Abstract

In the Franco-Cantabrian region and Catalonia, the Upper Palaeolithic begins with three assemblage-types found in stratigraphic order through the interval between 45,000 and 37,000 years ago: the Châtelperronian, the Protoaurignacian, and the Early Aurignacian. A stone tool, the Châtelperron point, and a bone tool, the split-based point, are index fossils of the first and the last, respectively, but neither was ever found elsewhere in Iberia. This observation triggered the proposition that, in regions situated to the south of the River Ebro drainage, the Middle Palaeolithic persisted until the time when the Early Aurignacian gave way to the Evolved Aurignacian, which is documented across all of Iberia by assemblages containing its index fossil, the Roc-de-Combe bladelet. Put forth thirty years ago, this Ebro Frontier model found support in the little radiometric evidence then available. Since, it has been shown that most apparently late occurrences of the Middle Palaeolithic were an artefact of dating error, caused by incomplete decontamination of radiocarbon dating samples, while claims have surfaced for the Early Aurignacian to be more widespread than hitherto thought. While the validity of Ebro Frontier's premises has thereby been called into question, continued support for the model is provided by the excavation of new sites, the re-excavation of old ones, the application of luminescence techniques, and the radiocarbon dating of robustly pre-treated samples. Moreover, and highlighting the key role that site formation process and taphonomy continue to play in ongoing controversies, issues of association between the samples and what they are supposed to date cast doubt on the two key claims for the presence of the Early Aurignacian in Andalusia and Portugal. Along with the Iberian System range, the Cantabro-Pyrenean cordillera represents a formidable physical obstacle to travel and communication, potentially enhanced during Last Glacial times because of rapid and major fluctuations in aridity, glacier extent, and plant cover. This barrier effect underpins the divergent culture-historical trajectories that we see unfolding at various times during the Upper Pleistocene. Beyond the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition, a well-known case in point is the interval between 20,000 and 22,000 years ago, during which the Badegoulian and the Initial Magdalenian of France and northern Spain developed in parallel with facies of the Upper Solutrean and the Solutreo-gravettian then persisting across all Iberian regions situated between Valencia and Portugal. Given known associations between technocomplexes and human types, these regions' Late Mousterian can be taken as a proxy for the persistence of Neandertal populations, and therefore constitutes a case study of choice for analyses of the variation in the intensity and frequency of biological and cultural interactions among low-density, small-scale populations of Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. Such analyses have implications for models of the spread of genes, populations, and ideas in the course of Human Evolution, which would greatly benefit from due consideration of the issues of historical contingency that the Iberian evidence sheds much light on.

Highlights

  • This evidence renders void recent attempts at breathing new life into Acculturation based on the mtDNA identification of the makers of the Bachokirian culture of Bulgaria as Modern, and their dating to broadly the same timespan as the Cha^telperronian (Hublin et al, 2020): one should not need to point out that whatever happened 40,000 to 45,000 years ago cannot explain the presence of jewellery and cave art in the archaeological record created by European Neandertals more than twenty millennia before

  • Building on Zilh~ao and d'Errico (1999), my 2006 review concluded that the chronostratigraphy of the Transition in the Cantabrian strip and Catalonia was closely aligned with western Europe's: the Upper Palaeolithic began with the Ch^atelperronian, followed by the Protoaurignacian and the Early Aurignacian

  • It is clear that the Cha^telperronian was Neandertalmade and predates the Aurignacian rather than having persisted alongside it for many millennia

Read more

Summary

Paradigmatic framework

The Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe (the Transition) remains a matter of intense debate. With current data, symbolic material culture would appear to emerge in Europe considerably earlier than in Africa: >115,000 years ago at Cueva de los Aviones, in Spain (Hoffmann et al, 2018a; Zilh~ao and d'Errico, 2003), and at Krapina, in Croatia (Frayer et al, 2020), with regards to personal ornaments; >65,000 years ago at the Spanish cave sites of La Pasiega, Maltravieso, and Ardales (Hoffmann et al, 2018b), in the case of rock art (for a comprehensive review of the debate generated by this cave art dating work, see Zilh~ao, 2020, and references therein) This evidence renders void recent attempts at breathing new life into Acculturation based on the mtDNA identification of the makers of the Bachokirian culture of Bulgaria as Modern, and their dating to broadly the same timespan as the Cha^telperronian (Hublin et al, 2020): one should not need to point out that whatever happened 40,000 to 45,000 years ago cannot explain the presence of jewellery and cave art in the archaeological record created by European Neandertals more than twenty millennia before. A paradigmatic example of the interpretative complications that stem from these issues is provided by ongoing debates concerning the “Ebro Frontier” model of the Transition in Iberia

The Ebro frontier model
The stratigraphy-has-precedence principle
To the north
The Mousterian
The Aurignacian
To the South
The Late Mousterian
Aurignacian Delta
The Evolved and the Late Aurignacian
Findings
Discussion and conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.