Thoughts on the Structure of the European Aurignacian, with Particular Focus on Hohle Fels IV

Abstract

Western Europe is often used as the basis from which to understand the Aurignacian of other regions. For some there is good inter-regional chronocultural agreement, whereas others see significant difference. One region frequently argued to differ is the Swabian Jura (southern Germany). In a recent contribution to this issue Bataille and Conard (2018) describe the Aurignacian assemblage from Layer IV of Hohle Fels. They convincingly outline important similarities with the Western European Late Aurignacian. However, they also argue that it is older than, and different from, the most comparable Western European assemblages, and therefore that it contradicts an Aurignacian chronocultural framework built on Western European evidence. Here we assess this claim, focusing on the sites used by Bataille and Conard in their comparison. Radiocarbon dates for Hohle Fels IV of 33–30,000 uncal bp are no older than dates for Western European Late Aurignacian assemblages. Most of the features of Hohle Fels IV argued to demonstrate its dissimilarity are, in fact, evident in the Western European Late Aurignacian. One potential difference is the reported absence from Hohle Fels IV of microblades with inverse/alternate retouch. However, due to the near absence of laterally retouched microblades and uncertainty over whether the fine fraction has been searched we doubt the significance of this observation. Other recent publications have similarly suggested that the Western European chronocultural model is incompatible with other regions. In light of this we consider Eastern Europe. Despite some difference, reliable data point to the pene-contemporaneity of characteristic bladelet/microblade technologies between the two regions, a pattern that stratigraphies from sites across Europe are also consistent with. The biggest complicating factor is radiocarbon dating, which has created a culturally complex picture that is inconsistent with all chronostratigraphic data. We therefore offer some thoughts as to the use of radiocarbon dates for this period. Despite ongoing problems dates are still frequently presented with an unwarranted confidence in their accuracy. Their presentation should instead explicitly acknowledge the method’s fallibility and its inferiority to more reliable evidence such as chronostratigraphic patterning and tephra. When radiocarbon dates contradict a consistent chronostratigraphic picture the burden of proof falls to those arguing the dates’ veracity. In these cases, the reasons for the discrepancy between the radiocarbon and chronostratigraphic records require exploration.

Eastern Europe’s “Transitional Industry”?: Deconstructing the Early Streletskian

“…The HYP pre-treated AMS date for the Kostenki 14 EUP-age burial, for example harmonises with its position relative to the CI tephra, and with an ABOx-treated charcoal determination and the inferred age of microliths occupying a similar stratigraphic position at the site (Douka et al 2010;Marom et al 2012;Dinnis et al 2019a). New HYP dates for Kostenki 17 are similarly consistent with their chronostratigraphic relationship with the CI tephra, and with an inter-regional chronocultural framework built on microlith forms (Dinnis et al 2019a(Dinnis et al , 2019b. Likewise, HYP pre-treated AMS dates for Kostenki 18 and for Abri Blanchard are consistent with their chronology based on material culture comparison with betterdated sites nearby (Reynolds et al 2017;Bourrillon et al 2018).…”

“…In another example, Bosinski (2017) has related the Layer IVb assemblage from Kostenki 14 to the Streletskian, due to the presence of bifacially flaked artefacts of perceived Middle Palaeolithic character. Overall, however, Kostenki 14 Layer IVb is incomparable to Kostenki's Streletskian point assemblages, instead showing some similarity to (Proto-)Aurignacian lithic industries (Bataille et al 2018;Dinnis et al 2019bDinnis et al , 2020. In our view, the presence of bifacially flaked artefacts alone is insufficient to infer inter-assemblage and especially diachronic cultural connections, particularly as these tools may be expedient solutions to activities that were recurrent through the Late Pleistocene (Hoffecker 2002;Hoffecker et al 2018).…”

The Tempo of Cultural Change in the Kostenki Upper Paleolithic: Further Insights

“…It is currently dated to 34.5-33 ka BP (Dinnis et al 2019a) (Figure 2). Another typically Aurignacian assemblage from Layer III of Kostenki 1 is likely to be (at least broadly) contemporary (Dinnis et al 2019a(Dinnis et al , 2019b. Slightly older layers at Kostenki 14 and Kostenki 17 (Figure 2) share some attributes with Proto-Aurignacian assemblages (Dinnis et al 2019a(Dinnis et al , 2019b(Dinnis et al , 2020.…”

“…More broadly, the range of ∼33.5-25.5 ka BP proposed by Hoffecker et al (2018: 54) for a functional variant of the Aurignacian supposes a long and late Aurignacian chronology that is highly unlikely. The latest Aurignacian layers in Western Europe and in the Upper and Middle Danube regions seem to predate 29 ka BP (Jöris et al 2010;Higham et al 2011;Dinnis et al 2019b), and there is good chronostratigraphic agreement of Aurignacian-type bladelet tools between Eastern and Western Europe (Dinnis et al 2019b). Furthermore, comparable (post-Aurignacian) Gravettian material in Western, Central and Eastern Europe is apparently evident by 28.5 ka BP (Jöris et al 2010;Reynolds and Green 2019;Douka et al 2020).…”

First large‐scale provenance study of pigments reveals new complex behavioural patterns during the Upper Palaeolithic of south‐western Germany

“…2017), personal ornaments (White 1995; Vanhaeren and D'Errico 2006), and complex lithic technology (Bataille and Conard 2018; Dinnis et al . 2019), suggest forms of complex and well‐established symbolically mediated behaviours. The use of ochre and pigments is included in this palimpsest, yet much reporting focuses on Western European contexts.…”