the radiocarbon chronology of the aurignacian to mid ...

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

THE RADIOCARBON CHRONOLOGY OF THE AURIGNACIAN TO MID-UPPER PALAEOLITHIC TRANSITION ALONG THE UPPER AND MIDDLE DANUBE

OLAF JÖRIS / CHRISTINE NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH / BERNHARD WENINGER / MARTIN STREET

Authors’ addresses Olaf Jöris / Martin Street [email protected] / [email protected] Forschungsbereich Altsteinzeit Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseums Schloß Monrepos 56567 Neuwied – Germany

Christine Neugebauer-Maresch [email protected] Prähistorische Kommission ÖAW Fleischmarkt 22 1010 Wien – Austria

Bernhard Weninger [email protected] Universität zu Köln Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 14

C-Labor

Weyertal 125 50923 Köln – Germany


Abstract This paper examines the timing of the transition from the Aurignacian to the Mid-Upper Palaeolithic along the Upper and Middle Danube in the context of stratigraphic and radiometric data within the interval 40.0 – 20.0 ka 14C BP (which roughly equates to 43.6 – 23.9 ka cal BPHulu; cf. www.calpal.de). The radiocarbon record is calibrated and the archaeological evidence compared with the palaeoclimatic record from other archives. The data suggest that the youngest evidence for the Aurignacian is found ca. 29.9 / 29.8 ka 14C BP and that the Mid-Upper Palaeolithic appears at this time within a well-defined region of Western and Central Europe.

Keywords Aurignacian, Mid-Upper Palaeolithic, Upper and Middle Danube, Radiocarbon Dating, Cultural Change


Introduction The European Aurignacian and Mid-Upper Palaeolithic (MUP) industries (the latter often subsumed under the term “Gravettian“) appear as distinct cultural entities with different suites of material equipment and symbolic imagery. At a general scale the Aurignacian shows pronounced regional differentiation of non-utilitarian items (e.g. objects of personal adornment; cf. Vanhaeren & d’Errico, 2006). Similarly, in southern Central Europe, the restriction of ivory animal sculptures to the Upper Danube can be set against the presence of a unique carved human figure from Stratzing / Krems-Reherberg in Lower Austria (Fig. 1; cf. Floss & Rouquerol, 2007). This diversity can be contrasted with the great interregional similarities found in the case of utilitarian items such as lithic technology or projectile points made of bone or antler. The MUP, on the other hand, is characterized by a pronounced regional differentiation of certain utilitarian items. Among these are fossiles directeurs within the lithic tool spectra. For example, the broad dispersal of tanged Font Robert points typical of “Périgordien supérieur Va” / “Fontirobertian” assemblages in the western part of Europe contrasts with the quite restricted eastern Central European distribution of “Pavlovian” sites in Moravia and Lower Austria (Fig. 2). In the case of specific non-utilitarian practices, the MUP tends to show interregional conformity, in particular with regard to burials or the symbolism underlying the well-known female figurines. Against the background of rapidly changing temperatures with increasing climatic deterioration the palaeogeography of Central Europe changed significantly from ca. 40.0 – 20.0 ka 14C BP (Tab. 1). This period roughly equates to 43.6 – 23.9 ka cal BPHulu (cf. www.calpal.de; Weninger & Jöris, submitted) and corresponds to the transition from the Aurignacian to the MUP (Pettitt, 2000). In southern Central Europe, immediately to the north of the Alpine arc, the major West-East oriented geomorphological trajectory runs along the Upper and Middle Danube, forming a potential “thoroughfare” for human contacts between Western and Eastern Europe (“Danube Corridor” hypothesis; Conard, 2000, 351; Conard & Bolus, 2003; cf. Floss, 2003). Such contacts have been deduced from the evidence of MUP lithic raw material procurement patterns which document that the “Danube corridor” was an “important East-West axis” (Floss & Kieselbach, 2004, 76), interpreted as a “route of communication” for hominin dispersal / migration and thus the exchange and transmission of ideas and innovation (e.g. Floss, 2003).


However, during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM: some 24.7 – 23.4 ka cal BPHulu / ca. 20.6 – 19.4 ka 14C BP) the large Fennoscandian and Alpine Ice Shields reached their maximal advance, with the distal front of the former some 400 km to the North and the latter as little as 25 – 75 km to the South of the Danube. Throughout much of this period the scarcity of archaeological evidence suggests that large areas of Central Europe were virtually void of humans, implying that contact between West and East was interrupted. The wealth of Aurignacian and MUP sites along the Upper and Middle Danube with good stratigraphic context and radiocarbon dating evidence offers the possibility to examine in some detail the timing of the presence of these entities in the region between 40.0 ka 14C BP and 20.0 ka 14C BP (Tab. 1). The regional record will then be compared with observed cultural transformations in a broader European context.

Context of the Aurignacian and MUP along the Upper and Middle Danube The nature of the evidence for the Aurignacian and MUP is quite different in the Upper and Middle Danube regions. Both the Aurignacian and MUP are represented along the Upper Danube predominantly at cave sites in the Swabian Jura north of the river, with sites in the tributary Ach and Lone Valleys forming the most important group (Fig. 3; Hahn, 2000; Scheer, 2000). Aurignacian assemblages are found in both valleys, most notably at Sirgensteinhöhle, Hohle Fels near Schelklingen and Geißenklösterle in the Ach Valley, and at Hohlenstein-Stadel and Vogelherd in the Lone Valley. By contrast, the most important MUP sites are restricted to the Ach Valley. Here, Hohle Fels, Brillenhöhle, Geißenklösterle and Sirgenstein show a clear stratification of the MUP assemblages above the Aurignacian. Further downriver, the Franconian Jura cave sites Klausenhöhlen in the Lower Altmühl Valley and Weinberghöhlen at Mauern both yielded MUP assemblages, while, still further to the East, Keilberg-Kirche near Regensburg is the only dated Aurignacian open-air site along the Upper Danube (Uthmeier, 1996). Whereas almost all Aurignacian and MUP assemblages of the Upper Danube region were recovered from cave sites, most sites along the Middle Danube and its tributaries are open-air sites (Fig. 3; Neugebauer-Maresch, 1999; Svoboda et al., 2000) in more-or-less well-stratified loess / palaeosol sequences (Haesaerts et al, 2004). Most Austrian Aurignacian and MUP sites lie fairly close together along the northern edge of the Danube Valley in Lower Austria, several of


them in and close to the town of Krems (Neugebauer-Maresch, 1999). A few kilometres to the south the most important multi-layer open-air site here is Willendorf II in the Wachau. To the West lies the isolated Aurignacian site of Alberndorf in the Purkau Valley, while the site of Langmannersdorf lies to the South of the Danube and Horn to the North of Krems in the Kamp valley of the so-called Waldviertel. The sites of Grub-Kranawetberg and Ollersdorf are to be found along the March River near Angern at the north-eastern border of Austria. Although lacking stratigraphical superposition, many sites have produced more or less consistent series of radiocarbon dates for either Aurignacian or MUP levels. Further to the East, the Moravian and Slovakian Aurignacian are relatively poorly dated (Mladec, Pod hradem and Stránská skála in Moravia), while well-dated MUP sites form a cluster in the Pavlov region as well as along the Morava and Vah Valleys (Fig. 3). Stratigraphically, the Moravian MUP sites overlay chernozems and pararendzinas of the so called Stránská skála soil formation, attributed to the regional BK I pedocomplex (Klíma, 1994; Haesaerts et al, 2004). They are placed into an extended period of continual cooling with discontinuous or limited loess deposition, culminating in the LGM climatic deterioration (cf. Kozłowski, 1996; Jöris & Weninger, 2004).

Radiocarbon dating between 40.0 and 20.0 ka 14C BP along the Upper and Middle Danube Whereas the vast majority of radiocarbon samples from cave sites are bones, open-air sites have mainly produced dates obtained on charcoal (Tab. 1). Sites with dates measured on both materials are rare. Most recently dated bone samples have been selected to provide directly evidence for human activity in the form of cut-marks or anthropogenic fracture. Moreover, samples are nowadays carefully recorded in three dimensions with regard to their stratigraphic position. However, given the often complex taphonomic situation within caves, problems of (partial) intermixture between layers cannot be entirely ruled out, and discrepant dates might indeed be expected within larger series of measurements. In only relatively few cases have artefacts made of organic materials been dated; optimally these should be type fossils for the specific period in discussion (see discussion in: Jöris et al., submitted; cf. Bolus & Conard, 2006; Hofreiter & Pacher, 2004; Tab. 1). Reliability of radiocarbon measurement is influenced by general differences in the chemistry of bone and charcoal samples, which require different dedicated pre-treatment procedures to remove all possible contaminants. Normally, this problem is more pronounced for sample material at the very limits of the radiocarbon dating method (cf. Jöris et al., 2003; submitted),


however, repeated dating of the Sung’ir burials by different laboratories has given results disagreeing by several thousand radiocarbon years (Pettitt & Bader, 2001; Kuzmin et al., 2004), showing that the problem also applies to the time 30.0 – 20.0 ka 14C BP. Ongoing refinement of sample pre-treatment methods in several laboratories (Bronk Ramsey et al., 2004; Higham et al., 2006; Jacobi et al., 2006; Jacobi & Higham, submitted) already reduces potential errors of this kind, meaning that dates obtained recently from such laboratories are to be preferred over results produced at an earlier date. This effect can be visualized clearly for several sites with series of dates obtained by different laboratories (e.g. Willendorf II: Fig. 5a; Dolní Vĕstonice: Fig. 6b; cf. Damblon et al., 1996). Since the samples from Aurignacian and MUP sites in the Upper and Middle Danube regions were measured by many different laboratories over several decades, comparisons between the data series might be expected to be highly problematic. Nevertheless, even in the face of the described problems, charcoal samples from open-air sites with clear anthropogenic site features (e.g. hearths, burials) have produced surprisingly consistent series of results (e.g. KremsHundssteig: Fig. 5b). While many radiocarbon ages measured earlier show large standard deviations, most of the dates produced today have been measured to a remarkably high level of precision with standard deviations often below 2.0 % of the total sample age (e.g. 30,000 ± 600 14C BP), sometimes even close to 0.5 % (30,000 ± 150 14C BP).

Radiocarbon chronology of the Aurignacian along the Upper and Middle Danube In recent years the European Aurignacian has been consistently dated to between ca. 34.8 ka 14C BP and ca. 29.8 / 29.2 ka 14C BP (Jöris & Street, submitted; Jöris et al., submitted) by critical evaluation of the existing radiocarbon record and targeted new measurement of undoubtedly relevant materials, including type fossils such as the split-base and massive-base antler and bone points from Tischoferhöhle (Bolus & Conard, 2006). An exception is provided by a number of radiocarbon dates > 35.0 ka 14C BP obtained at the sites of Keilberg-Kirche (Fig. 4a), Geißenklösterle (layers IIIb-IIa: Fig. 4b) and Willendorf (cultural layer [KS] 3: Fig. 5a), which have been questioned critically in a recent evaluation of the first appearance and the origin of this technocomplex (Jöris et al., submitted). In the context of the present paper these reservations will not be repeated and the emphasis is on the final appearance of the Aurignacian in the region under study.


In southern Germany the most comprehensive dating evidence for the Aurignacian is found at the cave sites Geißenklösterle (layers IIIb-IIa), Vogelherd (V + V-ML), Hohle Fels (IV-III), Hohlenstein-Stadel (7-6) and Brillenhöhle (XIV) (Fig. 4a-c; cf. Conard & Bolus, 2003), placing this industry between ca. 34.8 ka 14C BP and ca. 29.8 ka 14C BP (Jöris & Street, submitted; Jöris et al., submitted). At Geißenklösterle the only outlying date for the Aurignacian significantly younger than 29.8 ka 14

C BP comes from level IIIb, at the very base of the Aurignacian sequence (Fig. 4b; cf. Conard

& Bolus, 2003). The sampled rib with impact mark produced an age of 28,640 + 380 / 360 14C BP (KIA-8962), a result contradicted by three further dates which lie consistently around 33.9 ka 14

C BP. Layer V at the Vogelherd site produced three highly discrepant dates on unmodified

bone < 30.0 ka 14C BP (Fig. 4a), the two older dates (H-8497-8930 and H-8498-8950) of which were obtained on bulked material. These dates contrast with an otherwise quite consistent series of dates for layer V and for the mammoth layer (ML) within this horizon. Radiocarbon dates for the overlaying levels IV/V – III also show extreme variation, demonstrating that the upper part of the Vogelherd sequence was subjected to massive disturbances; a possible explanation for this is perhaps suggested by the presence of human remains reportedly from the base of level V (Riek, 1934) but now directly radiocarbon dated to the Neolithic (Conard et al., 2004). At the site of Hohle Fels near Schelklingen layers IV and III each produced a radiocarbon date < 29.8 ka 14C BP (Fig. 4c; cf. Conard & Bolus, 2003). Both dates are on charcoal and have large standard deviations. While too young for the Aurignacian, they bracket results from the base of the overlying MUP sequence and may illustrate the problem of charcoal mobility in cave sediments. Younger radiocarbon dates assigned to the Aurignacian also exist for the sites of Sirgenstein and Bockstein-Törle (Tab.1). At the latter site a bulked bone sample from level VII gave a result of 26,133 ± 376 14C BP (H-4059-3356), appreciably younger than two other dates which appear more acceptable for the Aurignacian attribution of the layer. Dates >> 40.0 ka 14C BP from the same horizon and another date > 30.0 ka 14C BP for the overlying level VI show dating inconsistencies are present throughout the sequence. At Sirgenstein the targeted dating of bone artefacts from the 1906 excavations of R. R. Schmidt produced five results from layers VI – II which fall within the range Aurignacian – MUP (Tab.1; cf. Conard & Bolus, 2003). The dates for the finds are inconsistent with their stratigraphical attribution so that, while providing a general chronological framework for human presence at the site, their exact cultural attribution can be questioned.


In the Middle Danube region the radiometric dating evidence for the age of the Aurignacian is much more restricted. Stratigraphic and radiometric evidence for KS 4 at Willendorf II clearly places the Aurignacian before 31.0 ka 14C BP (Fig. 5a; Damblon et al., 1996). Two charcoal dates for different Aurignacian layers at Großweikersdorf are stratigraphically consistent and also pre-date 30.0 ka 14C BP (Tab.1). The site of Stratzing / Krems-Reherberg has produced a large and mainly consistent series of dates (Fig. 5b) between ca. 33.0 ka 14C BP and 29.9 – 29.2 ka 14C BP on charcoal from hearth features, which are not entirely in situ (Neugebauer-Maresch, 1996; Tab.1). The younger outliers may be due to a combination of the dating method used (conventional radiocarbon dating at the Cologne radiocarbon laboratory, which requires large sample size) and higher stratigraphical position of the samples in a slope context. Compared with the other dating evidence for the southern Central European Aurignacian, the site of Alberndorf has produced unusually young dates (Trnka, 2005). While dates on charcoal cluster tightly between ca. 28.5 ka 14C BP and 27.1 ka 14C BP (Fig. 5b), most of the measurements on bone are significantly younger and widely scattered (Fig. 5b). This phenomenon has been repeatedly observed when comparing bone dates with those obtained on charcoal (Jöris et al., 2003; submitted). A repeat date on a mammoth bone sample which had previously given a result of 26,100 ± 500 14C BP (VRI-1537) produced a significantly higher age of 28,250 ± 250 (VERA-0006), which is in good agreement with the two older charcoal dates (Trnka, 2005). This makes it likely that other dates on bone are also underestimates, probably due to inadequate pre-treatment of the samples. Even after rejection of the apparently unreliable bone dates, Alberndorf remains the youngest absolute dated southern Central European Aurignacian site, a point which will be returned to later. In the Czech Republic the Aurignacian is found within chernozems and pararendzinas of the interpleniglacial BK I / Stránská skála soil formation at the open-air type locality (Tab. 1; cf. Klíma, 1963; 1994; 1995). This soil formation has been radiocarbon dated at several localities to 32,850 ± 660 14C BP (GrN-6858) - 27,900 ± 550 14C BP (GrN-15280) (Fig. 6b-c; Tab. 1; cf. Fig. 9;). Archaeological charcoal samples from three localities (Stránská skála and the cave sites Pod hradem and Mladec, just outside the region under consideration here) consistently date the Aurignacian to before 30.0 ka 14C BP (Fig. 6a). At Pod hradem Aurignacian layer 8 is dated by three samples on charcoal to between 33.3 and ka 14C BP 29.4 ka 14C BP (Fig. 6a). An appreciably younger date (GrN-1751: 28,200 ± 220 14C BP) was obtained on charred bone and can be regarded as a minimum age only.


Radiocarbon chronology of the MUP along the Upper and Middle Danube Contrasted with the limited dating evidence for the Aurignacian in the Middle Danube region the Pavlovian phase of the Moravian MUP is well-dated by stratigraphy and radiocarbon measurements (Svoboda et al., 2000; Jöris & Weninger, 2004). At several sites in the Czech Republic (Dolní Vĕstonice I & II, Pavlov I and Milovice I) dated charcoal from the Stránská skála (BK I) soil formation (Tab. 1) provides a terminus post quem for the overlying MUP archaeological sequence. Radiocarbon dates for the earliest Moravian MUP (Fig. 6b) are provided by charcoal fragments from a partially disturbed find horizon below the main cultural layer at Dolní Vĕstonice I (GrA6859: 27,790 ± 370 14C BP; Damblon et al., 1996; Klíma, 1963) and the high precision result from hearths A-C at Dolní Vĕstonice II (GrN-13962: 27,660 ± 80 14C BP; Damblon et al., 1996; Klíma, 1995). The question as to how far dates from a find horizon within BK I and below the main occupation may date an initial Moravian MUP (iMUP) cannot be answered yet. Radiocarbon dates and stratigraphy divide the Moravian MUP into an earlier and a later stage: (1) the earlier one which comprises the rich body of sites assigned to the Pavlovian (most importantly the type locality Pavlov I, Dolní Vĕstonice I, II & III, Predmosti Ib, Jarosov II) and is dated to between 27.8 ka 14C BP and ca. 24.5 ka 14C BP; Svoboda et al., 2000; Jöris & Weninger, 2004; Fig. 6b-c; Tab 1). (2) Upper-MUP assemblages dated to between ca. 24.5 - 21.6 ka 14C BP. These are represented for example at the site of Petřkovice Ia (Jarosová et al., 1996) and Milovice 1 (Oliva, 2000) by the “Willendorf-Kostenkian” and elsewhere (e.g., Kulna; Valoch, 1988) by undiagnostic “Gravettian” industries. This phase is poorly represented in Moravia and also less well-dated. In south-eastern Central Europe the Upper-MUP phase is succeeded at and following the LGM by “Epi-Aurignacian” and Epigravettian assemblages respectively (Terberger & Street, 2003). Further to the East, most Slovakian sites date to the Upper-MUP (Verpoorte, 2003) with only a few dates possibly pointing towards the presence of an earlier MUP phase. In Austria two very early dates (VERA-1768: 29,600 + 280 / -270 14C BP; VERA-1762: 29,930 + 280 / -270 14C BP) from a MUP hearth feature at Gobelsburg in the Kamp Valley (Obermaier, 1908; Einwögerer, et al., 2000) give a weighted mean of ca. 29,770 ± 200 14C BP (0.48 σ) and thus resemble the earliest reliable results for an iMUP along the Middle Danube.


About a thousand 14C BP younger are the oldest dates from the MUP / Pavlovian sites Hundssteig and Wachtberg in the Krems region of Lower Austria, which are placed by very homogeneous series of radiocarbon measurements on charcoal (often derived from well-defined in situ hearth structures) into the narrow range 28.8 - 27.2 ka 14C BP and 27.9 - 27.1 ka 14C BP respectively (Fig. 5c; Tab. 1), all of which thus slightly pre-date and temporally overlap with the earliest Moravian Pavlovian (Neugebauer-Maresch, 1999). Further east and also north of the Danube, the MUP sites of Langenlois A and B are radiocarbon dated to 27,040 ± 245 14C BP (KN-10/263) - 25,340 ± 170 14C BP (GrN-16564) and 27,250 ± 200 14C BP (GrN-16565) respectively (Einwögerer, 2004). The results for the most recently measured and contextually secure samples may suggest that the younger dates of this age range are more reliable at the former site. The above results suggest that some of the numerous sites in the Krems region potentially provide excellent possibilities for multidisciplinary investigation of the transitional period between the Aurignacian and the MUP 32.0 – 27.0 ka 14C BP. Still further east but to the South of the Danube the MUP at Grub-Kranawetberg is dated to between 25,300 ± 90 14C BP (VERA-364) and 24,620 ± 230 14C BP (GrA-9063). A similar, younger age was given by a single date (VERA-366: 25,450 ± 90 14C BP) for the MUP at Ollersdorf not far from Angern on the River March (Antl & Fladerer, 2004.). At the multi-layer site of Willendorf II in the Wachau region the earliest MUP layer, KS 5, has yielded discrepant dating results, some of them with high standard deviations (Damblon et al., 1996). A plausible terminus ante quem for the KS 5 occupation is provided by a result from the overlying non-archaeological sediment unit C1 (GrN-17804: 28,560 ± 520 14C BP). This date is probably more reliable than a younger AMS result for KS 5 itself (GrA-218: 27,270 ± 290 14C BP) obtained at a very early stage of the application of the AMS dating method. For KS 5, an age of > 28.5 ka 14C BP must also be assumed on stratigraphical arguments: KS 5 is found in a humic horizon attributed to the youngest (III) of three so called Schwallenbach interstadials, which correlate with the Stillfried B and Stránská skála soil formations (Haesaerts & Teyssandier, 2003; Haesaerts et al, 2004). Similar problems of dated charcoal samples apparently being too young for the stratigraphic context also occur in overlying sediment units B3 and B1 (Fig. 5a). Four dates on two charcoal samples for MUP KS 6 are also problematic, with a bipartite spread between 27.6 - 26.2 ka 14C BP. This may be due to contamination of samples or influx of older elements by solifluction, whereby the latter scenario is preferred and would place the age of the actual occupation closer to the younger estimate (Damblon et al.,


1996, 183). MUP KS 8 has a consistent series of five dates from 25.8 - 25.2 ka 14C BP on both charcoal and bone (Fig. 5a). Two younger dates are again results of early use of AMS technology. The uppermost MUP KS 9 at Willendorf is assigned to the “Willendorf-Kostenkian” and dated by four results on two bone samples. Their apparent contamination makes it impossible to date the layer more exactly than to within the range 24.9 – 23.2 ka 14C BP (Fig. 5a). The Pavlovian at the nearby site of Aggsbach has been correlated with KS 5 at Willendorf (Vogel & Zagwijn, 1967) and is dated by three samples of charcoal from the same hearth feature (Tab. 1) to between 26,800 ± 200 14C BP (GrN-2513) and 22,670 ± 100 14C BP (GrN-1327). The oldest age is considered by the authors to be most reliable. As in south-eastern Central Europe, Austrian sites with industries described as “EpiAurignacian”, in particular Langmannersdorf, postdate the Upper MUP assemblages and yield series of radiocarbon dates around the LGM (Tab. 1; cf. Terberger & Street, 2003). Turning now to the Upper Danube, the overall dating evidence points to a predominantly early MUP presence in the region (Conard & Moreau, 2004; Tab. 1). Dates younger than 24.5 ka 14C BP are found only for the uppermost MUP level Ip at Geißenklösterle (OxA-5157: 24,360 ± 380 14

C BP) and upper level G at the site of Obere Klause at Neuessing near Kelheim (OxA-5721:

24,680 ± 360 14C BP). Four samples from level VI at the Bockstein-Törle site provided highly discrepant ages (Tab. 1), three of them 25,000 14C BP (B-492), 25,870 ± 230 14

C BP (KIA-19553) and 27,030 ± 180 14C BP (KIA-19549) (Tab. 1; Conard & Moreau, 2004).

KIA-19553 is on a point made of mammoth rib and directly dates human activity. Sampling targeting organic artefacts at the Sirgenstein site (Tab. 1) dated a point from layer II, attributed to the MUP, to 27,250 +180 / -170 14C BP (KIA-13079); a second point and a burnisher, attributed to Aurignacian horizons V and IV respectively, also gave dates more consistent with the early MUP (Tab. 1; Conard & Bolus, 2003). The most consistent series of radiocarbon dates for the MUP along the Upper Danube comes from Geißenklösterle (Fig. 4b; Tab. 1). With only a few exceptions, the results from the ascending sequence through layers Ia, It, Is and Ir are in good agreement with their stratigraphic provenance, bracketing the MUP occupation between 29.2 ka 14C BP (OxA-5706) and 26.3 ka


14

C BP (OxA-5159). A single, older date (OxA-5161: 30,300 ± 750 14C BP) was obtained on an

impact-fractured reindeer bone from the layer Ic, which has been interpreted as the basal MUP layer due to lithic refits with overlying MUP levels (Conard & Bolus, 2003). However, layer Ic “lacks any classic indicators of the Gravettian” (Conard & Moreau, 2004), so the date does not a priori provide evidence for a MUP presence at the site before 30.0 ka 14C BP. The high standard deviation might mean that the find is not significantly older than the three oldest results from overlying layers Ia and It. The date is also quite close to the youngest results for the underlying Aurignacian sequence AH II, the uppermost, undated layer of which (IIn) contained a typically Aurignacian Dufour bladelet. On this evidence the date for Geißenklösterle layer Ic ought to be very close to the age of a quite abrupt Aurignacian-MUP transition at this site. The broad spread of results from layers IIb, IIa and I at Hohle Fels suggests that the upper part of the sequence was subjected to disturbances, thus resembling the situation proposed for the upper part of the Vogelherd sequence (see above). By contrast, four of the five dates for the deepest MUP level IIcf are remarkably consistent (Fig. 4c; Tab. 1). All are on humanly modified bone or antler, comprising a cut-marked and impact-fractured tibia (KIA-17742: 27,690 ± 140 ka 14C BP), a point (KIA-17744: 27,780 ± 150 ka 14C BP), a cave bear vertebra with an embedded chert point (KIA-17743: 27,830 + 150 / - 140 ka 14C BP) and a worked antler fragment (KIA-17741: 27,970 ± 140 ka 14C BP). Together they give a weighted mean of ca. 27,800 ± 70 ka 14C BP (0.96 σ). Two older dates for the MUP obtained on the same decorated antler adze from the overlying layer IIc (Fig. 4c) have a weighted mean of ca. 29,100 ± 360 14C BP (0.58 σ). The stratigraphic inversion of the methodologically precise results for level IIcf and level IIc might be a result of either redeposition of the older deposits onto younger ones or due to “peaks in radiocarbon production” (Conrad & Moreau, 2004, 29). Three of the four Hohle Fels dates from Aurignacian – MUP transitional layers IIe & IId fall slightly before the weighted mean of dates for the antler adze. The oldest result (KIA-16040: 30,640 ± 190 14C BP) is from the lower layer IIe and corresponds quite well to results from the underlying Aurignacian layer III (Fig. 4c; Tab. 1). The possibility that Aurignacian material was dated is reinforced by a refit between fragments of a worked ivory figurine found in layers IIe / IId and layer III respectively (Hiller, 2003). The two dates from the base of level IId give a weighted mean of ca. 29,800 ± 160 ka 14C BP (0.84 σ) and could theoretically date either the terminal Aurignacian or an iMUP. The fourth result (H145: 28,060 ± 170 14C BP) from the upper transitional layer IId forms a coherent group with the four dates on humanly modified material from the overlying MUP layer IIcf. Ongoing research at Hohle Fels aims to investigate the exact timing of the transition between the Aurignacian and the MUP within levels IIe – IId against the


background of technological / typological change or continuity, taking into account the taphonomic factors responsible for the deposition of the archaeological assemblages within these stratigraphic units (Conard & Moreau, 2004). Further East in Bavaria, the MUP assemblage recovered from “Zone 1” during several excavations at the Weinberghöhlen (“Weinberghöhlen C”) close to Mauern (Koenigswald et al., 1974) may represent an accumulation of material from different events and is associated with two dates of 28,265 ± 325 14C BP (GrN-6059) and 29,410 ± 470 14C BP (GrN-5000) (Fig. 4c; Tab. 1), the latter falling within the probable period of Aurignacian-MUP transition.

Results Comparison of radiocarbon age distributions from the Upper and Middle Danube generally show far higher age divergences for results from the cave sites of the former region than do the data series from the Middle Danube open-air sites. This general difference is most likely due to the far more complex taphonomical situations found in the cave contexts relative to the open air sites. Nevertheless, both regions have supplied some of the best dated sequences in Europe for the chronostratigraphy of both Aurignacian and MUP industries.

Upper Danube In the case of the Upper Danube cave sites, the large amount of radiocarbon data demonstrates remarkable coherence if special emphasis is given to samples of humanly modified bone or antler (Fig. 7). Although the beginning of the Aurignacian is not well documented by reliable dates at all sites, the end of the Aurignacian record seems to be represented fairly regularly, falling shortly after 30.0 ka 14C BP (ca. 29.9 / 29.8 ka 14C BP) at Hohle Fels and Geißenklösterle (which equates to ca. 34.0 ka cal BPHulu: Fig. 9), and possibly a few centuries before this at Vogelherd and the Brillenhöhle. At neither Hohle Fels nor Geißenklösterle is there any stratigraphic evidence for significant sterile layers between the youngest Aurignacian and the deepest MUP levels (Conard & Moreau, 2004, 41). The most probable age estimate for the base of the transitional layer IId at Hohle Fels is 29.8 ka 14C BP and thus indistinguishable from that of the youngest Aurignacian levels, thus falling around Greenland Stadial (GS) 7 – Greenland Interstadial (GI) 6 (Fig. 9). The oldest certain MUP at Hohle Fels is dated to ca. 29,120 ± 360 14C BP (0.58 σ) by the weighted mean of the results for the decorated antler adze from layer IIc (Fig. 7). Both this level


and the underlying layer IIcf represent an early MUP facies with fléchettes, with layer IIcf also containing a Font Robert point. Calibration of the range of radiocarbon dates places the two levels within the period GI 6 – GI 5 (Fig. 9). The heterogeneous dates for overlying MUP layers at Hohle Fels are apparently unreliable, but those from the upper part of the Geißenklösterle sequence (layer Ir) inspire more confidence and suggest the persistence of MUP occupation at this site until ca. 26.3 ka 14C BP (cf. Fig. 9). That this age might underestimate the duration of MUP presence in the Upper Danube Valley is suggested by a single, slightly younger date on a bone point from layer VII at Brillenhöhle. It is noteworthy that, irrespective of whether only the humanly modified MUP samples or the whole data set is used, on critical examination of the reliability of the results, the youngest evidence from Geißenklösterle and Brillenhöhle lies between ca. 26.3 ka 14C BP and 25.9 ka 14C BP (Fig. 7; 9). If calibrated to the Hulu time scale (www.calpal.de; Weninger & Jöris, submitted) this is equivalent to ca. 31.0 ka cal BPHulu (Fig. 9) and corresponds to the onset of an extremely arid phase documented in the Eifel Laminated Sediment Archive (ELSA: Sirocko et al., 2005). In calendric years the Swabian MUP therefore lasts approximately 3,000 years. Further east, in the Bavarian part of the Upper Danube region, a single date of 24,680 ± 360 14C BP (OxA-5721) on a cut-marked bone from the Obere Klause site in the Franconian Jura may be associated with Gravette points (Scheer, 2000, 259).

Middle Danube Along the Middle Danube the earliest accepted date for the Aurignacian is from Willendorf II KS 3 (GrN-11192: 34,100 + 1,200 / - 1,000 14C BP). Two appreciably older dates from this layer are far too early for Aurignacian assemblages sensu stricto, (i.e. excluding the so called Protoaurignacian) when compared at a European scale (Jöris & Street, submitted; Jöris et al., submitted). Apart from the accepted result for Willendorf II KS 3 (GrN-11192), the Aurignacian is represented at the site by younger dates from KS 4 (Damblon et al., 1996) and from ca. 33.0 ka 14

C BP onwards at other sites in the Middle Danube region (Stratzing, Pod hradem and Stránská

skála; Tab. 1), as well as by dates from Mladec slightly to the north (Wild et al., 2005). The bulk of the dating evidence suggests that the Aurignacian along the Middle Danube ends at around 30.7 ka 14C BP, although slightly younger results from Stratzing would place it at around ca. 29.9 ka 14C BP (Fig. 5b; 8a), corresponding to the end of the Aurignacian along the Upper Danube. The age of the latest appearance of the Aurignacian finds support in the youngest results


of series of dates on projectile point fossiles directeurs targeted at a broad range of Aurignacian sites across much of Europe (summary in: Jöris et al., submitted). An exception to the general European pattern is found at the Austrian site of Alberndorf 1 where the oldest seemingly reliable dates of around 28.5 – 26.9 ka 14C BP (weighted means of two pairs of charcoal dates of ca. 28,420 ± 544 14C BP [0.07 σ] and ca. 27,110 ± 460 14C BP [0.04 σ]; in calibrated years ca. 33.5 - 31.5 ka cal BPHulu) are significantly younger and imply contemporaneity with the early Middle Danube Pavlovian (Fig. 9). The weighted mean of the dates for the MUP from the Austrian site of Gobelsburg (ca. 29,770 ± 200 14C BP; Fig. 9; cf.Tab. 1) make its earliest appearance on the Middle Danube contemporary with the Aurignacian – MUP transitional layers at Hohle Fels. With the exception of Gobelsburg, the Middle Danube MUP appears slightly later at the Pavlovian sites of the Willendorf-Krems region. At Willendorf a single radiocarbon date from stratigraphical unit C 1 only provides a minimum age for the underlying MUP KS 5. Pedostratigraphy locates the assemblage within the Schwallenbach III humic horizon (Haesaerts & Teyssandier, 2003; Haesaerts et al., 2004), which correlates to GI 6 (Fig. 9). Calibration suggests that the series of results for Krems-Hundssteig (Fig. 8b) falls around the following GI 5 (Fig. 9). Other Austrian Pavlovian sites are to be placed into the succeeding GS 5, and, in the case of Willendorf II, KS 8, lie in the humic horizon of the following GI 4 (Fig. 9; cf. Haesaerts et al., 2004). In Moravia, stratigraphy repeatedly documents the Pavlovian above the chernozems and pararendzinas of the BK I pedocomplex (GI 8 – GI 5) and spanning the succeeding GS 5 stadial. The assemblage at Pavlov I itself is found within a humic horizon (Pavlov interstadial; Haesaerts et al., 2004) which is equated with the humic horizon of Willendorf II, KS 8 and assigned to GI 4 (Fig. 9). In summary, the Middle Danube Pavlovian radiocarbon record ends ca. 24.5 ka 14C BP, which in calibrated years corresponds to ca. 29.6 / 29.0 ka cal BPHulu. The youngest radiocarbon dates for the Pavlovian are indistinguishable from those for the earliest assemblages of the succeeding Upper MUP (uMUP) Willendorf-Kostenkian, which is found immediately above the Pavlov soil (GI 4) at Willendorf II, KS 9, and at Dolní Vĕstonice III. Assemblages attributed to the uMUP are documented within the region only until ca. 21.6 ka 14C BP and are followed by others described as “Epi-Aurignacian” dating to the LGM (ca. 24.7 – 23.4 ka cal BPHulu / ca. 20.6 – 19.4 ka 14C BP; Fig. 9).


Discussion It has been argued by Conard & Moreau (2004) that the Swabian MUP appears at around 30.0 ka 14

C BP and thus pre-dates the first appearance of MUP industries in other regions of Europe. As

shown above, the potentially critical evidence for a MUP presence at or slightly before this date is limited to results in the Upper Danube radiocarbon data base from layers (IIe-IId) stratified between the Aurignacian and MUP at Hohle Fels and a single date for layer Ic at Geißenklösterle (Figs. 4b; 4c; 7). The bulk of other dates suggest that the crucial period for the Aurignacian – MUP transition in Swabia does not in fact precede 30.0 ka 14C BP but probably falls very early within the following millennium, although the exact timing of the transition still cannot be defined more precisely. In the light of the early iMUP dates from Gobelsburg and of the chronostratigraphic correlations for KS 5 at Willendorf II, claims of chronological precedence for the appearance of the MUP in Swabia must apparently now be extended at least to the Middle Danube region. The dating evidence for the few iMUP inventories of southern Central Europe might therefore now be interpreted in support of the hypothesis that, at the period in question, the Upper and the Middle Danube regions together made up a precocious creative centre (“Kulturpumpe” after: Conard et al. 1999, 18; Conard, 2000, 351; Conard & Floss, 2000, 478) for innovations and for the spread of ideas at a European scale. Nevertheless, this supposition must first bear comparison with the earliest evidence for MUP assemblages in other regions of Europe. Since an exhaustive critique of the large and heterogeneous corpus of data for this problem would clearly exceed the bounds of the present study, only a small number of specific cases with better quality data will be examined in order to test the hypothesis of Danube Valley MUP priority. Several Western European stratigraphic series show earliest MUP assemblages characterized by typical fossiles directeurs, most importantly by fléchettes in the earliest MUP inventories (“Périgordien supérieur IV” / “Bayacien”), with the addition of tanged Font Robert points during a temporally overlapping or possibly immediately succeeding phase or facies (“Périgordien supérieur Va” / “Fontirobertian”) (Bosselin & Djindjian, 1994; Djindjian & Bosselin, 1994). However, the absolute dating of both assemblage types (“Périgordien supérieur IV & Va”) is quite problematic and many dates apparently associated with them at sites in both south-western France and north-western Europe are clearly invalid and / or irrelevant to the discussion here. In the Dordogne region the earliest MUP with fléchettes (“Périgordien supérieur IV”) of Abri Pataud level 5 is dated to 28,400 ± 1,100 14C BP (OxA-169). The sample was measured at a quite early date and the large standard deviation means that the precision of the result is not very


fine, with the date probably representing a minimum estimate only. Farrand (1975a; 1975b; 1995) assigns level 5 to a very humid climatic phase. The important tanged-point bearing (“Fontirobertian” / “Périgordien Va”) MUP assemblage at the Belgian site Maisières-Canal (Haesaerts & Damblon, 2004) is dated only marginally younger than the oldest age-estimate for the “Perigordien IV” of level 5 at Abri Pataud, with results on bones of mammoth (GrN-23292: 28,240 ± 300 14C BP) and reindeer (GrA-9273: 28,130 + 1,020 / - 900 14C BP) slightly before 28.0 ka 14C BP. The bone dates are reinforced by a result of 27,965 ± 260 14C BP (GrN-5523) on humates from the find-bearing soil of the Maisières oscillation (Haesaerts & Damblon, 2004). When calibrated the dates would place the MUP occupation at Maisières into the temperate phase of GI 5, which is itself followed by an extended stadial period of loess accumulation (Fig. 9). Repeat dating of a sample from the “Fontirobertian” level D2H at La Ferrassie in the Dordogne following ultrafiltration pre-treatment significantly increased the age of the specimen from 27,530 ± 720 14C BP (OxA-403) to 29,000 ± 370 14C BP (OxA-15217) (Jacobi & Higham, submitted). Since the layer is underlain by another MUP layer (Ei; cf. Delporte & Tuffreau, 1972-1973), the latter assemblage should date to a period older than ca. 29.0 ka 14C BP, making both inventories contemporary with basal MUP levels of the Upper Danube region. A recently obtained radiocarbon measurement (Beta-145820: 29,350 ± 310 14C BP) from the uppermost of three MUP levels at the site of Le Sire in the Dpt. Puy-de-Dome (none of which is attributed to either the Perigordien IV or the Fontirobertian) places the sequence at the beginning of the MUP (although a date from an underlying layer was significantly younger) (Surmely et al., 2003). At the north-western edge of Europe direct re-dating of the Paviland “Red Lady” skeleton using ultrafiltration pre-treatment (Jacobi & Higham, submitted) gave a revised age for the inhumation (OxA-16413: 29,490 ± 210 14C BP and OxA-16412: 28,870 ± 180 14C BP, with a weighted mean of ca. 29,130 ± 140 14C BP [1.43 σ]) in good correspondence with dates for the earliest MUP assemblages. In view of the obvious similarities of the Paviland burial to the rich corpus of MUP context burials across western Eurasia and given the total lack of evidence for similar disposal of the dead during the Aurignacian, Jacobi and Higham argue that it is reasonable to regard Paviland as a particularly early example of MUP burial practises. Their comparison of the revised “Red Lady” dating results with the Greenland NGRIP climate archive suggests correlation of the inhumation with the temperate oscillation of GI 6, an identical result to our calibration of the weighted mean (33,610 ± 280 cal BPHulu; 68% prob.) (Fig. 9).


On balance, and despite limited reliable radiocarbon dating evidence, it appears that early MUP assemblages, including those characterized by fléchettes and / or Font Robert points, can be dated in several parts of Western and western Central Europe to shortly before 29.0 ka 14C BP. In terms of the climatic record, calibrated dates place these assemblages into the range GI 6 to GI 5, which would imply that the replacement of the Aurignacian by MUP assemblages took place at latest by the GS 7 – GI 6 transition in several parts of Europe. The presence of fléchettes in early MUP assemblages of the Upper Danube region underlines the ultimately Western European affinities of the industries in this region. Their presence in KS 5 at Willendorf II shows that this influence is documented during GI 6 as far East as Lower Austria. Their early presence here, as well as along the Upper Danube, may suggest that the younger Pavlovian assemblages of the Middle Danube region have an ultimately western origin. Specifically, there has been discussion of possible contacts between the Upper and Middle Danube Valley on the evidence of material from the Weinberghöhlen, which have produced a radiocarbon date of 29,410 ± 470 14C BP (GrN-5000) and appear to be of similar age to Willendorf II, KS 5. The Weinberghöhlen assemblage has been discussed as showing at least some Pavlovian traits and might therefore be interpreted as a cultural predecessor of the Pavlovian (quoted in Conard & Moreau, 2004, 51). Since the chronostratigraphical data indicate that the Moravian Pavlovian post-dates GI 5, one can indeed argue that these assemblages may be derived from the earliest MUP of the Krems or Upper Danube regions (cf. Svoboda, 1996; Svoboda et al., 1996). Font Robert points are present at sites of the Upper Danube region such as Hohle Fels (level IIcf) and Geißenklösterle on the Swabian Jura and at the open-air sites Salching and Dollnstein further to the East in Bavaria. Nevertheless, Font Robert points are only found in small numbers and often in inventories that also contain fléchettes. Further to the North in Germany, the site of Bilzingsleben extends the distribution of Font Robert points from the British Isles and Belgium across the southern edge of the North European lowlands into Thuringia. The absence of Font Robert points in Middle Danube Pavlovian assemblages may be due strictly to chronology, should the Pavlovian in its entirety be dated younger than the predominantly western tanged-point facies. However, since fléchettes were transmitted East to the Pavlovian, the absence of Font Robert points in these assemblages is more likely to show that, by the time of their appearance in the West, the corridor function of the Danube Valley had become more restricted, leading to the development of two distinct younger MUP facies.


MUP Origins With focus on the Aurignacian – MUP layers IIe – IId at Hohle Fels, Conard and Moreau recently (2004) took up previous deliberations by Gustav Riek and R. Robert Schmidt and argued that no clear break can be observed between the Aurignacian and succeeding “Gravettian” at these Swabian sites, thereby implying a certain degree of cultural continuity around the time of transition. If studies of several Upper Danube early MUP assemblages now in progress at Tübingen University (Conard & Moreau, 2004) are able to demonstrate convincingly an in situ development from the Aurignacian to the early MUP, the Upper and Middle Danube might indeed be regarded as a creative centre for cultural innovation at this time. It might then even be speculated whether the earliest appearance in this region of carved plastic figurines in a (late) Aurignacian context (Clottes, 2000) in some way also reflects the (trans)formation processes which finally culminated in the MUP. It must however be questioned whether the “culturally intermediate character” of the layers IIe – IId at Hohle Fels might simply be due to mixing of cultural material between different geological units, which may obscure archaeological differences between the Aurignacian and the MUP. Layer 5 of Abri Pataud, which contains a series of characteristic Aurignacian lithic types, has been discussed in this way, with the argument that the “Périgordien supérieur IV” occupants dug into older sediments containing the Aurignacian in order to create additional space under the rock shelter, an activity resulting in a significant incorporation of Aurignacian artefacts into a mainly early “Périgordien supérieur” deposit (Movius, 1975; 1977). Perhaps in contrast to arguments for an in situ Aurignacian – MUP development on the Swabian Jura, Harald Floss and Petra Kieselbach emphasize “significant changes in raw material procurement patterns from the Aurignacian to the Gravettian” (Floss & Kieselbach, 2004, 76). It was however observed that in the oldest MUP layer at Hohle Fels “proportions and composition of the tool assemblage (…) differ in some respects from other Gravettian tool assemblages of the Ach Valley” and suggested that this may be “be due to different usage, a different chronological position or a general variability of the tool assemblages in the early Gravettian” (Floss & Kieselbach, 2004, 76). Possibly this distinction still allows the possibility of a transitional role for the oldest MUP phase, however, until results of detailed technological and typological studies become available, the question of a hypothetical Aurignacian – MUP in situ development along the Upper Danube must be left open. Against the present background of data, it appears probable that approximately 34,000 (BPHulu) years ago a rapid process of cultural change was set in motion across all of North-western


Europe (including south-western France) and in at least the southern part of Central Europe. During this early phase of MUP innovation (GI 6 – GI 5) the Danube River seems to have functioned as a corridor for the communication of ideas and innovations. In this context it may be important for future research that whereas the northernmost sites with Font Robert points appear to be free of fléchettes, further to the South the forms are regularly found together. In view of the evidence that MUP industries appeared rapidly and contemporaneously across much of North-western and southern Central Europe, the dates for Alberndorf 1 (Trnka, 2005), which place the Aurignacian at this site within the interval GI 6 – GS 5 and thus broadly contemporary with the early MUP, appear problematical. That Alberndorf is not an isolated case is shown by results from the Aurignacian site of Breitenbach B in Saxony-Anhalt, ca. 350 km to the Northwest. Here the four oldest dates of a first dating series have a weighted mean of ca. 27,440 ± 270 14C BP (0.96 σ) (Terberger & Street, 2003), with a similarly old date (> 28.0 ka 14

C BP) from a measurement obtained more recently (Grünberg, 2006). These dates are in

general agreement with the Alberndorf 1 results (weighted means of two pairs of charcoal dates ca. 28,420 ± 544 14C BP [0.07 σ] and ca. 27,110 ± 460 14C BP [0.04 σ]). Even younger radiocarbon dates from both sites show that sample contamination has certainly played a role (Fig. 5b), but the apparently acceptable older results mean that the question of late Aurignacian – early MUP contemporaneity must be taken seriously. Future research will have to address the question whether final Aurignacian groups at the northern limits of populated (Central?) Europe remained unaffected by the appearance of MUP innovations and co-existed with early MUP groups during the period 33.5 – 31.5 ka cal BPHulu (Fig. 9).

MUP diffusion Along the Upper Danube, dated archaeological evidence for the MUP ceases around the middle of GS 5. It seems that North-western Europe also became largely depopulated at latest by this time. This process appears to start at around the onset of the GS 5 (27.9 / 27.8 ka 14C BP) and may have been expressed as population shift to more southern regions or extinction at a regional scale. The fact that “Gravettian” industries in other parts of western Eurasia significantly postdate the earliest MUP appearance in Western / North-western and southern Central Europe suggests that population relocation certainly played a role at this time. “Gravettian” industries are first documented not only in Moravia but also in all the southern and more easterly regions of Europe at this time (e.g., Zilhao, 2000; Rasilla Vives & Santamaria Álvarez, 2006; Mussi, 2000; 2004; Montet-White, 2000; Perlès, 2000). The early MUP in Swabia is not succeeded by a


younger MUP and the region remains deserted until the Magdalenian (Terberger & Street, 2003), whereas in Bavaria, a MUP level at Obere Klause is dated to around the short GI 4 oscillation. Still further to the East, the replacement of the early MUP Pavlovian on the Middle Danube by Upper MUP assemblages of Willendorf-Kostenkian type with a wholly eastern orientation occurs at exactly this time (Fig. 9). Although the absence of a younger phase of the MUP in Swabia (Otte, 1981; Hahn, 2000; Scheer, 2000) suggests that by this time the previous Danube corridor had become a bottleneck, the great body of evidence for a “Gravettian Golden Age” (Mussi et al, 2000; Roebroeks et al., 2000) across much of Eurasia suggests that the transmission of ideas and contacts between populations was far from being interrupted, with regions to the South of the Alps (Mussi, 2000) now providing a probable route between West and East. Against this background of shared conceptual and social systems the observed regionalisation of material equipment and settlement type probably simply reflects the adoption of specific adaptive strategies within the overall persistent MUP oikoumene (cf. Svoboda et al., 2000).

Acknowledgements We (OJ, BW, MS) thank Christine Neugebauer-Maresch for the invitation and encouragement to contribute to this volume as well as for engagement in the editing. Furthermore we have to thank her and Jiri Svoboda for supplying us with their comprehensive date lists of Austrian and Moravian radiocarbon measurements, respectively.

Tables Tab. 1: Radiocarbon data base of the Aurignacian to Mid-Upper Palaeolithic along the Upper and Middle Danube. Data compiled by the authors and with support by Christine NeugebauerMaresch and Jiri Svoboda.


Figures

Fig. 1. European Aurignacian sites (compiled after different authors). Map based on SRTM data; sea level lowered by 120m.


Fig. 2. European Mid-Upper Palaeolithic (MUP) sites (compiled after different authors). Map based on SRTM data; sea level lowered by 75m.


Fig. 3. Radiocarbon dated Aurignacian – Mid-Upper Palaeolithic (MUP) sites along the Upper and Middle Danube (compiled after different authors).


Fig. 4a. Results from radiometric dating of southern German Aurignacian assemblages from Keilberg-Kirche, Hohlenstein-Stadel and Vogelherd (see: Tab. 1) in their respective stratigraphical sequence, given with 1σ

s t a n da r dde vi a t i on .

Da t e sonb on e :c i r c l e s( ope ns y mb ol=s a mpl ewi t h outt r a c e sofh omi ni na c t i vi t y ;gr e yf i l l e d= gr e e nf r a c t ur e ;bl a c kf i l l e d=h uma nmodi f i c a t i on ) ;da t e sonc h a r c oa l :di a mon ds . Gr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .


Fig. 4b. Re s ul t sf r omr a di ome t r i cda t i n goft h eAur i gn a c i a n–Mi dUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi c( MUP) a s s e mbl a ge sf r omGe ie n kls t e r l e( s ou t h e r nGe r ma ny )( s e e :Ta b .1)i nt h e i rs t r a t i gr a phi c a l s e que n c e ,gi v e nwi t h1σ s t a n da r dde vi a t i on . Da t e sonb on e :c i r c l e s( ope ns y mb ol=s a mpl ewi t h outt r a c e sofh omi ni na c t i vi t y ;gr e yf i l l e d= gr e e nf r a c t ur e ;bl a c kf i l l e d=h uma nmodi f i c a t i on ) . Gr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .


Fig. 4c. Re s ul t sf r omr a di ome t r i cda t i n gofs out h e r nGe r ma nAur i gn a c i a n–Mi dUppe r Pa l a e ol i t hi c( MUP)a s s e mbl a ge sf r omHohl eFe l s( Sc h e l kl i nge n ) ,Br i l l e nhhl ea n d We i nbe r ghhl e n( s e e :Ta b .1)i nt h e i rr e s pe c t i ves t r a t i gr a phi c a ls e que n c e ,gi v e nwi t h1σ s t a n da r dde vi a t i on . Da t e sonb on e :c i r c l e s( ope ns y mb ol=s a mpl ewi t h outt r a c e sofh omi ni na c t i vi t y ;bl a c kf i l l e d= h uma nmodi f i c a t i on ) ;da t e sonc h a r c oa l :di a mon ds ;un kn ownma t e r i a l :a s t e r i s ks .


Gr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .


Fig. 5a. Re s ul t sf r omr a di ome t r i cda t i n goft h eAur i gn a c i a n–Mi dUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi c( MUP) a s s e mbl a ge sf r omWi l l e n dor fI I( Lowe rAus t r i a )( s e e :Ta b .1)i nt h e i rs t r a t i gr a phi c a ls e que nc e , gi v e nwi t h1σ s t a n da r dde vi a t i on . Da t e sonb on e( c i r c l e s :ope ns y mb ol=s a mpl ewi t h outt r a c e sofh omi ni na c t i vi t y ) ;da t e son c h a r c oa l( di a mon ds ) . Gr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .


Fig. 5b. Re s ul t sf r omr a di ome t r i cda t i n gofAus t r i a nAur i gn a c i a na s s e mbl a ge sf r omSt r a t z i n g/ Kr e ms Re he r b e r ga n dAl be r n dor f( s e e :Ta b .1)i nt h e i rr e s pe c t i v es t r a t i gr a phi c a ls e que n c e ,gi v e n wi t h1σ s t a n da r dde vi a t i on . Da t e sonb on e( c i r c l e s :ope ns y mb ol=s a mpl ewi t h outt r a c e sofh omi ni na c t i vi t y ) ;da t e son c h a r c oa l( di a mon ds ) . Da r kgr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge . Li gh tgr e ys h a di ng:l e s sl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .



Fig. 5c. Re s ul t sf r omr a di ome t r i cda t i n gofAus t r i a nAur i gn a c i a nMi dUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi c( MUP) a s s e mbl a ge sf r omGob e l s b ur g,Kr e ms Hun ds s t e i g,Kr e ms Wa c h t b e r g,La n ge nl oi sA,Aggs b a c h a n dGr ub Kr a n a we t be r g( s e e :Ta b .1)i nt h e i rr e s pe c t i v es t r a t i gr a phi c a ls e que n c e ,gi ve nwi t h1σ s t a n da r dde vi a t i on . Da t e sonb on e :c i r c l e s( ope ns y mb ol=s a mpl ewi t h outt r a c e sofh omi ni na c t i vi t y ) ;da t e son c h a r c oa l :di a mon ds ;un kn ownma t e r i a l :a s t e r i s ks . Gr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .


Fig. 6a. Re s ul t sf r omf r omr a di ome t r i cda t i n gofMor a vi a nAur i gna c i a na s s e mbl a ge sf r om St r á n s kás ká l aa n dPodh r a de m( Cz e c hRe publ i c )( s e e :Ta b .1) ,gi ve nwi t h1σ s t a n da r d de vi a t i on . Da t e sonb on e( c i r c l e s :ope ns y mb ol=s a mpl ewi t h outt r a c e sofh omi ni na c t i vi t y ) ;da t e son c h a r c oa l( di a mon ds ) . Gr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .


Fig. 6b. Re s ul t sf r omf r omr a di ome t r i cda t i n goft h eMi dUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi c( MUP) a s s e mbl a ge sf r omDol níVĕs t oni c e( Cz e c hRe publ i c )( s e e :Ta b .1) ,gi ve nwi t h1σ s t a n da r d de vi a t i on .


Da t e sonb on e( c i r c l e s :ope ns y mb ol=s a mpl ewi t h outt r a c e sofh omi ni na c t i vi t y ) ;da t e son c h a r c oa l( di a mon ds ) . Gr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .


Fig. 6c. Re s ul t sf r omf r omr a di ome t r i cda t i n gofMor a vi a nMi dUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi c( MUP) a s s e mbl a ge sf r omJ a r os ovI I ,Pa vl ovI ,Mi l ovi c eIa n dKul na( s e e :Ta b .1) ,gi ve nwi t h1σ s t a n da r dde vi a t i on . Da t e sonb on e( c i r c l e s :ope ns y mb ol=s a mpl ewi t h outt r a c e sofh omi ni na c t i vi t y ) ;da t e son c h a r c oa l( di a mon ds ) . Gr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .


Fig. 7. Sy n t h e s i sofr e s ul t sf r omr a di ome t r i cda t i n gofUppe rDa n ubeAur i gn a c i a n–Mi dUppe r Pa l a e ol i t hi c( MUP)a s s e mbl a ge sf r omBr i l l e nhhl e ,Ge ie n kls t e r l e ,Hohl eFe l s( Sc h e l kl i nge n ) , Hohl e ns t e i n St a de l ,We i nbe r ghhl e na n dVoge l h e r d( s e e :Ta b .1 ) ,gi v e nwi t h1σ s t a n da r d de vi a t i on . Da t e sonb on e :c i r c l e s( ope ns y mb ol=s a mpl ewi t h outt r a c e sofh omi ni na c t i vi t y ;gr e yf i l l e d= gr e e nf r a c t ur e ;bl a c kf i l l e d=h uma nmodi f i c a t i on ) ;da t e sonc h a r c oa l :di a mon ds ;un kn own ma t e r i a l :a s t e r i s ks . Gr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .


Fig. 8a. Sy n t h e s i sofr e s ul t sf r omr a di ome t r i cda t i ngofMi ddl eDa n ub eAur i gn a c i a n a s s e mbl a ge sf r omWi l l e n dor fI I ,Podh r a de m,St r a t z i n g/Kr e ms Re he r b e r g,St r á n s kás ká l aa n d Al be r n dor f( s e e :Ta b .1) ,gi v e nwi t h1σ s t a n da r dde vi a t i on . Da t e sonc h a r c oa l :di a mon ds . Da r kgr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge . Li gh tgr e ys h a di ng:l e s sl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .


Fig. 8b. Sy n t h e s i sofr e s ul t sf r omr a di ome t r i cda t i n gofMi ddl eDa n ub eMi dUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi c ( MUP)a s s e mbl a ge sf r omAggs b a c h ,Dol níVĕs t on i c e ,Gr ub Kr a n a we t b e r g,J a r os ovI I ,Kul n a , La n ge nl oi sA,Mi l ovi c eI ,Pa vl ovI ,Wi l l e n dor fI I , Kr e ms Hun ds s t e i g,Kr e ms Wa c h t b e r ga n d Gob e l s b ur g( s e e :Ta b .1) ,gi v e nwi t h1σ s t a n da r dde vi a t i on . Da t e sonb on e( c i r c l e s :ope ns y mb ol=s a mpl ewi t h outt r a c e sofh omi ni na c t i vi t y ) ;da t e son c h a r c oa l( di a mon ds ) . Da r kgr e ys h a di ng:da t i n gr a n geb a s e donal a r ges e r i e sofc on s i s t a n tme a s ur e me n t s . Li gh tgr e ys h a di ng:mos tl i ke l yda t i n gr a n ge .


Fig. 9. Compi l a t i onofc a l i br a t e dr a di oc a r b onda t i ngr a n ge s( us i n gt h eCa l Pa l 2007Huluc ur v eof We ni nge r&Jr i s ,s ubmi t t e d)f orAur i gn a c i a n–Mi dUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi c( MUP)a s s e mbl a ge si n t h eUppe ra n dMi ddl eDa n ub er e gi ons ,s h owna ga i n s tt h eb a c kgr oun dofc l i ma t i cc h a n ge r e c or de di nt h eGr e e nl a n dGRI Pi c ec or e( b e l ow:da t af r omJ ohn s e ne ta l . ,2001)a n ds c a l e d 18 a ga i ns tt h eU/ Th da t e dHul uc h r on ol ogy( Wa n ge ta l . ,2001)vi as y nc h r oni z a t i onofδ O

s i gna t ur e s( We ni nge r&Jr i s ,s ubmi t t e d:Ca l Pa l 2007 c f .www. c a l pa l . de ) ,wi t hGr e e nl a n d Hul u; I n t e r s t a di a l( GI )a n dSt a di a l( GS)os c i l l a t i on sl a b e l l e di nc ol our( c f .J oh ns e ne ta l . ,1992) . Al s o


s h own( a b ov e )i st h egr e y s c a l er e c or dofpa l a e oc l i ma t ec h a n gef r omt h eEi f e lLa mi na t e d Se di me n tAr c hi ve( ELSA:Si r oc koe ta l . ,2005) . Br ownb a r sbe l owt h eMi ddl eDa n ub eda t ai n di c a t ei n t e r s t a di a ls oi lf or ma t i onsi nl oe s sde pos i t s oft h er e gi on( Sc h w.–Sc h wa l l e nba c hI–I I I ;DV–Dol níVĕs t oni c e ;P–Pa vl ov;C–Ce r ma n; Gr ub gr .–Gr ub gr a b e n;a f t e rHa e s a e r t se ta l . ,2004) .Agedi s pe r s ongr a phs h owsa c c umul a t e d da t i n gpr ob a bi l i t yofc a l i b r a t e dc h a r c oa ls a mpl e sf r omt h eBKI/St r á n s kás ká l as oi lf or ma t i on . Forr e f e r e nc et h eun c a l i br a t e dr a di oc a r b one qui va l e n c ea ge sa r ea l s os h ownf ors i gni f i c a n t a r c h a e ol ogi c a lt r a n s i t i on s . H4–H2=He i n r i c he v e n t s42;LGM =La s tGl a c i a lMa xi mum.


References An t l ,W. ,Fl a de r e r ,F. A.2004.Ou t l ookt ot h eEa s t :t h e25ky rBPGr a v e t t i a nGr ub / Kr a na we t b e r g c a mps i t e( Lowe rAus t r i a ) .I n :Sv ob oda ,J . ,Se dl á c kov á ,L( Eds . ) ,Th eGr a v e t t i a na l on gt h e Da n ub e .Pr oc e e di n gsoft h eMi kul ovConf e r e n c e ,20. 21.Nov e mb e r ,2002.Dol níVe s t oni c e St udi e s11,116130. Bol us ,M. ,Con a r d,N.2006 .ZurZe i t s t e l l un gv onGe s c h os pi t z e na usor ga ni s c h e nMa t e r i a l i e n i ms pt e nMi t t e l pa lol i t hi kumun dAur i gn a c i e n .Ar c hol ogi s c he sKor r e s pon de n z bl a t t26,115. Bos s e l i n,F. ,Dj i ndj i a n ,F. ,1994.Lac h r on ol ogi eduGr a v e t t i e nFr a n c a i s e .Pr é hi s t oi r e Eur opé e nn e6,77115 . Br on kRa ms e y ,C. ,Hi gha m,T. ,Bowl e s ,A. ,He dg e s ,R.2004 .I mpr ov e me n t st ot h epr e t r e a t me n t ofb on ea tOxf or d.Ra di oc a r b on46,155163. Cl ot t e s ,J .2000.Ar tb e t we e n30, 000a n d20, 000b p.I n :Roe b r oe ks ,W. ,Mus s i ,M. ,Sv ob oda ,J . , Fe nn e ma ,K.( Eds . ) ,Hun t e r soft h eGol de nAge .Th eMi dUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi cofEur a s i a 30, 000–20, 000BP.Uni v e r s i t yofLe i de n ,87103. Con a r d,N.J .2000:Te i l pr oj e ktC8:Di epa lol i t hi s c h eBe s i e dl un gs ge s c hi c h t eSüdde u t s c hl a n ds a l skl i ma ge koppe l t e rPr oz e.I n :V.Mos b r ugge r( Hr s g. ) ,Kl i ma ge koppe l t ePr oz e s s ei nme s oun dka n oz oi s c he nGe ok os y s t e me n .Son de r f or s c hun gs be r e i c h275.Be r i c h t19982000,Ba n d 2.Tüb i n ge n ,351376. Con a r d,N. J . ,Bol us ,M.2003:Ra di oc a r b onda t i n gt h ea ppe a r a n c eofmode r nh uma nsa n dt i mi ng ofc ul t ur a li nn ov a t i onsi nEur ope :n e wr e s ul t sa n dn e wc h a l l e n ge s .J our n a lofHuma n Ev ol ut i on44( 3) ,331371. Con a r d,N. J . ,Bol us ,M. ,Sc h ne i de r me i e r ,T.1999 :Cur r e n tMi ddl ea n dEa r l yUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi c r e s e a r c hi nSou t h we s t e r nGe r ma ny .Abs t r a c t sI n t e r n a t i on a lConf e r e n c e“ Th eKr a pi na Ne a n de r t a l sa n dHuma nEv ol ut i oni nCe n t r a lEur ope ” .Kr a pi n a23. 26.Augus t1999 ,1718 . Con a r d,N.J . ,Fl os s ,H.2000 .Ei n eEl f e nb e i npl a s t i kv onHohl eFe l sbe iSc h e l kl i nge nun di h r e Be de ut un gf ürdi eEn t wi c kl un gde sJ un gpa lol i t hi kumsi nSüdde ut s c hl a n d.Ar c hol ogi s c he s Kor r e s pon de n z bl a t t30 ,473 480. Con a r d,N. J . ,Mor e a u,L.2004:Cur r e n tr e s e a r c hont h eGr a v e t t i a noft h eSwa bi a nJ ur a . Mi t t e i l un ge nde rGe s e l l s c ha f tf ürUr ge s c hi c h t e13,2959.


Con a r d,N. J . ,Gr oot e s ,P.M. ,Smi t h ,F. H.2004.Un e x pe c t e dl yr e c e n tda t e sf orh uma nr e ma i ns f r omVoge l h e r d.Na t u r e430,198201 . Da mbl onF. ,Ha e s a e r t sP. ,v a nde rPl i c h tJ .1996 :Ne wda t i n gsa n dc on s i de r a t i on sont h e c h r on ol ogyofUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi cs i t e si nt h eGr e a tEur a s i a t i cPl a i n .Pr é hi s t oi r eEur opé e n n e9, 177231. Dj i ndj i a n ,F. ,Bos s e l i n,F.1994.Pé r i gor di e ne tGr a v e t t i e n :L’ e pi l ogued’ un ec on t r a di c t i on? Pr é hi s t oi r eEur opé e nn e6,117131 . De l por t e ,H. ,Tuf f r e a u,A.19721973.Le si n dus t r i e sduPé r i gor di e ns upé r i e urdel aFe r r a s s i e . Qua r tr2324 ,93 123. Ei nw ge r e r ,T. ,Hi n t e r wa l l ne r ,M. ,Ne uge b a ue r Ma r e s c h ,C.2000 .Gob e l s b ur g,Fun db e r i c h t e a us s t e r r e i c h38,Wi e n ,739. Ei nw ge r e r ,T.2004 .Gr a b un ge nv onF.Fe l ge nh a ue r1961bi s1963a nde rj un gpa lol i t hi s c he n St a t i oni nLa n ge nl oi s ,N ,Be i t rgez urQua r tr f or s c h un gun dLa n ds c h a f t skol ogi e . Ge de n ks c h r i f tz um60.Ge b ur t s t a gv onSpy r i donVe r gi ni s ,Wi e n ,21f f . Fa r r a n d,W. R.1975a .An a l y s e soft h eAb r iPa t a uds e di me n t s .I n :Movi us ,H. L.( Ed. ) ,Ex c a v a t i on oft h eAb r iPa t a ud,Le sEy z i e s( Dor d ogn e ) .Ca mb r i dge ,2768. Fa r r a n d,W. R.1975b .Se di me n ta n a l y s i sofapr e hi s t or i cr oc ks h e l t e r :t h eAb r iPa t a ud. Qua t e r n a r yRe s e a r c h5,126 . Fa r r a n d,W. R.1995.Et udes é di me n t ol ogi quedur e mpl i s s a gedel ’ a b r iPa t a ud.I n :Br i c ke r ,H. B. ( Ed. ) ,LePa l é ol i t hi ques upé r i e urdel ’ a b r iPa t a ud( Dor d ogn e ) .Le sf oui l l e sdeH.L.Movi us J r .Sui vid’ uni nv e n t a i r ea n a l y t i quede ss i t e sa ur i gn a c i e nse tpé r i gor di e nsdeDor d ogn e . Doc ume n t sd’ Ar c h é ol ogi eFr a n c a i s e50,3165. Fl os s ,H.2003 .Di dt h e yme e torn ot ?Ob s e r va t i onsonCht e l pe r r oni a na n dAur i gn a c i a n s e t t l e me n tpa t t e r n si ne a s t e r nFr a n c e .I n :Zi l ho,J . ,d’ Er r i c o,F.( Eds . ) ,Th eCh r on ol ogyoft h e Aur i gn a c i a na n doft h eTr a n s i t i ona lTe c hn oc ompl e x e s .Da t i n g,St r a t i gr a phi e s ,Cul t ur a l I mpl i c a t i ons .Tr a b a l h osdeAr que ol ogi a33.I s t i t ut oPor t uguê sdeAr que ol ogi a ,Li s b oa ,pp. 273287. Fl os s ,H. , Ki e s e l ba c h ,P.2004.Th eDa n ub eCor r i dora f t e r29, 000BP–Ne wr e s ul t sonr a w ma t e r i a lpr oc ur e me n tpa t t e r n si nt h eGr a v e t t i a nofs ou t h we s t e r nGe r ma ny .Mi t t e i l un ge nde r Ge s e l l s c ha f tf ürUr ge s c hi c h t e13,61 78.


Fl os s ,H. , Rouque r ol ,N. ,2007 .Le sc h e mi nsdel ’ a r ta ur i gn a c i e ne nEur ope .Da sAur i gn a c i e n un ddi eAnfn gede rKuns ti nEur opa . Gr ünb e r g,J . M. ,2006.Ne wAMSDa t e sf orPa l a e ol i t hi ca n dMe s ol i t hi cCa mpSi t e sa n dSi n gl e Fi ndsi nSa x ony Anh a l ta n dTh ur i ngi a( Ge r ma ny ) .Pr oc e e di n gsoft h ePr e hi s t or i cSoc i e t y72, 95112. Ha e s a e r t s ,P. ,Bor z i a k,I . ,Chi r i c a ,V. ,Da mbl on ,F. ,Koul a kovs ka ,L.2004.Ca dr es t r a t i gr a phi que e tc h r on os t r a t i gr a phi queduGr a v e t t i e ne nEur opec e n t r a l e .I n :Sv ob oda ,J . A. ,Se dl á c kov á ,L. ( Eds . ) , Th eGr a v e t t i a na l on gt h eDa n ub e .Pr oc e e di n gsoft h eMi ki l ovc onf e r e n c e ,20. 21. Nov e mb e r ,2002.Dol níVe s t oni c eSt udi e s11( Br no) ,33 56. Ha e s a e r t s ,P. ,Da mbl on ,F.2004.Le sda t e sr a di oc a r b on edeMa i s i è r e s Ca n a l .I n :Mi l l e r ,R. , Ha e s a e r t s ,P. ,Ot t e ,M.( Eds . ) ,L’ a t e l i e rdet a i l l ea ur i gn a c i e ndeMa i s i è r e s Ca n a l .ERAUL 110.Li è ge ,2728. Ha e s a e r t s ,P. ,Te y s s a n di e r ,N.2003.Th eEa r l yUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi coc c upa t i onsofWi l l e n dor fI I ( Lowe rAus t r i a ) :ac on t r i b ut i ont ot h ec h r on os t r a t i gr a phi ca n dc ul t ur a lc on t e x toft h e b e gi nni ngoft h eUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi ci nCe n t r a lEur ope .I n :d’ Er r i c o,F. ,Zi l ha o,J .( Eds . ) ,Th e c h r on ol ogyoft h eAur i gn a c i a na n doft h et r a n s i t i on a lt e c hn oc ompl e x e s .Da t i n g, s t r a t i gr a phi e s ,c ul t ur a li mpl i c a t i ons .Pr oc e e di n gsofSympos i um6. Ioft h eXI Vt hCon gr e s sof t h eUI SPP( Uni v e r s i t yofLi è ge ,Be l gi um,Se pt e mb e r28,2001) .Tr a b a l h osdeAr que ol ogi a 33,133151 . Ha hn ,J .2000.Th eGr a v e t t i a ni nSou t h we s tGe r ma ny–e nvi r onme n ta n de c on omy .I n : Roe b r oe ks ,W. ,Mus s i ,M. ,Sv ob oda ,J . ,Fe nn e ma ,K.( Eds . ) ,Hun t e r soft h eGol de nAge .Th e Mi dUppe rPa l a e ol i t hi cofEur a s i a30, 000–20 , 000BP.Uni v e r s i t yofLe i de n ,249256. Hi gh a m,T. F. G. ,J a c obi ,R. M. ,Br on kRa ms e y ,C.2006.AMSRa di oc a r b onDa t i n gofAn c i e n t Bon eUs i n gUl t r a f i l t r a t i on .Ra di oc a r b on48( 2) ,17 9195. Hi l l e r ,B.2003 .Di eNut z un gv onEl f e nb e i ni mJ ungpa lol i t hi kumde sHohl eFe l sb e i Sc h e l kl i nge n .Mi t t e i l un ge nde rGe s e l l s c ha f tf ürUr ge s c hi c h t e12,723. Hof r e i t e r ,M. ,Pa c h e r ,M. ,2004.Us i n ga n c i e n tDNAt oe l uc i da t er a wma t e r i a lor i gi nofb on e poi n t sf r omPot oc kaz i j a l ka( Sl ov e ni a ) :pr e l i mi na r yr e s ul t s .I n :Pa c h e r ,M. ,Poh a r ,V. , Ra b e de r ,G.( Eds . ) ,Pot oc kaz i j a l ka-pa l a e on t ol ogi c a la n da r c ha e ol ogi c a lr e s ul t soft h e e x c a v a t i onc a mpa i gns19972000.Mi t t .Komm.Qua r tr f or s c h .s t e r r .Aka d.Wi s s .13.Wi e n , pp.201210 .


J a c obi ,R. M. ,Hi gha m,T. F. G. ,Br on kRa ms e y ,C.2006.AMSr a di oc a r b onda t i n gofMi ddl ea n d Uppe rPa l a e ol i t hi cb on ei nt h eBr i t i s hI s l e s :i mpr ov e dr e l i a bi l i t yus i ngul t r a f i l t r a t i on . J a c obi ,R. M. ,Hi gha m,T. F. G. ,s ubmi t t e d:Th e“ Re dLa dy ”a ge sgr a c e f ul l y :Ne wul t r a f i l t r a t i on AMSde t e r mi na t i on sf r omPa vi l a n d.J our n a lofHuma nEv ol ut i on . J a r os ov á ,L. ,Cí l e k,V. ,Oc h e s ,E. W. ,Sni e s z ko,Z. ,1996.Pe t r k ovi c e ,e xc a v a t i on s19941995.I n : Sv ob oda ,J . ,Sk r dl a ,P. ,Oc h e s ,E. W.( Eds . ) ,Pa l e ol i t hi ci nt h eMi ddl eDa n ubeRe gi on . Anni ve r s a r yv ol umet oBoh us l a vKl í ma .I n s t i t u t eofAr c h a e ol ogy ;Br n o,Spi s y Ar c h e ol ogi c ké h oús t a v ua vCRvBr n es v a z e k5,1 91206. Jr i s ,O. ,Ál v a r e zFe r ná n de z ,E. ,We ni nge r ,B.200 3.Ra di oc a r b one vi de n c eoft h eMi ddl et o Uppe rPa l a e ol i t hi ct r a n s i t i oni ns out h we s t e r nEur ope .Tr a b a j osdePr e hi s t or i a60,1538 . Jr i s ,O. ,St r e e t ,M. ,s ubmi t t e d.Att h eEn doft h e14CTi meSc a l e–Th eMi ddl et oUppe r Pa l a e ol i t hi cRe c or dofWe s t e r nEur a s i a .J our n a lofHuma nEv ol ut i on . Jr i s ,O. ,We ni nge r ,B.2004.Copi n gwi t ht h ec ol d:ont h ec l i ma t i cc on t e x toft h eMor a vi a nMi d Uppe rPa l a e ol i t hi c .I n :Sv ob oda ,J . A. ,Se dl á c kov á ,L.( Eds . ) ,Th eGr a v e t t i a na l on gt h e Da n ub e .Pr oc e e di n gsoft h eMi kul ovc onf e r e n c e ,20. 21.Nov e mb e r ,2002.Dol níVĕs t oni c e St udi e s11( Br n o) ,5770. Jr i s ,O. ,Te r b e r ge r ,T. ,We ni nge r ,B. ,St r e e t ,M. ,s ubmi t t e d.Da t i n gt h eMi ddl et oUppe r Pa l a e ol i t hi ct r a n s i t i on .Ont h et i mi nga n ddy n a mi c sofc ul t ur a lc ha n ge ,t h ede mi s eoft h el a s t Ne a n de r t h a l sa n dt h ef i r s ta ppe a r a n c eofAn a t omi c a l l yMode r nHuma nsi nEur ope :ac r i t i c a l r e vi e woft h er a di oc a r b onr e c or d.Ve r t e b r a t ePa l e obi ol ogya n dPa l e oa n t h r opol ogy . J oh ns e n ,S. J . ,Cl a us e n ,H. B. ,Da n s ga a r d,W. ,Fuh r e r ,K. ,Gun de s t r up,N. ,Ha mme r ,C. U. , I v e r s e n ,P. ,J ouz e l ,J . ,St a uf f e r ,B. ,St e f f e ns e n ,J . P.1992.I r r e gul a rGl a c i a lI n t e r s t a di a l s Re c or de di naNe wGr e e nl a n dI c eCor e .Na t u r e35 9,311313 . J oh ns e n ,S. J . ,Da hl J e n s e n ,D. ,Gun de s t r up,N. ,St e f f e n s e n ,J . P. ,Cl a us e n ,H. B. ,Mi l l e r ,H. , Ma s s on De l mot t e ,V. ,Sv e i nbj ør n dót t i r ,A. E. ,Whi t e ,J .2001 .Oxy ge nI s ot opea n d Pa l a e ot e mpe r a t ur eRe c or dsf r omSi xGr e e nl a n dI c e c or eSt a t i on s :Ca mpCe n t ur y ,Dy e 3, GRI PGI SP2 ,Re nl a n da n dNor t h GRI P.J our n a lQua t e r n a r ySc i e n c e16,299–307. Kl í ma ,B.1963.Dol niVĕs t oni c e .Vy z kumt á b or i s t el ov c uma mut uvl e t e c h19471952. Ac a de mi a ,Pr a h a . Kl í ma ,B.1994.Ca dr es t r a t i gr a phi quedupa l é ol i t hi ques upé r i e ure nMor a vi e .I n :Ne kuda ,V. , Un ge r ,J . ,Un ge r ,M.( Eds . ) ,Elc a dr oge oc h r on ol ogi c ode lpa l e ol i t i c os upe r i ori ni c i a l .Ma dr i d: 6771.


Kl í ma ,B.1995.Dol níVĕs t oni c eI I .Ei nMa mmut jge r pl a t zun ds e i neBe s t a t t un ge n .ERAUL73. Dol íVe s t oni c eSt udi e s3. Koe ni gs wa l d,W.v on ,Mül l e r Be c k,H. J . ,Pr e s s ma r ,E.1974.Di eAr c hol ogi eun d Pa lon t ol ogi ei nde nWe i nbe r ghhl e nb e iMa ue r n( Ba y e r n ) ,Gr a b un ge n19371967. Mi t t e i l un gs bl a t tde rAr c h a e ol ogi c aVe na t or i a3,5152. Koz łowski, J.K., 1996. The Danube Gravettian as seen from the northern perspective. In: Svoboda, J., Skrdla, P., Oches, E.W. (Eds.), Paleolithic in the Middle Danube Region. Anniversary volume to Bohuslav Klíma. Archaeological Institute; Brno, Spisy Archeologického ústavu av CR v Brne svazek 5, 11-22. Kuzmin, Y.V., Burr, G.S., Jull, A.J.T., Sulerzhitsky, L.D., 2004. AMS 14C age of the Upper Palaeolithic skeletons from Sungir site, Central Russian Plain. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Volumes 223-224, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, 731-734. Montet-White, A. 2000. A scarcity of MUP sites in the Sava Valley, stratigraphic hiatus and / or depopulation. 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, 241-247. Movius, H.L. 1975 (Ed.). Excavation of the Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies (Dordogne). Cambridge. Movius, H.L. 1977. Excavation of the Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies (Dordogne): Stratigraphy. Cambridge. Mussi, M. 2000. Heading south: the gravettian colonization of Italy. 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, 355-374. Mussi, M. 2004. East and South of the Alps: the MUP funerary and artistic record of Italy and Moravia compared. In: Svoboda, J.A., Sedlácková, L. (Eds.), The Gravettian along the Danube. Proceedings of the Mikulov conference, 20.-21. November, 2002. Dolní Vĕstonice Studies 11 (Brno), 252-269. Mussi, M., Roebroeks, W., Svoboda, J. 2000. Hunters of the Golden Age: an introduction. 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, 1-11.


Neugebauer-Maresch, C. 1996. Zu Stratigraphie und Datierung der Aurignac-Station am Galgenberg von Stratzing / Krems-Rehberg, NÖ. In: Paleolithic in the Middle Danube Region, Festschrift B. Klíma, Arch. ústav AV CR, Brno, 67-79. Neugebauer-Maresch, C. 1999. Le Paléolithique en Autriche. Collection L’home des origines – Série “Préhistoire d’Europe“ 8 (Grenoble). Obermaier, H. 1908. Die am Wagramdurchbruch des Kamp gelegenen niederösterreichischen Quartärfundplätze, Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde 2, 49-85. Oliva, M., 2000. Some thoughts on Pavlovian adaptations and their alternatives. 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, 219-229. Otte, M. 1981. Le Gravettien en Europe Centrale. Bruges. Perlès, C. 2000. Greece, 30,000-20,000 bp. 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, 375-391. Pettitt, P. 2000. Chronology of the Mid Upper Palaeolithic: the radiocarbon evidence. 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, 20-30. Pettitt, P.B., Bader, N.O. 2000. Direct AMS radiocarbon dates for the Sungir mid Upper Palaeolithic burials. Antiquity 74, 269-270. Rasilla Vives, M. de la, Santamaria Álvarez, D. 2006. El Gravetiense del Abrigo de Cueto de la Mina (Posada de Llanes, Asturias). In: Maillo, J.M., Baquedano, E. (Eds.), Miscelánea en homenaje a Victoria Cabrera. Zona Arqueológica t(I), 422-439. Riek, G. 1934. Die Eiszeitjägerstation am Vogelherd im Lonetal I: Die Kulturen. (Tübingen). Roebroeks, W., Mussi, M., Svoboda, J., Fennema, K. (Eds.) 2000. Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000 – 20,000 BP. University of Leiden. 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, 257-270.


Sirocko, F., Seelos, K., Schaber, K., Rein, B., Dreher, F., Diehl, M., Lehne, R., Jäger, K., Krbetschek, M., Degering, D. 2005. A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception. Nature 436, 833-836. Surmely, F., Alix, P., Costamagno, S., Daniel, P., Hays, M., Murat, R., Renard, R., Virmont, J., Texier, P.-T. 2003. Découverte d’un gisement du Gravettien ancien au lieu-dit le Sire (Mirefleurs, Puy-de-Dome). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 100, 29-39. Svoboda J., 1996. The Pavlovian. Typology and behaviour. In: Svoboda J., Skrdla P., Oches, E.W. (Eds.), Paleolithic in the Middle Danube Region. Anniversary volume to Bohuslav Klíma. Institute of Archaeology; Brno, Spisy Archeologického ústavu av CR v Brne svazek 5: 283-301. Svoboda, J., Klíma, B., Jarosová, L., Skrdla, P. 2000. The Gravettian in Moravia: climate, behaviour and technological complexity. 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, 197-217. Svoboda, J., Lozek, V., Vlcek, E. 1996. Hunters between East and West. The Paleolithic of Moravia. New York & London: Plenum Press. Terberger, T., Street, M. 2003. New evidence for the chronology of the Aurignacian and the question of Pleniglacial settlement in western Central Europe. In: d’Errico, F., Zilhao, J. (Eds.), The chronology of the Aurignacian and of the transitional technocomplexes. Dating, stratigraphies, cultural implications. Proceedings of Symposium 6.I of the XIVth Congress of the UISPP (University of Liège, Belgium, September 2-8, 2001). Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33, 213-221. Trnka, G. 2005. Die jungpaläolithischen Stationen von Alberndorf im Pulkautal im nördlichen Niederösterreich (Weinviertel), Mitt. d. Komm. f. Quartärforschung d. Österr. Akademie d. Wissenschaften 14, 2005, 195-212. Uthmeier, T. 1996. Ein bemerkenswert frühes Inventar des Aurignacien von der Freilandfundstelle „Keilberg-Kirche“ bei Regensburg. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 26, 1996, 233-248. Valoch, K. 1988. Die Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle 1961-1976. Anthropos 24 (Brno). Vanhaeren, M, d’Errico, F. 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 1105-1128.


Verpoorte, A. 2003. Eastern Central Europe during the Pleniglacial. Antiquity 78, 257-266. Vogel, J.C., Zagwijn, W.H. 1967: Groningen radiocarbon dates, VI. Radiocarbon 9: 63-106. Wang, Y.J., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., An, Z.S., Wu, J.Y., Shen, C., Dorale, J.A. 2001. A Highresolution Absolute-dated Late Pleistocene Monsoon Record from Hulu Cave, China. Science 294, 2345-2348. Weninger, B., Jöris, O., submitted. Towards an absolute chronology at the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Western Eurasia: a new GreenlandHulu time-scale based on U/Th ages. Journal of Human Evolution. Wild, E.M., Teschler-Nicola, M., Kutschera, W., Steier, P., Trinkaus, E., Wanek, W. 2005. Direct Dating of Early Upper Palaeolithic Human Remains from Mladeč. Nature 435, 332335. Zilhao, J. 2000. Nature and culture in Portugal from 30,000 to 20,000 bp. 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, 337-354.