Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing

Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and
timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and
new challenges
Nicholas J. Conard *, Michael Bolus
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters, Universität Tübingen, Schloss Hohentübingen, 72070 Tübingen,
Germany
Received 1 February 2002; accepted 18 November 2002
Abstract
New radiocarbon dates from the sites of Bockstein-Törle, Geißenklösterle, Hohle Fels, Hohlenstein-Stadel,
Sirgenstein, and Vogelherd in the Swabian Jura of southwestern Germany indicate that the Aurignacian of the region
spans the period from ca. 40–30 ka BP. If the situation at Vogelherd, in which skeletal remains from modern humans
underlie an entire Aurignacian sequence, is viewed as representative for the region, the dates from the Swabian Jura
support the hypothesis that populations of modern humans entered the region by way of the “Danube Corridor.” The
lithic technology from the lower Aurignacian of Geißenklösterle III is fully developed, and classic Aurignacian forms
are well represented. During the course of the Aurignacian, numerous assemblages rich in art works, jewelry, and
musical instruments are documented. By no later than 29 ka BP the Gravettian was well established in the region. These
dates are consistent with the “Kulturpumpe” hypothesis that important cultural innovations of the Aurignacian and
Gravettian in Swabia predate similar developments in other regions of Europe. The radiocarbon dates from
Geißenklösterle corroborate observations from other non-archaeological data sets indicating large global fluctuations
in the atmospheric concentrations of radiocarbon between 30 and 50 ka calendar years ago. These fluctuations lead to
complications in building reliable chronologies during this period and cause the “Middle Paleolithic Dating Anomaly”
and the “Coexistence Effect,” which tend to exaggerate the temporal overlap between Neanderthals and modern
humans.
2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Neanderthals; Homo sapiens sapiens; Chronostratigraphy; Swabian Jura; Middle and Upper Paleolithic; Cultural
innovations
Introduction
* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: [email protected]
(N.J. Conard), [email protected] (M. Bolus).
Over the last two decades considerable evidence
has accumulated indicating that modern humans
evolved in Africa, while fossil hominin remains
0047-2484/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0047-2484(02)00202-6
332
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
from Europe document the in situ evolution of
Neanderthals out of earlier archaic populations
(Arsuaga et al., 1997; Bräuer, 1984; Bräuer and
Smith, 1992; Rightmire, 1989; Smith and Spencer,
1984). The evidence from ancient DNA studies
(Krings et al., 1997; Ovchinnikov, 2000; Scholz
et al., 2000a,b) supports this hypothesis, although
the interpretation of these data remains controversial (Templeton, 2002). Finds from scores of
European sites that provide Middle Paleolithic
deposits and the chronostratigraphic framework
for the development and pan-European distribution of Neanderthals are also consistent with the
Out of Africa hypothesis. The central question at
present is not if modern humans evolved outside
Europe, but by what route they arrived, when, and
by what processes their populations expanded
across Europe. Closely related to the question of
the advent and spread of anatomically modern
humans is the source and timing of the spread of
fully modern behavior as demonstrated by the
complex technology and symbolic communication recorded in many early Upper Paleolithic
assemblages. These questions form the stage for
intense international debate in contemporary
paleoanthropology (d’Errico et al., 1998). The
recent dating of European Neanderthals and
Middle Paleolithic artifact assemblages in Iberia
(d’Errico et al., 1998), Crimea (Chabai, 2000;
Marks and Chabai, 1998; Pettitt, 1998), Croatia
(Smith et al., 1999), the northern Caucausus
(Golovanova et al., 1999) and Georgia (Adler,
2002; Adler and Tushabramishvili, in press) to
around, and in some cases after, 30 ka BP raises
further questions about the nature of the interaction between modern and archaic hominins.
Similarly, the appearance of initial Upper Paleolithic assemblages in the Levant (Azoury, 1986;
Kuhn et al., 1999, 2001; Marks, 1983; Monigal,
2001; Volkman, 1983), central and northeastern
Asia (Brantingham et al., 2001; Derevianko et al.,
2001) suggests that new models to explain the
population dynamics and the cultural developments of the early Upper Paleolithic are needed.
Much research on the timing of the appearance
of modern humans and the development of complex symbolic behavior, a key characteristic of
cultural modernity, has focused on Europe where a
rich research tradition stretching from the middle
of the nineteenth century until today has produced
the best record of these changes. The Swabian Jura
of southwestern Germany has been a major center
of Paleolithic research that is closely connected
with excavations of O. Fraas, R. R. Schmidt, G.
Riek, R. Wetzel, J. Hahn and others. Particularly
renowned are the sites in the Ach and Lone
Valleys, such as Vogelherd, Hohlenstein-Stadel,
Geißenklösterle, and Hohle Fels (Fig. 1), that
document the oldest universally accepted figurative
art and musical instruments (Conard and Floss,
2000; Hahn, 1986; Hahn and Münzel, 1995;
Müller-Beck et al., 2001). These finds belong to the
Aurignacian period and are accompanied by the
earliest stratified remains of modern humans in
Europe (Churchill and Smith, 2000a,b; Riek, 1932,
1934). This paper reports a series of AMS radiocarbon dates on bones from Middle Paleolithic,
Aurignacian and Gravettian deposits of the
Swabian Alb and examines their implications for
the arrival and spread of modern humans and fully
modern cultural behavior in Europe. In Swabia
hominin remains are known from Middle and
Upper Paleolithic contexts. Although human
fossil material is not abundant in Swabia, so far
Neanderthal remains have been found only in
association with Middle Paleolithic artifacts and
modern humans exclusively with Upper Paleolithic
artifacts (Table 1). Thus, as a working hypothesis,
we assume for the purpose of this paper that
modern humans rather than Neanderthals made
the Aurignacian assemblages of southern
Germany.
The archaeological record of southern Germany
shows a clear break between the latest Middle
Paleolithic including several stratified and
numerous unstratified Blattspitzen assemblages
and the earliest Upper Paleolithic characterized by
Aurignacian assemblages rich in lithic and organic
tools, artworks and ornaments (Bolus, in press;
Bolus and Conard, 2001; Bolus and Rück, 2000;
Bosinski, 1967). Thus far no hominin remains have
been found with Blattspitzen assemblages in southern Germany. In the Swabian Jura where the
research has been most intense, despite numerous
excavations, there are no examples of interstratification of Middle and Upper Paleolithic
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
333
Fig. 1. Map of Southwestern Germany with the principal sites mentioned in text. Ach Valley: (1) Sirgenstein-(2) Hohle Fels-(3)
Geißenklösterle-(4) Brillenhöhle; Lone Valley: (5) Bockstein (Bockstein-Höhle and Bockstein-Törle)-(6) Hohlenstein (Stadel and
Bärenhöhle)-(7) Vogelherd.
assemblages, and the technology and typology of
the Aurignacian assemblages show a radical
departure from all known Middle Paleolithic
assemblages in the region (Bolus and Conard,
2001; Hahn, 1977).
Two models developed in Tübingen in connection with the sites of the Swabian Jura are the
Danube Corridor and Kulturpumpe models
(Conard, 2002a,b; Conard and Floss, 2000;
Conard et al., 1999). The former postulates that
modern humans rapidly entered the interior of
Europe via the Danube Valley. The latter model
presents competing working hypotheses to explain
the early advent of fully modern behavior and the
cultural innovations of the Aurignacian and
Gravettian in the Swabian Jura. The Danube
Corridor model is supported by the independent
confirmation of the early 14C dates of the
Aurignacian from Geißenklösterle using TL measurements on burnt flint (Richter et al., 2000).
Based on these measurements, some of the earliest
Aurignacian assemblages in Europe date to
ca. 40 ka BP and come from the Swabian Jura
of southwestern Germany. The earliest skeletal
remains of modern humans in Europe are from the
base of the Aurignacian layer V from G. Riek’s
1931 excavation at Vogelherd (Churchill and
Smith 2000a,b; Riek, 1932, 1934). The artworks
and musical instruments from the Aurignacian of
the Swabian Jura are among the earliest finds of
this kind worldwide (Bolus and Conard, 2001;
Hahn, 1986; Hahn and Münzel, 1995), and current
excavations continue to provide new evidence for
cultural innovation during the Upper Paleolithic
(Conard and Floss, 2000; Conard et al. 2002). New
results from Geißenklösterle and Hohle Fels
have significantly expanded the range of known
ornament, mobile art, and lithic and organic tools
from the Aurignacian and Gravettian of Swabia.
Dates from several sites in the Swabian Jura
document Gravettian assemblages including distinctive lithic and organic artifacts by 29 ka BP.
These rich assemblages predate similar assemblages in Europe and correspond to a period when
the Aurignacian was still widespread in western
Europe (Bosinski, 1989; Delporte, 1998; Djindjian,
1993; Djindjian et al., 1999). Determining the
route of entry into Europe and the location of
334
Table 1
Human remains from Middle Paleolithic, Aurignacian, and Gravettian deposits of the Lone and Ach Valleys
Site
Arch. horizon
Fossil
Anthropological
determination
Archaeological
context
References
“Schwarzes
Moustérien”
19–20 m
spit 6
diaphysis of a right
femur
premolar
Neanderthal
male? adult
modern H. s.?
young adult
Mousterian
Völzing, 1938;
Kunter and Wahl, 1992
Hahn, 1977
V (basis)
Stetten 1
cranium with mandibula
2 lumbar vertebrae
Stetten 3
humerus
Stetten 4
left metacarpal
Stetten 2
cranium
modern H. s.
male adult
Aurignacian
modern H. s.
male
modern H. s.
Aurignacian
modern H. s.
male young adult
?
Riek, 1932;
Gieseler, 1937;
Czarnetzki, 1983
left upper canine
left lower molar
right upper canine
modern H. s.
adult
modern H. s.
adult
Aurignacian
Schmidt, 1910;
Schliz, 1912
Schmidt, 1910;
Schliz, 1912
modern H. s.
child
modern H. s.
Gravettian
Hahn et al., 1990
It
right upper deciduous
molar
deciduous molar
Gravettian
Haas, 1991
II
cranial fragment
II
right lower deciduous
molar
modern H. s.
young adult?
modern H. s.
juvenile
Lone Valley
Hohlenstein-Stadel
Vogelherd
V (basis)
V (basis)
IV (top)
Aurignacian
Riek, 1932;
Gieseler, 1937;
Czarnetzki, 1983
Gieseler, 1937;
Churchill and Smith, 2000a
Czarnetzki, 1983
Ach Valley
Sirgenstein
VI
VI
Aurignacian
Geißenklösterle
It
Hohle Fels
Gravettian
Gravettian
Haas, 1991
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Aurignacian
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
centers of cultural innovations during the period
when Europe was occupied by both archaic and
modern hominids hinges to a significant extent on
the reliable dating of late Middle Paleolithic and
early Upper Paleolithic deposits. At present,
despite well documented variations in 14C production in this period (Beck et al., 2001; van der Plicht,
1999; Voelker et al., 2000), radiocarbon measurements provide the only broadly applicable means
of dating find horizons in the critical period
between 30 and 50 ka calendar years BP. The
current study seeks both to test the Danube
Corridor and the Kulturpumpe hypotheses as well
as to examine the strengths and limitations of the
radiocarbon dating in the period before 30 ka BP.
Results
To address these issues the accelerator radiocarbon facilities of the University of Kiel, Purdue
and Oxford Universities produced 49 new radiocarbon measurements on bones from BocksteinTörle, Hohlenstein-Bärenhöhle, HohlensteinStadel, and Vogelherd in the Lone Valley and
Geißenklösterle, Sirgenstein, and Hohle Fels in the
Ach Valley. The majority of the newly dated
specimens showed clear anthropogenic modifications including impact fractures and cut marks.
Several additional dates were obtained directly
from bone artifacts. With the exception of one date
on reindeer antler, all of the dates were made on
well preserved bone, and in every case the yield of
collagen was significantly high to produce a reliable date. Ivory artifacts were not dated to maximize the comparability between the dates. In
several cases fresh breaks on the faunal remains
appear to be the result of anthropogenic bone
cracking for the extraction of marrow, but damage
by large carnivores cannot completely be excluded
as possible agents of modification. Hyenas, the
main non-human species associated with bone
cracking (Zapfe, 1939), are absent or extremely
rare in the faunal assemblages under study. The
specimens from fieldwork conducted by Hahn and
other researchers after 1973 were piece-plotted
during excavation to the nearest centimeter in
three dimensions, and thus their exact provenience
335
and archaeological context are well documented.
Samples from earlier excavations bear designations
for archaeological layers and in some cases spits
within archaeological layers, but the specific contexts of these specimens are less secure than the
piece-plotted finds. In practice this means that high
resolution three dimensional coordinates are available for all AMS dates from Geißenklösterle and
Hohle Fels and are lacking for specimens from all
the other sites.
Tables 2 and 3 present the results of these
measurements as well as important previously
published results. While the majority of the dates
included here are AMS dates, some conventional
radiocarbon dates have also been included. We
have only excluded previous dates from unmodified cave bear bones, which, in general, appear to
have accumulated independent of human activities, and several dates on mixed bone samples
submitted by J. Hahn before the advent of AMS
dating (Housley et al., 1997). Although Richter
et al. (2000) suggest that systematic differences
exist between conventional and AMS dates, in our
view when errors in collecting and processing
samples are excluded, conventional and AMS
dates are comparable. Similarly we see no reason
to assume that dates on carefully prepared samples
of bone, antler and charcoal should not be comparable (Jöris et al., 2001). Thus we include existing conventional dates along with the previous and
new AMS dates on bone, antler and charcoal in
Tables 2 and 3. At present there are no data from
the Swabian Jura indicating that large systematic
errors preclude comparisons between these
materials. The sample preparation and collagen
extraction using the Kiel, Purdue and Oxford
protocols successfully removes lipids and carbonates through a combination of the use of organic
solvents and acid and base washes (Hedges and
van Klinken, 1992; Longin, 1970; Hedges et al.,
1989; Grootes, pers. comm. 2000). There is no
reason to believe that the previous handling of the
specimens or contamination with calcium carbonate led to anomalous ages. This is not a trivial
point since the specimens from sites including
Sirgenstein and Vogelherd have been handled to
varying degrees since their excavation in the first
half of the 20th century.
336
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Table 2
14
C-dates with 1 uncertainties for the Lone Valley sites. The dates from Groningen (GrN) and Heidelberg (H) are conventional
radiocarbon dates, those from Kiel (KIA), Purdue (PL), and Zurich (ETH) are AMS dates
Lab. number
Arch. horizon
Material
Lone Valley
Bockstein-Törle
H 4058-3355
VI
KIA 8956
H 4058-3526
VI
VI
KIA 8953
VI
H 4049-3356
VII
KIA 8952
VII
H 4059-3527
VII
KIA 8954
KIA 8955
VII
VII
mixed bone
sample
long bone frgt.
mixed bone
sample
reindeer
radius-ulna
mixed bone
sample
reindeer
metatarsal
mixed bone
sample
reindeer femur?
horse metapodial
Hohlenstein-Bärenhöhle
KIA 8967
brown loam
Hohlenstein-Stadel
KIA 8951
19 m, spit 6
H 3800-3025
20 m, spit 6
ETH-2877
20 m, spit 6
KIA 13077
KIA 8949
20 m, spit 6
19 m, spit 7
KIA
KIA
KIA
KIA
19 m,
19 m,
19 m,
19 m,
8950
8948
8947
8946
spit
spit
spit
spit
7
8
9
10
KIA 8945
19 m, spit 11
Vogelherd
KIA 8957
H 4053-3211
IV
IV
GrN-6662
PL0001339A
IV/V
IV/V
PL0001342A
H 8498-8950
IV/V
V
H 8497-8930
V
H 4054-3210
V
H 8500-8992
V
Modification
fresh break
fresh break
fresh break
Date
Cultural group
First publication
20 400220
Aurig./Grav.
Hahn, 1977
20 990+120/110
23 440290
Aurig./Grav.
Aurig./Grav.
Hahn, 1983
31 530230
Aurig./Grav.
26 133376
Aurignacian
30 130+260/250
Aurignacian
31 965790
Aurignacian
Hahn, 1977
Hahn, 1983
fresh break
fresh break
44 390+990/880 Aurignacian/MP?
46 380+1360/1170 Aurignacian/MP?
rib
fresh break
26 080+140/130
reindeer humerus
mixed bone
sample
reind. ulna + wolf
astrag.
reindeer radius
reindeer?
longbone
elk metatarsal
horse? longbone
horse longbone
reindeer
metapodial
longbone
impact
31 440250
Aurignacian
31 750+1150/650 Aurignacian
Hahn, 1977
32 000550
Aurignacian
Schmid, 1989
fresh break
fresh break
32 270+270/260
33 920+310/300
Aurignacian
Aurignacian
fresh break
impact
fresh break
fresh break
36 910+490/460
41 710+570/530
42 410+670/620
39 970+490/460
Aurignacian
Aurignacian?
Aurignacian?
Aurignacian?
fresh break
40 220+550/510
Aurignacian?
cutmarks
26 160150
30 730750
Aurignacian?
Aurignacian
27 630830
32 180960
Aurignacian?
Aurignacian
34 1001100
25 900260
Aurignacian
Aurignacian?
Hahn, 1993b
27 200400
Aurignacian?
Hahn, 1993b
30 1621340
Aurignacian
Hahn, 1977
30 6001700
Aurignacian
Hahn, 1993b
long bone frgt.
mixed bone
sample
charred bone
horse tibia
bovid-horse rib
mixed bone
sample
mixed bone
sample
mixed bone
sample
mixed bone
sample
cutmarks+
fresh break
cutmarks
Aurignacian?
Hahn, 1977
Hahn, 1977
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
337
Table 2 (continued)
Lab. number
Arch. horizon
Material
GrN-6661
H 8499-8991
V
V
KIA 8968
H 4056-3208
V
V
PL0001338A
KIA 8969
V
V
KIA 8970
PL0001337A
V
V
charred bone
mixed bone
sample
tibia
mixed bone
sample
horse tibia
reindeer long
bone
horse long bone
bovid-horse
longbone
Modification
Date
Cultural group
First publication
30 650560
31 3501120
Aurignacian
Aurignacian
Hahn, 1977
Hahn, 1993b
31 790240
31 9001100
Aurignacian
Aurignacian
Hahn, 1977
cutmarks
impact
32 4001700
32 500+260/250
Aurignacian
Aurignacian
impact
cutmarks
33 080+320/310
35 810710
Aurignacian
Aurignacian
impact
Although, as discussed below, considerable
variation in atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations have been documented during the Late
Pleistocene, in our view accurate calibration
parameters are not yet available for the critical
period between 30,000 and 50,000 calendar years
ago (Richards and Beck, 2001). Thus, we present
the radiocarbon ages in years before 1950 AD
based on the Libby half-life without attempting to
calibrate them.
Lone Valley
Dates from the Lone Valley provide new insight
into the chronostratigraphy of the area. Gustav
Riek’s excavation from 1931 at Vogelherd (Riek,
1934) documented the rich Aurignacian layers V
and IV, which contain numerous organic tools and
a dozen small figurines carved from mammoth
ivory (Fig. 2). With the exception of one find from
layer IV, the many split based bone points from
the site stem from layer V (Hahn, 1977; Riek,
1934). The wealth of finds indicates that the cave
was occupied repeatedly during the Aurignacian.
Although the assemblages from these layers contain some younger materials, all but one of the
eight new AMS dates fall within the expected
range for the Swabian Aurignacian. The newly
dated finds from layer V yielded ages between 31
and 36 ka BP. These results tend to predate earlier
conventional radiocarbon dates from Vogelherd.
The relatively young conventional dates may well
result from bulk sampling of many small faunal
remains of mixed ages. Hahn at times submitted
such mixed samples to avoid destroying finds that
he considered too valuable to date by conventional
means. A degree of mixing between strata is not
surprising given that the deposits of the cave were
excavated over a period of less then three months
in the summer and fall of 1931 before careful
excavation methods and detailed studies of site
formation processes were common. AMS dates of
single bones from layer IV have also yielded dates
of Magdalenian age, indicating that Riek’s excavation techniques did not succeed at rigorously separating the archaeological units. Several dates,
including one new AMS date of ca. 26 ka BP,
suggest that a Gravettian component is also
present at Vogelherd.
Robert Wetzel’s excavations at HohlensteinBärenhöhle running mainly from 1956–1961
yielded a small artifact assemblage from a brown
loam with isolated Aurignacian elements (Fig. 3)
including a carinated and a nosed end scraper, six
carinated burins, and one bone burnisher (Hahn,
1977). Hahn emphasizes the complex taphonomy
and partially reworked stratigraphy of this site.
The Aurignacian layer overlies a richer Middle
Paleolithic deposit (Beck, 1999). A single date
from the former layer yielded an age of ca. 26 ka
BP and represents the first attempt to date the
layer. This age lies well outside the expected range
of the region’s Aurignacian and suggests the presence of a Gravettian component at the site. Further work is needed to date the small Aurignacian
assemblage from this site.
338
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Table 3
14
C-dates with 1 uncertainties for the Ach Valley sites. The dates from Bern (B), Heidelberg (H), and Pretoria (Pta) are
conventional radiocarbon dates, those from Kiel (KIA), Oxford (OxA), and Zurich (ETH) are AMS dates
Lab. number
Arch. hor.
Material
Ach Valley
Geißenklösterle
OxA-5157
Ip
OxA-4855
Modification
Date
Cultural group
First publication
hare pelvis
24 360380
Gravettian
Ir
reindeer phalange
27 000550
Gravettian
OxA-4857
Ir
horse rib
27 500550
Gravettian
OxA-4856
Ir
horse radius
30 950800
Gravettian
OxA-5227
Is
horse femur
28 050550
Gravettian
OxA-5226
It
reindeer tibia
impact
26 540460
Gravettian
OxA-5229
It
mammoth rib
cutmarks
27 950550
Gravettian
OxA-5228
It
mammoth rib
28 500550
Gravettian
OxA-4592
OxA-4593
OxA-5706
OxA-5161
It
It
Ia
Ic
29 200460
29 200500
29 220500
30 300750
Gravettian
Gravettian
Gravettian
Gravettian
H 4147-3346
IIa
30 625796
H 4279-3534
IIa
OxA-5707
IIa
reindeer phalange
bone
red deer antler
reindeer
metacarpal
mixed bone
sample
mixed bone
sample
horse scapula
OxA-5160
IIa
hare tibia
33 7001100
OxA-4594
IIa
reindeer? humerus
36 8001000
KIA 8960
IIb
mammoth rib
Pta-2361
IIb
charred bone
KIA 8958
IIb
horse humerus
Pta-2270
IIb
charred bone
31 8701000
OxA-5708
IIb
32 300700
PtA-2116
IIb
mammoth
cranium
charred bone
OxA-5162
IIb
hare pelvis
33 2001100
H 4751-4404
IIb
33 700825
OxA-6256
III
mixed bone
sample
reindeer tibia
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Upper
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Housley et al.,
1997
Housley et al.,
1997
Housley et al.,
1997
Housley et al.,
1997
Housley et al.,
1997
Housley et al.,
1997
Housley et al.,
1997
Housley et al.,
1997
Hahn, 1995
Hahn, 1995
Richter et al., 2000
Housley et al.,
1997
Hahn, 1983
cutmarks
impact
31 525770
impact +
cutmarks
impact
33 200800
29 800240
31 070750
impact
31 870+260/250
32 680470
impact
30 100550
Hahn, 1983
Richter et al., 2000
Hahn, 1988
Hahn, 1995
Hahn, 1983
Hahn, 1983
Richter et al., 2000
Hahn, 1983
Housley et al.,
1997
Hahn, 1983
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
339
Table 3 (continued)
Lab. number
Arch. hor.
Material
Modification
Date
Cultural group
KIA 8963
III
long bone
impact
31 180+270/260
H 5118-4600
III
H 5316-4909
III
36 5401570
OxA-5163
III
mixed bone
sample
mixed bone
sample
ibex mandible
OxA-4595
III
horse femur
40 2001600
OxA-6629
IIIa
30 300550
OxA-6628
IIIa
ETH-8268
IIIa
reindeer
metatarsal
reindeer
metatarsal
bone
OxA-5705
IIIa
ETH-8269
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
Lower
Aurignacian
sterile
Middle
Paleolithic
34 1401000
37 3001800
30 450550
33 100680
33 1501000
IIIa
reindeer
metatarsal
bone
OxA-6255
IIIa
rhino humerus
32 900850
KIA 13075
IIIa
reindeer tibia
impact
34 330+310/300
KIA 13074
IIIa
reindeer tibia
impact
34 800+290/280
ETH-8267
IIIa
bone
KIA 8962
IIIb
rib
impact
28 640+380/360
KIA 8961
IIIb
reindeer humerus
fresh break
33 210+300/290
KIA 13076
IIIb
reindeer tibia
34 080+300/290
KIA 8959
IIIb
femur
impact +
cutmarks
fresh break
KIA 16032
IIIb
impact
36 560+410/390
OxA-6077
OxA-6076
GH 17
IV
roe deer
metacarpal
ibex tibia
red deer tibia
Hohle Fels
OxA-4599
IIc
reindeer antler
OxA-5007
IIc
reindeer antler
tool (decor.
adze)
tool (decor.
adze)
KIA 8964
IId
KIA 8965
KIA 16040
IId
IIe
rib
rhino-mammoth
reindeer antler
horse pelvis
OxA-4979
III
Salix charcoal
33 500640
37 8001050
34 220+310/300
32 050600
33 6001900
impact +
cutmarks
First publication
Hahn, 1983
Hahn, 1983
Housley et al.,
1997
Hahn, 1995
Hahn, 1995
Hahn, 1995
Hahn, 1995
28 920400
Gravettian
Hahn, 1995
29 550650
Gravettian
Housley et al.,
1997
29 560+240/230
Aurignacian
30 010220
30 640190
Aurignacian
Aurignacian
27 600800
Aurignacian
Housley et al.,
1997
340
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Table 3 (continued)
Lab. number
Arch. hor.
Material
OxA-4601
KIA 16038
III
III
bone
reindeer femur
KIA 16039
OxA-4980
III
IV
OxA-4600
IV
KIA 16035
IV
reindeer tibia
Salix + Betula
charcoal
reindeer
metapodial
horse femur
Sirgenstein
KIA 13079
KIA 13080
II
III
bone
bone
KIA 13081
IV
mammoth rib
KIA 13082
KIA 13083
V
VI
bone
bone
Brillenhöhle
B-492
B-491
VII
VIII
charred bone
charred bone
Modification
Date
Cultural group
First publication
30 550550
29 840210
Aurignacian
Aurignacian
Hahn, 1995
31 140+250/240
28 75050
Aurignacian
Aurignacian
31 100600
Aurignacian
tool
(retoucher)
33 090+260/250
Aurignacian
tool (point)
tool
(burnisher)
tool
(burnisher)
tool (point)
tool (awl)
27 250+180/170
30 210220
Gravettian
Aurig./Grav.
28 400200
Aurignacian
26 730+170/160
30 360+230/220
Aurignacian
Aurignacian
>25 000
>29 000
Gravettian
?
impact +
cutmarks
impact
Five new AMS dates on material from Wetzel’s
excavations in 1953, 1955, and 1956 at BocksteinTörle provide radiometric ages from this site
which yielded small Aurignacian and Gravettian
assemblages (Hahn, 1977; Wetzel, 1954). Table 2
includes four previous radiocarbon dates from
mixed bone samples. The majority of these dates
appears to be too young, perhaps as a result of
errors in sampling. A reindeer metatarsus that was
cracked open in a fresh state and one mixed bone
sample produced radiocarbon ages between 30–
32 ka BP for the Aurignacian layer VII. An AMS
date on a reindeer radius and ulna with fresh
breaks from Layer VI, which Hahn described as
either Aurignacian or Gravettian, yielded an age of
ca. 31.5 ka BP. Three other dates from layer VI
including one AMS measurement gave ages
between 20 and 24 ka BP suggesting the use of the
site in the period shortly preceding and perhaps
during the Last Glacial Maximum. More systematic study of the later phases of the
Swabian Gravettian are needed to establish the
chronostratigraphic framework for the region’s
Housley et al.,
1997
Hahn, 1995
Riek, 1973
Riek, 1973
Gravettian sequence and to test whether or not
the region was occupied during the Last Glacial
Maximum. Borges de Magalhães’s (2000) reanalysis of the assemblages from Bockstein-Törle indicates that layer VII belongs to the Aurignacian
and that, based on the presence of backed blades
and the absence of Aurignacian artifacts, layers
VI-IV should be attributed to the Gravettian. The
attribution of layer VII to the Aurignacian rests
mainly on the presence of multiple bone points and
carinated and busked burins (Fig. 4). While single
carefully made bone points are known from both
the Middle Paleolithic of Vogelherd and the Große
Grotte, they are rare prior to the Aurignacian.
Similarly, the diverse forms of carinated and
busked burins from layer VII are unknown in
the Swabian Middle Paleolithic. Two AMS
dates from layer VII yielded ages in excess of 44 ka
BP. Rather than advocate an extremely early
Aurignacian, we view these dates as evidence
for the poor separation of the Aurignacian and
underlying Middle Paleolithic deposits from layer
VIII. While at most other Swabian sites a sterile
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
341
Fig. 2. Aurignacian of Vogelherd cave. (5, 7–9, 15–16): Vogelherd IV-(1–4, 6, 10–14, 17–21): Vogelherd V. (1–2) carinated end
scrapers-(3, 5, 7) nosed end scrapers-(4) busked burin-(6) pointed blade-(8) splintered piece-(9–10) laterally retouched blades-(11)
carinated burin-(12) double burin on truncation-(13–14) ivory figurines-(15) bone awl-(16) bone decorated on both sides-(17–19) bone
points with split bases-(20) retoucher made of a cave bear canine-(21) bâton percé of ivory. After Hahn, 1977 (1–12, 15–21); drawing
(13–14): A. Frey.
342
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Fig. 3. Aurignacian of Hohlenstein-Bärenhöhle. (1, 6) carinated burins-(2) double burin-(3) double end scraper-(4) side scraper-(5)
retouched blade. After Hahn, 1977.
horizon separates the latest Middle Paleolithic and
earliest Aurignacian layers, this is not the case at
Bockstein-Törle (Wetzel, 1954).
The Aurignacian finds from Ludwig Bürger’s
excavation at Bocksteinhöhle in 1883–84 (Bürger,
1892) have not yet been dated. Although this
assemblage contains a split-based point, two perforated bear canines and typical Aurignacian lithic
artifacts (Fig. 4), due to the early date of the
excavation, little information about the stratigraphy of the site is available (Hahn, 1977; Schmidt,
1912).
Considerable emphasis was placed on dating
the deposits from Robert Wetzel and Otto
Völzing’s excavations before and after World War
II at Hohlenstein-Stadel, best known for its
Middle Paleolithic and Aurignacian deposits. Particularly noteworthy is the presence of the anthropomorphic Löwenmensch figurine, which was
excavated in 1939 from the sixth 20 cm spit from
20 meters deep inside this tunnel-shaped cave.
Wetzel’s excavation also yielded an assemblage of
Aurignacian lithic and organic artifacts (Fig. 5).
Previous conventional radiocarbon dates, from the
spit in which the Löwenmensch lay, fall in the range
of ca. 32 ka BP (Schmid, 1989). New dates from
this spit confirm these dates. Modified bones from
the underlying 20 cm spits 7–11 yielded dates
from ca. 34–42 ka BP. Taken at face value these
dates along with dates from Geißenklösterle, suggest a continual human presence in the region in
the critical period around 40 ka. These samples
come from the rear of the cave in an area rich in
anthropogenically processed faunal remains but
poor in diagnostic artifacts. Middle Paleolithic
finds are lacking, but the cracked bones cannot be
readily attributed to a cultural group. A single core
from spit 9 is a small blade core (Fig. 5.18) and
suggests an association with the Upper Paleolithic.
Ach Valley
New dates from the early Upper Paleolithic
of the Achtal focused on materials from Robert
Rudolf Schmidt’s 1906 excavation at the
Sirgenstein and the ongoing excavations at Hohle
Fels and Geißenklösterle. Beginning with
Schmidt’s work at Sirgenstein, the now traditional
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
343
Fig. 4. Aurignacian of Bockstein-Törle VII (1–15) and Bocksteinhöhle (16–19). (1–2, 16) busked burins-(3, 6) carinated burins-(4, 8)
end scrapers-(5) splintered piece-(7, 10) laterally retouched blades-(9) perforated tooth-(11–12) ivory rods-(13–14) bone points with
massive bases-(15) distal bone point fragment-(17) end scraper-burin-(18) perforated cave bear canine-(19) bone point with split base.
After Hahn, 1977.
344
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Fig. 5. Aurignacian of Hohlenstein-Stadel. (1–17, 19–20): max. depth 1,20 m-(18): depth 1,60 m-1,80 m. (1–5) perforated fox
canines-(6, 8, 12) carinated end scrapers-(7) ivory bead-(9–10, 13) burins on truncation-(11, 17) laterally retouched blades-(14) bone
retoucher-(15) burnisher-(16, 19) bone points-(18) blade core-(20) ivory figurine. After Hahn, 1977 (1–7, 9, 13–17, 19), Hahn in
Schmid, 1989 (8, 10–12), and Schmid, 1989 (20).
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
nomenclature based on designating archaeological units with Roman numerals in increasing
order from top to bottom of a sequence became
established.
AMS dates were taken on samples from two
bone points, two bone burnishers, and a bone awl
from the Aurignacian and Gravettian layers at
Sirgenstein (Hahn, 1977; Schmidt, 1910, 1912).
The dates fall in the range of ca. 27–30 ka BP.
They suggest a degree of mixing between the
archaeological units, but are consistent with the
cultural attribution of the assemblages from layers
II–VI to the Gravettian and Aurignacian. While
split-based bone points are lacking, bone tools and
carinated and nosed end scrapers are present in
layers III–V (Fig. 6). The dates from Sirgenstein
suggest a continual occupation of the Swabian
Jura between the Aurignacian and Gravettian.
Thus far no new dates have been obtained from
the small Aurignacian assemblage, which contains
two bone points (Fig. 7.1–2), or from the much
richer overlying Gravettian horizons (Fig. 7.3–35)
from Riek’s excavations at Brillenhöhle from
1955–1963 (Riek, 1973). The only two radiocarbon
dates available at present are conventional
measurements that provide a minimum age of
25 ka for burnt bone from the Gravettian fireplace
of layer VII and a minimum age of 29 ka for burnt
bone from the underlying fireplace at the top of
layer VIII. Two pairs of lithic refits between layer
VII at Brillenhöhle with artifacts from layer IIb at
Hohle Fels, as well as six lithic refitting complexes
between layer VII at Brillenhöhle and well dated
Gravettian deposits at Geißenklösterle, layers
Ia, Ib and It, demonstrate the existence of a
Gravettian occupation at about 29 ka BP in
Brillenhöhle (Scheer, 1986, 1993). Although Riek
did not publish the exact position of the two bone
points from layer XIV, they lay at least 70 cm and
perhaps as much as 170 cm below the fireplace of
layer VIII. Unless one advocates an unusually high
rate of sedimentation, the two bone points from
the Aurignacian layer XIV must be considerably
older then 29 ka BP.
The excavations at Hohle Fels have a long
history dating back to Oscar Fraas’s and Theodor
Hartmann’s work in the 1870 s and include
Gertrud Matschak’s and Gustav Riek’s excava-
345
tions between 1958 and 1960. The current phase
of excavation has run semi-continuously since
1977 under Hahn’s and later under Conard and
Uerpmann’s direction. Here rich Gravettian find
horizons in archaeological complex II have been
documented in detail (Conard et al., 2001; Schiegl
et al., 2001). The layer IId directly below the
rich Gravettian layer IIc yielded a mammoth
ivory figurine similar to those known from the
Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura. Both dated
bones from layer IId produced dates of ca. 30 ka
BP and suggest a degree of temporal continuity
between the Aurignacian and Gravettian (Conard
and Floss, 2000). Dates of materials from the
underlying layers III and IV lie in the range of
ca. 28–33 ka BP and also suggest a continuous
occupation between the Aurignacian and
Gravettian. Excavations in 2001 and 2002 demonstrated the presence of rich Aurignacian layers
in still deeper deposits, but these finds have yet to
be dated. Aurignacian finds from Hohle Fels
include diverse carinated and busked burins,
nosed and carinated scrapers, laterally retouched
Aurignacian blades, ivory beads and pendants,
and diverse bone tools (Fig. 8). Particularly
remarkable is the rich assemblage from archaeological horizon IV, which contains an ivory
figurine depicting a bird, numerous ivory ornaments and much refuse from ivory working
(Conard et al., 2002).
The main Gravettian deposits from Hohle Fels
date to 29 ka BP, although two conventional dates
on mixed samples of bones submitted by Hahn
(1981, 1983) have produced much younger ages.
The Gravettian assemblages from Hohle Fels and
other Swabian sites are usually easy to distinguish
from Aurignacian assemblages (Hahn, 1992;
Scheer, 1985, 2000). They usually lack typical
Aurignacian scrapers, burins and laterally retouched pieces. The Gravettian assemblages are
characterized by increased bi-directional opposing
platform blade production, Gravette and microGravette points, backed blades and bladelets,
and Font Robert points. Ivory tear-drop-shaped
pendants, perforated teeth, and bone tools are
common, while figurative art is thus far limited to
engravings (Fig. 9). Particularly noteworthy are
A. Scheer’s (1986, 1993) successful refittings of
346
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Fig. 6. Aurignacian of Sirgenstein cave. (1–2, 5–6, 9, 11–12, 14, 21): Sirgenstein IV-(3–4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 18–20): Sirgenstein V-(8, 15, 17):
Sirgenstein VI. (1–2, 7) carinated end scrapers-(3, 6) nosed end scrapers-(4) pointed blade-(5) end scraper-(8, 12) dihedral burins (9, 13)
burins on truncation-(10) borer-(11) ivory bead-(14) carinated burin-(15) bone awl-(16) truncated blade-(17) laterally retouched
blade-(18) splintered piece-(19–20) bone points-(21) burnisher. After Hahn, 1977.
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
347
Fig. 7. Aurignacian of Brillenhöhle XIV (1–2) and Gravettian of Brillenhöhle VII (3–35). (1) bone point (with split base?)-(2) bone
point-(3–5) Gravette points-(6–10) micro-Gravette points-(11–12, 18) end scrapers-(13, 16) burins-(14–15) burins combined with end
scrapers-(17) ventrally retouched bladelet-(9) truncated blade-(20) blade retouched on both ends-(21) fragment of an ivory
figurine-(22–24, 26–27) teardrop-shaped ivory pendants-(25, 28) perforated canines-(29) bone tube-(30–31, 35) bone projectile
points-(32) bone rod (decorated?) with incisions-(33) bone awl-(34) bâton percé of ivory. After Hahn, 1977 (1–2) and Riek, 1973 (3–35).
348
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Fig. 8. Aurignacian of Hohle Fels near Schelklingen. (1, 9–11, 15, 19, 21): AH III-(2–8, 12–14, 16–18, 20): AH IV-(22–23): AH V. (1)
perforated bear incisor-(2) perforated upper eyetooth from red deer-(3) roughout for ivory beads-(4) half-finished ivory bead-(5–7)
double perforated ivory beads-(8–9) burins-(10) truncated blade-(11) busked burin-(12–13) disc-shaped ivory beads-(14) pointed
blade-(15) carinated burin-(16) double nosed end scraper-(17) blade with Aurignacian retouch-(18) blade pointed at one end and
truncated at the other-(19) bone awl with intense polishing-(20) fragment of a bone point-(21) worked mammoth rib-(22) nosed end
scraper-(23) end scraper combined with a pointed end. After Conard et al., 2002 (1–7, 11–18, 22–23); drawings by D. Punčochář.
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
349
Fig. 9. Gravettian of Hohle Fels near Schelklingen. (1–4) Gravette points-(5) micro-Gravette point-(6–7) backed bladelets-(8) Font
Robert point (9, 13) burins-(10) borer-(11) end scraper-(12) bladelet core-(14) decorated bone point-(15) pointed blade-(16) decorated
hare humerus-(17–19) ivory pendants-(20) bâton percé of antler-(21) pendant made of a bear canine-(22) decorated antler adze. After
Conard et al., 2001 (1–3, 11–12), Conard and Uerpmann, 1999 (4–5, 7–8, 13–14, 16–19, 21), Conard et al., 2000 (6, 9–10, 15), and
Scheer, 1994 (22).
350
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Gravettian lithic artifacts between Hohle Fels,
Geißenklösterle and Brillenhöhle mentioned
above, thereby demonstrating that these sites were
used contemporaneously around 29 ka BP. No
clear stratigraphic or chronological break is visible
between earliest Gravettian and latest Aurignacian
horizons.
Geißenklösterle is the site from the Swabian
Jura that has been the focus of the most lively
debate on the dating of the Aurignacian (Bolus
and Conard, 2001; Hahn, 1988; Richter et al.,
2000; Zilhão and d’Errico, 1999). Fieldwork by
Hahn and others from 1973 – 1991 and Conard
and colleagues starting in 2000 have yielded the
best studied sequence in the region. Excluding
obvious outliers, such as isolated Magdalenian
dates from the uppermost Gravettian, and dates
on cave bear bones and other non-archaeological
materials, 47 radiocarbon dates are available on
finds from the Middle Paleolithic horizon IV,
the lower Aurignacian complex III, the upper
Aurignacian complex II, and the Gravettian
complex I.
The lower Aurignacian (Fig. 10) is characterized by typical Aurignacian unidirectional blade
production and over 200 stone tools, including
numerous carinated and nosed end scrapers,
burins and splintered pieces, as well as worked
bone, ivory and antler artifacts (Hahn, 1988).
Artworks and flutes, which are present in the
upper Aurignacian, are thus far lacking in the
excavation of the lower Aurignacian of horizon
III. The lower Aurignacian has yielded eight
perforated ornaments.
The upper Aurignacian (Fig. 11) includes a
diverse lithic assemblage rich in splintered pieces,
end scrapers, diverse burins, and very few Dufour
bladelets. Many organic tools, numerous perforated ornaments, four mammoth ivory sculptures and two small bone flutes have been
recovered from horizon II (Hahn, 1986, 1988;
Hahn and Münzel, 1995).
Hahn’s careful refitting and taphonomic studies
reveal a degree of mixing between the stratigraphic
complexes II and III. Hahn (1988: 48–84) describes
at length the possible sources of mixing, including
cryoturbation, bioturbation and excavation error
and estimates, based on refitting sequences from
cobbles A9 and A14, that about 7% of the artifacts
have moved between archaeological horizons II
and III, and that 60% of the pieces have not moved
from their original subunit. The remaining 33% of
the material have moved between subunits of
horizon III. Of these finds 29% have migrated
upward and 4% have migrated downward (Hahn,
1988: 74). In Hahn’s view while the mixing is not
trivial, the Aurignacian deposits have not lost their
stratigraphic integrity. After carefully consulting
the documentation from Hahn’s excavation, we
conclude, as Hahn (1988: 84) himself alluded to,
that “excavator error”—that is the inability of excavators to clearly separate stratigraphic horizons—
contributed to apparent mixing between archaeological horizons. Hahn also consistently refrained
from correcting false stratigraphic assessments
made during excavation. Given that the layers
of the site are characterized by subtly stratified
deposits of limestone rubble in a silty matrix, it
is indeed difficult to achieve a completely clean
separation between the archaeological horizons.
Both Hahn’s excavations and the current excavations have documented the presence of well
defined horizontal features including lithic scatters,
areas rich in worked bone and ivory, and concentrations of burnt bone, ash and ochre. Such
features are largely intact and provide additional
evidence for a lack of large scale mixing between
the main Aurignacian horizons (Conard and
Malina, 2002; Hahn, 1988, 1989).
Fortunately over 30,000 piece-plotted objects
including hundreds of refitted finds make it possible to plot profile projections of refitting artifacts.
In response to claims by Zilhão and d’Errico
(Zilhão, 2001; Zilhão and d’Errico, 1999) that
considerable mixing has occurred between horizons II and III, we have examined over 30 refitting
complexes. The plots (Figs. 12–14) demonstrate
the outstanding context of the Aurignacian finds
from Geißenklösterle and show that only a small
portion of the finds underwent significant vertical
displacement. Based on taphonomic grounds it
is inconceivable that numerous Aurignacian
elements from horizon III have been reworked
downward from archaeological horizon II.
Similarly, there is no sign of significant reworking
of Middle Paleolithic materials upward across the
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
351
Fig. 10. Aurignacian of Geißenklösterle, archaeological horizon III. (1–3) perforated fox canines-(4–5) ivory pendants-(6) ivory
bead-(7) grooved bone-(8) tool resembling a carinated end scraper-(9–10) carinated end scrapers-(11–12) nosed end scrapers-(13, 17)
burins-(14, 21) bone points-(15) end scraper-(16) splintered piece-(18) ivory rod (projectile point?)-(19) worked ivory splinter-(20) blade
core with refitted blades. After Hahn, 1988 (1–2, 4–5, 7–21) and Hahn, 1989 (3, 6).
352
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Fig. 11. Aurignacian of Geißenklösterle, archaeological horizon II. (1–3) end scrapers-(4) pointed blade-(5) laterally retouched
blade-(6, 10–11) splintered pieces-(7) busked burin-(8) burin on truncation-(9) truncated blade-(12) antler pendant-(13) Dufour
bladelet-(14, 20, 22) ivory figurines-(15–19) ivory beads-(21) bone flute-(23) decorated bone-(24) bone point with split base-(25) bâton
percé of ivory. After Hahn 1986, (14, 20, 22) and Hahn, 1988 (1–13, 15–19, 23–25).
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
largely sterile geological layer 17 that separates
the uppermost Middle Paleolithic horizon IV
from the lowermost Aurignacian horizon III.
Additionally, unpublished micromorphological
studies by Gerlinde Dippon and Paul Goldberg
(pers. comm., 2002) also refute Zilhão and
d’Errico’s claims that considerable mixing has
taken place between the archaeological horizons at
Geißenklösterle.
Beyond the taphonomic arguments against significant mixing between Aurignacian horizons II
and III, several key arguments against mixing
result from technological and typological
studies of the deposits (Hahn, 1988; Liolios and
Teyssandier, in press). For example, Hahn and
Teyssandier have demonstrated that horizon III is
characterized by a complete and coherent chain of
lithic reduction beginning with whole cobbles and
extending to the systematic uni-directional production of blades, which were then modified into
diverse tool types. Horizon II, on the other hand,
is characterized by incomplete chains of lithic
reduction and less intense production of blades.
The upper Aurignacian is also characterized by a
broader spectrum of raw materials and a higher
proportion of more distant raw materials. In contrast to horizon III where complete reduction
chains are well documented, horizon II includes
more numerous examples of the presence of blades
that were produced outside the area of excavation
(Liolios and Teyssandier, in press). Teyssandier
also stresses that the lithic artifacts within the
many sub-units of horizons II and III are balanced
from a typological point of view. Thus carinated
and nosed scrapers dominate the tool assemblages in the lower Aurignacian sub-units, while
splintered pieces, pointed blades, and laterally
retouched blades are limited almost exclusively
to the stratigraphic sub-units of the upper
Aurignacian deposits. These clear technological
and typological signatures would not be visible if
significant mixing had occurred at the site.
An examination of the organic artifacts in the
Aurignacian horizons at Geißenklösterle also
documents coherent patterns in the assemblages that are inconsistent with high levels of
taphonomic mixing (Liolios, 1999; Liolios and
Teyssandier, in press; Münzel, 1999). For example,
353
the organic tools from horizon II include splitbased bone points made from reindeer antlers,
awls and burnishers made from bone, and mobile
art, ornaments, and points without split bases
made from mammoth ivory (Liolios, 1999). Each
of these raw materials reflects a unique method of
production, which leads to specific tools as end
products. In contrast, horizon III is somewhat
poorer in organic artifacts and lacks splitbased points and mobile art. Within the lower
Aurignacian deposit, there is no rigorous correspondence between raw materials, methods of tool
production, or the finished tool types. Ivory is also,
by far, the dominant raw material in horizon III
(Münzel, 1999). Furthermore, perforated carnivore teeth are the most common form of ornament in horizon III and are lacking in the upper
Aurignacian of horizon II.
Due to the critical debate over the stratigraphic integrity of the Aurignacian horizons at
Geißenklösterle, we undertook a new dating initiative that included 17 new AMS measurements
from Kiel and Oxford. These radiocarbon dates
span the period from ca. 29–37 ka BP (Fig. 15).
Assuming that there are no significant systematic
errors between radiocarbon labs, the new dates
document relatively early Aurignacian occupations
in the region. Six 14C dates from three accelerator
and one conventional lab fall in the range between
36–40 ka BP. A conventional radiocarbon date
from a mixed bone sample of 36,0003560 ka BP
(Hahn, 1988) has been excluded from Table 3 due
to its large standard deviations These early dates
are roughly consistent with the mean age of
40.21.5 ka BP based on Richter et al.’s (2000) six
thermoluminescence dates on burnt flints from
horizon III. These TL dates range between 38.3
and 44.7 ka and have standard deviations between
2.1 and 5.6 ka. Based on the taphonomic and
archaeological arguments mentioned above, we
find no basis, at present, to reject these six radiocarbon dates. Additionally, the dates cannot be
rejected simply on the basis of their ages, because
most forms of contamination or deviations in
atmospheric radiocarbon content would tend to
yield ages that are too young rather than anomalously too old. While Hahn did not systematically
record data on anthropogenic modification of
Fig. 12. Geißenklösterle. Aurignacian refitting group A9. Core of Jurassic chert with refitted blades and flakes.
Fig. 13. Geißenklösterle. Aurignacian refitting group A11. Refitted blades of black alpine quartzite.
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
355
Fig. 14. Geißenklösterle. Aurignacian refitting group A16. Refitted blades and flakes of Jurassic chert, among them two tools.
Fig. 15. Geißenklösterle. The stratigraphic position of the AMS radiocarbon samples.
these samples, he deliberately dated specimens
from species including horse, reindeer and ibex
that he viewed as important game animals. Subse-
quent work by S. Münzel (1999) demonstrates that
these species played an important role in the
hunting economies of the Upper Paleolithic at
356
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Geißenklösterle. Noteworthy is the variation in the
dates from the Aurignacian of Geißenklösterle and
the fact that the two available AMS radiocarbon
dates from the Middle Paleolithic lie between 32
and 34 ka, while four ESR dates on ibex and
rhinoceros teeth yield a mean age of 43.34.0 ka
(Richter et al., 2000). The individual ESR dates
range from 35.7 to 52.7 ka with standard deviations of between 4.8 and 7.7 ka. In the following
section we address possible explanations for these
observations in more detail.
Finally the AMS dates for the rich Gravettian
layers of Geißenklösterle (Scheer, 1989, 1993,
2000) range almost exclusively from ca. 27–30 ka
BP with many dates falling in the vicinity of 29 ka
BP (Fig. 16). No AMS dates on anthropogenically
modified material from Gravettian layers postdate
26 ka BP: The only two radiocarbon dates for the
Gravettian after 26 ka BP are a single conventional
mixed bone sample submitted by Hahn (1983)
prior to the advent of routine AMS dating, and an
AMS date on a hare pelvis. This and other bulk
bone dates must be viewed with caution, since
Hahn often dated numerous, somewhat scattered,
highly fragmentary bones that he considered
expendable. Thus at Geißenklösterle, little if any
secure evidence exists for late Gravettian occupations. While the Lone Valley has yielded few
Gravettian assemblages, the Ach Valley has produced multiple Gravettian assemblages with the
most intense period of occupation focusing around
29 ka BP.
The “Middle Paleolithic Dating Anomaly” and the
“Coexistence Effect”
The data summarized above demonstrate that
the seemingly mundane aspects of building local
chronostratigraphic sequences must be addressed
with rigor and in the knowledge that simple
answers cannot be expected. The available data
show enormous fluctuations in the production and
deposition of radioisotopes in various media over
the period from 30–50 k calendar years ago.
Recent studies document major peaks in the production of 36Cl and 10Be in connection with the
Mono Lake and Laschamp geomagnetic excur-
sions (Baumgartner et al., 1998). Studies of 14C in
North Atlantic planktonic foraminifera (Voelker
et al., 2000), Japanese varves (Kitagawa and van
der Plicht, 1998), and stalagmites in the Bahamas
(Beck et al., 2001) show variations in the abundance of atmospheric radiocarbon during OIS 3.
Voelker et al. (2000) and Beck et al. (2001) have
documented changes in 14C concentrations in connection with geomagnetic minima and perhaps in
association with changing patterns of ocean circulation (Figs. 17, 18). The changes in North Atlantic
planktonic foraminifera reflect extreme peaks in
14
C production that correspond to temporal offsets of more than 6,000 years and perhaps as much
as 10,000 years. Given that the marine signal for
14
C variation is attenuated due to reservoir effects,
we must expect even greater fluctuations in radiocarbon concentrations in terrestrial archives
including archaeological sites. Richards and Beck
(2001) have arrived at similar conclusions based on
their analysis of the radiocarbon record from a
stalagmite in the Bahamas.
Unfortunately, these major global fluctuations
in radioisotope production, transport and deposition lie in the period from 30 to 50 k calendar years
ago when modern humans arrived in Europe and
numerous important innovations of the Upper
Paleolithic occurred. This period is also of great
importance for studying the late MSA and early
LSA in Africa and cultural processes including
those related to the early population dynamics in
Australia and other parts of the Old World. Thus
researchers must view radiocarbon dates in this
period with great caution. The full extent of the
chronostratigraphic problems researchers face
when using 14C must be acknowledged before
better interpretations of the origins of modern
humans in Europe can be developed. This problem
is particularly acute in the period around 40 ka
calendar years ago, near the time of the Laschamp
magnetic excursion and the probable arrival of
modern humans in some parts of Europe (Laj
et al., 2002). Similar, but apparently less extreme
variations in radiocarbon production occur several
thousand years later, perhaps in connection with
the Mono Lake excursion.
For years researchers in Tübingen sought to
explain the odd patterns in the radiocarbon
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
357
Fig. 16. Gravettian of Geißenklösterle. (1–2) micro-Gravette points-(3–10) backed bladelets-(11) flechette-(12, 14) end scrapers-(13,
15–17) burins-(18) refitted blade sequence-(19–22, 24–26) ivory pendants-(23) perforated fox canine-(27) bone demonstrating the use
of groove and splinter technique-(28-29) needle-like tool fragments of bone-(30) burnisher-(31) shaft segment of antler-(32) antler
point with incisions. After Hahn et al., 1985 (1–10, 12, 14–15, 17–18, 20, 22, 25–31) and Scheer, 1989 (11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 23–24, 32).
358
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Fig. 17. Chronostratigraphic correlations between stable oxygen isotope ratios in Greenland ice from the GISP core (top), 36Cl in
Greenland ice from the GRIP core (bottom), and 14C values with 1 error bars in North Atlantic planktonic foraminifera (middle).
The curve in the central plot reflects the inverse of the geomagnetic intensity and suggests a correlation between increased cosmogenic
radioisotope production and the Mono Lake and Laschamp geomagnetic excursions. The radiocarbon signal depicted by the points
with error bars reflects 14C age differences well in excess of 6 ka within the attenuated marine reservoir. Dating anomalies in terrestrial
settings can be expected to be of still greater magnitude. After Voelker et al., 2000.
dates from archaeological sites, including
Geißenklösterle, by invoking taphonomic arguments about the mixing and reworking of finds.
Now it seems more plausible that the explanations
for the irregularities of the 14C dates during the
Aurignacian relate to fluctuations in radiocarbon
production and transport. This phenomenon also
appears to explain the anomalously young radiocarbon ages of ca. 32 ka for an ibex tibia from
the archaeologically nearly sterile layer GH 17
beneath the horizon III and a date of ca. 33.6 ka
for a red deer tibia from the uppermost Middle
Paleolithic layer IV at Geißenklösterle (Table 3).
The extreme variations in the production, transport and deposition of 14C help to explain
the observations that have up to now puzzled
researchers working to refine the chronostratigraphy of the early Upper Paleolithic of the Swabian
Jura.
This “Middle Paleolithic Dating Anomaly” will
have major consequences for work on the appearance of modern humans and the extinction of
Neanderthals in Europe. If the patterns in the
radiocarbon record from Geißenklösterle, Voelker
et al.’s (2000), and Beck et al.’s (2001) data are
real, these 14C production peaks must exist on a
global scale. Given the well studied chronostratigraphy of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic of
Geißenklösterle and independent controls provided by Richter et al.’s (2000) multiple TL and
ESR dates, the existence of the Middle Paleolithic
Dating Anomaly can be demonstrated with a high
degree of certainty. At sites with less complete
chronostratigraphic sequences, researchers have
no certain means of demonstrating that the radiocarbon dates for Neanderthals or Middle Paleolithic assemblages in the range of roughly 30–40 ka
BP are accurate approximations of calendar ages,
rather than the result of the dating anomaly. Since
considerable time would be needed after the end of
these radiocarbon production peaks until the system returned to equilibrium, there is every reason
to expect this phenomenon to be present at other
sites.
One important ramification of the dating
anomaly is that late radiocarbon dates for
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
359
Fig. 18. Radiocarbon signal from stalagmite GB-89-24-1 in the Bahamas. The heavy line is the best fit to the 14C data, and the fine
lines reflect the 95% confidence limits. The horizontal axis estimates the calendar years based on 230Th ages, and the vertical axis
reflects the per mil deviation in 14C deposition. A 1500 per mil deviation corresponds to an underestimate of the radiocarbon age by
1.5 half-lives or more than 8 ka. Modified after Beck et al., 2001.
Neanderthals and Middle Paleolithic assemblages
could in some cases be much too young. This
phenomenon would exaggerate the apparent coexistence between archaic and modern humans. A
portion of the radiocarbon ages for Middle Paleolithic assemblages and Neanderthal remains from
multiple regions postdating 40 ka BP could very
well be a manifestation of this “Coexistence
Effect.” Richards and Beck (2001) have suggested
that this phenomenon could help to explain the
AMS dates of ca. 28 and 29 ka BP for Neanderthal
remains from Vindija in Croatia (Smith et al.,
1999). Much more data are needed before the
extent of this problem will be known, but it
appears nearly certain that this Coexistence Effect
will have major implications for archaeological
and paleoanthropological work in the period
between 30,000 and 50,000 calendar years ago.
This situation will require researchers and funding
agencies to invest more heavily in establishing
reliable radiocarbon chronologies that take the
Middle Paleolithic Dating Anomaly into effect,
and in developing more reliable, independent
dating methods for this critical time range.
Innovations of the European Upper Paleolithic
Despite the problems discussed above, the new
C results reported here and previously published
14
C, TL and ESR dates help to constrain
the plausible scenarios for the replacement of
Neanderthals by modern humans and for the
advent and spread of cultural innovations associated with the Upper Paleolithic. These dates suggest that the Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura
dates back to 40 ka BP. The most important
evidence for the early Aurignacian comes from
archaeological horizon III from Geißenklösterle.
This large artifact assemblage is characterized by
systematic unidirectional blade production and
abundant carinated and nosed end scrapers,
14
360
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
smaller numbers of burins and splintered pieces,
and much evidence for working bone and
especially ivory. This lithic technology and these
artifact types are extremely rare or absent in
Swabia prior to the Aurignacian. Similarly, while
bone tools have been documented during the
Middle Paleolithic at Vogelherd (Riek, 1934) and
Große Grotte (Wagner, 1983), bone, ivory and
antler tools become much more common in the
Aurignacian, and ornaments, like those from the
lower Aurignacian of Geißenklösterle III, are completely lacking in the Swabian Middle Paleolithic.
There is no evidence from Swabia that points to a
gradual evolution of Aurignacian material culture
out of the indigenous Middle Paleolithic.
The 33 radiocarbon dates from archaeological materials from the Aurignacian of
Geißenklösterle fall almost entirely between 30 and
40 ka BP. Refitting studies show that some mixing
has taken place between the layers, and some
degree of mixing is to be expected at an intensely
occupied site. Our impression from ongoing
excavations is that this mixing has not taken place
on a large scale, and that the horizontal layers
of limestone rubble, silt and clay-rich sediment
and archaeological features including hearths and
spatially defined remains of stone knapping and
waste from working ivory have not been disturbed
to a significant extent. As an example, the large
horizontally oriented burnt features, layers rich in
ochre and lithic, bone and ivory working debris
often show spatial integrity rather than indications
of mixing.
Hahn’s (1988) and Teyssandier’s (Liolios and
Teyssandier, in press) detailed studies of lithic
technology and typology in both Aurignacian
complexes at Geißenklösterle found the assemblages to differ only in terms of the typological
nature of the end products and the phases of
reduction that took place at the site. The basic
pattern of core reduction in the upper and lower
Aurignacian deposits is indistinguishable. From a
strictly typological point of view the lithic artifacts
from the lower Aurignacian, including numerous
nosed and carinated scrapers, and carinated burins
are more classically Aurignacian than those from
the upper Aurignacian of horizon II. The assemblage from horizon III includes many thousands of
piece-plotted artifacts, and it is inconceivable
that this lithic and organic artifact assemblage is
the result of downward mixing from the upper
Aurignacian of horizon II. As discussed above,
technological analyses and refitting studies demonstrate that these deposits have not undergone
significant mixing. Thus we reject Zilhão and
d’Errico’s (1999) assertion that the assemblage
from layer III is the result of contamination from
the overlying upper Aurignacian deposit. In our
view there is no doubt that the lithic assemblage
from horizon III can be classified as Aurignacian.
The situation at Bockstein-Törle where no
piece-plotted data exist is very different. Here we
view the two dates in excess of 40 ka BP from the
Aurignacian layer VII as the result of mixing from
the underlying Middle Paleolithic horizons. The
archaeological finds from the lower spits of
Hohlenstein-Stadel, like Geißenklösterle, provide
evidence for a fairly continuous occupation of the
Swabian Jura over the period of the development
and spread of the local Upper Paleolithic, but
more detailed temporal resolution and more
reliable paleoenvironmental data are still needed
to test Waiblinger’s (2001) hypothesis that the
occupations prior to the Last Glacial Maximum
were limited to relatively mild interstadial
conditions.
Looking outside the Swabian Jura to other
areas of central and eastern Europe, one sees a
pattern consistent with the Danube Corridor
hypothesis for the entry of modern humans to the
interior regions of Europe (Conard, 2002a; Conard
and Floss, 2000; Conard et al., 1999). Three radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the Aurignacian
deposit from Willendorf II cultural layer 3 in the
Wachau outside Vienna yielded ages of 34.1, 37.9
and 38.9 ka BP (Felgenhauer, 1956–59; Haesaerts
et al., 1996; Hahn, 1977). Similarly, KeilbergKirche in the Danube Valley near Regensburg
(Uthmeier, 1996) provides three radiocarbon dates
between 37.5 and 38.6 ka BP from charcoal
samples associated with an Aurignacian lithic
assemblage. These assemblages, like the lower
Aurignacian from Geißenklösterle, document
Aurignacian knapping technology in combination with Aurignacian stone tools. Unlike
Geißenklösterle, neither Willendorf II, 3 nor
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Keilberg-Kirche have yielded evidence of organic
artifacts or artworks. Although these sites have
not yielded human skeletal materials, the finds
of modern human remains from the base of
Vogelherd V (Churchill and Smith, 2000a,b;
Czarnetzki, 1983; Riek, 1932, 1934) suggest that
modern humans are responsible for these early
Aurignacian assemblages. Other early Upper
Paleolithic, but not clearly Aurignacian, deposits
from sites including Bacho Kiro and Temnata in
Bulgaria (Ginter et al., 2000; Hedges et al., 1994;
KozlXowski, 1982) lie in the valleys of tributaries of
the Danube and are consistent with the scenario
that Upper Paleolithic people entered Europe from
the Southeast and penetrated the interior of the
continent via the Danube Valley. All other possible routes from these Bulgarian sites to central
Europe would require repeatedly crossing rugged
mountain ranges and are thus far less likely. The
Danube Valley also provided the key route to the
interior of Europe in later prehistoric periods as
Childe (1929), Bar-Yosef (1998) and others have
argued.
Studies of lithic raw materials also support this
line of reasoning. The presence of Bavarian tabular
flint in Aurignacian assemblages at Vogelherd and
Geißenklösterle points to the use of the Danube
Valley as a corridor for the movement of raw
materials and people during the Aurignacian
(Burkert and Floss, in press). The tabular flints
from these sites originate from several sources
including those in the Danube Valley near the
town of Abensberg 120 km east of this part of the
Swabian Jura.
At nearly the same time evidence from
Mediterranean Europe and sites such as Fumane
and Arbreda caves may well indicate a second
broadly contemporaneous colonization of southern Europe (Bischoff et al., 1989; Broglio et al.,
1998; Mussi, 2001). Although multiple scenarios
which emphasize varying degrees of cultural continuity between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic
remain plausible, over the next 5,000–10,000 years
Neanderthals making Middle Paleolithic artifacts
may have persisted in many parts of Europe
(Cabrera et al., 2001; Churchill and Smith,
2000a,b; Golovanova et al., 1999; Hublin et al.,
1995; Straus, 1996). If these late dates for
361
Neanderthals and Middle Paleolithic assemblages
are not the result of the Middle Paleolithic Dating
Anomaly, this apparent chronological coexistence
between modern humans and Neanderthals suggests that these hominins were in competition and
probably interacted with each other. If one
assumes that archaic humans did not abandon
territories in advance of the arrival of modern
humans, contact between these populations could
be expected in multiple regions of Europe. These
contacts may have led to interbreeding over the
period of the early Upper Paleolithic, but ultimately modern humans demographically swamped
the Neanderthal populations leading to their
extinction. Interestingly, the Swabian Jura has yet
to yield evidence for this hypothetical interaction,
and based on the available empirical data, one
could equally well argue that modern humans
entered a largely depopulated Swabian Jura about
40 ka BP and that little or no interaction between
archaic and modern humans took place in the
region.
While the broad outline of the colonization of
Europe by modern humans is beginning to emerge,
it has become increasingly clear in recent years,
that the historical and evolutionary developments
vary between regions such as the Swabian Jura,
Croatia, the Crimea, Georgia, Burgundy, the
Dordogne, and the Apennine and Iberian
Peninsulas (Cabrera et al., 2001; Conard, 1998;
Zilhão, 2001). A central problem lies in demonstrating which lithic assemblages were made by
Neanderthals and which were made by modern
humans (Churchill and Smith, 2000b). This point
is not trivial since most of the key assemblages
have not yielded human skeletal material. For the
purposes of this paper we have assumed that
modern humans made the Aurignacian assemblages found across Europe. This assumption
could easily be disproved if Neanderthal remains
were found in unambiguous association with
Aurignacian finds. At present, however, we see no
clear examples of archaic humans and Aurignacian
finds found in association. The suggestion that
the Vindija Neanderthals were recovered in direct
association with an Aurignacian-like assemblage
containing a split-based bone point (Churchill and
Smith, 2000b; Karavanić and Smith, 1998), while
362
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
intriguing, must remain in doubt due to the lack of
three-dimensional data on the provenience of the
finds from this excavation conducted by Malez
between 1974 and 1986 (J. Radovčić, pers. comm.
2002). Particularly important is establishing the
age of the modern human skeletal remains from
the base of the lower Aurignacian layer V at
Vogelherd. The many AMS dates on bones from
Vogelherd presented here represent the first steps
toward the future dating of the human skeletal
remains from this site.
The dates reported here raise further questions
about the place of origin, tempo and circumstances
under which the key cultural innovations of the
Upper Paleolithic occurred and spread. Several
authors have recently summarized the African and
Near Eastern evidence for the beginnings of cultural modernity (Bar-Yosef, 2000; Kuhn et al.,
2001; McBrearty and Brooks, 2000). Relevant in
the European context is that the suite of characters
reflecting modern symbolic behavior including the
production of ornaments, art, and music are
documented particularly early in the Swabian
Aurignacian. While some evidence for the production of ornaments and jewelry of comparable age is
known in East Africa and the Levant, nowhere are
older figurative artworks or musical instruments documented than in the Aurignacian of the
Swabian Jura.
From a historical point of view, prior to the
advent of radiometric dating early researchers such
as R. R. Schmidt (1912) assumed that these cultural innovations probably originated from the
Paleolithic heartland of southwestern France. This
view has been echoed in more recent decades by
A. Leroi-Gourhan (1965) and others who have
emphasized the importance of Aurignacian
deposits at sites including La Ferrassie and Abri
Pataud. In this context, Grotte Chauvet, which has
recently yielded ages for parietal art dating as far
back as 32 ka BP should also be mentioned
(Clottes, 2001). While these and other occurrences
of Aurignacian art are of central importance in
studying the cultural dynamics of the period, current evidence suggests that the western European
Aurignacian postdates similar and analogous
developments in the upper Danube region
(Djindjian, 1993; Zilhão and d’Errico, 1999).
Eastern and southeastern Europe have
been cited as areas for the potential origin
of Aurignacian innovations (Bosinski, 1989;
KozlXowski and Otte, 2000). As discussed above,
while early Upper Paleolithic assemblages are
known from eastern and southeastern Europe, the
early assemblages from important sites including
Temnata and Bacho Kiro cannot on technological and typological grounds be considered
Aurignacian (Ginter et al., 2000; KozlXowski,
1982).
Elsewhere the situation is still more
complicated. Hahn originally suggested that the
Aurignacian developed out of the Blattspitzen cultures in central Europe (Hahn, 1970), although in
his later publications he tended to be noncommittal about the origin of the Aurignacian (Hahn,
1977, 1993a, 1995). Other colleagues working
in central Europe including M. Oliva (1991), J.
Svoboda (Svoboda and Simán, 1989; Svoboda
et al., 1996), T. Uthmeier (2000), and K. Valoch
(1993) point to a degree of continuity between the
late Middle Paleolithic and the earliest Upper
Paleolithic, but are unable to demonstrate continuity between the Middle Paleolithic and the
Aurignacian. Here it is important to note that in
the German research tradition leaf point assemblages are universally classified as late Middle
Paleolithic assemblages, whereas in the rest of
eastern and central Europe the various leaf point
assemblages are typically classified as transitional
or Upper Paleolithic assemblages. Hence a degree
of confusion originates as the result of differences
in regional terminologies. For example, while
Oliva sees the continuity between the Micoquian
and Szeletian as evidence for continuity between
the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, within the
German research tradition this observation would
be seen as an example of continuity within the
Middle Paleolithic. The situation in the archaeologically rich areas of Moravia is further complicated by the presence of countless surface sites
that contain diverse combinations of Mousterian,
Micoquian,
Bohunician,
Szeletian,
and
Aurignacian elements but lack organic artifacts.
Valoch and others (e.g. Valoch et al., 1985) have at
times argued that some surface sites with a presumably archaic Aurignacian suggest a degree of
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
cultural continuity between the Middle and Upper
Paleolithic. Moravia, however, has produced little
if any evidence for cultural continuity from stratified archaeological contexts. In Swabia, as summarized above, numerous stratified sites show a
clear break between the latest Middle Paleolithic
and the earliest Aurignacian strata. To date, there
is no evidence from Swabia or neighboring regions
for interaction between the makers of Middle
Paleolithic and Aurignacian assemblages.
With the data now available, several lines of
evidence point to the Swabian Jura as a region of
early Upper Paleolithic colonization and cultural
innovation. Interestingly, the cultural innovations
of the Gravettian, including changes in lithic technology, the production of organic tools and ornaments, also appear remarkably early in the
Swabian Jura. While one may rightly argue that
the long history of intense research in the region
skews the data in favor of the Swabian Jura,
one must ultimately base arguments on concrete
data.
The radiocarbon dates summarized in Tables 2
and 3 point to several important observations. The
early Aurignacian appears to begin in the range
between roughly 35 and 40 ka BP, or perhaps
earlier based on TL and calibrated 14C data (van
der Plicht, 1999; Richter et al., 2000). The later
Swabian Aurignacian continues until ca. 30 ka BP
and is followed immediately by the Gravettian.
The richest Gravettian horizons such as Hohle
Fels and Geißenklösterle date to ca. 29 ka BP.
When the Gravettian of the Swabian Jura was
at its highpoint, the Aurignacian was reaching
its apex in France and other parts of Europe
(Delporte, 1998; Djindjian et al., 1999). In his
review of the classic region of southern Moravia,
Oliva (2000) demonstrates, for example, that the
earliest Gravettian occupation at Dolnı́ Věstonice
postdates 27 ka BP. Svoboda et al. (1996) also date
most of the key Gravettian horizons to after 27 ka.
BP. At roughly 30 ka BP, when the transition from
the Aurignacian to the Gravettian in the Swabian
Jura took place, Neanderthals may still have
occupied parts of eastern, central and western
Europe. The early dates for the Aurignacian and
Gravettian support the Kulturpumpe model
(Conard, 2002a; Conard and Floss, 2000; Conard
363
et al., 1999), which postulates that the upper
Danube including the Swabian Jura is a key area
of cultural innovation during the early Upper
Paleolithic.
The key innovations of the Swabian
Aurignacian include, but are not limited to:
numerous examples of figurative art; musical
instruments; abundant and diverse objects of
personal ornament; numerous new forms of bone,
ivory and antler tools; blade technology, which is
entirely lacking in the region’s Middle Paleolithic;
numerous types of lithic end scrapers, diverse
forms of burins, and lateral and pointed retouched
blades using steep Aurignacian retouch. The key
innovations of the Swabian Gravettian include,
but are not limited to: new forms of personal
ornament, especially ivory pendants; new forms of
large antler tools; new forms of bâtons percés of
ivory and antler; an emphasis on engraved
rather than three dimensional art; additions to the
repertoire of bone tools, as well as a new emphasis on opposed platform blade production accompanied by the manufacture of new stone tool
types including Gravette and micro-Gravette
points, Font Robert points, backed blades and
backed bladelets.
The Kulturpumpe model presents the following
non-mutually exclusive hypotheses to explain the
observations:
1. The cultural florescence leading to the
dramatic increase in symbolic expression and
technological advancement is the direct result
of the competition between archaic and modern humans following the initial colonization
of the upper reaches of the Danube by modern
humans around 40 ka BP.
2. These cultural innovations result from innovative problem solving in connection with climatic stress in the harsh environment of the
northern foothills of the Alps. Greenland ice
cores and other data document a series of
major climatic shifts during OIS 3 (e.g. Allen
et al., 1999; Grootes, 2001; Sánchez Goñi et al.,
2002). These dramatic climatic shifts happened
within decades and certainly strained the
social-economic patterns of the hominins living
in Swabia.
364
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
3. Cultural innovations of the Aurignacian and
Gravettian occurred in connection with socialcultural and demographic changes independent
of competition with Neanderthals or the
influence of climatic stress. In other periods,
important cultural innovations are by no
means invariably linked to inter-taxa competition or direct responses to environmental
change.
In the more extreme formulation of the
Kulturpumpe model, the upper Danube, including
the Swabian Jura, can be viewed as the most likely
region where both the Aurignacian and the
Gravettian developed. This hypothesis is readily
refutable if Aurignacian and Gravettian assemblages in other regions can be shown to predate
those in the upper Danube Valley.
While we are not yet in a position to determine
what was driving the “cultural pump” that stimulated cultural and technological innovations in
the Swabian Jura, the quality of data is rapidly
improving and expanding to the point where in the
coming years researchers will be able to refine and
test the hypotheses mentioned above. Along with
this trend in Swabia, researchers in other regions
will no longer look for schematic models such as
continuity and replacement on a continental
scale, but instead they will need to develop
more nuanced regionally specific and testable
scenarios grounded with solid archaeological and
paleoanthropological data.
At present there is no evidence for the coexistence between Neanderthals and modern humans
in Swabia, and no interstratification of Middle
Paleolithic and Aurignacian finds has ever
been reported in the region. At sites including
Vogelherd, Hohlenstein-Stadel, Sirgenstein and
Geißenklösterle, a sterile deposit often separates
the uppermost Middle Paleolithic layers from the
deepest Aurignacian deposits. Nevertheless, we
continue to view at least short-term coexistence and interaction between Neanderthals and
modern humans as probable. This point of view
is supported by arguments showing that both
Neanderthals and modern humans have similar environmental tolerances (Roebroeks et al.,
1992) and by the proposition, based on eco-
logical arguments, that Neanderthals would not
abandon inhabitable territories prior to the
arrival of incoming modern populations. If these
populations did coexist and interact with each
other, we would anticipate that learning could
happen in either direction, and see no reason to
expect that only Neanderthals adopted behavioral patterns or used information provided by
the incoming modern humans. Proponents of
various forms of acculturation and related
models have tended to stress that only the
Neanderthals would have adopted cultural forms
from the incoming modern humans (Demars and
Hublin, 1989; Hublin et al., 1996; Mellars, 1989).
From our point of view, the newly arriving
modern humans stood to profit from the local
knowledge of the region that the indigenous
Neanderthals no doubt possessed. The specific
nature of these interactions would likely vary
between regions and could be expected to reflect
the specific environmental and social context of
each region.
Despite our expectations for a degree of interaction between these populations, if future excavations fail to document a temporal coexistence
or interstratification of Middle Paleolithic and
Aurignacian horizons, the competition hypothesis
could eventually be ruled out. Given that most
Middle Paleolithic horizons in Swabia are not rich
in finds and that find-poor and sterile horizons are
often encountered within Middle Paleolithic
sequences, we suspect that Middle Paleolithic
population densities were relatively low. Thus the
evidence for short-term coexistence for several
generations or even centuries may not be easy to
isolate in the caves and open-air settings of the
Swabian Jura.
We are currently working to establish a
detailed, continuous regional paleoenvironmental
record for Swabia during OIS 3. Müller’s (2001)
research at Füramoos near Bieberach just north of
the maximum extend of the Rissian ice sheet
provides an excellent opportunity for establishing
a reliable local paleoenvironmental record that can
serve as a baseline for comparisons with the Paleolithic cave sites which provide the basis for the
archaeological record of the region. Until better
paleoclimatic data are available for the Swabian
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Jura and researchers are able to isolate the climatic
fluctuations of OIS 3 within the region’s archaeological sequences, the climatic variant of the
Kulturpumpe model will remain difficult to test.
This being said, considerable progress has been
made in recent years to identify paleoenvironmental oscillations using a diverse array of zoological,
botanical and geological data, and we are optimistic that before long, we will be able to characterize
the environmental conditions associated with
periods of innovation and cultural change during
the Aurignacian and Gravettian of the Swabian
Jura.
While we cannot rule out any of the three
hypotheses of the Kulturpumpe model, we favor the
hypothesis that the innovations that characterize
the Upper Paleolithic and provide unambiguous
evidence for cultural modernity in the Swabian
Aurignacian and technological innovations of the
Gravettian were driven primarily by social-cultural
dynamics rather than a direct environmental
causality. Here we support the notion that cultural
innovations must have occurred at the level of
individuals or small groups, and that the propagation of these innovations must be dependant on
either successful demographic trends among the
social groups responsible for these innovations or
neighboring groups who adopted these innovations through social contacts. Knowledge and
innovations can only be transferred and modified
via socially embedded learning within and between
groups. Future research needs to examine the
circumstances under which innovations occur and
expand in popularity and use. Here both small and
large scale patterns of learning and propagation
of knowledge and technological skills should
be addressed in more detail (Conard, 2002b;
Shennan, 2001), and there is no reason to assume
that cultural innovations invariably reflect direct
human responses to past environmental conditions. Even during OIS 3 with its extreme environmental fluctuations, innovations need not
necessarily represent direct adaptive responses to
the changing natural environment. We remain
entirely open to the possibility that changing social
and demographic patterns could well have played
a critical role in the rise and propagation of the
innovations seen during the Aurignacian and
365
Gravettian of Swabia. Much work, however, is
needed to determine the specific environmental
settings that formed the backdrop for the initial
colonization of the upper Danube region by
modern humans and the setting in which these
cultural and technological innovations occurred.
Summary
49 new AMS radiocarbon dates from seven sites
from the Swabian Jura provide important new
data on the end of the Middle Paleolithic and the
beginning of the Upper Paleolithic. These dates
include the first AMS dates from the important
sites of Bockstein-Törle, Hohlenstein-Stadel,
Hohlenstein-Bärenhöhle, and Vogelherd in the
Lone Valley and the first radiometric dates for
Sirgenstein in the Ach Valley. A series of new dates
from current excavations at Geißenklösterle and
Hohle Fels in the Ach Valley contributes to a
better understanding of the chronostratigraphy of
these key sites.
Analysis of rich archaeological materials,
human skeletal remains, and chronostratigraphic
data allows the following conclusions to be drawn.
The Upper Paleolithic of the Swabian Jura begins
abruptly with the appearance of the Aurignacian.
Human skeletal material from the Swabian Jura is
rare, but Neanderthal remains have only been
found in association with Middle Paleolithic
assemblages, and modern human remains have
only been found in association with Upper Paleolithic assemblages. Although we assume that interaction occurred between modern humans and the
indigenous Neanderthal populations, the archaeological record of the Swabian Jura lacks conclusive
evidence for this interaction, such as interstratification of Middle Paleolithic and Aurignacian
finds or artifact assemblages showing characteristics of both cultural groups. At sites where
high resolution stratigraphic data are available, and particularly at the well studied site of
Geißenklösterle, a clean stratigraphic break is
present between the Middle Paleolithic and
Aurignacian assemblages. If future work confirms
this pattern, one could argue that Swabia was not
occupied by Neanderthals when modern humans
366
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
arrived in the region. At a minimum the available date show that most early Upper Paleolithic
horizons have produced much denser deposits of
archaeological material, suggesting a more intensive use of the Swabian caves that perhaps indicates an increased population density during the
Aurignacian and Gravettian relative to the
Middle Paleolithic. From the onset the Swabian
Aurignacian shows a fully developed lithic and
organic technology and the presence of ornaments
by ca. 40 ka. As the Aurignacian progresses, occupations can be documented at multiple sites from
the region, and artworks have been recovered from
Geißenklösterle, Hohle Fels, Vogelherd, and
Hohlenstein-Stadel, completing the suite of characteristics traditionally associated with fully
modern behavior. This development is also documented by the finds of two fragmentary bone
flutes from the upper Aurignacian horizon of
Geißenklösterle. Complimentary data from
Keilberg-Kirche in Bavaria and Willendorf II
in the Wachau of Austria suggest that the
Aurignacian rapidly arose in Swabia or other
parts of the upper Danube Valley in connection
with the migration of modern humans into this
region.
By no later than 29 ka the Gravettian was fully
established in the Swabian Jura. As with the
Aurignacian, the cultural developments of the
Gravettian predate similar innovations in most,
and perhaps all, other European regions. Based on
the new lithic and organic tools, numerous forms
of ornament, artworks and musical instruments,
the Swabian Jura appears to be a key center
of cultural innovation during the early stages of
the Upper Paleolithic. In connection with the
depopulation of the region during the Last Glacial
Maximum, the region ceased to provide new
impulses for cultural innovations.
Finally, patterns of radiocarbon production
and transport recorded in the stratigraphic
sequence at Geißenklösterle as well as in North
Atlantic foraminifera and stalagmites from the
Bahamas document extreme global fluctuations in
radiocarbon ages. These data demonstrate that
Paleolithic finds dating between roughly 30 and
50 ka in calendar years will produce much younger
radiocarbon ages. This radiocarbon dating
anomaly will tend to exaggerate the period of
coexistence between archaic and modern humans
in Europe and underlines the need for independent
chronological control of radiocarbon dates in this
time range.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft’s SFB 275, DFG grants Co226/4
and Co226/7 for research at Hohle Fels and
Geißenklösterle, and the Landesdenkmalamt
Baden-Württemberg. The dates reported here were
funded in part by the Auswertungsprojekt Höhlen
der Schwäbischen Alb sponsored by the
Alb-Donau-Kreis and the Landesdenkmalamt
Baden-Württemberg. Many thanks are due Piet
Grootes of the Leibniz-Labor für Altersbestimmung und Isotopenforschung of the University of
Kiel, David Elmore and Ken Mueller of Prime
Lab at Purdue University, and Robert Hedges
of the radiocarbon dating facility of Oxford
University for providing dates and for many helpful scientific discussions. Colleagues in Tübingen
including Harald Floss, Andrew Kandel, Petra
Krönneck, Kurt Langguth, Maria Malina, Ulrich
Müller, Susanne Münzel, Laura Niven, Jörg Pross,
and Hans-Peter Uerpmann have made important
contributions to the research in the Ach and Lone
Valleys. Kurt Wehrberger provided access to the
finds from the Wetzel Collection housed in the
Ulmer Museum and gave helpful advice about
Wetzel’s work in the Lone Valley. Dan Adler,
Ofer Bar-Yosef, Günter Bräuer, Mark Collard,
Jean-Michel Geneste, Paul Goldberg, Steve Kuhn,
Anthony Marks, Jean-Philippe Rigaud, Fred
Smith, and Nicolas Teyssandier contributed to
helpful discussions related to the ideas presented
here. Achim Frey, Marc Händel, Maria Malina
and David Punčochář assisted with the illustrations and figures. We also thank four anonymous
reviewers for their critical remarks on an earlier
version of this paper.
References
Adler, D.S., Tushabramishvili, N. Middle Palaeolithic patterns
of settlement and subsistence in the southern Caucasus, in:
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Conard, N.J. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle
Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age II. Kerns Verlag,
Tübingen (in press).
Adler, D.S., 2002. Late Middle Palaeolithic Patterns of Lithic
Reduction, Mobility, and Land Use in the Southern
Caucasus. Doctoral thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA.
Allen, J.R.M., Brandt, U., Brauer, A., Hubberten, H.W.,
Huntley, B., Keller, J., Kraml, M., Mackensen, A.,
Mingram, J., Negendank, J.F.W., Nowaczyk, N.R.,
Oberhänsli, H., Watts, W.A., Wulf, S., Zolitschka, B., 1999.
Rapid environmental changes in southern Europe during
the Last Glacial period. Nature 400, 740–743.
Arsuaga, J.L., Martı́nez, I., Gracia, A., Lorenzo, C., 1997. The
Sima de los Huesos crania (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). A
comparative study. J. Hum. Evol. 33, 219–281.
Azoury, I., 1986. Ksar Akil, Lebanon. A Technological and
Typological Analysis of the Transitional and Early Upper
Palaeolithic Levels of Ksar Akil and Abu Halka, Levels
XXV–XII, vol. I. BAR Int. Ser., 289, Oxford (with an
introduction by Bergman C., Copeland L.).
Bar-Yosef, O., 1998. On the nature of transitions: the Middle to
Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic revolution. Camb.
Archaeol. J. 8, 141–163.
Bar-Yosef, O., 2000. The Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic
in southwest Asia and neighboring regions, in: Bar-Yosef,
O., Pilbeam, D. (Eds.), The Geography of Neanderthals
and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater
Mediterranean. The Peabody Museum, Harvard
University, Cambridge, pp. 107–156.
Baumgartner, S., Beer, J., Masarik, J., Wagner, G., Meynadier,
L., Synal, H.-A., 1998. Geomagnetic modulation of the 36Cl
flux in the GRIP ice core, Greenland. Science 279,
1330–1332.
Beck, D., 1999. Das Mittelpaläolithikum des Hohlenstein—
Stadel und Bärenhöhle—im Lonetal. Verlag Dr. Rudolf
Habelt, Bonn.
Beck, J.W., Richards, D.A., Edwards, R.L., Silverman, B.W.,
Smart, P.L., Donahue, D.J., Hererra-Osterheld, S., Burr,
G.S., Calsoyas, L., Jull, A.J.T., Biddulph, D., 2001.
Extremely large variations of atmospheric 14C concentration during the Last Glacial period. Science 292,
2453–2458.
Bischoff, J.L., Soler, N., Maroto, J., Julià, R., 1989. Abrupt
Mousterian/Aurignacian boundary at c. 40 ka bp: accelerator 14C dates from L’Arbreda Cave (Catalunya, Spain).
J. Archaeol. Sci. 16, 563–576.
Bolus, M. Settlement analysis of the Blattspitzen complex in
central Europe, in: Conard N.J. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics
of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age II. Kerns
Verlag, Tübingen (in press).
Bolus, M., Conard, N.J., 2001. The late Middle Paleolithic and
earliest Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe and their
relevance for the Out of Africa hypothesis. Quat. Int. 75,
29–40.
Bolus, M., Rück, O., 2000. Eine Blattspitze aus Wittislingen,
Lkr. Dillingen a. d. Donau (Bayern). Zur südwest-
367
lichen
Verbreitungsgrenze
spätmittelpaläolithischer
Blattspitzeninventare. Arch. Korrbl. 30, 165–172.
Borges de Magalhães, J.C., 2000. Die Silexartefakte der Fundschichten IV–VII aus dem Bockstein-Törle im Lonetal,
Ostalbkreis. Masters thesis, University of Tübingen.
Bosinski, G., 1967. Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde im westlichen Mitteleuropa. Fundamenta A/4. Böhlau-Verlag,
Köln/Graz.
Bosinski, G., 1989. Die große Zeit der Eiszeitjäger. Europa
zwischen 40 000 und 10 000 v.Chr. Jahrb. Röm.–Germ.
Zentralmus. 34, 3–139.
Brantingham, P.J., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Li, Jinzeng,
Tserendagva, Ya., 2001. The initial Upper Paleolithic in
northeast Asia. Curr. Anthropol. 42, 735–747.
Bräuer, G., 1984. The ‘Afro-European sapiens hypothesis’ and
hominid evolution in East Asia during the Late Middle and
Upper Pleistocene. Cour. Forschungs-Inst. Senckenb. 69,
145–165.
Bräuer, G., Smith, F.H. (Eds.), 1992. Continuity or Replacement. Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Broglio, A., Angelucci, D.E., Peresani, M., Lemorini, C.,
Rossetti, P., 1998. L’industrie protoaurignacienne de la
Grotta di Fumane: données préliminaires, in: Facchini, F.,
Palma di Cesnola, A., Piperno, M., Peretto, C. (Eds.),
U.I.S.P.P., Atti del XIII Congresso, Forlı́ Italy 1996. vol. 2.
A.B.A.C.O. Edizioni, Forlı́, pp. 495–509.
Bürger, L., 1892. Der Bockstein, das Fohlenhaus, der Salzbühl,
drei prähistorische Wohnstätten im Lonethal. Mitteilungen
des Vereins für Kunst u. Altertum in Ulm und Oberschwaben 3. Ulm.
Burkert, W., Floss, H. Lithic Exploitation areas in the Upper
Paleolithic of West and southwest Germany – a comparative study. In: Proceedings of the VIII International Flint
Symposium Bochum 1999 (in press).
Cabrera, V., Maillo, J.M., Lloret, M., Bernaldo de Quiros, F.,
2001. La transition vers le Paléolithique supérieur dans la
grotte du Castillo (Cantabrie, Espagne): la couche 18.
L’Anthropologie 105, 505–532.
Chabai, V.P., 2000. The evolution of western Crimean
Mousterian industry, in: Orschiedt, J., Weniger, G.-C.
(Eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans – Discussing the
Transition: Central and Eastern Europe from 50 000–30 000
B.P. Neanderthal Museum, Mettmann, pp. 196–211.
Childe, V.G., 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Churchill, S.E., Smith, F.H., 2000a. A modern human humerus
from the Early Aurignacian of Vogelherdhöhle (Stetten,
Germany). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 112, 251–273.
Churchill, S.E., Smith, F.H., 2000b. Makers of the early
Aurignacian of Europe. Yearbook Phys. Anthropol. 43,
61–115.
Clottes, J. (Ed.), 2001. La Grotte Chauvet. L’art des origines.
E
u ditions du Sueil, Paris.
Conard, N.J., 1998. Comment on: Neanderthal acculturation in
western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its
368
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
interpretation by F. d’Errico et al. Curr. Anthropol. 39,
S22–S24.
Conard, N.J., 2002a. The timing of cultural innovations and
the dispersal of modern humans in Europe. Terra Nostra
2002/6, 82–94.
Conard, N.J., 2002b. From projectiles to projects. Anthropological reconstructions and construction plans, in: Internationales Forum für Gestaltung Ulm (Ed.), Heureka oder
die Kunst des Entwerfens (Eureka or the Art of Design).
Anabas Verlag, Frankfurt a. M, pp. 28–35.
Conard, N.J., Floss, H., 2000. Eine Elfenbeinplastik vom
Hohle Fels bei Schelklingen und ihre Bedeutung für
die Entwicklung des Jungpaläolithikums in Südwestdeutschland. Arch. Korrbl. 30, 473–480.
Conard, N.J., Malina, M., 2002. Neue Ausgrabungen in den
untersten Schichten des Aurignacien und des Mittelpaläolithikums im Geißenklösterle bei Blaubeuren, Alb-DonauKreis. Archäol. Ausgr. Baden-Württemberg 2001, 16–21.
Conard, N.J., Uerpmann, H.-P., 1999. Die Ausgrabungen 1997
und 1998 im Hohle Fels bei Schelklingen Alb-Donau-Kreis.
Archäol. Ausgr. Baden-Württemberg 1998, 47–52.
Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., Schneidermeier, T., 1999. Current
Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic Research in southwestern Germany. In: Krapina 1899–1999, International
Conference ‘The Krapina Neandertals and Human Evolution in Central Europe’, Zagreb-Krapina, August 23–26,
1999, Book of Abstracts, pp. 17–18.
Conard, N.J., Langguth, K., Uerpmann, H.-P., 2000. Die
Grabungen 1999 in den Gravettien-Schichten des ‘Hohle
Fels’ bei Schelklingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Archäol. Ausgr.
Baden-Württemberg 1999, 21–25.
Conard, N.J., Langguth, K., Uerpmann, H.-P., 2001. Die
Ausgrabungen im Gravettien des Hohle Fels bei
Schelklingen,
Alb-Donau-Kreis.
Archäol.
Ausgr.
Baden-Württemberg 2000, 18–22.
Conard, N.J., Langguth, K., Uerpmann, H.-P., 2002. Neue
Aurignacien-Fundschichten im Hohle Fels bei Schelklingen,
Alb-Donau-Kreis. Archäol. Ausgr. Baden-Württemberg
2001, 21–26.
Czarnetzki, A., 1983. Zur Entwicklung des Menschen in
Südwestdeutschland,
in:
Müller-Beck,
H.
(Ed.),
Urgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg. Konrad Theiss
Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 217–240.
Delporte, H. 1998. Les Aurignaciens – premiers hommes
modernes. La maison des roches, Paris.
Demars, P.-Y., Hublin, J.-J., 1989. La transition
Néandertaliens/Hommes de type moderne en Europe
occidentale: aspects paléontologiques et culturels,
in Otte, M. (Ed.), L’Homme de Néandertal, L’Extinction.
vol. 7. E.R.A.U.L. 34. Université de Liège, Liège,
pp. 23–37.
Derevianko, A.P., Gladyshev, S.A., Olsen, J.W., Petrin, V.T.,
Tserendagva, Ya., 2001. Characteristic features of the
Chikhen Agui lithic assemblage (Gobi Altai). Archaeol.
Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 1(5), 25–39.
d’Errico, F., Zilhão, J., Julien, M., Baffier, D., Pelegrin, J.,
1998. Neanderthal acculturation in Western Europe? A
critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. Curr.
Anthropol. 39, S1–S44.
Djindjian, F., 1993. L’Aurignacien du Périgord: une révision.
Préhist. Europe 3, 29–54.
Djindjian, F., KozlXowski, J., Otte, M., 1999. Le paléolithique
supérieur en Europe. Armand Colin, Paris.
Felgenhauer, F., 1956-59. Willendorf in der Wachau. Monographie der Paläolith-Fundstellen I–VII. With contributions
by Brandtner F. et al.. R. M. Rohrer, Wien. 3 vols.
Gieseler, W., 1937. Bericht über die jungpaläolithischen
Skelettreste von Stetten ob Lontal bei Ulm. Verhandl. d.
Ges. f. Phys. Anthropol. 8, 41–48.
Ginter, B., KozlXowski, J.K., Guadelli, J.-L., Laville, H., 2000.
Temnata Cave. Excavations in Karlukovo Karst
Area, Bulgaria. vol. 2 part 1. Jagellonian University,
Kraków.
Golovanova, L.V., Hoffecker, J.F., Kharitonov, V.M.,
Romanova, G.P., 1999. Mezmaiskaya cave: a Neanderthal
occupation in the northern Caucasus. Curr. Anthropol. 40,
77–86.
Grootes, P.M., 2001. Climate variability on centennial to
millennial time scales in ice cores from Greenland and
Antarctica. Nova Acta Leopold. 88((331)), 89–98.
Haas, S., 1991. Neue Funde menschlicher Skelettreste und ihre
Ergebnisse, in: Hahn, J., Kind, C.-J. (Eds.), Urgeschichte in
Oberschwaben und der mittleren Schwäbischen Alb. Zum
Stand neuerer Untersuchungen der Steinzeit-Archäologie.
Archäologische Informationen aus Baden-Württemberg.
vol. 17. Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart,
pp. 37–38.
Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Bachner, M., Trnka, G., 1996.
Revised stratigraphy and chronology of the Willendorf II
sequence, Lower Austria. Arch. Austriaca 80, 25–42.
Hahn, A., Hahn, J., Scheer, A., 1990. Neue Funde und Befunde
aus dem Geißenklösterle bei Blaubeuren, Alb-Donau-Kreis.
Archeol. Ausgr. Baden-Württemberg 1989, 24–29.
Hahn, J., 1970. Recherches sur l’Aurignacien en Europe
centrale et orientale. L’Anthropologie 74, 195–219.
Hahn, J., 1977. Aurignacien, das ältere Jungpaläolithikum in
Mittel- und Osteuropa. Böhlau-Verlag, Köln/Wien.
Hahn, J., 1981. Abfolge und Umwelt der jüngeren Altsteinzeit
in Südwestdeutschland. Fundber. Baden-Württemberg 6,
1–27.
Hahn, J., 1983. Eiszeitliche Jäger zwischen 35 000 und 15 000
Jahren vor heute, in: Müller-Beck, H. (Ed.), Urgeschichte in
Baden-Württemberg. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart, pp.
273–330.
Hahn, J., 1986. Kraft und Aggression. Die Botschaft der
Eiszeitkunst im Aurignacien Süddeutschlands? Verlag
Archaeologica Venatoria, Tübingen.
Hahn, J., 1988. Die Geißenklösterle-Höhle im Achtal bei
Blaubeuren I. Fundhorizontbildung und Besiedlung im
Mittelpaläolithikum und im Aurignacien. Konrad Theiss
Verlag, Stuttgart.
Hahn, J., 1989. Zur Funktion einer Aurignacien-Feuerstelle
aus dem Geißenklösterle bei Blaubeuren. Fundber.
Baden-Württemberg 14, 1–22.
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Hahn, J., 1992. Eiszeitschmuck auf der Schwäbischen Alb.
Süddeutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, Ulm.
Hahn, J., 1993a. L’origine du Paléolithique supérieur en
Europe Centrale: Les datations C14, in: Cabrera Valdés, V.
(Ed.), El origen del hombre moderno en el suroeste de
Europa. Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia,
Madrid, pp. 61–80.
Hahn, J., 1993b. Urgeschichtliche Forschung auf der Ostalb.
Karst u. Höhle 1993, 213–224.
Hahn, J., 1995. Neue Beschleuniger-14C-Daten zum Jungpaläolithikum in Südwestdeutschland. Eiszeitalter u. Gegenw. 45,
86–92.
Hahn, J., Münzel, S., 1995. Knochenflöten aus dem
Aurignacien des Geißenklösterle bei Blaubeuren,
Alb-Donau-Kreis. Fundber. Baden-Württemberg 20, 1–12.
Hahn, J., Scheer, A., Wagner, E. (1985). Catalogue texts to:
Hahn, J., Scheer, A., Symens, N. Höhlen als Unterschlupf
für Mensch und Tier, in: Landesdenkmalamt BadenWürttemberg (Ed.), Der Keltenfürst von Hochdorf. Methoden und Ergebnisse der Landesarchäologie. Konrad
Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 226–245.
Hedges, R.E.M., van Klinken, G.J., 1992. A review of current
approaches in the pretreatment of bone for radiocarbon
dating by AMS. Radiocarbon 34, 279–291.
Hedges, R.E.M., Law, I.A., Bronk, C.R., Housley, R.A., 1989.
The Oxford accelerator mass spectrometry facility: technical developments in routine dating. Archaeometry 31,
99–113.
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk Ramsey, C., van
Klinken, G.J., 1994. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford
AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 18. Archaeometry 36,
337–374.
Housley, R.A., Gamble, C.S., Street, M., Pettitt, P., 1997.
Radiocarbon evidence for the Lateglacial human recolonisation of Northern Europe. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 63,
25–54.
Hublin, J.-J., Barroso Ruiz, C., Medina Lara, P., Fontugne,
M., Reyss, J.-L., 1995. The Mousterian site of Zafarraya
(Andalucia, Spain): dating and implications on the palaeolithic peopling processes of Western Europe. CR Acad. Sci.
Paris 321(Sér IIa), 931–937.
Hublin, J.-J., Spoor, F., Braun, M., Zonneveld, F., Condemi,
S., 1996. A late Neanderthal associated with Upper
Palaeolithic artifacts. Nature 381, 224–226.
Jöris, O., Álvarez Fernández, E., Weninger, B., 2001. Radiocarbon Evidence of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic
Transition on the Iberian Peninsula. XIV International
Congress UISPP, Liège, Belgium, September 2001,
Pre-Prints, 141.
Karavanić, I., Smith, F.H., 1998. The Middle/Upper Paleolithic
interface and the relationship of Neanderthals and early
modern humans in the Hrvatsko Zagorje, Croatia. J. Hum.
Evol. 34, 223–248.
Kitagawa, H., van der Plicht, J., 1998. Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial
fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production. Science
279, 1187–1190.
369
KozlXowski, J.K. (Ed.), 1982. Excavation in the Bacho Kiro
Cave (Bulgaria): Final Report. Polish Scientific Publishers,
Warszawa.
KozlXowski, J.K., Otte, M., 2000. The formation of the
Aurignacian in Europe. J. Anthropol. Res. 56, 513–534.
Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R.W., Krainitzki, H.,
Stoneking, M., Pääbo, S., 1997. Neanderthal DNA
sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell 90, 19–30.
Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Güleç, E., 1999. Initial Upper
Palaeolithic in south-central Turkey and its regional
context: a preliminary report. Antiquity 73, 505–517.
Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Reese, D.S., Güleç, E., 2001.
Ornaments of the earliest Upper Paleolithic: new
insights from the Levant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98,
7641–7646.
Kunter, M., Wahl, J., 1992. Das Femurfragment eines
Neandertalers aus der Stadelhöhle des Hohlesteins im
Lonetal. Fundber. Baden-Württemberg 17/1, 111–124.
Laj, C., Kissel, C., Mazaud, A., Michel, E., Muscheler, R.,
Beer, J., 2002. Geomagnetic field intensity, North Atlantic
Deep Water circulation and atmospheric 14C during the
last 50 kyr. Earth and Planet. Sci. Lett. 200, 177–190.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1965. Préhistoire de l’art occidental.
E
u ditions d’art Lucien Mazenod, Paris.
Liolios, D., 1999. Variabilité et caractéristiques du travail des
matières osseuses au début de l’Aurignacien: approche
technologique et économique. Thèse de doctorat, Université
de Paris X-Nanterre.
Liolios, D., Teyssandier, N. Defining the earliest Aurignacian
in the Swabian Alb: the relevance of the Geißenklösterle
(Baden-Württemberg, Germany) lithic and organic productions, in: Zilhão, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of
the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes.
Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Trabalhos de
Arqueologia (in press).
Longin, R., 1970. Extraction du collagène des os fossiles pour
leur datation par la méthode du carbone 14. Thèse de
doctorat, Université de Lyon.
Marks, A.E., 1983. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition
in the Levant, in: Wendorf, F., Close, A.E. (Eds.), Advances
in World Archaeology. vol. 2. Academic Press, New York,
pp. 51–98.
Marks, A.E., Chabai, V.P., 1998. The Paleolithic of
Crimea I. The Middle Paleolithic of Western Crimea. vol. 1.
E.R.A.U.L. 84. Université de Liège, Liège.
McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t:
a new interpretation of the origin of modern human
behavior. J. Hum. Evol. 39, 453–563.
Mellars, P., 1989. Major issues in the emergence of modern
humans. Curr. Anthropol. 30, 349–385.
Monigal, K., 2001. Lower and Middle Paleolithic blade industries and the dawn of the Upper Paleolithic in the Levant.
Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 1(5), 11–24.
Müller, U., 2001. Die Vegetations- und Klimaentwicklung im
jüngeren Quartär anhand ausgewählter Profile aus dem
südwestdeutschen Alpenvorland. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Tübingen.
370
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Müller-Beck, H., Conard, N.J., Schürle, W. (Eds.), 2001.
Eiszeitkunst im Süddeutsch-Schweizerischen Jura. Anfänge
der Kunst. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart.
Münzel, S., 1999. DFG-Abschlußbericht zur Großsäugerfauna
aus dem Geißenklösterle. Tübingen (unpublished
manuscript).
Mussi, M., 2001. Earliest Italy. An Overview of the Italian
Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, New York.
Oliva, M., 1991. The Szeletian in Czechoslovakia. Antiquity 65,
318–325.
Oliva, M., 2000. Gravettienská sı́dliště u Dolnı́ch Věstonic/
Les sites gravettiens près de Dolnı́ Věstonice. Acta Mus.
Moraviae, Sci. Soc. 85, 29–108.
Ovchinnikov, I.V., Götherström, A., Romanova, G.P.,
Kharitonov, V.M., Lidén, K., Goodwin, W., 2000. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern
Caucasus. Nature 404, 490–493.
Pettitt, P. 1998. Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic Crimea:
the radiocarbon chronology, in: Otte, M. (Ed.), Préhistoire
d’Anatolie. Genèse des deux mondes/Anatolian Prehistory.
At the Crossroads of Two Worlds. vol. 1. E.R.A.U.L. 85.
Université de Liège. Liège, pp. 329–338.
van der Plicht, J., 1999. Radiocarbon calibration for the
Middle/Upper Palaeolithic: a comment. Antiquity 73,
119–123.
Richards, D.A., Beck, J.W., 2001. Dramatic shifts in atmospheric radiocarbon during the Last Glacial period.
Antiquity 75, 482–485.
Richter, D., Waiblinger, J., Rink, W.J., Wagner, G.A., 2000.
Thermoluminescence, Electron Spin Resonance and 14Cdating of the Late Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic Site
of Geißenklösterle Cave in southern Germany. J. Archaeol.
Sci. 27, 71–89.
Riek, G., 1932. Paläolithische Station mit Tierplastiken und
menschlichen Skelettresten bei Stetten ob Lontal. Germania
16, 1–8.
Riek, G., 1934. Die Eiszeitjägerstation am Vogelherd im
Lonetal I: Die Kulturen. Akademische Buchhandlung
Franz F. Heine, Tübingen.
Riek, G., 1973. Das Paläolithikum der Brillenhöhle bei
Blaubeuren (Schwäbische Alb), Teil I. Verlag Müller &
Gräff, Stuttgart.
Rightmire, G.P., 1989. Middle Stone Age humans from eastern
and southern Africa, in: Mellars, P., Stringer, C.B. (Eds.),
The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological
Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 109–122.
Roebroeks, W., Conard, N.J., van Kolfschoten, T., 1992.
Dense forests, cold steppes, and the Palaeolithic settlement
of Northern Europe. Curr. Anthropol. 33, 551–586.
Sánchez Goñi, M.F., Cacho, I., Turon, J.-L., Guiot, J., Sierro,
F.J., Peypouquet, J.-P., Grimalt, J.O., Shackleton, N.J.,
2002. Synchroneity between marine and terrestrial
responses to millennial variability during the Last Glacial
period in the Mediterranean region. Clim. Dynam. 19,
95–105.
Scheer, A., 1985. Elfenbeinanhänger des Gravettien in
Süddeutschland. Arch. Korrbl. 15, 269–285.
Scheer, A., 1986. Ein Nachweis absoluter Gleichzeitigkeit von
paläolithischen Stationen? Arch. Korrbl. 16, 383–391.
Scheer, A., 1989. Schmuck und neue Funde aus dem Gravettien
des Geißenklösterle bei Blaubeuren, Alb-Donau-Kreis.
Archeol. Ausgr. Baden-Württemberg 1988, 23–28.
Scheer, A., 1993. The organization of lithic resource use during
the Gravettian in Germany, in: Knecht, H., Pike-Tay, A.,
White, R. (Eds.), Before Lascaux. The Complex Record
of the Early Upper Paleolithic. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp.
193–210.
Scheer, A., 1994. Das verzierte Geweihgerät des Gravettien, in:
Scheer, A. (Ed.), Höhlenarchäologie im Urdonautal bei
Blaubeuren. Urgeschichtliches Museum, Blaubeuren, pp.
91–96.
Scheer, A., 2000. The Gravettian in southwest Germany: stylistic features, raw material resources and settlement patterns,
in: Roebroeks, W., Mussi, M., Svoboda, J., Fennema, K.
(Eds.), Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000–20,000 BP. University of Leiden,
Leiden, pp. 257–270.
Schiegl, S., Goldberg, P., Conard, N.J., 2001. Petrographic thin
sections of the archaeosediments from Hohle Fels Cave
(Schelklingen, Germany): Insights into site formation
processes, in: Füleki, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Soils and Archaeology,
Százhalombatta, Hungary, 30 May–3 June 2001. Szent
István University, Gödöllö, pp. 31–34.
Schliz, A., 1912. Die diluvialen Menschenreste Deutschlands,
in: Schmidt, R.R. (Ed.), Die diluviale Vorzeit Deutschlands.
vol. 1. E. Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
Stuttgart, pp. 231–256.
Schmid, E., 1989. Die altsteinzeitliche Elfenbeinstatuette aus
der Höhle Stadel im Hohlenstein bei Asselfingen,
Alb-Donau-Kreis. With contributions by Hahn, J., Wolf,
U., Fundber. Baden-Württemberg 14, 33–118.
Schmidt, R.R., 1910. Der Sirgenstein und die diluvialen
Kulturstätten
Württembergs.
E.
Schweizerbartsche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.
Schmidt, R.R., 1912. Die diluviale Vorzeit Deutschlands,
with contributions by Koken, E., Schliz, A. 3 vols. E.
Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.
Scholz, M., Bachmann, L., Nicholson, G.J., Bachmann, J.,
Hengst, S., Giddings, I., Rüschoff-Thale, B., Klostermann,
J., Czarnetzki, A., Pusch, C.M., 2000a. How different are
the genomes of Neanderthals and anatomically modern
man? in: Orschiedt, J., Weniger, G.-C. (Eds.), Neanderthals
and Modern Humans – Discussing the Transition: Central
and Eastern Europe from 50 000–30 000 B.P. Neanderthal
Museum, Mettmann, pp. 315–322.
Scholz, M., Bachmann, L., Nicholson, G.J., Bachmann, J.,
Giddings, I., Rüschoff-Thale, B., Czarnetzki, A., Pusch,
C.M., 2000b. Genomic differentiation of Neanderthals and
anatomically Modern man allows a fossil-DNA-based classification of morphologically indistinguishable hominid
bones. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66, 1927–1932.
N.J. Conard, M. Bolus / Journal of Human Evolution 44 (2003) 331–371
Shennan, S., 2001. Demography and cultural innovations: a
model and its implications for the emergence of Modern
human culture. Camb. Archaeol. J. 11, 5–16.
Smith, F.H., Spencer, F. (Eds.), 1984. The Origins of Modern
Humans. A World Survey of the Fossil Evidence. Alan R.
Liss Inc, New York.
Smith, F.H., Trinkaus, E., Pettitt, P.B., Karavanić, I.,
Paunović, M., 1999. Direct radiocarbon dates for Vindija
G1 and Velika Pećina Late Pleistocene hominid remains.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 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
Neanderthals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans.
Cultural Change and Human Evolution: The Crisis at 40 ka
BP. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, pp. 203–218.
Svoboda, J., Simán, K., 1989. The Middle-Upper Paleolithic
Transition in southeastern central Europe (Czechoslovakia
and Hungary). J. World Prehist. 3, 283–322.
Svoboda, J., Ložek, V., Vlček, E., 1996. Hunters between East
and West. The Paleolithic of Moravia. Plenum Press, New
York.
Templeton, A.R., 2002. Out of Africa again and again. Nature
416, 45–51.
Uthmeier, T., 1996. Ein bemerkenswert frühes Inventar des
Aurignacien von der Freilandfundstelle ‘Keilberg-Kirche’
bei Regensburg. Arch. Korrbl. 26, 233–248.
Uthmeier, T., 2000. Stone tools, ‘time of activity’, and the
transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic in
Bavaria (Germany), in: Orschiedt, J., Weniger, G.-C. (Eds.),
Neanderthals and Modern Humans – Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern Europe From 50 000–30 000
B.P. Neanderthal Museum, Mettmann, pp. 133–150.
Valoch, K., 1993. Vedrovice V, eine Siedlung des Szeletien in
Südmähren. With contributions by Kocı́ A. et al. Quartär
43/44, 7–93.
371
Valoch, K., Oliva, M., Havlı́ček, P., Karásek, J., Pelı́šek, J.,
Smolı́ková, L., 1985. Das Frühaurignacien von Vedrovice II
und Kupařovice I in Südmähren. Anthropozoikum 16,
107–203.
Voelker, A.H.L., Grootes, P.M., Nadeau, M.-J., Sarnthein, M.,
2000. Radiocarbon levels in the Iceland Sea from 25–53 kyr
and their link to the earth’s magnetic field intensity.
Radiocarbon 42, 437–452.
Volkman, P., 1983. Boker Tachtit: core reconstructions, in:
Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the
Central Negev, Israel, The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 3. vol.
III. Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist
University, Dallas, pp. 127–190.
Völzing, O., 1938. Die Grabungen 1937 am Hohlestein im
Lonetal, Markung Asselfingen, Kr. Ulm. Fundber. aus
Schwaben 9, 1–7.
Wagner, E., 1983. Das Mittelpaläolithikum der Großen Grotte
bei Blaubeuren (Württemberg). Konrad Theiss Verlag,
Stuttgart.
Waiblinger, J., 2001. Datierung und Umwelt des
Jungpaläolithikums, in: Müller-Beck, H., Conard, N.J.,
Schürle, W. (Eds.), Eiszeitkunst im SüddeutschSchweizerischen Jura. Anfänge der Kunst. Konrad Theiss
Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 15–22.
Wetzel, R., 1954. Das Törle an der alten Bocksteinhöhle. Mitt.
Ver. Naturwiss. u. Math. Ulm 24, 3–20.
Zapfe, H., 1939. Lebensspuren der eiszeitlichen Höhlenhyäne.
Die urgeschichtliche Bedeutung der Lebensspuren
knochenfressender Raubtiere. Palaeobiologica 7, 111–146.
Zilhão, J., 2001. Anatomically Archaic, Behaviorally Modern:
The Last Neanderthals and Their Destiny, 23.
Kroon-Voordracht. Joh. Enschedé, Amsterdam.
Zilhão, J., d’Errico, F., 1999. The chronology and taphonomy
of the earliest Aurignacian and its implications for the
understanding of Neandertal extinction. J. World Prehist.
13, 1–68.

Download Report

Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing

Paperzz.com

Your Paperzz