Early Upper Paleolithic Man and Late Middle Paleolithic Tools

The appearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Europe, the Near East, and Africa must represent either an in situ evolution of Neandertals or a migration. Those who suggest the latter claim a sudden replacement of Neandertals by anatomically modern Homo sapiens. However, the "evidence" actually cited claims only the sudden replacement of Middle by Upper Paleolithic industries. We criticize the migration explanation on two grounds. (1) There is no "sudden replacement" of Middle Paleolithic by Upper Paleolithic industries, but rather a gradual change in the frequencies of already present tools. Numerous sites in these areas exhibit transitional industries. (2) Concomitantly, there is no morphological evidence indicating a "sudden replacement" of hominids. There is no absolute association between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Upper Paleolithic industries. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that early anatomically modern Homo sapiens is a late Middle Paleolithic local phenomenon .     

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 Chatelperronian 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.     

Is human longevity a consequence of cultural change or modern biology?

Increased longevity, expressed as the number of individuals surviving to older adulthood, represents a key way that Upper Paleolithic Europeans differ from earlier European (Neandertal) populations. Here, we address whether longevity increased as a result of cultural/adaptive change in Upper Paleolithic Europe, or whether it was introduced to Europe as a part of modern human biology. We compare the ratio of older to younger adults (OY ratio) in an early modern human sample associated with the Middle Paleolithic from Western Asia with OY ratios of European Upper Paleolithic moderns and penecontemporary Neandertals from the same region. We also compare these Neandertals to European Neandertals. The difference between the OY ratios of modern humans of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic is large and significant, but there is no significant difference between the Neandertals and early modern humans of Western Asia. Longevity for the West Asian Neandertals is significantly more common than for the European Neandertals. We conclude that the increase in adult survivorship associated with the Upper Paleolithic is not a biological attribute of modern humans, but reflects important cultural adaptations promoting the demographic and material representations of modernity.     

New data on the late Neandertals: Direct dating of the Belgian Spy fossils

In Eurasia, the period between 40,000 and 30,000 BP saw the replacement of Neandertals by anatomically modern humans (AMH) during and after the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. The human fossil record for this period is very poorly defined with no overlap between Neandertals and AMH on the basis of direct dates. Four new ¹⁴C dates were obtained on the two adult Neandertals from Spy (Belgium). The results show that Neandertals survived to at least ≈36,000 BP in Belgium and that the Spy fossils may be associated to the Lincombian–Ranisian–Jerzmanowician, a transitional techno‐complex defined in northwest Europe and recognized in the Spy collections. The new data suggest that hypotheses other than Neandertal acculturation by AMH may be considered in this part of Europe. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2009. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Upper pleistocene human remains from Vindija cave,Croatia, Yugoslavia

Human remains excavated from Vindija cave include a large although fragmentary sample of late Mousterian-associated specimens and a few additional individuals from the overlying early Upper Paleolithic levels. The Mousterian-associated sample is similar to European Neandertals from other regions. Compared with earlier Neandertals from south central Europe, this sample evinces evolutionary trends in the direction of Upper Paleolithic Europeans. Compared with the western European Neandertals, the same trends can be demonstrated, although the magnitude of difference is less, and there is a potential for confusing temporal with regional sources of variation. The early Upper Paleolithic-associated sample cannot be distinguished from the Mousterian-associated hominids. We believe that this site provides support for Hrdli?ka's “Neandertal phase” of human evolution, as it was originally applied in Europe.     

New discoveries and interpretations of hominid fossils and artifacts from Vindija Cave, Croatia

Beginning with excavations during the 1970s, Vindija Cave (Croatia) has yielded significant Middle and Upper Paleolithic fossil and archaeological finds. We report on seven recently identified hominid fossils, a newly associated partial hominid cranial vault from level G(3), nine possible bone retouchers, and a revised interpretation of the Mousterian artifact assemblage from the site. This new information reinforces our knowledge of the complex biocultural phenomena revealed in unit G and earlier deposits at Vindija. Six of the new hominid fossils derive from stratigraphic units G and I, while one lacks exact provenience. All specimens preserving diagnostic anatomy are from Neandertals. One of the postcranial remains, a radius fragment which exhibits Neandertal-like anatomy, comes from level G(1)and is congruent with the previously established association of Neandertals with an early Upper Paleolithic industry at the site. The partial cranial vault represents the most complete Neandertal from Vindija. The possible retouchers derive from unit G. Our analysis of these artifacts suggests that both percussion and pressure techniques may have been used by Neandertals in the final stage of tool production (retouching). This paper also presents a revision of the artifact analysis for late Mousterian level G(3). We separated raw materials into two main groups due to the differing ways that the materials fracture and the differing morphology of the debitage. The use of raw material in level G(3)is different from earlier Middle Paleolithic levels at Vindija. This indicates that the G(3)late Neandertals were making choices regarding source material somewhat more like the Upper Paleolithic people at the site. When interpreted within a larger regional framework, the Vindija archaeological and hominid fossil remains demonstrate a complex, mosaic pattern of biocultural change in the Late Pleistocene of south-central Europe.     

Evolution of the supraorbital region in Upper Pleistocene fossil hominids from South-Central Europe

South-Central European fossil hominids dated to the Upper Pleistocene exhibit a distinct morphological and metric continuum in supraorbital form from early Neandertal (Krapina), through late Neandertals (Vindija), to early Upper Paleolithic hominids. The supraorbital morphologies pertinent to this continuum are documented, and the alterations in size and morphology are discussed ralative to the function of supraorbital superstructures and their relationship to overall craniofacial form. It is concluded that this continuum most likely reflects localized transition between Neandertals and modern man in this region of Europe.     

Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications

The craniometric affinities among Neandertals. Upper Palcolithic Europeans, early anatomically modern Southwest Asians, and archaic and modern Africans are investigated using univariate and multivariate methods. For the first time, it is possible to analyse the North African finds Dar-es-Soltane 5, Nazlet Khater, and Wadi Kubbaniya. It was not possible to include the Neandertals from Central Europe due to their poor state of preservation. The results point to, first, a basic distinction between Neandertals on the one hand and modern humans from all geographic regions on the other, and, secondly, to great similarities between modern African and European populations. Late archaic sapiens specimens from Africa were more similar to Upper Paleolithic Europeans than were the Neandertals. The results do not support the hypothesis that a regional evolution giving rise to modern humans took place in Europe. The results are, however, consistent with the hypothesis that modern populations originated in Africa and spread to Europe from there.     

Who made the Aurignacian and other early Upper Paleolithic industries?

The Aurignacian is typically taken as a marker of the spread of anatomically modern humans into Europe. However, human remains associated with this industry are frustratingly sparse and often limited to teeth. Some have suggested that Neandertals may, in fact, be responsible for the Aurignacian and the earliest Upper Paleolithic industries. Although dental remains are frequently considered to be taxonomically undiagnostic in this context, recent research shows that Neandertals possess a distinct dental pattern relative to anatomically modern humans. Even so, it is rare to find mandibles or maxillae that preserve all or most of their teeth; and, the probability of correctly identifying individuals represented by only a few teeth or a single tooth is unknown. We present a Bayesian statistical approach to classifying individuals represented exclusively by teeth into two possible groups. The classification is based on dental trait frequencies and sample sizes for ‘known’ samples of 95 Neandertals and 63 Upper Paleolithic modern humans. In a cross validation test of the known samples, 89% of the Neandertals and 89% of the Upper Paleolithic modern humans were classified correctly. We then classified an ‘unknown’ sample of 52 individuals: 34 associated with Aurignacian or other (non-Châtelperronian) early Upper Paleolithic industries, 15 associated with the Châtelperronian, and three unassociated. Of the 34 early Upper Paleolithic-associated individuals, 29 were assigned to modern humans, which is well within the range expected (95% of the time 26-33) with an 11% misclassification rate for an entirely modern human sample. These results provide some of the strongest evidence that anatomically modern humans made the Aurignacian and other (non-Châtelperronian) early Upper Paleolithic industries.     

At the end of the 14C time scale--the Middle to Upper Paleolithic record of western Eurasia

The dynamics of change underlying the demographic processes that led to the replacement of Neandertals by Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) and the emergence of what are recognized as Upper Paleolithic technologies and behavior can only be understood with reference to the underlying chronological framework. This paper examines the European chronometric (mainly radiocarbon-based) record for the period between ca. 40 and 30 ka ¹⁴C BP and proposes a relatively rapid transition within some 2,500 years. This can be summarized in the following falsifiable hypotheses: (1) final Middle Paleolithic (FMP) “transitional” industries (Uluzzian, Chatelperronian, leaf-point industries) were made by Neandertals and date predominantly to between ca. 41 and 38 ka ¹⁴C BP, but not younger than 35/34 ka ¹⁴C BP; (2) initial (IUP) and early (EUP) Upper Paleolithic “transitional” industries (Bachokirian, Bohunician, Protoaurignacian, Kostenki 14) will date to between ca. 39/38 and 35 ka ¹⁴C BP and document the appearance of AMH in Europe; (3) the earliest Aurignacian (I) appears throughout Europe quasi simultaneously at ca. 35 ka ¹⁴C BP. The earliest appearance of figurative art is documented only for a later phase ca. 33.0/32.5-29.2 ka ¹⁴C BP. Taken together, the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition appears to be a cumulative process involving the acquisition of different elements of “behavioral modernity” through several “stages of innovation.”     

Neandertals and moderns mixed,and it matters

Twenty‐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.     

A modern human humerus from the early aurignacian of Vogelherdhöhle (Stetten, Germany)

Implicit in much of the discussion of the cultural and population biological dynamics of modern human origins in Europe is the assumption that the Aurignacian, from its very start, was made by fully modern humans. The veracity of this assumption has been challenged in recent years by the association of Neandertal skeletal remains with a possibly Aurignacian assemblage at Vindija Cave (Croatia) and the association of Neandertals with distinctly Upper Paleolithic (but non-Aurignacian) assemblages at Arcy-sur-Cure and St. C?esaire (France). Ideally we need human fossil material that can be confidently assigned to the early Aurignacian to resolve this issue, yet in reality there is a paucity of well-provenanced human fossils from early Upper Paleolithic contexts. One specimen, a right humerus from the site of Vogelherd (Germany), has been argued, based on its size, robusticity, and muscularity, to possibly represent a Neandertal in an Aurignacian context. The morphological affinities of the Vogelherd humerus were explored by univariate and multivariate comparisons of humeral epiphyseal and diaphyseal shape and strength measures relative to humeri of Neandertals and Early Upper Paleolithic (later Aurignacian and Gravettian) modern humans. On the basis of diaphyseal cross-sectional geometry, deltoid tuberosity morphology, and distal epiphyseal morphology, the specimen falls clearly and consistently with European early modern humans and not with Neandertals. Along with the other Vogelherd human remains, the Vogelherd humerus represents an unequivocal association between the Aurignacian and modern human morphology in Europe.     

Neandertals,competition, and the origin of modern human behavior in the Levant

The East Mediterranean Levant is a small region, but its paleoanthropological record looms large in debates about the origin of modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals. For most of the twentieth century, the Levantine paleoanthropological record supported models of continuity and evolutionary transition between Neandertals and early modern humans. Recent advances in radiometric dating have challenged these models by reversing the chronological relationship between Levantine Neandertals and early modern humans. This revised chronostratigraphy for Levantine Middle Paleolithic human fossils raises interesting questions about the evolutionary relationship between Neandertals and early modern humans. A reconsideration of this relationship moves us closer to understanding the long delay between the origin of morphologically modern‐looking humans during the Middle Paleolithic (>130 Kyr) and the adaptive radiation of modern humans into Eurasia around the time of the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic (50 to 30 Kyr).     

Seasonal variations of the middle-upper paleolithic transition at El castillo, Cueva Morín and El pendo (Cantabria, Spain)

With debate escalating in regard to the prolonged contemporaneity of neandertal and modern human groups in the Franco-Cantabrian region on the one hand, and the late persistence of neandertals (until ca. 28-30,000 B.P.) and Mousterian industries in southern Iberia on the other; sites with Mousterian-Upper Paleolithic sequences from northern Spain play a pivotal role in the ongoing investigation of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in western Europe. An important line of inquiry into the nature of social and economic change from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic is the monitoring of shifts in land use and resource procurement patterns. The recognition of short-term, seasonal patterning in settlement and resource provisioning may provide insights into changes in mobility, territoriality, and social organization that might otherwise be missed. This paper presents results of a seasonality study of fauna from archaeological levels spanning the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition from the sites of El Castillo, El Pendo, and Cueva Morín in Cantabrian Spain. Data concerning season of death and age at death of prey animals presented here are derived from dental growth mark (increment, annuli) analysis. These data, along with other artifactual and faunal evidence suggest to us that: (1) economic strategies and technologies pervasive in the Upper Paleolithic are rooted in the Cantabrian Middle Paleolithic; and, (2) the apparent increase in deposits from the Middle through Upper Paleolithic may be the signature of a gradual increase in logistical economic strategies including the heightened level of social organization required for their implementation.     

Mousterian technology and settlement dynamics in the site of Hummal (Syria)

The site of Hummal is one of several artesian springs in the El Kowm area (Central Syria) that became the focus of archaeological research at the beginning of the 1980s. The archaeological sequence spans the whole Paleolithic period and the spring is therefore a reference site for the Paleolithic in the interior part of the Levant. Archaeological remains are found in a more than 15 m thick succession of deposits that contain Lower, Middle and Upper Paleolithic assemblages. The present paper addresses archaeological and geological data, which were recovered during recent years’ excavations of Mousterian deposits. With a compiled stratigraphy of over 6 m and more than 30 archaeological levels, the Hummal Mousterian sequence is especially apt for the reconstruction of changing site-use patterns through time. Lithic analysis helps to elucidate technological traditions as well as organization and the changing ways in which mobile foragers used a site in the context of an arid steppe. Results contribute further to existing models of Levantine Middle Paleolithic land-use strategies and demography in the time span of between 130,000 and 50,000 BP, and partly contradict existing interpretations. Two different lithic industries were defined, which correspond to a C- and B-type Levantine Mousterian according to the three-stage Tabun model. The discovery of a C-type Mousterian in the lower deposits further extends the geographical range of this cultural facies into the interior arid part of the Levant. An increasing importance and standardization of Levallois points is observable and thereby supports models that postulate a growing specialization of hunting techniques at the end of the Middle Paleolithic.     

Dental remains from the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne)

Human remains associated with the earliest Upper Paleolithic industries are sparse. What is preserved is often fragmentary, making it difficult to accurately assign them to a particular species. For some time it has been generally accepted that Neandertals were responsible for the Chatelperronian and anatomically modern humans for the early Aurignacian industries. However, the recent re-dating of several of the more-complete modern human fossils associated with the early Aurignacian (e.g., Vogelherd) has led some to question the identity of the makers and the context of these early Upper Paleolithic industries. The Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure, France has yielded many hominin remains, from Mousterian, Chatelperronian, Aurignacian, and Gravettian layers. Previously, a child's temporal bone from the Chatelperronian Layer Xb was recognized as belonging to a Neandertal; however, most of the teeth from Chatelperronian layers VIII-X remain unpublished. We describe the dental remains from the Chatelperronian layers, place them in a comparative (Mousterian Neandertal and Upper Paleolithic modern human) context, and evaluate their taxonomic status. The teeth (n = 29) represent a minimum of six individuals aged from birth to adult. The permanent dental sample (n = 15) from the Chatelperronian layers of Arcy-sur-Cure exhibits traits (e.g., lower molar mid-trigonid crest) that occur more frequently in Neandertals than in Upper Paleolithic modern humans. Furthermore, several teeth show trait combinations, including Cusp 6/mid-trigonid crest/anterior fovea in the lower second molar, that are rare or absent in Upper Paleolithic modern humans. The deciduous teeth (n = 14) significantly increase the sample of known deciduous hominin teeth and are more similar to Mousterian Neandertals from Europe and Asia than to Upper Paleolithic modern humans. Thus, the preponderance of dental evidence from the Grotte du Renne strongly supports that Neandertals were responsible for the Chatelperronian industry at Arcy-sur-Cure.     

欧洲旧石器时代晚期石器类型学评介及类型学相关问题探讨

类型学是考古材料描述与分析的基础。近年来,学者们对类型学尤其是旧石器时代石器类型学的反思较多,涉及类型学的理论基础、分类原则、类型学的考古解释能力等各个方面,然而少有中国学者系统介绍西方常用的旧石器考古类型学体系。鉴于此,本文主要介绍D. de Sonneville-Bordes与J. Perrot建立且在欧洲、西亚及北非应用较为普遍的旧石器时代晚期石器类型学,并思考旧石器考古学中类型学应用的相关问题。由于文化的区域多样性,描述中国的旧石器考古学材料时显然不能照搬欧洲的类型学体系,但可参考它并建立适宜于中国旧石器时代考古材料描述的体系。若此,一方面,我们可以更好地将中国的旧石器晚期考古材料与其他地区的相关材料进行对比;另一方面,可以揭示中国旧石器时代晚期石器类型的区域多样化。     

Brachial and crural indices of European late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans

Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups. However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe. In contrast, Frayer et al. (1993) point out that Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans should not exhibit tropically-adapted limb proportions, since, even assuming replacement, their ancestors had experienced cold stress in glacial Europe for at least 12 millennia. This study investigates three questions tied to the brachial and crural indices among Late Pleistocene and recent humans. First, which limb segments (either proximal or distal) are primarily responsible for variation in brachial and crural indices? Second, are these indices reflective of overall limb elongation? And finally, do the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans retain relatively and/or absolutely long limbs? Results indicate that in the lower limb, the distal limb segment contributes most of the variability to intralimb proportions, while in the upper limb the proximal and distal limb segments appear to be equally variable. Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of "tropical" indices in the context of more "cold-adapted" limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.     

Brief communication: paleoanthropology and the population genetics of ancient genes

The Mezmaiskaya cave mtDNA is similar in many ways to the Feldhofer cave Neandertal sequence and the more recently obtained Vindija cave sequence. If we accept the contention that the Mezmaiskaya cave specimen is a Neandertal infant, its mtDNA provides no new information about the fate of the European Neandertals. However, there is reason to believe that the Mezmaiskaya cave infant is not a Neandertal, and this places its importance in another light, because it delimits the possible hypotheses of Neandertal and recent human genetic relationships. One possibility is a that the pattern found in ancient mtDNA results from the replacement of an isolated gene pool (Neandertals) by one of its contemporaries (modern humans). A second possibility is natural selection expressed as the substitution of an advantageous mtDNA variant within a single large species, including both Neandertals and modern humans. The geologic, archaeological, and dating evidence shows the Mezmaiskaya cave infant to be a burial from a level even more recent than the Upper Paleolithic preserved at the site, and its anatomy does not contradict the assessment that the Mezmaiskaya cave infant is not a Neandertal. Therefore, the second pattern can be favored over the first.