0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
-
Upload
pado-briog -
Category
Documents
-
view
231 -
download
0
Transcript of 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
1/12
*Corresponding author.
JQI=526=Shantha=Venkatachala=BG
1040-6182/01/$20.00 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 0 40 - 6 1 8 2 (0 0 ) 0 0 0 75 - 6
Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40
The late Middle Paleolithic and earliest Upper Paleolithic in CentralEurope and their relevance for the Out of Africa hypothesis
Michael Bolus*, Nicholas J. Conard
Abteilung Altere Urgeschichte und Quarta(ro(kologie, Institut fu(r Ur- und Fru(hgeschichte und Archa(ologie des Mittelalters der Universita(t Tu(bingen,
Schloss Hohentu(bingen, Burgsteige 11, D-72070 Tu(bingen, Germany
Abstract
The available data from Central Europe is consistent with the hypothesis thatHomo sapiens sapiens evolved initially outside Europe
and colonized the di!erent regions of the continent previously occupied by Neanderthals between roughly 50 and 30 kyr BP. Di!erenttransitional industries in Central Europe, which show both Middle and Upper Paleolithic features, appear to root in the local Middle
Paleolithic assemblages. At present it is uncertain which hominids produced the transitional industries. While organic artifacts,
objects of personal ornamentation, and art objects are generally absent in these transitional assemblages, they become abundant in
the Aurignacian, which represents the"rst fully evolved Upper Paleolithic technocomplex spread over larger parts of Europe. Both
radiocarbon and TL dates indicate that the Aurignacian was present in Central Europe, including Germany, as early as about 40 kyr
ago. This means that coexistence of Neanderthals and anatomically modern hominids endured for a time span of some 10 kyr, since
with the appearance of the Aurignacian we "rst encounter the cultural remains ofHomo sapiens sapienswith fully developed artistic
and symbolic representations, ornaments, and abundant organic tools, while the last Neanderthals appear to have lived some 30 kyr
ago. 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
While it is generally accepted that the earliest hom-
inids have their roots in Africa and from there colonized
the low and middle latitudes of the Old World, no con-
sensus exists regarding the evolution and spread of ana-
tomically modern hominids. Scholars continue to debate
whether this evolution took place simultaneously on
di!erent continents or whether Homo sapiens sapiens,
after evolving initially in Africa, replaced existing archaic
populations including the Neanderthals in westernEurasia (Mellars and Stringer, 1989; Trinkaus, 1989;
BraKuer and Smith, 1992).
This paper cannot present the full story of the
transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic for the
whole of Central Europe. The cultural manifestations
during the period in question *approximately between
50,000 and 30,000 BP*are too diverse and uncertain in
their interrelations. By focusing on key aspects of the
archaeological record in Germany as well as in Eastern
and Southeastern Central Europe, we can provide
evidence relevant to the Out of Africa hypothesis, and
conclude that this hypothesis is supported by the
archaeological data.
2. The archaeological record in Eastern and Southeastern
Central Europe
In Eastern Central Europe, especially in Moravia,
there are two main transitional industries. The
Bohunician and the Szeletian both root in the local
Middle Paleolithic. The Bohunician has its geographiccenter in the region of Brno. The radiocarbon dates for
the important sites of Brno-Bohunice and StraH nska skaH la
(Fig. 1: 7 and 9) lie between 36 and 43 kyr BP and show
relatively high statistical uncertainties ranging from 1.1
to 3.1 kyr (Svoboda et al., 1996: Table 5.2). Noteworthy,
is the abundance of Levallois elements in these lithic
assemblages. This characteristic has led Svoboda et al.
(1996, p. 108) to postulate the existence of cultural a$n-
ities with the Near East and northern and central Asia.
The pattern of lithic reduction in the Bohunician com-
bines Upper Paleolithic concepts such as the reduction
along the edges of cores with the use of the Levalloisconcept. An abundance of blades ranges from 20 to 45%
of the larger debitage. The Bohunician appears to have
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
2/12
Fig. 1. Major sites with Early Upper Paleolithic industries in Central Europe mentioned in the text. 1, Schwalbenberg; 2, Gei{enkloKsterle and
Sirgenstein (Ach Valley); 3, Vogelherd, Hohlenstein, and Bockstein (Lone Valley); 4, Keilberg-Kirche; 5, Willendorf; 6, Galgenberg-Stratzing;
7, Brno-Bohunice; 8, Vedrovice; 9, StraH nska skaH la; 10, Mladec; 11, Vindija; 12, Velika Pecina; 13, Temnata and 14, Bacho Kiro.
developed out of the Mousterian and would thus seem to
have been produced by Neanderthals.
The Szeletian, in contrast to the Bohunician, shows
a broader distribution with a far greater number of sites.
Karel Valoch has argued that the Szeletian may haveevolved from earlier central European Micoquian and
Keilmesser industries as typi"ed by the"nds from Kulna
7 and 6a (Valoch, 1993, pp. 57}67). Szeletian assemblages
lack Levallois cores and debitage, but bifacial forms
including leaf points are abundant. Laminar debitage is
less common than in Bohunician assemblages. The best-
dated site is Vedrovice V (Fig. 1: 8), which has been
radiocarbon dated to between 35.15$0.65 and 39.5$
1.1 kyr BP (Svoboda et al., 1996, Table 5.3).
Both of these assemblage types include a tool spectrum
that is characterized by both Middle and Upper Paleo-lithic elements. The Bohunician is particularly domi-
nated by Upper Paleolithic forms, including end
scrapers, carinated scrapers, and burins. Less abundant
within the Bohunician are Middle Paleolithic forms in-
cluding scrapers and denticulates, and Levallois points.
Although leaf points or Blattspitzen are common in the
Szeletian, they occur only rarely in the Bohunician. Or-
ganic artifacts, which are often seen as characteristic of
the Upper Paleolithic, including bone, antler and ivory
tools, ornaments, and artworks are entirely unknown in
both the Bohunician and the Szeletian. While no human
skeletal material has been found in unambiguous associ-ation with these assemblages, it is at least plausible that
these assemblages were manufactured by Neanderthals.
Turning to the Aurignacian, the densest concentration
of sites from this period outside France is found in
Moravia, where numerous surface sites are well
documented, but remain undated. In Lower Austria,
strati"ed open-air sites are well known from WillendorfII, Galgenberg-Stratzing (Fig. 1: 5 and 6), Krems-
Hundssteig, and Langmannersdorf (Hahn, 1977, pp. 104}
109; Neugebauer-Maresch, 1996). Based on the available
chronostratigraphic data, it appears that the Aurignacian
in these parts of Central Europe covers a broad temporal
span between ca. 38 kyr radiocarbon years at Willendorf
II, Kulturschicht 3 (Haesaerts et al., 1996), to around
29 kyr at Milovice (Svoboda et al., 1996, Table 5.4).
Intermediate radiocarbon dates are known from sites
including Pod hradem at 33.3$1.1 kyr BP (Svoboda
et al., 1996, Table 5.4). These Aurignacian assemblagesare dominated by end scrapers, carinated and nosed end
scrapers, and burins; but side scrapers, notches, and den-
ticulates are also present. Unidirectional blade cores usu-
ally dominate the assemblages (Hahn, 1977, p. 194) and,
as Bon (1996) has demonstrated for the Aurignacian of
the Grotte des Hyenes near Brassempouy in France,
a number of the carinated scrapers may well have served
as blade cores. With the appearance of the Aurignacian
in Moravia, the systematic production of bone and antler
tools is documented, among which Mladec points
are noteworthy (Hahn, 1977, pp. 222}225). Additionally,
among others, ivory pendants and perforated teeth arepresent and demonstrate the"rst use of ornaments in the
region. Both in terms of the technology and typology of
Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC
30 M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
3/12
the lithic artifacts and with the presence of numerous
organic artifacts, the Aurignacian seems to appear rela-
tively suddenly in this part of Central Europe, and sug-
gests a cultural development that arises independently of
the earlier Bohunician and Szeletian assemblage types.
When considering the connection between hominid
skeletal morphology and artifact assemblages, the impor-
tant human fossils from Mladec (Fig. 1: 10) are of onlymarginal help since they cannot be attributed with cer-
tainty to a particular assemblage type. The reexamina-
tion of these fossils by BraKuer and Broeg (1998) did not
identify any evidence for hybridization, as had been ar-
gued earlier (e.g. Frayer, 1986, 1992) and suggests that
they can be classi"ed as Homo sapiens sapiens.
In southeastern Europe, assemblages that belong to
the period of the transition from the Middle to the Upper
Paleolithic are also known. These assemblages can be
seen as analogous to the Bohunician in Moravia. In
Bulgaria, Temnata Cave (Fig. 1: 13) provides a transi-tional industry of Layer VI, Sector TD-II, radio-
carbon dated to at least 38.7 kyr (Ginter et al., 1996,
Table 1). The early Aurignacian from a di!erent part of
the same cave has yielded AMS radiocarbon ages in
excess of 40 kyr. The transitional assemblage from Tem-
nata is characterized by a temporal shift from Levallois
cores toward bi-directional Upper Paleolithic cores.
Ginter and colleagues see this assemblage as a continua-
tion of the Moustero-Levalloisian tradition (Ginter et al.,
1996, p. 190). Noteworthy, is an engraved stone from the
transitional assemblage that represents one of the very
few"nds that could perhaps be seen as an indication thatartworks are present before the Aurignacian (CreHmades
et al., 1995). The earliest Aurignacian from Temnata has
to be referred to as the Early Balkan Aurignacian or the
Bachokirian (Ginter et al., 1996, pp. 195}198).
Also in Bulgaria, the cave of Bacho Kiro (Fig. 1: 14)
has played a central role in the discourse about the
origins of the Aurignacian and modern humans in
Europe. Here, Cultural Horizon I of Level 11 has yielded
an early Upper Paleolithic assemblage, which Kozlowski
and colleagues have referred to as the Bachokirian or as
the Early Balkan Aurignacian (Kozlowski, 1982). Thishorizon was originally dated to in excess of 43 kyr with
conventional radiocarbon in Groningen (Mook, 1982).
Newer AMS dates from Oxford for Level 11/11a are
younger, with ages of 38.5$1.1, 37.7$1.5 and
34.8$1.2 and 33.8$0.9 kyr BP (Hedges et al., 1994,
pp. 347}348). A clear explanation for these diverse dates
is not yet available. This assemblage lacks bone points
and other organic artifacts of the Aurignacian, and both
side-scrapers and Levallois points are very rare. The
blade production is of Upper Paleolithic character.
Kozlowski and colleagues see no connection between the
Bachokirian assemblage and lower lying Middle Paleo-lithic assemblages, and emphasize the Upper Paleolithic
nature of this industry (Kozlowski, 1982, p. 163).
In Croatia and Slovenia there seems to be a relatively
continuous cultural development between 45 and 30 kyr
BP from late Middle Paleolithic to early Upper Paleo-
lithic industries which in most cases cannot be classi"ed
as Aurignacian (Karavanic and Smith, 1998).
The exact stratigraphic positions and cultural attribu-
tions, as well as the dates of the hominid remains from
Southwestern Central Europe belonging to this period,have been questioned (Mellars et al., 1999; Zilhao and
d'Errico, 1999a, b). Among others, this is true for the
Neanderthals from the early Upper Paleolithic level G1
of Vindija cave in Croatia (Fig. 1: 11) which yielded AMS
radiocarbon ages of 33$0.4 kyr BP (Karavanic and
Smith, 1998, Fig. 2) and 28}29 kyr BP (Smith et al., 1999)
respectively. These results suggest the presence of Nean-
derthals in the region signi"cantly after the appearance of
Aurignacian assemblages and modern Homo sapiens in
other parts of Central Europe. The lithic artifacts from
Vindija are dominated by quartz, with lesser amounts ofgraywacke, chert, and radiolarite. The abundance of raw
materials with irregular chipping characteristics contrib-
utes to the non-standardized nature of the Vindija lithic
assemblages. Both Middle and Upper Paleolithic tools
are present. The stratigraphic integrity of the site
has been questioned (see Karavanic and Smith, 1998,
pp. 233}236; Zilhao and d'Errico, 1999b, pp. 355}357)
and given the rich bone assemblages from the overlying
layers, there is still uncertainty about whether or not the
Neanderthal remains from Layer G1 are associated with
the worked bone industry.
Apart from the cranial fragment of Homo sapienssapiens from Layer j at Velika Pecina cave (Fig. 1: 12;
Malez, 1974, pp. 8}13; Karavanic and Smith, 1998,
pp. 239}241), this deposit yielded only one stone tool.
The lower lying Layer k contained what appears to be
a Middle Paleolithic assemblage. The overlying Layer
i yielded only seven lithic tools, including both Middle
and Upper Paleolithic forms. The latter deposit also
produced three bone points, which have led to the
assumption that this layer should be attributed to
the Upper Paleolithic (Karavanic and Smith, 1998,
pp. 238}
239).It must be stressed that all the dates mentioned so far
are radiocarbon dates, many of them lying outside the
reliable range of the method.
3. The archaeological record in Germany
In Germany, the entirety of the Middle Paleolithic
appears to have been accompanied by the evolution of
Neanderthals out of earlierHomo heidelbergensispopula-
tions. The fossil hominids start with Mauer (Wagner and
Beinhauer, 1997), include those from Bilzingsleben(Mania et al., 1980), Steinheim (Adam, 1988), and
Reilingen (Czarnetzki, 1989, 1991; Condemi, 1996), and
Jqi=526=SC=VVC
M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40 31
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
4/12
Fig. 2. Schwalbenberg near Remagen, Rhineland/Germany. Stone artifacts. 1}4, side scrapers; 5, 8, splintered pieces; 6, end scraper; 7, 9, pre-forms of
bifacially retouched tools; 10, discoidal core and 11, blade core (modi"ed after App et al., 1995).
"nally reach classical Neanderthals like those from Ne-
andertal itself (Krings et al., 1997). Recent "nds from
Ochtendung, dated to the penultimate glaciation (Berg,
1997; Condemi, 1997), and Warendorf-Neuwarendorf
(Czarnetzki, in press) "t well into this lineage, whichseems to represent a continuous line of evolution. How-
ever, there is no direct link between the Neanderthals and
early Homo sapiens sapiens fossils such as the one from
Vogelherd cave (Riek, 1932).
This conclusion is highlighted both by DNA analyses
conducted by a TuKbingen team comparing the Stetten
I fossil from Vogelherd cave with Neanderthals likeWarendorf and Krapina (Scholz et al., 1999; Pusch, pers.
comm.), and by DNA analyses conducted by a team in
Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC
32 M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
5/12
Munich, using the type specimen itself (Krings et al.,
1997). In both cases the data support the hypothesis that
Neanderthals were not direct ancestors of anatomically
modern hominids.
The latest Middle Paleolithic of Germany is character-
ized by Blattspitzen assemblages which are, however, less
numerous than in Eastern Central Europe (Bolus and
RuKck, 2000; Conard and Fischer, in press). TheseGerman assemblages with Blattspitzen do not appear to
have evolved out of the local Middle Paleolithic. Autoch-
thonous transitional industries without or nearly without
Blattspitzen comparable to the Bohunician seem to be
absent in Germany, perhaps with the exception of the
small assemblage from Schwalbenberg in the Rhineland
(Fig. 1: 1), excavated by Joachim Hahn (App et al., 1995).
This site yielded both a discoidal core (Fig. 2: 10) and
a blade core (Fig. 2: 11); the number of blades is small.
Amongst the tools, side-scrapers (Fig. 2: 1}4) predomi-
nate, but there is one end-scraper (Fig. 2: 6) as well;splintered pieces (Fig. 2: 5 and 8) are relatively numerous.
It is noteworthy that splintered pieces also frequently
appear in Blattspitzen assemblages (e.g., Zeitlarn: Heinen
and Beck, 1997, and Vedrovice V: Valoch, 1993). Another
feature linking the Schwalbenberg assemblage with
Blattspitzen assemblages is the morphology of the
end-scraper with heavily retouched edges (Fig. 2: 6)
which was produced out of a thick #ake rather than out
of a blade. Thus, it can be stated that not a single genuine
Upper Paleolithic tool type can be found within the
Schwalbenberg assemblage. Two pre-forms of bifacially
retouched artifacts (Fig. 2: 7 and 9) also provide links toassemblages with Blattspitzen such as the Szeletian. In
contrast to the Middle Paleolithic tool types and blank
production, the patterns of raw material procurement
resemble those of Upper Paleolithic sites in the Middle
Rhine region. About 60% of the raw material used at the
Schwalbenberg site was obtained from within a distance
of up to 85 km (Floss, 1994, pp. 171}174) while for other
Middle Paleolithic sites of that region the amount of raw
materials from a greater distance is normally less than
3%. This value increases only slightly during the Aurig-
nacian and rises with the Gravettian, reaching its max-imum value during the Magdalenian (Floss, 1994).
One of the key sites in southern Germany is
Gei{enkloKsterle cave (Fig. 1: 2) in the Ach Valley near
Blaubeuren. As in most other sites of the region, there is
no continuous stratigraphic sequence from the Middle to
the Upper Paleolithic. Above a Middle Paleolithic hor-
izon, dated by ESR to a mean value of 43.3$4kyr BP
(Richter et al., 2000), which has, however, so far been
excavated for only a few square meters, there is an ar-
chaeologically sterile layer, followed by an Upper Paleo-
lithic sequence. This sequence starts with Aurignacian,
which Joachim Hahn subdivided into two horizons(Archaeological Horizons III and II: Hahn, 1988) and
is overlain by the Gravettian and Magdalenian.
In contrast to Hahn, who addressed the lowest Upper
Paleolithic horizon (Archaeological Horizon III) as
&Protoaurignacien'we refer to this horizon as the Lower
Aurignacian. Unidirectional blade production (Fig. 3: 16)
is well represented in both horizons (Hahn, 1988, pp.
144}147), and we "nd almost the same tool types. There
are, however, more carinated and nosed end scrapers in
the lower horizon (Fig. 3: 1}7) while in the upper (Archae-ological Horizon II) there are more simple end scrapers
on blades (Fig. 4: 5, 7 and 9). Burins, especially burins on
truncation, are represented in almost equal numbers in
both horizons (Fig. 3: 8, 11 and 12; Fig. 4: 10). The upper
horizon in turn yielded more blades with lateral retouch
(Fig. 4: 8) and pointed blades (Fig. 4: 19), as well as more
splintered pieces (Fig. 3: 9 and 10; Fig. 4: 13, 14 and 17).
There are only a few Dufour bladelets (Fig. 4: 15) in the
Upper Aurignacian, and they are lacking in the Lower
Aurignacian. Middle Paleolithic type tools are rare in
both horizons.The Lower Aurignacian yielded two perforated teeth
(Fig. 3: 17 and 18), two ivory pendants (Fig. 3: 14 and 15),
and a pre-form of a bone bead (Fig. 3: 13), while tools
made of bone, antler and ivory appear in considerable
numbers (Fig. 3: 19). Only art objects are absent. They
are in turn present in the Upper Aurignacian (Fig. 6: 13,
15, 16 and 18), representing some of the earliest art
objects known. In the Upper Aurignacian, artifacts made
of organic materials (Fig. 5: 5, 6 and 12) including bone
#utes (Fig. 6: 19), as well as objects of personal ornamen-
tation (Fig. 6: 1}5) are abundant.
While Zilhao and d'Errico *who have not studied theoriginals *reject the term Aurignacian or even Proto-
aurignacian for the lower horizon, which they tend to
label just as non-diagnostic early Upper Paleolithic
(Zilha o and d'Errico, 1999a), we do not hesitate to con-
"rm Hahn's assessment of the Aurignacian character of
the Level III assemblage. The lack of some tool types in
the Level III assemblage may well be due to the func-
tional context. An analysis of the faunal remains conduc-
ted by MuKnzel shows that in the Lower Aurignacian
there are numerous hints for working of organic mater-
ials, especially ivory, and the manufacture of organictools, even though the number of tools themselves is not
very high (MuKnzel, 1999). In 1977, Hahn already stressed
that di!erences in the frequency of special tool types as
well as the occurrence or non-occurrence of tool types
may be due to functional variability rather than to chro-
nological di!erences (Hahn, 1977, pp. 294}296).
Using the TL signal from burnt #ints, Daniel Richter
dated the Lower Aurignacian of Gei{enkloKsterle cave at
an average of 40.2$1.5 kyr BP, while the Upper Aurig-
nacian produced TL ages at about 37 kyr BP Radiocar-
bon AMS dates of bone samples from both horizons are
somewhat younger: for Level III a mean age of38.4$0.85 kyr BP was obtained, for Level II a mean age
of 33.5$0.35 kyr BP (Richter et al., 2000).
Jqi=526=SC=VVC
M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40 33
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
6/12
Fig. 3. Gei{enkloKsterle Cave, Southern Germany. Lower Aurignacian}Archaeological Horizon III. 1}3, carinated end scrapers; 4}7, nosed end
scrapers; 8, 11, 12, burins; 9, 10, splintered pieces; 13, pre-form of a bone bead; 14, 15, ivory pendants; 16, blade core with re"tted blades; 17, 18,
perforated teeth and 19, ivory projectile point (modi"ed after Hahn, 1988).
Only one other German Aurignacian assemblage has
been dated this early: the one from Keilberg-Kirche near
Regensburg in Bavaria (Fig. 1: 4), which yielded conven-
tional charcoal dates ranging between 37.5$1.45 and
38.6$1.2 kyr BP (Uthmeier, 1996).
In addition to Gei{enkloK sterle, Aurignacian art objectsand objects of personal ornamentation are well known
from the Lone Valley (Fig. 1: 3), at the cave sites of
Vogelherd (Fig. 6: 14 and 17; Riek, 1934; Hahn, 1977, pp.
87}91), Hohlenstein-Stadel (Fig. 6: 7 and 8; Hahn, 1977,
pp. 86}87), and Bockstein (Fig. 6: 9 and 12; Hahn, 1977,
pp. 82}85), excavated by Gustav Riek and Robert Wetzel
in the 1930s, and from the Ach Valley (Fig. 1: 2) at the
cave site of Sirgenstein (Fig. 6: 6), excavated by RobertRudolf Schmidt in 1906 (Hahn, 1977, pp. 92}94). In these
caves the ornaments and art objects were associated with
Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC
34 M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
7/12
Fig. 4. Stone artifacts from the Upper Aurignacian/Archaeological Horizon II of Gei{enkloKsterle Cave (7}10, 13}15, 17, 19) and artifacts from
comparable cave sites in Southwestern Germany: Sirgenstein IV (1, 4), Sirgenstein V (2), Vogelherd V (3, 5, 6, 16, 18), and Bockstein-ToK rle VII (11, 12).
1}3, carinated end scrapers; 4, 6, nosed end scrapers; 5, 9, end scrapers; 7, burin combined with end scraper; 8, blade with retouched edges; 10 }12, 16,
burins; 13, 14, 17, splintered pieces; 15, Dufour bladelet; 18, 19, pointed blades (modi "ed after Hahn, 1977, 1988).
assemblages corresponding to the Upper Aurignacian of
Gei{enkloKsterle (Fig. 4: 1}6, 11,12, 16 and 18; Fig. 5: 1}4,
7}11).
The dates for the assemblages from Vogelherd andStadel caves range from about 30}32 kyr BP, suggesting
that they postdate the Upper Aurignacian from Gei{en-
kloKsterle. It must be stressed, however, that in contrast to
the other four sites mentioned, Gei{enkloKsterle cave has
been recently excavated with modern standards of docu-
mentation and a more systematic sampling, allowing theTL and C dates from Gei{enkloKsterle to be regarded as
much more reliable. We are just getting new dates for the
Jqi=526=SC=VVC
M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40 35
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
8/12
Fig. 5. Organic artifacts from the Upper Aurignacian/ArchaeologicalHorizon II of Gei{enkloK sterle Cave (5, 6, 12) and artifacts from comparable cave
sites in Southwestern Germany: Vogelherd V (1}4, 7, 9}11) and BocksteinhoKhle (8). 1}6, 8, projectile points with split base; 7, cave bear tooth used as
retoucher; 9, 10, bone points with massive base; 11, smoothing tool; 12, ba(ton perceH (modi"ed after Hahn, 1977, 1988).
other sites, using bones de"nitely worked by man, and
this will give us the possibility of checking the dates
obtained earlier.
While early Upper Paleolithic hominid remains are
absent in Gei{enkloK sterle and only a single tooth was
recovered from the Stadel Aurignacian, Vogelherd cave
yielded the very well-preserved specimen Stetten I
(Fig. 7), which was found at the base of the Aurignacian
sequence (Fig. 8) and thus represents one of the earliest"nds of Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe. This demon-
strates that anatomically modern hominids are respon-
sible for the fully developed Aurignacian, while no fossil
evidence is at present available for the earliest
Aurignacian from Gei{enkloKsterle.
4. Conclusions
Let us now look at the archaeological evidence with
regard to the Out of Africa hypothesis. Neither in East-ern or Southeastern Central Europe, nor in Germany can
an autochthonous evolution of anatomically modern hu-
Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC
36 M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
9/12
Fig. 6. Ornamental objects, art objects, and a musical instrument from the Upper Aurignacian/Archaeological Horizon II of Gei{enkloK sterle Cave
(1}5, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19) and from comparable cave sites in Southwestern Germany: Sirgenstein IV (6), Hohlenstein-Stadel VI}V (7, 8), Bockstein-ToK rle
IV}VI (9}12), and Vogelherd V (14, 17). 1}6, pendants; 7, 8, perforated teeth; 9}11, stone beads; 12, stone pendant; 13}16, ivory "gurines; 17, 18,
ornamented objects and 19, bone#ute (modi"ed after Hahn, 1977, 1986, 1988; Hahn and MuKnzel, 1995).
mans from the existing Neanderthal populations be dem-
onstrated. An in situ development of Upper Paleolithic
features out of the local Middle Paleolithic industriesappears to be possible regarding the archaeological re-
cord in Central Europe. To what extent processes of
acculturation took place and in which direction a pre-
sumed acculturation was oriented remains subject to
controversial discussions. In any case, it is remarkablethat essential features of fully developed Upper Paleo-
lithic assemblages are lacking in the very places where
Jqi=526=SC=VVC
M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40 37
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
10/12
Fig. 7. Vogelherd Cave, Southwestern Germany.Homo sapiens sapiens
specimen &Stetten I' found at the base of the Aurignacian se-
quence/Layer V (modi"ed after Czarnetzki, 1983; Fig. 132).
Fig. 8. Vogelherd Cave, Southwestern Germany. Stratigraphic se-
quence at the southwestern entrance (modi"ed after Riek, 1934). I,
Holocene "nds; II, Magdalenian; III, Magdalenian; IV, Aurignacian;
V, Aurignacian; VI, "nd horizon of the specimen &Stetten I' and VII,
Middle Paleolithic.
early anatomically modern hominids are known in Africa
and the Near East. It may be discussed if this variety of
features, associated with `cultural modernitya includinga broad spectrum of artifacts made of bone, antler and
ivory and a pronounced production of varied decorative
objects as well as art objects, had been initiated by
contacts between Neanderthals and anatomically mod-
ern hominids. This seems especially true for Western
Europe, but may also hold for Southwestern Germany.
In this context, the western European Cha(telperronian
should be mentioned. On the basis of lithic technology
and various organic artifacts as well as objects of per-
sonal ornamentation, this appears to be Upper Paleo-lithic, but was obviously manufactured by Neanderthals,
as Neanderthal remains associated with Cha(telperronian
in Arcy-sur-Cure and St. CeH saire, both in France, reveal
(Ba$er, 1999). At present, it cannot be "nally stated
whether the Cha(telperronian is a genuine Neanderthal
creation (Zilha o and d'Errico, 1999a, b), or if it is rather
the result of acculturation processes.
Due to gaps in the fossil record, it remains uncertain
who was responsible for the transitional industries and
for the earliest Upper Paleolithic assemblages in Central
Europe. It should be kept in mind that between 40 and30 kyr BP there seems to have been a coexistence of
Neanderthals and anatomically modern hominids in
Europe. Examples of very late Neanderthals, for instance,
come from Zafarraya and CariguKela in Spain, Colum-
beira, Figueira Brava, and Salemas in Portugal (Straus,
1996), and Vindija Layer G, in Croatia (Karavanic and
Smith, 1998, pp. 239}241) while early Homo sapiens
sapiens specimens have been found in Vogelherd in
Southwestern Germany (Riek, 1932).
In summary, it can be stated that the archaeological
record in Central Europe, including Germany, appears to
support the replacement model rather than themultiregional model, thus providing evidence that Homo
sapiens sapiensoriginated outside Europe.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jean-Michel Geneste
(Bordeaux/France), Paul Haesaerts (Brussels/Belgium),
Jakov Radovcic (Zagreb/Croatia), Jack Rink (Hamilton/
Canada), Fred H. Smith (DeKalb, Illinois/USA), and
Nicolas Teyssandier (Paris-Nanterre/France) for provid-ing helpful information.
References
Adam, K.D., 1988. Der Urmensch von Steinheim an der Murr und seine
Umwelt. Ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit vor einer viertel Million
Jahren. Jahrbuch des RGZM 35, 3}23.
App, V., Au!ermann, B., Hahn, J., Pasda, C., Stephan, E., 1995. Die
altsteinzeitliche Fundstelle auf dem Schwalbenberg bei Remagen.
(With contributions by M. Baales, E. Bibus, W. RaKhle, R. RottlaKn-
der, W. Schoch, and K.-H. Steppan). Berichte zur ArchaKologie an
Mittelrhein und Mosel 4, 11}136.
Ba$er, D., 1999. Les derniers NeHandertaliens. Le Cha(telperronien,
Paris.
Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC
38 M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
11/12
Berg, A.V., 1997. Die SchaKdelkalotte eines Neandertalers aus dem
Wannenvulkan bei Ochtendung, Kreis Mayen-Koblenz. Berichte
zur ArchaKologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 5, 11}22.
Bolus, M., RuKck, O., 2000. Eine Blattspitze aus Wittislingen, Lkr.
Dillingen a. d. Donau (Bayern). Zur suKdwestlichen Verbreitungs-
grenze spaKtmittelpalaKolithischer Blattspitzeninventare. ArchaKo-
logisches Korrespondenzblatt 30, 1}8.
Bon, F., 1996. L'industrie lithique aurignacienne de la couche 2A de la
grotte des Hyenes a Brassempouy (Landes). In: Delporte, H.,Clottes, J. (Eds.), PyreHneHes preHhistoriques * arts et socieH teH s, 118
Congres National des socieH teH s historiques et scienti"ques, Pau,
1993, pp. 439}455.
BraKuer, G., Broeg, H., 1998. On the degree of Neandertal *modern
continuity in the earliest Upper Palaeolithic crania from the Czech
Republic: evidence from non-metrical features. In: Omoto, K.,
Tobias, P.V. (Eds.), The Origins and Past of Modern Humans *
Towards Reconciliation. World Scienti"c, Singapore, pp. 106}125.
BraKuer, G., Smith, F.H. (Eds.), 1992. Continuity or Replacement. Con-
troversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Conard, N.J., Fischer, B. Are there recognizable cultural entities in the
German Middle Paleolithic? In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M.,
(Eds.), The Yabrudian and Micoquian in the Levant and in Europe.
BAR International Series, Oxford, in press.Condemi, S., 1996. Does the human fossil specimen from Reilingen
(Germany) belong to the Homo erectus or to the Neanderthal
lineage? Anthropologie 34(1) (Brno), 69}77.
Condemi, S., 1997. Preliminary study of the Calotte of the Ochtendung
cranium. Berichte zur ArchaKologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 5,
23}28.
CreHmades, M., Laville, H., Sirakov, N., Kozlowski, J.K., 1995.
Une pierre graveH e de 50,000 ans BP dans les Balkans. PaleHo 7,
201}209.
Czarnetzki, A., 1983. Zur Entwicklung des Menschen in SuKdwest-
deutschland. In: MuK ller-Beck, H. (Ed.), Urgeschichte in Baden-
WuK rttemberg. Stuttgart, pp. 217}240.
Czarnetzki, A., 1989. Ein archaischer Hominidencalvariarest aus einer
Kiesgrube in Reilingen, Rhein-Neckar-Kreis. QuartaKr 39/40,191}201.
Czarnetzki, A., 1991. Nouvelle deHcouverte d'un fragment de cra(ne d'un
hominideH archamKque dans le sud-ouest de l'Allemagne (rapport preH -
liminaire). L'Anthropologie 95, 103}111.
Czarnetzki, A. Das Fragment eines Os parietale des klassischen Nean-
dertalers aus Warendorf-Neuwarendorf. Ausgrabungen und Funde
in Westfalen-Lippe 10, in press.
Floss, H., 1994. Rohmaterialversorgung im PalaKolithikum des Mittel-
rheingebietes. Monographein des RGZM Z1, Dr. R. Habert, Bonn.
Frayer, D.W., 1986. Cranial variation at Mladec and the relationship
between Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic hominids. In: Novotny,
V.V., MizerovaH , A. (Eds.), Fossil Man. New Facts}New Ideas.
Anthropos, Brno, 23, pp. 243}255.
Frayer, D.W., 1992. Evolution at the European edge: Neanderthal and
Upper Paleolithic relationships. PreHhistoire EuropeH enne 2, 9}69.
Ginter, B., Kozlowski, J.K., Laville, H., Sirakov, N., Hedges, R.E.M.,
1996. Transition in the Balkans: news from the Temnata Cave,
Bulgaria. In: Carbonell, E., Vaquero, M. (Eds.), The Last Neander-
tals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans: a Tale About the
Human Diversity. Cultural Change and Human Evolution:
The Crisis At 40 ka BP. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona,
pp. 169}200.
Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Bachner, M., Trnka, G., 1996. Revised
stratigraphy and chronology of the Willendorf II sequence, Lower
Austria. Archaeologia Austriaca 80, 25}42.
Hahn, J., 1977. Aurignacien, das aK ltere JungpalaKolithikum in Mittel-
und Osteuropa. KoK ln/Wien.
Hahn, J., 1986. Kraft und Aggression. Die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im
Aurignacien SuKddeutschlands? Archaeologica Venatoria Band 7,
TuKbingen.
Hahn, J., 1988. Die Gei{enkloK sterle-HoKhle im Achtal bei Blaubeuren I.
Fundhorizontbildung und Besiedlung im MittelpalaKolithikum und
im Aurignacien. (With contributions by H. Gollnisch, A. Scheer, N.
Symens, R. Whallon, and J. Wei{haupt). Karl Theiss, Stuttgart.
Hahn, J., MuKnzel, S., 1995. Knochen#oK ten aus dem Aurignacien des
Gei{enkloK sterle bei Blaubeuren, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Fundberichte
aus Baden-WuKrttemberg 20, 1}12.
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk Ramsey, C., van Klinken, G.J.,
1994. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Ar-chaeometry datelist 18. Archaeometry 36, 337}374.
Heinen, M., Beck, D., 1997. Ausgrabungenauf dem Szeletien-Fundplatz
Zeitlarn, Lkr. Regensburg. BeitraKge zur ArchaKologie in der Ober-
pfalz 1, 71}89.
Karavanic, I., Smith, F.H., 1998. The Middle/Upper Paleolithic inter-
face and the relationship of Neanderthals and early modern humans
in the Hrvatsko Zagorje, Croatia. Journal of Human Evolution 34,
223}248.
Kozlowski, J.K. (Ed.), 1982. Excavation in the Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria).
Final Report. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa.
Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R.W., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M.,
PaKaKbo, S., 1997. Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of
modern humans. Cell 90, 19}30.
Malez, M., 1974. Noviji rezultati istraz\ivanja paleolitika u VelikojPecini, Veternici i S[andalji. Neue Ergebnisse der PalaKolithikum-
Forschungen in Velika Pecina, Veternica und S[andalja (Kroatien).
Arheolocki radovi i rasprave 7, 7}44.
Mania, D., Toepfer, V., Vlcek, E., 1980. Bilzingsleben I. Homo erectus
*seine Kultur und seine Umwelt. Berlin.
Mellars, P., Otte, M., Straus, L.G., Zilhao, J., d'Errico, F., 1999. The
Neanderthal Problem Continued. Current Anthropology 40, 341}364.
Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (Eds.), 1989. The Human Revolution. Behav-
ioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Hu-
mans. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Mook, W.G., 1982. Radiocarbon Dating. In: Kozlowski, J.K. (Ed.),
Excavations in the Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria). Final Report,
Warszawa, p. 168.
MuKnzel, S., 1999. Die Gro{saKugerfauna aus dem Gei{enkloK sterle. Un-published "nal report for Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
Neugebauer-Maresch, C., 1996. Zu Stratigraphie und Datierung der
Aurignacien-Station am Galgenberg von Stratzing/Krems-Reh-
berg, NOG. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.), Paleolithic in the Middle Danube
Region. Anniversary volume to Bohuslav Klima, Brno, Arche-
ologickyH uH stav AV, pp. 67}80.
Richter, D., Waiblinger, J., Rink, W.J., Wagner, G.A., 2000. Ther-
moluminescence, electron spin resonance and C-dating of the Late
Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic site of Gei{enkloK sterle Cave in
Southern Germany. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 71}89.
Riek, G., 1932. PalaKolithische Station mit Tierplastiken und men-
schlichen Skelettresten bei Stetten ob Lontal. Germania 16, 1}8.
Riek, G., 1934. Die EiszeitjaKgerstation am Vogelherd im Lonetal I. Die
Kulturen. TuKbingen.
Scholz, M., Bachmann, L., Nicholson, G.L., Bachmann, J., Hengst, S.,
Giddings, I., RuK scho!-Thale, B., Klostermann, J., Protsch von
Zieten, R.R., Czarnetzki, A., Pusch, C.M., 1999. Fossil}DNA based
classi"cation of the most northern Neanderthal man. In: Central
and Eastern Europe from 50,000}30,000 BP. Abstracts for the
International Workshop in the Neanderthal Museum, March
18}21, 1999, p. 72. Neandertal Museum, Neandertal, Germany.
Smith, F.H., Trinkaus, E., Pettitt, P.B., Karavanic, I., Paunovic, M.,
1999. Direct radiocarbon dates from Vindija G1 and Velika Pecina
Late Pleistocene Hominid remains. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 96 (22), 12281}12286.
Straus, L.G., 1996. Continuity or rupture; convergence or invasion;
adaptation or catastrophe; mosaic or monolith: views on the Middle
to Upper Paleolithic transition in Iberia. In: Carbonell, E., Vaquero,
M. (Eds.), The last Neandertals, the First Anatomically Modern
Humans: a Tale About the Human Diversity. Cultural Change and
Jqi=526=SC=VVC
M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40 39
-
7/24/2019 0deec Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic
12/12
Human Evolution: the Crisis at 40 ka BP. Universitat Rovira i Vir-
gili, Tarragona, pp. 203}218.
Svoboba, J., Lozek, V., Vlcek, E., 1996. Hunters between East and West.
The Paleolithic of Moravia. Plenum Press, New York.
Trinkaus, E. (Ed.), 1989. The Emergence of Modern Humans. Biocul-
tural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Uthmeier, T., 1996. Ein bemerkenswert fruKhes Inventar des Aurignacien
von der Freilandfundstelle `Keilberg-Kirchea
bei Regensburg. Ar-chaKologisches Korrespondenzblatt 26, 233}248.
Valoch, K., 1993. Vedrovice V, eine Siedlung des Szeletien in
SuKdmaKhren. (With contributions by A. Kozi, W.G. Mook, E. Op-
ravil, J. v. d. Plicht, L. SmolmHkovaH , and Z. Weber). QuartaKr 43/44,
7}93.
Wagner, G.A., Beinhauer, K.W. (Eds.), 1997. Homo heidelbergensis von
Mauer. Das Auftreten des Menschen in Europa. Heidelberg.
UniversitaKtsverlag, Winter, 3165.
Zilhao, J., d'Errico, F., 1999a. The chronology and taphonomy of
the earliest Aurignacian and its implications for the understa-
nding of Neandertal extinction. Journal of World Prehistory 13,
1}68.Zilhao, J., d'Errico, F., 1999b. Reply. In: Mellars, P. et al. (Eds.), The
Neanderthal Problem Continued. Current Anthropology 40,
355}360.
Jqi=526=Shantha=VVC
40 M. Bolus, N.J. Conard/ Quaternary International 75 (2001) 29}40