Res

earc

h

Franchthi Cave revisited: the age of theAurignacian in south-eastern EuropeK. Douka1∗, C. Perles2, H. Valladas3, M. Vanhaeren4

& R.E.M. Hedges1

The Aurignacian, traditionally regarded asmarking the beginnings of Sapiens in Europe,is notoriously hard to date, being almost out ofreach of radiocarbon. Here the authors returnto the stratified sequence in the FranchthiCave, chronicle its lithic and shell ornamentindustries and, by dating humanly-modifiedmaterial, show that Franchthi was occupiedeither side of the Campagnian Ignimbritesuper-eruption around 40 000 years ago.Along with other results, this means thatgroups of Early Upper Palaeolithic peoplewere active outside the Danube corridor andWestern Europe, and probably in contact witheach other over long distances.

Keywords: Greece, Aurignacian, Upper Palaeolithic, radiocarbon, shell ornaments, lithics

IntroductionDating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe continues to present majormethodological challenges, but during the last two decades a suite of technical advancesin radiocarbon dating, such as the development of new pre-treatment protocols (Higham2011), 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 Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building,South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK

2 Universite Paris Ouest, Maison de l’Archeologie et de l’Ethnologie, Prehistoire et Technologie, 21 Allee del’Universite, 92023, Nanterre Cedex, France

3 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE/IPSL), CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Batiment 12,Avenue de la Terrasse, 91198, Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France

4 CNRS UMR 5199 PACEA, Prehistoire, Paleoenvironment, Patrimoine, Universite Bordeaux 1, CNRS, Bat.B18, Avenue des Facultes, 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

Franchthi Cave revisited

have prompted new attempts to refine the chronological framework (Bronk Ramsey 2008;Joris & Street 2008; Higham 2011).

At the same time, the development of technological approaches on well-stratifiedassemblages has led to a much better characterisation and understanding of lithic productionduring the different phases of the Aurignacian, particularly in Western and Central Europe(Bon 2002, 2006; Bordes 2006; Nigst 2006; Teyssandier 2008; Maıllo-Fernandez & deQuiros 2010).

Taken together, these new perspectives in both radiocarbon dating and lithic studies inviteus to reconsider the Aurignacian at Franchthi Cave, Argolid, Greece, as one of the mosteasterly Aurignacian sites in Europe. Its lithic assemblages were first published when thesuccession of Aurignacian phases was poorly defined in terms of lithic technology (Perles1987), hence a re-assessment is due. In this paper we present a brief re-analysis of thelithic evidence and publish the first radiocarbon determinations for the earliest part of thesequence.

Current status of the AurignacianThree different Aurignacian industries are now recognised in Europe (Bon 2002, 2006; LeBrun-Ricalens 2005; Teyssandier 2008). The Protoaurignacian (Aurignacian 0), originallydefined 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; Zilhao 2006; Teyssandier 2007). The Protoaurignacian is characterised bythe 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 rangeand number (Teyssandier 2008).

The Early Aurignacian (Aurignacian I) can be seen as the founding facies of the Aurignaciansensu stricto (Teyssandier et al. 2010). It is characterised by the production of blades andbladelets in two clearly separate reduction sequences. Blades are produced from large flat-faced prismatic cores, while bladelets are produced on what were classically termed carinatedend-scrapers. In the Early Aurignacian, these carinated cores have a wide front and thedebitage is detached towards a central ridge on the upper face. The bladelets are straight orcurved, rarely or only lightly twisted, and rarely retouched. These industries are normallyassociated with the emblematic split-based bone point (Knecht 1991; Liolios 2006). It hasrecently been suggested that the Early Aurignacian was restricted to south-western Europeand the Swabian Jura (Teyssandier et al. 2010).

The Evolved Aurignacian (Aurignacian II) also makes use of carinated cores for theproduction of bladelets but these have a narrower front and include carinated burins,carinated end-scrapers and nosed end-scrapers. The bladelets — Dufour bladelets of theRoc-de-Combe subtype — tend to be smaller and often twisted to the right when viewedfrom the upper surface (Chiotti 1999; Bordes & Lenoble 2002; Bordes 2006). In bothAurignacian I and Aurignacian II, the cores are extensively used and rejuvenated, producingcharacteristic rejuvenation flakes and bladelets (Le Brun-Ricalens 2005), which attest to thepresence of this mode of debitage even in the absence of the cores.

1132

Res

earc

h

K. Douka et al.

Inherent difficulties in the dating of the time period, close to the limits of theradiocarbon method, make it difficult to establish whether the Protoaurignacian and EarlyAurignacian industries were produced successively or if some chronological overlap shouldbe expected. At sites where both technocomplexes occur, the Protoaurignacian is alwaysfound stratigraphically below the Early Aurignacian (Teyssandier et al. 2010; Zilhao 2011).In absolute terms, the former is proposed to date to about 38/36.5–35 ka BP while Early andEvolved Aurignacian follow on chronologically, from 35/34 ka and 33–30 ka BP, respectively(Zilhao & d’Errico 2003a; Joris & Street 2008; Teyssandier et al. 2010; Zilhao 2011). Insouth-eastern Mediterranean Europe, Aurignacian industries are rare — Franchthi beingone of the few exceptions — and were thought to appear 10 000 years later than in the restof Europe (e.g. Papagianni 2009).

The archaeological context at Franchthi CaveFranchthi Cave (37◦ 25’20.90′′N, 23◦ 7’52.73′′E) is a vast cavity overlooking a now-submerged 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 IndianaUniversity, it yielded an exceptionally long archaeological sequence spanning the UpperPalaeolithic to the end of the Neolithic (Jacobsen & Farrand 1987). The two deepesttrenches FAS and H1B (Farrand 2000) reached a maximum depth of 11.2m in FAS and9.7m 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 tothe presence of large, irremovable limestone boulders. The sediment excavated in each unitwas water-sieved down to a mesh of 1.5mm. The quality of the recovery, which includedsystematic water-sieving and flotation of the sediment, has made Franchthi a reference sitefor south-eastern Europe. In the present paper, only the lowest and less well-known UpperPalaeolithic 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 aroundmuch larger limestone blocks” (Farrand 2000: 56). This stratum was only superficiallyreached in H1B (units 215–214). There was a poor undiagnostic lithic assemblage (Perles1987) and some poorly-preserved mammal bones (Farrand 2000). No carbonised seedswere present, but very small uncarbonised nutlets of Boraginaceae (Alkanna cf. orientalis,Lithodora [Lithospermum] arvense and Anchusa sp.), probably wind-blown, were found inlarge quantities (Hansen 1991: 104). They reflect a cold and arid climate and a steppicenvironment (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 lowercontact and appears to be in primary position (Farrand 2000: 56). In H1B (213) it isscattered 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 theCampanian Ignimbrite (CI) (Vitaliano et al. 1981; Farrand 2000) most probably derivingfrom an eruption in the Phlegrean Fields in southern Italy. The lithic assemblage in stratum

1133

Franchthi Cave revisited

Figure 1. Map of Greece at current and at Late Glacial (–100m) sea levels (courtesy of A. Colonese). The location ofFranchthi and Klissoura Cave 1 in Argolid is indicated.

Q is characterised as Aurignacian (Perles 1987). Lepus europaeus and Felis silvestris were theonly mammalian taxa recovered, in very small quantities (Stiner & Munro 2011). The seedassemblage 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 inFAS in units 209–217. The lithostratigraphy of stratum R is very similar to that of stratumP and consists of very sandy clay loams with gravel and rock fragments deposited on andbetween large limestone blocks (Farrand 2000). At the bottom of stratum R, patches ofreworked tephra from stratum Q were identified in both trenches (Farrand 2000). Analysisof lithics and botanical remains suggests that stratum R comprises two successive and quitedistinct periods (Jacobsen & Farrand 1987; Perles 1987; Hansen 1991). The lower part ofstratum R yielded a lithic assemblage very similar to that from stratum Q, while the upperpart of stratum R is dominated by Gravettoid backed bladelets and micropoints (Perles1987). Mammal remains in trench H1B include mostly Cervus elaphus and Bos primigeniuswith some Equus hydruntinus and Sus scrofa (Stiner & Munro 2011). Botanical remains areagain dominated by species of the Boraginaceae family (Hansen 1991). In the upper unitsof 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 revisitedThe lithic material is unfortunately numerically poor, mainly due to the small size of theexcavations, but diachronic distinctions can now be suggested. Considering the thicknessof stratum P it is unlikely that the restricted lithic assemblage (Table 1) belongs to ahomogeneous archaeological phase. In the deepest level of FAS (unit 227), one flake andone side-scraper with thick facetted butts suggest that the Middle Palaeolithic had beenreached. Units FAS 226–224 were almost sterile, the few pieces — small flakes under 1cm

1134

Res

earc

h

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 215–214were somewhat richer (76 pieces) but the material, which consists mainly of very smallretouched flakes, is non-diagnostic (Perles 1987). Despite the now-demonstrated presenceof Uluzzian levels at nearby Klissoura Cave 1 (Koumouzelis et al. 2001), it is impossible toascertain 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 andcurved bladelets of small dimensions, sometimes slightly twisted, together with characteristiccurved and twisted lateral carinated-core rejuvenation flakes (Figure 3). Most of the bladeletsare typical lateral preparation bladelets, while central bladelets are rare, possibly gone fromthe site mounted on composite organic points. There is no indication of a distinct productionof larger blades and bladelets from prismatic cores, thus no indication of a Protoaurignaciancomponent. 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 bladeletsis another characteristic found in Early Aurignacian assemblages.

1135

FranchthiCave

revisited

Table 1. Techno-typological description of the lithic assemblage of Franchthi. The identified archaeological industries are shown (nD = nondiagnostic, AUR = Aurignacian, GRAV = Gravettian) as well as the lithic phases as were originally identified by Perles (1987).

Asymetric Fragments Preparation &Right Left strongly twisted of bladelet, rejuvenation

Total Curved twisted twisted bladelet, indet. Rectilinear flake & Carinated LithicUnit Stratum lithics bladelet bladelet bladelet right twist profile bladelet bladelet core Industry phase

FAS227 P 8 nD 0226 P 3 nD 0225 P 1 nD 0224 P 0 nD 0223 P 13 nD 0222 Q 2 1 nD 0221 Q 34 2 1 1 AUR 1220 Q 150 3 2 2 6 AUR 1219 Q 70 1 3 1 1 2 6 AUR 1218 Q 65 3 2 2 4 2 AUR 1217 R >270 2 1 2 20 6 1 AUR 1216 R > 50 GRAV 2

H1B215 P 36 nD 0214 P 6 nD 0213 Q 9 nD 0212 R 10 1 AUR 1211 R 123 1 1 4 3 AUR 1210 R 580 13 9 1 3 5 21 8 4 AUR 1209 R 12 1 1 1 AUR 1208 R 105 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 atyp. AUR 1207 R 140 GRAV 2

1136

Res

earc

h

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; straightbladelet: 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 higherproportion of straight bladelets, many of which cannot have been produced on carinatedcores. However, this unit also contained a few curved and twisted bladelets, as well as acharacteristic carinated core which confirms the exploitation of relatively large, semi-circularfronts (Figure 4). Contamination from the immediately overlying Gravettoid industry oflithic phase II, heavily dominated by single and double backed bladelets, cannot be ruledout. On the contrary, the assemblage from H1B 212–208 in stratum R is entirely oftypical Aurignacian character (Table 1), and the upper units (H1B 210–208) suggest anevolution 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) andH1B 210 (n◦2–6).

be definitely established in the absence of completely typical nosed-end carinated cores orcarinated burins. It is suggested, however, by the presence of an atypical carinated-burincore made on a thin slab rather than a flake, of potential burin spalls from carinatedburins and, especially, of several curved and strongly twisted bladelets, characterised by theirasymmetrical, comma shape and all but one twisted to the right (Table 1). The latter stronglysuggest the exploitation of narrow-fronted cores, typical of Aurignacian II.

1138

Res

earc

h

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 shellsThe smaller fractions of the sieved residues in all three strata revealed numerous abradedmicroshells, predominantly Bittium sp. (Shackleton 1988), as well as small apical fragmentsof Dentalium sp. and fragments of other typical ornamental and non-ornamental shellspecies. In addition, larger fragments of Dentalium sp., of the usual size for Palaeolithicbeads, 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 (Perles & Vanhaeren 2010), including thetephra 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 Atlanticspecies Dentalium novemcostatum, the Mediterranean Dentalium mutabile inaequicostatumor to a fossil species (Poppe & Goto 1993). The three other Dentalium sp. shells are smoothand difficult to identify to species level. All four Dentalium sp. are tubular portions oforiginally larger shells. The straight regular fracture on both ends of Fra 5 and on the widestend 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 collectedfrom the beach (Vanhaeren & d’Errico 2001). One C. neritea (Fra 1, stratum R) and oneH. sanguineum (Fra 6, stratum Q) bear a perforation on their last spiral whorl. The secondH. sanguineum shell (Fra 3, stratum R) is not perforated while the remaining fragmentaryCyclope sp. (Fra 8, stratum Q) could have been perforated but post-depositional damagedoes not allow diagnosis.

Radiocarbon datingNine new radiocarbon dates were produced from the eight shell specimens, and twofrom charcoal samples. The shells were dated in Oxford (UK) using the ORAU routine

1140

Res

earc

h

K. Douka et al.

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).

Homalopoma Dentalium sp. Dentalium sp.Unit Stratum Cyclope sp. sanguineum d > 3mm (NT) d < 3mm (NT)

FAS227 P 2226 P 2 3225 P 2 nP 1224 P 2 ind. 2 9223 P 1 nP, 6 ind. 2 6222 Q 6 nP, 9 ind. 2 9221 Q 1 P, 1 nP, 3 ind. 3220 Q 1 nP, 2 ind. 2219 Q 1 P, 1 ind. 4218 Q 1 ind. 1 P 1217 R 8 ind. 4 4216 R 1 ind. 3

H1B215 P 1 ind. 3 2214 P 1 1213 Q 1212 R211 R 1 nP, 1 ind. 1210 R 1 nP, 4 ind. 1 P, 1 nP, 1 ind. 2209 R 1 ind. 3208 R 1 P, 1 nP, 1 ind. 1 P 1 2207 R 1 6

pre-treatment protocol for shell carbonates (Brock et al. 2010; Douka et al. 2010a). Withthe exception of Fra 6 (OxA-22270) and Fra 9 (OxA-21351), all shells were checked forpost-mortem recrystallisation — one of the major hindrances in the reliable dating of marinecarbonates — using high-precision X-Ray diffraction (XRD). Such mineralogical analysisrevealed 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-Base-Acid 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 mostlycomposed of well-crystallised calcite grains rather than burnt organic matter. The connectionof the dated sample with the human activities taken place at the site, therefore, remainsuncertain.

The results are shown in Table 3 along with the calibrated ranges obtained using IntCal09and Marine09 calibration curves (Reimer et al. 2009). For the shell samples, in addition tothe constant marine reservoir of 400 14C years, we corrected for the local Mediterraneanreservoir (�R=58+−85 14C years; Reimer & McCormac 2002). The CI tephra, stratumQ in Franchthi, had been previously dated by 40Ar/39Ar to 39280+−55 calendar years BP

1141

FranchthiCave

revisited

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% 95.4%

ID OxA 14C +− Stratum Unit Shell species (perforation) from to from to

ShellsFra 1 21069 23510 90 R H1B 203 Cyclope sp. (P) 28090 27720 28440 27020Fra 3 20615 32110 200 R H1B 210 Homalopoma sanguineum (nP) 36550 35590 36650 35300Fra 4 20616 35600 250 P H1B 215 Dentalium (NT) 40870 39960 41060 39370Fra 5 21070 41080 390 R FAS 217 Dentalium (NT) 44800 44160 45190 43780Fra 6 22270 29780 160 Q FAS 218 Homalopoma sanguineum (P) 34470 33660 34580 33400Fra 6 Dupl. 30580 160 Q FAS 218 Homalopoma sanguineum (P) 34890 34620 35070 34520Fra 8 20253 34980 220 Q FAS 222 Cyclope sp.(ind.) 39950 39040 40330 38810Fra 9 21351 26910 120 P FAS 224 Dentalium (NT) 31180 30980 31270 30830Fra10 21115 30410 160 P FAS 226 Dentalium (NT) 34810 34540 35040 34110

Other GifA/SacA 14C +− Stratum Unit Material

FRA1 80104/11206 32110 330 R FAS 217 Charcoal 37000 36320 37640 35520FRA2 09381/15334 33250 420 Q FAS 221 Calcite crystals? 38610 37410 38890 36810

1142

Res

earc

h

K. Douka et al.

Figure 7. Macrophotos illustrating state of preservationand distinct features of the dated shells. Scale bars withinmacrophotos are 100μm.

(De Vivo et al. 2001), the date used inFigure 8. Nonetheless, we should note thata larger error for this determination, in theregion of five per cent of the CI age, wouldappear more sensible.

The upper units of stratum R arealso associated with two radiocarbon datesobtained in the 1970s: P–2233: 21480+−350 BP on soil and carbonised matter fromH1B 191–192, and I–6140: 22330+−1270BP for a sample composed of charcoaland sediment from H1A 219 (Jacobsen &Farrand 1987).

DiscussionThe shell dates from H1B are in chrono-stratigraphic sequence (Figure 8). Aftercalibration, OxA-20616, on a Dentaliumsp. shell found in stratum P (H1B 215)about 10–20cm beneath the tephra, givesan age consistent with the calendar ageof the CI, pre-dating it by about 500–1500 calendar years. OxA-20615 is also inagreement with the stratigraphic position ofthe H. sanguineum shell in the lower unitsof stratum R (H1B 210) and about 20cmabove the tephra. The age fits the suggestionof an Evolved Aurignacian (AurignacianII) and, from a palaeoclimatic point ofview, it falls on the last part of the longand warm GI–8 (NGRIP record; Svenssonet al. 2006). This also agrees well with thesuggestion put forward by Stiner & Munro(2011) who, based on the dominance of reddeer 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 andwith a previous radiocarbon date from sub-trench H1A 219 (I–6140), roughly equivalentto 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 ofstratum R and all available dates suggest a large span of at least 10 000 radiocarbon yearsfor it. A depositional hiatus was not identified during excavation but is clearly indicatedby the very rapid transformation of the lithic and botanical assemblages between H1B 208

1143

Franchthi Cave revisited

Figure 8. Bayesian model built using OxCal v.4.1.7 including all 13 shell and charcoal radiocarbon dates for the lowermoststrata of Franchthi Cave. Two are previously obtained determinations and marked with an asterisk (∗). Outlier detectionanalysis 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 δ18O record (Svenssonet al. 2006), and the Greenland interstadials are numbered.

1144

Res

earc

h

K. Douka et al.

and 207, as well as the internal span of radiocarbon dates. Overall, trench H1B revealsexcellent stratigraphic consistency and coherence between sample position, tephra layer andradiocarbon determinations.

The shell dates from trench FAS are less consistent. Only one, OxA-20253, on afragmentary Cyclope sp. shell, is compatible with the position of the sample withinstratum Q. This is a critical date that closely overlaps with the accepted age of theCI. If the deposition of the shell predates the ash fall, then it provides evidence thatthe site was indeed occupied around the time of the eruption. This is comparableto 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 datesuggests, then it refutes scenarios for catastrophic effects of the CI super-eruptionon southern Mediterranean hominid populations (Fedele et al. 2008), at least atFranchthi.

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 oldfor its context just above the CI. While post-depositional incorporation into youngerlayers cannot be excluded, the simplest explanation is that the shell is an old, semi-fossilshell collected from local beaches or other nearby locations, where Dentalium sp. shellsare still present today (Shackleton 1988). The two dates made on the same perforatedH. sanguineum shell from stratum Q (OxA-22270 and its duplicate) appear statisticallydifferent (T=12.45, χ2

1;0.05=3.84) but they overlap significantly when calibrated. Bothdeterminations, as well as the ones obtained on two Dentalium shells from stratum P (OxA-21351 and OxA-21115) are very young with respect to their position within or belowthe tephra layer, and underestimate the age of the respective layers by several thousandyears.

The chrono-stratigraphic discrepancy revealed by the shell dates from FAS, althoughdisappointing, does not come as a total surprise. The trench contained numerous largeboulders in P, Q and R and it is likely that younger shell material, from the middle/upperunits of stratum R, became incorporated in lower strata P and Q either as a result of post-depositional 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 lowerlevels. 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 accountfor the age difference observed in our radiocarbon dates. It should be noted, however, thatexcept for unit FAS 217, the lithic assemblages from strata Q and P do not indicatemixing with material from the Gravettoid assemblages found in the upper units ofstratum R.

In support of this, the dates on terrestrial material from FAS are more coherent. Thecharcoal sample from FAS 217 in stratum R was dated at 32 ka BP (GifA 80104/SacA11206), which is in agreement with an Aurignacian II attribution. The second date(GifA09381/SacA 15334) obtained on calcium carbonate grains from a black fragmentcollected 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 treatedwith extreme caution.

1145

Franchthi Cave revisited

Conclusions

Despite the inconsistencies mentioned above, the new radiocarbon determinations, someof which directly relate to the CI tephra horizon, extend the occupation of Franchthi Cavesecurely back into the Early Upper Palaeolithic period. They confirm that the site was occu-pied sporadically before and shortly after the CI ash fall (35 ka BP or 40–39 ka cal BP) and forat least the following three millennia. Whereas the lithic assemblage below the tephra cannotbe assigned to a specific technocomplex, the lithic assemblages from the tephra units indicateclear Early Aurignacian affinities. At the bottom of stratum R and slightly above the ashdeposit, units H1B 212 and 211 contain identical material also of Early Aurignaciancharacter, while in units H1B 210–208, the relative abundance of strongly twisted bladeletsaccords 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 agreewith this. The ornamental shell species from strata P, Q and R (Cyclope sp., Homalopomasp. and Dentalium sp.) are common ornamental taxa in Aurignacian, be it Proto-, Early orEvolved Aurignacian assemblages around the Mediterranean (Vanhaeren & d’Errico 2006,2007).

The temporal extension of the Upper Palaeolithic assemblage in Franchthi Cave is allthe 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 largenumber 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 beendated between 40 and 34.5 ka BP (Koumouzelis et al. 2001; Douka unpublished data) andis considered to have Uluzzian affinities, a transitional industry of south-western Europethat 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 thetime of the CI eruption when it is directly capped by a macro/micro-tephra layer (Palmadi Cesnola 1963; Stiner et al. 2010), most likely to be the CI. In other cases, however, theCI seals industries described as Protoaurignacian, for example at Serino and Castelcivita(Italy) (Accorsi et al. 1979; Gambassini 1997). The earliest Aurignacian at Klissoura Cave 1follows in layers IV–IIIg–a (Koumouzelis et al. 2001; Kuhn et al. 2010) starting at around33 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 Franchthiand Klissoura Cave 1 essentially allows the Greek sites to be brought into the wider discussionregarding the transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic. The re-analyses of the lithiccomponent and the direct dating of perforated shells and charcoals at Franchthi suggest thatthe succession of Aurignacian I and II industries at the site echoes that previously identifiedin other parts of Europe. Greece, therefore, can no longer be viewed as a backwater, isolatedfrom the main Danubian corridor (Mellars 2006) and where the Aurignacian appearedwith a ten millennia delay (Papagianni 2009). Instead, our results indicate that the EarlyAurignacian is of comparable antiquity in Eastern and in Western Europe (contra Bar-Yosefet al. 2006; Teyssandier 2008) suggesting that its occurrence in stratified contexts may notbe as “sparse and equivocal” outside south-west Europe and the Swabia Jura as recently

1146

Res

earc

h

K. Douka et al.

proposed (Teyssandier et al. 2010: 216). This is further supported by the presence ofAurignacian-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 ofAbri Pataud, Dordogne, France, is also comparable to that from Franchthi (Higham et al. inpress). Similarly, in Isturitz (south-western French Pyrenees), a radiocarbon determination(GifA 98237: 34630+−560 BP) most likely related to the Early Aurignacian layer C4b, isidentical to ours from Franchthi. Dates of c. 37 ka BP obtained recently from layer C4cin Isturitz almost certainly relate to a pre-Early Aurignacian phase at the site (Szmidt etal. 2010). Nonetheless, some determinations for the Early Aurignacian layers AH III inGeißenklosterle (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 theDanube fluvial corridor. This remains to be proved (see discussions in Zilhao & d’Errico2003b and Joris & Street 2008).

Taken together, this tight range of dates for the earliest Early Aurignacian, in areas fromWestern Europe to the Don Valley and southern Greece, implies that the search for a centreof emergence for the Early Aurignacian might be in vain (Zilhao & d’Errico 2003b) ordifficult to achieve. New modes of technological adaptation, such as the production fromcarinated cores of thin bladelets probably used as lateral inserts on organic points (Bon2009), appear to have spread rapidly on the basis of these dates. Whether this was achievedby direct contact between groups over wide-ranging exchange networks, now well-identifiedthrough the study of Aurignacian raw materials (Feblot-Augustins 1997, 2009) and personalornaments (Vanhaeren & d’Errico 2006), or was mainly the result of demic diffusion, isdifficult to ascertain. In the former case, bladelet production on carinated cores as wellas the correlated split-base organic point, the hallmarks of traditional definitions of theAurignacian, 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-gatherergroups.

AcknowledgementsWe 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 Artemis (CEA, Saclay, France) and Ludovic Mevel forpreparing the lithic illustrations. T.F.G. Higham provided insightful comments on several versions of themanuscript 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 fromthe ANR (ANR-06-Blan-0273). We would also like to acknowledge helpful suggestions from three anonymousreviewers and Martin Carver’s invaluable contribution.

ReferencesACCORSI, C.A., E. AIELLO, C. BARTOLINI, L.

CASTELLETTI, G. RODOLFI & A. RONCHITELLI.1979. Il giacimento Paleolitico di Serino (Avellino):stratigrafia, ambienti e paletnologia. Atti dellaSocieta Toscana di Scienze Naturali. Memori, Serie A86: 435–87.

BAR-YOSEF, O., A. BELFER-COHEN & D.S. ADLER.2006. The implication of the Middle–UpperPalaeolithic chronological boundary in theCaucasus to European prehistory. Anthropologie44(1): 49–60.

1147

Franchthi Cave revisited

BAZILE, F. & S. SICARD. 1999. Le premier Aurignaciendu Languedoc oriental dans son contexteMediterraneen, in Les facies leptolithiques duNord-Ouest mediterraneen: milieux naturels etculturels (Actes du Colloque international, 24emesession du Congres prehistorique de France,Carcassonne, France, 26–30 septembre 1994):117–25. Paris: Societe prehistorique francaise.

BON, F. 2002. L’Aurignacien entre mer et ocean: reflexionsur l’unite des phases anciennes de l’Aurignacien dansle Sud de la France (Memoires de la Societeprehistorique francaise 29). Paris: Societeprehistorique francaise.

– 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in thecontext of the industries of the transition from theMiddle to the Upper Paleolithic, in O. Bar-Yosef &J. Zilhao (ed.) Towards a definition of theAurignacian: proceedings of the symposium held inLisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002 (Trabalhos deArqueologia 45): 133–44. Lisbon: InstitutoPortugues de Arqueologia.

– 2009. Prehistoire: la fabrique de l’homme. Paris: Seuil.

BORDES, J-G. 2006. News from the West: are-evaluation of the classical Aurignacian sequenceof the Perigord, in O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhao (ed.)Towards a definition of the Aurignacian: proceedings ofthe 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 lamelleCaminade: un nouvel outil aurignacien? Bulletin dela Societe prehistorique francaise 99(4): 735–49.

BROCK, F., T.F.G. HIGHAM, P. DITCHFIELD & C.BRONK RAMSEY. 2010. Current pre-treatmentmethods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the OxfordRadiocarbon 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 niveauxaurignaciens de l’Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac(Dordogne, France). Unpublished PhDdissertation, Museum National d’HistoireNaturelle.

CONARD, N. & M. BOLUS. 2003. Radiocarbon datingthe appearance of modern humans and timing ofcultural innovations in Europe: new results and newchallenges. 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 historyof the Campanian volcanic Plain (Italy). Mineralogyand Petrology 73: 47–65.

DOUKA, K., R.E.M. HEDGES & T.F.G. HIGHAM.2010a. Improved AMS 14C dating of shellcarbonates 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 theradiocarbon dating of Campanian Ignimbrite-agecharcoal from Kostenki 14 (Russia). QuaternaryResearch 73: 583–87.

FARRAND, W.R. 2000. Depositional history of FranchthiCave: stratigraphology, sedimentologyy and chronology(Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 12).Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.

FEBLOT-AUGUSTINS, J. 1997. La circulation des matierespremieres au Paleolithique: synthese des donneesperspectives comportementales (Etudes et recherchesarcheologiques de l’Universite de Liege 75). Liege:Universite de Liege.

– 2009. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic rawmaterial transfers: the demise of the culturalecological paradigm, in B.S. Blades & B. Adams(ed.) Lithic materials and Paleolithic societies: 25–46.Oxford: Blackwell.

FEDELE, G., B. GIACCIO & I. HADJAS. 2008. Timescalesand cultural processes at 40,000 BP in the light ofthe Campanian Ignimbrite eruption, westernEurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 834–57.

GAMBASSINI, P. (ed.) 1997. Il Paleolitico di Castelcivita:culture e ambiente (Materiae 5). Napoli: ElectaNapoli.

HANSEN, J.M. 1991. The Palaeoethnobotany of FranchthiCave (Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 7).Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.

HIGHAM, T.F.G. 2011. European Middle and UpperPalaeolithic radiocarbon dates are often older thanthey look: problems with previous dates and someremedies. 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 newradiocarbon chronology for the Abri Pataud(France), a key Aurignacian sequence. Journal ofHuman Evolution.

JACOBSEN, T.W. & W.R. FARRAND. 1987. FranchthiCave and Paralia: maps, plans and sections(Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 1)Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.

JORIS, O. & M. STREET. 2008. At the end of the 14Ctime scale: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic recordof Western Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55:782–802.

KNECHT, H. 1991. Technological innovation anddesign during the Early Upper Palaeolithic: a studyof organic projectile technologies. UnpublishedPhD dissertation, New York University.

1148

Res

earc

h

K. Douka et al.

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 inGreece: the excavation in Klissoura Cave. Journal ofArchaeological 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 UpperPaleolithic of Klissoura Cave 1. Eurasian Prehistory7(2): 37–46.

LAPLACE, G. 1966. Recherches sur l’origine et l’evolutiondes complexes leptolithiques. Paris: de Boccard.

LE BRUN-RICALENS, F. (ed.) 2005. Productionslamellaires attribuees a l’Aurignacien. Chaınesoperatoires et perpectives technoculturelles.Luxembourg: Musee national d’histoire et d’art.

LIOLIOS, D. 2006. Reflections on the role of bone toolsin the definition of the Early Aurignacian, in O.Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhao (ed.) Towards a definition ofthe Aurignacian Aurignacian: proceedings of thesymposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30,2002 (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45): 37–51.Lisbon: Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia.

MAILLO-FERNANDEZ, J.M. & F.B. DE QUIROS. 2010.L’Aurignacien archaıque de la grotte El Castillo(Espagne): caracterisation technologique ettypologique. L’Anthropologie 114: 1–25.

MELLARS, P. 2006. Archeology and the dispersal ofmodern humans in Europe: deconstructing theAurignacian. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 167–82.

NIGST, PH. R. 2006. The first modern humans in theMiddle Danube area? New evidence fromWillendorf II (East Austria), in N. Conard (ed.)When Neanderthals and modern humans met:269–304. Tubingen: Kerns.

PALMA DI CESNOLA, A. 1963. Prima campagna di scavinella Grotta del Cavallo presso Santa Caterina(Lecce). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 18: 41–74.

– 1989. L’Uluzzien: facies Italien du leptolithiquearchaıque. L’Anthropologie 93: 783–812.

PAPAGIANNI, D. 2009. Mediterranean southeasternEurope in the Late Middle and Early UpperPalaeolithic: modern human route to Europe orNeanderthal 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 lastNeanderthals: the Uluzzian in northern Italy.Current Anthropology 49: 725–31.

PERLES, C. 1987. Les industries lithiques taillees deFranchthi (Argolide, Grece). Tome I: Presentationgenerale et industries paleolithiques (Excavations atFranchthi Cave, Greece 3). Bloomington (IN):Indiana University Press.

PERLES, C. & M. VANHAEREN. 2010. Black Cyclopeneritea marine shell ornaments in the UpperPalaeolithic 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. Marineradiocarbon reservoir corrections for theMediterranean 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 andMarine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50000 years cal. BP. Radiocarbon 51: 1111–1150.

SHACKLETON, J.C. (with M.R. DEITH & N.J.SHACKLETON). 1988. Marine molluscan remainsfrom Franchthi Cave. Bloomington (IN): IndianaUniversity Press.

SINITSYN, A.A. 2003. A Palaeolithic Pompeii atKostenki, Russia. Antiquity 77: 9–14.

STINER, M.C. & N.D. MUNRO. 2011. On theevolution of diet and landscape during the UpperPalaeolithic through Mesolithic at Franchthi Cave(Peloponnese, Greece). Journal of Human Evolution60: 618–36.

STINER, M.C., J.K. KOZLOWSKI, S.L. KUHN, P.KARKANAS & M. KOUMOUZELIS. 2010. KlissouraCave 1 and the Upper Paleolithic of southernGreece in cultural and ecological context. EurasianPrehistory 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 14C dating theProtoaurignacian/Early Aurignacian of Isturitz,France: implications for Neanderthal-modernhuman interaction and the timing of technical andcultural innovations in Europe. Journal ofArchaeological Science 37: 758–68.

1149

Franchthi Cave revisited

TEYSSANDIER, N. 2007. En route vers l’Ouest: les debutsde l’Aurignacien en Europe (British ArchaeologicalReports international series 1638). Oxford: John &Erica Hedges.

– 2008. Revolution or evolution? The emergence of theUpper Palaeolithic in Europe. World Archaeology 40:493–519.

TEYSSANDIER, N., F. BON & J-G. BORDES. 2010.Within projectile range: some thoughts on theappearance of the Aurignacian in Europe. Journal ofAnthropological research 66: 209–229.

TSANOVA, T. 2006. Les debuts du Paleolithiquesuperieur dans l’Est des Balkans: reflexions a partirde l’etude taphonomique et techno-economique desensembles lithiques des sites de Bacho-Kiro (couche11), Temnata (couches VI et 4) et Kozarnika(couche VII). Unpublished PhD dissertation,Universite Bordeaux I.

VANHAEREN, M. & F. D’ERRICO. 2001.La parure del’enfant de La Madeleine et du site eponyme(fouilles Peyrony): un nouveau regard sur l’enfanceau Paleolithique superieur. Paleo 13: 201–240.

– 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography ofEurope revealed by personal ornaments. Journal ofArchaeological Science 33(8): 1105–1128.

– 2007. La parure aurignacienne reflet d’unitesethno-culturelles, in H. Floss & N. Rouquerol (ed.)Les chemins de l’art aurignacien en Europe: colloqueinternational, Aurignac, 16–18 septembre 2005:233–48. Aurignac: Editions Musee-forumAurignac.

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.

ZILHAO, J. 2006. Neandertals and modern mixed, andit matters. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 183–95.

– 2011. Aliens from outer time? Why the humanrevolution is wrong and where do we go from here,in S. Condemi & G-C. Weniger (ed.) Continuityand discontinuity in the peopling of Europe: onehundred fifty years of Neanderthal study (VertebratePaleobiology and Paleoanthropology series):331–66. New York: Springer.

ZILHAO, J. & F. D’ERRICO. 2003a. The chronology ofthe Aurignacian and transitional technocomplexes:where do we stand? in J. Zilhao & F. d’Errico (ed.)The chronology of the Aurignacian and transitionaltechnocomplexes: dating, stratigraphies and culturalimplications (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33):313–49. Lisbon: Instituto Portugues deArqueologia.

– 2003b. An Aurignacian Garden of Eden in Germany?An alternative interpretation of the Geissenklosterleand a critique of the Kulturpumpe model.Paleo 15: 69–86.

1150