Paleolithic Transition In Europe Research Articles

Homo sapiens reached the higher latitudes of Europe by 45,000 years ago

The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe is associated with the regional disappearance of Neanderthals and the spread of Homo sapiens. Late Neanderthals persisted in western Europe several millennia after the occurrence of H. sapiens in eastern Europe1. Local hybridization between the two groups occurred2, but not on all occasions3. Archaeological evidence also indicates the presence of several technocomplexes during this transition, complicating our understanding and the association of behavioural adaptations with specific hominin groups4. One such technocomplex for which the makers are unknown is the Lincombian–Ranisian–Jerzmanowician (LRJ), which has been described in northwestern and central Europe5–8. Here we present the morphological and proteomic taxonomic identification, mitochondrial DNA analysis and direct radiocarbon dating of human remains directly associated with an LRJ assemblage at the site Ilsenhöhle in Ranis (Germany). These human remains are among the earliest directly dated Upper Palaeolithic H. sapiens remains in Eurasia. We show that early H. sapiens associated with the LRJ were present in central and northwestern Europe long before the extinction of late Neanderthals in southwestern Europe. Our results strengthen the notion of a patchwork of distinct human populations and technocomplexes present in Europe during this transitional period.

Us and Them: How to Reconcile Archaeological and Biological Data at the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Europe?

Us and Them: How to Reconcile Archaeological and Biological Data at the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Europe?

Initial Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria.

The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe witnessed the replacement and partial absorption of local Neanderthal populations by Homo sapiens populations of African origin1. However, this process probably varied across regions and its details remain largely unknown. In particular, the duration of chronological overlap between the two groups is much debated, as are the implications of this overlap for the nature of the biological and cultural interactions between Neanderthals and H.sapiens. Here we report the discovery and direct dating of human remains found in association with Initial Upper Palaeolithic artefacts2, from excavations at Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria). Morphological analysis of a tooth and mitochondrial DNA from several hominin bone fragments, identified through proteomic screening, assign these finds to H.sapiens and link the expansion of Initial Upper Palaeolithic technologies with the spread of H.sapiens into the mid-latitudes of Eurasia before 45thousand years ago3. The excavations yielded a wealth of bone artefacts, including pendants manufactured from cave bear teeth that are reminiscent of those later produced by the last Neanderthals of western Europe4-6. These finds are consistent with models based on the arrival of multiple waves of H.sapiens into Europe coming into contact with declining Neanderthal populations7,8.

The Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition occupations from Cova Foradada (Calafell, NE Iberia).

The Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe covers the last millennia of Neanderthal life together with the appearance and expansion of Modern Human populations. Culturally, it is defined by the Late Middle Paleolithic succession, and by Early Upper Paleolithic complexes like the Châtelperronian (southwestern Europe), the Protoaurignacian, and the Early Aurignacian. Up to now, the southern boundary for the transition has been established as being situated between France and Iberia, in the Cantabrian façade and Pyrenees. According to this, the central and southern territories of Iberia are claimed to have been the refuge of the last Neanderthals for some additional millennia after they were replaced by anatomically Modern Humans on the rest of the continent. In this paper, we present the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition sequence from Cova Foradada (Tarragona), a cave on the Catalan Mediterranean coastline. Archaeological research has documented a stratigraphic sequence containing a succession of very short-term occupations pertaining to the Châtelperronian, Early Aurignacian, and Gravettian. Cova Foradada therefore represents the southernmost Châtelperronian–Early Aurignacian sequence ever documented in Europe, significantly enlarging the territorial distribution of both cultures and providing an important geographical and chronological reference for understanding Neanderthal disappearance and the complete expansion of anatomically Modern Humans.

Blades, bladelets and flakes: A case of variability in tool design at the dawn of the Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy

Neanderthals left diverse sets of cultural evidence just before the Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe. Within this evidence, the production of lithic implements plays a key role in detecting possible affiliations (or lack thereof) with the techno-complexes that occurred during the few millennia before the large-scale spread of the Proto-Aurignacian. This crucial phase has also been recorded in the North of Italy, where around 44–45 ky cal BP, the last Neanderthals were still using the Levallois knapping technique, in common with the technology adopted at several sites in the central Mediterranean region. A similar picture is seen at the Grotta di Fumane, which provides the evidence presented in this paper. The production technology employed produced different levels of variability with respect to the production of blades, sometimes pointed, and the use of recurrent centripetal flaking at the end of the reduction sequence, in addition to bladelet and Discoidal volumetric structures. This variability does not outweigh the dominant tendency towards the use of elongated Levallois blanks and other by-products for shaping into basic retouched tools such as simple or convergent scrapers and points. A break from this apparently well-rooted use of the unipolar Levallois method is recorded in the Uluzzian where, instead, flakes and cores were made using the centripetal modality.

Looking around Peştera Cu Oase: The beginnings of Upper Paleolithic in Romania

In contrast to the widely acknowledged anthropological finds in Oase Cave and to the key geographical position of Romanian territory for the assumed dispersion of Anatomically Modern Humans in Europe, the archaeological information regarding the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic in Romania remains poorly known to a broader scientific community. The prolonged theoretical and methodological isolation of the Romanian Paleolithic research has particularly contributed to keeping the regional archaeology out of the mainstream debates regarding the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe. It has also encouraged the widely held belief of most Romanian archaeologists in the gradual emergence of the Upper Paleolithic, initiated from the local Mousterian.The present paper puts forward a brief examination of the Romanian archaeological record allegedly belonging to the main cultural actors involved in the transition to the Upper Paleolithic across Europe: the Late Mousterian, the so-called “transitional” industries, and the Aurignacian technocomplex. Doubtful stratigraphical data and radiocarbon sampling feed skepticism regarding the supposed Late Mousterian occurrences in the Southern Carpathian caves. The “transitional” industries ask for a similar criticism, as they either display stratigraphical mixing (e.g. the Mitoc-Valea Izvorului), or simply do not belong to the Early Upper Paleolithic chronological framework (e.g. the Ripiceni-Izvor “Aurignacian”). The local origin, the wide dispersal, and the surprisingly young chronology of the Aurignacian technocomplex in Romania are equally challenged. With the exception of the yet undated occurrences in Banat (Southwestern Romania), all the convincingly documented Aurignacian contexts belong to the generally accepted European chronological framework and show no particular connection to the local Mousterian.

Time for the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe

The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition is a key period of change in the prehistory of the Old World and one of the most studied issues in paleoanthropology, as the nature of the transition(s) is still, after at least a century of archaeological research, largely unknown. Many of the issues at stake in the transition relate to the problem of building a reliable chronology for this period, which is at the limits of the radiocarbon method. The papers in this volume show that much progress has been made in our chronological knowledge of significant aspects of the transition, such as the age of the most recent Neandertal fossils and the earliest modern human remains in Europe, and the inferred overlap between the Châtelperronian and the Aurignacian. At the same time, the volume also shows where the chronological database for the period 40 to 30 ka 14C BP is flawed and that significant contextual and methodological problems have been underestimated in a number of studies of the biological and cultural changes during this crucial period. Chronology is employed by paleoanthropologists to relate the record of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition to major biological and cultural developments. This paper takes a broader paleoanthropological perspective and attempts to evaluate and, to some degree, synthesize the main results of these proceedings, while also presenting a brief discussion of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic archaeological and fossil records, and possible explanations for the differences between the two, focusing on the role of differences in the ecology of Neandertals and early European modern humans.

Are Upper Paleolithic blade cores more productive than Middle Paleolithic discoidal cores? A replication experiment

It is widely believed that the change from discoidal flake production to prismatic blade-making during the Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe led to enhanced technological efficiency. Specifically, blade-making is thought to promote higher rates of blank production, more efficient and complete reduction of the parent core, and a large increase in the total length of cutting edge per weight of stone. Controlled replication experiments using large samples, computer-assisted measurements, and statistical tests of several different measures failed to support any of these propositions. When resharpened, the use-life of flake edges actually surpasses that of blades of equivalent mass because the narrower blades are more rapidly exhausted by retouch. Our results highlight the need to replace static measurements of edge length that promote an illusion of efficiency with a more dynamic approach that takes the whole reduction sequence into account. An unexpected by-product of our replications was the discovery that real gains in cutting-edge length per weight of stone are linked to surface area. There is now a need to test the proposition that all the perceived advantages currently bestowed upon blades only occurred during the shift from macroblade to bladelet production. If our results are duplicated in further experiments, the notion of “economical” blades will have to be rejected and alternative explanations sought for their appearance in the early Upper Paleolithic. While Aurignacian bladelet (Dufour) production could signal the advent of composite tool technology (wooden handles or shafts with bladelet inserts), this does not help to explain why macroblades were also produced in large numbers. We may need to reexamine the notion that macroblades were of more symbolic than functional significance to their makers.

Art and the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe: Comments on the archaeological arguments for an early Upper Paleolithic antiquity of the Grotte Chauvet art

The spectacular art of the Grotte Chauvet stands out among all other examples of Aurignacian art, which are restricted to a handful of sites in other regions of western and Central Europe, which take the form of sophisticated carvings on organic materials and of simple engravings on rockshelter walls. Given its sophistication, Chauvet has understandably come to feature prominently in debates as to the nature of human symbolic origins, the behavioral capacities of Homo sapiens, the nature of the dispersal of modern humans across Europe, and the possibly contemporary extinction of Homo neanderthalensis. Significant objections to such an antiquity have, however, been made in recent years on the grounds of the style, themes, and technical practice of the art itself, and on the grounds of the AMS radiocarbon dating program that was first seen to suggest an early Upper Paleolithic age. To date, no attention has been paid to claims for an Aurignacian age on specifically archaeological grounds. Here, I undertake a critical examination of the archaeology of the cave and its wider region, as well as attempts to verify the antiquity of the art on the basis of comparison with well-dated Aurignacian art elsewhere. I conclude that none of the archaeological arguments withstand scrutiny and that many can be rejected as they are either incorrect or tautologous. By contrast, hypotheses that the art is of Gravettian–Magdalenian age have not been successfully eliminated. The age of the art of the Grotte Chauvet should be seen as a scientific problem, not an established fact. While it may prove impossible to prove an Aurignacian age for some of the Chauvet art I suggest a set of expectations that would, in combination, strengthen the robusticity of the ‘long chronology’ argument. The onus is upon Chauvet long chronologists to do this, and until they do, we must conclude that the art of the Grotte Chauvet is not dated, and very possibly much younger than claimed.

Modern Human Behaviour and Pleistocene Sahul in Review

The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe has furnished a ‘package’ of archaeologically visible innovations that are claimed to reflect modern human behaviour. McBrearty and Brooks (2000) documented the gradual assembling of the package over a 200,000 year period in the African Middle Stone Age and proposed that it was later exported to other regions of the Old World. Mellars (2006) recently proposed that modern humans quickly spread from Africa with the package of modern human behaviours and colonised not only Europe but also southern Asia and ultimately Australia. In this paper, we examine the late Pleistocene-early Holocene archaeological record of Sahul to establish if the package was brought here by the earliest colonising groups. We find that the package is not evident at the earliest sites; rather, its components were gradually assembled over a 30,000 year period following initial occupation of the continent by anatomically and behaviourally modern humans. The review further supports the view that there is currently no package of archaeologically visible traits that can be used to establish modern human behaviour, as the components not only appear in different continents at different times, but also at different times and locations within continents such as Australia. This review also identifies chronological and geographical patterning of the individual ‘traits’ and proposes six ‘zones of innovation’ across Sahul.

Neandertals and moderns mixed, and it matters

AbstractTwenty‐five years ago, the Middle‐to‐Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe could be represented as a straightforward process subsuming both the emergence of symbolic behavior and the replacement of Neandertals by modern humans. The Aurignacian was a proxy for the latter, during which enhanced cognitive capabilities explained ornaments and art. The few instances of Neandertal symbolism were deemed to long postdate contact and dismissed as “imitation without understanding,” if not geological contamination. Such views were strengthened by the recent finding that, in southern Africa, several features of the European Upper Paleolithic, including bone tools, ornaments, and microliths, emerged much earlier. Coupled with genetic suggestions of a recent African origin for extant humans, fossil discoveries bridging the transition between “archaics” and “moderns” in the realm of anatomy (Omo‐Kibish, Herto) seemingly closed the case. Over the last decade, however, taphonomic critiques of the archeology of the transition have made it clear that, in Europe, fully symbolic sapiens behavior predates both the Aurignacian and moderns. And, in line with evidence from the nuclear genome rejecting strict replacement models based on mtDNA alone, the small number of early modern specimens that passed the test of direct dating present archaic features unknown in the African lineage, suggesting admixture at the time of contact.In the realm of culture, the archeological evidence also supports a Neandertal contribution to Europe's earliest modern human societies, which feature personal ornaments completely unknown before immigration and are characteristic of such Neandertal‐associated archeological entities as the Châtelperronian and the Uluzzian. The chronometric data suggest that, north of the Ebro divide, the entire interaction process may have been resolved within the millennium centered around 42,000 calendar years ago. Such a rapid absorption of the Neandertals is consistent with the size imbalance between the two gene reservoirs and further supports significant levels of admixture.

Why not the Neandertals?

Some workers have suggested that a hypothetical genetic mutation in an African population less than 100,000 years ago led to a cascade of neurological changes in the human brain that culminated in the appearance of modern language. Language then triggered the socioeconomic and cognitive changes we associate with behavioral modernity and Africans, armed with behavioral modernity, then spread out from that continent, out-competing, displacing, extirpating, outbreeding or, most generally, replacing the Neandertals and other archaic humans throughout the middle latitudes of the Old World. The Neandertals of Europe are the best-known, best-represented and longest studied test case for this theory. In this paper we present evidence from skeletal anatomy, mitochondrial DNA, morphology and genetics of speech and the archaeology of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe that directly contradicts all of the elements in this replacement scenario. The processes leading to modernity involved the entire human species, and were based on the ethnogenic principle of communication and reticulation among populations.

Neandertal ArchaeologyImplications for Our Origins

This article identifies key aspects of the metaphysical paradigms under which European Paleolithic archaeological research is conducted and contrasts the anthropological approaches typical of anglophone New World workers with those of the "his- tory-like" natural science-based traditions of Latin Europe. Because the Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe is thought by many to correspond to the biological replacement of Neandertals by modern humans over the ten millennia bracketing 40 kyr B.P., generalizations about the archaeological transition invoked in support of biological replacement are examined and are found to lack empirical support. Patterns in lithic technology, typology, raw material variability, reduction strategies, blank frequencies, bone and antler technologies, Paleolithic art, subsistence strategies, and settlement patterns all indicate a temporal-spatial mosaic of changing monitors of human adaptation over the transition interval that cannot be reconciled with any construal of a relatively abrupt and complete biological replacement. [Key words: conceptual frameworks, research traditions, archaeological systematic, Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition, Neandertals, adaptation]

Late Pleistocene Technology at Rose Cottage Cave: A Search for Modern Behavior in an MSA Context

Recent excavations at Rose Cottage Cave, located in the Free State, South Africa, have revealed both a transitional assemblage, dated to ca. 20,000 bp, and a final Middle Stone Age (MSA) assemblage, dated to ca. 28,000 bp. Preliminary analysis of these assemblages was undertaken to determine if the current European model of a “cultural revolution” for the emergence of the Upper Palaeolithic can be applied to the southern African evidence. Examination of these assemblages revealed that differences occurred between the transition in Europe and that in southern Africa in both the chronology of the transition and the degree to which this complete cultural package is linked to the emergence of Late Stone Age (LSA) technology. The methods of lithic production, the chronology of the MSA/LSA transition, and the associated behavioral characteristics were examined and results indicated that the technological change which occurred during the MSA/LSA transition was not a dramatic innovation in technology but, rather, a shift in the emphasis of production from a level of technology already in place and demonstrate a level of continuity between the MSA and the LSA. As a gradual occurrence, the MSA/LSA transition does not seem to fit the time frame for the European Upper Palaeolithic; it both occurs at a later period and takes longer to transpire. In addition, the origins of symbolic use of lithics appear to lie within the MSA, indicating that a more complex set of behavioral adaptation was occurring in the late Pleistocene in southern Africa, and that the MSA/LSA transition in this region does not adequately conform to the model of a revolutionary shift in behavior and technology that is proposed for the Middle/Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe

The middle‐upper paleolithic transition in Europe: An American perspective

A view of the Middle‐Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe is offered from the perspective of Americanist anthropological archaeology. After a brief consideration of how the transition seems to be perceived by many British and Continental workers, patterns in lithic typology and technology, raw material variability, reduction strategies and intensity of site use, blank frequencies; bone, antler and ivory technologies, paleolithic art, subsistence strategies and settlement patterns are reviewed. It is concluded that perceptions of pattern, and what it might mean, are (1) theory‐laden and paradigm dependent, and (2) are almost entirely determined by the relative importance of historicist biases in a particular research tradition, and (3) by preconceptions about the nature of the biological transition between archaic and modern humans.

A late Neanderthal associated with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts

The French site of Arcy-sur-Cure is a key locality in documenting the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe. Reliable attribution of the fragmentary hominid fossils associated with its early Upper Palaeolithic Châtelperronian industry has not been possible. Here we report the first conclusive identification of one of these fossils as Neanderthal on the basis of newly discovered derived features of the bony labyrinth. Dated at about thirty-four thousand years (34 kyr) ago, the fossil is representative of the youngest known Neanderthal populations, and its archaeological context indicates that these hominids used a rich bone industry as well as personal ornaments. The evidence supports the hypothesis of a long term coexistence with technocultural interactions between the first modern humans and the last Neanderthals in Europe. However, the complete absence of the derived Neanderthal traits in labyrinths of modern Upper Palaeolithic specimens from western Europe argues against phylogenetic continuity between the two populations in this region.

Symbolism and Modern Human Origins [and Comments and Reply

Author(s): J. M. Lindly, G. A. Clark, O. Bar-Yosef, D. Lieberman, J. Shea, Harold L. Dibble, Phillip G. Chase, Clive Gamble, Robert H. Gargett, Ken Jacobs, Paul Mellars, Anne Pike-Tay, Yuri Smirnov, Lawrence Guy Straus, C. B. Stringer, Erik Trinkaus and Randall White Reviewed work(s): Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jun., 1990), pp. 233-261 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743625 . Accessed: 15/09/2012 00:27