K. Douka1∗ , C. Perlès2 , H. Valladas3 , M. Vanhaeren4 & R.E.M. Hedges1 The Aurignacian, traditionally regarded as marking the beginnings of Sapiens in Europe, is notoriously hard to date, being almost out of reach of radiocarbon. Here the authors return to the stratified sequence in the Franchthi Cave, chronicle its lithic and shell ornament industries and, by dating humanly-modified material, show that Franchthi was occupied either side of the Campagnian Ignimbrite super-eruption around 40 000 years ago. Along with other results, this means that groups of Early Upper Palaeolithic people were active outside the Danube corridor and Western Europe, and probably in contact with each other over long distances. Keywords: Greece, Aurignacian, Upper Palaeolithic, radiocarbon, shell ornaments, lithics Introduction Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe continues to present major methodological challenges, but during the last two decades a suite of technical advances in radiocarbon dating, such as the development of new pre-treatment protocols (Higham 2011), an internationally-agreed calibration curve which spans 50 000 years BP — IntCal09 (Reimer et al. 2009) — and the application of Bayesian statistics (Bronk Ramsey 2009), 1 2 3 4 ∗ Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK Université Paris Ouest, Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie, Préhistoire et Technologie, 21 Allée de l’Université, 92023, Nanterre Cedex, France Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE/IPSL), CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Bâtiment 12, Avenue de la Terrasse, 91198, Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France CNRS UMR 5199 PACEA, Préhistoire, Paléoenvironment, Patrimoine, Université Bordeaux 1, CNRS, Bât. B18, Avenue des Facultés, 33405, Talence, France Author for correspondence (Email: katerina.douka@rlaha.ox.ac.uk) Received: 21 December 2010; Accepted: 14 March 2011; Revised: 4 April 2011 ANTIQUITY 85 (2011): 1131–1150 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/ant0851131.htm 1131 Research Franchthi Cave revisited: the age of the Aurignacian in south-eastern Europe Franchthi Cave revisited have prompted new attempts to refine the chronological framework (Bronk Ramsey 2008; Jöris & Street 2008; Higham 2011). At the same time, the development of technological approaches on well-stratified assemblages has led to a much better characterisation and understanding of lithic production during the different phases of the Aurignacian, particularly in Western and Central Europe (Bon 2002, 2006; Bordes 2006; Nigst 2006; Teyssandier 2008; Maı́llo-Fernández & de Quirós 2010). Taken together, these new perspectives in both radiocarbon dating and lithic studies invite us to reconsider the Aurignacian at Franchthi Cave, Argolid, Greece, as one of the most easterly Aurignacian sites in Europe. Its lithic assemblages were first published when the succession of Aurignacian phases was poorly defined in terms of lithic technology (Perlès 1987), hence a re-assessment is due. In this paper we present a brief re-analysis of the lithic evidence and publish the first radiocarbon determinations for the earliest part of the sequence. Current status of the Aurignacian Three different Aurignacian industries are now recognised in Europe (Bon 2002, 2006; Le Brun-Ricalens 2005; Teyssandier 2008). The Protoaurignacian (Aurignacian 0), originally defined by Laplace (1966), is relatively common in the Mediterranean region (Bazile & Sicard 1999) but has also been documented in Western and Central Europe (Bon 2002, 2006; Bordes 2006; Tsanova 2006). It has affinities with the early Near Eastern Ahmarian (Mellars 2006; Zilhão 2006; Teyssandier 2007). The Protoaurignacian is characterised by the production of blades and long straight bladelets within a single reduction sequence, usually on pyramidal cores. Organic tools made of bone or ivory are very limited in range and number (Teyssandier 2008). The Early Aurignacian (Aurignacian I) can be seen as the founding facies of the Aurignacian sensu stricto (Teyssandier et al. 2010). It is characterised by the production of blades and bladelets in two clearly separate reduction sequences. Blades are produced from large flatfaced prismatic cores, while bladelets are produced on what were classically termed carinated end-scrapers. In the Early Aurignacian, these carinated cores have a wide front and the debitage is detached towards a central ridge on the upper face. The bladelets are straight or curved, rarely or only lightly twisted, and rarely retouched. These industries are normally associated with the emblematic split-based bone point (Knecht 1991; Liolios 2006). It has recently been suggested that the Early Aurignacian was restricted to south-western Europe and the Swabian Jura (Teyssandier et al. 2010). The Evolved Aurignacian (Aurignacian II) also makes use of carinated cores for the production of bladelets but these have a narrower front and include carinated burins, carinated end-scrapers and nosed end-scrapers. The bladelets — Dufour bladelets of the Roc-de-Combe subtype — tend to be smaller and often twisted to the right when viewed from the upper surface (Chiotti 1999; Bordes & Lenoble 2002; Bordes 2006). In both Aurignacian I and Aurignacian II, the cores are extensively used and rejuvenated, producing characteristic rejuvenation flakes and bladelets (Le Brun-Ricalens 2005), which attest to the presence of this mode of debitage even in the absence of the cores. 1132 Inherent difficulties in the dating of the time period, close to the limits of the radiocarbon method, make it difficult to establish whether the Protoaurignacian and Early Aurignacian industries were produced successively or if some chronological overlap should be expected. At sites where both technocomplexes occur, the Protoaurignacian is always found stratigraphically below the Early Aurignacian (Teyssandier et al. 2010; Zilhão 2011). In absolute terms, the former is proposed to date to about 38/36.5–35 ka BP while Early and Evolved Aurignacian follow on chronologically, from 35/34 ka and 33–30 ka BP, respectively (Zilhão & d’Errico 2003a; Jöris & Street 2008; Teyssandier et al. 2010; Zilhão 2011). In south-eastern Mediterranean Europe, Aurignacian industries are rare — Franchthi being one of the few exceptions — and were thought to appear 10 000 years later than in the rest of Europe (e.g. Papagianni 2009). The archaeological context at Franchthi Cave Franchthi Cave (37◦ 25’20.90′′ N, 23◦ 7’52.73′′ E) is a vast cavity overlooking a nowsubmerged coastal plain, across the bay of Koiladha in south-western Argolid (Figure 1). Excavated between 1967 and 1979 under the direction of T.W. Jacobsen of Indiana University, it yielded an exceptionally long archaeological sequence spanning the Upper Palaeolithic to the end of the Neolithic (Jacobsen & Farrand 1987). The two deepest trenches FAS and H1B (Farrand 2000) reached a maximum depth of 11.2m in FAS and 9.7m in H1B, at which point the excavated surface had become restricted to less than 2m2 . Excavation ended in FAS because the water table had been reached and in H1B due to the presence of large, irremovable limestone boulders. The sediment excavated in each unit was water-sieved down to a mesh of 1.5mm. The quality of the recovery, which included systematic water-sieving and flotation of the sediment, has made Franchthi a reference site for south-eastern Europe. In the present paper, only the lowest and less well-known Upper Palaeolithic levels (strata P, Q and R) are considered (Figure 2). The deepest level (stratum P in Figure 2), at least 1.5–2m thick in FAS (FAS 227–224, plus units 223 and 222 cross-cutting P and Q), was defined as “yellowish red (5YR 4-5/6-8) clay loam with abundant gravel and rock fragments up to 25 cm across, in and around much larger limestone blocks” (Farrand 2000: 56). This stratum was only superficially reached in H1B (units 215–214). There was a poor undiagnostic lithic assemblage (Perlès 1987) and some poorly-preserved mammal bones (Farrand 2000). No carbonised seeds were present, but very small uncarbonised nutlets of Boraginaceae (Alkanna cf. orientalis, Lithodora [Lithospermum] arvense and Anchusa sp.), probably wind-blown, were found in large quantities (Hansen 1991: 104). They reflect a cold and arid climate and a steppic environment (Hansen 1991). In both trenches, stratum P is overlain by stratum Q, a unique volcanic tephra layer, 5–9cm thick. It is best preserved in FAS (222–218) where it shows a very sharp lower contact and appears to be in primary position (Farrand 2000: 56). In H1B (213) it is scattered and laterally diffused, possibly due to reworking shortly after the initial deposition (Farrand 2000: 86). The mineral content and thickness of the ash correspond to the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) (Vitaliano et al. 1981; Farrand 2000) most probably deriving from an eruption in the Phlegrean Fields in southern Italy. The lithic assemblage in stratum 1133 Research K. Douka et al. Franchthi Cave revisited Figure 1. Map of Greece at current and at Late Glacial (–100m) sea levels (courtesy of A. Colonese). The location of Franchthi and Klissoura Cave 1 in Argolid is indicated. Q is characterised as Aurignacian (Perlès 1987). Lepus europaeus and Felis silvestris were the only mammalian taxa recovered, in very small quantities (Stiner & Munro 2011). The seed assemblage in stratum Q is identical to that of stratum P. Stratum R, overlying Q, is 40–150cm thick. In H1B it is found in units 181–212 and in FAS in units 209–217. The lithostratigraphy of stratum R is very similar to that of stratum P and consists of very sandy clay loams with gravel and rock fragments deposited on and between large limestone blocks (Farrand 2000). At the bottom of stratum R, patches of reworked tephra from stratum Q were identified in both trenches (Farrand 2000). Analysis of lithics and botanical remains suggests that stratum R comprises two successive and quite distinct periods (Jacobsen & Farrand 1987; Perlès 1987; Hansen 1991). The lower part of stratum R yielded a lithic assemblage very similar to that from stratum Q, while the upper part of stratum R is dominated by Gravettoid backed bladelets and micropoints (Perlès 1987). Mammal remains in trench H1B include mostly Cervus elaphus and Bos primigenius with some Equus hydruntinus and Sus scrofa (Stiner & Munro 2011). Botanical remains are again dominated by species of the Boraginaceae family (Hansen 1991). In the upper units of R the dominant species shifts from Alkanna sp. to Lithospermum arvense (Hansen 1991). No bone tools were recovered from either trench in either stratum. The lithic assemblages revisited The lithic material is unfortunately numerically poor, mainly due to the small size of the excavations, but diachronic distinctions can now be suggested. Considering the thickness of stratum P it is unlikely that the restricted lithic assemblage (Table 1) belongs to a homogeneous archaeological phase. In the deepest level of FAS (unit 227), one flake and one side-scraper with thick facetted butts suggest that the Middle Palaeolithic had been reached. Units FAS 226–224 were almost sterile, the few pieces — small flakes under 1cm 1134 Research K. Douka et al. Figure 2. a) Longitudinal section of Franchthi Cave; b) plans of excavated trenches; c) profile sections of FAS and HH1 (modified after Farrand 2000). — may have filtered down in between the roof-collapse blocks. FAS 223 and H1B 215–214 were somewhat richer (76 pieces) but the material, which consists mainly of very small retouched flakes, is non-diagnostic (Perlès 1987). Despite the now-demonstrated presence of Uluzzian levels at nearby Klissoura Cave 1 (Koumouzelis et al. 2001), it is impossible to ascertain whether the technocomplex is also present at Franchthi. Lithic elements from stratum Q, the tephra layer, have mostly been found in FAS 222– 218, with only nine undiagnostic pieces in H1B 213. The assemblage comprises straight and curved bladelets of small dimensions, sometimes slightly twisted, together with characteristic curved and twisted lateral carinated-core rejuvenation flakes (Figure 3). Most of the bladelets are typical lateral preparation bladelets, while central bladelets are rare, possibly gone from the site mounted on composite organic points. There is no indication of a distinct production of larger blades and bladelets from prismatic cores, thus no indication of a Protoaurignacian component. All of the material is compatible with an Early Aurignacian mode of production, on carinated cores with a large front, struck axially. The extreme rarity of retouched bladelets is another characteristic found in Early Aurignacian assemblages. 1135 Table 1. Techno-typological description of the lithic assemblage of Franchthi. The identified archaeological industries are shown (nD = non diagnostic, AUR = Aurignacian, GRAV = Gravettian) as well as the lithic phases as were originally identified by Perlès (1987). Unit Total Curved Stratum lithics bladelet P P P P P Q Q Q Q Q R R 8 3 1 0 13 2 34 150 70 65 >270 > 50 H1B 215 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 P P Q R R R R R R 36 6 9 10 123 580 12 105 140 2 3 1 3 2 1 13 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 9 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 2 2 4 20 6 6 2 6 1 1 4 21 3 8 4 3 1 1 atyp. nD nD nD nD nD nD AUR AUR AUR AUR AUR GRAV 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 nD nD nD AUR AUR AUR AUR AUR GRAV 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 Franchthi Cave revisited 1136 FAS 227 226 225 224 223 222 221 220 219 218 217 216 Asymetric Fragments Preparation & Right Left strongly twisted of bladelet, rejuvenation twisted twisted bladelet, indet. Rectilinear flake & Carinated Lithic bladelet bladelet right twist profile bladelet bladelet core Industry phase Research K. Douka et al. Figure 3. Lithic elements from stratum Q, units FAS 220 (n◦ 1–5, 12–14, 16) and FAS 219 (n◦ 6–11, 15, 17–20). Carinated-core lateral preparation or rejuvenation flakes: n◦ 1–9; twisted lateral preparation bladelets: n◦ 10–11, 20; straight bladelet: n◦ 12; curved bladelets: n◦ 13, 16–19; twisted bladelets: n◦ 14–15. The assemblage from overlying unit FAS 217 in stratum R differs in the much higher proportion of straight bladelets, many of which cannot have been produced on carinated cores. However, this unit also contained a few curved and twisted bladelets, as well as a characteristic carinated core which confirms the exploitation of relatively large, semi-circular fronts (Figure 4). Contamination from the immediately overlying Gravettoid industry of lithic phase II, heavily dominated by single and double backed bladelets, cannot be ruled out. On the contrary, the assemblage from H1B 212–208 in stratum R is entirely of typical Aurignacian character (Table 1), and the upper units (H1B 210–208) suggest an evolution in the mode of production and the morphology of the bladelets (Figures 5 & 6). The occurrence of Aurignacian II elements in the upper H1B units (210–208) cannot 1137 Franchthi Cave revisited Figure 4. Carinated cores (n◦ 1–5) and carinated-core preform (n◦ 6) from the lower units of stratum R, FAS 217 (n◦ 1) and H1B 210 (n◦ 2–6). be definitely established in the absence of completely typical nosed-end carinated cores or carinated burins. It is suggested, however, by the presence of an atypical carinated-burin core made on a thin slab rather than a flake, of potential burin spalls from carinated burins and, especially, of several curved and strongly twisted bladelets, characterised by their asymmetrical, comma shape and all but one twisted to the right (Table 1). The latter strongly suggest the exploitation of narrow-fronted cores, typical of Aurignacian II. 1138 Research K. Douka et al. Figure 5. Lithic elements from stratum R, units FAS 217 (n◦ 3), H1B 210 (n◦ 1–2, 4–12, 16 –19) and H1B 208 (n◦ 13–15). Carinated-core lateral preparation or rejuvenation flakes and bladelets: n◦ 1–3; twisted bladelets: n◦ 4–17; straight bladelets: n◦ 18–19. Ornamental shells The smaller fractions of the sieved residues in all three strata revealed numerous abraded microshells, predominantly Bittium sp. (Shackleton 1988), as well as small apical fragments of Dentalium sp. and fragments of other typical ornamental and non-ornamental shell species. In addition, larger fragments of Dentalium sp., of the usual size for Palaeolithic beads, as well as shells of Cyclope sp. and Homalopoma sanguineum were recently identified 1139 Franchthi Cave revisited Figure 6. Shell samples of Franchthi selected for radiocarbon dating. in all Early Upper Palaeolithic strata of the site (Perlès & Vanhaeren 2010), including the tephra layer itself (Table 2). The eight shell samples selected for dating (Table 3, Figure 6) include four Dentalium sp., two Cyclope neritea and two Homalopoma sanguineum shells. One Dentalium sp. shell (Fra 5, stratum R) bears nine heavy longitudinal striae and could correspond to the modern Atlantic species Dentalium novemcostatum, the Mediterranean Dentalium mutabile inaequicostatum or to a fossil species (Poppe & Goto 1993). The three other Dentalium sp. shells are smooth and difficult to identify to species level. All four Dentalium sp. are tubular portions of originally larger shells. The straight regular fracture on both ends of Fra 5 and on the widest end of Fra 10 (stratum P) suggests intentional snapping to produce tubular beads (Figure 7). The remaining end morphologies are irregular and common on Dentalium sp. shells collected from the beach (Vanhaeren & d’Errico 2001). One C. neritea (Fra 1, stratum R) and one H. sanguineum (Fra 6, stratum Q) bear a perforation on their last spiral whorl. The second H. sanguineum shell (Fra 3, stratum R) is not perforated while the remaining fragmentary Cyclope sp. (Fra 8, stratum Q) could have been perforated but post-depositional damage does not allow diagnosis. Radiocarbon dating Nine new radiocarbon dates were produced from the eight shell specimens, and two from charcoal samples. The shells were dated in Oxford (UK) using the ORAU routine 1140 K. Douka et al. Unit Stratum FAS 227 226 225 224 223 222 221 220 219 218 217 216 P P P P P Q Q Q Q Q R R H1B 215 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 P P Q R R R R R R Cyclope sp. Homalopoma sanguineum Dentalium sp. d > 3mm (NT) 2 2 nP 2 ind. 1 nP, 6 ind. 6 nP, 9 ind. 1 P, 1 nP, 3 ind. 1 nP, 2 ind. 1 P, 1 ind. 1 ind. 8 ind. 1 ind. 2 2 2 1P 4 1 ind. 1 nP, 1 ind. 1 nP, 4 ind. 1 P, 1 nP, 1 ind. 1 P, 1 nP, 1 ind. 1 ind. 1P 3 1 1 1 Dentalium sp. d < 3mm (NT) 2 3 1 9 6 9 3 2 4 1 4 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 6 pre-treatment protocol for shell carbonates (Brock et al. 2010; Douka et al. 2010a). With the exception of Fra 6 (OxA-22270) and Fra 9 (OxA-21351), all shells were checked for post-mortem recrystallisation — one of the major hindrances in the reliable dating of marine carbonates — using high-precision X-Ray diffraction (XRD). Such mineralogical analysis revealed no recrystallisation. The two charcoal samples were dated at the Gif Laboratory (France). FRA 1 from FAS 217 was a charcoal sample dated using the routine Acid-BaseAcid protocol, while FRA 2, from FAS 221, underwent a more rigorous cleaning protocol (ABOx). The latter was a compact fragment of black matter, which was shown to be mostly composed of well-crystallised calcite grains rather than burnt organic matter. The connection of the dated sample with the human activities taken place at the site, therefore, remains uncertain. The results are shown in Table 3 along with the calibrated ranges obtained using IntCal09 and Marine09 calibration curves (Reimer et al. 2009). For the shell samples, in addition to the constant marine reservoir of 400 14 C years, we corrected for the local Mediterranean 14 reservoir (R=58+ −85 C years; Reimer & McCormac 2002). The CI tephra, stratum Q in Franchthi, had been previously dated by 40 Ar/39 Ar to 39280+ −55 calendar years BP 1141 Research Table 2. Ornamental shell species from strata P, Q and lower units only of stratum R. P = perforated, nP = not perforated, ind. = indeterminate whether perforated or not, NT = natural perforation (tube morphology). Table 3. Contextual information of dated samples, and associated raw and calibrated radiocarbon dates at 68.2% and 95.4% probability. P = perforated, nP = not perforated, NT = natural perforation (tube morphology), ind. = indeterminate. Raw radiocarbon date (BP) Calibrated date (cal BP) 68.2% ID 21069 20615 20616 21070 22270 Dupl. 20253 21351 21115 GifA/SacA 80104/11206 09381/15334 14 C 23510 32110 35600 41080 29780 30580 34980 26910 30410 14 C 32110 33250 + − Stratum Unit Shell species (perforation) from to from 90 200 250 390 160 160 220 120 160 + − R R P R Q Q Q P P Stratum R Q H1B 203 H1B 210 H1B 215 FAS 217 FAS 218 FAS 218 FAS 222 FAS 224 FAS 226 Unit FAS 217 FAS 221 Cyclope sp. (P) Homalopoma sanguineum (nP) Dentalium (NT) Dentalium (NT) Homalopoma sanguineum (P) Homalopoma sanguineum (P) Cyclope sp.(ind.) Dentalium (NT) Dentalium (NT) Material Charcoal Calcite crystals? 28090 36550 40870 44800 34470 34890 39950 31180 34810 27720 35590 39960 44160 33660 34620 39040 30980 34540 28440 36650 41060 45190 34580 35070 40330 31270 35040 27020 35300 39370 43780 33400 34520 38810 30830 34110 37000 38610 36320 37410 37640 38890 35520 36810 330 420 to Franchthi Cave revisited 1142 Shells Fra 1 Fra 3 Fra 4 Fra 5 Fra 6 Fra 6 Fra 8 Fra 9 Fra10 Other FRA1 FRA2 OxA 95.4% (De Vivo et al. 2001), the date used in Figure 8. Nonetheless, we should note that a larger error for this determination, in the region of five per cent of the CI age, would appear more sensible. The upper units of stratum R are also associated with two radiocarbon dates obtained in the 1970s: P–2233: 21480+ − 350 BP on soil and carbonised matter from H1B 191–192, and I–6140: 22330+ −1270 BP for a sample composed of charcoal and sediment from H1A 219 (Jacobsen & Farrand 1987). Discussion The shell dates from H1B are in chronostratigraphic sequence (Figure 8). After calibration, OxA-20616, on a Dentalium sp. shell found in stratum P (H1B 215) about 10–20cm beneath the tephra, gives an age consistent with the calendar age of the CI, pre-dating it by about 500– 1500 calendar years. OxA-20615 is also in agreement with the stratigraphic position of the H. sanguineum shell in the lower units of stratum R (H1B 210) and about 20cm above the tephra. The age fits the suggestion of an Evolved Aurignacian (Aurignacian II) and, from a palaeoclimatic point of view, it falls on the last part of the long and warm GI–8 (NGRIP record; Svensson Figure 7. Macrophotos illustrating state of preservation and distinct features of the dated shells. Scale bars within et al. 2006). This also agrees well with the macrophotos are 100μm. suggestion put forward by Stiner & Munro (2011) who, based on the dominance of red deer in units H1B 212–209, assigned their formation to relatively mild, moist conditions. OxA-21069 from stratum R (H1B 203) also agrees well with the associated backed-bladelet assemblage of Gravettoid affinities and with a previous radiocarbon date from sub-trench H1A 219 (I–6140), roughly equivalent to H1B 201 (Farrand 2000: 45). Higher up the sequence, the previous determination (P–233) from H1B 191–192, provides a rough terminus ante quem for the formation of stratum R and all available dates suggest a large span of at least 10 000 radiocarbon years for it. A depositional hiatus was not identified during excavation but is clearly indicated by the very rapid transformation of the lithic and botanical assemblages between H1B 208 1143 Research K. Douka et al. Franchthi Cave revisited Figure 8. Bayesian model built using OxCal v.4.1.7 including all 13 shell and charcoal radiocarbon dates for the lowermost strata of Franchthi Cave. Two are previously obtained determinations and marked with an asterisk (∗). Outlier detection analysis identified four determinations as being certain outliers and these are shown in red. The age of the CI eruption, following De Vivo et al. (2001), is indicated as a light grey line. The dates are compared to the NGRIP δ 18 O record (Svensson et al. 2006), and the Greenland interstadials are numbered. 1144 and 207, as well as the internal span of radiocarbon dates. Overall, trench H1B reveals excellent stratigraphic consistency and coherence between sample position, tephra layer and radiocarbon determinations. The shell dates from trench FAS are less consistent. Only one, OxA-20253, on a fragmentary Cyclope sp. shell, is compatible with the position of the sample within stratum Q. This is a critical date that closely overlaps with the accepted age of the CI. If the deposition of the shell predates the ash fall, then it provides evidence that the site was indeed occupied around the time of the eruption. This is comparable to other Mediterranean sites, for example Castelcivita and Serino in southern Italy (Accorsi et al. 1979; Gambassini 1997). If it post-dates it, marginally as the date suggests, then it refutes scenarios for catastrophic effects of the CI super-eruption on southern Mediterranean hominid populations (Fedele et al. 2008), at least at Franchthi. The five remaining shell dates from FAS do not agree with the position of the samples. OxA-21070, on a Dentalium sp. shell from the lowermost unit of stratum R is too old for its context just above the CI. While post-depositional incorporation into younger layers cannot be excluded, the simplest explanation is that the shell is an old, semi-fossil shell collected from local beaches or other nearby locations, where Dentalium sp. shells are still present today (Shackleton 1988). The two dates made on the same perforated H. sanguineum shell from stratum Q (OxA-22270 and its duplicate) appear statistically different (T=12.45, χ 2 1;0.05 =3.84) but they overlap significantly when calibrated. Both determinations, as well as the ones obtained on two Dentalium shells from stratum P (OxA21351 and OxA-21115) are very young with respect to their position within or below the tephra layer, and underestimate the age of the respective layers by several thousand years. The chrono-stratigraphic discrepancy revealed by the shell dates from FAS, although disappointing, does not come as a total surprise. The trench contained numerous large boulders in P, Q and R and it is likely that younger shell material, from the middle/upper units of stratum R, became incorporated in lower strata P and Q either as a result of postdepositional movement caused or influenced by the collapse of roof-blocks or, possibly, during excavation in the course of the removal of these large boulders to access lower levels. The sedimentation rate of strata P and R has been calculated to be remarkably low (Farrand 2000) and 10–20cm downward displacement of small-sized shells can account for the age difference observed in our radiocarbon dates. It should be noted, however, that except for unit FAS 217, the lithic assemblages from strata Q and P do not indicate mixing with material from the Gravettoid assemblages found in the upper units of stratum R. In support of this, the dates on terrestrial material from FAS are more coherent. The charcoal sample from FAS 217 in stratum R was dated at 32 ka BP (GifA 80104/SacA 11206), which is in agreement with an Aurignacian II attribution. The second date (GifA09381/SacA 15334) obtained on calcium carbonate grains from a black fragment collected within the tephra (FAS 221) is consistent with a slightly post-eruption CI age. However, given that the composition of the sample is uncertain, this date must be treated with extreme caution. 1145 Research K. Douka et al. Franchthi Cave revisited Conclusions Despite the inconsistencies mentioned above, the new radiocarbon determinations, some of which directly relate to the CI tephra horizon, extend the occupation of Franchthi Cave securely back into the Early Upper Palaeolithic period. They confirm that the site was occupied sporadically before and shortly after the CI ash fall (35 ka BP or 40–39 ka cal BP) and for at least the following three millennia. Whereas the lithic assemblage below the tephra cannot be assigned to a specific technocomplex, the lithic assemblages from the tephra units indicate clear Early Aurignacian affinities. At the bottom of stratum R and slightly above the ash deposit, units H1B 212 and 211 contain identical material also of Early Aurignacian character, while in units H1B 210–208, the relative abundance of strongly twisted bladelets accords with the definition of the Evolved Aurignacian, as recently reassessed (Chiotti 1999; Bon 2002; Bordes 2006). The new determinations at 32 ka BP (c. 36 ka cal BP) also agree with this. The ornamental shell species from strata P, Q and R (Cyclope sp., Homalopoma sp. and Dentalium sp.) are common ornamental taxa in Aurignacian, be it Proto-, Early or Evolved Aurignacian assemblages around the Mediterranean (Vanhaeren & d’Errico 2006, 2007). The temporal extension of the Upper Palaeolithic assemblage in Franchthi Cave is all the more important given that a recently excavated neighbouring site, Klissoura Cave 1 (Figure 1), yielded a rich Early Upper Palaeolithic sequence and is associated with a large number of dates. Unfortunately many of these are problematic (Koumouzelis et al. 2001; Kuhn et al. 2010). At this site, the earliest Upper Palaeolithic stratum, layer V, has been dated between 40 and 34.5 ka BP (Koumouzelis et al. 2001; Douka unpublished data) and is considered to have Uluzzian affinities, a transitional industry of south-western Europe that has been traditionally considered the product of Neanderthals (Palma di Cesnola 1989; Peresani 2008) although based on very limited and questionable data. Interestingly enough, in Klissoura Cave 1, just as in Cavallo Cave (Italy), the Uluzzian disappears around the time of the CI eruption when it is directly capped by a macro/micro-tephra layer (Palma di Cesnola 1963; Stiner et al. 2010), most likely to be the CI. In other cases, however, the CI seals industries described as Protoaurignacian, for example at Serino and Castelcivita (Italy) (Accorsi et al. 1979; Gambassini 1997). The earliest Aurignacian at Klissoura Cave 1 follows in layers IV–IIIg–a (Koumouzelis et al. 2001; Kuhn et al. 2010) starting at around 33 ka BP (c. 37–38 ka cal BP), a couple of millennia later than in Franchthi. Greece is no longer a terra incognita during the Aurignacian and the addition of Franchthi and Klissoura Cave 1 essentially allows the Greek sites to be brought into the wider discussion regarding the transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic. The re-analyses of the lithic component and the direct dating of perforated shells and charcoals at Franchthi suggest that the succession of Aurignacian I and II industries at the site echoes that previously identified in other parts of Europe. Greece, therefore, can no longer be viewed as a backwater, isolated from the main Danubian corridor (Mellars 2006) and where the Aurignacian appeared with a ten millennia delay (Papagianni 2009). Instead, our results indicate that the Early Aurignacian is of comparable antiquity in Eastern and in Western Europe (contra Bar-Yosef et al. 2006; Teyssandier 2008) suggesting that its occurrence in stratified contexts may not be as “sparse and equivocal” outside south-west Europe and the Swabia Jura as recently 1146 proposed (Teyssandier et al. 2010: 216). This is further supported by the presence of Aurignacian-like assemblages at the Kostenki-Borschevo sites in Russia, embedded in the CI (Sinitsyn 2003) — as they are at Franchthi —also dated at c. 35 ka BP (Douka et al. 2010b). The new chronometric evidence for the Early and Evolved Aurignacian at the key site of Abri Pataud, Dordogne, France, is also comparable to that from Franchthi (Higham et al. in press). Similarly, in Isturitz (south-western French Pyrenees), a radiocarbon determination (GifA 98237: 34630+ −560 BP) most likely related to the Early Aurignacian layer C4b, is identical to ours from Franchthi. Dates of c. 37 ka BP obtained recently from layer C4c in Isturitz almost certainly relate to a pre-Early Aurignacian phase at the site (Szmidt et al. 2010). Nonetheless, some determinations for the Early Aurignacian layers AH III in Geißenklösterle (Conard & Bolus 2003) and cultural layer 3 in Willendorf II (Nigst 2006) may indeed give a hint of a pre-35 ka BP manifestation of the Early Aurignacian along the Danube fluvial corridor. This remains to be proved (see discussions in Zilhão & d’Errico 2003b and Jöris & Street 2008). Taken together, this tight range of dates for the earliest Early Aurignacian, in areas from Western Europe to the Don Valley and southern Greece, implies that the search for a centre of emergence for the Early Aurignacian might be in vain (Zilhão & d’Errico 2003b) or difficult to achieve. New modes of technological adaptation, such as the production from carinated cores of thin bladelets probably used as lateral inserts on organic points (Bon 2009), appear to have spread rapidly on the basis of these dates. Whether this was achieved by direct contact between groups over wide-ranging exchange networks, now well-identified through the study of Aurignacian raw materials (Féblot-Augustins 1997, 2009) and personal ornaments (Vanhaeren & d’Errico 2006), or was mainly the result of demic diffusion, is difficult to ascertain. In the former case, bladelet production on carinated cores as well as the correlated split-base organic point, the hallmarks of traditional definitions of the Aurignacian, would actually appear as poor ethnic or cultural markers and reflect, above all, a shared idea of weaponry, well-adapted to an increased mobility among hunter-gatherer groups. Acknowledgements We warmly thank Jacques Pelegrin for the enlightening discussions concerning the lithic assemblages, the 4th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of the Greek Ministry of Culture for sampling permissions, Christophe Moreau for the AMS measurements on Artémis (CEA, Saclay, France) and Ludovic Mevel for preparing the lithic illustrations. T.F.G. Higham provided insightful comments on several versions of the manuscript and is kindly thanked. The shell radiocarbon dates were funded by an NRCF grant (NF/2008/2/2) to R.E.M. Hedges and K. Douka. The ornament studies were funded by a grant from the INSTAP and from the ANR (ANR-06-Blan-0273). We would also like to acknowledge helpful suggestions from three anonymous reviewers and Martin Carver’s invaluable contribution. References ACCORSI, C.A., E. AIELLO, C. BARTOLINI, L. CASTELLETTI, G. RODOLFI & A. RONCHITELLI. 1979. Il giacimento Paleolitico di Serino (Avellino): stratigrafia, ambienti e paletnologia. Atti della Società Toscana di Scienze Naturali. Memori, Serie A 86: 435–87. BAR-YOSEF, O., A. BELFER-COHEN & D.S. ADLER. 2006. The implication of the Middle–Upper Palaeolithic chronological boundary in the Caucasus to European prehistory. Anthropologie 44(1): 49–60. 1147 Research K. Douka et al. Franchthi Cave revisited BAZILE, F. & S. SICARD. 1999. Le premier Aurignacien du Languedoc oriental dans son contexte Méditerranéen, in Les faciès leptolithiques du Nord-Ouest méditerranéen: milieux naturels et culturels (Actes du Colloque international, 24éme session du Congrès préhistorique de France, Carcassonne, France, 26–30 septembre 1994): 117–25. Paris: Société préhistorique française. BON, F. 2002. L’Aurignacien entre mer et océan: réflexion sur l’unité des phases anciennes de l’Aurignacien dans le Sud de la France (Mémoires de la Société préhistorique française 29). Paris: Société préhistorique française. – 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of the industries of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, in O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (ed.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian: proceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002 (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45): 133–44. Lisbon: Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia. – 2009. Préhistoire: la fabrique de l’homme. Paris: Seuil. BORDES, J-G. 2006. News from the West: a re-evaluation of the classical Aurignacian sequence of the Perigord, in O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (ed.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian: proceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002 (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45): 147–171. Lisbon: Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia. BORDES, J-G. & A. LENOBLE. 2002. La lamelle Caminade: un nouvel outil aurignacien? Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 99(4): 735–49. BROCK, F., T.F.G. HIGHAM, P. DITCHFIELD & C. BRONK RAMSEY. 2010. Current pre-treatment methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52: 103–112. BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2008. Radiocarbon dating: revolutions in understanding. Archaeometry 50(2): 249–75. – 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–60. CHIOTTI, L. 1999. Les industries lithiques des niveaux aurignaciens de l’Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac (Dordogne, France). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. CONARD, N. & M. BOLUS. 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44: 331–71. DE VIVO, B., G. ROLANDI, P.B. GANS, A. CALVERT, W.A. BOHRSON, F.J. SPERA & H.E. BELKIN. 2001. New constraints on the pyroclastic eruptive history of the Campanian volcanic Plain (Italy). Mineralogy and Petrology 73: 47–65. DOUKA, K., R.E.M. HEDGES & T.F.G. HIGHAM. 2010a. Improved AMS 14 C dating of shell carbonates using high-precision X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) and a novel density separation protocol (CarDS). Radiocarbon 52: 735–51. DOUKA, K., T.F.G. HIGHAM & A. SINITSYN. 2010b. The influence of preteatment chemistry on the radiocarbon dating of Campanian Ignimbrite-age charcoal from Kostenki 14 (Russia). Quaternary Research 73: 583–87. FARRAND, W.R. 2000. Depositional history of Franchthi Cave: stratigraphology, sedimentologyy and chronology (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 12). Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. FÉBLOT-AUGUSTINS, J. 1997. La circulation des matières premières au Paléolithique: synthèse des données perspectives comportementales (Études et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 75). Liège: Université de Liège. – 2009. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic raw material transfers: the demise of the cultural ecological paradigm, in B.S. Blades & B. Adams (ed.) Lithic materials and Paleolithic societies: 25–46. Oxford: Blackwell. FEDELE, G., B. GIACCIO & I. HADJAS. 2008. Timescales and cultural processes at 40,000 BP in the light of the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption, western Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 834–57. GAMBASSINI, P. (ed.) 1997. Il Paleolitico di Castelcivita: culture e ambiente (Materiae 5). Napoli: Electa Napoli. HANSEN, J.M. 1991. The Palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 7). Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. 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: 235–49. HIGHAM, T.F.G., R. JACOBI, L. BASELL, C. BRONK RAMSEY, L. CHIOTTI & R. NESPOULET. In press. Precision dating of the Palaeolithic: a new radiocarbon chronology for the Abri Pataud (France), a key Aurignacian sequence. Journal of Human Evolution. JACOBSEN, T.W. & W.R. FARRAND. 1987. Franchthi Cave and Paralia: maps, plans and sections (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 1) Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. JÖRIS, O. & M. STREET. 2008. At the end of the 14 C time scale: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic record of Western Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 782–802. KNECHT, H. 1991. Technological innovation and design during the Early Upper Palaeolithic: a study of organic projectile technologies. Unpublished PhD dissertation, New York University. 1148 KOUMOUZELIS, M., B. GINTER, K. KOZLOWSKI, M. PAWLIKOWSKI, O. BAR-YOSEF, R.M. ALBERT, M. LITYNSKA-ZAJAC, E. STWORZEWICZ, P. WOJTAL, G. LIPECKI, T. TOMEK, Z.M. BOCHENKSI & A. PAZDUR. 2001. The Early Upper Palaeolithic in Greece: the excavation in Klissoura Cave. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 28: 515–39. KUHN, S.L., J. PIGATI, P. KARKANAS, M. KOUMOUZELIS, J. KOZLOWSKI, M. NTINOU & M. STINER. 2010. Radiocarbon dating results for the Early Upper Paleolithic of Klissoura Cave 1. Eurasian Prehistory 7(2): 37–46. LAPLACE, G. 1966. Recherches sur l’origine et l’évolution des complexes leptolithiques. Paris: de Boccard. LE BRUN-RICALENS, F. (ed.) 2005. Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien. Chaı̂nes opératoires et perpectives technoculturelles. Luxembourg: Musée national d’histoire et d’art. LIOLIOS, D. 2006. Reflections on the role of bone tools in the definition of the Early Aurignacian, in O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhão (ed.) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian Aurignacian: proceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002 (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45): 37–51. Lisbon: Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia. MAÍLLO-FERNÁNDEZ, J.M. & F.B. DE QUIRÓS. 2010. L’Aurignacien archaı̈que de la grotte El Castillo (Espagne): caractérisation technologique et typologique. L’Anthropologie 114: 1–25. MELLARS, P. 2006. Archeology and the dispersal of modern humans in Europe: deconstructing the Aurignacian. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 167–82. NIGST, PH. R. 2006. The first modern humans in the Middle Danube area? New evidence from Willendorf II (East Austria), in N. Conard (ed.) When Neanderthals and modern humans met: 269–304. Tübingen: Kerns. PALMA DI CESNOLA, A. 1963. Prima campagna di scavi nella Grotta del Cavallo presso Santa Caterina (Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 18: 41–74. – 1989. L’Uluzzien: faciès Italien du leptolithique archaı̈que. L’Anthropologie 93: 783–812. PAPAGIANNI, D. 2009. Mediterranean southeastern Europe in the Late Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic: modern human route to Europe or Neanderthal refugium? in M. Camps & C. Szmidt (ed.) The Mediterranean from 50 000 to 25 000 BP: turning points and new directions: 115–36. Oxford: Oxbow. PERESANI, M. 2008. A new cultural frontier for the last Neanderthals: the Uluzzian in northern Italy. Current Anthropology 49: 725–31. PERLÈS, C. 1987. Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce). Tome I: Présentation générale et industries paléolithiques (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 3). Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. PERLÈS, C. & M. VANHAEREN. 2010. Black Cyclope neritea marine shell ornaments in the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Franchthi Cave, Greece: arguments for intentional heat treatment. Journal of Field Archaeology 35(3): 298–309. POPPE, G.T. & Y. GOTO. 1993. European seashells, Volume 2. Wiesbaden: Christa Hemmen. REIMER, P.J. & F.M. MCCORMAC. 2002. Marine radiocarbon reservoir corrections for the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas. Radiocarbon 44(1): 159–66. REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W. BECK, P.G. BLACKWELL, C. BRONK RAMSEY, C.E. BUCK, G. S. BURR, R.L. EDWARDS, M. FRIEDRICH, P.M. GROOTES, T.P. GUILDERSON, I. HAJDAS, T.J. HEATON, A.G. HOGG, K.A. HUGHEN, K. F. KAISER, B. KROMER, F.G. MCCORMAC, S.W. MANNING, R.W REIMER, D.A RICHARDS, J.R. SOUTHON, S. TALAMO, C.S.M. TURNEY, J. VAN DER PLICHT & C.E. WEYHENMEYER. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50 000 years cal. BP. Radiocarbon 51: 1111–1150. SHACKLETON, J.C. (with M.R. DEITH & N.J. SHACKLETON). 1988. Marine molluscan remains from Franchthi Cave. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. SINITSYN, A.A. 2003. A Palaeolithic Pompeii at Kostenki, Russia. Antiquity 77: 9–14. STINER, M.C. & N.D. MUNRO. 2011. On the evolution of diet and landscape during the Upper Palaeolithic through Mesolithic at Franchthi Cave (Peloponnese, Greece). Journal of Human Evolution 60: 618–36. STINER, M.C., J.K. KOZLOWSKI, S.L. KUHN, P. KARKANAS & M. KOUMOUZELIS. 2010. Klissoura Cave 1 and the Upper Paleolithic of southern Greece in cultural and ecological context. Eurasian Prehistory 7(2): 309–21. SVENSSON, A., K.K. ANDERSEN, M. BIGLER, H.B. CLAUSEN, D. DAHL-JENSEN, S.M. DAVIES, S.J. JOHNSEN, R. MUSCHELER, S.O. RASMUSSEN, R. ROTHLISBERGER, J.P. STEFFENSEN & B.M. VINTHER. 2006. The Greenland ice core chronology 2005, 15-42ka. Part 2: Comparison to other records. Quaternary Science Reviews 25(23–24): 3258–67. SZMIDT, C.C., C. NORMAND, G. BURR, G. HODGINS & S. LAMOTTA. 2010. AMS 14 C dating the Protoaurignacian/Early Aurignacian of Isturitz, France: implications for Neanderthal-modern human interaction and the timing of technical and cultural innovations in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 758–68. 1149 Research K. Douka et al. Franchthi Cave revisited TEYSSANDIER, N. 2007. En route vers l’Ouest: les débuts de l’Aurignacien en Europe (British Archaeological Reports international series 1638). Oxford: John & Erica Hedges. – 2008. Revolution or evolution? The emergence of the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. World Archaeology 40: 493–519. TEYSSANDIER, N., F. BON & J-G. BORDES. 2010. Within projectile range: some thoughts on the appearance of the Aurignacian in Europe. Journal of Anthropological research 66: 209–229. TSANOVA, T. 2006. Les débuts du Paléolithique supérieur dans l’Est des Balkans: réflexions à partir de l’étude taphonomique et techno-économique des ensembles lithiques des sites de Bacho-Kiro (couche 11), Temnata (couches VI et 4) et Kozarnika (couche VII). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Bordeaux I. VANHAEREN, M. & F. D’ERRICO. 2001.La parure de l’enfant de La Madeleine et du site éponyme (fouilles Peyrony): un nouveau regard sur l’enfance au Paléolithique supérieur. Paléo 13: 201–240. – 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(8): 1105–1128. – 2007. La parure aurignacienne reflet d’unités ethno-culturelles, in H. Floss & N. Rouquerol (ed.) Les chemins de l’art aurignacien en Europe: colloque international, Aurignac, 16–18 septembre 2005: 233–48. Aurignac: Editions Musée-forum Aurignac. VITALIANO, C.J., S.R. TAYLOR, W.R. FARRAND & T.W. JACOBSEN. 1981. Tephra layer in Franchthi Cave, Peleponnesus, Greece, in S. Self & R.S.J. Sparks (ed.) Tephra studies: 373–79. Dordrecht: Riedel. ZILHÃO, J. 2006. Neandertals and modern mixed, and it matters. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 183–95. – 2011. Aliens from outer time? Why the human revolution is wrong and where do we go from here, in S. Condemi & G-C. Weniger (ed.) Continuity and discontinuity in the peopling of Europe: one hundred fifty years of Neanderthal study (Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology series): 331–66. New York: Springer. ZILHÃO, J. & F. D’ERRICO. 2003a. The chronology of the Aurignacian and transitional technocomplexes: where do we stand? in J. Zilhão & F. d’Errico (ed.) The chronology of the Aurignacian and transitional technocomplexes: dating, stratigraphies and cultural implications (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33): 313–49. Lisbon: Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia. – 2003b. An Aurignacian Garden of Eden in Germany? An alternative interpretation of the Geissenklösterle and a critique of the Kulturpumpe model. Paléo 15: 69–86. 1150