Academic literature on the topic 'Aurignacien – Europe'

Research in the Altai region of central Asia is attempting to establish the development and expansion of the Aurignacian to Europe and the Caucasus. New sites and early dates provide important new data on this key question about the emergence of modern humans in Eurasia.

Two speleothem stable isotope records from East-Central Europe demonstrate that Greenland Stadial 12 (GS12) and GS10—at 44.3–43.3 and 40.8–40.2 ka—were prominent intervals of cold and arid conditions. GS12, GS11, and GS10 are coeval with a regional pattern of culturally (near-)sterile layers within Europe’s diachronous archeologic transition from Neanderthals to modern human Aurignacian. Sterile layers coeval with GS12 precede the Aurignacian throughout the middle and upper Danube region. In some records from the northern Iberian Peninsula, such layers are coeval with GS11 and separate the Châtelperronian from the Aurignacian. Sterile layers preceding the Aurignacian in the remaining Châtelperronian domain are coeval with GS10 and the previously reported 40.0- to 40.8-ka cal BP [calendar years before present (1950)] time range of Neanderthals’ disappearance from most of Europe. This suggests that ecologic stress during stadial expansion of steppe landscape caused a diachronous pattern of depopulation of Neanderthals, which facilitated repopulation by modern humans who appear to have been better adapted to this environment. Consecutive depopulation–repopulation cycles during severe stadials of the middle pleniglacial may principally explain the repeated replacement of Europe’s population and its genetic composition.

The Yafteh cave in Iran has an intact Aurignacian sequence over 2m deep. First explored by Frank Hole and Kent Flannery in the 1960s, its strata and assemblage are here re-evaluated at first hand by a new international team. The authors show that the assemblage is genuine Aurignacian and dates back to about 35.5K uncal BP. They propose it as emerging locally and even as providing a culture of origin for modern humans in West Asia and Europe.

Abstract. Eine neue Datierungsmethocle mit dem Beschleuniger - AMS - hat der 14C-Methode zusammen mit der Kalibration weit in das Jungpleistozän hinein neue Möglichkeiten eröffnet. Eine Reihe Proben aus südwestdeutschen jungpaläolithischen Fundstellen, vor allem Geißenklösterle und Hohle Fels wurden damit datiert. Fuldas Aurignacien und das Gravettien stellen sich erhebliche Abweichungen gegenüber den bisherigen Ansätzen heraus, die jedoch anderen neueren Datierungen in Europa entsprechen. Demnach beginnt das ältere Jungpaläolithikum mit dem Protoaurignacien um 40 ka, das „mittlere" Aurignacien mit Geschoßspitzen mit gespaltener Basis ist um 36 ka und das Gravettien ist zwischen 29 und 27 ka anzusetzen. Besiedlungsgeschichtlich und in bezug auf die Quartärchronologie hat das Konsequenzen für die Verbreitung des Homo sapiens sapiens nach Europa. Das Magdalénien hingegen bleibt in dem bisherigen zeitlichen Rahmen. Eine zweite Serie von AMS-Daten soll aber diese Ergebnisse überprüfen.

AbstractThe northern Carpathian Basin has important geological, paleoenvironmental, and archeological records that are key to our understanding of the first modern human occupation of Europe. However, the nature and timing of hominin settlements in the region during the Late Pleistocene remain poorly understood. New fieldwork at Seňa I, Slovakia, has identified the only known stratified open-air Aurignacian site in the region and assigned the assemblage to at least 33.5 ± 2.4 ka ago through infrared-stimulated luminescence dating. Additionally, new archeological and geoscientific data are presented. This paper discusses the Seňa I findings in the context of the regional archeological record and shows how they contribute to the establishment of clear time constraints for the Aurignacian in eastern central Europe.

Western Europe is often used as the basis from which to understand the Aurignacian of other regions. For some there is good inter-regional chronocultural agreement, whereas others see significant difference. One region frequently argued to differ is the Swabian Jura (southern Germany). In a recent contribution to this issue Bataille and Conard (2018) describe the Aurignacian assemblage from Layer IV of Hohle Fels. They convincingly outline important similarities with the Western European Late Aurignacian. However, they also argue that it is older than, and different from, the most comparable Western European assemblages, and therefore that it contradicts an Aurignacian chronocultural framework built on Western European evidence. Here we assess this claim, focusing on the sites used by Bataille and Conard in their comparison. Radiocarbon dates for Hohle Fels IV of 33–30,000 uncal bp are no older than dates for Western European Late Aurignacian assemblages. Most of the features of Hohle Fels IV argued to demonstrate its dissimilarity are, in fact, evident in the Western European Late Aurignacian. One potential difference is the reported absence from Hohle Fels IV of microblades with inverse/alternate retouch. However, due to the near absence of laterally retouched microblades and uncertainty over whether the fine fraction has been searched we doubt the significance of this observation. Other recent publications have similarly suggested that the Western European chronocultural model is incompatible with other regions. In light of this we consider Eastern Europe. Despite some difference, reliable data point to the pene-contemporaneity of characteristic bladelet/microblade technologies between the two regions, a pattern that stratigraphies from sites across Europe are also consistent with. The biggest complicating factor is radiocarbon dating, which has created a culturally complex picture that is inconsistent with all chronostratigraphic data. We therefore offer some thoughts as to the use of radiocarbon dates for this period. Despite ongoing problems dates are still frequently presented with an unwarranted confidence in their accuracy. Their presentation should instead explicitly acknowledge the method’s fallibility and its inferiority to more reliable evidence such as chronostratigraphic patterning and tephra. When radiocarbon dates contradict a consistent chronostratigraphic picture the burden of proof falls to those arguing the dates’ veracity. In these cases, the reasons for the discrepancy between the radiocarbon and chronostratigraphic records require exploration.

Cette thèse porte sur une révision des productions lithiques associées aux premières phases de l'Aurignacien en Europe centrale et dans les Balkans. Les débuts de l'Aurignacien ont toujours été interprétés comme l'expansion des hommes anatomiquement modernes en Europe et l'on supposait que leur introduction s'était produite par les Balkans, avant de diffuser vers l'ouest. L'analyse des productions lithiques montre que les débuts de l'Aurignacien ne sont pas homogènes en Europe centrale et dans les Balkans : deux techno-complexes peuvent être délimités et comparés aux manifestations de l'Europe occidentale : l'Aurignacien ancien d'une part, le Proto-Aurignacien d'autre part. Une autre entité, le Bachokirien, pressentie comme une origine de l'Aurignacien, s'en écarte radicalement. Par conséquent, émerge une vision différente des processus d'expansion d'Homo sapiens sapiens en Europe
This dissertation presents a revision of lithic productions associated to the initial phases of the Aurignacian in Central Europe and the Balkans. The earliest Aurignacian has always been equated with the diffusion from the Balkans to the West of anatomically modern humans in Europe. The analysis of lithic industries indicates that the first Aurignacian is not homogeneous in Central Europe and the Balkans. Two entities are delimited and compared to west-european manifestations : the Early Aurignacian and the Proto-Aurignacian. An other entity, the Bachokirian, differs more radically. Main results underscore major differences between Central European and Balkanic sequences, which may prove relevant to questions concerning the origin and spread of the Aurignacian in Europe

Le Gravettien (34-24 ka) est largement considéré comme le dernier technocomplexe paneuropéen avant la fragmentation régionale de la population à la suite du dernier maxima glaciaire. Il a été démontré que les ornements personnels sont de puissants indicateurs du statut social et de l'appartenance culturelle. Jusqu'à présent, les ornements personnels omniprésents dans les sites d'occupation et de sépulture caractérisant le Gravettien n'ont pas encore fait l'objet d'une étude approfondie. L'objectif principal de la thèse était de documenter la variabilité des associations de types de perles et d'identifier les mécanismes à l'origine de cette diversité à l'échelle régionale et européenne au cours du Gravettien. La réalisation de cet objectif a ouvert la voie au second objectif : l'étude de la géographie culturelle des communautés gravettiennes. Dans un premier temps, nous proposons une analyse approfondie des nombreuses parures provenant d'un site funéraire clé du Gravettien, Cro-Magnon (Dordogne, France). Ensuite, nous avons créé une base de données géoréférencée représentative des parures du Gravettien, comprenant 164 types provenant de plus de 130 sites à travers l'Europe, et nous l'avons analysée à l'aide de méthodes statistiques multivariées et spatiales, telles que l'analyse des coordonnées principales (PCoA), le Neighbour-joining, le Neighbour-net, la sériation et les corrélations et corrélogrammes de Mantel. Nous avons ensuite comparé et mis en contraste les parures du Gravettien avec celles de l'Aurignacien précédent en utilisant des analyses similaires afin d'étudier s'il existait une continuité entre ces deux technocomplexes. L'analyse des parures trouvées à Cro-Magnon a révélé l'existence de vastes réseaux d'échange à travers le continent. Malgré des similitudes avec les parures d'autres groupes voisins de Dordogne, les parures de Cro-Magnon présentent un caractère distinctif, c'est-à-dire peu, plutôt que beaucoup, de pendentifs en ivoire décorés et beaucoup, plutôt que peu, d'ornements en coquillages, ce qui souligne le désir de ce peuple d'affirmer son identité unique dans un contexte symbolique plus large. Le recalibrage de la seule date radiocarbone disponible pour ce site suggère qu'une campagne de datation plus étendue est nécessaire pour attribuer chronologiquement ce site emblématique avec précision. L'analyse de la base de données du Gravettien européenne révèle que ce technocomplexe était divisé en neuf groupes qui portaient des associations de types de perles différentes, organisées d'ouest en est. Alors que les groupes gravettiens de l'est de l'Europe 10 portaient des parures principalement en ivoire, en pierre et en dents de mammifères carnivores, les groupes de l'ouest avaient tendance à porter des perles fabriquées à partir de coquillages marins et de dents de mammifères herbivores. Il a été démontré que les différences observées dans les associations de types de perles n'étaient pas uniquement dues à l'isolement par la distance. Nous en avons conclu qu'un sentiment d'appartenance culturelle dictait les types de parures portés par les différents groupes de Gravettiens. Les sites d'inhumation et d'occupation se caractérisent par des schémas distincts d'associations de parures. La différence observée entre les groupes d'inhumation était plus importante que la différence entre les groupes d'occupation. La comparaison des parures du Gravettien et de l'Aurignacien a révélé des similitudes frappantes entre les deux technocomplexes en termes de choix de parures. Le Gravettien se caractérise par des régions d'associations de parures similaires, dont la surface est plus de dix fois supérieure à celle de l'Aurignacien et qui sont plus interconnectées que ces dernières. Les types de parures entièrement sculptés dans des matériaux osseux et lithiques marquent mieux le fossé culturel entre ces deux technocomplexes que ceux produits à partir de formes naturelles minimalement modifiées
The Gravettian (34–24 ka) is widely considered as the final Pan-European technocomplex before the regional fragmentation of the population following the Last Glacial Maxima. Personal ornaments have been shown to be powerful indicators of social status and cultural affiliation. Hitherto, the ubiquitous personal ornaments found in occupation and burial sites characterising the Gravettian have yet to be the subject of a comprehensive study. The primary aim of the PhD was to document the variability in bead-type associations and identify the mechanisms driving this diversity at both regional and European scales during the Gravettian period. Achieving this paved the way for the second aim: investigating the cultural geography of Gravettian communities. We first provide an in-depth analysis of the numerous personal ornaments coming from a key Gravettian funerary site, Cro-Magnon (Dordogne, France). Subsequently, we created a representative georeferenced bead database of Gravettian personal ornaments encompassing 164 types coming from over 130 sites across Europe and analyse it using multivariate and spatial statistical methods, such as principal coordinates analysis (PCoA), Neighbour-joining, Neighbour-net, seriation and Mantel correlations and correlograms. We then proceeded to compare and contrast the Gravettian personal ornaments with those coming from the preceding Aurignacian using similar analyses in addition to k-means clustering, perMANOVA and Archaeological Similarity Networks to investigate whether continuity existed between these two technocomplexes. Analysis of the personal ornaments found at Cro-Magnon revealed the existence of extensive exchange networks across the continent. Despite sharing similarities with ornaments from other nearby groups in Dordogne, the Cro-Magnon ornaments exhibit a distinctiveness, i.e., a small, rather than large, number of decorated ivory pendants and a large, rather than small, number of shell ornaments, that highlights this people’s desire to assert their unique identity within a broader symbolic context. The recalibration of the only available radiocarbon date for this site suggests that a more extensive dating campaign is necessary to chronologically attribute this iconic site accurately. The analysis of the European-scale Gravettian database reveals that this technocomplex was split into nine groups who wore different bead-type associations which were organized in an east-west cline across Europe. Whereas Gravettian groups from the east of Europe wore personal ornaments predominantly fashioned from ivory, stone and mammal carnivore teeth, groups from the west tended to wear beads made from 8 marine shells and mammal herbivore teeth. The observed differences in bead-type associations were shown to not be solely due to Isolation-by-Distance. From this we concluded that a sense of cultural belonging dictated the personal ornament types different groups of Gravettian people wore. Burial and occupation sites were characterised by distinct patterns of personal ornament associations. The observed difference between burial groups was higher than the difference between occupation groups. The comparison of the Gravettian and Aurignacian databases unveiled stark similarities in terms of personal ornament choices between the two technocomplexes. The Gravettian was characterised by regions of similar personal ornament associations which had over ten times the surface area and which were more interconnected than those of the Aurignacian. Personal ornaments types fully carved out of osseous and lithic material better marked the cultural divide between these two technocomplexes than those produced from minimally modified natural forms

Since their initial discovery in the nineteenth century, human figurines have formed a noticeable part of the artistic record of the 30,000 years of the European Upper Palaeolithic. Some figurines—particularly the ‘Venuses’ of the Mid-Upper Palaeolithic (Gravettian sensu lato)—have long served as icons of Upper Palaeolithic cultural achievement. This chapter reviews our current understanding of figurines of western and North Central Europe. Their first manifestation is with a few enigmatic examples during the Early Upper Palaeolithic (Aurignacian) of southwest Germany. A far more visible and geographically widespread manifestation comes with the Mid-Upper Palaeolithic Venus figurines, and a similarly widespread occurrence comes with the highly schematic side-profile outlines of the Gönnersdorf type, which belong to the Middle and Late Magdalenian. The history of interpretation and current thinking of these figurine horizons is discussed in this chapter, which should be read in conjunction with Chapter 30 (Farbstein).

This chapter is dedicated to the lithic traditions. It analyzes the pre-cultural cores and flakes produced by chimpanzees for cracking nuts and the evidence of their using bones as tools. Next, the chapter describes the first lithic tradition (Mode 1 or Oldowan), the transition from Mode 1 to 2 (Acheulean culture), and the process for producing the first Acheulean tool, the biface. Mode 2 dispersal separates, by means of the “Movius line,” the localities in Africa, Europe, and Western Asia, which display bifaces, and those in Eastern Asia, which lack them. The cultural use of fire precedes the transition from Mode 2 to Mode 3 (Mousterian). The description of the Mousterian culture and the transition to Mode 4 (Aurignacian) raise the issue of the human “modern mind.” The transition from the Middle Stone Age to the African Late Stone Age ends this chapter.

Abstract Recent research in the Central Balkans is discovering multiple human occupations previously unknown from the region, revealing its strategical location within Europe for human populations dispersing towards Central and Western Europe during the Pleistocene. Šalitrena Pećina (Serbia) contains evidence of late Neanderthal and early anatomically modern human (AMH) presence during the mid-to-late MIS 3. A Bayesian model of the radiocarbon dates, combined with the zooarchaeological and stable isotope analyses of the macromammals and technological analysis of the bone tools, provides new insight into subsistence strategies achieved by late Neanderthals and Aurignacian and Gravettian groups at the site. The results reveal diverse residential and short-temporal use of the cave by both human species. Bone tools show intensive use of the carcasses consumed for daily tools. The first evidence of Aurignacian and Gravettian bone industries in Serbia are presented here. Carnivores played a significant role after humans left the site. Radiocarbon dates indicate a millennium’s gap between Neanderthal and early AMH groups, and a few millennia between the Aurignacian and the Gravettian groups. Bone collagen δ13C and δ15N isotope values are indicative of a mixed forest and open landscapes near the cave, reflecting a more forested and humid condition during the Mousterian and colder environments during the Gravettian with open landscapes.

Abstract Recent research in the Central Balkans is discovering multiple human occupations previously unknown from the region, revealing its strategical location within Europe for human populations dispersing towards Central and Western Europe during the Pleistocene. Šalitrena Pećina (Serbia) contains evidence of late Neanderthal and early anatomically modern human (AMH) presence during the mid-to-late MIS 3. A Bayesian model of the radiocarbon dates, combined with the zooarchaeological and stable isotope analyses of the macromammals and technological analysis of the bone tools, provides new insight into subsistence strategies achieved by late Neanderthals and Aurignacian and Gravettian groups at the site. The results reveal diverse residential and short-temporal use of the cave by both human species. Bone tools show intensive use of the carcasses consumed for daily tools. The first evidence of Aurignacian and Gravettian bone industries in Serbia are presented here. Carnivores played a significant role after humans left the site. Radiocarbon dates indicate a millennium’s gap between Neanderthal and early AMH groups, and a few millennia between the Aurignacian and the Gravettian groups. Bone collagen δ13C and δ15N isotope values are indicative of a mixed forest and open landscapes near the cave, reflecting a more forested and humid condition during the Mousterian and colder environments during the Gravettian with open landscapes.

The site of Apidima, in southern Greece, is one of the most important Paleolithic sites in Greece and southeast Europe. One of the caves belonging to this cave complex, Cave A, has yielded human fossil crania Apidima 1 and 2, showing the presence of an early Homo sapiens population followed by a Neanderthal one in the Middle Pleistocene. Less known are the human remains reportedly recovered from Cave C at Apidima. These include a number of isolated elements, but also a partial skeleton interpreted as a female burial, Apidima 3, proposed by Pitsios (e.g., Pitsios 1999) to be associated with Aurignacian lithics and to date to ca. 30 ka. In light of the rarity of the Upper Paleolithic in Greece, and the general scarcity of human remains associated with the Aurignacian, the remains from Apidima Cave C are potentially very significant in elucidating the arrival of the early Upper Paleolithic populations in Europe. Here we undertake direct Uranium-series dating of three human samples from Cave C, including the burial, to help clarify their chronology. Results suggest a minimum age of terminal Pleistocene for all three samples.

With 150 years of research on the Paleolithic of the Swabian Jura, the region offers one of the richest records of Neanderthal occupation. The faunal remains from the caves of the Ach and Lone valleys provide an important source of data from Central Europe. Sites in the Lauchert and Brenz valleys further augment the picture. The frequency of burned bone remains demonstrates inter-site variability in Neanderthal occupation and some sites show carnivore and cave bear activities, which spatially overlapped with that of hominins. The studies demonstrate that Bockstein was the most frequently visited site during the Middle Paleolithic (MP). Horse often dominates the faunal assemblages with additional exploitation of reindeer and bovids. The role of mammoth and woolly rhinoceros in MP subsistence is hotly debated, remaining an open-ended question, but megafauna were occasionally exploited albeit at a lower frequency than during the Aurignacian. In addition, retouchers were a common osseous tool type during the MP in the Swabian Jura. These data compliment the MP record of the Rhine region and help us better understand the adaptation of Neanderthals in Central Europe.

Abstract IN the previous chapter we saw how people sought refuge from the Ice Age in the south of Europe. They were descendants of the Gravettian people that had spread right across the Eurasian steppe– tundra at a time when increasingly cold and dry conditions were opening up many areas formerly taken up by woodland. The genetic mutations that allowed us to trace the spread of these people from Central Asia also show that an offshoot of these people penetrated southwards across the great mountain ranges of the Caucasus, Zagros, and Hindu Kush into India and western Asia, including the Middle East, some time around 30 thousand years ago. These people who settled south of the mid-latitude belt of mountains had a common heritage with those of the steppe–tundra to the north of these ranges. In the Middle East they may have met the descendants of the early pioneers that had made tentative incursions into Europe but by this time the Neanderthals were long gone. The Middle East between 30 thousand years ago and the height of the Ice Age around 22 thousand years ago was a junction between peoples from different regions, although the picture provided by the archaeology is far from clear. The people who had been making the Aurignacian in Europe appear to have entered the region too around this time but we cannot be certain who they were or what they looked like; and then there may have been others who had been living there since the early incursions from the expansion that led people to Australia.