K. Douka1∗ , C. Perlès2 , H. Valladas3 , M. Vanhaeren4
& R.E.M. Hedges1
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.
Keywords: Greece, Aurignacian, Upper Palaeolithic, radiocarbon, shell ornaments, lithics
Introduction
Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe continues to present major
methodological challenges, but during the last two decades a suite of technical advances
in radiocarbon dating, such as the development of new pre-treatment protocols (Higham
2011), an internationally-agreed calibration curve which spans 50 000 years BP — IntCal09
(Reimer et al. 2009) — and the application of Bayesian statistics (Bronk Ramsey 2009),
1
2
3
4
∗
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building,
South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
Université Paris Ouest, Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie, Préhistoire et Technologie, 21 Allée de
l’Université, 92023, Nanterre Cedex, France
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE/IPSL), CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Bâtiment 12,
Avenue de la Terrasse, 91198, Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France
CNRS UMR 5199 PACEA, Préhistoire, Paléoenvironment, Patrimoine, Université Bordeaux 1, CNRS, Bât.
B18, Avenue des Facultés, 33405, Talence, France
Author for correspondence (Email:
[email protected])
Received: 21 December 2010; Accepted: 14 March 2011; Revised: 4 April 2011
ANTIQUITY
85 (2011): 1131–1150
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/ant0851131.htm
1131
Research
Franchthi Cave revisited: the age of the
Aurignacian in south-eastern Europe
Franchthi Cave revisited
have prompted new attempts to refine the chronological framework (Bronk Ramsey 2008;
Jöris & Street 2008; Higham 2011).
At the same time, the development of technological approaches on well-stratified
assemblages has led to a much better characterisation and understanding of lithic production
during the different phases of the Aurignacian, particularly in Western and Central Europe
(Bon 2002, 2006; Bordes 2006; Nigst 2006; Teyssandier 2008; Maı́llo-Fernández & de
Quirós 2010).
Taken together, these new perspectives in both radiocarbon dating and lithic studies invite
us to reconsider the Aurignacian at Franchthi Cave, Argolid, Greece, as one of the most
easterly Aurignacian sites in Europe. Its lithic assemblages were first published when the
succession of Aurignacian phases was poorly defined in terms of lithic technology (Perlès
1987), hence a re-assessment is due. In this paper we present a brief re-analysis of the
lithic evidence and publish the first radiocarbon determinations for the earliest part of the
sequence.
Current status of the Aurignacian
Three different Aurignacian industries are now recognised in Europe (Bon 2002, 2006; Le
Brun-Ricalens 2005; Teyssandier 2008). The Protoaurignacian (Aurignacian 0), originally
defined by Laplace (1966), is relatively common in the Mediterranean region (Bazile &
Sicard 1999) but has also been documented in Western and Central Europe (Bon 2002,
2006; Bordes 2006; Tsanova 2006). It has affinities with the early Near Eastern Ahmarian
(Mellars 2006; Zilhão 2006; Teyssandier 2007). The Protoaurignacian is characterised by
the production of blades and long straight bladelets within a single reduction sequence,
usually on pyramidal cores. Organic tools made of bone or ivory are very limited in range
and number (Teyssandier 2008).
The Early Aurignacian (Aurignacian I) can be seen as the founding facies of the Aurignacian
sensu stricto (Teyssandier et al. 2010). It is characterised by the production of blades and
bladelets in two clearly separate reduction sequences. Blades are produced from large flatfaced prismatic cores, while bladelets are produced on what were classically termed carinated
end-scrapers. In the Early Aurignacian, these carinated cores have a wide front and the
debitage is detached towards a central ridge on the upper face. The bladelets are straight or
curved, rarely or only lightly twisted, and rarely retouched. These industries are normally
associated with the emblematic split-based bone point (Knecht 1991; Liolios 2006). It has
recently been suggested that the Early Aurignacian was restricted to south-western Europe
and the Swabian Jura (Teyssandier et al. 2010).
The Evolved Aurignacian (Aurignacian II) also makes use of carinated cores for the
production of bladelets but these have a narrower front and include carinated burins,
carinated end-scrapers and nosed end-scrapers. The bladelets — Dufour bladelets of the
Roc-de-Combe subtype — tend to be smaller and often twisted to the right when viewed
from the upper surface (Chiotti 1999; Bordes & Lenoble 2002; Bordes 2006). In both
Aurignacian I and Aurignacian II, the cores are extensively used and rejuvenated, producing
characteristic rejuvenation flakes and bladelets (Le Brun-Ricalens 2005), which attest to the
presence of this mode of debitage even in the absence of the cores.
1132
Inherent difficulties in the dating of the time period, close to the limits of the
radiocarbon method, make it difficult to establish whether the Protoaurignacian and Early
Aurignacian industries were produced successively or if some chronological overlap should
be expected. At sites where both technocomplexes occur, the Protoaurignacian is always
found stratigraphically below the Early Aurignacian (Teyssandier et al. 2010; Zilhão 2011).
In absolute terms, the former is proposed to date to about 38/36.5–35 ka BP while Early and
Evolved Aurignacian follow on chronologically, from 35/34 ka and 33–30 ka BP, respectively
(Zilhão & d’Errico 2003a; Jöris & Street 2008; Teyssandier et al. 2010; Zilhão 2011). In
south-eastern Mediterranean Europe, Aurignacian industries are rare — Franchthi being
one of the few exceptions — and were thought to appear 10 000 years later than in the rest
of Europe (e.g. Papagianni 2009).
The archaeological context at Franchthi Cave
Franchthi Cave (37◦ 25’20.90′′ N, 23◦ 7’52.73′′ E) is a vast cavity overlooking a nowsubmerged coastal plain, across the bay of Koiladha in south-western Argolid (Figure 1).
Excavated between 1967 and 1979 under the direction of T.W. Jacobsen of Indiana
University, it yielded an exceptionally long archaeological sequence spanning the Upper
Palaeolithic to the end of the Neolithic (Jacobsen & Farrand 1987). The two deepest
trenches FAS and H1B (Farrand 2000) reached a maximum depth of 11.2m in FAS and
9.7m in H1B, at which point the excavated surface had become restricted to less than 2m2 .
Excavation ended in FAS because the water table had been reached and in H1B due to
the presence of large, irremovable limestone boulders. The sediment excavated in each unit
was water-sieved down to a mesh of 1.5mm. The quality of the recovery, which included
systematic water-sieving and flotation of the sediment, has made Franchthi a reference site
for south-eastern Europe. In the present paper, only the lowest and less well-known Upper
Palaeolithic levels (strata P, Q and R) are considered (Figure 2).
The deepest level (stratum P in Figure 2), at least 1.5–2m thick in FAS (FAS 227–224,
plus units 223 and 222 cross-cutting P and Q), was defined as “yellowish red (5YR 4-5/6-8)
clay loam with abundant gravel and rock fragments up to 25 cm across, in and around
much larger limestone blocks” (Farrand 2000: 56). This stratum was only superficially
reached in H1B (units 215–214). There was a poor undiagnostic lithic assemblage (Perlès
1987) and some poorly-preserved mammal bones (Farrand 2000). No carbonised seeds
were present, but very small uncarbonised nutlets of Boraginaceae (Alkanna cf. orientalis,
Lithodora [Lithospermum] arvense and Anchusa sp.), probably wind-blown, were found in
large quantities (Hansen 1991: 104). They reflect a cold and arid climate and a steppic
environment (Hansen 1991).
In both trenches, stratum P is overlain by stratum Q, a unique volcanic tephra layer,
5–9cm thick. It is best preserved in FAS (222–218) where it shows a very sharp lower
contact and appears to be in primary position (Farrand 2000: 56). In H1B (213) it is
scattered and laterally diffused, possibly due to reworking shortly after the initial deposition
(Farrand 2000: 86). The mineral content and thickness of the ash correspond to the
Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) (Vitaliano et al. 1981; Farrand 2000) most probably deriving
from an eruption in the Phlegrean Fields in southern Italy. The lithic assemblage in stratum
1133
Research
K. Douka et al.
Franchthi Cave revisited
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.
Q is characterised as Aurignacian (Perlès 1987). Lepus europaeus and Felis silvestris were the
only mammalian taxa recovered, in very small quantities (Stiner & Munro 2011). The seed
assemblage in stratum Q is identical to that of stratum P.
Stratum R, overlying Q, is 40–150cm thick. In H1B it is found in units 181–212 and in
FAS in units 209–217. The lithostratigraphy of stratum R is very similar to that of stratum
P and consists of very sandy clay loams with gravel and rock fragments deposited on and
between large limestone blocks (Farrand 2000). At the bottom of stratum R, patches of
reworked tephra from stratum Q were identified in both trenches (Farrand 2000). Analysis
of lithics and botanical remains suggests that stratum R comprises two successive and quite
distinct periods (Jacobsen & Farrand 1987; Perlès 1987; Hansen 1991). The lower part of
stratum R yielded a lithic assemblage very similar to that from stratum Q, while the upper
part of stratum R is dominated by Gravettoid backed bladelets and micropoints (Perlès
1987). Mammal remains in trench H1B include mostly Cervus elaphus and Bos primigenius
with some Equus hydruntinus and Sus scrofa (Stiner & Munro 2011). Botanical remains are
again dominated by species of the Boraginaceae family (Hansen 1991). In the upper units
of R the dominant species shifts from Alkanna sp. to Lithospermum arvense (Hansen 1991).
No bone tools were recovered from either trench in either stratum.
The lithic assemblages revisited
The lithic material is unfortunately numerically poor, mainly due to the small size of the
excavations, but diachronic distinctions can now be suggested. Considering the thickness
of stratum P it is unlikely that the restricted lithic assemblage (Table 1) belongs to a
homogeneous archaeological phase. In the deepest level of FAS (unit 227), one flake and
one side-scraper with thick facetted butts suggest that the Middle Palaeolithic had been
reached. Units FAS 226–224 were almost sterile, the few pieces — small flakes under 1cm
1134
Research
K. Douka et al.
Figure 2. a) Longitudinal section of Franchthi Cave; b) plans of excavated trenches; c) profile sections of FAS and HH1
(modified after Farrand 2000).
— may have filtered down in between the roof-collapse blocks. FAS 223 and H1B 215–214
were somewhat richer (76 pieces) but the material, which consists mainly of very small
retouched flakes, is non-diagnostic (Perlès 1987). Despite the now-demonstrated presence
of Uluzzian levels at nearby Klissoura Cave 1 (Koumouzelis et al. 2001), it is impossible to
ascertain whether the technocomplex is also present at Franchthi.
Lithic elements from stratum Q, the tephra layer, have mostly been found in FAS 222–
218, with only nine undiagnostic pieces in H1B 213. The assemblage comprises straight and
curved bladelets of small dimensions, sometimes slightly twisted, together with characteristic
curved and twisted lateral carinated-core rejuvenation flakes (Figure 3). Most of the bladelets
are typical lateral preparation bladelets, while central bladelets are rare, possibly gone from
the site mounted on composite organic points. There is no indication of a distinct production
of larger blades and bladelets from prismatic cores, thus no indication of a Protoaurignacian
component. All of the material is compatible with an Early Aurignacian mode of production,
on carinated cores with a large front, struck axially. The extreme rarity of retouched bladelets
is another characteristic found in Early Aurignacian assemblages.
1135
Table 1. Techno-typological description of the lithic assemblage of Franchthi. The identified archaeological industries are shown (nD = non
diagnostic, AUR = Aurignacian, GRAV = Gravettian) as well as the lithic phases as were originally identified by Perlès (1987).
Unit
Total Curved
Stratum lithics bladelet
P
P
P
P
P
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
R
R
8
3
1
0
13
2
34
150
70
65
>270
> 50
H1B
215
214
213
212
211
210
209
208
207
P
P
Q
R
R
R
R
R
R
36
6
9
10
123
580
12
105
140
2
3
1
3
2
1
13
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
9
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
5
1
1
1
2
2
4
20
6
6
2
6
1
1
4
21
3
8
4
3
1
1 atyp.
nD
nD
nD
nD
nD
nD
AUR
AUR
AUR
AUR
AUR
GRAV
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
nD
nD
nD
AUR
AUR
AUR
AUR
AUR
GRAV
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
Franchthi Cave revisited
1136
FAS
227
226
225
224
223
222
221
220
219
218
217
216
Asymetric
Fragments
Preparation &
Right
Left
strongly twisted of bladelet,
rejuvenation
twisted twisted
bladelet,
indet.
Rectilinear
flake &
Carinated
Lithic
bladelet bladelet
right twist
profile
bladelet
bladelet
core
Industry phase
Research
K. Douka et al.
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; straight
bladelet: n◦ 12; curved bladelets: n◦ 13, 16–19; twisted bladelets: n◦ 14–15.
The assemblage from overlying unit FAS 217 in stratum R differs in the much higher
proportion of straight bladelets, many of which cannot have been produced on carinated
cores. However, this unit also contained a few curved and twisted bladelets, as well as a
characteristic carinated core which confirms the exploitation of relatively large, semi-circular
fronts (Figure 4). Contamination from the immediately overlying Gravettoid industry of
lithic phase II, heavily dominated by single and double backed bladelets, cannot be ruled
out. On the contrary, the assemblage from H1B 212–208 in stratum R is entirely of
typical Aurignacian character (Table 1), and the upper units (H1B 210–208) suggest an
evolution in the mode of production and the morphology of the bladelets (Figures 5 &
6). The occurrence of Aurignacian II elements in the upper H1B units (210–208) cannot
1137
Franchthi Cave revisited
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
H1B 210 (n◦ 2–6).
be definitely established in the absence of completely typical nosed-end carinated cores or
carinated burins. It is suggested, however, by the presence of an atypical carinated-burin
core made on a thin slab rather than a flake, of potential burin spalls from carinated
burins and, especially, of several curved and strongly twisted bladelets, characterised by their
asymmetrical, comma shape and all but one twisted to the right (Table 1). The latter strongly
suggest the exploitation of narrow-fronted cores, typical of Aurignacian II.
1138
Research
K. Douka et al.
Figure 5. Lithic elements from stratum R, units FAS 217 (n◦ 3), H1B 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.
Ornamental shells
The smaller fractions of the sieved residues in all three strata revealed numerous abraded
microshells, predominantly Bittium sp. (Shackleton 1988), as well as small apical fragments
of Dentalium sp. and fragments of other typical ornamental and non-ornamental shell
species. In addition, larger fragments of Dentalium sp., of the usual size for Palaeolithic
beads, as well as shells of Cyclope sp. and Homalopoma sanguineum were recently identified
1139
Franchthi Cave revisited
Figure 6. Shell samples of Franchthi selected for radiocarbon dating.
in all Early Upper Palaeolithic strata of the site (Perlès & Vanhaeren 2010), including the
tephra layer itself (Table 2).
The eight shell samples selected for dating (Table 3, Figure 6) include four Dentalium sp.,
two Cyclope neritea and two Homalopoma sanguineum shells. One Dentalium sp. shell (Fra 5,
stratum R) bears nine heavy longitudinal striae and could correspond to the modern Atlantic
species Dentalium novemcostatum, the Mediterranean Dentalium mutabile inaequicostatum
or to a fossil species (Poppe & Goto 1993). The three other Dentalium sp. shells are smooth
and difficult to identify to species level. All four Dentalium sp. are tubular portions of
originally larger shells. The straight regular fracture on both ends of Fra 5 and on the widest
end of Fra 10 (stratum P) suggests intentional snapping to produce tubular beads (Figure 7).
The remaining end morphologies are irregular and common on Dentalium sp. shells collected
from the beach (Vanhaeren & d’Errico 2001). One C. neritea (Fra 1, stratum R) and one
H. sanguineum (Fra 6, stratum Q) bear a perforation on their last spiral whorl. The second
H. sanguineum shell (Fra 3, stratum R) is not perforated while the remaining fragmentary
Cyclope sp. (Fra 8, stratum Q) could have been perforated but post-depositional damage
does not allow diagnosis.
Radiocarbon dating
Nine new radiocarbon dates were produced from the eight shell specimens, and two
from charcoal samples. The shells were dated in Oxford (UK) using the ORAU routine
1140
K. Douka et al.
Unit
Stratum
FAS
227
226
225
224
223
222
221
220
219
218
217
216
P
P
P
P
P
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
R
R
H1B
215
214
213
212
211
210
209
208
207
P
P
Q
R
R
R
R
R
R
Cyclope sp.
Homalopoma
sanguineum
Dentalium sp.
d > 3mm (NT)
2
2 nP
2 ind.
1 nP, 6 ind.
6 nP, 9 ind.
1 P, 1 nP, 3 ind.
1 nP, 2 ind.
1 P, 1 ind.
1 ind.
8 ind.
1 ind.
2
2
2
1P
4
1 ind.
1 nP, 1 ind.
1 nP, 4 ind.
1 P, 1 nP, 1 ind.
1 P, 1 nP, 1 ind.
1 ind.
1P
3
1
1
1
Dentalium sp.
d < 3mm (NT)
2
3
1
9
6
9
3
2
4
1
4
3
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
6
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 for
post-mortem recrystallisation — one of the major hindrances in the reliable dating of marine
carbonates — using high-precision X-Ray diffraction (XRD). Such mineralogical analysis
revealed no recrystallisation. The two charcoal samples were dated at the Gif Laboratory
(France). FRA 1 from FAS 217 was a charcoal sample dated using the routine Acid-BaseAcid protocol, while FRA 2, from FAS 221, underwent a more rigorous cleaning protocol
(ABOx). The latter was a compact fragment of black matter, which was shown 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, therefore, remains
uncertain.
The results are shown in Table 3 along with the calibrated ranges obtained using IntCal09
and Marine09 calibration curves (Reimer et al. 2009). For the shell samples, in addition to
the constant marine reservoir of 400 14 C years, we corrected for the local Mediterranean
14
reservoir (R=58+
−85 C years; Reimer & McCormac 2002). The CI tephra, stratum
Q in Franchthi, had been previously dated by 40 Ar/39 Ar to 39280+
−55 calendar years BP
1141
Research
Table 2. Ornamental shell species from strata P, Q and lower units only of stratum R.
P = perforated, nP = not perforated, ind. = indeterminate whether perforated or not,
NT = natural perforation (tube morphology).
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.
Raw radiocarbon date (BP)
Calibrated date (cal BP)
68.2%
ID
21069
20615
20616
21070
22270
Dupl.
20253
21351
21115
GifA/SacA
80104/11206
09381/15334
14
C
23510
32110
35600
41080
29780
30580
34980
26910
30410
14
C
32110
33250
+
−
Stratum
Unit
Shell species (perforation)
from
to
from
90
200
250
390
160
160
220
120
160
+
−
R
R
P
R
Q
Q
Q
P
P
Stratum
R
Q
H1B 203
H1B 210
H1B 215
FAS 217
FAS 218
FAS 218
FAS 222
FAS 224
FAS 226
Unit
FAS 217
FAS 221
Cyclope sp. (P)
Homalopoma sanguineum (nP)
Dentalium (NT)
Dentalium (NT)
Homalopoma sanguineum (P)
Homalopoma sanguineum (P)
Cyclope sp.(ind.)
Dentalium (NT)
Dentalium (NT)
Material
Charcoal
Calcite crystals?
28090
36550
40870
44800
34470
34890
39950
31180
34810
27720
35590
39960
44160
33660
34620
39040
30980
34540
28440
36650
41060
45190
34580
35070
40330
31270
35040
27020
35300
39370
43780
33400
34520
38810
30830
34110
37000
38610
36320
37410
37640
38890
35520
36810
330
420
to
Franchthi Cave revisited
1142
Shells
Fra 1
Fra 3
Fra 4
Fra 5
Fra 6
Fra 6
Fra 8
Fra 9
Fra10
Other
FRA1
FRA2
OxA
95.4%
(De Vivo et al. 2001), the date used in
Figure 8. Nonetheless, we should note that
a larger error for this determination, in the
region of five per cent of the CI age, would
appear more sensible.
The upper units of stratum R are
also associated with two radiocarbon dates
obtained in the 1970s: P–2233: 21480+
−
350 BP on soil and carbonised matter from
H1B 191–192, and I–6140: 22330+
−1270
BP for a sample composed of charcoal
and sediment from H1A 219 (Jacobsen &
Farrand 1987).
Discussion
The shell dates from H1B are in chronostratigraphic sequence (Figure 8). After
calibration, OxA-20616, on a Dentalium
sp. shell found in stratum P (H1B 215)
about 10–20cm beneath the tephra, gives
an age consistent with the calendar age
of the CI, pre-dating it by about 500–
1500 calendar years. OxA-20615 is also in
agreement with the stratigraphic position of
the H. sanguineum shell in the lower units
of stratum R (H1B 210) and about 20cm
above the tephra. The age fits the suggestion
of an Evolved Aurignacian (Aurignacian
II) and, from a palaeoclimatic point of
view, it falls on the last part of the long
and warm GI–8 (NGRIP record; Svensson
Figure 7. Macrophotos illustrating state of preservation
and distinct features of the dated shells. Scale bars within
et al. 2006). This also agrees well with the
macrophotos are 100μm.
suggestion put forward by Stiner & Munro
(2011) who, based on the dominance of red
deer in units H1B 212–209, assigned their
formation to relatively mild, moist conditions. OxA-21069 from stratum R (H1B 203)
also agrees well with the associated backed-bladelet assemblage of Gravettoid affinities and
with a previous radiocarbon date from sub-trench H1A 219 (I–6140), roughly equivalent
to H1B 201 (Farrand 2000: 45). Higher up the sequence, the previous determination
(P–233) from H1B 191–192, provides a rough terminus ante quem for the formation of
stratum R and all available dates suggest a large span of at least 10 000 radiocarbon years
for it. A depositional hiatus was not identified during excavation but is clearly indicated
by the very rapid transformation of the lithic and botanical assemblages between H1B 208
1143
Research
K. Douka et al.
Franchthi Cave revisited
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 δ 18 O record (Svensson
et al. 2006), and the Greenland interstadials are numbered.
1144
and 207, as well as the internal span of radiocarbon dates. Overall, trench H1B reveals
excellent stratigraphic consistency and coherence between sample position, tephra layer and
radiocarbon determinations.
The shell dates from trench FAS are less consistent. Only one, OxA-20253, on a
fragmentary Cyclope sp. shell, is compatible with the position of the sample within
stratum Q. This is a critical date that closely overlaps with the accepted age of the
CI. If the deposition of the shell predates the ash fall, then it provides evidence that
the site was indeed occupied around the time of the eruption. This is comparable
to other Mediterranean sites, for example Castelcivita and Serino in southern Italy
(Accorsi et al. 1979; Gambassini 1997). If it post-dates it, marginally as the date
suggests, then it refutes scenarios for catastrophic effects of the CI super-eruption
on southern Mediterranean hominid populations (Fedele et al. 2008), at least at
Franchthi.
The five remaining shell dates from FAS do not agree with the position of the samples.
OxA-21070, on a Dentalium sp. shell from the lowermost unit of stratum R is too old
for its context just above the CI. While post-depositional incorporation into younger
layers cannot be excluded, the simplest explanation is that the shell is an old, semi-fossil
shell collected from local beaches or other nearby locations, where Dentalium sp. shells
are still present today (Shackleton 1988). The two dates made on the same perforated
H. sanguineum shell from stratum Q (OxA-22270 and its duplicate) appear statistically
different (T=12.45, χ 2 1;0.05 =3.84) but they overlap significantly when calibrated. Both
determinations, as well as the ones obtained on two Dentalium shells from stratum P (OxA21351 and OxA-21115) are very young with respect to their position within or below
the tephra layer, and underestimate the age of the respective layers by several thousand
years.
The chrono-stratigraphic discrepancy revealed by the shell dates from FAS, although
disappointing, does not come as a total surprise. The trench contained numerous large
boulders in P, Q and R and it is likely that younger shell material, from the middle/upper
units of stratum R, became incorporated in lower strata P and Q either as a result of postdepositional movement caused or influenced by the collapse of roof-blocks or, possibly,
during excavation in the course of the removal of these large boulders to access lower
levels. The sedimentation rate of strata P and R has been calculated to be remarkably low
(Farrand 2000) and 10–20cm downward displacement of small-sized shells can account
for the age difference observed in our radiocarbon dates. It should be noted, however, that
except for unit FAS 217, the lithic assemblages from strata Q and P do not indicate
mixing with material from the Gravettoid assemblages found in the upper units of
stratum R.
In support of this, the dates on terrestrial material from FAS are more coherent. The
charcoal sample from FAS 217 in stratum R was dated at 32 ka BP (GifA 80104/SacA
11206), which is in agreement with an Aurignacian II attribution. The second date
(GifA09381/SacA 15334) obtained on calcium carbonate grains from a black fragment
collected within the tephra (FAS 221) is consistent with a slightly post-eruption CI age.
However, given that the composition of the sample is uncertain, this date must be treated
with extreme caution.
1145
Research
K. Douka et al.
Franchthi Cave revisited
Conclusions
Despite the inconsistencies mentioned above, the new radiocarbon determinations, some
of which directly relate to the CI tephra horizon, extend the occupation of Franchthi Cave
securely back into the Early Upper Palaeolithic period. They confirm that the site was occupied sporadically before and shortly after the CI ash fall (35 ka BP or 40–39 ka cal BP) and for
at least the following three millennia. Whereas the lithic assemblage below the tephra cannot
be assigned to a specific technocomplex, the lithic assemblages from the tephra units indicate
clear Early Aurignacian affinities. At the bottom of stratum R and slightly above the ash
deposit, units H1B 212 and 211 contain identical material also of Early Aurignacian
character, while in units H1B 210–208, the relative abundance of strongly twisted bladelets
accords with the definition of the Evolved Aurignacian, as recently reassessed (Chiotti 1999;
Bon 2002; Bordes 2006). The new determinations at 32 ka BP (c. 36 ka cal BP) also agree
with this. The ornamental shell species from strata P, Q and R (Cyclope sp., Homalopoma
sp. and Dentalium sp.) are common ornamental taxa in Aurignacian, be it Proto-, Early or
Evolved Aurignacian assemblages around the Mediterranean (Vanhaeren & d’Errico 2006,
2007).
The temporal extension of the Upper Palaeolithic assemblage in Franchthi Cave is all
the more important given that a recently excavated neighbouring site, Klissoura Cave 1
(Figure 1), yielded a rich Early Upper Palaeolithic sequence and is associated with a large
number of dates. Unfortunately many of these are problematic (Koumouzelis et al. 2001;
Kuhn et al. 2010). At this site, the earliest Upper Palaeolithic stratum, layer V, has been
dated between 40 and 34.5 ka BP (Koumouzelis et al. 2001; Douka unpublished data) and
is considered to have Uluzzian affinities, a transitional industry of south-western Europe
that has been traditionally considered the product of Neanderthals (Palma di Cesnola 1989;
Peresani 2008) although based on very limited and questionable data. Interestingly enough,
in Klissoura Cave 1, just as in Cavallo Cave (Italy), the Uluzzian disappears around the
time of the CI eruption when it is directly capped by a macro/micro-tephra layer (Palma
di Cesnola 1963; Stiner et al. 2010), most likely to be the CI. In other cases, however, the
CI seals industries described as Protoaurignacian, for example at Serino and Castelcivita
(Italy) (Accorsi et al. 1979; Gambassini 1997). The earliest Aurignacian at Klissoura Cave 1
follows in layers IV–IIIg–a (Koumouzelis et al. 2001; Kuhn et al. 2010) starting at around
33 ka BP (c. 37–38 ka cal BP), a couple of millennia later than in Franchthi.
Greece is no longer a terra incognita during the Aurignacian and the addition of Franchthi
and Klissoura Cave 1 essentially allows the Greek sites to be brought into the wider discussion
regarding the transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic. The re-analyses of the lithic
component and the direct dating of perforated shells and charcoals at Franchthi suggest that
the succession of Aurignacian I and II industries at the site echoes that previously identified
in other parts of Europe. Greece, therefore, can no longer be viewed as a backwater, isolated
from the main Danubian corridor (Mellars 2006) and where the Aurignacian appeared
with a ten millennia delay (Papagianni 2009). Instead, our results indicate that the Early
Aurignacian is of comparable antiquity in Eastern and in Western Europe (contra Bar-Yosef
et al. 2006; Teyssandier 2008) suggesting that its occurrence in stratified contexts may not
be as “sparse and equivocal” outside south-west Europe and the Swabia Jura as recently
1146
proposed (Teyssandier et al. 2010: 216). This is further supported by the presence of
Aurignacian-like assemblages at the Kostenki-Borschevo sites in Russia, embedded in the CI
(Sinitsyn 2003) — as they are at Franchthi —also dated at c. 35 ka BP (Douka et al. 2010b).
The new chronometric evidence for the Early and Evolved Aurignacian at the key site of
Abri Pataud, Dordogne, France, is also comparable to that from Franchthi (Higham et al. in
press). Similarly, in Isturitz (south-western French Pyrenees), a radiocarbon determination
(GifA 98237: 34630+
−560 BP) most likely related to the Early Aurignacian layer C4b, is
identical to ours from Franchthi. Dates of c. 37 ka BP obtained recently from layer C4c
in Isturitz almost certainly relate to a pre-Early Aurignacian phase at the site (Szmidt et
al. 2010). Nonetheless, some determinations for the Early Aurignacian layers AH III in
Geißenklösterle (Conard & Bolus 2003) and cultural layer 3 in Willendorf II (Nigst 2006)
may indeed give a hint of a pre-35 ka BP manifestation of the Early Aurignacian along the
Danube fluvial corridor. This remains to be proved (see discussions in Zilhão & d’Errico
2003b and Jöris & Street 2008).
Taken together, this tight range of dates for the earliest Early Aurignacian, in areas from
Western Europe to the Don Valley and southern Greece, implies that the search for a centre
of emergence for the Early Aurignacian might be in vain (Zilhão & d’Errico 2003b) or
difficult to achieve. New modes of technological adaptation, such as the production from
carinated cores of thin bladelets probably used as lateral inserts on organic points (Bon
2009), appear to have spread rapidly on the basis of these dates. Whether this was achieved
by direct contact between groups over wide-ranging exchange networks, now well-identified
through the study of Aurignacian raw materials (Féblot-Augustins 1997, 2009) and personal
ornaments (Vanhaeren & d’Errico 2006), or was mainly the result of demic diffusion, is
difficult to ascertain. In the former case, bladelet production on carinated cores as well
as the correlated split-base organic point, the hallmarks of traditional definitions of the
Aurignacian, would actually appear as poor ethnic or cultural markers and reflect, above all,
a shared idea of weaponry, well-adapted to an increased mobility among hunter-gatherer
groups.
Acknowledgements
We warmly thank Jacques Pelegrin for the enlightening discussions concerning the lithic assemblages, the 4th
Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of the Greek Ministry of Culture for sampling permissions,
Christophe Moreau for the AMS measurements on Artémis (CEA, Saclay, France) and Ludovic Mevel for
preparing the lithic illustrations. T.F.G. Higham provided insightful comments on several versions of the
manuscript and is kindly thanked. The shell radiocarbon dates were funded by an NRCF grant (NF/2008/2/2)
to R.E.M. Hedges and K. Douka. The ornament studies were funded by a grant from the INSTAP and from
the ANR (ANR-06-Blan-0273). We would also like to acknowledge helpful suggestions from three anonymous
reviewers and Martin Carver’s invaluable contribution.
References
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.
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.
1147
Research
K. Douka et al.
Franchthi Cave revisited
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 française.
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 française 29). Paris: Société
préhistorique française.
– 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.
– 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.
BORDES, J-G. & A. LENOBLE. 2002. La lamelle
Caminade: un nouvel outil aurignacien? Bulletin de
la Société préhistorique française 99(4): 735–49.
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.
BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2008. Radiocarbon dating:
revolutions in understanding. Archaeometry 50(2):
249–75.
– 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates.
Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–60.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FARRAND, W.R. 2000. Depositional history of Franchthi
Cave: stratigraphology, sedimentologyy and chronology
(Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 12).
Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.
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.
– 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.
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.
GAMBASSINI, P. (ed.) 1997. Il Paleolitico di Castelcivita:
culture e ambiente (Materiae 5). Napoli: Electa
Napoli.
HANSEN, J.M. 1991. The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi
Cave (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 7).
Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.
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.
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.
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.
JÖRIS, 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.
KNECHT, H. 1991. Technological innovation and
design during the Early Upper Palaeolithic: a study
of organic projectile technologies. Unpublished
PhD dissertation, New York University.
1148
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.
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.
LAPLACE, G. 1966. Recherches sur l’origine et l’évolution
des complexes leptolithiques. Paris: de Boccard.
LE BRUN-RICALENS, F. (ed.) 2005. Productions
lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien. Chaı̂nes
opératoires et perpectives technoculturelles.
Luxembourg: Musée national d’histoire et d’art.
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.
MAÍLLO-FERNÁNDEZ, J.M. & F.B. DE QUIRÓS. 2010.
L’Aurignacien archaı̈que de la grotte El Castillo
(Espagne): caractérisation technologique et
typologique. L’Anthropologie 114: 1–25.
MELLARS, P. 2006. Archeology and the dispersal of
modern humans in Europe: deconstructing the
Aurignacian. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 167–82.
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.
PALMA DI CESNOLA, A. 1963. Prima campagna di scavi
nella Grotta del Cavallo presso Santa Caterina
(Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 18: 41–74.
– 1989. L’Uluzzien: faciès Italien du leptolithique
archaı̈que. L’Anthropologie 93: 783–812.
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.
PERESANI, M. 2008. A new cultural frontier for the last
Neanderthals: the Uluzzian in northern Italy.
Current Anthropology 49: 725–31.
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.
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.
POPPE, G.T. & Y. GOTO. 1993. European seashells,
Volume 2. Wiesbaden: Christa Hemmen.
REIMER, P.J. & F.M. MCCORMAC. 2002. Marine
radiocarbon reservoir corrections for the
Mediterranean and Aegean Seas. Radiocarbon 44(1):
159–66.
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.
SHACKLETON, J.C. (with M.R. DEITH & N.J.
SHACKLETON). 1988. Marine molluscan remains
from Franchthi Cave. Bloomington (IN): Indiana
University Press.
SINITSYN, A.A. 2003. A Palaeolithic Pompeii at
Kostenki, Russia. Antiquity 77: 9–14.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1149
Research
K. Douka et al.
Franchthi Cave revisited
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.
– 2008. Revolution or evolution? The emergence of the
Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. World Archaeology 40:
493–519.
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.
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.
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.
– 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of
Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of
Archaeological Science 33(8): 1105–1128.
– 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.
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.
ZILHÃO, J. 2006. Neandertals and modern mixed, and
it matters. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 183–95.
– 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.
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.
1150