The chronology of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic in northern Iberia: New insights from L'Arbreda,...

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution 69 (2014) 91e109

Contents lists avai

Journal of Human Evolution

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jhevol

The chronology of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic in northern Iberia:New insights from L’Arbreda, Labeko Koba and La Viña

R.E. Wood a,b,*, A. Arrizabalaga c, M. Camps d, S. Fallon a, M.-J. Iriarte-Chiapusso c,e,R. Jones f, J. Maroto g, M. de la Rasilla h, D. Santamaría h, J. Soler g, N. Soler g, A. Villaluenga i, j,T.F.G. Highamb,k

aResearch School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, 1 Mills Road, Canberra 0200, AustraliabResearch Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, United KingdomcResearch Team on Prehistory (IT-622-13), University of the Basque Country (UPV-EHU), Tomás y Valiente Street, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spaind School of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of Maryland, College Park, 4102 Jiménez Hall, University of Maryland, MD 20742-4821, USAe IKERBASQUE Research Professor, University of the Basque Country (UPV-EHU), Tomás y Valiente street, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spainf School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, AD Hope Building, Canberra 0200, AustraliagÀrea de Prehistòria, Universitat de Girona, pl. Ferrater Mora 1, 17071 Girona, SpainhDepartamento de Historia, Universidad de Oviedo, c/Teniente Alfonso Martínez, s/n, 33011 Oviedo, SpainiMonrepos Archaeological Research Centre and Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution, Schloss Monrepos, D-56567 Neuwied, GermanyjAranzadi Sciences Society, Zorroagagaina 11, 20014 Donostia-San Sebastián, SpainkKeble College, Parks Rd, Oxford OX1 3PG, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 30 June 2013Accepted 11 December 2013Available online 15 March 2014

Keywords:RadiocarbonAurignacianChâtelperronianGravettianMousterianWestern EuropePleistocene

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (R.E. Wo

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.12.0170047-2484/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Since the late 1980s, northern Iberia has yielded some of the earliest radiocarbon dated Aurignacianassemblages in Western Europe, probably produced by anatomically modern humans (AMHs). This is atodds with its location furthest from the likely eastern entry point of AMHs, and has also suggested tosome that the Châtelperronian resulted from cultural transfer from AMHs to Neanderthals. However, theaccuracy of the early chronology has been extensively disputed, primarily because of the poor associationbetween the dated samples and human activity. Here, we test the chronology of three sites in northernIberia, L’Arbreda, Labeko Koba and La Viña, by radiocarbon dating ultrafiltered collagen from anthro-pogenically modified bones. The published dates from Labeko Koba are shown to be significant un-derestimates due to the insufficient removal of young contaminants. The early (c.44 ka cal BP [thousandsof calibrated years before present]) Aurignacian chronology at L’Arbreda cannot be reproduced, but thereason for this is difficult to ascertain. The existing chronology of La Viña is found to be approximatelycorrect. Together, the evidence suggests that major changes in technocomplexes occurred contempo-raneously between the Mediterranean and Atlantic regions of northern Iberia, with the Aurignacianappearing around 42 ka cal BP, a date broadly consistent with the appearance of this industry elsewherein Western Europe.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Chronologies constructed with radiocarbon dates underpinstudies of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe.Unfortunately, it is well known that many of these radiocarbondates are problematic, both in terms of the association between thesample and archaeological record, and because of the incomplete

od).

removal of contaminants by inefficient pretreatment protocols.This has led to lengthy debates regarding the ordering of eventsduring the Palaeolithic, with implications for the understanding ofNeanderthal cognition (d’Errico et al., 1998; Mellars, 1999), theresponse of human populations to climate change (d’Errico andSánchez Goñi, 2003; Finlayson and Carrión, 2007; Schmidt et al.,2012; Banks et al., 2013) and the likelihood of interbreeding be-tween Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans (AMHs)during this period (Trinkaus, 2007).

Here, we focus on the chronology of the earliest Upper Palae-olithic of northern Iberia, the region bounded by the Pyrenees andAtlantic to the north and the Ebro Valley and Cantabrian Cordillera

mailto:[email protected]

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.12.017&domain=pdf

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00472484

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.12.017



R.E. Wood et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 69 (2014) 91e10992

to the south. This area includes both Mediterranean and Atlanticbiogeographical zones (Fig. 1). The Middle to Upper Palaeolithictransition in this region is broadly similar to the sequence found insouthern France (Bon, 2006; Bon et al., 2006; Arrizabalaga et al.,2009). It involves the Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian industryproduced by Neanderthals, followed stratigraphically by a series ofUpper Palaeolithic Aurignacian industries, including the Proto-,Early and Evolved Aurignacian, most likely produced by AMHs(Trinkaus, 2005; Higham et al., 2011a), which in turn are followedby the Gravettian (Zilhão, 2006a).

The Châtelperronian is a so-called transitional technocomplexfound stratigraphically between the Mousterian and Aurignacian(d’Errico et al., 1998). Although debated (Bar-Yosef and Bordes,2010; Higham et al., 2010; Caron et al., 2011), it is accepted bymany that Neanderthals produced the Châtelperronian (e.g.,d’Errico et al., 1998; Mellars, 1999; Zilhaeo, 2006b), and the Nean-derthal within the Châtelperronian level Ejop sup at St. Césaire hasbeen directly dated to 42.5e39.6 ka cal BP (thousands of calibratedyears before present) (36,200 � 750 BP, OxA-18099, Hublin et al.,2012), within the range of the transition. Some consider the in-dustry to be a specialization within the final Middle Palaeolithic(Pellegrin, 1990, 1995) occurring independently from the Aurigna-cian (d’Errico et al., 1998), although others have interpreted it as theresult of acculturation (Demars and Hublin, 1989; Mellars, 1999).The strongest argument against acculturation continues to be thelack of any interstratification of the two industries (d’Errico et al.,1998, but see; Gravina et al., 2005). However, this method cannotidentify chronological overlap over a wider geographical range andthus influence from neighbouring areas.

A second transitional industry, the Transitional Aurignacian, hasbeen identified in El Castillo level 18, Cantabria (Cabrera Valdéset al., 2001), but the integrity of the site has been questioned(Zilhão and d’Errico, 2003; Zilhaeo, 2006b) and the industry hasbeen attributed to the Middle Palaeolithic by many (Maroto et al.,2005; Vaquero et al., 2006). The chronology of this site and in-dustry is not considered here.

Despite its place at the periphery of Eurasia, northern Iberia isthought to contain some of the earliest dated Aurignacian

Figure 1. Location

assemblages in Western Europe. Three sites have been used toargue for a pre-42 ka cal BPAurignacian, El Castillo level 18 (CabreraValdes and Bischoff, 1989), Abric Romaní level A (Bischoff et al.,1988, 1994) and L’Arbreda level H (Bischoff et al., 1989; Hedgeset al., 1994; Maroto et al., 1996). The complications surroundingidentification of the lithic assemblage in El Castillo level 18 aredescribed above, and using Bayesian analysis Camps and Higham(2012), have increased the precision for the start of the UpperPalaeolithic in level A at Abric Romaní, demonstrating that itschronology is consistent with other Aurignacian assemblageselsewhere. The assemblage in level H at L’Arbreda remains anom-alously early, however (Soler Subils et al., 2008).

This early chronology has a number of implications. Firstly, theearly date increases the time for exchange of technology and othercultural aspects between AMHs and Neanderthals. Most signifi-cantly it increases the probability that the Châtelperronian was aresult of acculturation by AMHs (Mellars, 1999). The authorship,timing and symbolic content of the Châtelperronian continues to bea central issue because of its role in the debates surrounding‘modern human’ behaviour (d’Errico, 2003; Zilhaeo, 2006b). Manyregard symbolically organised behaviour as a defining character-istic of AMHs (Chase and Dibble, 1987; Wadley, 2001; HenshilwoodandMarean, 2003). If Neanderthals were also capable of this type ofsymbolism, as would be implied from the independent develop-ment of the Châtelperronian, questions are raised about when andwhere the capability for this behaviour evolved and what triggeredits expression in the archaeological record (Holliday, 2003; Zilhaeo,2006b).

Second, this region is the furthest from the entry of modernhumans into Europe, most likely from the east (Mellars, 2004,2006; Kozlowski, 2006), and is thus of importance in determiningrates and routes of spread.

Finally, the region is adjacent to southern Iberia, where manyhave suggested the last Neanderthals survived, whilst modernhumans appear to be absent (Vega Toscano et al., 1988; Zilhão,1993, 2006a; Bicho, 2000; Straus, 2005; Finlayson et al., 2006;but see; Jöris et al., 2003; Santamaría, 2012; Michel et al., 2013;Wood et al., 2013a). If this were the case, the very early arrival of

of dated sites.

Table 1Summary of the lithic and bone industry in the sites dated.

Level Typological ascription Description of industry References

L’ArbredaG Evolved Aurignacian Lithic industry: Abundant nosed and carinated endscrapers.

Bone industry: Lozangic points with a flattened cross-section.Soler and Maroto, 1987

H Proto-, possibly withsome Early Aurignacian

Lithic industry: c.2300 items >1 cm. Dufour bladelets of the Dufour subtype dominate (40%,n¼ 92 of retouched lithics) and Aurignacian blades are abundant (11%, n¼ 25) alongside, burins(9.6%, n ¼ 22) and endscrapers, mainly on thick bladelet cores (7%, n ¼ 16). Bladelets wereremoved from carinated scrapers, prismatic cores and rarely carinated burins whilst blades wereremoved from prismatic cores.Bone industry: 3 split-base bone points, 2 spatulas, 2 awls, 1 possible ivory point.Other: 8 marine shells, one of which is perforated.

Maroto et al., 1996;Ortega et al., 2005;Soler Subils et al., 2008

I Mousterian Lithic industry: 9.8% of flakes were produced using the Levallois technique. Side scrapers,denticulates and notches make up the bulk of the retouched assemblage (c.80%). FourChâtelperron points have been recovered from the level.

Maroto et al., 1996

Labeko KobaIII Indet. Aurignacian Lithic industry: 281 lithics of which only four are retouched. Arrizabalaga, 2000bIV Early Aurignacian Lithic industry: >6000 lithics, 268 retouched, including strangulated and Aurignacian blades,

but no burins busqué.Arrizabalaga, 2000b

V Early Aurignacian Lithic industry: >8000 lithics, 288 of which are retouched. Aurignacian blades, fewer Dufourbladelets than level VII (n ¼ 26), removed from carinated and thick-nosed scrapers.Bone industry: 1 split base point.

Arrizabalaga, 2000b

VI Early Aurignacian Lithic industry: 501 lithics, 15 are retouched and are considered technologically similar to levelV.Bone industry: Fragmentary split based point.

Arrizabalaga, 2000b

VII Proto-Aurignacian Lithic industry:>6000 lithics, 886 retouched. 289 (33%) Dufour bladelets of the Dufour subtype,and more burins (n¼ 52, n¼ 35 dihedral) than endscrapers (n ¼ 22). Bladelets are likely to havebeen removed from prismatic cores, although there are some indications that burins may alsohave been used as cores to a lesser extent.Other: A pebble with engraved convergent lines.

Arrizabalaga, 2000b

VIII Archaeologically SterileIX upper nr. Archaeologically

SterileLithic industry: 5 non-retouched flakes. Antler bases of Megaloceros giganteus are present, andmay have been brought to the site by humans, and there are some bones with percussion marks.

Arrizabalaga, 2000b

IX lower Châtelperronian Lithic industry: 62 lithics, 11 retouched including 3 Châtelperron points, an atypical point, anAurignacian blade, and diverse substrate elements.Bone industry: A weathered point identified by Mujika (2000), but this may be a product ofhyena activity which was abundant in level IX lower.

Arrizabalaga, 2000b

La ViñaXI Evolved Aurignacian Lithic industry: Burins, retouched blades and endscrapers are all present in similar quantities

with fewer Dufour bladelets of the Roc de Combe subtype.Fortea Pérez, 1995;Santamaría, 2012

XII Evolved Aurignacian Lithic industry: Endscrapers dominate the assemblage, with burins and retouched bladespresent in similar quantities, and fewer Dufour bladelets of the Roc de Combe subtype.Bone industry: 2 fragments of bone points, flattened in cross section.

Fortea Pérez, 1995;Santamaría, 2012

XIII Early/EvolvedAurignacian

Lithic industry: Nosed and carinated endscrapers are more abundant than retouched blades,and these more abundant than burins. Dufour bladelets are less abundant than in level XIIIinferior and aremorphologically of the Dufour subtype but of a smaller size, similar to the Roc deCombe subtype.Bone industry: 1 split based antler point.


XIII (inf) Proto-Aurignacian/mixed

Lithic industry: Dufour bladelets of the Dufour subtype are present alongside endscrapers.Burins and Aurignacian blades are present, but rare. Middle Palaeolithic tools are abundant, butlikely to derive from the underlying levels as XIII (inf) is found within erosion features.


XIII(basal)

Mousterian Lithic industry: Quartzite dominates and recurrent flakes were removed from lenticulate cores.Scrapers are more common than denticulates. Bladelets are present, although these may derivefrom the overlying Upper Palaeolithic levels. Two typical Châtelperron points, not found in theoverlying Upper Palaeolithic, are present.


R.E. Wood et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 69 (2014) 91e109 93

modern humans to the north would have increased the duration ofany overlap, thereby increasing the chance for genetic and culturalexchange. The apparent absence of the latter has been used toargue against the inevitability of acculturation (d’Errico et al., 1998).

The poor quality of the current radiocarbon dataset does notallow the stratigraphic sequence found within sites (Mousterian,Châtelperronian, Aurignacian) to be tested between sites. There arecurrently only seven samples from Aurignacian assemblages thathave been radiocarbon dated after the application of a thoroughpretreatment, such as ultrafiltration of bone collagen and ABOx-SCof charcoal (Higham, 2011) (Abric Romaní, Camps and Higham(2012); Cova Gran, Martinez-Moreno et al. (2010); Lezetxiki,Maroto et al. (2012); Terrasses de la Riera dels Canyars, Daura et al.(2013)). None of these were produced on samples that can be

directly associated with human activity, for example throughbutchery, carving or placement within a hearth. Only one site in thenorth of the peninsula, Abric Romaní, is accurately and preciselydated to the transitional period with a non-radiocarbon method(Bischoff et al., 1988, 1994; Camps and Higham, 2012; Vaquero andCarbonell, 2012). Any robust synthesis of the chronological recordof the region therefore requires the majority of dates to be testedbefore interpretation is possible. In contrast, Maroto et al. (2012),Torres et al. (2010) and Wood et al. (2013b) have applied many ofthese techniques to the Middle Palaeolithic, and this paper willfocus on the initial Upper Palaeolithic of the region.

Here we aim to test existing radiocarbon chronologies for threekey sites within northern Iberia, and where needed, build newchronologies. At the most basic level this will enable the


stratigraphic ordering of technocomplexes found within individualsites to be tested across a broader area. It will then allow us to testsynchronicity with sites in southern France and beyond.

Materials and methods

Radiocarbon dates were obtained on bone which, wherepossible, showed signs of anthropogenic activity such as butchery(cut and percussion marks), or were modified to produce retou-choirs or formal bone tools.

To provide a reliable radiocarbon date, bones from temperateenvironments require more than 1% collagen (Van Klinken,1999). Toidentify which bonesweremost likely to contain this much collagen,the amount of nitrogen (%N) remaining in the bone was measuredbefore sampling for radiocarbon. When %N of the whole bone ex-ceeds 0.7%, around 70% of bones will contain sufficient collagen forradiocarbon (Brock et al., 2010b, 2012). After removal of the bonesurface, 2e5 mg of bone powder was drilled and weighed into a tincapsule. The %Nwasmeasured in an elemental analyzer (e.g., ANCA-

Figure 2. Location of dated samples at L’Arbreda. Section drawings are given along a) row E1 m slice. Coloured points represent objects recovered from archaeological units and grey poDated samples are represented by stars. (For interpretation of the references to colour in t

GSL) attached to an isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS e.g.,Sercon 20-20) operating in continuous flow mode using in-housenylon and/or alanine standards. Error is 0.2% at 95.4% probabilityand bone containing more than 0.5% N was accepted for dating.

Samples for radiocarbon were taken using a tungsten carbidedrill and treated following the method described in Brock et al.(2010a) at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) andthe Australian National University (ANU). Briefly, the mineralcomponent and any exogenous carbonates were removed duringan HCl wash (0.5 M, overnight, 5 �C), and alkali-soluble organicswere removed with NaOH (0.1 M, 30 min, RT). After a final acidwash to remove secondary carbonates (HCl, 0.5 M, 1 h, RT), thecrude collagen was gelatinized (0.001 M HCl, 70 �C, 20 h) to enablelarge insoluble contaminants to be removed with an Ezee� filter(45e90 mm) and small soluble contaminants to be removed with a30 kDa molecular weight cut-off Vivaspin� 15 ultrafilter. Onnumerous occasions this method has given dates consistent withlong stratigraphies (e.g., Abri Pataud, Higham et al. (2011b); Gei-ßenklösterle, Higham et al. (2012)), at times drastically increasing

, b) row 2, and c) row B. A plan is given in d). Points represent objects recovered from aints the location of objects found at the intersection between the archaeological levels.his figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 2Details of samples dated.

Sample ref Level Context Industry Species Modification

L’ArbredaABD2 Level F E5 EE401042 Gravettian Cervus elaphus, fragment from distal

articulation of 1st phalanxNone

ABD5 Level F E5 EE401046 Gravettian cf. Cervus elaphus, distal shaft fragment ofright femur

None

ABD6 Level G B4 DB28643 EvolvedAurignacian

Indet. Lozangic point

ABD7 Level H E3 CE108 (nocoordinates)

Proto-Aurignacian Indet. Spatula

ABD9 Level H E0 0E110 4440 Proto-Aurignacian Indet. diaphyseal fragment Percussion marksABD10 Level H E4 DE106 1511 Proto-Aurignacian Indet. diaphyseal fragment Percussion marksABD11 Level H B2 BB104 1440 Proto-Aurignacian Indet. diaphyseal fragment Cut marked, percussion markedABD12 Level H EC CETTTA 484 Proto-Aurignacian Indet. diaphyseal fragment Longitudinal fracture, possible

cut markABD 13 Level I C4 DC108 871, 64,

6, �536Mousterian Cervus elaphus, proximal fragment of right

metatarsalLongitudinal fracture

ABD 14 Level I A5 EA112AC 806, 0,75, �557

Mousterian Cervus elaphus, 1st phalanx, posterior sideof the distal epiphysis

Longitudinal fracture

ABD 15 Level I C2 BC108 831, 33,5, �540

Mousterian Cervus elaphus, 2nd phalanx, posterior side Longitudinal fracture

ABD 17 Level I D2 BD118 1204, 62,48, �581

Mousterian Cervus elaphus, 1st phalanx, posterior sideof the distal fragment

Longitudinal fracture

ABD 18 Level H E2 BE111 5645, 20,45, �550.5

Proto-Aurignacian Indet. diaphyseal fragment Cut marked

ABD 20 Level H E3 CE105 2771, 54,25, �522

Proto-Aurignacian Canis lupus, proximal fragment of rightradius

Cut marked

ABD 22 Level H B2 BB104 1427, 75,37, �517.5

Proto-Aurignacian Indet. rib fragment Spatula

ABD 25 Level G B2 BB36 638, 85,17, �468

EvolvedAurignacian

Indet. diaphyseal fragment Cut marked

ABD 27 Level G C3 CC41 1640, 20,94, �472

EvolvedAurignacian

Indet. diaphyseal fragment Cut marked

ABD 30 Level E E0 0E80 2945, 62,62, �398.5

Gravettian Indet. diaphyseal fragment Cut marked, percussion marked

ABD 31 Level E E1 AE80 1301, 65,14, �398.5

Gravettian Indet. diaphyseal fragment Cut marked

Labeko KobaLAB-1 Level IX

upperLK.13E.-360.256 Sterile Equus sp., right tibia Proximal end retouched by

percussion, carnivore gnawingon distal end and proximalepiphysis, but as a secondaryagent (Mujika, 2000;Villaluenga et al., 2012).

LAB-2 Level IXupper

LK.15E.-370.86 Sterile Medium sized artiodactyl, possibly Cervuselaphus, diaphyseal fragment

4 percussion stigma and 2 cutmarks (Mujika, 2000;Villaluenga et al., 2012)

LAB-3 Level IXupper

LK.13E.-360.257 Sterile Megaloceros giganteus antler base None. Possibly collected byhumans to be used as softhammer and later gnawed(Mujika, 2000; Villaluenga etal., 2012)

LAB-4 Level VII LK.11D.-242.142 Proto-Aurignacian Capra pyrenaica tibia diaphyseal fragment Retouchoir (Mujika, 2000).Helicoidal fracture. Tworetouched areas, one on eachside of the fragment. Both areover the ventral (flat) facet(Villaluenga et al., 2012).

LAB-5 Level VII LK.15G.-237.177 Proto-Aurignacian Diaphyseal fragment from a large taxon Chisel (Mujika, 2000), butcarbonated and difficult tointerpret.

LAB-6 Level VII LK.9F.-184.305 Proto-Aurignacian Diaphyseal fragment Chipped surface (Mujika, 2000)LAB-10 Level V LK.13F.-207.255 Early Aurignacian Radius diaphyseal fragment from a large

taxon (Equus or Bovidae)Retouchoir (Mujika, 2000).Retouched in two areas, overboth extremes of the piece.

LAB-12 Level V LK.13J.-175.139 Early Aurignacian Tibia diaphyseal fragment from a largetaxon (Equus or Bovidae)

Retouchoir (Mujika, 2000).Large fragment78.51 � 36.35 � 6.55 mm,retouched over the flat surfaceof the bone (Villaluenga et al.,2012).

LAB-13 Level V LK.13J.-188.174 Early Aurignacian Tibia diaphyseal fragment from a largetaxon (Equus or Bovidae)

Retouchoir (Mujika, 2000).Broken after use, as use wear

(continued on next page)


Table 2 (continued )

Sample ref Level Context Industry Species Modification

interrupted by break(Villaluenga et al., 2012).

LAB-14 Level IV LK.13H.-159.232 Early Aurignacian Diaphyseal fragment Retouchoir (Mujika, 2000)LAB-17 Level IV LK.13J.-160.100 Early Aurignacian Diaphyseal fragment of a medium sized

taxon (e.g., Cervus elaphus)Retouchoir (Mujika, 2000).Retouches are before and afterthe bone was fractured bypercussion (Villaluenga et al.,2012).

LAB-19 Level VI LK. 13G.-203.129 Early Aurignacian Diaphyseal fragment of a large taxon (Equusor Bovidae)

Possible retouchoir (Mujika,2000)

LAB-20 Level VI LK. 13H.-204.330 Early Aurignacian Diaphyseal fragment from a small taxon(e.g., Capra-Rupicapra)

Retouchoir (Mujika, 2000)Retouched stigma andpercussion marks.

LAB-22 Level IXupper

LK.15E.-325.57(28) Sterile Bos, tibia diaphyseal fragment Cut marked

LAB-23 Level IXlower

LK. 11E.-388.817(76)

Châtelperronian Cervus elaphus, radius Cut marked


LK.13E.-414.320 Châtelperronian Cervus elaphus, distal humerus Cut marked


LK.11E.-417.856(77)

Châtelperronian Cervus elaphus (juvenile), humerus Cut marked


LK.9D.-377.570 Châtelperronian Cervus elaphus, metatarsal Cut marked and hyena gnawing


LK.-13E.-448.339(36)

Pre-Châtelperronian

Bos, metatarsal None

La ViñaVI-35 Level XI G25, subcuad 6,

capa 21EvolvedAurignacian

Indet. diaphyseal fragment Possible percussion

VI-36 Level XI G26, subcuad 9,capa 17

EvolvedAurignacian

Cervus elaphus, distal left tibia None

VI-39 Level XI F26, subcuad 4,capa 22

EvolvedAurignacian

Cervus elaphus, femur diaphyseal fragment None

VI-42 Level IX G26, subcuad 9,capa 9

Gravettian cf. Cervus elaphus, anterior distal shaftfragment of left humerus

Possible percussion

VI-45 Level IX G25, subcuad 3,capa 27

Gravettian cf. Cervus elaphus, diaphyseal fragment ofmetacarpal

None

VI-67 Level XIII F26, subcuad 4,capa 30

Early Aurignacian cf. Cervus elaphus, anterior diaphysealfragment of metatarsal

None

VI-68 Level XIII F26, subcuad 7,capa 31

Early Aurignacian cf. Cervus elaphus, diaphyseal fragment None

VI-72 Level XII F25, subcuad 1,capa 36

EvolvedAurignacian

Cervus elaphus, right M2 None


EvolvedAurignacian

Cervus elaphus, left M1 None


EvolvedAurignacian

cf. Cervus elaphus, fragment of left ulna None


the age of particular contexts beyond 30 ka cal BP in comparisonwith earlier methods of dating bone and charcoal (Wood et al.,2013a).

One fragment of charcoal was dated using the ABOx-SC and ABAprotocols at the ORAU following the methods described in Brocket al. (2010a). The ABOx-SC protocol is often found to produce notonly older, but accurate dates when compared with charcoalcleaned with the ABA protocol (Wood et al., 2012), and is compa-rable with dates obtained using the ultrafiltration method to cleanbone collagen (Higham, 2011).

At the ORAU, gelatin and cleaned charcoal were combusted in anelemental analyzer attached to an isotope ratiomass spectrometer, asdescribed for %N measurement, providing carbon and nitrogenelemental and stable isotope information. For radiocarbondating, theCO2 remaining after combustion of gelatin was collected and trans-formed to graphite over an iron catalyst in the presence of H2 (Deeand Bronk Ramsey, 2000; Brock et al., 2010a) before measurementin anHVEEAMS (BronkRamseyet al., 2004). At theANU, collagenwascombusted in a sealed quartz tubewith silver and copper oxidewire,and theCO2 cryogenically collectedandpurified, before conversion tographite over an iron catalyst in the presence of H2 andmeasurement

in anNEC AMS (Fallon et al., 2010). Stable isotopesweremeasured ona secondaliquot at theANUusing anANCA-GSL connected to aSercon20-22 IRMS operating in continuous flow mode. Sample sizedependent graphitization/combustion and pretreatment chemistrybackgrounds have been subtracted from the conventional radio-carbon dates from both laboratories (Wood et al., 2010).

Dates have been calibrated against the IntCal09 calibrationcurve (Reimer et al., 2009) using OxCal v4.1 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009a).Specific OxCal functions are represented by italics in the text. Bayesianmodelling within OxCal (Bronk Ramsey, 2009a, b) has beenemployed. In each model convergence was >95%, and more than107 iterations were undertaken. Unless otherwise stated, all dateswere ascribed a 5% prior probability of being an outlier within theGeneral t-type Outlier Model (Bronk Ramsey, 2009b).

For explanation and examples of this type of chronologicalmodel see Bayliss et al. (2007), Bronk Ramsey (2009a, b), andHigham et al. (2011b). Briefly, Bayesian analysis uses the strati-graphic ordering known a priori within an archaeological site toconstrain probability functions derived from calibrated radiocarbondates and produce chronological models based on the results aposteriori, or after modelling. Stratigraphic or archaeological units,


called Phases, contain unordered radiocarbon dates. Each Phase isbracketed by two Boundaries, which not only perform a mathe-matical function in the model, but have probability distributionfunctions (PDFs) that provide an estimate for when each Phasestarted and ended. Each radiocarbon date has been assigned a priorprobability of being an outlier within a flexible model. This outlierprobability is then modelled, and if a certain radiocarbon date isfound to be outlying its influence on the model is down-weighted.

The primary aim of this paper is to build a relative chronologyand to establish whether certain industries appeared before others.OxCal contains two functions to compare PDFs (Bronk Ramsey,2009a; Macken et al., 2013). The Order function provides the rela-tive order of events, and finds the probability that one PDF is earlierthan another, for example that t1 has a 70% likelihood of beingearlier than t2. However, to establish whether two PDFs aresignificantly different, the Difference function, which subtracts onePDF from another, should be applied. If the 95.4% probability rangedoes not include zero, the PDFs are statistically different. Here wewill use the Difference function.

The chronologies have been tentatively compared to the NGRIPoxygen isotope record (Andersen et al., 2006; Svensson et al., 2006)as a proxy for the environment in the absence of high resolutionpalaeoenvironmental terrestrial records in this region (Morenoet al., 2012). It is unlikely that large temporal offsets occur be-tween the Greenland and the Atlantic region of Iberia. For example,in a composite marine core off the Galician coast (MD99-2331 andMD03-2697), Pinus pollen decreases at the same time as Neo-globoquadrina pachyderma starts to increase in abundance, beforerecovering as Ice Rafted Debris and N. pachyderma peak during HS1and HS2 (Naughton et al., 2007).

Results

Three sites, each containing a sequence of early Upper Palae-olithic levels, have been examined: L’Arbreda in the Mediterraneanregion, and Labeko Koba and La Viña in the Atlantic region (Fig. 1).L’Arbreda and La Viña also contain Middle Palaeolithic levels, theuppermost of which have been dated here. Descriptions of lithicand bone industry assemblages are given in Table 1.

l’Arbreda 42�9103800 N 2�4404900E (Serinyá, Catalonia)

L’Arbreda is a collapsed cave in a karstic cascading travertinefilled with c.9 m of sediment extending from the Holocene into theearly Upper Pleistocene, and has been excavated since the 1970s(Fig. 2) (Maroto et al., 1996). The Evolved Aurignacian (level G) andGravettian levels (levels F and E) remain largely undated becauseneither the conventional radiocarbon dates on mixtures of charcoaland sediment (Delibras et al., 1987; Sacchi et al., 1996) nor thegamma uranium series (u-series) and electron spin resonance (ESR)dates of bone (Yokoyama et al., 1987) provide reliable age estimates(Fowler et al., 1986; Grün, 2006) (Supplementary Online Material[SOM] Table S1). An AMS radiocarbon date on charcoal from level Gwas obtained by Maroto et al. (2012), but the sample was too smallfor ABOx-SC and was pretreated with an ABA protocol. It thereforeprovides a minimum age of c.36e35 ka cal BP for this assemblage.

Levels containing the final Mousterian (level I) and Proto- andEarly Aurignacian (level H) have been extensively dated using AMSradiocarbon of charcoal treated with an ABA protocol and bonetreated with an ion-exchange method (Hedges et al., 1994; Marotoet al., 1996). When these dates are placed within a Bayesian modelthe start of the Aurignacian in level H is dated to 44.4e42.0 ka cal BP (95.4% probability, Boundary ‘H base’) (Fig. 3a). This issignificantly earlier than most Aurignacian contexts in WesternEurope, and as a result, the validity of the dates has been

extensively debated (Straus, 1989; d’Errico et al., 1998; Zilhão andd’Errico, 2003; Zilhão, 2006a; Soler Subils et al., 2008).

d’Errico and Zilhão (d’Errico et al. 1998; Zilhão, 2006a) haveargued against the early Aurignacian chronology, primarily becausethe final Mousterian and Aurignacian levels are found within asingle sedimentary unit and, in their opinion, could not be sepa-rated. Combined with significant slopes and disturbance associatedwith cave bear denning, they concluded that the two tech-nocomplexes may have been mixed. By presenting piece-plottedartefact data, Soler Subils et al. (2008) have addressed this prob-lem to a large extent by demonstrating that the dated charcoalcame from within distinct archaeological horizons. However, theweak functional association between the charcoal and human ac-tivity remains a significant issue (Jöris and Street, 2008). Added tothis is the need to check the accuracy of these dates with modernmethods, to increase the precision with which the start of theProto-Aurignacian is dated, and to date the Evolved Aurignacianand Gravettian levels.

%N analysis indicated that collagen was well preserved (SOMTable S2), and 15 bones from the modern excavations (1975 on-wards) have been dated (Table 2). With the exception of somesamples within levels I and F, all bones dated were anthropogen-ically modified in some way, and include two spatulas from theProto-Aurignacian and one lozangic point fragment from theEvolved Aurignacian. One charcoal fragment from level I was datedusing ABOx-SC by Maroto et al. (2012) (OxA-19994), and this hasbeen included in the model.

All samples treated contained more than 5 mg and 1% collagen,and the elemental and stable isotope data do not highlight anymajor contaminants (Table 3). A Bayesian model using these newdeterminations is presented in Fig. 3b and SOM Table S3. Only onesample, OxA-21702 from level I, extends beyond the limit of thecalibration curve.

Percolation of bone from the Evolved Aurignacian of level G,through level H and into the Mousterian in level I is evident. Inorder to enable the Bayesian model to run, these samples wereascribed a 50% prior outlier probability. Two of the intrusive bonesare found in the same area (square E0), but the third is c.2 m distantin square E2, suggesting that they do not result from a singlefeature, such as an individual pit (Fig. 2). Although it is likely thatthere is some material relating to level H in level I, the radiocarbondates for the Boundaries between the Mousterian and Proto-Aurignacian appear unaffected by mixing when the bones ofEvolved Aurignacian age are excluded. The single outlier in level I(87% probability, OxA-21702) is older than expected, whilst thesingle outlier from level H (9% probability, OxA-21647) is veryslightly younger than expected.

The Boundary for the start of the Aurignacian at L’Arbreda usingthis new dataset is 42.3e40.3 ka cal BP (Boundary, ‘H base’),significantly younger than the previous group of dates suggested,with a Difference of 350e3660 years at 95% probability (Fig. 3c). Thereason for this is difficult to establish. It may relate to the samplingof humanly modified rather than unmodified material, or to thereliability of the dates themselves. Although the ABOx-SC date oncharcoal (OxA-19994) is in agreement with the dates on bone,further dates on charcoal will be needed to establish whethercharcoal in level I is older than the bone, and distinguish betweenthese two scenarios. What is clear is that the anomalously earlychronology cannot be reproduced with dates on humanly modifiedbone.

Labeko Koba 43�0304200N, 2�290 W (Arrasate, Basque Country)

Labeko Koba, a collapsed cave, was subject to a programmedsalvage excavation ahead of the construction of a road in 1987e


Figure 3. Radiocarbon dates from L’Arbreda modelled in OxCal v4.1.7 (Bronk Ramsey, 2010a,b) against IntCal09 (Reimer et al., 2009). a) Model of radiocarbon dates published in theliterature (see SOM Table S1 for references). b) Model of radiocarbon dates produced in this work using the ultrafiltration protocol and ABOx-SC protocol (Maroto et al., 2012). c)Comparison of Boundaries for the end of the Mousterian (I end) and start of the Aurignacian (H start) derived from a) and b). The pale distribution represents the calibrated date, andthe darker distribution the modelled PDF. The bar beneath shows the 95.4% probability range. Published dates are given in red, and dates from this work in grey. Laboratory codesare followed by the posterior and prior probability of the date being an outlier within the General t-type Outlier Model. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figurelegend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 3Radiocarbon dates from L’Arbreda, Labeko Koba and La Viña. Calibrated dates and modelling results are given in SOM tables S3e5.

Sample ref Level Industry Pre-treatmentcode

Yield(mg)

Yield (%) %C d13C &VPDB

d15N &AIR

C:N Lab code Date (BP) Error

L’ArbredaABD 31 Level E Gravettian AF 35.35 5.7 45.5 �20.0 7.7 3.3 OxA-21669 25,780 210ABD 30 Level E Gravettian AF* 34.30 4.1 45.6 �20.6 4.9 3.3 OxA-21668 26,100 210ABD 5 Level F Gravettian AF 28.86 3.3 45.2 �19.2 5.1 3.3 OxA-21782 28,280 290ABD 2 Level F Gravettian AF 22.31 2.9 46.1 �20.5 7.8 3.2 OxA-21781 28,260 280ABD 27 Level G Evolved Aurignacian AF 23.58 3.4 46.9 �20.8 4.6 3.3 OxA-21667 32,250 450ABD 6 Level G Evolved Aurignacian AF* 12.16 6.1 44.5 �19.7 3.2 3.2 OxA-21783 32,100 450ABD 25 Level G Evolved Aurignacian AF 54.00 7.7 43.4 �20.4 4.3 3.3 OxA-21666 32,750 450ABD12 Level H Proto-Aurignacian AF* 4.50 1.5 38.4 �19.0 9.7 3.2 SANU-29018 32,100 540ABD 11 Level H Proto-Aurignacian AF* 7.00 1.5 42.1 �19.4 8.3 3.2 SANU-29017 34,800 760

AF* 8.70 1.8 44.1 �19.4 8.6 3.2 SANU-29019 35,900 860ABD 10 Level H Proto-Aurignacian AF* 8.70 1.5 34.5 �19.8 9.0 3.2 SANU-29016 35,700 830ABD 9 Level H Proto-Aurignacian AF* 9.70 2.5 45.3 �19.7 5.7 3.2 SANU-29014 31,900 530ABD 22 Level H Proto-Aurignacian AF* 10.74 3.2 43.7 �19.7 9.3 3.2 OxA-21674 33,800 550ABD 20 Level H Proto-Aurignacian AF* 15.19 3.0 42.9 �18.8 10.3 3.2 OxA-21665 35,850 700ABD 7 Level H Proto-Aurignacian AF* 11.51 3.7 43.1 �18.3 6.1 3.2 OxA-21784 36,000 700ABD 18 Level H Proto-Aurignacian AF* 40.85 6.4 44.8 �20.7 6.0 3.2 OxA-21664 35,900 650ABD 15

(P21480)Level I Mousterian AF* 15.72 4.4 45.6 �19.4 3.1 3.2 OxA-21663 32,100 450

AF* 27.67 3.6 47.1 �19.6 4.7 3.3 OxA-21703 32,300 450ABD 17 Level I Mousterian AF* 11.55 2.6 47.0 �19.4 6.2 3.3 OxA-21704 39,200 1000ABD 14 Level I Mousterian AF* 16.85 2.6 46.1 �19.5 5.8 3.3 OxA-21702 44,400 1900ABD 13 Level I Mousterian AF* 35.64 4.3 42.4 �20.0 4.4 3.2 OxA-21662 37,300 800

Labeko KobaLAB-17 Level IV Early Aurignacian AF 9.85 1.5 43.1 �19.1 5.3 3.4 OxA-21768 33,600 500LAB-14 Level IV Early Aurignacian AF 10.93 1.1 43.4 �19.4 6.6 3.3 OxA-21780 33,550 550LAB-12 Level V Early Aurignacian AF 21.83 3.2 43.9 �19.2 5.3 3.2 OxA-21779 34,650 600LAB-10 Level V Early Aurignacian AF 11.70 1.8 41.2 �20.5 2.8 3.2 OxA-21767 34,750 600LAB-13 Level V Early Aurignacian AF 27.98 3.0 Fail on low yieldLAB-19

(P23689)Level VI Early Aurignacian AF 15.41 1.8 42.9 �20.7 6.6 3.3 OxA-21794 32,200 450

OxA-21841 32,150 450LAB-20 Level VI Early Aurignacian AF 23.92 2.6 45.2 �19.4 4.5 3.3 OxA-21778 35,100 600LAB-6

(P23688)Level VII Proto-Aurignacian AF* 29.61 2.8 43.6 �19.2 5.2 3.3 OxA-21793 35,400 650

OxA-21840 35,250 650LAB-5 Level VII Proto-Aurignacian AF 8.23 1.3 43.4 �19.5 4.4 3.2 OxA-X-2314-43 36,500 750LAB-4 Level VII Proto-Aurignacian AF 12.64 2.0 43.6 �21.2 4.2 3.3 OxA-21766 36,850 800LAB-3 Level IX upper Sterile AF 16.57 1.3 41.2 �19.4 7.4 3.4 OxA-23199 38,400 900LAB-22

(P27311)Level IX upper Sterile AF 11.19 1.5 40.1 �20.6 6.4 3.2 OxA-22559 36,000 700

AF 11.35 1.6 44.7 �20.3 6.9 3.2 OxA-22653 36,850 800LAB-2 Level IX upper Sterile AF* 13.63 2.2 43.3 �19.5 5.1 3.4 OxA-21792 36,550 750LAB-1 Level IX upper Sterile AF* 17.83 2.6 38.2 �19.1 5.6 3.2 OxA-21777 37,700 900LAB-27 Level IX lower Châtelperronian AF 17.67 2.6 42.3 �20.2 3.7 3.1 OxA-22563 37,800 900LAB-26 Level IX lower Châtelperronian AF 11.17 1.3 42.6 �20.1 3.0 3.1 OxA-22562 38,100 900LAB-24 Level IX lower Châtelperronian AF 12.53 1.3 41.0 �20.3 4.1 3.2 OxA-22561 38,000 900LAB-23 Level IX lower Châtelperronian AF 8.48 1.0 42.0 �20.6 3.8 3.2 OxA-22560 37,400 800LAB-28 Level IX lower Pre-Châtelperronian AF* 9.04 0.9 40.9 �19.9 3.4 3.1 OxA-22564 37,900 900

La ViñaVI-42 Level IX Gravettian AF 3.74 0.4 Fail on low yieldVI-45 Level IX Gravettian AF 21.16 2.3 48.0 �20.2 5.7 3.3 OxA-21688 24,640 190VI-83 Level XI Evolved Aurignacian ZR 5.39 18.4 60.0 �24.8 OxA-19195 30,130 170VI-39 Level XI Evolved Aurignacian AF 10.23 0.9 45.1 �19.8 5.7 3.3 OxA-21687 30,600 370VI-36 Level XI Evolved Aurignacian AF 26.44 3.3 44.6 �20.0 6.2 3.3 OxA-21686 20,820 130VI-35 Level XI Evolved Aurignacian AF 7.43 0.8 42.7 �20.5 5.9 3.3 OxA-X-2290-19 27,900 280VI-73 Level XII Evolved Aurignacian AF 14.38 1.4 45.0 �19.8 8.7 3.3 OxA-21689 31,500 400VI-72 Level XII Evolved Aurignacian AF 16.32 1.5 43.7 �20.2 8.3 3.3 OxA-21678 31,600 400VI-78 Level XII Evolved Aurignacian AF 3.46 0.6 Fail on low yieldVI-68 Level XIII Early Aurignacian AF 18.66 2.0 45.8 �20.6 6.0 3.4 OxA-21845 30,650 360VI-67 Level XIII Early Aurignacian AF* 20.27 2.2 48.0 �20.2 7.0 3.4 OxA-21705 31,160 380VI-85 Level XIII basal Mousterian ZR 7.17 18.6 65.2 �22.7 OxA-19144 >59,300

XR 1.87 1.7 66.2 �23.5 OxA-19196 >62,000VI-86 Level XIII basal Mousterian ZR 42.57 57.5 0.5 Fail on low %C

For a reliable date, % yield should be >1%, %C >30% and C:N between 2.9 and 3.4 (Van Klinken, 1999). AF refers to the ultrafiltration pretreatment and AF* ultrafiltrationpreceded by a series of solvent washes as a precaution against the possible addition of glue.


Figure 4. Location of dated samples at Labeko Koba from a) levels IX and IX upper, b) level VII, c) level V and VI and d) level IV. A section along row 13 is illustrated in e).


1988 (Fig. 4) (Arrizabalaga and Altuna, 2000; Arrizabalaga et al.,2003). It is regarded as the primary site for understanding theearly Upper Palaeolithic in the Cantabrian region because it alonecontains Châtelperronian (level IX lower) and Proto-Aurignacian(level VII) assemblages separated by units with low levels of hu-man activity (levels IX upper and VIII) (Zilhão 2006a) (Table 1).

Moreover, it is one of the few sites in Western Europe containingEarly Aurignacian assemblages (level VIeIV) in a separate unit tothe Proto-Aurignacian (level VII) (Bon, 2006).

Arrizabalaga (2000a) presented eight AMS radiocarbon dates onbone given a short pretreatment (acid demineralisation step fol-lowed by gelatinisation) (SOM Table S1). The dates are inconsistent

Figure 5. Radiocarbon dates from Labeko Koba modelled in OxCal v4.1.7 (Bronk Ramsey, 2010a,b) against IntCal09 (Reimer et al., 2009). For an explanation of the figure, see Fig. 3.


with the stratigraphy of Labeko Koba and low collagen yields leadArrizabalaga (2000a) to express caution over the accuracy of thedates. Two further dates from level IX upper on Irish Elk antler(Megaloceros giganteus) (Stuart et al., 2004) were obtained usingthe ultrafiltration protocol, and are significantly earlier than theprevious group of samples suggested. The antlers were dated soonafter the ultrafiltration method was introduced at the ORAU andduring a period when many samples were contaminated withglycerol. The low collagen yield and high C:N of OxA-10104 (SOMTable S1) suggests that these samples were contaminated, but theglycerol was made of ancient carbon (Brock et al., 2007) and isunlikely to have greatly affected the dates.

We aimed to produce a chronology for the entire Upper Palae-olithic sequence. Where possible, modified faunal material and cut

marked bones were selected from the Aurignacian and Châ-telperronian levels, respectively (Mujika, 2000; Ríos-Garaizar et al.,2012; Villaluenga et al., 2012) (Table 2). One of the Megalocerosgiganteus antler bases from level IXupper, previously dated by Stuartet al. (2004), was also redated. %N analysis indicated that collagenpreservation was better in the deeper levels, and only two of fivebones from the uppermost level targeted (level IV) could be dated(SOM Table S2). In total, 18 bones were selected for dating (Table 2).

High collagen yields (>1%) were obtained from most of thesampled bones and all met the quality assurance criteria applied(Table 3). The exception is OxA-22564, containing only 0.9%collagen. However, quality assurance data did not indicate a sig-nificant problem and the date has been included in the Bayesianmodel (Fig. 5, SOM Table S4).

Figure 6. Location of dated samples at La Viña. Location of samples dated in the literature is also given (SOM Table S1).


Of the 18 samples dated, only one (LAB19) from level VI is foundto be an outlier in the Bayesian model, appearing to be too young(at 100% probability). The sample was found in square G15, in anarea close to the cave wall with numerous large blocks and littlesediment. The small size of the bone fragment (maximum dimen-sion 4 cm) would have made it particularly susceptible to move-ment, perhaps falling from level III, an undated unit containing thelast, and very sparse, human occupation at Labeko Koba.

OxA-23199 is on one of the two samples originally dated byStuart et al. (2004) using the ultrafiltration protocol. Althoughsuspected of being contaminated with ancient glycerol, this sampleproduced an identical age when redated (c2, df ¼ 1, T ¼ 2.5 (5%3.8)). In contrast, it is clear that the initial collection of dates un-derestimate the true age of the assemblages.

La Viña, 43� 1804700 N, 5� 490 3700 W (La Manzaneda, Asturias)

The rock shelter of La Viña dominates the Nalón valley southof Oviedo in north western Spain. A sequence of Mousterian toMagdalenian levels was excavated between 1980 and 1996(Fig. 6) (Fortea Pérez, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2001). In thewestern sector, XIII(basal) contains the uppermost Mousterianindustry. A powerful erosion event occurred at the top of theMousterian, and the depression created was filled with XIII(inf),containing an assemblage associated with the Proto-Aurignacian(Santamaría, 2012). Early and Evolved Aurignacian assemblageswere found in horizontal layers above XIII(basal) and XIII(inf)(Table 1).

The current chronology of the site is based on ten radiocarbondates (SOM Table S1) (Fortea Pérez, 1996, 1999, 2001). Two on bone(Ly-49 and OxA-4092/Ly-15) are clearly too young, and a date(GifA-95546) on the humic (contaminant) fraction of a charcoalsample (GifA-95537) can only be used to assess the age of possiblecontaminants. The remaining dates, all on charcoal treated beforethe development of ABOx-SC, are in broad agreement with thestratigraphy. They suggest that the Mousterian in level XIII(basal) isprobably significantly older than 42 ka cal BP, whilst a 60 g frag-ment of charcoal from the top of XIII(inf), dated to 36,500 � 750 BP(42,790e40,200 cal BP, Ly-6390), has played an important role inthe dating of the Iberian Proto-Aurignacian to c.42 ka cal BP (e.g.,Zilhão, 2006a). A final date from the Early Aurignacian of level XIIIis in stratigraphic order and places this unit at 31,860 � 680 BP(38,400e35,020 cal BP, GifA-95463).

We aimed to test the existing chronology of the Mousterian inlevel XIII(basal), and provide a more secure chronology for theAurignacian assemblages. Samples were taken in the subsquaresclosest to the profile walls to allow their accurate projection ontothe section drawing. The spits on either side of the transition be-tween layers were avoided, as were those subsquares adjacent tothe shelter wall.

Bone preservation throughout the Mousterian and Aurignacianlevels is poor (Fortea Pérez, 1995, 1999), and the fragmentsremaining are mostly <10 cm in size. Cut-marks are rare in thecollection. Of the dated samples none bore cut-marks, althoughpossible impact marks were observed on two (Table 2). Of 39 bonesscreened for %N, only 19 contained more than 0.5% N (SOM


Table S2) and 10 were selected for dating (Table 2). Unfortunately,no bones from XIII(inf) were suitable for dating the earliest Auri-gnacian assemblage.

The ABA and ABOx-SC dates for the charcoal from level XIII(-basal) are identical, confirming the >50 ka BP age for the finalMousterian assemblage (Table 3). These results can be used totentatively suggest that the ABA protocol is sufficient to removecontaminants from charcoal from La Viña, although further dupli-cates would strengthen this conclusion. Dates on charcoal treatedwith the ABA protocol have therefore been placed in the Bayesianmodel and assigned a higher prior outlier probability (50%) thanthe new bone dates (Fig. 7, SOM Table S4).

Radiocarbon dating of bone was problematic as collagen yieldswere often lower than the %N screening method predicted, and twobones failed to yield enough collagen to date whilst others gavelower yields than ideal. As a consequence, the chronology of levelsXI and XIII is uncertain.

The three bone dates from level XI are inconsistent (Fig. 7, SOMTable S5). Only 0.8e0.9% collagen could be extracted from twobones (OxA-21687 and OxA-X-2290-19), and it is possible thatcontaminants were not fully removed from the small samples (VanKlinken, 1999). However, yields were only slightly less than 1%,and all elemental and isotopic data for the dated collagen extractsare acceptable. The older sample (OxA-21687) is very similar in ageto a charcoal fragment given an ABA treatment (OxA-19195). Furtherdates are required to understand whether the younger date OxA-X-2290-19 is a true outlier, possibly because of the incomplete removalof contaminants, or whether it suggests level XI accumulated overseveral millennia. A fourth date from the unit, OxA-21686, issignificantly younger than expected at c. 24 ka cal BP. This is on alarge tibia fragment (9 cm) recovered from a spit that was leftexposed between excavation seasons (Fortea Pérez, Personalcommunication, 2008). It is possible that the bone fell from a profile

Figure 7. Radiocarbon dates from La Viña modelled in OxCal v4.1.7 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009a) aand dates in grey are from this work. Date codes followed by a question mark are not includereferences to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this

between seasons, and the date adds little to our understanding of thesite. It has not been included in the Bayesian model (Fig. 7).

The radiocarbon dates from level XIII are consistent, but they areall from samples taken towards the top of the unit, and are statis-tically the same as those in the overlying level XII. A conventionalradiocarbon date on charcoal from the top of the underlying unitXIII(inf) is significantly earlier. There is no evidence for a hiatus insedimentation or an erosion event between levels XIII(inf) and XIII.Moreover, the lithic assemblage contains elements suggestive ofboth the Early and Evolved Aurignacian (Santamaría, 2012).Therefore it is possible that level XIII was either deposited slowlyover several millennia containing a mixture of industries, or thatthere is somemixingwith the overlying level XII. Before adding thisunit to the emerging later group of Early Aurignacian assemblages(see discussion below), the integrity of the assemblage must beassessed further.

Discussion

Chronology of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic of northern Iberia

The key Boundaries derived from the models presented above,alongside the chronology of Abric Romaní modelled by Camps andHigham (2012), are given in Fig. 8. The overwhelming impressionfromnorthern Iberia is one of consistency across the four sites, withthe industries falling in roughly the same order as the stratigraphysuggests. Two Boundaries for the end of the Mousterian are pre-sented for comparison, and fall at the same time or shortly prior tothe first Aurignacian at around 42 ka cal BP.

The Boundaries given in Fig. 8 can be compared statistically toexamine this relationship more closely. Of particular importance isthe new date for the start of the Proto-Aurignacian at L’Arbreda,which rather than being unusually early, is indistinguishable from

gainst IntCal09 (Reimer et al., 2009). Dates in red are taken from the literature (Table 2)d in the model. For further explanation of the figure, see Fig. 3. (For interpretation of thearticle.)

Figure 8. Boundary PDFs for the start (green) and end (red) of technocomplexes at sites dated with rigorous pretreatment methods (ultrafiltration, ABOx-SC and u-series onspeleothem) against the NGRIP oxygen isotope record (Anderson et al., 2006; Svensson et al., 2006). The location of the sites is indicated in the map insert. Dates from Isturitz arenot obtained with these pretreatment methods, but the dates are consistent and on cut marked bone. All models have been published in the references provided with the exceptionof Serino whose dates were published in Wood et al. (2012) and have been modelled as one phase. Sites with less than five dates are not included, as Boundary PDFs are oftenextremely wide (e.g., Gatzarria, Barshay-Szmidt et al., 2012). Dates from the Grotte du Renne are also excluded due to the high number of outliers within the models (Higham et al.,2010; Hublin et al., 2012). Heinrich Stadial 4 is shaded in dark grey and GI8 in light grey. Figure plotted in OxCal v.4.1.7 (Bronk Ramsey 2009a). (For interpretation of the references tocolour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)


the start of this industry at both Abric Romaní on the Mediterra-nean coast, and Labeko Koba on the Atlantic coast at 95.4% proba-bility (SOM Table S6a). The Châtelperronian at Labeko Koba beganbefore the Proto-Aurignacian at L’Arbreda (SOM Table S6b), but atAbric Romaní the difference between these two Boundaries is notsignificant at the 95.4% level. Therefore, although the absolute

chronology does not provide evidence that the Aurignacianappeared prior to the Châtelperronian, which would suggestacculturation may have occurred on the local scale, this doesremain a possibility.

The date obtained for the Neanderthal from Saint Césaire byHublin et al. (2012) is in agreement with the start and end


Boundary PDFs calculated for the Châtelperronian at LabekoKoba. When placed with a model consisting of a Sequence con-taining a single Phase with PDFs for the start and end Boundariestaken from the Labeko Koba model, OxA-18099 is found to haveless than a 5% likelihood of being an outlier (model not shown).

Combined with a study by Maroto et al. (2012), who found thatmany of the late (post-42 ka cal BP) dates on Middle Palaeolithicassemblages described by Baena et al. (2005, 2011) were errone-ously young, the new data broadly agrees with the overallconclusion of Zilhão’s (2006a) critique of the chronology withinnorthern Iberia, who suggested the Aurignacian occurred atc.42 ka cal BP across the region.

Chronology of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic of Western Europe

When the new data from Iberia is compared with the chronol-ogies from sites across Western Europe obtained using either ul-trafiltration, ninhydrin (Tisnérat-Laborde et al., 2003) and/or ABOx-SC, the overall picture of consistency between the phases of theAurignacian decreases (Fig. 8). To a large extent this is due to theEarly Aurignacian, which appears to have persisted for more thanfive millennia. The earliest dated Early Aurignacian assemblage inWestern Europe is at Geißenklösterle, Germany (Richter et al.,2000; Teyssandier and Liolios, 2003; Higham et al., 2012). Atthree sites, Labeko Koba, Abri Pataud (Higham, 2011) and Les Cottéslevel 4 upper (Talamo et al., 2012), the Early Aurignacian startsduring or immediately before HS4, whilst at Abri Castanet (Whiteet al., 2012) and possibly also Les Cottés level 2 where pre-liminary work suggests an Early Aurignacian assemblage (Talamoet al., 2012), it occurs much later, towards the end of GI8.

The Proto-Aurignacian at Mochi (Douka et al., 2012), and IsturitzC4c4, which contains an assemblage with characteristics of boththe Proto- and Early phases (Szmidt et al., 2010), appears at thesame time as the Early Aurignacian in Geißenklösterle. The ma-jority of assemblages appear slightly later, and the industry persistsacross southern Europe until the start of HS4. Both the Proto- andEarly Aurignacian therefore appear to spread rapidly throughoutWestern Europe (within the error of the Bayesian modelsconstructed).

Figure 9. Comparison of the u-series date on speleothem covering rock art at El Castillo (Pik

The later phases of the Aurignacian, the Evolved and LateAurignacian, occur during or immediately after GI8, starting beforethe final Early Aurignacian assemblages ended (SOM Table S6c).They end sometime before the first dated occurrence of theGravettian in L’Arbreda, Abri Pataud (Higham, 2011) and MaisièresCanal (Jacobi et al., 2010), most likely after 33 ka cal BP and GI6,leaving a gap of several millennia during which no assemblageshave yet been dated.

Thus, whilst apparently consistent within northern Iberia, theneat stratigraphic succession of the Aurignacian industries col-lapses when sites from a broader region are considered. This is notsolely because of the increase in geographical scale because withinsouthern France Early and Evolved assemblages exist at the sametime (SOM Table S6c). It is possible that this apparent mosaic ofindustries is affected by the simplistic assumption evident inFig. 8, that all assemblages described as Early Aurignacian areequivalent, and it would be interesting to compare some of theearliest assemblages with the latest. Without such analyses it isdifficult to discuss in more detail what the apparent heterogeneitymay imply. It is clear, however, that the phases of the Aurignacianas currently defined are not solely related to the changing envi-ronment within Marine Isotope Stage 3 as suggested by Bankset al. (2013).

Turning to the start of the Upper Palaeolithic, the Châtelperro-nian began before the final Mousterian assemblages were depos-ited, and prior to all Aurignacian assemblages at 95.4% probability,with the exception of Geißenklösterle (Germany, Higham et al.,2012), Mochi (Italy, Douka et al., 2012) and Isturitz (France,Szmidt et al., 2010), in addition to Abric Romaní (Camps andHigham, 2012), whose PDFs for the start of the Aurignacian areindistinguishable from those for the start of the Châtelperronian(SOM Table S6b). In these cases, it is impossible to determine theorder in which the industries appeared. With the current dataset,we can only say that the two started within c.2000 years of eachother and it is impossible to assess the acculturation versus inde-pendent development debate. Work increasing the precision of thechronologies of the earliest Aurignacian assemblages, and datingfurther Châtelperronian assemblages would enable this to be testedfurther.

e et al., 2012) with Boundary PDFs for the start of the Châtelperronian and Aurignacian.


Many consider the Uluzzian to be an Italian variant of theChâtelperronian (see discussion in Riel-Salvatore, 2009), and thechronological relationship between these two technocomplexes istherefore of interest. The Uluzzian starts significantly earlier thanthe dated Châtelperronian assemblages (SOM Table S6d, Benazziet al., 2011; Higham, 2011; see also Douka et al., in press),although they appear to end at a similar time. At face valuetherefore, rather than the Aurignacian influencing the developmentof the Châtelperronian, it is possible that the Uluzzian was theoriginal influence.

The importance of the acculturation versus independentdevelopment debate rests upon the assumption that Neanderthalsproduced the Châtelperronian and other transitional industries,such as the Uluzzian. However, recent work for the Uluzzian(Benazzi et al., 2011; Moroni et al., 2013) has suggested a modernhuman authorship. If these studies are confirmed in the future, thechronological data available may imply that acculturation of Ne-anderthals in southern France by Uluzzian producing modernhumans in Italy. In addition, it would also suggest a rather slowmovement of modern humans from Italy through southern Franceand northern Iberia. Of course, only two Châtelperronian assem-blages have been accurately and precisely dated so far, and furtherwork may reveal earlier examples.

Comparison to rock art

Pike et al. (2012) obtained a u-series date of 41.40 � 0.57 ka onspeleothem covering rock art in El Castillo, Cantabria. The earliestdate Pike et al. (2012) considered reliable for the Aurignacian ofnorthern Iberia was on a charcoal fragment from Cueva Morín at42.9e40.3 ka cal BP (36,590 � 770 BP, Gif-96263, pretreated withan ABA protocol, Maíllo Fernández et al., 2001), and coincided withthe age of the speleothem. In Fig. 9, the u-series date is compared tothe more robust and precise Boundaries for the start of the Proto-Aurignacian in northern Iberia obtained here. The PDFs for thestart of the Proto-Aurignacian are indistinguishable from the age ofthe speleothem covering the art panel at 95.4% probability (SOMTable S6d). Therefore, the most parsimonious explanation is thatthe makers of the Proto-Aurignacian produced the rock art soonafter arriving into the region, coinciding with the manufacture ofportable art objects found within Aurignacian assemblages, such asa pebble with engraved convergent lines found within the Proto-Aurignacian of Labeko Koba level VII (Arrizabalaga et al., 2003). ANeanderthal authorship was considered possible by Pike et al.(2012) as the speleothem provided only a minimum age. Whilstpossible of course, the similarity between the emergence of theAurignacian in the region and the age of the speleothem suggeststhat a Neanderthal authorship does not need to be invoked. Inaddition to discussion surrounding Neanderthal authorship, thepossible significance of this date for the role of rock art in theprocess of colonization should be considered (Balme et al., 2009).

Conclusions

The early chronology (pre 42 ka cal BP) for the Aurignacian innorthern Iberia, suggested by earlier studies at L’Arbreda, could notbe reproduced by dating ultrafiltered collagen from anthropogen-ically modified bones. The reason for the discrepancy with thepublished charcoal dates could not be established, and further workis clearly required. The revised chronology for the earliest Auri-gnacian at L’Arbreda, in the Mediterranean region, is similar toLabeko Koba and La Viña, in the Atlantic region, at 42 ka cal BP. Thisdate is indistinguishable from the first Early Aurignacian at Gei-ßenklösterle in Germany, suggesting that the spread of this industrywas rapid, occurring within the error of the chronological models

(c.2000 years). Additionally, the start of the Aurignacian at L’Arbredais no longer earlier than the start of the Châtelperronian elsewhere.The start Boundaries for the earliest Aurignacian assemblages atGeißenklösterle, Mochi, Isturitz and Abric Romaní are indistin-guishable from the start of the Châtelperronian at Labeko Koba, andit is not possible to say which occurred first. Therefore, this datasetcannot be used to assesswhether the Châtelperronianwas the resultof acculturation. This observation highlights the need for statisticalanalysis of multiple dates before conclusions regarding relativechronology are made from a radiocarbon database.

The Proto-, Early and Evolved phases of the Aurignacian, whenfound together, are found in stratigraphic order. However, althoughthe majority of dated assemblages support this order, the EarlyAurignacian appears to have a long duration overlapping with boththe Proto-Aurignacian and the Evolved Aurignacian. The latter inparticular does not appear to be related to geography, with twosites in the Dordogne with Early and Evolved assemblages occur-ring simultaneously. The simplistic approach taken here, to assumethat all Early Aurignacian assemblages are equivalent may maskvariations within the Early Aurignacian, and comparisons of someof the earliest and latest assemblages may be profitable.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a NERC Standard grant (NE/D014077/1) as part of the project ‘Dating of the Middle-UpperPalaeolithic transition in western Europe using ultrafiltration AMSradiocarbon’ for which we are extremely grateful. R. Wood wasfunded by a tied studentship to this grant. A. Villaluenga was fun-ded by the Basque Government Ph.D. funding program.

Roger Jacobi, British Museum, is thanked for discussions,invaluable advice in sample selection and bone identification. JavierFortea, Universidad de Oviedo, is thanked for help in sample se-lection and interpretation of results from La Viña. Both sadly passedaway during the course of this project. Maite Izquierdo, HeritagePreservation, Basque Government, is thanked for help samplingbone from Labeko Koba. Excavation and research at l’Arbreda isfunded by the Culture Ministry of Catalonia and the ministerialprojects HAR2010-19120 (The Middle Palaeolithic of the L’ArbredaCave) and HAR2010-22013 (Cultural, Paleoenvironmental andChronological History of the Last Neanderthals and Early ModernHumans in the North of the Iberian Peninsula).

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.12.017.

References

Andersen, K.K., Svensson, A., Johnsen, S.J., Rasmussen, S.O., Bigler, M.,Röthlisberger, R., Ruth, U., Siggaard-Andersen, M.-L., Peder Steffensen, J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Vinther, B.M., Clausen, H.B., 2006. The Greenland ice core chronology2005, 15e42 ka. Part 1: constructing the time scale. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 25, 3246e3257.

Arrizabalaga, A., 2000a. El yacimiento arqueológico de Labeko Koba (Arrasate, PaísVasco). Entorno. Crónica de las investigaciones. Estratigrafía y estructuras.Cronología absoluta. In: Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J. (Eds.), Labeko Koba (PaísVasco). Hienas y Humanos en los Albores del Paleolítico Superior, Munibe(Antropologia-Arkeologia) 52. Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi, San Sebastián-Donostia, pp. 15e72.

Arrizabalaga, A., 2000b. Los tecnocomplejos líticos del yacimiento arqueológico deLabeko Koba (Arrasate, País Vasco). In: Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J. (Eds.), LabekoKoba (País Vasco). Hienas y Humanos en los Albores del Paleolítico Superior,Munibe (Antropologia-Arkeologia) 52. Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi, SanSebastián-Donostia, pp. 193e343.

Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J. (Eds.), 2000. Labeko Koba (País Vasco). Hienas y Humanosen los Albores del Paleolítico Superior. Munibe (Antropologia-Arkeologia) 52.Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi, San Sebastián-Donostia.



http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0047-2484(14)00033-5/sref1























Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J., Areso, P., Elorza, M., García, M., Iriarte, M.J.,Mariezkurrena, K., Mujika, J., Pemán, E., Tarriño, A., Uriz, A., Viera, L., Straus, L.G.,2003. The initial Upper Paleolithic in northern Iberia: New evidence fromLabeko Koba. Curr. Anthropol. 44, 413e421.

Arrizabalaga, A., Bernaldo De Quirós, F., Bon, F., Iriarte, M.J., Maillo, J.M.,Normand, C., 2009. Early evidence of the Aurignacian in Cantabrian Iberia andthe North Pyrenees. In: Camps, M., Szmidt, C. (Eds.), The Mediterranean from50.000 to 25.000 BP: Turning points and new directions. Oxford, Oxbow,pp. 255e292.

Baena, J., Carrión, E., Velázquez, R., Manzano, I., 2005. Ocupaciones musterienses enla comarca de Liébana (Occidente de Cantabria, España). In: Santonja, M., Pérez-González, A., Machado, M.J. (Eds.), Geoarqueología y Patrimonio en la PenínsulaIbérica y el Entorno Mediterráneo. ADEMA, Soria, pp. 113e125.

Baena, J., Carrión, E., Cuartero, F., Fluck, H., 2011. A chronicle of crisis: The LateMousterian in north Iberia (Cueva del Esquilleu, Cantabria, Spain). Quatern. Int.24, 199e211.

Balme, J., Davidson, I., McDonald, J., Stern, N., Veth, P., 2009. Symbolic behaviour andthe peopling of the southern arc route to Australia. Quatern. Int. 202, 59e68.

Banks, W.E., d’Errico, F., Zilhão, J., 2013. Human climate interaction during the earlyUpper Paleolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between theProto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian. J. Hum. Evol. 64, 39e55.

Bar-Yosef, O., Bordes, J., 2010. Who were the makers of the Châtelperronian culture?J. Hum. Evol. 59, 586e593.

Barshay-Szmidt, C.C., Eizenberg, L., Deschamps, M., 2012. Radiocarbon (AMS) datingthe Classic Aurignacian, Proto-Aurignacian and Vasconian Mousterian at Gat-zarria Cave (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France). Paleo 23, 11e38.

Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey, C., van der Plicht, J., Whittle, A., 2007. Bradshaw andBayes: Towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 17 (Suppl),1e28.

Benazzi, S., Douka, K., Fornai, C., Bauer, C.C., Kullmer, O., Svoboda, J., Pap, I.,Mallegni, F., Bayle, P., Coquerelle, M., Condemi, S., Ronchitelli, A., Harvati, K.,Weber, G.W., 2011. Early dispersal of modern humans in Europe and implica-tions for Neanderthal behaviour. Nature 479, 525e529.

Bicho, N.F., 2000. Paleolithic occupation and environment of central and southernPortugal during Isotopic Stages 2 and 3. In: Vermeersch, P., Renault-Miskovsky, J. (Eds.), European Late Pleistocene Isotopic Stages 2 and 3: Humans,their Ecology and Cultural Adaptations. Eraul, Liege, pp. 43e56.

Bischoff, J.L., Julià, R., Mora, R., 1988. Uranium-series dating of the Mousterianoccupation at Abric Romaní, Spain. Nature 332, 68e70.

Bischoff, J.L., Soler, N., Maroto, J., Julià, R., 1989. Abrupt Mousterian/Aurignacianboundary at c. 40 ka bp: accelerator 14C dates from L’Arbreda Cave (Catalunya,Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 16, 563e576.

Bischoff, J.L., Ludwig, K., Garcia, J.F., Carbonell, E., Vaquero, M., Stafford, J.R.,T.W.,Jull, A.J.T., 1994. Dating of the basal Aurignacian sandwich at Abric Romaní(Catalunya, Spain) by radiocarbon and Uranium-series. J. Archaeol. Sci. 21, 541e551.

Bon, F., 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of the in-dustries of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhaeo, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian: Proceedingsof the Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25e30, 2002. Instituto Por-tugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 133e144.

Bon, F., Maíllo Fernández, J.M., Ortega, I., Cobos, D., 2006. El Auriñaciense arcaicopeninsular y sus relaciones con el sur de Francia: una aproximación tecnológica.In: Cabrera, V., Bernaldo de Quirós, F., Maíllo, J.M. (Eds.), En el Centenario de laCueva de el Castillo: El Ocaso de los Neandertales. Centro Asociado a la Uni-versidadNacional de Educación aDistancia enCantabria, Cantabria, pp. 325e345.

Brock, F., Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T., 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered bonedating. Radiocarbon 49, 187e192.

Brock, F., Higham, T., Ditchfield, P., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2010a. Current pretreatmentmethods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon AcceleratorUnit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52, 103e112.

Brock, F., Higham, T., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2010b. Pre-screening techniques for iden-tification of samples suitable for radiocarbon dating of poorly preserved bones.J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 855e865.

Brock, F., Wood, R., Higham, T.F.G., Ditchfield, P., Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2012.Reliability of nitrogen content (%N) and carbon:nitrogen atomic ratios (C:N) asindicators of collagen preservation suitable for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon54, 879e886.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009a. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51,337e360.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009b. Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating.Radiocarbon 51, 1023e1045.

Bronk Ramsey, C.B., Higham, T.F.G., Leach, P., 2004. Towards high-precision AMS:progress and limitations. Radiocarbon 46, 17e24.

Cabrera Valdes, V., Bischoff, J.L., 1989. Accelerator 14C dates for early upper paleo-lithic (basal Aurignacian) at El Castillo Cave (Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 16, 577e584.

Cabrera Valdés, V., Maíllo Fernández, J.M., Lloret, M., Bernaldo De Quirós, F., 2001. Latransition vers le Paléolithique supérieur dans la grotte du Castillo (Cantabrie,Espagne): la couche 18. L’Anthropologie 105, 505e532.

Camps, M., Higham, T.F.G., 2012. New AMS dates for Abric Romaní’s earliest Auri-gnacian. J. Hum. Evol. 62, 89e103.

Caron, F., d’Errico, F., Del Moral, P., Santos, F., Zilhãeo, J., 2011. The reality of Nean-dertal symbolic behavior at the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France. PlosOne 6, e21545.

Chase, P.C., Dibble, H.I., 1987. Middle Palaeolithic symbolism: A review of currentevidence and interpretation. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 6, 263e296.

Daura, J., Sanz, M., García, N., Allué, E., Vaquero, M., Fierro, E., Carrión, J.S., López-García, J.M., Blain, H.A., Sánchez-Marco, A., Valls, C., Albert, R.M., Fornós, J.J., Julià, R.,Fullola, J.M., Zilhão, J., 2013. Terrasses de la Riera dels Canyars (Gavà, Barcelona): thelandscape of Heinrich Stadial 4 north of the ‘Ebro frontier’ and implications formodern human dispersal into Iberia. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 60, 26e48.

Dee, M., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2000. Refinement of graphite target production at ORAU.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B 172, 449e453.

Delibras, G., Romain, O., Le Hasif, G., 1987. Datation par la méthode du carbone 14 duremplissage de la grotte del l’Arbreda. Cypsela VI, 133e135.

Demars, P.-Y., Hublin, J.-J., 1989. La transition Néandertaliens/hommes de typemoderne en Europe occidentale: aspects paléontologiques et culturels. In:Vandermeersch, B. (Ed.), L’Homme de Néandertal 7-La Transition. ERAUL, Liège,pp. 29e42.

d’Errico, F., 2003. The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin ofbehavioral modernity. Evol. Anthopol. 12, 188e202.

d’Errico, F., Sánchez Goñi, M.F., 2003. Neandertal extinction and the millennial scaleclimatic variability of OIS 3. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 22, 769e788.

d’Errico, F., Zilhão, J., Julien, M., Baffler, D., Pelegrin, J., 1998. Neanderthal accultur-ation in Western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpreta-tion. Curr. Anthropol. 39, S1eS44.

Douka, K., Grimaldi, S., Boschian, G., del Lucchese, A., Higham, T.F.G., 2012. A newchronostratigraphic framework for the Upper Palaeolithic of Riparo Mochi(Italy). J. Hum. Evol. 62, 286e299.

Douka, K., Higham, T., Wood, R., Boscato, R., Karkanas, P., Peresani, M.,Ronchitelli, A., 2014. On the chronology of the Uluzzian. J. Hum. Evol. 68, 1e13.

Fallon, S., Fifield, L., Chappell, J., 2010. The next chapter in radiocarbon dating at theAustralian National University: Status report on the single stage AMS. Nucl.Instrum. Meth. B 268, 298e901.

Finlayson, C., Carrión, J., 2007. Rapid ecological turnover and its impact on Nean-derthal and other human populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 213e222.

Finlayson, C., Giles Pacheco, F., Rodri

guez-Vidal, J., Fa, D.A., Mari

a Gutierrez Lo

pez, J.,Santiago Pe

rez, A., Finlayson, G., Allue, E., Baena Preysler, J., Ca

ceres, I.,Carrio

n, J.S., Ferna

ndez Jalvo, Y., Gleed-Owen, C.P., Jimenez Espejo, F.J., Lo

pez, P.,Antonio Lo

pez Sa

ez, J., Antonio Riquelme Cantal, J., Sa

nchez Marco, A., GilesGuzman, F., Brown, K., Fuentes, N., Valarino, C.A., Villalpando, A., Stringer, C.B.,Martinez Ruiz, F., Sakamoto, T., 2006. Late survival of Neanderthals at thesouthernmost extreme of Europe. Nature 443, 850e853.

Fortea Pérez, F.J., 1990. Abrigo de la Viña. Informe de las campañas 1980e1986.Excavaciones arqueológicas en Asturias: 1983-1986. In: Servicio de Pub-licaciones de la Consejería de Educación, Cultura, Deportes y Juentud, Oviedo,pp. 55e68.

Fortea Pérez, F.J., 1992. Abrigo de la Viña. Informe de las campañas 1987e1990.Excavaciones arqueológicas en Asturias: 1987e1990. In: Servicio de Pub-licaciones de la Consejería de Educación, Cultura, Deportes y Juentud, Oviedo,pp. 19e28.

Fortea Pérez, F.J., 1995. Abrigo de la Viña. Informe y primera valoracion de lascampañas 1991e1994. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias: 1991e1994. In:Servicio de Publicaciones de la Consejería de Educación, Cultura, Deportes yJuentud, Oviedo, pp. 19e32.

Fortea Pérez, F.J., 1996. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Espagne: Galice et Asturias(1991e1995). In: UISSP, Congrès de Forli, Commission Paléolithique Supérieur,Bilan 1991e1995. ERAUL, Liège, pp. 329e344.

Fortea Pérez, F.J., 1999. Abrigo de la Viña. Informe y primera valoración de lascampañas 1995e1998. Excavaciones arqueológicas en Asturias: 1995-1998. In:Servicio de Publicaciones de la Consejería de Educación, Cultura, Deportes yJuventud, Oviedo, pp. 31e41.

Fortea Pérez, F.J., 2001. El Paleolítico supérieur en Galacia y Asturias (1996e2000).In: Le Paléolithique Supérieur Européen. Bilan Quinquennal 1996e2001. Com-mission VIII e XIVe Congrès UISPP. ERAUL, Liège, pp. 149e160.

Fowler, A.J., Gillespie, R., Hedges, R.E.M., 1986. Radiocarbon dating of sediments.Radiocarbon 28, 441e450.

Gravina, B., Mellars, P., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2005. Radiocarbon dating of interstratifiedNeanderthal and early modern human occupations at the Châtelperroniantype-site. Nature 438, 51e56.

Grün, R., 2006. Direct dating of human fossils. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 49, 2e48.Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk Ramsey, C., Van Klinken, G.J., 1994. Radiocarbon

dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist 18. Archaeometry36, 337e374.

Henshilwood, C.S., Marean, C.W., 2003. The origin of modern human behavior:Critique of the models and their test implications. Curr. Anthropol. 44, 627e651.

Higham, T., 2011. European Middle and Upper Palaeolithic radiocarbon dates areoften older than they look: problems with previous dates and some remedies.Antiquity 85, 235e249.

Higham, T.F.G., Jacobi, R., Julien, M., David, F., Basell, L., Wood, R., Davies, W.,Ramsey, C.B., 2010. Chronology of the Grotte du Renne (France) and implica-tions for the context of ornaments and human remains within the Châ-telperronian. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 20234e20239.

Higham, T.F.G., Compton, T., Stringer, C., Jacobi, R., Shapiro, B., Trinkaus, E.,Chandler, B., Gröning, F., Collins, C., Hillson, S., O’Higgins, P., FitzGerald, C.,Fagan, M., 2011a. The earliest evidence for anatomically modern humans innorthwestern Europe. Nature 479, 521e524.

Higham, T.F.G., Jacobi, R.M., Basell, L., Bronk Ramsey, C., Chiotti, L., Nespoulet, R.,2011b. Precision dating of the Palaeolithic: A new radiocarbon chronology for















































































































































































































































the Abri Pataud (France), a key Aurignacian sequence. J. Hum. Evol. 61, 549e563.

Higham, T.F.G., Basell, L., Jacobi, R.M., Wood, R., Bronk Ramsey, C., Conard, N.J., 2012.Testing models for the beginnings of the Aurignacian and the advent of figu-rative art and music: the radiocarbon chronology of Geißenklösterle. J. Hum.Evol. 62, 664e676.

Holliday, T.W., 2003. Comment. In: Henshilwood, C.S., Marean, C.W. (Eds.), Theorigin of modern human behavior: critique of the models and their test im-plications. Curr. Anthropol. 44, 627e651.

Hublin, J.-J., Talamo, S., Julien, M., David, F., Connet, N., Bodu, P., BernardVandermeersch, B., Richards, M.P., 2012. Radiocarbon dates from the Grotte duRenne and Saint-Césaire support a Neandertal origin for the Châtelperronian.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 18743e18748.

Jacobi, R.M., Higham, T.F.G., Haesaerts, P., Jadin, I., Basell, L.S., 2010. Radiocarbonchronology for the early Gravettian of Northern Europe: New AMS de-terminations for Maisières-Canal, Belgium. Antiquity 84, 26e40.

Jöris, O., Street, M., 2008. At the end of the 14C time scale-the Middle to UpperPaleolithic record of western Eurasia. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 782e802.

Jöris, O., Álvarez Fernández, A., Weninger, B., 2003. Radiocarbon evidence of theMiddle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southwestern Europe. Trabajos Pre-hist 60, 15e38.

Kozlowski, J.K., 2006. Early human migrations: Incipient stages of Old Worldpeopling. Diogenes 53, 9e22.

Macken, A.C., Staff, R.A., Reed, E.H., 2013. Bayesian age-depth modelling of LateQuaternary deposits from Wet and Blanche Caves, Naracoorte, South Australia:A framework for comparative faunal analyses. Quatern. Geochronol. 17, 26e43.

Maíllo Fernández, J.M., Valladas, H., Bernaldo De Quirós, F., Cabrera Valdés, V., 2001.Nuevas dataciones para el Paleolítico Superior de Cueva Morín (Villanueva deVillaescusa, Cantabria). Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Prehist. Arqueol. 14, 145e150.

Maroto, J., Soler, N., Fullola, J.M., 1996. Cultural change between Middle and Upperpalaeolithic in Catalonia. In: Carbonell, E., Vaquero, M. (Eds.), The Last Neander-tals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans, Cultural Change and Human Evo-lution: The Crisis at 40 ka BP. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Barcelona, pp. 219e250.

Maroto, J., Vaquero, M., Arrizabalaga, A., Baena, J., Carrión, E., Jordá, J., Martinón, M.,Menéndez, M., Montes, R., Rosell, J., 2005. Problemática del Paleolítico Medioreciente en el Norte Peninsular. In: Montes, R., Lasheras, J.A. (Eds.), NeandertalesCantábricos. Estado de la Cuestión. Museo de Altamira, Santander, pp. 101e114.

Maroto, J., Vaquero, M., Arrizabalaga, A., Baena, J., Baquedano, E., Jordá, J., Julià, R.,Montes, R., van der Plicht, J., Rasines, P., Wood, R., 2012. Current issues in lateMiddle Palaeolithic chronology: new assessments from northern Iberia. Qua-tern. Int. 247, 15e25.

Martinez-Moreno, J., Mora, R., de la Torre, I., 2010. The Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithictransition in Cova Gran (Catalunya, Spain) and the extinction of Neanderthals inthe Iberian Peninsula. J. Hum. Evol. 58, 211e226.

Mellars, P., 1999. The Neanderthal problem continued. Curr. Anthropol. 40, 341e364.

Mellars, P., 2004. Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe.Nature 432, 461e465.

Mellars, P., 2006. Archaeology and the dispersal of modern humans in Europe:deconstructing the ‘Aurignacian’. Evol. Anthropol. 15, 167e182.

Michel, V., Delanghe-Sabatier, D., Bard, E., Barroso Ruiz, C., 2013. U-series, ESR and14C studies of the fossil remains from the Mousterian levels of Zafarraya Cave(Spain): A revised chronology of Neandertal presence. Quatern. Geochronol. 15,20e33.

Moreno, A., González-Sampériz, P., Morellón, M., Valero-Garcés, B.L., Fletcher, W.J.,2012. Northern Iberian abrupt climate change dynamics during the last glacialcycle: a view from lacustrine sediments. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 36, 139e153.

Moroni, A., Boscato, P., Ronchitelli, A., 2013. What roots for the Uluzzian? Modernbehaviour in central-southern Italy and hypotheses on AMH dispersal routes.Quatern. Int. 316, 27e44.

Mujika, J., 2000. La industria ósea del Paleolítico Superior Inicial de Labeko Koba(Arrasate, País Vasco). In: Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J. (Eds.), Labeko Koba (PaísVasco). Hienas y Humanos en los Albores del Paleolítico Superior, Munibe(Antropologia-Arkeologia) 52. Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi, San Sebastián-Donostia, pp. 355e376.

Naughton, F., Sanchez Gonei, M.F., Desprat, S., Turon, J., Duprat, J., Malaize, B., Joli, C.,Cortijo, E., Drago, T., Freitas, M.C., 2007. Present-day and past (last 25 000 years)marine pollen signal off western Iberia. Mar. Micropaleontol. 62, 91e114.

Ortega, D., Soler, N., Maroto, J., 2005. La production des lamelles pendant l’aur-ignacien archaïque dans a grotte de l’Arbreda: organisation de la productionvariabilité des méthodes et des objectives. In: Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Pro-duction Lamellaires Attribuées à l’Aurignacien: Chaînes Opératoires et Per-spectives Technoculturelles. Actes du XIVe congrès de l’UISPP (Liege, 2001),Archéologiques 1. MNHA, Luxembourg, pp. 359e373.

Pellegrin, J., 1990. Observations technologiques sur quelques séries du Châ-telperronien et du MTA B du sud-ouest de la France. Une hypothèse d’évolution,Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe. Rup-tures et transitions: examen critique des documents archéologiques. In:Farizy, C. (Ed.), Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-de-France 3. ColloqueInternational de Nemours, Nemours, pp. 195e201.

Pellegrin, J., 1995. Technologie Lithique: Le Châtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot)et de la Côte (Dordogne). CNRS Éditions, Paris.

Pike, A.W.G., Hoffmann, D.L., García-Diez, M., Pettitt, P.B., Alcolea, J., De Balbin, R.,González-Sainz, C., de las Heras, C., Lasheras, J.A., Montes, R., Zilhão, J., 2012. U-series dating of Paleolithic art in 11 caves in Spain. Science 336, 1409e1413.

Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., BronkRamsey, C., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M.,Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.A.,Kromer, B., Mccormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A.,Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., Van Der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E.,2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000years cal BP. Radiocarbon 59, 1111e1150.

Richter, D.,Waiblinger, J., Rink,W.J.,Wagner, G.A., 2000. Thermoluminescence, electronspin resonanceand 14C-datingof the lateMiddle andearlyUpperPalaeolithic site ofGeißenklösterle Cave in southern Germany. J. Archaeol. Sci. 27, 71e89.

Riel-Salvatore, J., 2009. What is a ‘transitional’ industry? The Uluzzian of southernItaly as a case study. In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P. (Eds.), Sourcebook of PaleolithicTransitions: Methods, Theories, and Interpretations. Springer, New York,pp. 377e396.

Ríos-Garaizar, J., Arrizabalaga, A., Villaluenga, A., 2012. Haltes de chasse du Châ-telperronien de la Péninsule Ibérique. Labeko Koba et Ekain (Pays Basquepéninsulaire). L’Anthropologie 116, 532e549.

Sacchi, D., Soler, N., Maroto, J., Domènech, E., 1996. La question de l’Aurignacientardif dans le domaine méditerranéen nord-occidental. The Upper Palaeolithic.In: Montet-White, A., Palma Di Cesnola, A., Valochs, K. (Eds.), Colloquium XI:The Late Aurignacian. Colloquium XII: The Origin of the Gravetian. InternationalCongress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlì, pp. 23e40.

Santamaría, D., 2012. La Transición del Paleolítico Medio al Superior en Asturias. ElAbrigo de La Viña (La Manzaneda, Oviedo) y la Cueva de El Sidrón (Borines,Piloña). Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo.

Schmidt, I., Bradtmöller, M., Kehl, M., Pastoors, A., Tafelmaier, Y., Weninger, B.,Weniger, G.-C., 2012. Rapid climate change and variability of settlement pat-terns in Iberia during the Late Pleistocene. Quatern. Int 274, 179e220.

Soler, N., Maroto, J., 1987. Els nivells d’ocupació del Paleolìtic Superior a la Cova del’Arbreda (Serinyà, Girona). Cypsela VI, 221e228.

Soler Subils, J., Soler Masferrer, N., Maroto, J., 2008. L’Arbreda’s archaic Aurignaciandates clarified. Eurasian Prehist. 5, 45e55.

Straus, L.G., 1989. Age of the modern Europeans. Nature 342, 476e477.Straus, L.G., 2005. A mosaic of change: The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition as

viewed from New Mexico and Iberia. Quatern. Int 137, 47e67.Stuart, A.J., Kosintsev, P.A., Higham, T.F.G., Lister, A.M., 2004. Pleistocene to

Holocene extinction dynamics in giant deer and woolly mammoth. Nature 431,684e689.

Svensson, A., Andersen, K.K., Bigler, M., Clausen, H.B., Dahl-Jensen, D., Davies, S.M.,Johnsen, S.J., Muscheler, R., Rasmussen, S.O., Röthlisberger, R., PederSteffensen, J., Vinther, B.M., 2006. The Greenland ice core chronology 2005, 15e42 ka. Part 2: comparison to other records. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 25, 3258e3267.

Szmidt, C.C., Normand, C., Burr, G.S., Hodgins, G.W.L., LaMotta, S., 2010. AMS 14Cdating the Proto-Aurignacian/Early Aurignacian of Isturitz, France. Implicationsfor Neanderthalemodern human interaction and the timing of technical andcultural innovations in Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 758e768.

Talamo, S., Soressi, M., Roussel, M., Richards, M., Hublin, J.-J., 2012. A radiocarbonchronology for the complete Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transitional sequenceof Les Cottés (France). J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 175e183.

Teyssandier, N., Liolios, D., 2003. Defining the earliest Aurignacian in the SwabianAlp: the relevance of the technological study of the Geißenklösterle (Baden-Württemberg, Germany) lithic and organic productions. In: Zilhão, J., d’Errico, F.(Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Tech-nocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, Trabalhos deArqueologia 33. Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 179e196.

Tisne

rat-Laborde, N., Valladas, H., Kaltnecker, E., Arnold, M., 2003. AMS radiocarbondating of bones at LSCE. Radiocarbon 45, 409e419.

Torres, T., Ortiz, J.E., Grün, R., Eggins, S., Valladas, H., Mercier, N., Tisnérat-Laborde, N., Juliá, R., Soler, V., Martínez, E., Sánchez-Moral, S., Cañaveras, J.C.,Lario, J., Badal, E., Lalueza-Fox, C., Rosas, A., Santamaría, D., de la Rasilla, M.,Fortea, J., 2010. Dating of the hominid (Homo neanderthalensis) remains accu-mulation from El Sidrón Cave (Piloña, Asturias, North Spain): an example of amulti-methodological approach to the dating of Upper Pleistocene sites.Archaeometry 52, 680e705.

Trinkaus, E., 2005. Early modern humans. A. Rev. Anthropol. 34, 207e230.Trinkaus, E., 2007. European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 7367e7372.Van Klinken, G.J., 1999. Bone collagen quality indicators for palaeodietary and

radiocarbon measurements. J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 687e695.Vaquero, M., Carbonell, E., 2012. Some clarifications on the Middle-Upper Paleo-

lithic transition in Abric Romaní: reply to Camps and Higham (2012). J. Hum.Evol. 63, 711e717.

Vaquero, M., Maroto, J., Arrizabalaga, A., Baena, J., Baquedano, E., Carrión, E., Jordá, J.,Martinón, M., Menéndez, M., Rosell, J., 2006. The Neandertal-modern humanmeeting in Iberia: a critical view on the cultural, geographical and chronologicaldata. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. KernsVerlag, Tübingen, pp. 419e439.

Vega Toscano, L.G., Hoyos, M., Ruiz-Bustos, A., Laville, H., 1988. La séquence de lagrotte de la Carihuela (Piñar, Grenade): chronostratigraphie et paléoécologie duPléistocène supérieurau sud de la Péninsule Ibérique. In: Otte, M. (Ed.),L’Homme de Neandertal 2, L’Environement. Études et Recherches Arché-ologiques de l’Université de Liège 29, Liège, pp. 169e180.

Villaluenga, A., Arrizabalaga, A., Rios-Garaizar, J., 2012. Multidisciplinar approach totwo Chatelperronian series: Lower IX layer of Labeko Koba and X level of Ekain(Basque Country, Spain). J. Taphonomy 10 (3e4), 499e520.

































































































































































































































Wadley, L., 2001. What is cultural modernity? A general view and a South Africanperspective from Rose Cottage Cave. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 11, 201e221.

White, R., Mensan, R., Bourrillon, R., Cretin, C., Higham, T., Clark, A., Sisk, M.,Tartar, E., Gardère, P., Goldberg, P., Pelegrin, J., Valladas, H., Tisnerat-Laborde, N.,de Sanoit, J., Chambellan, D., Chiotti, L., 2012. Context and dating of Aurignacianvulvar representations from Abri Castanet, France. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109,8450e8455.

Wood, R.E., Barroso-Ruiz, C., Caparros, M., Jorda, J.F., Galvan Santos, B.,Higham, T.F.G., 2013a. Radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late chronology ofthe Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southern Iberia. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. 110, 2781e2786.

Wood, R.E., Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T.F.G., 2010. Refining background correctionsfor radiocarbon dating of bone collagen at ORAU. Radiocarbon 52, 600e611.

Wood, R.E., Douka, K., Boscato, P., Haesaerts, P., Sinitsyn, A., Higham, T.F.G., 2012.Testing the ABOx-SC method: dating known age charcoals associated with theCampanian Ignimbrite. Quatern. Geochronol. 9, 16e26.

Wood, R.E., Higham, T.F.G., Torres, T. de, Tisnérat-Laborde, N., Valladas, H., Ortiz, J.E.,Lalueza-Fox, C., Sánchez-Moral, S., Cañaveras, J.C., Rosas, A., Santamaría, D.,

Rasilla, M. de la, 2013b. A new date for the Neanderthals from El Sidrón Cave(Asturias, Northern Spain). Archaeometry 55, 148e158.

Yokoyama, Y., Nguyen, H.-V., Quaegebeur, J.P., Le Hasif, G., Romain, O., 1987. Datationpar l’spectrométrie gamma non destructive et al Résonance de Spin Életronique(ESR) du remplissage de la grotte de l’Arbreda. Cypsela VI, 137e143.

Zilhão, J., 1993. Le Passage du Paléolithique moyen au Paléolithique supérieur dans lePortugal. In: CabreraValdés, V. (Ed.), El OrigendelHombreModerno enel Suroestede Europa. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, pp. 127e145.

Zilhão, J., 2006a. Chronostratigraphy of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transitionin the Iberian Peninsula. Pyrenae 37, 7e84.

Zilhaeo, J., 2006b. Neandertals and moderns mixed, and it matters. Evol. Anthropol15, 183e195.

Zilhão, J., d’Errico, F., 2003. The chronology of the Aurignacian and transitionaltechnocomplexes. Where do we stand? In: Zilhão, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), TheChronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes:Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Instituto Portugues de Arqueolo-gia, Lisboa, pp. 313e349.
















































Date post:	27-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tfg
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

The chronology of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic in northern Iberia: New insights from L'Arbreda,...

Documents