No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Early Aurignacian human remains from La Quina-Aval (France)
... In particular, both values for dimensions are higher than the maximum values for UPMH individuals with only deciduous teeth erupted and recent Europeans aged 1 to 3 years, and are roughly similar to Neandertal values (figures 3d, S5). While the two corpus dimensions show an overlap between Neandertals and modern humans (figure S6), it has been shown that plotting mandibular breadth against lateral corpus height clearly distinguishes Neandertals from early modern humans (Verna et al., 2012). Interestingly, the morphology of GPA-646 appears to be closer to that of Neandertals than other UPMH children (figures 3b, S5), i.e. a broad mandible compared to its height. ...
... *: Measured on the 3D models. Individuals included in the comparative samples are only those with erupted deciduous teeth (S1 according to Verna et al., 2012). It has been suggested that the large breadth of the dental arcade in Middle Palaeolithic fossils may be related to large anterior dental dimensions (Mallegni and Trinkaus, 1997). ...
Article and SI available online: https://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/9810
While affinities and interactions between archaic and modern human populations (i.e. 200,000-40,000 BP in Eurasia) at macro-evolutionary and continental scales have received considerable attention, there has been less emphasis on the population history of Europe between 40,000 and 26,000 BP (i.e. prior to the Last glacial Maximum, LGM) when only modern humans were present. Here we examine the immature mandible from Gargas (France, ca. 29,000 cal BP), which displays a modern morphology overall with some archaic features rarely seen, if at all, in European Pleistocene and Holocene modern humans. In particular, the Gargas child has a very broad mandible, large tooth crowns with extreme deciduous and permanent mesiodistal molar diameters and a deciduous first molar with a quantity of enamel never previously reported. Furthermore, this child exhibits a supernumerary permanent tooth in the incisor region, a rare congenital disorder so far described for only five other pre-LGM modern humans. Finally, our results also highlight previously undocumented spatial differences in the tooth crown dimensions of Upper Palaeolithic fossils.
... There are instances in the Mid Upper Paleolithic (and Early Upper Paleolithic) of human teeth being pierced for suspension (Vlček 1991;Henry-Gambier and White, 2006;Hillson 2006;Vercoutère et al. 2008;Verna et al. 2012). ...
... The bias of adults and adolescents versus younger individuals may be attributed to the differential preservation of more fragile younger remains and cultural biases in terms of who got buried ( chapter 3). Yet there are remains of rather young individuals (Verna et al. 2012), including the burials (or probable burials) of Borsuka 1, Dolní Věstonice 36, Krems-Wachtberg 1 to 3, and Mal'ta 1 and 2. The difference of younger versus older adults is unlikely to be due to mortuary behavior, but it may reflect population dynamics. There are several things that may influence this (Trinkaus 1995(Trinkaus , 2011a; see mobility discussion below), but one of them is population instability. ...
In this latest volume in the Human Evolution Series, Erik Trinkaus and his co-authors synthesize the research and findings concerning the human remains found at the Sunghir archaeological site. It has long been apparent to those in the field of paleoanthropology that the human fossil remains from the site of Sunghir are an important part of the human paleoanthropological record, and that these fossil remains have the potential to provide substantial data and inferences concerning human biology and behavior, both during the earlier Upper Paleolithic and concerning the early phases of human occupation of high latitude continental Eurasia. But despite many separate investigations and published studies on the site and its findings, a single and definitive volume does not yet exist on the subject. This book combines the expertise of four paleoanthropologists to provide a comprehensive description and paleobiological analysis of the Sunghir human remains. Since 1990, Trinkaus et al. have had access to the Sunghir site and its findings, and the authors have published frequently on the topic. The book places these human fossil remains in context with other Late Pleistocene humans, utilizing numerous comparative charts, graphs, and figures. As such, the book is highly illustrated, in color. Trinkaus and his co-authors outline the many advances in paleoanthropology that these remains have helped to bring about, examining the Sunghir site from all angles.
... In the latter site, an additional tooth fragment was discovered in layer A3I, but its attribution to the Uluzzian or Proto-Aurignacian remains uncertain . The human remains dated to the Early Aurignacian comprise instead an incisor from La Ferrasie (Chase and Teilhol, 2009;Henry-Gambier et al., 1990), bone fragments from a child and an adult at Fontèchevade (Chase and Teilhol, 2009), two fragmentary mandibles at La Quina (Verna et al., 2012), several teeth, cranial, and postcranial bone fragments at Brassempouy (Bailey and Hublin, 2005). At Peştera cu Oase, H. sapiens remains include a mandible (Oase 1), directly dated to 40.7-38.3 ...
Homo sapiens evolved in Africa during the late Middle Pleistocene, dispersed to South-East and East Asia at c. 100 ka BP, and only at c. 50 ka BP crossed the gates of Europe. Thus far, the European archaeological data suggest consecutive waves of migrations of H. sapiens from the Levant and both along the Danube River and the Mediterranean coast. The earliest dispersal reached Bulgaria and Moravia as well as southern Europe at ~ 47–44 ka BP, whereas another wave diffused rapidly between ~ 44 and 42 ka BP to Central Europe and the Western Mediterranean. In concomitance of these migrations, new cultural behaviours emerged in the European territories and, at ~ 41–39 ka BP, Neanderthals, the autochthonous European population, demised. The foremost consequence of these displacements in different territories and environments is that H. sapiens lasted as the only human species on Earth.
... More representatives are the fragments of jaws, teeth, and some infracranial remains (generally considered later than ~40-38 ka cal. BP) and assigned to MH at the La Quina site (see Verna et al. 2012). ...
... More representatives are the fragments of jaws, teeth, and some infracranial remains (generally considered later than ~40-38 ka cal. BP) and assigned to MH at the La Quina site (see Verna et al. 2012). ...
Three deciduous tooth crowns were found in Unit 18B in El Castillo Cave (Spain), considered a transitional Middle-Upper Paleolithic Unit with numerous 14 C dates with means earlier than > 42-44 ka cal. BP. Our goal was to describe these teeth, compare them to Neanderthal, Mousterian Modern Humans, and Early-Mid Upper Paleolithic fossils (through scatterplots and Z-scores), and analyze their morphology. The teeth consist of deciduous and isolated crowns (one ULdi 1 , one ULdm 2 , and one LRdm 2) corresponding to three children, and all of them were modified by heavy occlusal and interproximal wear. Their length and breadth diameters, shown in the bivariate scatterplots, were similar to those of the teeth of several young Neanderthals. The Z-scores of the two crown diameters with respect to the Late Neanderthal, Qafzeh and Skhul, and Aurig-nacian-Gravettian series had values of approximately 0, while those of the altered MDs of the ULdm 2 are just below − 1, except in comparison to the last group; the Z-scores of the BL diameters fall within the range of variability of the three series. Qualitative morphological comparisons highlighted several characteristics that were consistent with a Neanderthal taxonomic assignment. The combined archeological and anatomical-comparative study suggested the presence of three Neanderthal children in Unit 18, in a location considered a primary butchery area. The chronology and morphology of these teeth in the framework of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition are outstanding in the debate about the last Neanderthals and the unconfirmed, but possible, presence of a few groups of modern humans in Western Europe.
... At La Quina there are two sectors: La Quina Amont, which has only Middle Palaeolithic deposits, recently dated by OSL and 14 C by Frouin et al. (2017b), and La Quina Aval, which contains only Châtelperronian and Aurignacian. The La Quina Aval Châtelperronian dates are provided by Higham et al. (2014), and the Aurignacian is discussed in Verna et al. (2012). The age range of the La Quina Aval Châtelperronian is in the age range of the latest Middle Palaeolithic at La Quina Amont. ...
The grand abri at La Ferrassie (France) has been a key site for Palaeolithic research since the early part of the 20th century. It became the eponymous site for one variant of Middle Palaeolithic stone tools, and its sequence was used to define stages of the Aurignacian, an early phase of the Upper Palaeolithic. Several Neanderthal remains, including two relatively intact skeletons, make it one of the most important sites for the study of Neanderthal morphology and one of the more important data sets when discussing the Neanderthal treatment of the dead. However, the site has remained essentially undated. Our goal here is to provide a robust chronological framework of the La Ferrassie sequence to be used for broad regional models about human behaviour during the late Middle to Upper Palaeolithic periods. To achieve this goal, we used a combination of modern excavation methods, extensive geoarchaeological analyses, and radiocarbon dating. If we accept that Neanderthals were responsible for the Châtelperronian, then our results suggest an overlap of ca. 1600 years with the newly arrived Homo sapiens found elsewhere in France.
... At La Quina there are two sectors: La Quina Amont, which has only Middle Palaeolithic deposits, recently dated by OSL and 14 C by Frouin et al. (2017b), and La Quina Aval, which contains only Châtelperronian and Aurignacian. The La Quina Aval Châtelperronian dates are provided by Higham et al. (2014), and the Aurignacian is discussed in Verna et al. (2012). The age range of the La Quina Aval Châtelperronian is in the age range of the latest Middle Palaeolithic at La Quina Amont. ...
... To summarize, the time period comprised between 45 and 40 kya is pivotal to disentangle the cultural and biological processes underlying the shift from Neandertals to MHs in Europe. Neandertals disappeared around 41-39 kya , and even though remains dated to 40-35 kya are sporadic, available fossils are attributed to MHs and are generally associated with either Early Aurignacian (La Quina-Aval and Brassempouy, France; e.g., Verna et al., 2012) or Classic Aurignacian material culture (Mladeč, Czech Republic; Wild et al., 2005). The fragmentary state of the available archaeological and palaeoanthropological evidence, however, leaves room for many potential explanatory models spanning from the direct/indirect competition between MHs and Neandertals, culminating in the defeat of Neandertals by MH newcomers between 45-40 kya, to less crude scenarios that attribute the demise of Neandertals to other factors (e.g., climatic change, demographic collapse, reduced food resources) and envisage parts of Europe as an almost empty environment when the earliest MHs arrived. ...
... Neandertals being capable of such complex behaviors blurs the dividing line between "us" and "them." Indeed, the mosaic morphology of archaic and anatomically modern humans found in many of the earliest modern human fossils suggests complex population dynamics in the Late Pleistocene [42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. The evidence from skeletal morphology has since been confirmed by aDNA evidence, with both nDNA and mtDNA analyses indicating multiple and earlier gene flow events, respectively, between early modern humans and Neandertals [49,50]. ...
Early modern humans (EMH) are often touted as behaviorally advanced to Neandertals, with more sophisticated technologies, expanded resource exploitation, and more complex clothing production. However, recent analyses have indicated that Neandertals were more nuanced in their behavioral adaptations, with the production of the Châtelperronian technocomplex, the processing and cooking of plant foods, and differences in behavioral adaptations according to habitat. This study adds to this debate by addressing the behavioral strategies of EMH (n = 30) within the context of non-dietary anterior tooth-use behaviors to glean possible differences between them and their Neandertal (n = 45) counterparts. High-resolution casts of permanent anterior teeth were used to collect microwear textures of fossil and comparative bioarchaeological samples using a Sensofar white-light confocal profiler with a 100x objective lens. Labial surfaces were scanned, totaling a work envelope of 204 x 276 μm for each individual. The microwear textures were examined for post-mortem damage and uploaded to SSFA software packages for surface characterization. Statistical analyses were performed to examine differences in central tendencies and distributions of anisotropy and textural fill volume variables among the EMH sample itself by habitat, location, and time interval, and between the EMH and Neandertal samples by habitat and location. Descriptive statistics for the EMH sample were compared to seven bioarchaeological samples (n = 156) that utilized different tooth-use behaviors to better elucidate specific activities that may have been performed by EMH. Results show no significant differences between the means within the EMH sample by habitat, location, or time interval. Furthermore, there are no significant differences found here between EMH and Neandertals. Comparisons to the bioarchaeological samples suggest both fossil groups participated in clamping and grasping activities. These results indicate that EMH and Neandertals were similar in their non-dietary anterior tooth-use behaviors and provide additional evidence for overlapping behavioral strategies employed by these two hominins.
... lon 1945;Hillson 2006;Vlček 1991). Additional examples are known from the Aurignacian (Vercoutère et al. 2008;Verna et al. 2012). There is also evidence for body modification of the living at the Pavlovian sites (Willman 2016), as part of their complex social behavior. ...
Taphonomic, paleopathological, and paleodemographic analyses of human remains from the Mid Upper Paleolithic of western Eurasia are increasingly documenting a diversity of mortuary behaviors among these successful Late Pleistocene foragers. These considerations are joined by three associated pairs of otherwise isolated appendicular remains from the site of Pavlov I (the Pavlov 31 partial hands and the Pavlov 37 and 38 tarsometatarsal skeletons), previously described morphologically but not assessed in terms of their taphonomy. They are described here with respect to their contexts and patterns of preservation to assess possible taphonomic and/or mortuary implications of these sets of antimeres. Subchondral articular bone that is free of carbonate encrustation on at least the Pavlov 37 pedal remains suggests some degree of articulation in situ. Although root etched, the elements lack carnivore or other vertebrate damage, as well as cut marks. Even though associated unilateral hand or foot remains are unexceptional among the fur-bearing faunal remains, the bilateral presence of these human remains raises questions concerning the taphonomic and behavioral/ mortuary processes responsible for their preservation: do they represent portions of abandoned human bodies, remains of naturally disturbed burials, extremities left from secondary burials, and/or intentionally manipulated human body portions? Any combination of these processes expands current perceptions of the mortuary diversity among these early modern humans.
... At the least, these fossils establish an association between modern humans and the Early Aurignacian. In Southwest France, such an association is further supported by the two fragmentary but diagnostic mandibles from level 3 of La Quina-Aval, dated to around 38 ka (Verna et al. 2012;Dujardin 2001), and by the coeval dental series from Brassempouy, which is also considered to represent modern humans (Bailey and Hublin 2005; but see Henry-Gambier et al. 2004). In addition, no diagnostic Neandertal remains exist in the intervening geographical space that can be securely archeologically associated with the Early Aurignacian, or reliably directly dated to the corresponding time span. ...
The time of the Aurignacian’s first appearance in the archeological record lies at the heart of debates on the emergence of European anatomically modern humans. Based on a re-study of Archeological Horizon (AH) 3 of Willendorf II, it has been claimed that the Early Aurignacian was present in the loess plains of Lower Austria by 43.5 ka (thousands of calendar years ago), several millennia earlier than in western Europe. The claim rests on the argument that a refit set linking an area excavated 2006–2011 with another excavated 1908–1909 implies that the two stone tool collections derive from a single, homogeneous assemblage. Therefore, the dating of the 2006–2011 context would also date the Early Aurignacian diagnostics found in the 1908–1909 collection. Based on the published evidence, this argument cannot be supported. The 1908–1909 excavation extended way beyond the boundaries of the stratigraphic level in which AH3 was identified in 2006–2011: lens C8-3 of subunit C8. Northward, subunit C8 becomes internally undifferentiated and merges with subunit C7 above, within which a new horizon, AH3ab, was first formally recognized in 2006–2011. This evidence implies that “AH3” of 1908–1909 was a stratigraphically heterogeneous unit over at least half of the area then excavated and that the stone tools it yielded must be treated as a multi-component assemblage that conflates material derived from at least two different occupation horizons. In line with the chrono-stratigraphy of Europe’s Early Upper Paleolithic sequence, the few Early Aurignacian diagnostics found in the “AH3” collection of 1908–1909 must date to ca.39.1 ka, the calendar age of AH3ab. The single refit set linking the two collections shows that an earlier component, dated to ca.43.5 ka by the 2006–2011 work, is also represented in the collection from 1908 to 1909. However, in the absence of diagnostics, the technocomplex affinities of that earlier component cannot be ascertained. The association of the Early Aurignacian with modern humans in Lower Austria remains a legitimate inference but is valid for the ca.38–40 ka time range, not before.
... In Western Eurasia, however, the Mousterian is exclusively associated with the Neandertals, while the Aurignacian I and the succeeding Aurignacian II (a.k.a. Evolved Aurignacian), which extend from Asturias in the West to northern Israel in the East, are associated with modern humans only ( Verna et al., 2012). In this context, the broader paleoanthropological significance of the "Ebro Frontier" model resides in the implication that Neandertals persisted in Southern and Western Iberia longer than everywhere else. ...
The late persistence in Southern Iberia of a Neandertal-associated Middle Paleolithic is supported by the archeological stratigraphy and the radiocarbon and luminescence dating of three newly excavated localities in the Mula basin of Murcia (Spain). At Cueva Antón, Mousterian layer I-k can be no more than 37,100 years-old. At La Boja, the basal Aurignacian can be no less than 36,500 years-old. The regional Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition process is thereby bounded to the first half of the 37th millennium Before Present, in agreement with evidence from Andalusia, Gibraltar and Portugal. This chronology represents a lag of minimally 3000 years with the rest of Europe, where that transition and the associated process of Neandertal/modern human admixture took place between 40,000 and 42,000 years ago. The lag implies the presence of an effective barrier to migration and diffusion across the Ebro river depression, which, based on available paleoenvironmental indicators, would at that time have represented a major biogeographical divide. In addition, (a) the Phlegraean Fields caldera explosion, which occurred 39,850 years ago, would have stalled the Neandertal/modern human admixture front because of the population sink it generated in Central and Eastern Europe, and (b) the long period of ameliorated climate that came soon after (Greenland Interstadial 8, during which forests underwent a marked expansion in Iberian regions south of 40°N) would have enhanced the “Ebro Frontier” effect. These findings have two broader paleoanthropological implications: firstly, that, below the Ebro, the archeological record made prior to 37,000 years ago must be attributed, in all its aspects and components, to the Neandertals (or their ancestors); secondly, that modern human emergence is best seen as an uneven, punctuated process during which long-lasting barriers to gene flow and cultural diffusion could have existed across rather short distances, with attendant consequences for ancient genetics and models of human population history.
... Higham, & L€ ohr, 2011). From an anthropological point of view, the only proven human fossils associated with that industrial facies in western Europe, mainly teeth, are anatomically modern humans(Bailey, Weaver, & Hublin, 2009;Churchill & Smith, 2000;Verna, Dujardin, & Trinkaus, 2012). The direct dates recently obtained on human fossils from Goyet Cave support this hypothesis.At about 450 km south of Walou, numerous Neandertal remains have been found at Arcy-sur-Cure (Burgundy, France). ...
Objectives:
We describe a hominin permanent lower left third premolar unearthed in 1997 at Walou Cave (Belgium), found in direct association with a Mousterian lithic industry, in a layer directly dated to 40-38,000 years BP.
Materials and methods:
The taxonomical attribution of the tooth is addressed through comparative morphometric analyses, and stable isotope analyses aimed at determining the diet of the individual.
Results:
The Walou P3 plots within the Neandertal range of variation and is significantly different from recent modern humans in all morphometric assessments. The isotope data showed that like other Neandertals, the Walou individual acquired its dietary proteins primarily from terrestrial food sources.
Discussion:
We discuss the implications of the existence of a clearly Neandertal premolar dating to the period of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Meuse river basin.
... Unfortunately, neither Geißenklösterle nor Hohle Fels nor any other early Aurignacian sites of similar age have yielded human fossil remains. The oldest example from secure Aurignacian context comes from the site of La Quina-Aval in France, with a calibrated age of about 38,000 calBP (Verna et al. 2012). Other, somewhat younger sites include Brassempouy and Les Rois, both in France as well. ...
Fossils of early hominins have been found exclusively in Africa. While the australopiths only spread within Africa, members of the genus Homo were the first to leave their home continent, roughly 2 million years ago, thus expanding their settlement area considerably. Once “out of Africa,” groups of Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, or other early Homo species moved in several waves to East and Southeast Asia, while other groups, possibly through the Levantine Corridor and crossing the Caucasus, entered Europe. The oldest artifact assemblages outside of Africa are of Oldowan type, while in Africa at the same time the techno-complex of the Acheulean had begun to evolve, which came to Eurasia much later. In Europe, the Neanderthals, the only indigenous European hominins, evolved out of later populations of Homo heidelbergensis. At the end of the last glacial period, the Neanderthals enlarged their originally exclusive European settlement area, expanding into the Near East, parts of Central Asia, and even as far as the Altai region in Siberia. While the Neanderthals apparently never entered Africa, they started their movement “out of Europe” and into Asia at about the same time that anatomically modern humans (AMH), who originated in Africa, started their movement “out of Africa,” also heading first into Asia. Sahul was colonized by AMH earlier than Europe, which was first entered about 45,000 years ago, when the Neanderthals were still living there. Today, modern humans are the only existing hominin species, inhabiting nearly every part of the world. During their expansions, the Neanderthals and AMH not only mixed wiTheach other-at least in the Near East-but apparently both interbred with a third hominin group, the Denisovans, who seem to have moved specifically into East and/or Southeast Asia.
... ESR results indicate that Skh ul II is significantly older (>66 ka) than the apparent U-series age estimate on the dentine (~32 ka): the best age estimate is given by the combined U-series-ESR result of 116 À 24 + 43 ka (Grün et al., 2005). Indirectly-dated homin specimens (through association with dated archaeological assemblages) that might be seen as pre-CI in age are predominantly H. sapiens: Isturitz, Brassempouy, Tart e, Blanchard, Castanet and La Combe (France) teeth (some perforated) (MacCurdy, 1914;Petit-Maire et al., 1971;Henry-Gambier et al., 2004;Normand et al., 2007;Bailey et al., 2009); La Quina-Aval (France) two mandibles and teeth (Verna et al., 2012); the Les Rois (France) teeth and mandible A (Ramirez Rozzi et al., 2009); the Les Cott es (possibly Aurignacian) skull and postcrania (Patte, 1954); a scapular fragment from the Aurignacian level E of Grotta del Fossellone, Italy (Mallegni and Segre-Naldini, 1992); teeth from the Aurignacian of Hohlenstein-Stadel, Schelklingen, Kleine Ofneth€ ohle, Schafstall, Sirgenstein and Geissenkl€ osterle (Germany) (references in Street et al., 2006); Dzerav a skala (Slovakia) molar tooth (Svoboda, 2001;Bailey et al., 2009); the Aurignacian Ist all os-k} o (Hungary) molar (Thoma and V ertes, 1971); cranial and mandibular fragments from Bacho Kiro, level 11, Bulgaria (Gle n and Kaczanowski, 1982;Churchill and Smith, 2000); the Aurignacian teeth from Siuren' I (Crimea) (Klein et al., 1971); the Initial Upper Palaeolithic skull and postcrania ('Egbert') from Ksar 'Akil (Lebanon) (Douka et al., 2013) and teeth from Üça gızlı cave (Kuhn et al., 2009). The cut-marked child mandible (B) from the Aurignacian of Les Rois is claimed to be Neanderthal, perhaps implying consumption or symbolic use of a Neanderthal child (Ramirez Rozzi et al., 2009, p.174). ...
... 37.8 ka cal BP) (Dujardin, 2005). The layer has yielded two fragmentary mandibles, among which one (Quina-Aval 4) displays a full suite of modern features, including a clear bony chin (Verna et al., 2012). Another securely dated set of specimens were found in the Early Aurignacian layers of Brassempouy. ...
Dating the timing of the replacement of local Neandertal populations by modern humans in western Eurasia at the dawn of the Upper Palaeolithic remains challenging due to the scarcity of the palaeontological evidence and to the complexity of the archaeological record. Furthermore, key specimens have been discovered in the course of excavations that unfortunately did not meet today's archaeological standards. The importance of site-formation processes in the considered time period makes it sometimes difficult to precisely assign fragmentary remains a posteriori to distinct techno-complexes. The improvements in dating methods have however allowed for the clarification of many chronological issues in the past decade. Archaeological and palaeontological evidence strongly suggest that the initial modern colonization of eastern Europe and central Asia should be related to the spread of techno-complexes assigned to the Initial Upper Palaeolithic. This first expansion may have started as early as 48 ka cal BP. The earliest phases of the Aurignacian complex (Protoaurignacian and Early Aurignacian) seem to represent another modern wave of migrations, starting in the Levant area. The expansion of this techno-complex throughout Europe completed the modern colonization of the continent. The interpretation of a third group of industries referred to as “transitional assemblages” in western and central Europe is much debated. At least in part, these assemblages might have been produced by Neandertal groups that may have survived until c. 41 ka cal BP, according to the directly dated Neandertal specimens of Saint-Césaire (France) and Spy (Belgium).
... The anthropological implication underlying this phenomenon affects the dynamics of settlement all across Europe through modern human populations carrying a new typo-technological tradition called the Aurignacian (sensu lato) that seems to have been associated (at least the Early Aurignacian) with AMH (Hublin, 2010;Verna et al., 2012). Meanwhile, the developer of the supposed first phase of this techno-complex, the Proto-Aurignacian, is still unknown as no clear paleoanthropological evidence has yet been found associated with Proto-Aurignacian levels (Zilhão et al., 2007;Trinkaus and Zilhão, 2013). ...
... Central to the debate is the association between lithic technocomplexes and specific human populations. Traditionally, the different Aurignacian industries (especially the Protoaurignacian and the Typical Aurignacian) have been considered as a proxy for the presence of modern humans (e.g., Conard and Bolus, 2003;Bailey et al., 2009;Verna et al., 2012). In southern Europe, the emergence of modern humans is associated with Protoaurignacian assemblages, whose differentiation with respect to the Typical Aurignacian is increasingly clear from both the technological and typological point of view (Mellars, 2006). ...
Ce travail a pour but d’améliorer la résolution temporelle des séquences paléoenvironnementales et de leurs chronologies ainsi que la chronologie des différents technocomplexes et cultures du sud de la France de la fin du Paléolithique moyen au début du Paléolithique supérieur. À cette fin, deux études multiproxy ont été menées, utilisant deux carottes profondes du golfe de Gascogne et du golfe du Lion pour reconstruire la végétation et les changements climatiques dans le Sud-Ouest et le Sud-Est de la France, en réponse aux réchauffements et refroidissements du Groenland (cycles Dansgaard-Oeschger, D-Os) et aux refroidissements de l'Atlantique Nord (événements d’Heinrich, HEs). Les résultats montrent des amplitudes différentes dans l'expansion de la forêt associée aux réchauffement D-O en fonction de la latitude et liées à différentes configurations orbitales. Pendant les stades de Heinrich (HSs), les différentes amplitudes de l'expansion semi-désertique dans les deux régions seraient le résultat de différentes intensités de la circulation thermohaline et des processus océaniques locaux associés à l'instabilité de la calotte laurentienne. La datation IRSL de la carotte MD04-2845 et l'application du récent modèle d’âge-profondeur (ChronoModel & ArchaeoPhases) utilisant des statistiques bayésiennes et des contraintes stratigraphiques sur les deux carottes ont permis d'affiner les chronologies des changements environnementaux. La construction de bases de données archéologiques pour les deux régions et l'application de ChronoModel aux séquences archéologiques ont amélioré la chronologie des changements technologiques des Néandertaliens et des Hommes Anatomiquement Modernes (HAM) en Europe occidentale. Malgré l'amélioration des chronologies, l'identification de synchronies potentielles reste difficile en raison des incertitudes associées aux différentes chronologies. Néanmoins, cette étude suggère que l'aridification progressive du paysage pendant la dernière période glaciaire a favorisé l'arrivée des HAM en Europe occidentale, entraînant une compétition avec les Néandertaliens pour les mêmes niches écologiques et produisant la disparition de ces derniers.
In this book, Jennifer French presents a new synthesis of the archaeological, palaeoanthropological, and palaeogenetic records of the European Palaeolithic, adopting a unique demographic perspective on these first two-million years of European prehistory. Unlike prevailing narratives of demographic stasis, she emphasises the dynamism of Palaeolithic populations of both our evolutionary ancestors and members of our own species across four demographic stages, within a context of substantial Pleistocene climatic changes. Integrating evolutionary theory with a socially oriented approach to the Palaeolithic, French bridges biological and cultural factors, with a focus on women and children as the drivers of population change. She shows how, within the physiological constraints on fertility and mortality, social relationships provide the key to enduring demographic success. Through its demographic focus, French combines a 'big picture' perspective on human evolution with careful analysis of the day-to-day realities of European Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer communities—their families, their children, and their lives.
Pyrotechnology, the ability for hominins to use fire as a tool, is considered to be one of the most important behavioural adaptations in human evolution. While several studies have focused on identifying the emergence of fire use and later Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal combustion features, far fewer have focused on modern human fire use. As a result, we currently have more data characterizing the hominin fire use prior to 50,000 years before present (BP), than we do for Upper Palaeolithic of Europe. Here we review the available data on Upper Palaeolithic fire evidence between 48,000 and 13,000 years BP to understand the evolution of modern human pyrotechnology. Our results suggest regional clustering of feature types during the Aurignacian and further demonstrate a significant change in modern human fire use, namely in terms of the intensification and structural variation between 35,000 and 28,000 years BP. This change also corresponds to the development and spread of the Gravettian technocomplex throughout Europe and may correspond to a shift in the perception of fire. Additionally, we also show a significant lack of available high-resolution data on combustion features during the height of last glacial maximum. Furthermore, we highlight the need for more research into the effects of syn- and post-depositional processes on archaeological combustion materials and a need for more standardization of descriptions in the published literature. Overall, our review shows a significant and complex developmental process for Upper Palaeolithic fire use which in many ways mirrors the behavioural evolution of modern humans seen in other archaeological mediums.
Radiocarbon dating has played a pivotal role in establishing trajectories of decline and terminal dates for Late Quaternary Extinctions (LQEs) over the last 50,000 years. Absolute dating chronologies are essential to academic debate into understanding the causal factors for taxa’s disappearance, with Climatic Change and Anatomically Modern Human activity debated as the main drivers since the 1960s. Recent reviews of LQEs have highlighted issues with inaccurate and limited radiocarbon evidence for taxa, with a need to stop and expand restricted reliable datasets to prevent the continuation of circular arguments for the wrong timings and causes of extinction events. The project addresses these issues via evaluating past and present extirpation theories and current radiocarbon evidence for 1 taxon, spotted hyaena (Crocuta crocuta) in N.W. Europe. A 3 phase strategy is devised to tackle the paucity of reliable chronometric dating evidence. Site candidate lists are obtained for redating and new dating programmes for each phase, while potential benefits and limitations to the method are discussed, alongside a consideration into the relevance of studying extirpated hyaenas to aid conservation efforts for extant relatives in East and Southern Africa.
Childhood and adolescence are two stages of development that are unique to the human life course. While childhood in the Pleistocene has received considerable attention in recent years, adolescence during the same period remains an understudied area of research. Yet it is during adolescence that key social, physical and cognitive milestones are reached. Thus, through studying adolescents, there is enormous potential for improving our understanding of Upper Palaeolithic lifeways more broadly. The reason for the dearth of these types of studies may be the perceived methodological difficulty of identifying adolescents in the archaeological record. In many ways, it is easier to distinguish children (sensu lato) from adults based on size, developmental age and associated artefacts. Adolescents, however, are often seen as more ambiguous, more liminal. Working within an evolutionary framework and using a definition of adolescence rooted in biology, we draw on psychology, ethnography and palaeodemography to develop a model of what it might have meant to be a ‘teenager’ in the European Upper Palaeolithic. Citing the biological, social and cognitive changes that occur during this life stage, we propose an important role of teenagers in the origins and spread of new ideas and innovations throughout the Late Pleistocene.
Objectives:
This article documents an incomplete child's mandible found in H. Obermaier's excavation campaign (in 1912) in El Castillo Cave, Spain. This fossil was assigned to what was then considered a phase of the "Aurignacian-delta".
Materials and methods:
We exhaustively analyzed the original Obermaier documents, with particular attention to those corresponding to the year of the discovery. We extracted a bone sample to radiocarbon date the fossil directly. We also followed established methods to measure, describe and compare the mandible with other human remains.
Results:
The analysis of Obermaier's documents and new data derived from modern excavations, show that the mandible was discovered in an interior area of the cave. Direct radiocarbon dating yielded a result of 24,720 ± 210 BP and 29,300 - 28,300 cal BP, a date similar to those known for the Gravettian technocomplex both in the El Castillo site and across Europe. The jaw corresponded to a child aged 4-5 years, with modern morphology, but with a certain robustness, especially in the symphyseal region. Comparisons were made with several modern children (Granada, Spitalfields, and Black series) and with immature fossils (European Aurignacian and Gravettian). The few differences between the modern and the fossil children are related to the symphysis and mandibular corpus thickness and height, and to the symphyseal morphology and larger teeth dimensions. Paleoisotopic data for Castillo C correspond with a varied diet. Numerous cutmarks were identified in the midline internal symphyseal region.
Discussion and conclusions:
The results agree with those published for other fossils of similar age and chronology (e.g., the mandible of the Lagar Velho child) and show clear differences from the jaws of the young Neanderthals. The interpretation of the original data on the mandible discovery may indicate the destruction of a burial and the displacement, by percolation or by a den, at least of part of the skeleton. The perimortem manipulations in the child's mandible are the first described in the Gravettian world of Western Europe.
The application of new technologies in archeology and in general in the field of cultural heritage is a sector in continuous development for many years. There are many conferences and magazines dedicated to the experimentation of new technologies , new instruments software and new techniques, coming mostly from the field of engineering or architecture, are employed in sectors related to archaeological research and in particular to documentation and archiving of the data. In this paper we will present a set of new methodologies applied to the Palaeolithic excavation in the context of the Uluzzian, the first techno-complex associated with Homo Sapiens in Europe. We put in place a complex set of methods both for excavation and laboratory steps of archaeological research.
Objectives
We provide the description and comparative analysis of six new teeth from the site of La Ferrassie. Our goal is to discuss their taxonomic attribution, and to provide an updated inventory of Neandertal and modern human remains from La Ferrassie in their associated archeological context.
Materials and methods
We use external and internal anatomy, classic morphometrics, and geometric morphometrics. The teeth from La Ferrassie are compared to several samples of contemporary Neandertals and upper Paleolithic modern humans and to recent modern humans.
Results
Three specimens are classified as Neandertals, two as modern humans, and one remains unclassified.
Discussion
Based on the previously known fossil samples and the new teeth reported here, there are currently a minimum of four adult and five immature Neandertal individuals coming from the “Grand Abri” and a minimum of two modern human adult individuals: one from “Grand Abri” and one from “Grotte.” It is noteworthy that the spatial distribution of the recovered Neandertal remains is not restricted to the area where the LF1–LF 8 were found but now covers the full extension of the excavated area. Moreover, while both Neandertal and modern human occupations have yielded isolated human remains, the partial‐to‐complete skeletons only belong to Neandertals. These considerations open new perspectives for the understanding of the occupation and use of the La Ferrassie site.
This chapter overviews the current state of research on modern human origins. It is divided into two main sections. The first section outlines the four models such as African replacement model, hybridization and replacement model, assimilation model, and multiregional evolution model, which need to be taken into account when discussing modern human origins. The modern human origins debate has been hampered by ambiguities in the way some of the models in question have been characterized. The section discusses these ambiguities and suggests revisions to models that reduce the uncertainty. The second section reviews how well the available anatomical, genetic, and linguistic evidence support the predictions of the models. Anatomical, genetic, and linguistic research on modern human origins has tended to focus on three issues: structure of living human variation, timing of the appearance of modern humans, and evidence for occurrence of gene flow between modern humans and nonmodern hominins.
This paper focuses on the most significant of the testable contrasting predictions, comparing them to evidence from the human fossil record. There are two aspects of these comparisons. First, the predictions that can be derived from the alternative explanations of limited mtDNA variation in living populations are described, summarized, and discussed in the context of their differing implications for understanding modern populational origins. Second, the contrasting predictions of the "Garden of Eden' and Multiregional Evolution models provide a specific series of mutually contradictory expectations about the distribution and morphology of human fossil remains from different regions of the world, before and after the origins of modern populations. These contrasting predictions are reviewed. -from Author
Across Europe the period 45–40 ka (thousands of years ago) is associated with several technological changes, including the emergence of the Châtelperronian technocomplex in France and northern Spain. The Châtelperronian, stratigraphically located between the Mousterian and Aurignacian, is characterized by Upper Palaeolithic features, such as volumetric blade reduction, curved backed blades, end-scrapers, bladelets, bone tools and ornaments. Concurrently, repeated, though debated, associations with Neanderthal remains and Mousterian elements suggest a local technological development. Following recent critiques and cumulating technological studies, this paper provides data-driven contextualisations of the Châtelperronian and late Mousterian archaeological records and a primary comparative assessment of a major linking element, backed knives, to re-assess the origin of the Châtelperronian.
The Late Pleistocene saw the emergence and establishment of early modern humans, and questions remain as to the reasons for their ultimate success relative to late archaic humans. A reassessment of human paleobiology in its Paleolithic context, in light of changes in perspective, chronology, the fossil record, and paleobiological analyses, indicates that there was a mosaic of stasis and change. Aspects related to mobility, energetics, macromammalian subsistence, life history parameters, patterns of stress and survival, and disposal of the dead changed little until well into the Upper Paleolithic. There were marked changes in projectile technology, body decoration, and art with the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic, but they show little correlation with human biological form prior to the early Upper Paleolithic. The only shifts that were associated primarily with early modern humans are reductions in the use of the anatomy for manipulation and in apparent stress levels. Most of the changes seem to be related, directly or indirectly, to modern human population expansion with the early and then mid Upper Paleolithic. Moreover, the prolonged and geochronologically uneven expansion of modern humans from eastern Africa argues for only subtle differences in adaptive effectiveness.
Dans cet article, nous présentons les résultats d’une analyse archéozoologique qui a porté sur les restes de grands carnivores et de petits vertébrés du gisement de La Quina aval (Charente, France). Ce gisement a été fouillé par le docteur Henri-Martin puis par sa fille au début et au milieu du XXè siècle. La dernière campagne de fouille dirigée par Véronique Dujardin remonte à la fin du siècle dernier. Le gisement a livré les témoins d’une industrie lithique et osseuse attribuable à l’Aurignacien ancien, un grand nombre d’objets de parure ainsi que des restes d’Homme anatomiquement moderne.
Notre étude a porté sur les restes trouvés lors de la dernière campagne de fouille. Nos résultats apportent plusieurs
éléments inédits. Ils livrent tout d’abord une quantification de chaque taxon en nombre de restes mais aussi en nombre d’individus documentant ainsi la répartition des espèces à cette période. De plus, malgré un échantillon de taille modeste, les indices d’une exploitation du Loup, du Renard, du Lièvre et du Harfang permettent d’élargir le tableau de chasse des hommes de l’Aurignacien ancien de cette région et de percevoir les modalités d’exploitation de ces nouveaux gibiers.
Three-dimensional mapping and section work undertaken by us in 2008 have identified 11 stratigraphic units at Maludong site. AMS radiocarbon dating of charcoal established an accurate and internally consistent age profile for the sequence of 17.8±0.2 ka to 13.2±0.1 ka. Archaeomagnetic analysis showed changes in externally derived pedogenically enhanced material consistent with a warming in climate between the cold period of Henrich Event 1 and the Bølling-Allerød interstadial. Human remains recovered during the 1989 excavation were derived from a deposit dating to this interstadial, or between 14.3±0.3 ka and 13.5±0.1 ka. Anthropogenic features, including burnt rocks, baked sediment and thick charcoal and ash layers, were identified and examined through archaeomagnetic analysis. Two monkey fossils are described here, one of them being reassigned from Macaca robustus to M. aff. M. assamensis. They confirm the young age of the site and also show signs of anthropogenic alteration in the form of burning. Additional human cranial remains are reported for the first time and new data are provided for some specimens described previously. A range of new features is identified that strengthen the affinities of the Maludong remains to archaic humans. The presence of this globally unique mosaic of archaic and modern features raises important questions about human evolutionary history in East Asia during the Late Upper Pleistocene.
This paper presents the results of a zooarchaeological analysis conducted on the remains of large carnivores and small game from the Early Aurignacian from the site of La Quina aval. This site was excavated successively by Dr. Henri Martin and her daughter Germaine at the early and mid-twentieth century. Recently, the site was re-excavated by Véronique Dujardin. The different excavations yielded a large archaeological sample composed of many faunal remains but also lithic and bone artefact industry, a large number of personal ornament (bones, teeth and shell) as well as several anatomically modern human remains.
Our study focuses on small-game remains found during the last excavation campaign. Our results provide several unpublished results. We first offer the first quantification of each taxa in terms of number of identified remains but also in terms of minimal number of individuals.
The twenty-first century brought certainty to the understanding that people alive today and their immediate ancestors—modern humans—are not uniquely the descendants of a recent, small African population. Today's populations had multiple ancestors in the Middle Pleistocene and did not originate as a phylogenetic entity. The anatomical, behavioral, and genetic aspects of their modernity were not tied together in their origin. Instead, we propose a new understanding that anatomical modernity, behavioral modernity, and genetic modernity have different meanings that can be comprehended by viewing them as distinct interrelated processes. In this paper we discuss these processes and suggest that all three aspects of modernity are related in that they each characterize all living and recent human populations, and through a key unifying process: changes in human demographic history originating as the consequence of increased adult survivorship. The rapid increases in longevity in the Late Pleistocene took place in the context of other evolutionary changes and resulted in significant population size increases and increased numbers of population extinctions and replacements that affect genetic evolution. Perhaps the most important of these consequences is acceleration of natural selection with the appearance of more adaptive mutations, creating an evolutionary pattern that differs from archaic patterns in both tempo and mode. The modern pattern is one of increasingly rapid genetic, biological, and social changes within the widespread, interconnected human species. This way, modernity results in what we consider three of the most unique aspects of the recent and contemporary human species: its rapid, accelerating genetic evolution; the mixed ancestry of human populations and the absence of human races despite widespread geographic variation; and the social and adaptive consequences of multigenerational relationships, grandparents, and the wider kinship/social systems they support. We discuss how the processes of modernity became interrelated over time and all human populations became mixed as the demographic consequences of significant longevity developed.
Preface
In August of 1998, the two of us participated in the first Gibraltar conference on the Neandertals and modern human origins, held to celebrate the sesquicentennial of the discovery of the Forbes’ Quarry Neandertal cranium. At that conference, which integrated various aspects of Late Pleistocene human ecology, behavior and biology, the focus seemed to keep coming back to the two questions which have plagued European Late Pleistocene paleoanthropology for much of the past century. How similar were the Neandertals to early modern humans in their behavior and adaptive patterns, and how closely related were these two groups of humans? Since southern Iberia appeared, in 1998, to be the last refugium of the Neandertals, the focus of the conference, on both of these general issues and the natures of the Late Pleistocene changes in Iberia, seemed to bring the various questions into focus, if not any closer to resolution.
After the conference, one of us (ET) accompanied the other (JZ) to Portugal to view the
first of the Middle Paleolithic human remains from the Gruta da Oliviera (a manual middle
phalanx from the fifth ray) and to discuss possible further human paleontological work in the context of ongoing archeological excavations in the Almonda karstic complex. It was a pleasant couple of days that ended with a casual agreement to continue the collaboration should further and interesting Paleolithic human remains be found. Little did we expect what would emerge less than three months later.
The discovery of the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and the child’s burial in late November of 1998 and the subsequent salvage excavation during December and early January 1999 (see Chapter 2) was initially carried out largely in secret, since the site was unprotected and there was fear of damage to the skeleton by curious but poorly informed onlookers. However, after it was announced by the Portuguese media on December 25, every effort was made to make information on the site, the burial and skeleton available to both the public and the profession. Indeed, other than the normal restrictions dictated by excavation, laboratory cleaning and reassembly, and curatorial concerns regarding the fragile specimens, we have made an effort to be as open as possible about the remains and the site, to colleagues and the general public.
It is in the context of our belief that paleontological data should be made available as soon as is reasonably possible that we have conceived of the current volume on the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its Gravettian human remains. It is less than four years since the site was first discovered, and less than three years since all of the scattered cranial pieces of the child were recovered from the rockshelter. Moreover, extended excavations of the site have continued each year, with additional data on the geology, paleoecology and archeology of the preserved levels. For these reasons, our current study of both the site and the skeleton are not exhaustive — such a detailed level of analysis would take decades to be fully accomplished. However, the research has reached the point at which we feel that we have reliable information and inferences to present. This volume is the result.
In the excavation and analysis of the Abrigo do Lagar Velho, it was apparent to us from
the beginning that any such project required a variety of expertises to produce a worthwhile result. In order to accomplish this, we put together a team, with JZ being concerned with the excavation and analysis of the site and ET taking responsibility for the assembly and analysis of the human skeleton. Through all of this, absolutely critical work was undertaken and overseen by Cidália Duarte, who both excavated the skeleton in the field exquisitely (who else has excavated pedal phalangeal epiphyses identified as to digit from a Paleolithic burial?) and took care of the skeleton and all of the logistics surrounding its analysis in Lisbon. Even though she is not a co-editor on this volume and remains an author on only two chapters, she probably contributed more to the analysis of the skeleton than any one of us. The contributions of the others are evident in their authorships of the various chapters in the volume.
The volume is divided into two sections, one concerned with the site and the other with
the skeleton, preceded by a brief history of work at the site and on the skeleton and followed by discussions of the human phylogenetic and behavioral implications of the remains. Even though fieldwork continues at the site, principally in Gravettian levels in the western portion of the shelter, we have limited the discussions here to those concerned with the overall structure of the prehistoric deposits, the human burial and skeletal remains, and the paleoenvironmental, archeological and chronological contexts of the remains.
In addition, it was decided that the comparative frameworks employed for the description
of the site and its contents (since all description is by definition comparative) would be
largely limited to currently available data and interpretive frameworks. In a few cases the contributors have engaged in the collection of additional comparative data specific to this project, but the vast majority of the comparative frameworks have been put together from the published literature, personal experience, and data and ideas shared by colleagues. It is expected that we, and others, will pursue further a number of the issues raised by this site, refining and enlarging upon the results presented here.
Ironically, it is the one aspect of Late Pleistocene paleoanthropology, human phylogeny,
that was furthest from our primary interests which has sparked the pronounced and ongoing interest in “the Lapedo child.” Although both of us had written extensively on the transition from the Neandertals to early modern humans in Europe, and its complex interrelationships with the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition, we had both been concerned principally with the behavioral dynamics of the two human groups, asking questions about the natures and the degrees of behavioral similarities and differences between them. Phylogeny had entered into those discussions, primarily to the extent that it had a bearing on the probable patterns of interactions in time and space between the two groups of Late Pleistocene humans. Following on this train of research, when we proposed in 1999 that the Lapedo child, Lagar Velho 1, exhibited evidence of Neandertal-modern human admixture in Iberia, our primary thrust was what it told us about the degree of similarity of their behavioral patterns that enabled them to regard each other as potential mates.
Yet, the intensity of the debate concerning whether Neandertals and early modern humans had interbred, both in the professional and public arenas, led us to realize that these are issues about which people feel very strongly. However, unlike most academic arguments that are primarily concerned with the reputations of the scholars involved, this one touched deeply on a concern that went far beyond academic rivalries and previous position statements. It became increasingly apparent to us that it confronted the issue of how special we, as modern humans, actually are, how distinct we are (or are not) from humans who were not quite “us.”
The Gravettian child from the Lapedo Valley cannot, despite our efforts, resolve that question. Yet, it is our hope that our presentation of its remains and the contents of the site into which it was buried after its untimely death 25 millennia ago will contribute a little to our understanding of the processes that led to the emergence of early modern humans, and of the people who were involved in that process.
In 1925 Josef Szombathy (1853-1943) published a full, and for its time, relatively complete account of the excavations, geology, paleontology, archaeology, and anthropology of the Mladeč Caves1. It is unclear how Szombathy learned of Mladeč but in 1881 and 1882 he was commissioned by the Vienna Academy of Sciences to conduct exploratory research in the caves (Fig. 1.). The property was then owned by Prince Johann von and zu Liechtenstein, who as Szombathy commented, provided some "meager" financial support to run the excavations. The days Szombathy spent there were devoted to mapping the Main Cave and putting in test excavations, primarily in an area Szombathy called the "Dome of the Dead." As luck would have it, his excavations, though intended to be preliminary, produced major collections of human remains and prehistoric artifacts. Szombathy identified the locus of some discoveries, made a sketch of the vertical stratigraphy, and saved a great deal of the excavated material. After completing his work at the Main Cave in the late 19th century, all of the human remains and archaeological materials, and all of the faunal materials were brought to the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, where they still reside. Szombathy returned to Mladeč twice more, once in 1904 to study some of the new discoveries by Knies and Smyčka in the Quarry Cave and again in 1925 to examine new specimens excavated from the Main Cave. On the last trip, it seems he was expecting to have this material transferred to him in Vienna, but he was only allowed to study them in Litovel. He wrote2 "it was impossible for me, however, to undertake intensive investigation [⋯] because I was equipped only with my traveling tool kit" (1925, 73).
The Aurignacian has long been interpreted as the culture that corresponded to the arrival of modern humans in Europe and, along with them, all the constituent elements of the Upper Paleolithic. In addition to noting the profound technological changes, we emphasize in particular the systematization and diversification of personal ornaments and the emergence of graphic arts. While not denying the impact of such transformations, and not questioning their close association with the Aurignacian, our objective here is to place them in their archaeological context in order to show that their development was not sudden but in fact more gradual than is usually considered. With respect to the internal chronology of the Aurignacian, we thus depict a more complex image of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition, attenuating the impression of an abrupt and radical break that generally surrounds its interpretation.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND This chapter describes some of the Upper Paleolithic lithic material recovered from Fontéchevade during the early part of the twentieth century. Upper Paleolithic remains, in varying amounts and from both inside and outside the cave, had been noted by several excavators. The first to uncover these industries was L. Durousseau-Dugontier, between 1902 and 1910, but unfortunately his results were never published and his excavation notes have been lost (Henri-Martin 1957). In 1913 and 1914, M. Vallade undertook more systematic excavations, uncovering three beds of Upper Paleolithic. G. Henri-Martin used Vallade's unpublished results when she published her own excavations (1957). In 1921, M. and Mme. de Saint-Périer opened a trench at the opening of the cave, which yielded some Upper Paleolithic elements (1957). In 1933, P. David (1933) carried out several tests that also produced some Aurignacian artifacts. Although the most significant excavations were carried out starting in 1937 by Henri-Martin, the Upper Paleolithic had already been almost entirely removed, with only two remnants of the Aurignacian bed found (Henri-Martin 1957). In the course of the 1994–1998 excavations, no Upper Paleolithic was found in situ, though several indisputably Upper Paleolithic elements were uncovered in disturbed contexts. DATA FROM THE OLD EXCAVATIONS The first excavations by Durousseau-Dugontier produced pottery sherds as well as Typical Aurignacian and Châtelperronian lithics, although it is impossible to know if the excavator recognized any stratigraphy. © Philip G. Chase, André Debénath, Harold L. Dibble, and Shannon P. McPherron 2009.
The Aurignacian has long been interpreted as the culture that corresponded to the arrival of modern humans in Europe and, along with them, all the constituent elements of the Upper Paleolithic. In addition to noting the profound technological changes, we emphasize in particular the systematization and diversification of personal ornaments and the emergence of graphic arts. While not denying the impact of such transformations, and not questioning their close association with the Aurignacian, our objective here is to place them in their archaeological context in order to show that their development was not sudden but in fact more gradual than is usually considered. With respect to the internal chronology of the Aurignacian, we thus depict a more complex image of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition, attenuating the impression of an abrupt and radical break that generally surrounds its interpretation.
The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition is the key period for our understanding of Neanderthal and modern human interactions in Europe. The site of Les Cottés in south-west France is one of the rare sites with a complete and well defined sequence covering this transition period. We undertook an extensive radiocarbon dating program on mammal bone which allows us to propose a chronological framework of five distinct phases dating from the Mousterian to the Early Aurignacian at this site. We found that the Mousterian and Châtelperronian industries are separated from the overlying Protoaurignacian by a gap of approximately 1000 calendar years. Based on a comparison with Upper Paleolithic sites in Europe we see an overlap in the ages of Châtelperronian industries and Aurignacian lithic assemblages, which are usually associated with Anatomical Modern Humans, which is consistent with an acculturation at distance model for these late Neanderthals. The Proto and Early Aurignacian appear contemporaneous indicating that this transition was rapid in this region. Anatomically Modern Humans are present at the site of Les Cottés at least at 39,500 cal BP roughly coincident with the onset of the cold phase Heinrich 4.
Reanalysis and direct dating of an early modern human neurocranium from the Peştera Cioclovina Uscatǎ (Cioclovina 1), in combination with excavation and reanalysis of the remaining deposits in the cave, establish Cioclovina 1 as one of a small number of European early modern humans securely dated prior to ca. 28,000 14C BP (ca. 32,500 cal BP). The original stratigraphic context and archeological association of Cioclovina 1 are unknown (and probably unknowable), but sedimentological analysis and dating of cave bear remains suggests substantial Late Pleistocene geological reworking of deposits within the cave, which probably altered its context prior to the mining operations which unearthed the neurocranium. The otherwise excellent (if incomplete) preservation of Cioclovina 1 raises questions as to what, if any, human behaviors resulted in its burial within the Peştera Cioclovina Uscatǎ. Lesions are limited to the minor exocranial traumatic changes common among Late Pleistocene humans. Morphologically, Cioclovina 1 presents a suite of distinctive, derived modern human neurocranial features, associated with aspects of the superior nuchal morphology best known for European Neandertals, a mosaic pattern increasingly in evidence among early modern humans in Europe. © 2007 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved.
De tous les sites du Levant, c'est l'abri sous roche de Ksar Akil, au Liban, qui a produit la plus longue sequence connue du Paleolithique superieur. Ksar Akil a ete fouille dans les annees 1937-1938 par une equipe de Boston College, Massachusetts. Le travail de cette equipe, bien que loin du niveau atteint a l'heure actuelle, etait bon pour l'epoque et les artifacts decouverts alors representent les seuls temoignages complets de toute la periode du Paleolithique superieur. En 1938, des ossements humains, faisant probablement partie d'une sepulture contenant deux adolescents, ont ete trouves a un niveau du Paleolithique superieur remontant vraisemblablement a 35.000 av. J.C., ou meme plus tot. Le crâne et la mandibule d'« Egbert », decouverts dans le niveau XVII, ne peuvent a l'heure actuelle etre etudies qu'au moyen de moulages. Ceux-ci montrent que le specimen est a l'evidence moderne et gracile, en provenance d'un enfant dont la mort, selon nos criteres actuels, se serait situee vers l'âge de huit ans.
Between 2003 and 2005, the Peştera cu Oase, Romania yielded a largely complete early modern human cranium, Oase 2, scattered on the surface of a Late Pleistocene hydraulically displaced bone bed containing principally the remains of Ursus spelaeus. Multiple lines of evidence indicate an age of ≈40.5 thousand calendar years before the present (≈35 ka ¹⁴C B.P.). Morphological comparison of the adolescent Oase 2 cranium to relevant Late Pleistocene human samples documents a suite of derived modern human and/or non-Neandertal features, including absence of a supraorbital torus, subrectangular orbits, prominent canine fossae, narrow nasal aperture, level nasal floor, angled and anteriorly oriented zygomatic bones, a high neurocranium with prominent parietal bosses and marked sagittal parietal curvature, superiorly positioned temporal zygomatic root, vertical auditory porous, laterally bulbous mastoid processes, superiorly positioned posterior semicircular canal, absence of a nuchal torus and a suprainiac fossa, and a small occipital bun. However, these features are associated with an exceptionally flat frontal arc, a moderately large juxtamastoid eminence, extremely large molars that become progressively larger distally, complex occlusal morphology of the upper third molar, and relatively anteriorly positioned zygomatic arches. Moreover, the featureless occipital region and small mastoid process are at variance with the large facial skeleton and dentition. This unusual mosaic in Oase 2, some of which is paralleled in the Oase 1 mandible, indicates both complex population dynamics as modern humans dispersed into Europe and significant ongoing human evolution once modern humans were established within Europe.
• cranium
• dentition
• Neandertals
• Upper Paleolithic
Le réexamen des objets en matières dures d’origine animale du niveau 5, Gravettien ancien, du gisement
de l’abri Pataud (Dordogne, France) a révélé l’existence d’une dent humaine perforée. Bien que son
aménagement ne diffère pas de celui des autres dents animales percées découvertes dans le même niveau,cette pendeloque devait être chargée d’une signification particulière.
The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive evidence-based atlas to estimate age using both tooth development and alveolar eruption for human individuals between 28 weeks in utero and 23 years. This was a cross-sectional, retrospective study of archived material with the sample aged 2 years and older having a uniform age and sex distribution. Developing teeth from 72 prenatal and 104 postnatal skeletal remains of known age-at-death were examined from collections held at the Royal College of Surgeons of England and the Natural History Museum, London, UK (M 91, F 72, unknown sex 13). Data were also collected from dental radiographs of living individuals (M 264, F 264). Median stage for tooth development and eruption for all age categories was used to construct the atlas. Tooth development was determined according to Moorrees et al. (J Dent Res 42 (1963a) 490–502; Am J Phys Anthropol 21 (1963b) 205–213) and eruption was assessed relative to the alveolar bone level. Intraexaminer reproducibility calculated using Kappa on 150 teeth was 0.90 for 15 skeletal remains of age <2 years, and 0.81 from 605 teeth (50 radiographs). Age categories were monthly in the last trimester, 2 weeks perinatally, 3-month intervals during the first year, and at every year thereafter. Results show that tooth formation is least variable in infancy and most variable after the age of 16 years for the development of the third molar. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
The Upper Paleolithic fossils of the Mladec caves, South Moravia, excavated at the end of the 19th century, hold a key position in the current discussion on modern human emergence within Europe and the fate of the Neanderthals. Although undoubtedly early modern humans - recently radio carbon dated to 31.000 years BP - their morphological variability and the presence of archaic features are indicative to some degree of regional Neanderthal ancestry. The beautifully illustrated monograph addresses - for the first time - the complete assemblage of the finds, including the human cranial, post cranial, teeth and jaw fragments of several individuals (most of them stored at the Natural History Museum Vienna) as well as the faunal remains and the archaeological objects. Leading scientists present their results, obtained with innovative techniques such as DNA analysis, 3D-morphometry and isotope analysis, which are of great importance for further discussions on both human evolution and archaeological issues.
Probably the most dramatic events of Henri-Martin's excavations at Fontéchevade were the discoveries of two fragments of human skull. A bit of frontal bone lacking a supraorbital torus (Fontéchevade I) was found in apparent association with a more archaic-looking partial calotte (Fontéchevade II). (Henry-Martin [1957] referred to these as Homo I and Homo II, respectively.) Both came from the upper parts of her Bed E, which she dated to the last interglacial (OIS 5) or earlier. Because of this date, the modern appearance of Fontéchevade I has posed a problem for paleoanthropologists. Although these are the most famous of the Fontéchevade human remains, the site also contained Bronze Age burials, and during the 1994–1998 excavations more human remains were recovered. In this chapter, the various interpretations and descriptions of the Fontéchevade I and Fontéchevade II specimens are summarized, followed by descriptions of the other human remains from the cave. THE “TAYACIAN” REMAINS The fragment of frontal bone was discovered on August 13, 1947. A block of breccia coming from Henri-Martin's Bed E0 in her Sector 1, 2.40–2.60 m below her datum and some 6.5 m in front of the present dripline (Vallois 1958:7–8), was transported to her laboratory in Le Peyrat to permit methodical disengagement of the archaeological material. It was during the course of this work that the fragment of frontal bone appeared. Vallois (1958:7) noted that no trace of fire was observed at this bed. These specimens are housed in the Musée de l'Homme in Paris. © Philip G. Chase, André Debénath, Harold L. Dibble, and Shannon P. McPherron 2009.
For more than a century, scientists have returned time and again to the issue of modern human emergence-the when and where of the evolutionary process and the human behavioral and biological dynamics involved. The 2003 discovery of a human partial skeleton at Tianyuandong (Tianyuan Cave) excited worldwide interest. The first human skeleton from the region to be directly radiocarbon-dated (to 40,000 years before present), its geological age places it close to the time period during which modern humans became permanently established across the Old World (between 50,000 and 35,000 years ago). Through detailed description and interpretation of the most complete early modern human skeleton from eastern Asia, The Early Modern Human from Tianyan Cave, China, addresses long-term questions about the ancestry of modern humans in eastern Asia and the nature of the changes in human behavior with the emergence of modern human biology. This book is a detailed, paleontological and paleobiological presentation of this skeleton, its context, and its implications. By providing basic information for this important human fossil, offering inferences concerning the population processes involved in modern human emergence in eastern Eurasia, and by raising questions concerning the adaptations of these early modern human hunter-gatherers, The Early Modern Human from Tianyuan Cave, China will take its place as a core contribution to the study of modern human emergence.
The Nazlet Khater 2 skeleton has been discovered in 1980 during the excavations of the Belgian Middle Egypt Prehistoric Project in the Nile Valley (Egypt). Its association with the Early Upper Paleolithic chert mining site of Nazlet Khater 4 (whose exploitation period range from 35 to 40 Ka) makes it the oldest complete OIS 3 modern human skeleton in northern Africa. The Nazlet Khater 2 remains belong to a young adult male. It is well preserved with the exception of the distal part of the legs and the foot. Comparative analyses of the specimen underline the complex morphology of modern human from this time period. NK 2 exhibits several retained archaic features notably on the face and the mandible. The inner ear structures display morphological characteristics that stand on the fringe of extant human variation. The postcranial remains have strong musular insertions and are adapted to high biomechanical strength. Furthermore, Nazlet Khater 2 has vertebral and membral lesions. All of this might be related to intensive mining activities. The study of this specimen provides an opportunity to increase our understanding of modern human variation during this time period (OIS 3) for which very rare human remains are known.
Critical review of methods of production and use of chronologies of formation of human teeth.
Debate continues concerning the role of the Neandertals in the emergence of early modern Europeans. This paper presents one assessment of aspects of the morphological data, chronological patterns, genetic information and archaeology relevant to the debate. It is clear that none of these unequivocally support any of the models offered to explain modern human origins. In fact despite various claims to the contrary, there continues to be valid scientific debate about the interpretation of patterns from all of these disciplinary domains and which models they are more commensurate with. The assessment presented here concludes that the assimilation model is the best explanation for the origin of anatomically modern humans in Europe. If Neandertals are assimilated into in-migrating populations of modern people in Europe, then Neandertals do not go extinct in the classical sense of the word.
Radiocarbon dating of material from Late Pleistocene archaeological sites is challenging. Small amounts of modern 14C-labelled contamination will significantly affect the reliability of dates from the period, producing erroneous results. Recent developments in sample pre-treatment chemistry have shown that problems in reliable age determination during this period are surmountable. In this paper we provide an example of one such case, from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transitional site of the Grotta di Fumane, in northern Italy. We AMS dated two fractions of the same charcoal samples derived from a series of superimposed Mousterian, Aurignacian and Gravettian levels excavated at the site. One fraction was treated using the routine acid–base–acid (ABA) method, the other with the more rigorous acid–base-oxidation/stepped combustion (ABOx–SC) method. The latter method produced consistently older, and almost certainly more reliable, results. The eruption of the known-age Campanian Ignimbrite from the Phlegrean Fields near present-day Naples at 39.3ka yr BP seals Ulluzzian and Proto Aurignacian levels in the south of Italy. Equivalent cultural levels are present at Fumane and the results obtained with the ABOx–SC methods are consistent with the ages inferred for sites in the south of Italy based on the presence of the Campanian Ignimbrite. New results from a sample found beneath the Campanian Ignimbrite at the Russian site of Kostenki, obtained using both the ABA and ABOx–SC, methods are also presented. They support the conclusion reached at Fumane by demonstrating that, in many cases, the ABOX–SC treatment effectively removes contamination where the ABA treatment does not. The results of the work offer a sobering examination of the problems inherent in the current radiocarbon database relating to the period, and highlight the dangers of an uncritical use of the corpus of 14C results obtained over the last few decades. Based on our results, we predict that more than 70% of the 53 previously available determinations from Fumane are erroneously young. A way forward is suggested, using these improved chemical preparation methods, applying analytical methods to characterise the material dated, and testing existing site chronologies to establish which previous determinations are liable to be inaccurate.
The Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) has used an ultrafiltration protocol to further purify gelatin from archaeological bone since 2000. In this paper, the methodology is described, and it is shown that, in many instances, ultrafiltration successfully removes low molecular weight contaminants that less rigorous methods may not. These contami- nants can sometimes be of a different radiocarbon age and, unless removed, may produce erroneous determinations, particu- larly when one is dating bones greater than 2 to 3 half-lives of 14C and the contaminants are of modern age. Results of the redating of bone of Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic age from the British Isles and Europe suggest that we may need to look again at the traditional chronology for these periods.
New accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dates taken directly on human remains from the Late Pleistocene sites of Vindija
and Velika Pećina in the Hrvatsko Zagorje of Croatia are presented. Hominid specimens from both sites have played critical
roles in the development of current perspectives on modern human evolutionary emergence in Europe. Dates of ≈28 thousand years
(ka) before the present (B.P.) and ≈29 ka B.P. for two specimens from Vindija G1 establish them as the most recent dated Neandertals in the Eurasian range of these archaic humans. The human frontal bone
from Velika Pećina, generally considered one of the earliest representatives of modern humans in Europe, dated to ≈5 ka B.P.,
rendering it no longer pertinent to discussions of modern human origins. Apart from invalidating the only radiometrically
based example of temporal overlap between late Neandertal and early modern human fossil remains from within any region of
Europe, these dates raise the question of when early modern humans first dispersed into Europe and have implications for the
nature and geographic patterning of biological and cultural interactions between these populations and the Neandertals.
Die Kelders Cave 1, on the southwestern coast of South Africa, preserves a rich Later Stone Age (LSA) occupation and a thick series of Middle Stone Age (MSA) layers below. Limited excavation of the MSA layers has yielded numerous lithic artifacts and faunal remains, and nine human teeth. Sedimentologial and faunal evidence suggests that the MSA levels accumulated under comparatively cool, mesic conditions, probably at the beginning of the Last Glaciation (isotope stage 4). The MSA artifact assemblage consists overwhelmingly of quartzite débitage. Elongate flakes are fairly common; systematic retouch is extremely rare. The high frequency of silcrete artifacts in some of the lower units may signal the Howiesons Poort variant of the MSA, although diagnostic backed and truncated pieces are absent. The animal bones come from rodents, insectivores and other small creatures that were probably introduced mainly by owls, as well as from larger mammals and seabirds that were probably introduced mainly by humans. This latter component resembles the Klasies River Mouth MSA fauna in the abundance of eland relative to wild pigs, the dominance of penguins over flying birds, and the absence of fish. At both Die Kelders and Klasies River Mouth these features tentatively suggest that MSA hunter-foragers exploited animal resources less effectively than their LSA successors. Although the Die Kelders MSA human teeth tend to be somewhat larger, they are morphologically similar to modern African homologues, and they exhibit several features that tend to distinguish modern Africans among other populations. These teeth may be added to the small fossil sample that attests to the morphological modernity of the MSA inhabitants of southern Africa.