Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution

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

Reassessing the Aurignacian of Slovenia: Techno-economic behaviour

and direct dating of osseous projectile points
Luc Moreau a, *, Bo
stjan Odar b, Tom Higham c, Aleksander Horvat d, Darja Pirkmajer e,
Peter Turk f
a
MONREPOS Archaeological Research Centre and Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution, Schloss Monrepos, 56567 Neuwied, Germany
b
Regentova 2, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
c
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
d
Ivan Rakovec Institute of Palaeontology, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e
Pokrajinskij muzej Celje, Trg Celjskih knezov 8, 3000 Celje, Slovenia
f
Narodni muzej Slovenije, Pre
sernova cesta 20, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Palaeolithic of southern Central Europe has a long history of archaeological research. Particularly, the
Received 27 April 2014 presence of numerous osseous projectile points in many early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP) assemblages in
Accepted 29 September 2014 this region has attracted the attention of the international research community. However, the scarcity of
Available online 11 December 2014
properly identified and well-dated Aurignacian contexts represents an obstacle for investigation of the
nature and timing of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition. In this context, the question of whether
Keywords:
Neandertals made Aurignacian osseous projectile points, either on their own or as a consequence of
Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition
cultural interaction with anatomically modern humans (AMH), still remains an open issue. Here we
Southern Central Europe
Lithic technology
reassess the EUP record of Slovenia by evaluating the Aurignacian character of the assemblages from
Raw material economy Poto
cka zijalka, Mokri
ska jama and Divje babe I in the light of their suggested roots in the local Mous-
Organic points terian. We provide a comprehensive description of the lithic industry from Poto
cka zijalka, which rep-
AMS dating resents one of the rare EUP assemblages of southern Central Europe with a representative number of
lithic artefacts to be analysed from the perspective of lithic technology and raw material economy. Our
re-analysis of the Slovenian assemblages is backed by a series of 11 new ultrafiltered collagen 14C dates
obtained directly on associated osseous projectile points from the studied assemblages. The Aurignacian
of Poto
cka zijalka underlines the remarkable consistency of the Early Aurignacian with low typo-
technological variability across Europe, resulting from a marked dependence on transported toolkits
and raw material conservation. The new radiocarbon determinations for the Aurignacian of Slovenia
appear to post-date the 34e32 ka BP (thousands of years before present) threshold for the last Nean-
dertals in the region. Although not falsified, the hypothesis of Aurignacian bone tools in southern Central
Europe as a product of late Neandertals is not supported by our re-examination of the EUP record of
Slovenia.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
The transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic (UP) is one
of the most complex cultural and socio-economic changes in
Eurasian prehistory to understand, given the interaction between
palaeoanthropological, genetic and archaeological lines of evi-
dence. Among the most visible outcomes of this major de-
mographic process that took place in Europe between ca. 40e30 ka
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: moreau@rgzm.de (L. Moreau).
14
C BP (thousands of radiocarbon years before present) are the
replacement of Neandertals by anatomically modern humans
(AMH) and the emergence of explicit objects of symbolic commu-
nication (e.g., d'Errico et al., 1998, 2003; Conard and Bolus, 2003;
Mellars, 2005; Vanhaeren and d'Errico, 2006; Zilha ~o, 2007; Jo€ ris
and Street, 2008; Conard, 2009; Conard et al., 2009). However,
the timing and process of the extinction of the last Neandertals, as
well as the degree to which Neandertals contributed culturally and
genetically to the European UP are matters of ongoing debate by
palaeoanthropologists, geneticists and archaeologists, with little
consensus in sight (e.g., Zilh~ao, 2006a; Benazzi et al., 2011; Higham
et al., 2012, 2013; Banks et al., 2013a,b; Wall et al., 2013; Prüfer

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.09.007
0047-2484/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180
et al., 2014; Ronchitelli et al., 2014; Wood et al., 2014). Given the
multi-causal relationships behind this bioculturally complex phe-
nomenon, and since the emergence of UP technology in Europe was
temporally and spatially varied, the need to investigate the process
of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe from a
regional perspective has been repeatedly emphasized (e.g.,
Brantingham et al., 2004; Chabai et al., 2004; Adler et al., 2006;
Conard et al., 2006; Anghelinu et al., 2012). Regional approaches
are the prerequisites for achieving refined definitions of archaeo-
logical entities based on assemblage variability without conveying
implicit assumptions about the nature of the process involved
(Kuhn et al., 2004; Bar-Yosef, 2006; Zilha ~o, 2006b). This paper
presents 11 new direct AMS radiocarbon determinations on diag-
nostic osseous points along with a re-evaluation of the Slovenian
early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP) record regarding chrono-cultural
characterization and techno-economic behaviour, allowing the
comparison of the Aurignacian of Slovenia to that of adjoining re-
gions for the first time.
EUP osseous technology in eastern and southern Central Europe
Central Europe plays a key role in understanding the nature and
timing of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition. Its
geographical position is fundamental to the models proposed for
the dispersal of the EUP Aurignacian sensu lato (e.g., Davies, 2001;
Conard and Bolus, 2003; Svoboda, 2007; Teyssandier, 2008;
Mellars, 2011; Nigst, 2012), and, by association, with the spread
of AMH (Bailey et al., 2009). The importance of the area, especially
its southern (Slovenia, Croatia) and eastern (Slovakia, Hungary)
parts, is furthermore reflected in the discussion on late Neandertal
refugia long after the appearance of the first AMH in the region
(Smith et al., 1999; Higham et al., 2006a; Anghelinu et al., 2012).
The site of Vindija in NW Croatia plays a key role in this discussion
(Karavanic and Smith, 1998, 2000; Smith et al., 1999). However, the
scenario of prolonged survival of Neandertals in southern Central
Europe, as suggested by previous direct radiocarbon results (Smith
et al., 1999; Karavanic, 2007), has been seriously called into ques-
tion by re-dating of Neandertal remains and accompanying
archaeological material from Vindija, layer G1, to about 32e34 ka
BP, “and perhaps somewhat earlier” (Higham et al., 2006a: 555).
The new age estimates suggest at most a marginal chronological
overlap, hence interaction, between Neandertals and AMH in this
region. Despite a paucity of human fossil specimens from the crit-
ical time period in southern and eastern Central Europe, it now
seems clear that at least after 32e34 ka BP the archaeological re-
cord of Central Europe is entirely related to the activity of AMH
(Wild et al., 2005; Higham et al., 2006a; Bailey et al., 2009).
Owing to the occurrence of Neandertal remains and UP organic
artefacts at Vindija, layer G1, the purported idea of an UP osseous
technology rooted in the local Mousterian still remains an open
issue. The question of whether this particular association is the
result of post-depositional processes (Kozłowski, 1996; Mellars,
1999; Zilha ~o and d'Errico, 1999; Zilha~o, 2009) or whether Nean-
dertals were the makers of UP organic technology through contact
(i.e., exchange or acculturation) with AMH has been controversially
debated (Karavani c and Smith, 1998, 2000; Smith et al., 1999;
Straus, 1999; Karavani c, 2000, 2007). Both sides accept that Nean-
dertals to a certain degree contributed to UP lithic and bone tech-
nology, either on their own or as a consequence of cultural
interaction with AMH (d'Errico et al., 1998; Mellars, 1999; Zilh~ ao
and d'Errico, 1999; Svoboda, 2001). However, explanations for the
appearance of UP technology in southern Central Europe depend to
a large degree on the interpretation of the Vindija sequence.
Scholars viewing the assemblage of layer G1 as homogeneous
stress adaptive continuity between the Mousterian and EUP, and
159
accordingly view the Aurignacian mainly as a ‘taxonomic illusion’
to be interpreted in terms of adaptive strategies (Miracle, 1998;
Straus, 1999, 2009; Riel-Salvatore and Barton, 2004; Clark and
Riel-Salvatore, 2009). On the other hand, proponents of the Auri-
gnacian as a reliable and coherent chrono-cultural entity, exhibit-
ing a significant technological and cultural departure from the
Middle Palaeolithic, reject the association of Neandertals and UP
bone points at Vindija based on post-depositional disturbances and
require more convincing evidence than that provided by the Vindija
G complex (Mellars, 1999; Zilha~o and d'Errico, 1999; Zilha ~o, 2009).
Unfortunately, attempts to directly date the osseous projectile
points from Vindija, layer G1, including one split-based point, by
means of the radiocarbon method failed since they yielded no
extractable collagen and/or retained insoluble contaminants
(Karavanic and Smith, 1998; Karavani c et al., 1998; Smith et al.,
1999; Higham et al., 2006a). The gamma U-series determinations
made on a split-based point from Vindija layer G1, were rather
imprecise (U-Th: 45 ± 6; U-Pa: 30 ± 5; Karavani c et al., 1998), and
thus barely significant in the debate regarding Neandertal author-
ship of UP osseous technology.
Olschewian: a taxonomic conundrum
The Palaeolithic record of southern Central Europe has a long
history of archaeological research (summarized in Montet-White,
1996). Particularly, the presence of numerous osseous projectile
points in many EUP assemblages in this region has attracted the
attention of the international research community (Bayer, 1929;
Albrecht et al., 1972; Hahn, 1977; Knecht, 1993, 1997; Pacher,
2010; Verpoorte, 2012). The historiography of the term ‘Olsche-
wian’, first introduced by Josef Bayer in 1928, based on the results
of the first archaeological investigations by Sre
cko Brodar at
Poto
cka zijalka (Brodar and Bayer, 1928; Bayer, 1929), best reflects
the interpretive variability regarding cultural attribution and
functional assessment of the Slovenian EUP record.
The Olschewian initially represented a Central European EUP
cultural tradition clearly distinct from the Aurignacian and mainly
related to cave bear hunting activities at cave sites (Bayer, 1929).
The archaeological record of the Olschewian was typically char-
acterized by the presence of massive-based points, perforated
bones, as well as by a paucity of UP lithic artefacts (Bayer, 1929).
The term was soon abandoned due to the imprecision of the
definition and was subsumed within the broader framework of the
Aurignacian technocomplex (Brodar, 1959, 1971; Brodar and Osole,
1979; Brodar and Brodar, 1983). However, in the course of
controversial discussions regarding the cultural affiliation of the
UP organic technology associated with the Neandertal remains at
Vindija, the term was later restored to designate “a regional early
Upper Palaeolithic with possible roots in the local Mousterian”
(Karavani c, 2007: 84) and characterized by an UP ‘Aurignacian’
osseous technology manufactured by Neandertals (Karavanic and
Smith, 1998, 2000; Karavani c et al., 1998; Straus, 1999;
Karavani c, 2000, 2007). At the same time, the prevalence of
osseous projectile points over lithic artefacts in many Central
European cave sites has also been interpreted in more functional
terms connected with the importance of hunting activities
(B
anesz, 1965; Albrecht et al., 1972; Hahn, 1977; Montet-White,
1996; Svoboda, 2001; Djindjian et al., 2003; Kaminska  et al.,
2005; Verpoorte, 2012), while the limited number of lithic arte-
facts found at these sites altogether suggests episodic human visits
of logistical character (Karavanic, 2007).
It seems clear that the ongoing debates surrounding the nature
of the ‘Olschewian’ and its relationship with the classic ‘Early
Aurignacian’ are to a large extent linked with the scarcity of
properly identified and well-dated Aurignacian contexts in
160 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180

southern and eastern Central Europe. The coarse-grained chro-
nology for most of the cave deposits, possible biases by old exca-
vation techniques, and possible traces of contamination by non-
Aurignacian industries (Svoboda and Sim an, 1989; Svoboda,
2001) represent further obstacles for investigating the nature and
timing of cultural change from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic
in this region. In this context, a refined and reliable chronological
framework regarding the origins of Upper Palaeolithic technology
in southern and eastern Central Europe remains one of the main
desiderata of European Palaeolithic research.
In this paper, we pose the following research questions:
1. To what extent is the Slovenian EUP consistent with the
34e32 ka BP threshold following which no Neandertals are
likely to have been present in southern Central Europe?
2. To what degree does the Slovenian EUP conform to definitions of
either the ‘Early Aurignacian’ or ‘Evolved Aurignacian’ that serve
as reference frameworks for the Aurignacian of Western and
Central Europe?
3. Since two of the assemblages integrated into this study, Poto
cka
zijalka and Mokri
ska jama, represent the only EUP sites in
Europe located in a high-altitude mountainous landscape (i.e.,

1500 m above sea level [a.s.l.]), how does their topographical

Figure 1. Map of southern Central Europe showing the location of the Aurignacian sites of Poto
cka zijalka, Mokri
ska jama, and Divje babe I in Slovenia, as well as Vindija in Croatia.
 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180 161

location constrain technological organization and lithic assem-
blage characteristics?
In order to answer these questions, we re-evaluate the genuine
character of the split-based points documented at Poto
cka zijalka,
Mokri
ska jama and Divje babe I, and reassess the Aurignacian
character of the associated lithic assemblages in the light of their
suggested roots in the local Mousterian (Montet-White, 1996;
Karavani c and Smith, 1998; Karavanic, 2007). We provide a
comprehensive description of the lithic industry of Poto
cka zijalka,
which represents one of the rare EUP assemblages of southern
Central Europe with a representative number of lithic artefacts to
be analysed from the perspective of lithic technology and raw
material economy. Our re-analysis of the Slovenian assemblages is
backed by a series of 11 new ultrafiltered collagen 14C dates ob-
tained directly on associated osseous projectile points from Poto
cka
zijalka, Mokri
ska jama and Divje babe I.
In addressing these questions, we (1) integrate the variability of
the Slovenian EUP into inter-assemblage comparisons with
adjoining regions; (2) evaluate the influence of raw material
availability on stone tool design, transport, and maintenance, as
well as on overall assemblage characteristics (e.g., Bamforth, 1991;
Nelson, 1991; Kuhn, 1992; Andrefsky, 1994; Roth and Dibble, 1998);
(3) present a falsifiable hypothesis regarding the authorship of UP
osseous technology in the region, against the 34e32 ka BP
threshold. So far, the Palaeolithic record of Slovenia is devoid of any
fossil AMH remains. The only pre-LGM hominin remains in
southern Central Europe are Neandertals from Vindija and Krapina
in NW Croatia (Smith et al., 1999; Ahern et al., 2004). However,
since no Neandertals are known from the region after 34e32 ka BP
(Higham et al., 2006a), direct dating of osseous projectile points
provides an estimation for the beginnings of the osseous projectile
technology in Slovenia, hence their makers. Moreover, as Poto
cka
zijalka and Mokri
ska jama are only ca. 100 km away from Vindija,
our results have broader relevance.
In this context, there is a need to clarify definitions and reassess
the character of the Slovenian EUP assemblages in the light of
recent advances in the study of the variability in Aurignacian lithic
assemblages. An overview of the sites, including location, chrono-
stratigraphy, and osseous bone points, is given below.

ka zijalka
Potoc
Poto
cka zijalka (46 260 57.4200 N; 14 400 08.6900 E; 1630 m a.s.l.)
is a large limestone cave (ca. 115  40 m), located in the eastern part
of the Karavanke range on the southern side of the Olschewa
mountain (Ol
seva in Slovene), ca. 4 km north of the village of Sol-

cava (Fig. 1). The site is located well above the tree line. The cave
entrance opens to the south, ca. 1000 m above the Savinja River. The
vast majority of the EUP Aurignacian assemblage of Poto
cka zijalka
is derived from the excavations of Sre
cko Brodar (Brodar and
Brodar, 1983). Despite the absence of a square metre grid system,
the excavations were nevertheless rigorous. In addition to the
documentation of numerous profiles, the recording technique
allowed spatial plots of find distributions to be published in the first
monograph of the site half a century later (Brodar and Brodar, 1983:
Fig. 47e53).
Chrono-stratigraphy Deposits present at the cave entrance before
excavation were about 5 m deep. Brodar defined ten strata in the
stratigraphical profiles; these correspond to groups of different
lithologic units spanning the early Weichselian to the Holocene
(Brodar and Brodar, 1983). Brodar identified two main cultural
layers in the front, in layers 5 and 7, and two others in the rear
of the cave, in layers 4 and 5 (Brodar and Brodar, 1983) (Fig. 2).

Background

The EUP of Slovenia is securely known from three cave sites in

the southeastern Alpine region: Poto
cka zijalka, Mokri
ska jama,
and Divje babe I (Fig. 1). Unlike Divje babe I, Poto
cka zijalka and
Mokri
ska jama contain only Upper Palaeolithic stratigraphic units.
The Upper Palaeolithic bone tools and lithic formal tools from
these sites have been described previously (Brodar, 1960, 1985;
Brodar and Brodar, 1983; Turk and Kavur, 1997; Odar, 2008a,b;
Turk, 2014).
The taxonomic attributions for the Slovenian EUP have fluctu-
ated over time and vary from one author to another, creating a
confusing picture. In the years since its discovery in 1928, the EUP
from Poto
cka zijalka has been variously attributed to the Olsche-
wian tradition (Brodar and Bayer, 1928; Bayer, 1929; Narr, 1951;
Valoch, 1965; Montet-White, 1996; Karavanic et al., 1998), the
Aurignacian sensu lato (Albrecht et al., 1972; Brodar and Brodar,
1983; Pohar, 2004; Odar, 2008b; Pacher, 2010), a regional variant
of the Central European Aurignacian (Karavani c and Smith, 1998;
Karavani c, 2007), and the Evolved Aurignacian (Aurignacian II)
(Djindjian et al., 2003; Zilha ~o, 2009). The assemblage from Mok-
ri
ska jama has been attributed either to the Olschewian (Montet-
White, 1996; Karavani c et al., 1998; Karavanic, 2007) or the Early
Aurignacian, based on the presence of one point with a split base
(Brodar, 1985; Liolios, 2006; Zilha ~o, 2009). Finally, the small in-
ventory of Divje babe I (layer 2) has been attributed either to the
Olschewian (Karavani c et al., 1998; Karavani c, 2007) or to the
Aurignacian, based on the presence of a typical split-based point in Figure 2. Composite stratigraphic columns of Poto
cka zijalka and Mokri
ska jama
the assemblage (Turk and Kavur, 1997; Turk, 2014). (modified from Brodar, 1960; Brodar and Brodar, 1983).
162 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180

While osseous points were encountered in all cultural layers,
lithic artefacts derived exclusively from an area of ca. 300 m2
in the western sector of layer 7/front, associated with five large
and dense charcoal concentrations, which were interpreted as
hearths (Brodar and Brodar, 1983; Brodar, 1985). Given the vast
extension of the cave, differences in sedimentation, and the
presence of massive boulders separating the rear and front
parts of the cave, a correlation of the different layers
documented in various profiles could not be achieved (Brodar
and Brodar, 1983).
Osseous projectile points The archaeological record from Poto
cka
zijalka is outstanding in its abundant collection of osseous projec-
tile points (Fig. 3) (Brodar, 1960, 1985; Brodar and Brodar, 1983).
Altogether, Brodar reports having recovered a total of 125
complete and fragmentary osseous projectile points in the front
and rear parts of the cave (Table 1). Two additional points derive
from the recent excavations at the end of the 1990s (Pohar,
2004), while one point has been re-discovered in recent years in
the Groß collection from 1928, housed at the Landesmuseum für
Ka€rnten in Klagenfurt, Austria (Brodar, 2000).

Figure 3. Bone points from Poto
cka zijalka sampled for the new series of radiocarbon dates. 1: almost complete point (PZ-49); 2: proximal fragment (PZ-126); 3: proximal fragment
(PZ-121); 4: proximal fragment (PZ-128); 5: proximal fragment (PZ-112); 6: distal fragment (PZ-104); 7: distal fragment (PZ-54) (Photos: D. Badovinac).
 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180
Table 1
Poto
cka zijalka. Complete and fragmented osseous projectile points recovered by
Sre

cko Brodar (excavations 1928e1935) at the entrance and the rear of the cave.
Poto

cka zijalka Layer Number of specimens
Front 5 11
7 33
8 1
Rear 4 22
5 33
undetermined 25
Total
Two main morphological types of point have been recognized
(Turk, 2002, 2005; Odar, 2008a): 1) lanceolate points with
straight, or nearly-straight, convergent lateral margins, without
any marked discontinuity between the base and the mid-shaft,
and 2) spindle-shaped points with a marked discontinuity be-
tween the base and the mid-shaft. Cross-sections vary from flat or
flat-oval to oval. While the vast majority of osseous projectile
points at Poto
cka zijalka was made on bone (Brodar and Brodar,
1983; Odar, 2008a, 2011), antler and ivory were also used for
the manufacture of projectile points (Pacher, 2010). The assump-
tion that the bone points from Poto
cka zijalka were manufactured
on cave bear remains could not be supported conclusively by DNA
analyses (Hofreiter and Pacher, 2004). Given the absence of waste
products or rough-outs, which would indicate on-site production
of osseous points, it can reasonably be assumed that the latter
were made well in advance of use and imported as finished
products (Odar, 2008a). Since a substantial number of the osseous
projectile points were recovered at the rear of the cave ca. 100 m
away from the entrance, the osseous points likely anticipated
future needs, most probably associated with caching (Davies,
2001; Verpoorte, 2012).
Split-based point Besides an important number of massive-based
osseous points at Poto
cka zijalka, the recovery of a single split-
based point (PZ-102) in layer 5/front needs discussion (Fig. 4)
(Odar, 2011). The intentional character of the split base of this
point has been occasionally dismissed as a “naturally fissured
Figure 4. Split-based bone point from Poto
cka zijalka, layer 5/front (Photos: D. Badovinac).
163
object”, based on the observation that no material is missing
between the wings “as would have to be the case if the split
resulted from intentional manufacture” (Zilha ~o, 2009: 413). This
Total argument, which is based on the drawing of the point (in Brodar
45 and Brodar, 1983: 140), must be rejected since the recent study of
archaeological assemblages, in combination with experimental
reproductions, has demonstrated that narrow splits and no
80
material missing between the wings are common features among
Aurignacian split-based points (Knecht, 1991; Tartar and White,
125 2013). In the present case, the deep incisions visible on the lateral
views in the prolongation of the split of the base, the length of
the split relative to the complete length of the object, and the S-
shape of the split towards the tip likely resulting from direct
cleavage, firmly contradict the assumption of a naturally fissured
object (Fig. 4).
Given the overall shaping of the point, caution is certainly
needed regarding its raw material. While it has been asserted that
antler was the exclusive raw material for the manufacture of split-
based points (Otte, 1979; Liolios, 1999, 2006; Tartar and White,
2013), the point from Poto
cka zijalka seems more likely to have
been fabricated on bone. Since the physical properties and me-
chanics of bone make flexion an unnecessary intermediary step
(Tartar and White, 2013), we propose that direct cleavage, in
combination with incision of the base and lateral incisions to guide
the split, was the procedure adopted to create the split.
Mokriška jama
Mokri
ska jama is located on the Mokrica mountain in the
Kamnik-Savinja Alps (46 180 30.5500 N, 14 340 04.9100 E; 1500 m
a.s.l.). The cave (ca. 400 m2) has a northeast-facing entrance and is
situated some 880 m above the Kamni
ska Bistrica River (Brodar,
1960). The distance between Mokri
ska jama and Poto
cka zijalka is
ca. 15 km (Fig. 1). Systematic excavations, conducted under the
direction of Mitja Brodar, were mainly concentrated in the front of
the cave (Brodar, 1956, 1959, 1960, 1966). No spatial plots of find
distributions are available for Mokri
ska jama. However, given the
accuracy of stratigraphic documentation metre by metre and the
164 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180
sampling of each lithological layer for granulometric analyses
(Brodar, 1956), the attribution of cultural remains uncovered during
the excavations can be considered as sufficiently reliable.
Chrono-stratigraphy In the front part of the cave, M. Brodar
documented a 7 m-deep sequence, which he subdivided into 14
lithological layers (Fig. 2) (Brodar, 1956, 1960). In layer 6,
archaeological material was found in association with charcoal
(Brodar, 1960). In layer 7, Brodar further distinguished four,
2e3 cm thick, dark lenses, each with an extension of several m2
(Brodar, 1985). The osseous bone points from layer 7 were
consistently found in association with these lenses (Brodar, 1966),
which Brodar interpreted as successive occupation horizons
(Brodar, 1960, 1985). While remains of Ursus spelaeus are present
throughout the sequence, layer 7 also yielded faunal remains of
other species, such as Canis lupus, Panthera spelaea and Capra ibex
(Brodar, 1960).
Split-based point With the exception of one distal fragment of an
osseous projectile point discovered in a test pit in the rear of the
cave (Brodar, 1956), all Palaeolithic remains derive from the front
(Brodar, 1959, 1960, 1985). They have been attributed to the
Aurignacian based on the numerical importance of organic points
compared with lithic artefacts and the presence of one osseous
point with a split base (Brodar, 1960, 1985). However, the
archaeological record of Mokri
ska jama is fairly limited. A total of
nine osseous projectile points manufactured either on antler or
bone as well as 24 small lithic flakes and chips derive from a
secure stratigraphic context (Fig. 5) (Brodar, 1956, 1960). One
lithic artefact from layer 6 has been described by Brodar as a
distal fragment of a pointed blade or bladelet, possibly of
Gravettian type (Brodar, 1960). However, the latter implement
has not been made available for study and the drawing provided
by the excavator (Brodar, 1960: Taf. IV, 9) has no diagnostic value.
The osseous points from the front part of the cave derived
mainly from layer 7: two points from the lower part and five,
including one awl, from the upper part of layer 7 (Fig. 5: 6e12).
Only two osseous points were attributed to layer 6 and to the
interface of layers 6/7, respectively, while one osseous point was
found in the rear of the cave in a small test pit (Brodar, 1960, 1966).
Four points, of which two specimens can be considered almost
complete, stand out due to their noticeable flat cross-section (Fig. 5:
8, 11e12), which clearly differentiates them from the assemblage of
Poto
cka zijalka (Brodar, 1985). Among the flat points, the presence
of one point with a cleaved base discovered in layer 7, is worth
mentioning (Fig. 5: 8) (Brodar, 1960).
Ever since its discovery in the 1950s, the point with the
cleaved base and pointed tip has been invariably interpreted as a
split-based point, encouraging the attribution of the small
assemblage to the Aurignacian (Brodar, 1959, 1960, 1985). The
intentional shaping of the point to achieve its pointed form is
beyond question. However, after re-examination of the original,
we doubt the unequivocal anthropogenic creation of the basal
cleavage. In fact, the point seems to have been manufactured on
bone instead of antler, which is rather atypical of the large corpus
of split-based points elsewhere in Europe (Otte, 1979; Liolios,
1999; Tartar and White, 2013). Aside from the observation that
both faces of the point present a cortical surface, the jagged edge
of the wings strongly supports the identification of the raw ma-
terial as bone. We were not able to further assess the original
shape of the worked bone, either a flat bone (e.g., rib) or the outer
cortex of a larger bone from a medium or large-sized mammal.
However, since a closer look at the base of the point did not reveal
any unusual working or wear patterns related to hafting, we
believe the splitting is more likely to be a by-product of a natural
fracture than an intentional basal split related to the hafting of the
point.
Divje babe I
Divje babe I is a large cave (45  15 m) located in western
Slovenia, in the Dinarides (46 060 44.9900 N, 13 540 56.4500 E; 450 m


a.s.l.). The cave opens on the northern face of the Sebrelje plateau,
230 m above the Idrijca River, near the city of Idrija (Fig. 1).
Despite many years of rigorous excavations and the recovery of
numerous charcoal concentrations, Divje babe I yielded a total of
less than 1000 lithic artefacts, nearly one-third of which are small
flakes and chips lighter than 1 g (Turk and Kavur, 1997; Turk and
Turk, 2014). Since the bulk of the fauna has been identified as
U. spelaeus and probably relates to the use of the cave as a winter
den by bears, human occupation must have been episodic, while
the tenancy of Divje babe I must have been firmly in the hands of
hibernating bears throughout the sequence (Turk et al., 1988;
Miracle, 1991).
Chrono-stratigraphy The Upper Pleistocene deposits at Divje babe I
reach a maximum thickness of about 12.5 m. The sequence spans
the last Interglacial (MIS 5) to the last Glacial (MIS 3) based on
chronometric (14C, electron spin resonance (ESR)) dates, and is
divided into ten main Middle Palaeolithic layers and one Upper
Palaeolithic layer (Turk, 2007, 2014). The latter was assigned to the
Aurignacian, based on the presence of a single split-based osseous
point (Turk, 1997, 2007, 2014). Two radiometric dates for layer 2,
obtained on a cave bear pelvis and tooth, yielded age estimates of
35,300 ± 700 14C BP (RIDDL-734) (Nelson, 1997) and 40 ± 5 ka
ESR (Blackwell et al., 2009), respectively. However, since the
archaeological material itself has not been dated directly, nothing
indicates that the Aurignacian occupation identified in layer 2 is,
or should be, of the same age as the cave bear bone recovered
therein (Turk, 2007).
Split-based point and UP lithic assemblage Archaeological remains
from layer 2 are limited to seven lithic artefacts and four osseous
projectile points, of which one is split-based (Fig. 6) (Turk and
Kavur, 1997; Turk, 2014). The raw material of the latter has been
identified as bone (Turk and Kavur, 1997) or antler (Pacher, 2010).
A visual comparison under a binocular microscope between the
surface of the split-based point from Divje babe I and
experimental bone and antler points reveals that the visual
features of the Divje babe specimen are closer to those of bone
than antler (Odar and Debeljak, personal communication).
Lithic artefacts from layer 2 have no diagnostic character (Turk
and Kavur, 1997) and include one scraper, two flakes, and four
chips. The single tool and one flake were made on tuff, whereas the
other flake was manufactured on an unidentified, possibly exoge-
nous, chert (Turk and Kavur, 1997). Although the chips were not
identified individually, most of them are probably made on tuff
(Turk and Kavur, 1997).
Background to lithic analysis
Recent researchers have argued that an assemblage can be
assigned to the Early Aurignacian based on the sole presence of a
single split-based point and that this is an ‘unambiguously diag-
nostic’ chrono-stratigraphic and pan-European artefact (Banks
et al., 2013a,b). Given the non-diagnostic character of the associ-
ated lithic artefacts, many sites from southern and eastern Central
Europe have in fact been assigned to the Aurignacian based on the
sole presence of split-based points (e.g., Mlade
c, Czech Republic;
Dzerava skala, Slovakia; Ist sko
allo € and Pesko€ , Hungary; Mokri
ska
jama and Divje babe I, Slovenia) (Pro
zek, 1953; Ve rtes, 1955, 1965;
Turk and Kavur, 1997; Svoboda, 2001; Kaminska  et al., 2005). At the
same time, it has been stressed that, if not associated with a lithic
assemblage, osseous points alone are of little demonstrative value
Figure 5. Mokri
ska jama. 1, 3: maintenance chips from carinated end-scraper on tuff; 2, 4: small bladelets on tuff; 5: maintenance flake from carinated end-scraper on keratophyr;
6: bone awl; 7: osseous projectile point (MJ-1); 8: flat bone point with a split base; 9, 10: osseous projectile points; 11: flat point on antler (MJ-2); 12: flat osseous point. 6e7, 9e11
were sampled for dating (Photos: Toma
z Lauko; Drawings: L. Moreau).
166 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180
Figure 6. Split-based osseous point from Divje babe I sampled for dating (Photos: D.
Badovinac).
at the cultural level, “especially when one considers how such
relatively valuable objects circulate in contemporary hunter-
gatherer societies” (Liolios, 2006: 39). Likewise, those assem-
blages from Central Europe exhibiting a well-developed osseous
point technology and a lithic component typologically different
from the classic Aurignacian have been invoked to support the
argument of continuity between local Mousterian and EUP in-
dustries (Montet-White, 1996; Karavani c and Smith, 1998;
Karavani c, 2007).
Given the shortcomings in evaluating the chrono-cultural affil-
iation of southern Central European EUP sites based solely on
osseous projectile points, and since assessing inter-assemblage
variability by means of a typological approach for assemblages
with less than 100 formal tools is considered problematic (Gamble,
1986; Miracle, 1998), the need for technological studies that do not
convey implicit assumptions on the historical significance of the
defined archaeological categories has been repeatedly emphasized
(Miracle, 1998; Liolios, 2006; Teyssandier et al., 2006; Zilha ~o,
2006b). Lithic analysis using the chaîne ope ratoire concept in
combination with quantitative attribute analysis and formal tool
typology is the approach adopted in this paper for assessing the
overall integrity of the Poto
cka zijalka assemblage. We reassess the
Slovenian EUP record in the light of the common chrono-cultural
scheme of Western and Central Europe (Table 2). We use the
terms ‘Early Aurignacian’ (i.e., former Aurignacian I) and ‘Evolved
Aurignacian’ (i.e., post-Aurignacian I), given reasonable doubts
expressed on the validity of Peyrony's subdivisions of the Auri-
gnacian technocomplex (Bordes and Tixier, 2002). In agreement
with Delporte (1962), we adopt an approach in which divergences
from the Western European culture- and chrono-stratigraphy do
not necessarily imply taphonomic problems, aberrant in-
terpretations, or dating inconsistencies (contra Zilh~
ao, 2009; Banks
et al., 2013a,b).
Background to radiocarbon dating
The last decade witnessed general improvements in chemical
pretreatment methods of bone collagen, including an ultrafiltration
step of bone protein purification, which selects the large molecular
weight proteins that are more likely to be from the original collagen
present in the bone (Brown et al., 1988; Bronk Ramsey et al., 2004;
Bronk Ramsey, 2009). The latter aims at achieving a better quality
of collagen and increases the likelihood that potential preservatives
and contaminants are removed (Bronk Ramsey et al., 2004; Higham
et al., 2006b; Brock et al., 2007, 2010). Significant improvements in
measurement precision as well as more statistical methods of
analysis have further improved radiocarbon approaches in recent
years (Bronk Ramsey et al., 2004; Higham, 2011). Comparative tests
of the gelatinization and ultrafiltration methods have shown that in
many instances re-dating bone previously analysed using previous
methods yielded significantly different, and often older, results
when ultrafiltration was applied (Jacobi et al., 2006; Higham et al.,
2006b; Higham, 2011). This has been attributed to the preferential
removal of low molecular weight contaminants from the extracted
bone gelatin. Thus, we wanted to test the previous dates obtained
for the Slovenian EUP (see below).
Besides the effects of improved chemical pretreatment to
remove potential contamination (Higham, 2011), the principal
areas of error in radiocarbon dating lie in the selection of inap-
propriate samples. Given the significant presence of cave bear re-
mains in the Slovenian EUP sites and the impossibility to
distinguish between the human- and carnivore-created faunal
assemblages, we decided to directly select osseous projectile points
for dating to avoid any ambiguity regarding the nature of the
samples, since they are demonstrably anthropogenic in origin and
also have diagnostic importance (Pettitt et al., 2003; Davies, 2007).
Materials and methods
The lithic material from Poto
cka zijalka chosen for study derives
from the archaeological excavations in 1928e1935. From the 305
artefacts initially recovered, almost one-third were destroyed or
lost during World War II (Brodar and Brodar, 1983). Our analyses are
thus based on the remaining 191 lithic artefacts currently curated at
the Pokrajinskij muzej Celje. Additionally, we included one
retouched bladelet recovered in 2004 by water-sieving eight litres
of sediment from the spoil heap left by the early excavations in the
rear of the cave (Odar, 2008b). Although devoid of any stratigraphic
information, the bladelet has been integrated in the scope of this
article since it has been manufactured on the same non-local raw
material as the vast majority of the stratified material from the cave
entrance. The few lithic artefacts from the recent excavations per-
formed from 1997 to 2000 by the Institute of Palaeontology, Uni-
versity of Vienna, in co-operation with the Department of Geology,
University of Ljubljana (Pacher et al., 2004), and from wet-sieving of
refuse heap sediment in 2012 (Odar, 2014) have not been taken into
account given the absence of stratigraphic correlation with the old
excavations and in order to avoid additional typological bias.
Lithic assemblage analyses of both Poto
cka zijalka and Mokri
ska
jama have been undertaken in the light of recent advances
 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180 167

Table 2
Idealized characterization of Western and Central European lithic assemblages assigned respectively to the Early Aurignacian and Evolved Aurignacian (compiled from
Sonneville-Bordes, 1960; Blades, 1999; Bordes and Lenoble, 2002; Bordes and Tixier, 2002; Djindjian, 2002; Teyssandier et al., 2006; Nigst, 2012).

Early Aurignacian Evolved Aurignacian

Raw material economy Importance of extra-local raw materials among the Low percentages of distant materials among the formal tool
formal tool assemblage. Pronounced diversity of raw assemblage compared with local ones
material types
Stone tool production strategies Specific systems of blade and bladelet production Specific systems of blade and bladelet production, accompanied
by increased core reduction intensity
Lateral retouch on laminar blanks Abundance of laterally retouched blades among the tools Significant decrease in laterally retouched blades
‘Aurignacian retouch’ on Frequently represented Significant decrease of ‘Aurignacian blades’
blades
End-scrapers Significant presence of carinated end-scrapers, Significant increase of carinated nosed end-scrapers
followed by nosed end-scrapers
Burins Underrepresentation of burins compared with end-scrapers. Significant increase of the overall burin component. Appearance
Occasional presence of carinated burins of specific burin types, such as busked or Vachons burins
Dufour bladelets Dufour bladelets mainly manufactured on curved bladelets Dufour bladelets mainly manufactured on twisted bladelets
from carinated end-scrapers from nosed end-scrapers (i.e., Roc-de-Combe subtype)

regarding the typo-technological variability of the European Auri-
gnacian (e.g., Bon, 2002, 2006; Bordes and Tixier, 2002; Lebrun-
Ricalens, 2005; Ortega et al., 2005; Bar-Yosef and Zilha ~o, 2006;
Bordes, 2006; Teyssandier, 2008; Tsanova, 2008; Nigst, 2012). In
particular, it has been demonstrated that a number of tool types
characteristic of the Aurignacian, the so-called ‘carinated pieces’,
are in fact parts of specific systems of bladelet production (Chiotti,
2000; Lebrun-Ricalens, 2005; Araujo Igreja et al., 2006; Lucas,
2006; Chazan, 2010). For purposes of inter-assemblage comparison,
the present study incorporates carinated pieces within the toolkit,
even though they primarily functioned as bladelet cores.
Reconstruction of the broader technological organization in
relation to raw material use is derived from three perspectives:
lithic raw material source attributions, the technological stages in
which each material was introduced into the site, and the intensity
of reduction for all lithic materials (e.g., Blades, 1999). Assuming
that present-day raw material occurrences can serve as a reason-
able proxy for the prehistoric lithic landscape, we assessed raw
material provenances, and thus minimum transport distances,
based on geological and lithological knowledge of the cave envi-
rons. A reference sample from the alluvial gravels of the nearby
Savinja River helped us to estimate potential raw material avail-
ability in the vicinity of Potocka zijalka. We fixed the threshold
between local and non-local raw materials depending on the
treatment of the different raw materials in conjunction with their
probable distance of procurement.

ka zijalka
Previous chronology for Potoc
A series of 16 AMS radiocarbon dates on osseous points and bear
bones was obtained in 2002 at the Vienna Environmental Research
Accelerator (VERA) laboratory (Table 3) (Hofreiter and Pacher,
2004; Rabeder and Pohar, 2004). The dated osseous points were
recovered during Brodar's early excavations and originated from
different sectors and find layers (i.e., layer 7/front and layer 5/rear)
(Brodar and Brodar, 1983). Contrary to radiometric dates on cave
bear remains, Palaeolithic human occupation at Poto
cka zijalka
spans a relatively short time range from 31.5 to 29.5 ka BP
(Hofreiter and Pacher, 2004; Rabeder and Pohar, 2004).
Collagen extraction and pretreatment performed by VERA fol-
lowed a modified Longin method (Brown et al., 1988), upgraded by
additional NaOH treatment before further processing and acceler-
ator mass spectroscopy (AMS) measurement took place (Wild et al.,
1998). The extracted collagen was converted into gelatin and pu-
rified using ion exchange columns with a BioRad AGMP-50 cation
exchange resin (Wild et al., 1998). While the gelatinization method
enables reliable 14C ages to be determined on adequately preserved
and non-contaminated bone, the method is not sufficiently
rigorous to remove all contaminants in bones, especially where
collagen preservation is poor (Bronk Ramsey et al., 2004; Higham
et al., 2006b). Thus, the characterization of the quality of the
extracted collagen is crucial to validate the accuracy of the obtained
14
C determinations (Higham et al., 2006b). Unfortunately, the
quality of the collagen from the osseous points measured by VERA
cannot be assessed a posteriori given that stable isotope and C:N
analysis of bone collagen is not part of the service routinely pro-
vided by the laboratory (E. Wild, Personal communication). Pre-
treatment information is not available for the initial 2002 dates for
Poto
cka zijalka.
New radiocarbon dates for the Slovenian EUP
In February 2013, we sampled 14 osseous points from three
different EUP sites from Slovenia: eight points from Poto
cka zijalka
(layers 5/front, 5/rear and 7/front) (Fig. 3), five points from Mok-
ri
ska jama (layers 6 and 7) (Fig. 5), and one point from Divje babe I
(layer 2) (Fig. 6). Mokri
ska jama has never before been radiomet-
rically dated. The only dates previously available for Divje babe I

Table 3
Previously available AMS 14C dates for Poto

cka zijalka and Divje babe I. 1) Hofreiter and Pacher (2004); Rabeder and Pohar (2004). 2) Nelson (1997). Laboratory prefixes in the
table are: VERA: Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator (Wild et al., 1998); RIDDL: Radioisotope Direct Detection Laboratory, Hamilton, Ontario (Canada).

Lab code Context Material Artefact type Artefact ID Radiocarbon age BP Reference

VERA-2521 Poto

cka zijalka, Layer 5/rear Bone distal fragment, point PZ-54 31,080 þ370/360 1
VERA-2522 Poto

cka zijalka, Layer 5/rear Bone almost complete, massive-based point PZ-59 30,140 þ340/330 1
VERA-2523 Poto

cka zijalka, Layer 7/front Bone proximal fragment, massive-based point PZ-112 31,490 þ350/340 1
VERA-2524 Poto

cka zijalka, Layer 7/front Bone proximal fragment, massive-based point PZ-121 29,760 þ330/310 1
VERA-2525 Poto

cka zijalka, Layer 7/front Bone proximal fragment, massive-based point PZ-126 29,740 þ330/310 1
VERA-2526 Poto

cka zijalka, Layer 7/front Bone proximal fragment, massive-based point PZ-128 29,560 ± 270 1
RIDDL-734 Divje babe I, Layer 2 Bone Cave bear bone e 35,300 ± 700 2
168 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180

Table 4
Radiocarbon determinations of directly-dated organic artefacts from Poto

cka zijalka, Mokri
ska jama and Divje babe I.

Site OxA/OxA-X Radiocarbon age Error Culture Artefact number Archaeological context Artefact type

Mokri
ska jama 2517-52 34,750 600 Aurignacian MJ-2 Layer 7 (2.46 m) Flat point (almost complete)
Mokri
ska jama 27,855 32,600 450 Aurignacian MJ-1 Layer 7 base (2.80 m) Point (distal fragment)
Poto

cka zijalka 27,849 31,220 400 Aurignacian PZ-112 Layer 7/front Massive-based point (proximal fragment)
Poto

cka zijalka 27,850 30,380 370 Aurignacian PZ-104 Layer 5/front Point (distal fragment)
Poto

cka zijalka 27,851 30,910 380 Aurignacian PZ-128 Layer 7/front Massive-based point (proximal fragment)
Poto

cka zijalka 27,852 31,360 400 Aurignacian PZ-121 Layer 7/front Massive-based point (proximal fragment)
Poto

cka zijalka 27,853 31,500 400 Aurignacian PZ-126 Layer 5/front Massive-based point (proximal fragment)
Poto

cka zijalka 27,854 30,800 370 Aurignacian PZ-49 Layer 5/front Massive-based point (almost complete)
Poto

cka zijalka 28,038 31,950 450 Aurignacian PZ-54 Layer 5/rear Point (distal fragment)
Poto

cka zijalka 28,061 32,550 500 Aurignacian PZ-54 Layer 5/rear Point (distal fragment)
Divje babe I 28,219 29,760 340 Aurignacian DB-407a Layer 2 Split-based point

were obtained on non-modified cave bear bones (Nelson, 1997).
Since the dates obtained on Palaeolithic bone generally make much
more archaeological sense when compared with those dated pre-
viously, five of six points from Poto
cka zijalka that had previously
been dated by VERA were re-drilled and re-dated in order to check
the reliability of the previous determinations (Fig. 3). Given the
absence of any stratigraphic correlation between find concentra-
tions in the front and the rear of the cavity, which are separated
from each other by at least 50 m, we further selected one point from
the rear for dating (Fig. 3). At Poto
cka zijalka, no charcoals from the
early excavations were available for dating, thus the chronological
relationship between bone/antler and charcoal at the site could not
be tested.
Each of the points chosen for dating has been sampled using a
drill with a tungsten carbide bit. For each point, between 150 and
500 mg of bone was taken for analysis. Analyses were performed
at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Bone collagen
was extracted using the manual Oxford method (Higham et al.,
2006b). Samples received the standard ORAU pretreatment for
bone and antler (Bronk Ramsey et al., 2004; Higham et al.,
2006b). Chemical pretreatment by ultrafiltration, graphitization,
and AMS measurement methods follow the protocols described in
detail in Bronk Ramsey et al. (2004) and Brock et al. (2010). Given
that characterization of the quality of the extracted collagen is
crucial to validate the accuracy of the obtained 14C de-
terminations, sample weights, collagen yield percentage, and
measurement chemistry (C:N, d13C, d15N) of the samples were
provided as well.
Results and preliminary discussion
Direct radiocarbon AMS dating of osseous points
Potoc
ka zijalka The compositional integrity of the assemblage from
Poto
cka zijalka has been confirmed by a consistent series of eight
new radiocarbon determinations using an ultrafiltration protocol.
The new results show that the earlier determinations for the
osseous points of Poto
cka zijalka are somewhat younger than the
new AMS dates (Table 4). With one exception, the new
determinations are significantly older than the previous non-
ultrafiltered ones and fail the chi-squared test for an error-
weighted mean (the PZ-112 pair of dates are the exception).
Duplicate AMS dates were undertaken for the PZ-54 sample in
Oxford, and these produced an acceptable level of agreement but
were different to the previous date.
The difference between the 2002 dates and the new ones pre-
sented here is, we think, unlikely due to unremoved contamination.
The samples of bone were extremely well-preserved and produced
very high yields of collagen (Table 5). The differences between the
two laboratories might be related to background correction, which
in Oxford is undertaken using a sample-specific bone background
(see Wood et al., 2010) that accounts for the higher levels of pre-
treatment steps included in the dating of bone collagen. For older
bones such as these, there can be a significant correction that might
account for the observed offsets. Alternative possibilities of unre-
moved contaminants cannot be determined on the basis of the two
sets of data without more work.

Table 5
Details of the samples selected for radiocarbon dating in 2013.

OxA/OxA-X P Site Material Radiocarbon agea þ/ Used (mg) Yield (mg) %Yld Excess %C d13C (‰) d15N (‰) C:N

2517-52 33,474 Mokri
ska jama Antler 34,750 600 200 11.00 5.5 6.30 43.8 20.7 3.6 3.4
27,855 33,473 Mokri
ska jama Bone 32,600 450 230 13.80 6.0 8.70 45.2 20.2 3.6 3.4
27,849 33,462 Poto

cka zijalka Bone 31,220 400 500 42.80 8.6 38.00 43.8 21.2 2.9 3.4
27,850 33,463 Poto

cka zijalka Bone 30,380 370 410 32.80 8.0 28.20 42.8 20.0 1.8 3.3
27,851 33,464 Poto

cka zijalka Bone 30,910 380 270 21.80 8.1 16.80 42.9 20.9 2.5 3.3
27,852 33,465 Poto

cka zijalka Bone 31,360 400 320 18.60 5.8 13.60 44.6 21.1 2.3 3.4
27,853 33,468 Poto

cka zijalka Bone 31,500 400 340 20.50 6.0 15.90 44.7 20.4 1.2 3.4
27,854 33,469 Poto

cka zijalka Bone 30,800 370 290 28.10 9.7 23.40 45.7 18.9 6.9 3.4
28,038 33,466 Poto

cka zijalka Bone 31,950 450 490 29.60 6.0 24.70 43.0 21.0 2.8 3.4
28,061 33,466 Poto

cka zijalka Bone 32,550 500 490 29.60 6.0 24.70 45.2 21.0 2.5 3.4
28,219 33,870 Divje babe I Antler or bone 29,760 340 150 11.73 7.8 6.75 40.9 19.1 4.7 3.4
a
Dates are quoted in uncalibrated radiocarbon years BP (Before Present e AD 1950) using the Libby 14C half-life of 5568 years. 14C age expressed in uncalibrated years BP.
Gelatin yield represents the weight of gelatin or ultrafiltrated gelatin in milligrams (Higham, 2011). %Yld is the percent yield of extracted collagen as a function of the starting
weight of the bone analysed. %C is the carbon present in the combusted gelatin. C:N is the atomic ratio of carbon to nitrogen and is acceptable if it ranges between 2.9 and 3.5
(Higham, 2011). One sample has been given an OxA-X rather than an OxA-prefix, which reflects the added uncertainty since the graphite of the sample was 80% of the usual
current, hence the standard error is higher than ideal. Isotopic fractionation has been corrected by using the measured d13C values measured on the AMS. The quoted d13C
values are measured independently on a stable isotope mass spectrometer (to ±0.3 per thousand relative to Vienna PeeDee belemnite). Stable isotope ratios are expressed in ‰
relative to vPDB and nitrogen to AIR. Mass spectrometric precision is ±0.2‰ for carbon. Gelatin yield represents the weight of gelatin or ultrafiltered gelatin in milligrams. %Yld
is the percent yield of extracted collagen as a function of the starting weight of the bone analysed. %C is the carbon present in the combusted gelatin. C:N is the atomic ratio of
carbon to nitrogen. At ORAU this is acceptable if it ranges between 2.9 and 3.5 (Higham, 2011).
 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180
Seven of the initial eight samples contained enough collagen to
allow dating with confidence. The reliability of the obtained re-
sults is indicated by the elemental and isotopic values of the dated
samples (Table 5). The Carbon to Nitrogen (C:N) atomic ratio
ranges from 3.3 to 3.4 and is thus within normal parameters
(Table 5) (Bronk Ramsey et al., 2004; Higham, 2011). Collagen
yields were high and the %C values are consistent and identical
with normal expected amounts from well-preserved collagen at
the ORAU.
We used a Bayesian modelling approach to analyse the results
further, using the IntCal13 calibration curve and OxCal4.2 (Reimer
et al., 2009, 2013; Bronk Ramsey et al., 2013). The model simply
assumes that the occupation represented at the site and dated
comes from a single phase of activity with a beginning and an end.
We used a general outlier model. The results are shown in Fig. 7.
This disclosed no significant outliers.
We tentatively compare the results against the Greenland NGRIP
ice core (Andersen et al., 2006). The start boundary of the phase of
results obtained is equal to 37,070e34,970 cal BP (at 95.4% proba-
bility). The end boundary is equivalent to 35,310e33,610 cal BP
(again at 95.4%). This might suggest that the main occupation phase
of the cave (including one split-based point), to which the Auri-
gnacian assemblage is assigned, is situated towards the end of
Greenland Stadial (GS) 8 and beginning of Greenland Interstadial
(GI) 7 (Fig. 8). It is difficult to be precise, especially given the
somewhat preliminary nature of the calibration curve through this
period and the fact that the ice cores and the INTCAL13 curve are on
different timescales.
One measurement (PZ 126) failed due to low collagen yield and
a high C:N ratio even though the same point was previously AMS
dated by VERA at 29,740 þ330/310 14C BP (VERA-2525). We are
not certain of the reasons for this.
Figure 7. Bayesian age model for Poto
cka zijalka. See text for details. The NGRIP data is after Andersen et al. (2006) and the numbers refer to Greenland Interstadials.
169
Mokriška jama From the five samples submitted for dating only
two yielded a radiocarbon age estimate of the archaeological re-
mains (Table 4). Two samples failed as a result of collagen yield too
low to extract a sufficient amount of carbon. One sample was
impossible to date due to a low collagen yield in association with
a high C:N atomic ratio related to the presence of contamination
by addition of exogenous carbon atoms from a preservative or
consolidant. The latter could not be removed by the ultrafiltration
because of its high molecular weight or its collagen-based
contaminants.
One of the two remaining radiocarbon measurements obtained
for Mokri
ska jama has a higher than ideal standard error, as the
graphite of this sample (MJ 2) was 80% of the usual electrical cur-
rent in the accelerator. Though not demonstrably aberrant, the
ultrafiltered determination of 34,750 ± 600 14C BP (OxA-X-2517-52)
produced for this sample should be viewed with caution, and hence
has been given an OxA-X rather than an OxA-number, which re-
flects this added uncertainty.
OxA-27855 (32,600 ± 450 BP) is probably the most reliable
measurement for the earliest human occupation of the cave since
the sampled point (MJ 1) originates from the base of the archaeo-
logical sequence (i.e., layer 7 base, at 2.80 m). The calibrated age
range at 95.4% probability puts the age between 38,130 and
35,640 cal BP. Comparison of this result against NGRIP data sug-
gests it falls within GI 8 (Fig. 7). The radiocarbon determinations
obtained for Mokri
ska jama are in agreement with the Aurignacian
attribution of the assemblage based on the re-analysis of the few
lithic artefacts recovered at the site (see below).
Divje babe I The ultrafiltered determination for the split-based
point from Divje babe I represents one of the rare direct dates on
this Early Aurignacian fossil type. Prior to sampling the split-
based point from Divje babe I, a small fragment of the point
170 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180

Figure 8. Probability distribution functions corresponding to the start and end boundaries of the Aurignacian at Poto
cka zijalka.

(about 2 mg) was collected and its nitrogen concentration
determined at ORAU in order to estimate the collagen
preservation of the osseous point. After checking the C:N atomic
ratio, a larger bone sample of 150 mg was taken from the point
itself.
The split-based point from Divje babe I was treated using the
ultrafilter protocol and produced a result of 29,760 ± 340 14C BP
(OxA-28219). The amount of extracted collagen (i.e., 150 mg) was
below the ideal amount of material usually required for dating (i.e.,
200e500 mg), but the bone was very well preserved (we extracted
11.7 mg, so the bone was 7.8% collagen). All other analytical pa-
rameters we measured were within the acceptable range.
The ultrafiltered determination for Divje babe I clearly contra-
dicts the previous age estimation for layer 2 at 35.3 14C ka BP based
on a cave bear pelvis (Nelson, 1997) (Table 3). The new date for the
split-based point from Divje babe I, layer 2, shows once more the
importance of assessing the chronological setting of the human
occupation by sampling diagnostic material instead of associated
palaeontological material. In the present case, this is even more
important since taphonomic evaluation of the site indicates the
importance of cryoturbation in the formation of this layer (Turk and
Kavur, 1997).
overall underrepresentation of burins, in conjunction with the
absence of specific burin cores, such as busked or Vachons burins,
and the importance of Aurignacian retouch, an attribution of the
assemblage to the ‘Evolved Aurignacian’ is not recommended.
Instead, the lithic typological composition is in general agreement
with that of most Early Aurignacian assemblages in Western and
Central Europe (Table 2).
Tools on flakes or lithic shatter account for 55.8% of the toolkit.
This relative importance of flake tools, including two pointed
scrapers, has occasionally been interpreted as indicative of relict
Mousterian features, supporting the model of an intrusive Auri-
gnacian influence “assimilated into a regional cultural expression
that may have some roots in the local Mousterian” (Karavanic and
Smith, 1998: 245). However, this argument ignores the fact that
carinated and nosed end-scrapers (N ¼ 10) and simple end-scrapers
(N ¼ 3) represent nearly half of the products of transformed flakes
or shatter (N ¼ 29), compared with the limited number of simple
(N ¼ 5) or pointed (N ¼ 2) sidescrapers. Moreover, given the
Table 6
Poto

cka zijalka. Typological composition of the lithic assemblage from the excava-
tions 1928e1935. One retouched bladelet recovered in 2004 by sieving refuse heap
sediment from the rear of the cave has been integrated into this study.

Formal tools Excavations 1928 Wet-sieving 2004

Techno-economic analysis e1935

Number of % Number of
Potoc
ka zijalka From the 192 lithic artefacts composing the lithic
specimens specimens
industry of Poto
cka zijalka, a total of 53 blanks were transformed
End-scraper on Aurignacian blade 2 3.85 e
into formal tools, representing 27.6% of the effective total (Table 6). End-scraper on retouched blade 2 3.85 e
All lithic objects have rather fresh edges and show no traces of Blade with Aurignacian retouch 1 1.92 e
cryoturbation or similar damage typical of severe post- Blade with uni- or bilateral retouch 13 25 e
depositional displacement of finds. The observed tool amount is Laterally retouched bladelet 2 3.85 1
Laterally retouched flake 2 3.85 e
fairly close to the 26.2% mentioned by the excavator and based on
Carinated end-scraper 7 13.46 e
the initial collection (Brodar and Brodar, 1983). Carinated nosed end-scraper 2 3.85 e
The toolkit is largely dominated by laterally retouched blades Simple end-scraper on flake 3 5.77 e
(Fig. 9), representing 43.4% of the toolkit, followed by carinated Sidescraper, on flake or shatter 7 13.46 e
end-scrapers at 20.7% (Figs. 10 and 11). Four blade blanks, including Dihedral burin 3 5.77 e
Burin on truncation, double 1 1.92 e
two end-scrapers and one end-scraper/burin combination tool, Burin on natural surface 1 1.92 e
were transformed by means of an “Aurignacian retouch”: succes- Carinated burin 1 1.92 e
sive episodes of retouch partly resulted in a severe reduction of the Combination tool 1 1.92 e
blank width (Fig. 9: 6e9). End-scrapers (N ¼ 16) significantly (i.e., carinated end-scraper
and carinated burin)
exceed burins (N ¼ 6).
Combination tool (i.e., end-scraper 1 1.92 e
The small retouched bladelet recovered in 2004 is curved and þ burin on truncation
slightly twisted, and thus obviously derives from the reduction of a þ Aurignacian retouch)
carinated end-scraper (Fig. 9: 1). Its modification by means of a Borer on flake 1 1.92 e
dorsal marginal retouch does not, however, conform to the defi- Splintered piece 2 3.85 e
Total of retouched blanks 52 100 1
nition of Dufour bladelets (Demars and Laurent, 1992). Given the
Figure 9. Selected stone tools and unretouched blanks from Poto
cka zijalka. 1: laterally retouched small twisted bladelet on lydite; 2: double burin on truncation on radiolarite;
3e4: bladelets on lydite; 5: laterally retouched bladelet on lydite; 6: combination tool (i.e., end-scraper/burin on truncation/Aurignacian retouch) on porphyry-rhyolite; 7e8: end-
scrapers on “Aurignacian blade” on tuff; 9: blade with “Aurignacian retouch” on porphyry-rhyolite; 10: laterally retouched cortical blade on Mesozoic chert; 11: laterally retouched
blade on tuff (Photos: D. Badovinac; Drawings: M. Turk and L. Moreau). Arrows indicate the presence of burin spall removals.
172 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180
Figure 10. Formal tools, including carinates, and volumetric bladelet cores from Poto
cka zijalka, layer 7/front. 1, 8: volumetric bladelet cores on lydite; 2: combination tool (i.e.,
carinated end-scraper and burin) on Mesozoic chert; 3e5: carinated end-scrapers on lydite; 6e7: simple end-scrapers on porphyry-rhyolite (Photos: D. Badovinac).
absence of any specific Levallois-Mousterian feature in the assem-
blage of Poto
cka zijalka, its purportedly mixed character must be
rejected. Instead, while the assemblage of Poto
cka zijalka is prob-
ably a palimpsest resulting from repeated short-term occupations,
it appears to exhibit a coherent set of technical features, which
enable us to treat it as an ensemble with a fairly high degree of
homogeneity.
While flakes, followed by blades, shatter and volumetric bla-
delet cores, for a total weight of ca. 2.5 kg (Table 7), dominate the
lithic collection, this cannot conceal the fact that blank production
was mainly aimed at obtaining laminar blanks, particularly blade-
lets, while flakes and shatter are essentially by-products of core
processing. The 46.1% of retouched blades and bladelets in the
formal tool assemblage are likely to be attributed to the absence of
screening during the early excavations, thus resulting in an un-
derrepresentation of small-sized artefacts, such as bladelets, small
flakes and chips (Odar, 2008b, 2014). Despite this excavation bias,
the centrality of bladelet production at the site is attested by the
many carinated pieces that are primarily understood as part of a
specific system of bladelet production allowing for a high degree of
control over the morphology of the desired blank (Lucas, 2006;
Chazan, 2010).
Blades and bladelets were produced by two independent
reduction sequences (chaînes ope ratoires); both appear to be re-
flected in the spatial fragmentation of the stone tool technology.
While bladelet production was conducted in situ using both cari-
nated end-scrapers and small prismatic cores, blades were made
away from the site, as prismatic blade cores are missing, and
brought into the cave in the form of formal tools. Blades were
mostly manufactured on raw materials distinct from the ones used
to produce bladelets. Almost 90% of all blades and bladelets exhibit
unidirectional (N ¼ 37) or unidirectional and transversal (N ¼ 5)
dorsal scars, thus clearly indicating a unipolar debitage pattern.
Referring to the diagnostic features described by Pelegrin (2000),
when determinable, platform scars on blades suggest that direct
soft-hammer percussion, using an organic hammer, was the
dominant technique.
The assemblage of Poto
cka zijalka appears to be characterized
by a diversity of lithic raw materials, the vast majority of which is
not of local origin (Table 8). River pebbles seem to have provided
most, if not all, of the processed raw materials, as indicated by the
nature of the cortex preserved on lithic artefacts (N ¼ 51). Less than
10% of the exploited lithic resources were of local origin, probably
from the Savinja River near Sol
cava and Lu
ce (Table 9). In contrast,
the nearest source for most raw materials is to be found ca.
15e20 km away from the cave. The major catchment area for raw
material procurement must have been the alluvial gravels of the
Drava River basin that runs on the Austrian side of the Karavanke
mountain range.
The most common raw material at Poto
cka zijalka is lydite, a
fine-grained black siliceous sedimentary rock of Palaeozoic origin,
generally occurring in the form of small nodules rarely exceeding
10 cm in size. Although the knapping quality of lydite is fairly good,
it is frequently transected by fissure planes that affect its knapping
properties. The large number of angular shatters present in the
archaeological assemblage of Poto
cka zijalka mainly resulted from
the brittle nature of lydite, which tends to break along diaclasic
surfaces. No occurrences of lydite are known in the vicinity of
Poto
cka zijalka in the Southern Karavanke or in the Kamnik-Savinja
Alps to the west. Instead, lydite is known in the Southern Alps
Figure 11. Carinates and volumetric bladelet cores from Poto
cka zijalka, layer 7/front. 1: carinated burin on lydite; 2e3: volumetric bladelet cores on lydite; 4: volumetric bladelet
core on porphyry-rhyolite (Photos: D. Badovinac; Drawings: L. Moreau).
174 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180

Table 7 Among the non-local raw materials represented at Poto
cka

Poto

cka zijalka. Technological blank categories in the lithic assemblage. zijalka, only lydite seems to have been processed on-site, judging
Technological blank categories Unretouched Retouched from the number of small cores and by the full range of debitage
# % # %
products and by-products (Table 10). With the exception of one
pyramidal bladelet core on porphyry-rhyolite (Fig. 11: 4), non-local
Blade 15 10.8 21 39.6
materials other than lydite are mainly present in the form of
Bladelet 9 6.5 3 5.7
Flake 58 41.7 22 41.5 finished tools (Table 10, Fig. 9). The quartz shatter in the assemblage
Burin spall 1 0.7 0 0.0 were initially part of a cobble-derived hard hammer, based on the
Chip 3 2.2 0 0.0 continuous scars visible on the outer rounded surface of the shatter
Shatter 41 29.5 7 13.2
spalls. One core preform on local coarse-grained quartz conglom-
Bladelet core 11 7.9 0 0.0
Core preform 1 0.7 0 0.0 erate represents the failed single attempt to produce laminar
Total 139 100.0 53 100.0 blanks on-site.
According to Kuhn's (1992) conceptual framework of techno-
logical provisioning developed to evaluate the way mobile hunter-
(i.e., Carnic Alps) (Heritsch and Heritsch, 1941; Angel, 1954). From gatherers keep themselves supplied with raw material, the specific
there, nodules from eroded outcrops have most probably been approach to make and maintain lithic tools implemented at Poto
cka
carried by tributaries downstream into the Drava River. The mini- zijalka obviously corresponds to a planned strategy for provisioning
mum transport distance of lydite is thus estimated to be 15e20 km individuals. The latter represents a form of anticipatory organization
(Table 8). Similarly, Mesozoic chert and radiolarite are likely to aimed at minimizing transport costs and coping with generalized,
derive from glacigenic deposits of the Drava Valley. While both rock less predictable future needs (Kuhn, 1992). At Poto
cka zijalka, the
types do occur in the Northern Calcareous Alps and the Carpathians anticipation of scarcity in good-quality raw material in the vicinity of
(Brandl et al., 2013), the nearest outcrops are located in the the site is recognizable in the importance of non-local raw materials,
Southern Carnic Alps (Heritsch and Heritsch, 1941; Angel, 1954). which account for ca. 90% of the total. The fairly high proportion of
Mesozoic chert and radiolarite are also recorded in the Kamni
ska formal tools in the assemblage (27.6%) likely reflects the significant
Bistrica River valley (Premru, 1983), in the western part of the constraints exerted by provisioning distance and topography on the
Kamnik-Savinja Alps, the region to the west where Mokri
ska jama lithic economy at the site. Most of all, the mobile toolkit at Poto
cka
is found. However, since Poto
cka zijalka and Mokri
ska jama are zijalka is characterized by the introduction of extensively used tools,
separated from each other by the high mountain range of Kamni
sko such as combination tools and blades modified by Aurignacian
sedlo (1903 m a.s.l.), and given that the vast majority of lithic raw retouch, in association with bladelet cores, including carinates on
material present at Poto
cka zijalka indicates a northern prove- reduction by-products (i.e., flakes or shatter). Light and easily
nance, the glacigenic Drava River deposits are the more probable transportable cores best accommodate the constraints of mobility
source area for Mesozoic chert and radiolarite. (Nelson, 1991; Kuhn, 1994), and new bladelets could easily be made
Other raw materials are present in much smaller quantities as needed. At Poto
cka zijalka, fine-grained lydite was obviously
(Table 8). The closest occurrence for porphyry-rhyolite and quartz is preferred for the production of bladelets. The conceptual dissocia-
the narrow belt of Palaeozoic magmatic and metamorphic rocks tion of blade and bladelet production on the one hand, and the
around Bad Eisenkappel north of the Karavanke, ca. 10 km away marked spatial segmentation of lithic reduction sequences (i.e.,
from the site (Teller, 1914), or, alternatively, the Pleistocene gla- import of extensively-used blade tools, in situ production of blade-
ciofluvial gravels of the Drava River. Quartz conglomerate, quartz lets) on the other, can be conceived as part of a technological strategy
sandstone, tuff or tuff breccia are probably of local origin since they to provision individuals with tools and raw materials that were
correspond to the common lithology of the Karavanke and Kamnik- continuously transported and maintained to maximize their use-
Savinja Alps (Kralj, 1996; Kralj and Celarc, 2002), and can be found life. Keeping in mind the renewed awareness that standardized
ca. 5e10 km away from the site in the alluvial gravels of the Savinja Aurignacian bladelets were probably insets of composite hunting
River south of the cave (Table 9). tools (e.g., Pelegrin and O'Farrell, 2005; Chazan, 2010), it is

Table 8
Poto

cka zijalka. Raw materials represented in the lithic assemblage.

Raw material type Geo-stratigraphical Geographical provenance Distance to nearest Number of

provenance source (in km) specimens

# %

Non-local
Lydite/black chert Pleistocene Eastern Alps, glaciofluvial deposits of the Drava Basin 15e20 155 80.7
Porphyry-rhyolite Middle Triassic Savinja River? 10e20 7 3.6
Eastern Alps, glaciofluvial deposits of the Drava Basin Most probably
15e20
Chert Mesozoic Kamni
ska Bistrica River? 10e20 7 3.6
Eastern Alps, glaciofluvial deposits of the Drava Basin Most probably
15e20
Radiolarite Mesozoic Kamni
ska Bistrica River? 10e20 1 0.5
Eastern Alps, glaciofluvial deposits of the Drava Basin Most probably
15e20
Quartz Palaeozoic metamorphic Eastern Alps, Bad Eisenkappel or glaciofluvial deposits 10e20 7 3.6
complex of the Drava Basin
Local
Tuff/Tuff breccia Oligocene Savinja River near Sol

cava and Lu

ce 5e10 5 2.6
Quartz conglomerate Carboniferous Immediate vicinity or Savinja River near Sol

cava and Lu

ce 1e10 9 4.7
Quartz sandstone Carboniferous Immediate vicinity or Savinja River near Sol

cava and Lu

ce 1e10 1 0.5
Total 192 100
 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180 175

Table 9 1998: 245) or a regional EUP industry resulting from an indige-

Lithological composition of the gravels from the Savinja River near Lu

ce. nous cultural development of the local Mousterian (Karavanic and
Lithology Stratigraphic % Smith, 1998; Karavani c, 2007) must remain purely speculative. In
provenience any case, the small lithic assemblage of Mokri
ska jama indicates the
Extrusives Oligocene 3.1 maintenance of carinated pieces in relation to an episodic occu-
Tuff Oligocene 7.0 pation of the cave.
Tuff breccia Oligocene 3.1
Quartz sandstone Carboniferous 10.1
Discussion and conclusions
Quartz conglomerate Carboniferous 0.7
Chert (not lydite) Triassic? 0.7
Light grey limestone Middle and Upper Triassic 50.4 Given its biocultural complexity, the timing, variability, and
Dark limestones, marly limestones Middle Triassic 24.8 spread of the Aurignacian has been a matter of persistent debate
The analyzed sample consists of the first 150 pieces larger than 3 cm for a sampled (e.g., Higham et al., 2012, 2013; Banks et al., 2013a,b; Ronchitelli
area of 1 m2. et al., 2014; Wood et al., 2014). Banks et al. (2013a) have sug-
gested that the Early Aurignacian in Europe starts with Heinrich
Event 4 and ends with the onset of GI 8. However, the Early Auri-
conceivable that the bladelets produced on-site were intended to gnacian in Central Europe, in Germany (Higham et al., 2012, 2013)
complement the osseous projectile points as part of a complex and in Austria (Nigst and Haesaerts, 2012; Nigst et al., 2014), is well
composite weapon system characterized by strong and lethal inset documented prior to the Heinrich 4 cold phase and generally
points aimed at maximizing the chances of hunting success. viewed as the result of a spread of ideas and AMH along the
Mokriška jama While layer 7 was purportedly devoid of lithic ar- ‘Danube corridor’ (Davies, 2001; Conard and Bolus, 2003). Likewise,
tefacts, layer 6 yielded a series of small flakes and chips, of which 17 fossil remains of AMH in Europe are known from an earlier age
have survived and have been preserved at the National Museum of (Benazzi et al., 2011; Higham et al., 2011). In southern Central
Ljubljana. They are made out of dark green keratophyr and tuff, Europe, a consistent series of ten new radiocarbon determinations
both raw materials of Oligocene origin, which naturally occur in the for Poto
cka zijalka and Mokri
ska jama using an ultrafiltration pro-
Kamnik-Savinja Alps in the surroundings of the site, possibly from tocol indicates the persistence of the Early Aurignacian until the
the alluvial gravels of the Kamni
ska Bistrica River (Table 11). In any end of GI 8 end or the beginning of GI 7 (Figs. 7 and 8).
case, they are of local origin, from a distance probably not For Central Europe, previous radiocarbon determinations on
exceeding 10 km. split-based points from Tischoferho €hle (Austria) and Pesko €
Several authors have repeatedly stressed the undiagnostic (Hungary) yielded dates of 31,530 þ210/200 BP (KIA-19544) and
character of the lithic artefacts from Mokri
ska jama, amongst other 36,400 ± 800 BP (OxA-17966), respectively (Bolus and Conard,
southern Central European EUP assemblages dominated by osseous 2006; Davies and Hedges, 2008e2009). The newly-obtained date
projectile points (Karavani c and Smith, 1998; Miracle, 1998; of 29,760 ± 340 14C BP (OxA-28219) for Divje babe I suggests the
Karavani c, 2007). While the absence of Aurignacian lithic type persistence of the ‘type-fossil’ of the Early Aurignacian until GS 7
fossils at Mokri
ska jama is obvious, re-examination of the afore- and raises the question of time-specificity attached to this partic-
mentioned small-sized lithic artefacts from layer 6 reveals the ular class of osseous points, at least in Central Europe. Our results
presence of morphologically diagnostic by-products related to the do not contradict the idea that split-based points are a reliable
maintenance of the longitudinal convexity of carinated end- marker for the Early Aurignacian. However, the growing body of
scrapers for bladelet production. In particular, three preparation direct dates for both split-based and massive-based osseous points
flakes/chips bearing bladelet removals (Fig. 5: 1, 3, 5) and two small, increasingly suggests that a strict sequential order of appearance of
slightly curved bladelets (Fig. 5: 2, 4) provide indirect evidence for these type-fossils in Central Europe, in comparison with the
the Aurignacian character of the UP component attested at this site. culture-stratigraphic framework of southwestern France (Breuil,
In light of our re-examination of the assemblage from Mokri
ska 1913; Peyrony, 1933), is unlikely (Hahn, 1988; Davies, 2001, 2007;
jama, the suggestion that the small number of stone artefacts from Bolus and Conard, 2006).
this site are not “especially typical for any particular industry, The lithic assemblages from Poto
cka zijalka and Mokri
ska jama
including the Aurignacian” (Karavani c and Smith, 1998: 244) exhibit clear Aurignacian features, firmly contradicting the sug-
cannot be maintained any longer. Moreover, given the absence of gestion of features reminiscent of the local Mousterian tradition,
any Mousterian component in the assemblage, the assertion that and thus the idea of an “indigenous cultural development” of these
Mokri
ska jama would represent a “continuation of Mousterian Upper Palaeolithic industries (Montet-White, 1996: 107; Karavanic
lithic tradition into the Upper Palaeolithic” (Karavani c and Smith, and Smith, 1998: 245). Although not falsified, the hypothesis of
Aurignacian bone tools in southern Central Europe as a product of
Table 10
Neandertals (Karavani c and Smith, 1998; Karavani c et al., 1998) is
Poto

cka zijalka. Raw material frequencies for formal tools (including carinates), not supported by our re-examination of the Slovenian EUP record.
unretouched blanks, volumetric cores, shattered pieces, burin spalls and chips. The new dates for the Aurignacian of Slovenia suggest a hiatus of
Raw material type Formal Unretouched Volumetric Shatter Burin Chip several thousand years between the late Middle Palaeolithic of
tool blank core spall Divje babe I, layer 6, estimated to 40 ka BP (Nelson, 1997; Blackwell
Non-local
et al., 2009), and the Early Aurignacian of Mokri
ska jama, Poto
cka
Lydite/black chert 37 77 9 28 1 3 zijalka, and Divje babe I, layer 2.
Porphyry-rhyolite 6 e 1 e e e Fossil remains attributed to AMH are missing in the Palaeolithic
Chert (not lydite) 6 e e e e e record of Slovenia. However, the presence of AMH in Central
Radiolarite 1 e e e e e
Europe and the Balkans in more or less secure Aurignacian con-
Quartz e 3 e 4 e e
Local texts, gives credit to the idea that the Aurignacian in Slovenia is the
Tuff/Tuff breccia 3 1 e 2 e e result of AMH (Wild et al., 2005; Higham et al., 2006a; Davies and
Quartz conglomerate e 1 2 6 e e Hedges, 2008e2009; Bailey et al., 2009). Significantly, the new
Quartz sandstone e e e 1 e e radiocarbon determinations for the Aurignacian of Slovenia appear
Total 53 82 12 41 1 3
to post-date the 34e32 ka BP threshold for the last Neandertals in
176 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180
Table 11
Mokri
ska jama. Raw materials represented in the lithic assemblage.
Raw material type Stratigraphic provenance Geographical provenance
Tuff Oligocene Kamnik-Savinja Alps, Kamni
ska Bistrica River
Keratophyr Oligocene Kamnik-Savinja Alps, Kamni
ska Bistrica River
Undetermined e e
Total
the region (Higham et al., 2006a). Moreover, with the exception of a
bifacial point on allegedly Carpathian radiolarite at Vindija, layer
G1, which possibly indicates the presence of the Szeletian in
southern Central Europe (Karavani c, 2007), no ‘transitional in-
dustries’ or industries pertaining to the initial Upper Palaeolithic
are identified in the region. Thus, as far as the transition from the
Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic in Slovenia is concerned, the most
plausible scenario posits a clear hiatus; the Upper Palaeolithic
started with the intrusive Early Aurignacian at ca. 32 ka BP as a
result of incoming AMH after a period of depopulation. However, in
a broader regional context encompassing eastern Central Europe,
the directly dated split-based point from Pesko € (Hungary) strongly
suggests the presence of the Early Aurignacian in the region prior to
Heinrich Event 4 (Davies and Hedges, 2008e2009).
The lithic assemblages of Poto
cka zijalka and Mokri
ska jama can
be assigned to the Aurignacian, irrespective of morphological
considerations of the associated osseous projectile points. While
the chrono-cultural significance of the assemblage from Mokri
ska
jama is limited by its small size, Poto
cka zijalka appears to exhibit
all traits in conformity with the techno-typological and techno-
economic definition of the Early Aurignacian. Significantly, the
strategy adopted for managing supplies of tools and raw materials
at this site is reflected in the dissociation of blade and bladelet
production, as well as in the spatial segmentation of their reduction
sequences, both typical features of the Early Aurignacian in West-
ern and Central Europe (Bon, 2002; Bordes and Tixier, 2002; Bon et
al., 2005; Ortega et al., 2005; Bordes, 2006; Teyssandier et al., 2006;
Nigst, 2012). The Slovenian Aurignacian thus appears to fill the gap
between the manifestations of the Early Aurignacian in the Swa-
bian Jura and the Middle Danube region on the one hand
(Teyssandier et al., 2006; Nigst, 2012), and the Balkans (especially
western Romania), where these features are likewise documented
(Hahn, 1977; Anghelinu and Niţa, 2012), on the other.
The Aurignacian of Poto
cka zijalka underlines the remarkable
consistency of the Early Aurignacian with low typo-technological
variability across Europe, resulting from a marked dependence on
transported toolkits and raw material conservation. It has been
suggested that different patterns of residential mobility may ac-
count for some of the typological variability in lithic assemblages
used in defining the Early and the Evolved Aurignacian (Blades,
1999). Given the sensitivity of technological decision-making to
patterns of land use and foraging organization (Kelly and Todd,
1988; Kuhn, 1992, 1994; Kelly, 2013), the Early Aurignacian of
Slovenia best corresponds to an adaptive strategy characterized by
a high degree of residential mobility in the face of unforeseen needs
in a mountainous environment where good quality raw material is
scarce. At the same time, the large number of osseous projectile
points recovered at Poto
cka zijalka, and possibly at other Auri-
gnacian sites in eastern and southern Central Europe, strongly
suggests the supplying of these strategically-placed and repeatedly
visited sites with seasonal gear. Organic points are reliable (Bleed,
1986) and extensively maintainable weapons (Knecht, 1997;
Liolios, 1999; Turk, 2002), which are more likely to be employed
in the face of high failure costs (Bleed, 1986; Ellis, 1997). It is
conceivable that the numerous osseous projectile points recovered
Distance to nearest source (in km) Number of
specimens
# %
0e10 13 76.47
0e10 3 17.65
e 1 5.88
17 100.00
at Poto
cka zijalka complemented small bladelets that probably
functioned as barbs in composite projectiles, part of an extensively
planned and carefully thought through risk management strategy
aimed at taking advantage of the wide range of food resources
available in the mountainous environment.
The new radiocarbon dates for the Aurignacian of Slovenia are
not as precise as we would like, but they imply that the caves were
occupied during both stadial and interstadial climatic conditions. In
any case, the intensity of human use during both the Middle Palae-
olithic and EUP in southern Central Europe is considered to have
been limited, judging from the dominance of cave bear remains in
the respective faunal assemblages (Miracle, 1991). In line with the
idea of low demographic density is the generally agreed observation
that Middle Palaeolithic and EUP sites in the mountainous envi-
ronment of the Eastern Alps most likely correspond to hunting
camps, episodically occupied by individuals concerned mainly with
procuring game (Montet-White, 1996), although the need for
taphonomic analyses of the relevant faunal assemblages has been
emphasized (Miracle, 1991). Nevertheless, in southern Central
Europe, Neandertals and AMH were obviously engaged in con-
trasting land use patterns, as systematic exploitation of high-
altitude environments in this region seems not to be evident
before the EUP (Montet-White, 1996). Moreover, the marked pre-
dominance of local raw materials in the Middle Palaeolithic as-
semblages, such as Divje babe I (Turk and Kavur, 1997) and Vindija,
layer G3 (Karavani
c and Smith, 1998), contrasts with the over-
whelmingly extra-local origin of raw materials recovered at Poto
cka
zijalka, mainly connected with the manufacture of small bladelets.
The complex organization of economic behaviour manifested in
the Aurignacian of Slovenia exhibits a significant departure from
the low level of anticipatory organization and rather opportunistic
patterns of land use characterizing the Western Eurasian Middle
Palaeolithic (e.g., Kuhn and Stiner, 2006). However, more work is
needed to understand land use and mobility patterns and the
processes surrounding the socio-economic change leading from the
Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic in southern and eastern Central
Europe. While not supported by our re-examination of the Slove-
nian record, the question of whether Neandertals made Upper
Palaeolithic osseous technology in southern and eastern Central
Europe remains an open issue that will have to be addressed in the
light of fresh and undisturbed assemblages.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the German Science Foundation
(DFG) (grant MO-2369/1). We would like to thank Sarah Elton as
well as one anonymous Associate Editor and two anonymous re-
viewers for their insightful comments that were used to make
improvements to the original manuscript. We would like to thank
Stane Rozman and Ivan Turk for granting us access to the materials
of Poto

cka zijalka and Divje babe, on which this study is partly
based, as well as Toma
z Lauko and David Badovinac for their help
with photographing artefacts. L.M. acknowledges, with gratitude,
Mircea Anghelinu, Herve  Bocherens, William Davies, Alejandro
Garcia-Moreno, Nejma Goutas, Jarod Hutson, Marie-Anne Julien,
 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180 177

Gyo€rgy Lengyel, Philip Nigst, Walter Postl, Joaquim Soler, Martin Bon, F., 2002. L'Aurignacien entre Mer et Oce an: Re
flexion sur l'unite  des phases
anciennes de l'Aurignacien dans le sud de la France. Me moire 29. Socie te

-Miguel Tejero, Elaine Turner, Eva Maria Wild for
Street, Jose
Prehistorique Française, Paris.
providing useful comments on earlier drafts. While any errors are Bon, F., 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of the in-
our own responsibility, we thank all of these individuals for their dustries of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. In: Bar-
interest and input. Finally L.M. would like to thank Sabine Yosef, O., Zilh~ao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, Trabalhos
de Arqueologia, vol. 45. Instituto Portugue ^s de Arqueologia, Lisbon,
Gaudzinski-Windheuser for providing the opportunity to work at pp. 133e144.
MONREPOS. L.M. and B.O. designed the research; P.T. and D.P. Bon, F., Simonnet, R., Ve zian, J., 2005. L'equipement lithique des Aurignaciens  a la
Tuto de Camalhot (Saint-Jean-de-Verges, Arie ge). Sa relation avec la mobilite 
provided permits and archaeological samples; L.M. collected and
des groupes et la re partition de leurs activite s dans un territoire. In: Jaubert, J.,
analysed lithic data; B.O. analyzed the osseous points; A.H. pro- Barbaza, M. (Eds.), Territoires, de placements, mobilite , echanges durant la
vided lithic raw material determinations in the context of the Pre 
histoire. Editions du Comite  des travaux historiques et scientifiques, Paris,
regional geological background; T.H. performed the sampling of the pp. 173e184.
Bordes, J.-G., 2006. News from the West: a reevaluation of the classical Aurignacian
osseous points; L.M. and T.H. analyzed the new radiocarbon dates; sequence of the Pe rigord. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilha ~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition
L.M. wrote the paper; all co-authors contributed to and helped to of the Aurignacian, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, vol. 45. Instituto Portugue ^s de
edit the final manuscript. Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 147e171.
Bordes, J.-G., Lenoble, A., 2002. La « lamelle Caminade »: un nouvel outil lithique
aurignacien? Bull. Soc. Pre hist. Fr. 99, 735e749.
Bordes, J.-G., Tixier, J., 2002. Sur l'unite  de l'Aurignacien ancien dans le Sud-Ouest
References de la France: la production des lames et des lamelles. In: Bon, F.,
Fern andez, J.M.M., Ortega i Cobos, D. (Eds.), Autour des concepts de Proto-
Adler, D., Bar-Oz, G., Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 2006. Ahead of the game: aurignacien, d'Aurignacien, archaïque, initial et ancien. Unite  et variabilite
 des
Middle and Upper Palaeolithic hunting behaviors in the southern Caucasus. comportements techniques des premiers groupes d'hommes modernes dans le
Curr. Anthropol. 47, 89e118. sud de la France et le nord de l'Espagne. Actes de la table ronde de Toulouse,
Ahern, J.C.M., Karavani c, I., Paunovi c, M., Jankovic, I., Smith, F.H., 2004. New dis- 2003, Prehistoria y Arqueología 15, Madrid, pp. 175e194.
coveries and interpretations of hominid fossils and artifacts from Vindija Cave, Brandl, M., Hauzenberger, C., Postl, W., Martinez, M.M., Trnka, G., Filzmoser, P., 2013
Croatia. J. Hum. Evol. 46, 27e67. (in press). Radiolarite studies at Krems-Wachtberg (Lower Austria): Northern
Albrecht, G., Hahn, J., Torke, W., 1972. Merkmalanalyse von Geschoßspitzen des Alpine versus Carpathian lithic resources. Quatern. Int. http://dx.doi.org/
mittleren Jungpleistoz€ ans in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Verlag W. Kohlhammer 10.1016/j.quaint.2013.01.031.
(Archaeologica Venatoria), Stuttgart. Brantingham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W., 2004. On the difficulty of the Middle-
Andersen, K.K., Svensson, A., Johnsen, S.J., Rasmussen, S.O., Bigler, M., Upper Palaeolithic transition. In: Brantingham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W.
Rothlisberger, R., Ruth, U., Siggaard-Andersen, M.-L., Steffensen, J.P., Dahl- (Eds.), The Early Upper Palaeolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of
Jensen, D., Vinther, B.M., Clausen, H.B., 2006. The Greenland ice core chronology California Press, Berkeley, pp. 1e13.
2005, 15e42 ka. Part 1: constructing the time scale. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 25, Breuil, H., 1913. Les subdivisions du Pale olithique superieur et leur signification. In:
3246e3257. Congre s International d'Anthropologie et d'Arche ologie pre historiques.
Andrefsky, W., 1994. Raw-material availability and the organization of technology. Compte-rendu de la 14e me session (1912), Gene ve, pp. 165e238.
Am. Antiq. 59, 21e34. Brock, F., Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T.F.G., 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered
Angel, F., 1954. Drautaler Schotter von Mautbrücken und Weißenstein (Ka €rnten). bone dating. Radiocarbon 49, 187e192.
Carinthia 2, 132e156. Brock, F., Higham, T.F.G., Ditchfield, P., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2010. Current pretreatment
Anghelinu, M., Niţa, L., 2012 (in press). What's in a name: The Aurignacian in methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator
Romania. Quatern. Int. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013. Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52, 103e112.
Anghelinu, M., Niţa, L., Sitlivy, V., Uthmeier, T., Ba ltean, I., 2012. Looking around Brodar, M., 1956. Prve palaeolitske najdbe v Mokri
ski jami. Arheolo
ski Vestnik 7,
Peştera Cu Oase: The beginnings of Upper Palaeolithic in Romania. Quatern. Int. 203e219.
274, 136e157. Brodar, M., 1959. Mokri
ska jama, nova visoko alpska aurigna
ska postaja v Jugoslaviji.
Auraujo Igreja, M., Bracco, J.-P., Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Eds.), 2006. Burins Slovenska Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti, Ljubljana, pp. 455e469.
prehistoriques: formes, fonctionnements, fonctions. Arche oLogiques 2. Muse e Brodar, M., 1960. Die hochalpine Aurignac-Station Mokri
ska jama (1500 m). In:
National d'Histoire et d'Art, Luxembourg. Freund, G. (Ed.), Festschrift für Lothar Zotz, Steinzeitfragen der Alten und Neuen
Bailey, S.E., Weaver, T.D., Hublin, J.-J., 2009. Who made the Aurignacian and other Welt. Ludwig Ro € hrscheid Verlag, Bonn, pp. 99e115.
early Upper Palaeolithic industries? J. Hum. Evol. 57, 11e26.

Brodar, M., 1966. Cetrto izkopavanje v Mokri
ski jami. Arheolo
ski Vestnik 17,
Bamforth, D.B., 1991. Technological organization and hunter-gatherer land use: A 427e435.
California example. Am. Antiq. 56, 216e234. Brodar, M., 1971. Olschewien, die Anfangsstufen des Jungpala €olithikums in Mitte-
nesz, L., 1965. Kotazke povodu triedenia a rozcirenia aurignacienu v Europe.
Ba leuropa. In: Novak, G. (Ed.), Actes du VIIIe me Congre s International des Sciences
Slowenska Archaeologia 13, 261e318. Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques, Beograd, pp. 43e52.
Banks, W.E., d'Errico, F., Zilha ~o, J., 2013a. Human-climate interaction during the Brodar, M., 1985. Die Ho €hlen Poto
cka zijalka und Mokri
ska jama. Quart€ ar 35e36,
Early Upper Palaeolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between 69e80.
the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian. J. Hum. Evol. 64, 39e55. Brodar, M., 2000. Kulturne najdbe kontrolnega izkopavanje v Poto
cki zijalki.
Banks, W.E., d'Errico, F., Zilh~ ao, J., 2013b. Revisiting the chronology of the Proto- Arheolo
ski Vestnik 51, 7e11.
Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian in Europe: A reply to Higham et al.'s Brodar, S., Bayer, J., 1928. Die Poto
cka zijalka, eine Hochstation der Aurignacsch-
comments on Banks et al. (2013). J. Hum. Evol. 65, 810e817. wankung in den Ostalpen. Praehistorica I, 1e13.
Bar-Yosef, O., 2006. Defining the Aurignacian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilha ~o, J. (Eds.), To- Brodar, S., Brodar, M., 1983. Poto
cka zijalka visokoalpska postaja aurignacienskih
wards a Definition of the Aurignacian, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, vol. 45. lovcev. Slovenska Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti, Ljubljana.
Instituto Portugue ^s de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 11e18. Brodar, M., Osole, F., 1979. Palaeolitske i mezolitske regije i kulture u Sloveniji. In:
~o, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Tra-
Bar-Yosef, O., Zilha Benac, A. (Ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 1. Svjetlost, Sarajevo,
balhos de Arqueologia, vol. 45. Instituto Portugue ^s de Arqueologia, Lisbon. pp. 159e194.
Bayer, J., 1929. Die Olschewakultur, eine neue Fazies des Schmalklingenkulturkre- Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51,
ises in Europa. Eiszeit und Urgeschichte 6, 83e101. 337e360.
Benazzi, S., Douka, K., Fornai, C., Bauer, C.C., Kullmer, O., Svoboda, J., Pap, I., Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T.F.G., Bowles, A., Hedges, R., 2004. Improvements to the
Mallegni, F., Bayle, P., Coquerelle, M., Condemi, S., Ronchitelli, A., Harvati, K., pretreatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46, 155e163.
Weber, G.W., 2011. Early dispersal of modern humans in Europe and implica- Bronk Ramsey, C., Scott, E.M., van der Plicht, J., 2013. Calibration for archaeological
tions for Neanderthal behaviour. Nature 479, 525e528. and environmental terrestrial samples in the time range 2650 ka cal BP.
Blackwell, B.A., Skinner, A.R., Blickstein, J.I.B., Golovanova, L.V., Doronichev, V.B., Radiocarbon 55, 1e7.
Seronie-Vivien, M.R., 2009. ESR dating at hominid and archaeological sites Brown, T.A., Nelson, D.E., Vogel, J.S., Southon, J.R., 1988. Improved collagen extrac-
during the Pleistocene. In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), Sourcebook of tion by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30, 171e177.
Palaeolithic Transitions: Methods, Theories, and Interpretations. Springer, New Chabai, V.P., Marks, A.E., Monigal, K., 2004. Crimea in the context of the Eastern
York, pp. 93e119. European Middle Palaeolithic and Early Upper Palaeolithic. In: Chabai, V.,
Blades, B.S., 1999. Aurignacian lithic economy and early modern human mobility: Monigal, K., Marks, A. (Eds.), The Middle Palaeolithic and Early Upper Palae-
new perspectives from classic sites in the Ve z e
re valley of France. J. Hum. Evol. 
olithic of Eastern Crimea, Etudes et Recherches Arche ologiques de l'Universite 
37, 91e120. de Liege 104, Liege, vol. 3, pp. 419e460.
Bleed, P., 1986. The optimal design of hunting weapons: Maintainability or reli- Chazan, M., 2010. Technological perspectives on the Upper Palaeolithic. Evol.
ability. Am. Antiq. 51, 737e747. Anthropol. 19, 57e65.
Bolus, M., Conard, N.J., 2006. Zur Zeitstellung von Geschossspitzen aus organischen Chiotti, L., 2000. Lamelles Dufour et grattoirs aurignaciens (care  ne
s et 
a museau) de
Materialien im sp€ aten Mittelpal€ aolithikum und Aurignacien. Archa €ologisches la couche 8 de l'abri Pataud, Les EyziesedeeTayac, Dordogne. L'anthropologie
Korrespondenzblatt 36, 1e15. 104, 239e263.
178 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180
Clark, G.A., Riel-Salvatore, J., 2009. What's in a name? Observations on the
compositional integrity of the Aurignacian. In: Camps, M., Szmidt, C. (Eds.), The
Mediterranean from 50,000 to 25,000 BP. Turning Points and New Directions.
Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 323e338.
Conard, N.J., 2009. A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave
in southwestern Germany. Nature 459, 248e252.
Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern
humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new
challenges. J. Hum. Evol. 44, 331e371.
Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., Goldberg, P., Münzel, S.C., 2006. The last Neanderthals and
first modern humans in the Swabian Jura. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), When Nean-
derthals and Modern Humans Met. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory, Kerns
Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 305e341.
Conard, N.J., Malina, M., Münzel, S.C., 2009. New flutes document the earliest
musical tradition in southwestern Germany. Nature 460, 737e740.
Davies, W., 2001. A very model of a modern human industry: new perspectives on
the origins and spread of the Aurignacian in Europe. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 67,
195e217.
Davies, W., 2007. Re-evaluating the Aurignacian as an expression of modern human
mobility and dispersal. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.),
Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological Perspec-
tives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research Monographs, Cambridge, pp. 263e274.
Davies, W., Hedges, R., 2008e2009. Dating a type site: Fitting Szeleta Cave into its
regional chronometric context. Praehistoria 9e10, 35e45.
Delporte, H., 1962. Les niveaux aurignaciens de l'abri du Facteur  a Tursac et
volution ge
l'e nerale de l'Aurignacien en Pe rigord. Bulletin de la Socie te d'e
tudes
et de recherches pre historiques 11, 1e20.
Demars, P.-Y., Laurent, P., 1992. Types d'outils lithiques du Pale olithique supe rieur
en Europe. Presses du CNRS, Paris.
d'Errico, F., Zilha~o, J., Julien, M., Baffier, D., Pelegrin, J., 1998. Neanderthal accultur-
ation in Western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpreta-
tion. Curr. Anthropol. 39 (Supplement), S1eS44.
d'Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Lawson, G., Vanhaeren, M., Tillier, A.-M., Soressi, M.,
Bresson, F., Maureille, B., Nowell, A., Lakarra, J., Backwell, L., Julien, M., 2003.
Archaeological evidence for the emergence of language, symbolism, and
music e an alternative multidisciplinary perspective. J. World Prehist. 17,
1e70.
Djindjian, F., 2002. Cinquante anne es de recherches sur les de buts de l'Aurignacien
en Europe occidentale. In: Bon, F., Fern andez, J.M.M., Ortega i Cobos, D. (Eds.),
Autour des concepts de Protoaurignacien, d'Aurignacien, archaïque, initial et
ancien. Unite  et variabilite  des comportements techniques des premiers
groupes d'hommes modernes dans le sud de la France et le nord de l'Espagne.
Actes de la table ronde de Toulouse, 2003, Prehistoria y Arqueología 15, Madrid,
pp. 17e38.
Djindjian, F., Kozłowski, J.K., Basile, F., 2003. Europe during the early Upper Palae-
olithic (40,000e30,000 BP): a synthesis. In: Zilh~ ao, J., d'Errico, F. (Eds.), The
Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes.
Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of
the XIVth Congress of the UISPP (Lie ge, 2001), Trabalhos de Arqueologia, vol.
33. Instituto Portugue ^s de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 29e47.
Ellis, C.J., 1997. Factors influencing the use of stone projectile tips. In: Knecht, H.
(Ed.), Projectile Technology. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 37e74.
Gamble, C.S., 1986. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Hahn, J., 1977. Aurignacien. Das a €ltere Jungpala €olithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa.
In: Fundamenta A9, Ko € ln.
Hahn, J., 1988. Fiche 1-1 Sagaies  a base simple et Fiche 1-2 Sagaies a  base fendue. In:
Camps-Fabrer, H. (Ed.), Fiches typologiques de l'industrie osseuse pre historique,
Cahier I, Sagaies. Publications de l'Universite  de Provence, Aix-en-Provence.
Heritsch, F., Heritsch, H., 1941. Lydite und a €hnliche Gesteine aus den Karnischen
Alpen. Mitteilungen des Alpenl€ andischen geologischen Vereins 34, 127e164.
Higham, T.F.G., 2011. European Middle and Upper Palaeolithic radiocarbon dates are
often older than they look: problems with previous dates and some remedies.
Antiquity 85, 235e249.
Higham, T.F.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Karavani c, I., Smith, F.H., Trinkaus, E., 2006a.
Revised direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Palaeolithic Nean-
dertals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 553e557.
Higham, T.F.G., Jacobi, R.M., Ramsey, R.M., 2006b. AMS radiocarbon dating of
ancient bone using ultrafiltration. Radiocarbon 48, 179e195.
Higham, T.F.G., Compton, T., Stringer, C., Jacobi, R., Shapiro, B., Trinkaus, E.,
Chandler, B., Gro €ning, F., Collins, C., Hillson, S., O'Higgins, P., FitzGerald, C.,
Fagan, M., 2011. The earliest evidence for anatomically modern humans in
northwestern Europe. Nature 479, 521e524.
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 Geißenklo € sterle. J. Hum.
Evol. 62, 664e676.
Higham, T.F.G., Wood, R., Moreau, L., Conard, N.J., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2013. Com-
ments on ‘Humaneclimate interaction during the early Upper Palaeolithic:
Testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and
the Early Aurignacian’ by Banks et al. (2013). J. Hum. Evol. 65, 806e809.
Hofreiter, M., Pacher, M., 2004. Using ancient DNA to elucidate raw material origin
of bone points from Poto
cka zijalka (Slovenia): preliminary results. In:
Pacher, M., Pohar, V., Rabeder, G. (Eds.), Poto
cka zijalka e Palaeontological and
archaeological results of the Campaigns 1997e2000, Mitteilungen der Kom-
mission für Quarta €
€rforschung der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften 13, Vienna, pp. 201e210.
Jacobi, R.M., Higham, T.F.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of
Middle and Upper Palaeolithic bone in the British Isles: improved reliability
using ultrafiltration. J. Quatern. Sci. 21, 557e573.
€ris, O., Street, M., 2008. At the end of the 14C time scale e the Middle to Upper
Jo
Palaeolithic record of western Eurasia. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 782e802.
Kaminska , L., Kozłowski, J.K., Svoboda, J. (Eds.), 2005. Pleistocene Environments and
Archaeology of the Dzerava  skala Cave, Lesser Carpathians, Slovakia. Polska
Akademia Umiejetnosci, Krako  w.
Karavani c, I., 2000. Olschewian and appearance of bone technology in Croatia and
Slovenia. In: Orschiedt, J., Weniger, G. (Eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans
e Discussing the Transition. Central and Eastern Europe from
50,000e30,000 B.P. Neandertal Museum, Mettmann, pp. 159e168.
Karavani c, I., 2007. The Middle/Upper Palaeolithic interface in Croatia. In: Riel-
Salvatore, J., Clark, G.A. (Eds.), New Approaches to the Study of Early Upper
Palaeolithic “Transitional” Industries in Western Eurasia. British Archaeological
Reports International Series 1620. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 75e89.
Karavani c, I., Smith, F.H., 1998. The Middle/Upper Palaeolithic interface and the
relationship of Neanderthals and early modern humans in the Hrvatsko
Zagorje, Croatia. J. Hum. Evol. 34, 223e248.
Karavani c, I., Smith, F.H., 2000. More on the Neanderthal problem: The Vindija case.
Curr. Anthropol. 41, 838e840.
Karavani c, I., Paunovi c, M., Yokoyama, Y., Falgue res, C., 1998. Ne
andertaliens et
Paleolithique supe rieur dans la grotte de Vindija, Croatie: Controverses autour
de la couche G1. L'Anthropologie 102, 131e141.
Kelly, R.L., 2013. The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Kelly, R.L., Todd, L., 1988. Coming into the country, Early Palaeoindian hunting and
mobility. Am. Antiq. 53, 231e244.
Knecht, H., 1991. Technological innovation and design during the Early Upper
Palaeolithic: A study of organic projectile technologies. Ph.D. Dissertation, New
York University.
Knecht, H., 1993. Splits and wedges: The techniques and technology of Early Auri-
gnacian antler working. In: Knecht, H., Pike-Tay, A., White, R. (Eds.), Before Las-
caux. The Complex Record of the Early Upper Palaeolithic. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Knecht, H., 1997. Projectile points of bone, antler, and stone: Experimental explo-
rations of manufacture and use. In: Knecht, H. (Ed.), Projectile Technology.
Plenum Press, New York, pp. 191e211.
Kozłowski, J.K., 1996. Cultural context of the last Neanderthals and early modern
humans in Central-Eastern Europe. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Cavalli-Sforza, L., March, R.,
Piperno, M. (Eds.), The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. Abaco, Forlì, pp. 205e218.
Kralj, P., 1996. Lithofacies characteristics of the Smrekovec volcaniclastics, northern
Slovenia. Geologija 39, 159e191.
Kralj, P., Celarc, B., 2002. Shallow intrusive volcanic rocks on Mt. Raduha, Savinja-
Kamnik Alps, Northern Slovenia. Geologija 45, 247e253.
Kuhn, S.L., 1992. On planning and curated technologies in the Middle Palaeolithic.
J. Anthropol. Res. 48, 185e214.
Kuhn, S.L., 1994. A formal approach to the design and assembly of mobile toolkits.
Am. Antiq. 59, 426e442.
Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., 2006. What's a mother to do? The division of labor among
Neandertals and modern humans in Eurasia. Curr. Anthropol. 47, 953e980.
Kuhn, S.L., Brantingham, P.J., Kerry, K.W., 2004. The early Upper Palaeolithic and the
origins of modern human behavior. In: Brantingham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W.
(Eds.), The Early Upper Palaeolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of
California Press, Berkeley, pp. 242e249.
Lebrun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), 2005. Productions lamellaires attribue es a
 l'Aurignacien:
chaînes ope ratoires et perspectives technoculturelles. Arche oLogiques 1. Muse e
National d'Histoire et d'Art, Luxembourg.
Liolios, D., 1999. Variabilite  et caracte ristiques du travail des matieres osseuses au
debut de l'Aurignacien: approche technologique et e conomique. Ph.D. Disser-
tation, University of Paris X-Nanterre.
Liolios, D., 2006. Reflections on the role of bone tools in the definition of the Early
Aurignacian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilha ~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the
Aurignacian, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, vol. 45. Instituto Portugue ^s de
Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 37e51.
Lucas, G., 2006. Re-evaluation of the principal diagnostic criteria of the Aurignacian:
the example from Grotte XVI (Ce nac-et-Saint-Julien, Dordogne). In: Bar-
Yosef, O., Zilha ~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, Trabalhos de
Arqueologia, vol. 45. Instituto Portugue ^s de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 173e186.
Mellars, P., 1999. The Neanderthal problem continued. Curr. Anthropol. 40,
341e350.
Mellars, P., 2005. The impossible coincidence. A single-species model for the origins
of modern human behavior in Europe. Evol. Anthropol. 14, 12e27.
Mellars, P., 2011. The earliest modern humans in Europe. Nature 479, 483e485.
Miracle, P.T., 1991. Carnivore dens or carnivore hunts? A review of Upper Pleisto-
cene mammalian assemblages in Croatia and Slovenia. Rad Hrvatske Akademije
znanosti i umjetnosti 458 (25), 193e219.
Miracle, P.T., 1998. The spread of modernity in Palaeolithic Europe. In: Omoto, K.,
Tobias, P.V. (Eds.), The Origins and Past of Modern Humans e Towards Recon-
ciliation. World Scientific/International Institute for Advanced Studies,
Singapore, pp. 171e187.
Montet-White, A., 1996. Le Pale 
olithique en ancienne Yougoslavie. Editions ro
Je ^ me
Millon, Grenoble.
 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180
Narr, K.J., 1951. Karten zur € alteren Steinzeit Mitteleuropas. Archaeol. Geogr. 2,
111e120.
Nelson, M., 1991. The study of technological organization. In: Schiffer, M. (Ed.),
Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3. University of Arizona Press, Tucson,
pp. 57e100.
Nelson, D.E., 1997. Radiocarbon dating of bone and charcoal from Divje Babe I Cave.
In: Turk, I. (Ed.), Mouste rienska “ko
s
cena pi
s

cal” in druge najdbe iz Divjih Bab I
v Sloveniji. In
stitut za arheologijo, Ljubljana, pp. 51e65.
Nigst, P.R., 2012. The Early Upper Palaeolithic of the Middle Danube Region. In:
Studies in Human Evolution. Leiden University Press, Leiden, 379 pp.
Nigst, P.R., Haesaerts, P., 2012. L'Aurignacien en Basse Autriche: re sultats
preliminaires de l'analyse technologique de la couche culturelle 3 de Willendorf
II et ses implications pour la chronologie du Pale olithique supe rieur ancien en
Europe centrale. L'Anthropologie 116, 575e608.
Nigst, P.R., Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Frank-Fellnerd, Chr., Mallol, C., Viola, B.,
Go€tzinger, M., Niven, L., Trnka, G., Hublin, J.-J., 2014. Early modern human
settlement of Europe north of the Alps occurred 43,500 years ago in a cold
steppe-type environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 14394e14399.
Odar, B., 2008a. Izdelava in uporaba ko
s
cenih konic iz Poto
cke zijalke (Making and use
of bone points from Poto
cka zijalka. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ljubljana.
Odar, B., 2008b. A Dufour bladelet from Poto
cka zijalka (Slovenia). Arheolo
ski
Vestnik 59, 9e16.
Odar, B., 2011. Archers at Poto
cka zijalka? Arheolo
ski Vestnik 62, 433e456.
Odar, B., 2014. Potocka zijavka (Slovenia) e Excavation campaign 2012. Arch-
€
aologisches Korrespondenzblatt 44, 1e12.
Ortega, D., Soler, N., Maroto, J., 2005. La production des lamelles pendant l'Aurig-
nacien archaïque dans la grotte de l'Arbreda: organisation de la production,
variabilite  des me thodes et des objectifs. In: Lebrun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Pro-
ductions lamellaires attribue es a
 l'Aurignacien: chaînes ope ratoires et per-
spectives technoculturelles, Arche oLogiques 1. Muse e National d'Histoire et
d'Art, Luxembourg, pp. 359e373.
Otte, M., 1979. Le Pale olithique superieur ancien en Belgique. Muse es royaux d'Art
et d'Histoire, Bruxelles.
Pacher, M., 2010. Raw material analysis of Upper Palaeolithic bone points and the
innovation of the Olschewian. In: Neugebauer-Maresch, C., Owen, L. (Eds.), New
Aspects of the Central and Eastern European Upper Palaeolithic e Methods,
Chronology, Technology and Subsistence. Symposium by the Prehistoric Com-
mission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Mitteilungen der Pra €historischen
Kommission, Vienna, pp. 319e325.
Pacher, M., Pohar, V., Rabeder, G. (Eds.), 2004. Poto
cka zijalka e Palaeontological
and archaeological results of the Campaigns 1997e2000. Mitteilungen der
Kommission für Quarta €
€rforschung der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften 13, Vienna.
Pelegrin, J., 2000. Les techniques de de'bitage laminaire au Tardiglaciaire: crite res
de diagnose et quelques re flexions. In: Valentin, B., Bodu, P., Christensen, M.
(Eds.), L'Europe centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire, Me moires du
Muse e de Pre histoire d'Ile de France 7. Editions APRAIF, Nemours, pp. 73e86.
Pelegrin, J., O'Farrell, M., 2005. Les lamelles retouche es ou utilisees de Castanet. In:
Lebrun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Productions lamellaires attribue es a l'Aurignacien:
chaînes ope ratoires et perspectives technoculturelles, Arche oLogiques 1. Muse e
National d'Histoire et d'Art, Luxembourg, pp. 103e122.
Pettitt, P.B., Davies, W., Gamble, C.S., Richards, M.B., 2003. Palaeolithic radiocarbon
chronology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. J. Archaeol. Sci.
30, 1685e1693.
Peyrony, D., 1933. Les industries «aurignaciennes» dans le bassin de la Ve z e
re,
Aurignacien et Pe rigordien. Bull. Soc. Prehist. Fr. 30, 543e559.
Pohar, V., 2004. Stone and bone artefacts from the excavations 1997e2000 in
Poto
cka zijalka (Slovenia). In: Pacher, M., Pohar, V., Rabeder, G. (Eds.), Poto
cka
zijalka e Palaeontological and archaeological results of the Campaigns
1997e2000, Mitteilungen der Kommission für Quarta €rforschung der
€
Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 13, Vienna, pp. 211e216.
Premru, U., 1983. Basic geological map of SFRJ 1/100 000. Geology of the sheet
Ljubljana. Savezni geolo
ski zavod, Beograd.
Pro

zek, F., 1953. Szeletien na Slovensku. Slovenska  Archeolo gia 1, 133e194.
Prüfer, K., Racimo, F., Patterson, N., Jay, F., Sankararaman, S., Sawyer, S., Heinze, A.,
Renaud, G., Sudmant, P.H., de Filippo, C., Li, H., Mallick, S., Dannemann, M.,
Fu, Q., Kircher, M., Kuhlwilm, M., Lachmann, M., Meyer, M., Ongyerth, M.,
Siebauer, M., Theunert, Chr., Tandon, A., Moorjan, P., Pickrell, J., Mullikin, J.C.,
Vohr, S.H., Green, R.E., Hellmann, I., Johnson, P.L.F., Blanche, H., Cann, H.,
Kitzman, J.O., Shendure, J., Eichler, E.E., Lein, Ed.S., Bakken, T.E., Golovanova, L.V.,
Doronichev, V.B., Shunkov, M.V., Derevianko, A.P., Viola, B., Slatkin, M., Reich, D.,
Kelso, J., Pa€€
abo, S., 2014. The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from
the Altai Mountains. Nature 505, 43e49.
Rabeder, G., Pohar, V., 2004. Stratigraphy and chronology of the cave sediments
from Poto
cka zijalka (Slovenia). In: Pacher, M., Pohar, V., Rabeder, G. (Eds.),
Poto
cka zijalka e Palaeontological and archaeological results of the Campaigns
1997e2000, Mitteilungen der Kommission für Quarta €rforschung der
€
Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 13, Vienna, pp. 235e246.
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk
Ramsey, 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.F.,
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, 0e50,000
years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51, 1111e1150.
179
Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C.,
Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P.,
Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatte , C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffman, D.L., Hogg, A.G.,
Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W.,
Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Turney, C.S.M., van der
Plicht, J., 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves
0e50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55, 1869e1887.
Riel-Salvatore, J., Barton, C.M., 2004. Late Pleistocene technology, economic
behavior, and land-use dynamics in southern Italy. Am. Antiq. 69, 257e274.
Ronchitelli, A., Benazzi, S., Boscato, P., Douka, K., Moroni, A., 2014. Comments on
“Human-climate interaction during the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Testing the
hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early
Aurignacian” by William E. Banks, Francesco d'Errico, Joa ~o Zilh~
ao. J. Hum. Evol.
73, 107e111.
Roth, B.J., Dibble, H.L., 1998. Production and transport of blanks and tools at the
French Middle Paleolithic site of Combe-Capelle Bas. Am. Antiq. 63, 47e62.
Smith, F.H., Trinkaus, E., Pettitt, P.B., Karavani c, I., Paunovi c, M., 1999. Direct radio-
carbon dates for Vindija G1 and Velika Pe cina Late Pleistocene hominid re-
mains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96, 12281e12286.
Sonneville-Bordes, D. de, 1960. Le Pale olithique supe rieur en Pe rigord. Delmas,
Bordeaux.
Straus, L.G., 1999. The Neandertal problem continued. Curr. Anthropol. 40, 352e355.
Straus, L.G., 2009. Has the notion of “transitions” in Palaeolithic prehistory outlived its
usefulness? The European record in wider context. In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P.R.
(Eds.), Sourcebook of Palaeolithic Transitions. Springer, New York, pp. 3e18.
Svoboda, J., 2001. Mlade
c and other caves in the Middle Danube region: early
modern humans, late Neandertals, and projectiles. In: Zilha ~o, J., Aubry, T.,
Carvalho, A.F. (Eds.), Les premiers hommes modernes de la Pe ninsule Ibe rique.
Actes du Colloque de la Commission VIII de l'UISPP, Trabalhos de Arqueologia,
vol. 17. Instituto Portugue ^s de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 45e60.
Svoboda, J., 2007. On modern humans' penetration to northern Eurasia: the mul-
tiple advances hypothesis. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C.
(Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological
Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Insti-
tute for Archaeological Research Monographs, Cambridge, pp. 329e339.
Svoboda, J., Sim an, K., 1989. The Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition in south-
eastern Central Europe (Czechoslovakia and Hungary). J. World Prehist. 3,
283e322.
Tartar, E., White, R., 2013. The manufacture of Aurignacian split-based points: an
experimental challenge. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 2723e2745.
Teller, F., 1914. Geologie des Karawankentunnels. Denkschrift der Akademie der
Wissenschaften Wien 82, 143e250.
Teyssandier, N., 2008. En route vers l'Ouest. Les de buts de l'Aurignacien en Europe.
British Archaeological Reports International Series 1638. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Teyssandier, N., Bolus, M., Conard, N., 2006. The Early Aurignacian in central Europe
and its place in a European perspective. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilha ~o, J. (Eds.), To-
wards a Definition of the Aurignacian, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, vol. 45.
Instituto Portugue ^s de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 241e256.
Tsanova, T., 2008. Les de buts du Pale olithique supe rieur dans l'Est des Balkans.
Reflexion a  partir de l'etude taphonomique et techno-e conomique des en-
sembles lithiques de Bacho Kiro (couche 11), Temnata (couches VI et 4) et
Kozarnika (niveau VII). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1752.
Archaeopress, Oxford.
Turk, I. (Ed.), 1997. Mouste rienska “ko
s
cena pi
s

cal” in druge najdbe iz Divjih Bab I v
Sloveniji. In
stitut za arheologijo, Ljubljana.
Turk, I., 2002. Morfometri
cna analiza zgodnjih ko
s
cenih v povezavi z najdbami
ko
s
cenih konic iz Divjih bab I. Arheolo
ski Vestnik 53, 9e29.
Turk, I., 2005. Zagovor morfometri
cne analize ko
s
cenih konic. Arheolo
ski Vestnik
56, 453e464.
Turk, I. (Ed.), 2007. Divje babe I: Upper Pleistocene Palaeolithic site in Slovenia, Part
1: Geology and Palaeontology. In
stitut za arheologijo, Ljubljana.
Turk, I. (Ed.), 2014. Divje babe I: Upper Pleistocene Palaeolithic site in Slovenia, Part
2: Archaeology. In
stitut za arheologijo, Ljubljana.
Turk, I., Kavur, B., 1997. Survey and description of Palaeolithic tools, fireplaces and
hearths. In: Turk, I. (Ed.), Mouste rienska “ko
s
cena pi
s

cal” in druge najdbe iz
Divjih Bab I v Sloveniji. In
stitut za arheologijo, Ljubljana, pp. 119e156.
Turk, I., Culiberg, M., Dirjec, J., 1988. Palaeolitsko Najdisce Divje Babe. Kulturni in
Naravni Spomeniki Slovenije, Ljubljana.
Turk, M., Turk, I., 2014. Conclusions and Discussion. In: Turk, I. (Ed.), Divje babe I:
Upper Pleistocene Palaeolithic site in Slovenia, Part 2: Archaeology. In
stitut za
arheologijo, Ljubljana, pp. 343e348.
Valoch, K., 1965. Die altsteinzeitlichen Begehungen der Ho €hle Pod Hradem.
Anthropos 18, 95e106.
Vanhaeren, M., d'Errico, F., 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe
revealed by personal ornaments. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 1105e1128.
Verpoorte, A., 2012. Caching and retooling in Poto
cka zijalka (Slovenia). Implica-
tions for late Aurignacian land use strategies. Archa €ologisches Korres-
pondenzblatt 42, 135e151.
rtes, L., 1955. Neue Ausgrabungen und pal€
Ve aolithische Funde in der Ho € hle von
Ist
allo sko
€ . Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 5, 111e131.
rtes, L., 1965. Az o
Ve € sko
€kor es az atmeneti kokor emle kei Magyarorsza gon. A
Magyar re g eszet ke
ziko€- nyve I. Akade miai Kiado , Budapest.
Wall, J.D., Yang, M.A., Jay, F., Kim, S.K., Durand, E.Y., Stevison, L.S., Gignoux, Chr.,
Woerner, A., Hammer, M.F., Slatkin, M., 2013. Higher levels of Neanderthal
ancestry in East Asians than in Europeans. Genetics 194, 199e209.
180 L. Moreau et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 78 (2015) 158e180

Wild, E., Golser, R., Hille, P., Kutschera, W., Priller, A., Puchegger, S., Rom, W., ~o, J., 2006a. Neandertals and moderns mixed, and it matters. Evol. Anthropol.
Zilha
Steier, P., 1998. First 14C Results from archaeological and forensic studies at the 15, 183e195.
Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator. Radiocarbon 40, 273e281. ~o, J., 2006b. Aurignacian, behavior, modern: issues of definition in the emer-
Zilha
Wild, E.M., Teschler-Nicola, M., Kutschera, W., Steier, P., Trinkaus, E., Wanek, W., gence of the European Upper Palaeolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilh~ ao, J. (Eds.),
2005. First direct dating of Early Upper Palaeolithic human remains from Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, vol. 45.
Mlade
c. Nature 435, 332e335. Instituto Portugue ^s de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 53e69.
Wood, R.E., Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T.F.G., 2010. Refining the ultrafiltration bone ~o, J., 2007. The emergence of ornaments and art: An archaeological perspective
Zilha
pretreatment background for radiocarbon dating at ORAU. Radiocarbon 52, on the origins of “behavioral modernity”. J. Archaeol. Res. 15, 1e54.
600e611. ~o, J., 2009. Szeletian, not Aurignacian: A review of the chronology and cultural
Zilha
Wood, R.E., Arrizabalaga, A., Camps, M., Fallon, S., Iriarte-Chiapusso, M.-J., Jones, R., associations of the Vindija G1 Neandertals. In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.),
Maroto, J., de la Rasilla, M., Santamaría, D., Soler, J., Soler, N., Villaluenga, A., Sourcebook of Palaeolithic Transitions. Springer, New York, pp. 407e426.
Higham, T.F.G., 2014. The chronology of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic in ~o, J., d'Errico, F., 1999. The chronology and taphonomy of the earliest Auri-
Zilha
northern Iberia: New insights from L'Arbreda, Labeko Koba and La Vin ~ a. J. Hum. gnacian and its implications for the understanding of Neandertal extinction.
Evol. 69, 91e109. J. World Prehist. 13, 1e68.