect the well-researched lithic assemblages from the eastern Mediterranean and Western Europe through its early Homo sapiens fossils. However, Romania's archeological record remains underexplored thereby hindering our ability to directly connect better understood regions through time and space. Here we report on excavations from the open-air Middle/ Upper Paleolithic site of Românești-Dumbrăvița I in southwestern Romania. Three stratified Paleolithic assemblages were extensively excavated within a 1-m-thick eolian-deposited sequence. Spatial, geochemical, raw material, techno-typological, and use-wear analysis of the site reveal patterns of artifact configuration, resource exploitation, fire history, knapping objectives, and functionality. Taken together, Românești-Dumbrăvița I is the first well-contextualized archeological site in close spatiotemporal proximity to many early, well-preserved human fossils and in East-Central Europe.

View PDFchevron_right
Krisztián Oross et al.: ‘It’s still the same old story’: The current southern Transdanubian approach to the Neolithisation process of central Europe
Krisztián Oross, Tibor Marton, János Jakucs, Alasdair Whittle, Kyra Lyublyanovics

Quaternary International 560-561, 2020

The pivotal role of the western Carpathian basin in the transmission of key inventions of food production towards central Europe is an accepted fact in Neolithic research. Southern Transdanubia in western Hungary may serve as a unique ‘laboratory’ for targeted investigations, as north Balkan and central European characteristics overlap in the region. Site-based studies of recently excavated late 6th millennium cal BC Neolithic settlements provide insights into possible patterns in the development of longhouse architecture and settlement layout, different combinations of material culture and their alterations, and technology transfer on a regional scale. In order to gain a more complex view of these themes, three micro-regions have been selected around key sites for further study of different vantage points between Lake Balaton and the Dráva/Drava river. The southernmost one is located in the Southern Baranya Hills, the second along the Danube on the northern fringes of the Tolna Sárköz and in the adjacent section of the Sárvíz valley, while the third lies in the central section of the southern shore of Lake Balaton. Field surveys including the systematic collection of surface finds complemented by geomagnetic prospections can contribute significantly to the reconstruction of settlement clusters. Absolute chronology has become an important research focus due to larger sets of radiocarbon dates interpreted within a Bayesian framework. The two dominant scenarios for the start of the westward expansion of the LBK are hard to harmonise with each other. An approach that estimates the beginning of the process around 5500 cal BC at the latest gains support from a west-central European perspective. In contrast, recent radiocarbon dating programmes with formal modelling of AMS series within a Bayesian framework estimate the appearance of the LBK west of the Carpathian basin hardly before 5350–5300 cal BC. The latter view provides the potential of harmonising the Neolithisation of central Europe with the emergence of the Vinča culture, at least in its northernmost region. Beyond this debate, ancient DNA analyses have enriched the discussions on migration, demic diffusion and the scale of hunter-gatherer contribution to the process with fresh arguments.

View PDFchevron_right
The Late and Final Middle Palaeolithic of Central Europe and Its Contributions to the Formation of the Regional Upper Palaeolithic: a Review and a Synthesis
Petr Neruda

Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology

For decades, the relationship of pre-modern hominins to anatomically modern humans (AMH) and the transition from mode 3 to mode 4 industries remain topics of ongoing scientific debate. Over the last 20 years, different disciplines have added new data and much detail to these questions, highlighting the demographic and social and cultural complexity underlaying these major changes or turnovers in human evolution. As with most other regions outside Africa, archaeologists faced long-lasting discussions whether or not the central European archaeological record is to be understood as a regional transition from the Middle Palaeolithic (MP) to the Upper Palaeolithic (UP) or if it is characterised by the replacement of Neanderthal MP techno-complexes by industries of overall UP character imported by modern humans. These debates have been re-fuelled by the discoveries of new sites, of new hominin fossil remains and by aDNA studies pinpointing towards the arrival of AMH in Europe several mill...

View PDFchevron_right
European Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 8–MIS 3): Cultures, environment, chronology
Krzysztof Cyrek, Adam Nadachowski

Quaternary International, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
Aurignacian industry types and their «fossiles directeurs» in the Carpathian Basin and East Bohemian Massif: a new study attempt
Yuri Demidenko, Rácz Béla

BOOK Adrián Nemergut, Ivan Cheben, Jaroslava Ruttkayová, Katarzyna Pyżewicz (eds.) NITRA 2019 16th SKAM Lithic Workshop “Fossil directeur” - A phenomenon over time and space 21–23 of October 2019, Nitra, Slovak Republic, 2019

View PDFchevron_right
Kostenki 1 and the early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe
John Hoffecker

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2016

Although best known for its spectacular Gravettian features and art, the open-air site of Kostenki 1 (located near Voronezh on the Don River [Russian Federation]) also has played an important role in the study of the early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) of Eastern Europe. New excavations at Kostenki 1 were undertaken in 2004-2012 with a focus on the EUP layers (Layers III-V), which represent temporal zones of recurring occupation, buried in low-energy slope deposits (5% slope). Soils formed during periods of increased surface stability. A new set of radiocarbon estimates on wood charcoal indicates that Layer III dates between 33,000 and 38,000 cal BP. Layer V underlies the CI tephra (~40,000 cal BP), which is redeposited and identified only by microscopic analysis of sediment samples in most of the (downslope) areas of the site excavated during 2004-2012. Large and medium mammal remains recovered from the EUP layers include mammoth, horse, reindeer, arctic fox, and wolf, and taphonomic analyses indicate that carcasses were processed at the site. All EUP layers yielded artifacts typical of the East European Strelets industry (e.g., bifaces, side-scrapers), but earlier excavation (1948)(1949)(1950)(1951)(1952)(1953) of Layer III also produced diagnostic Aurignacian artifacts (e.g., carinated scrapers, retouched bladelets). The new chronology for Layer III suggests an association between the Aurignacian of the central East European Plain and the warm intervals (GI 8-GI 7) following the HE4 cold period (~38,000-40,000 cal BP).

View PDFchevron_right

References (60)

  1. ACCORSI, C.A., E. AIELLO, C. BARTOLINI, L. CASTELLETTI, G. RODOLFI & A. RONCHITELLI. 1979. Il giacimento Paleolitico di Serino (Avellino): stratigrafia, ambienti e paletnologia. Atti della Società Toscana di Scienze Naturali. Memori, Serie A 86: 435-87.
  2. BAR-YOSEF, O., A. BELFER-COHEN & D.S. ADLER. 2006. The implication of the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic chronological boundary in the Caucasus to European prehistory. Anthropologie 44(1): 49-60.
  3. BAZILE, F. & S. SICARD. 1999. Le premier Aurignacien du Languedoc oriental dans son contexte Méditerranéen, in Les faciès leptolithiques du Nord-Ouest méditerranéen: milieux naturels et culturels (Actes du Colloque international, 24éme session du Congrès préhistorique de France, Carcassonne, France, 26-30 septembre 1994): 117-25. Paris: Société préhistorique franc ¸aise.
  4. BON, F. 2002. L'Aurignacien entre mer et océan: réflexion sur l'unité des phases anciennes de l'Aurignacien dans le Sud de la France (Mémoires de la Société préhistorique franc ¸aise 29). Paris: Société préhistorique franc ¸aise.
  5. -2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of the industries of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, in O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (ed.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian: proceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, 2002 (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45): 133-44. Lisbon: Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia.
  6. -2009. Préhistoire: la fabrique de l'homme. Paris: Seuil. BORDES, J-G. 2006. News from the West: a re-evaluation of the classical Aurignacian sequence of the Perigord, in O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (ed.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian: proceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, 2002 (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45): 147-171. Lisbon: Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia.
  7. BORDES, J-G. & A. LENOBLE. 2002. La lamelle Caminade: un nouvel outil aurignacien? Bulletin de la Société préhistorique franc ¸aise 99(4): 735-49.
  8. BROCK, F., T.F.G. HIGHAM, P. DITCHFIELD & C. BRONK RAMSEY. 2010. Current pre-treatment methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52: 103-112.
  9. BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2008. Radiocarbon dating: revolutions in understanding. Archaeometry 50(2): 249-75.
  10. -2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337-60.
  11. CHIOTTI, L. 1999. Les industries lithiques des niveaux aurignaciens de l'Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac (Dordogne, France). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle.
  12. CONARD, N. & M. BOLUS. 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44: 331-71.
  13. DE VIVO, B., G. ROLANDI, P.B. GANS, A. CALVERT, W.A. BOHRSON, F.J. SPERA & H.E. BELKIN. 2001. New constraints on the pyroclastic eruptive history of the Campanian volcanic Plain (Italy). Mineralogy and Petrology 73: 47-65.
  14. DOUKA, K., R.E.M. HEDGES & T.F.G. HIGHAM. 2010a. Improved AMS 14 C dating of shell carbonates using high-precision X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) and a novel density separation protocol (CarDS). Radiocarbon 52: 735-51.
  15. DOUKA, K., T.F.G. HIGHAM & A. SINITSYN. 2010b. The influence of preteatment chemistry on the radiocarbon dating of Campanian Ignimbrite-age charcoal from Kostenki 14 (Russia). Quaternary Research 73: 583-87.
  16. FARRAND, W.R. 2000. Depositional history of Franchthi Cave: stratigraphology, sedimentologyy and chronology (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 12). Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.
  17. FÉBLOT-AUGUSTINS, J. 1997. La circulation des matières premières au Paléolithique: synthèse des données perspectives comportementales ( Études et recherches archéologiques de l'Université de Liège 75). Liège: Université de Liège.
  18. -2009. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic raw material transfers: the demise of the cultural ecological paradigm, in B.S. Blades & B. Adams (ed.) Lithic materials and Paleolithic societies: 25-46. Oxford: Blackwell.
  19. FEDELE, G., B. GIACCIO & I. HADJAS. 2008. Timescales and cultural processes at 40,000 BP in the light of the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption, western Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 834-57.
  20. GAMBASSINI, P. (ed.) 1997. Il Paleolitico di Castelcivita: culture e ambiente (Materiae 5). Napoli: Electa Napoli.
  21. HANSEN, J.M. 1991. The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 7). Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.
  22. HIGHAM, T.F.G. 2011. European Middle and Upper Palaeolithic radiocarbon dates are often older than they look: problems with previous dates and some remedies. Antiquity 85: 235-49.
  23. HIGHAM, T.F.G., R. JACOBI, L. BASELL, C. BRONK RAMSEY, L. CHIOTTI & R. NESPOULET. In press. Precision dating of the Palaeolithic: a new radiocarbon chronology for the Abri Pataud (France), a key Aurignacian sequence. Journal of Human Evolution.
  24. JACOBSEN, T.W. & W.R. FARRAND. 1987. Franchthi Cave and Paralia: maps, plans and sections (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 1) Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.
  25. J ÖRIS, O. & M. STREET. 2008. At the end of the 14 C time scale: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic record of Western Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 782-802.
  26. KNECHT, H. 1991. Technological innovation and design during the Early Upper Palaeolithic: a study of organic projectile technologies. Unpublished PhD dissertation, New York University.
  27. KOUMOUZELIS, M., B. GINTER, K. KOZLOWSKI, M. PAWLIKOWSKI, O. BAR-YOSEF, R.M. ALBERT, M. LITYNSKA-ZAJAC, E. STWORZEWICZ, P. WOJTAL, G. LIPECKI, T. TOMEK, Z.M. BOCHENKSI & A. PAZDUR. 2001. The Early Upper Palaeolithic in Greece: the excavation in Klissoura Cave. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 28: 515-39.
  28. KUHN, S.L., J. PIGATI, P. KARKANAS, M. KOUMOUZELIS, J. KOZLOWSKI, M. NTINOU & M. STINER. 2010. Radiocarbon dating results for the Early Upper Paleolithic of Klissoura Cave 1. Eurasian Prehistory 7(2): 37-46.
  29. LAPLACE, G. 1966. Recherches sur l'origine et l'évolution des complexes leptolithiques. Paris: de Boccard.
  30. LE BRUN-RICALENS, F. (ed.) 2005. Productions lamellaires attribuées à l'Aurignacien. Chaînes opératoires et perpectives technoculturelles. Luxembourg: Musée national d'histoire et d'art.
  31. LIOLIOS, D. 2006. Reflections on the role of bone tools in the definition of the Early Aurignacian, in O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (ed.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian Aurignacian: proceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, 2002 (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45): 37-51. Lisbon: Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia.
  32. MAÍLLO-FERNÁNDEZ, J.M. & F.B. DE QUIR ÓS. 2010. L'Aurignacien archaïque de la grotte El Castillo (Espagne): caractérisation technologique et typologique. L'Anthropologie 114: 1-25.
  33. MELLARS, P. 2006. Archeology and the dispersal of modern humans in Europe: deconstructing the Aurignacian. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 167-82.
  34. NIGST, PH. R. 2006. The first modern humans in the Middle Danube area? New evidence from Willendorf II (East Austria), in N. Conard (ed.) When Neanderthals and modern humans met: 269-304. Tübingen: Kerns.
  35. PALMA DI CESNOLA, A. 1963. Prima campagna di scavi nella Grotta del Cavallo presso Santa Caterina (Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 18: 41-74.
  36. -1989. L'Uluzzien: faciès Italien du leptolithique archaïque. L'Anthropologie 93: 783-812.
  37. PAPAGIANNI, D. 2009. Mediterranean southeastern Europe in the Late Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic: modern human route to Europe or Neanderthal refugium? in M. Camps & C. Szmidt (ed.) The Mediterranean from 50 000 to 25 000 BP: turning points and new directions: 115-36. Oxford: Oxbow.
  38. PERESANI, M. 2008. A new cultural frontier for the last Neanderthals: the Uluzzian in northern Italy. Current Anthropology 49: 725-31.
  39. PERLÈS, C. 1987. Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce). Tome I: Présentation générale et industries paléolithiques (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 3). Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.
  40. PERLÈS, C. & M. VANHAEREN. 2010. Black Cyclope neritea marine shell ornaments in the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Franchthi Cave, Greece: arguments for intentional heat treatment. Journal of Field Archaeology 35(3): 298-309.
  41. POPPE, G.T. & Y. GOTO. 1993. European seashells, Volume 2. Wiesbaden: Christa Hemmen.
  42. REIMER, P.J. & F.M. MCCORMAC. 2002. Marine radiocarbon reservoir corrections for the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas. Radiocarbon 44(1): 159-66.
  43. REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W. BECK, P.G. BLACKWELL, C. BRONK RAMSEY, C.E. BUCK, G. S. BURR, R.L. EDWARDS, M. FRIEDRICH, P.M. GROOTES, T.P. GUILDERSON, I. HAJDAS, T.J. HEATON, A.G. HOGG, K.A. HUGHEN, K. F. KAISER, B. KROMER, F.G. MCCORMAC, S.W. MANNING, R.W REIMER, D.A RICHARDS, J.R. SOUTHON, S. TALAMO, C.S.M. TURNEY, J. VAN DER PLICHT & C.E. WEYHENMEYER. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50 000 years cal. BP. Radiocarbon 51: 1111-1150.
  44. SHACKLETON, J.C. (with M.R. DEITH & N.J. SHACKLETON). 1988. Marine molluscan remains from Franchthi Cave. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.
  45. SINITSYN, A.A. 2003. A Palaeolithic Pompeii at Kostenki, Russia. Antiquity 77: 9-14.
  46. STINER, M.C. & N.D. MUNRO. 2011. On the evolution of diet and landscape during the Upper Palaeolithic through Mesolithic at Franchthi Cave (Peloponnese, Greece). Journal of Human Evolution 60: 618-36.
  47. STINER, M.C., J.K. KOZLOWSKI, S.L. KUHN, P. KARKANAS & M. KOUMOUZELIS. 2010. Klissoura Cave 1 and the Upper Paleolithic of southern Greece in cultural and ecological context. Eurasian Prehistory 7(2): 309-21.
  48. SVENSSON, A., K.K. ANDERSEN, M. BIGLER, H.B. CLAUSEN, D. DAHL-JENSEN, S.M. DAVIES, S.J. JOHNSEN, R. MUSCHELER, S.O. RASMUSSEN, R. ROTHLISBERGER, J.P. STEFFENSEN & B.M. VINTHER. 2006. The Greenland ice core chronology 2005, 15-42ka. Part 2: Comparison to other records. Quaternary Science Reviews 25(23-24): 3258-67.
  49. SZMIDT, C.C., C. NORMAND, G. BURR, G. HODGINS & S. LAMOTTA. 2010. AMS 14 C dating the Protoaurignacian/Early Aurignacian of Isturitz, France: implications for Neanderthal-modern human interaction and the timing of technical and cultural innovations in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 758-68.
  50. TEYSSANDIER, N. 2007. En route vers l'Ouest: les débuts de l'Aurignacien en Europe (British Archaeological Reports international series 1638). Oxford: John & Erica Hedges.
  51. -2008. Revolution or evolution? The emergence of the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. World Archaeology 40: 493-519.
  52. TEYSSANDIER, N., F. BON & J-G. BORDES. 2010. Within projectile range: some thoughts on the appearance of the Aurignacian in Europe. Journal of Anthropological research 66: 209-229.
  53. TSANOVA, T. 2006. Les débuts du Paléolithique supérieur dans l'Est des Balkans: réflexions à partir de l'étude taphonomique et techno-économique des ensembles lithiques des sites de Bacho-Kiro (couche 11), Temnata (couches VI et 4) et Kozarnika (couche VII). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Bordeaux I.
  54. VANHAEREN, M. & F. D'ERRICO. 2001.La parure de l'enfant de La Madeleine et du site éponyme (fouilles Peyrony): un nouveau regard sur l'enfance au Paléolithique supérieur. Paléo 13: 201-240.
  55. -2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(8): 1105-1128.
  56. -2007. La parure aurignacienne reflet d'unités ethno-culturelles, in H. Floss & N. Rouquerol (ed.) Les chemins de l'art aurignacien en Europe: colloque international, Aurignac, 16-18 septembre 2005: 233-48. Aurignac: Editions Musée-forum Aurignac.
  57. VITALIANO, C.J., S.R. TAYLOR, W.R. FARRAND & T.W. JACOBSEN. 1981. Tephra layer in Franchthi Cave, Peleponnesus, Greece, in S. Self & R.S.J. Sparks (ed.) Tephra studies: 373-79. Dordrecht: Riedel.
  58. ZILHÃO, J. 2006. Neandertals and modern mixed, and it matters. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 183-95.
  59. -2011. Aliens from outer time? Why the human revolution is wrong and where do we go from here, in S. Condemi & G-C. Weniger (ed.) Continuity and discontinuity in the peopling of Europe: one hundred fifty years of Neanderthal study (Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology series): 331-66. New York: Springer.
  60. ZILHÃO, J. & F. D'ERRICO. 2003a. The chronology of the Aurignacian and transitional technocomplexes: where do we stand? in J. Zilhão & F. d'Errico (ed.) The chronology of the Aurignacian and transitional technocomplexes: dating, stratigraphies and cultural implications (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33): 313-49. Lisbon: Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia. -2003b. An Aurignacian Garden of Eden in Germany? An alternative interpretation of the Geissenklösterle and a critique of the Kulturpumpe model. Paléo 15: 69-86.
Last updated
About the author
BERJAYA
Katerina Douka
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Faculty Member

My main research interests revolve around the application of scientific methods, especially radiocarbon dating, to the study of prehistoric remains. Following 2 graduate degrees in Archaeological Science (Masters 2005-6, D.Phil. 2006-11) at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology of the University of Oxford, I worked as a post-doc on the AHOB project (http://www.ahobproject.org/) and the PalaeoChron project (http://www.palaeochron.org). Since June 2017, I lead the ERC project "FINDER", its main focus being the discovery on new Denisovan and Neanderthal remains from Pleistocene Asian sites, using peptided fingerprinting as well as ancient DNA, isotopic and chronometric analyses. For further information and updates check my webpage here: www.katerinadouka.com

Papers
48
Followers
829
View all papers from Katerina Doukaarrow_forward

Related papers

Franchthi Cave revisited: the age of the Aurignacian in south-eastern Europe
Catherine Perlès

Antiquity, 2011

The Aurignacian, traditionally regarded as marking the beginnings of Sapiens in Europe, is notoriously hard to date, being almost out of reach of radiocarbon. Here the authors return to the stratified sequence in the Franchthi Cave, chronicle its lithic and shell ornament industries and, by dating humanly-modified material, show that Franchthi was occupied either side of the Campagnian Ignimbrite super-eruption around 40000 years ago. Along with other results, this means that groups of Early Upper Palaeolithic people were active outside the Danube corridor and Western Europe, and probably in contact with each other over long distances.

View PDFchevron_right
Nigst, P.R. et al. (2008) New Research on the Aurignacian of Central Europe: a first note on the 2006 fieldwork at Willendorf II. Quartär. 55:9-15.
Jean-Jacques Hublin

Willendorf II is a key site for understanding the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition in the Middle Danube Region due to the presence of well stratified EUP and Early Aurignacian deposits. Here we report on new excavations at this site by the Willendorf Project. The aim of these excavations is to collect samples for dating and other geoarchaeological analyses, as well as to recover well stratified artefacts for technological and typological analysis. Six weeks of excavation in 2006 resulted in the discovery of the northwestern corner of the 1909 excavation, which allows the precise correlation of the old and modern site plans. The Early Aurignacian Layer 3 could be also relocated, and numerous samples for 14 C and OSL dating, as well as for malacological, micromorphology, microtephra and magnetic susceptibility analyses were collected from the entire stratigraphy. The excavations show that find-bearing areas are still preserved throughout the Willendorf II sequence.

View PDFchevron_right
Le Paléolithique ancien de l’Europe orientale et du Caucase
Vladimir Doronichev
View PDFchevron_right
Dinnis, R. 2015. A survey of northwestern European Aurignacian sites and some comments regarding their potential chrono-cultural significance. In N. Ashton & C. Harris (ed.), No Stone Unturned: Papers in Honour of Roger Jacobi, pp. 59-76. Lithics Studies Society Occasional Paper 9.
Rob Dinnis

Aurignacian assemblages in northwestern Europe, here defined as Britain, Belgium, Luxembourg and France north of c. 47°N, are relatively meagre, most often undated and, in comparison with those farther south, incompletely understood. An overview of published accounts of the region’s Aurignacian sites and material is presented here. Lacking Aurignacian assemblages found in stratigraphic association with one another, the archaeological record for the entire region is presently not conducive to the construction of a chrono-cultural framework built on local evidence. However, the typological variation evident between sites and within some of the larger assemblages clearly has chrono-cultural significance. Here, making explicit reference to the better understood framework farther south, it is suggested that much of this variation may be chronological. Based upon this consideration of lithic evidence, the earliest Aurignacian of the region probably pre-dates the small number of currently published radiocarbon dates. A few thoughts as to the relative prevalence of Recent Aurignacian lithic material are also offered.

View PDFchevron_right
Between the Woods and the Water: The Early Upper Paleolithic from the Romanian Karst
Adrian Dobos

Analele Banatului XXVII 2019, 2019

Romania has thousands of karstic caves in the Carpathian and Dobrudja regions, some of which have yielded important early prehistoric finds including human fossils and cave art. However, despite over a century of exploration and systematic archeological investigations, cave excavations have yet to produce large, well-stratified Pleistocene artifact assemblages that are known in neighboring regions. "is article explores possible reasons for the low number of significant assemblages and discusses the ramifications for the Paleolithic record while making future recommendations for research.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Greek Palaeolithic
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2026 Academia. All rights reserved