Marriage between relatives: a discussion of Mousterian survival in the Iberian Peninsula

123J a v i e r B a e n a P r e y s l e r e t a l . - M a r r i a g e B e t w e e n r e l a t i v e s

Marriage between relatives: a discussion of Mousterian survival

in the iberian Peninsula

Javier baena Preysler & elena carrión santafé

Abstractthe iberian Peninsula is an important region for the study of the final evolution of Mousterian com-munities in our continent. the discovery of recent archaeological sequences along with improve-ments in geochronological technologies have reignited interest in the neanderthal extinction and its possible relationship with anatomically modern human communities. although some discrep-ancy exists, recent geographical and chronological records in the iberian Peninsula indicate a pos-sible isolation of some of these Mousterian groups into ecological refuges. at the same time, the models of land occupation applied by anatomically modern human populations seem to follow a pattern of sporadic incursions that seriously affect the resources of the different iberian ecosys-tems. within the Peninsula, the behavioural heterogeneity of the Mousterian communities (espe-cially in terms of their land occupation and exploitation strategies) could include gradual extinc-tions, adaptive processes, interbreeding, and the isolation or occupation of alternative ecological areas.

KeywordsMousterian, neanderthals, transition, refuges, extinction

introduction - the cultural entities

the analysis and definition of cultural units within the Palaeolithic period has been mostly based on typological appreciations or tool attributes with a high degree of subjectivity. this contributes to the uncertainty surrounding the definition of the Middle Palaeolithic and upper Palaeolithic techno-complex. the existence of post-sedimentary processes and the poor stratigraphic control in some excavations, have also contributed to the high degree of uncertainty surrounding these transitional enti-ties (level 18 in the castillo cave, Zilhão & d’errico 1999). the analysis of the techno-cultural units that we work with must be undertaken using a different approach. a starting point is the dynamic analysis of assemblages using a diachritic reading based on experimental techniques and technological recognition (baena & cuartero 2006) in which final products are only part of a much more complex framework known as an operative chain (geneste 1988; boëda et al. 1990).

as has been mentioned, the definition of our cultural entities can be seriously affected by the existence of several sedimentary agents (Mc Pherron et al. 2005) and, at the same time, by our ability when it comes to stratigraphic recognition. we must never lose sight of two perspectives in our analysis: the quantitative relevance of the assemblages recovered (poor in most of the cases and just a sample in the better ones) and the temporal significance of the sedimentary units that we deal with. at the same time, without a taphonomic interpretation of the distribution of archaeologi-cal remains, identifying rigid associations between dates and archaeological items is extremely problematic. in order to solve this problem, we must increase the temporal resolution of our stratigraphic units and pay more attention to the post-depositional processes of each one, particularly when scatter variations exist in vertical and hori-zontal distributions between remains (vaquero et al. 2006).

an example of this controversy can be found in the definition of the iberian chatel-perronian. the Peninsular sites have been fundamentally defined on the basis of typo-logical criteria (a valiña, Morín, labeko Koba, ekain, la güelga, or the problematic case of Pendo), far from french or spanish sites such as grotte du renne, roc-de-combe, le Piage, aranbaltza or arcy, which contain identifiers of well defined technological and cultural communities (Pellegrín 1995; schmider et al. 2008, 2002; highman 2010; rios et al. 2012). in the Peninsula, some authors have chosen to define cases not as chatelperronian sensu stricto, but as Mousterian with chatelperronian elements. this is

a n d r e a s P a s t o o r s & B ä r B e l a u f f e r M a n n ( e d s . ) : P l e i s t o c e n e f o r a g e r s o n t h e i B e r i a n P e n i n s u l a : t h e i r c u l t u r e a n d e n v i r o n M e n t .

f e s t s c h r i f t i n h o n o u r o f g e r d - c h r i s t i a n w e n i g e r f o r h i s s i x t i e t h B i r t h d a y .w i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e s c h r i f t e n d e s n e a n d e r t h a l M u s e u M s 7 , M e t t M a n n 2 0 1 3 .

124 P l e i s t o c e n e f o r a g e r s o n t h e i B e r i a n P e n i n s u l a

particularly evident in l’arbreda, where chatelperronian elements appear at a site that is purely Mousterian from a technological point of view (Maroto et al. 2005). in other cases, the stratigraphic mixture of Mousterian and aurignacian levels could explain the definition of transitional horizons. this could be the case of Morín 10 or the prob-lematic el Pendo cave (sanguino et al. 2005). in other instances, it has been thought that the poor number of chatelperronian techno-types is the result of taphonomic alterations or the existence of short-term occupations (as is the case of labeko Koba; arrizabalaga et al. 2003), probably related with changes toward a higher logistical model. in any case, the general presence of anomalous elements and the multiplicity of expressions is undeniable in the transitional assemblages of the final part of the Middle Palaeolithic.

in some circumstances and regions, however, this generalisation does not occur. the internal inequalities of neanderthal productions are very significant for the inter-pretation of their own cultural structure; the way in which influences were assimilated could be decisive for the internal evolution of these communities. however, the grade of transmission and extension of change inside the Mousterian communities seems to be limited. this situation could also be detected in all of the technological pro-cesses of the last Middle Palaeolithic european groups (baena & carrión 2006; ríos garaizar 2010).

chrono-cultural ProBleMs of the transition

the use of isotopic dating when it comes to transitional periods has recently faced new problems. despite this, the transition from neanderthal/Mousterian industries to anatomically modern human/upper Palaeolithic ones occurs at the most compli-cated period for using and interpreting the lab results, perhaps because of its age. this means that higher tolerance is required with ranges of error in proximity to radiocar-bon limits.

these disadvantages were already evident with the conventional 14c dating proce-dure, which needed a high quantity of sample and showed a limited range of accuracy, particularly when compared with the later aMs results. although the archaeologist takes a chance with these modern and expensive dating procedures, the problems per-sist. the use of correct procedures in the sampling could have been relaxed because of the new techniques applied by laboratories and the increase in the spectrum of sample types that could be dated. the fact that correct sampling protocols have not been adhered to in recent decades is of importance (Maroto et al. 2011). with the new procedures, the range of possible datable and analysable material has been increased and, thus, it has become possibile to re-date samples from old excavations. one of these new materials is bone. despite this, discrepancies between bone and carbon dating results have soon appeared.

if the use of samples of a different nature was revised, the variation of isotopes in the environmental radiocarbon (and, with that, it’s half-life from 5,568 to 5,730 years) led some authors to extend the values of calibration curves farther away from the data sustained by the dendrochronology. this added to the confusion surrounding the dating systems used for these periods. the generalisation of these projections is conditioned by the specific curve applied (it seems that there is a tendency to use the calPal because of its online availability (http://www.calpal.online.de/ based on the calPal-2007hulu curve).

the treatment given to samples before they are dated can also affect the final results (bird et al. 2010). the treatments known as aba (treatment of acid-base-acid washing series), abox-sc (cleaning treatment with acid-base followed by oxidation and precombustion), Po (plasma oxidation), or the uf (collagen extraction by ultra fil-tration protocols) depend mostly on the quantity of carbon or collagen present in the sample. however, each pre-treatment considers the amount of existing contamination in the sample in a different way. today, pre-treatments using abax-sc for carbon and uf for bone seem to be the most convenient but we can not be sure what the future holds. what is more, matters could get even more complicated: we may work with a


good result, for example, but use a calibration curve created with samples which have not been treated in an optimum way. in recent years, emphasis has been placed on the fact that a standard calibration curve that can be applied farther than 26 ka calbP (van der Plicht et al. 2004; cf. reimer et al. 2004; bronk ramsey et al. 2006; Jöris et al. 2011) does not exist. despite this, its use is becoming more frequent every day.

bearing in mind the aspects discussed above, examples of dating in this period must be considered carefully; when it comes to human remains, for example. we have seem that specimens of level g1 at vindija (initially 14c dated between 29-28 ka bP; 34.2 ka calbP) have been re-dated using ultra filtration techniques and new 14c dates have been given between 32.4 ka bP and 37.8 ka calbP (higham et al. 2006; Zilhão 2009); a notable variation. the original 14c dates suggested for Mezmaiskaya (russia), between 32.4 and 28 ka bP, have also been questioned and re-dated in favour of older results (condemy & weniger 2011). the only reliable paleoanthropological data for the early presence of anatomically modern human in the european continent is the oase 1 deposit with radiocarbon dates around 34.290 +970/ -870 bP (trinkaus et al. 2003) and these are now being questioned due to the discovery of Kent cave (uK) and the remains of grotta cavallo (italy). this, in turn, may suggest an old modern human occupation in western europe from 40 to 43 ka bP/43-45 ka calbP (benazzi et al. 2011; highman el al. 2011).

in this way, without more coherent archaeological records and an exhaustive review of the geochronological framework for the transition, the panorama for the european continent remains uncertain. the radiocarbon dates for the last neanderthals shows a standardised chronology (not calibrated) of over 38 ka bP, while for the first modern humans this is normally lower than ca. 35 ka bP (for exceptions see above). this means that the complete appearance of anatomically modern human in our continent would be produced over 38 ka bP. as a result, the 14c chronologies suggested for the final Middle Palaeolithic assemblages (referred to as transitional) range between 41 and 38 ka bP, and it is less likely that they will be extended to 35/34 ka bP, dates close to those accepted for the first transitional sets of the upper Palaeolithic (bachokirian, bohunician, Protoaurignacian, Kostenki etc.).

the cultural synthesis documented in the european transition (related with modern humans) is based on a sequence that necessarily includes the following techno-cultural assemblages: Proto-aurignacian, aurignacian i, aurignacian ii. this succession occurs from central to western europe in chronologies limited to earlier than 36.5-35 ka bP. the Proto-aurignacian case, that for some “[...] correspond(s) to a pan-European cultural and chronological horizon” (Zilhão 2011, 350), demonstrates important technological similarities with the Mousterian substrate, which, given the absence of human remains and the possible use of early symbolism to determine Mousterian sites, contributes to the controversy surrounding its adscription to specific human types (cabrera et al. 2001). from our point of view, it must be pointed that, typological similarities aside, Proto-aurignacian technology is notably different from the Middle Palaeolithic lithic productions. despite its contemporary nature and coherence with chatelperronian, it shows marked technical and technological differences with the classic Mousterian.

some levels from the north iberian Middle Palaeolithic have provided earlier radio-carbon dates than the first upper Palaeolithic manifestations in the same region, par-ticularly if we compare them with the dates assigned to the upper Palaeolithic at the el castillo cave (cabrera & bishop 1989; cabrera et al. 2001; sanguino & Montes 2004). although the pre-treatment applied differs from that of other recent cases, we must take into account that the most recent results extracting using the new pre-treatments exceed 40 ka bP in the cantabric (covalejos and arrillor) and Pre-Pyrenean regions (ermitos, fuentes de san cristóbal and la roca dels bous). the results taken from some levels at these sites (Maroto et al. 2011) produce older dates for the final Mousterian communities, although specific cases support the notion that this era is more recent (even though the coherence of some levels could be questioned)..

the esquilleu cave provides one of the most solid pieces of evidence for the Mid-dle Palaeolithic techno-complex or for Mousterian presence (fig. 1). in the sequence, (baena & carrión 2002; carrión & baena 2003; baena et al. 2005; Maroto et al. 2011;


baena et al. 2011) the dated levels cover chronologies from level XXi (53,491 ± 5,114 bP, Mad 3300; tl burned clay) up to periods that match with Mis 2. the most recent stretch of the sequence, in particular, shows a high degree of coherence on the basis of pre-treatment dated samples. the last results show the following group of dates (baena et al. 2011; Maroto et al. 2011) (tab. 1).

the sequence does not seem to reflect an evolution to diagnostic levels of upper Palaeolithic nor dramatic changes from a technological or ecological point of view. although the presence of carnivores in the final levels should be considered as a matter of importance, the coherence of the sequence and the clear adscription of all assem-blages to the Mousterian, guarantee the survival of this techno-complex throughout time (baena et al. 2011). the study suggests that the last levels of the sequence have suffered sedimentary processes that have affected part of the record (mostly levels ii and iii), but that lower levels are diluted (from level iv downwards). despite the general coherence and the abundance of the dates analysed, we cannot deny that problems exist in procedures or laboratory treatment. an example of this can be found in the results from level Xvii samples (53,400 ± 1,300 bP, oxa-20318, charcoal and >58,500 bP, oxa-20319, charcoal) or level Xif (36,500 ± 830 bP; aa 37882; aMs charcoal and 34,380 ± 670 bP; aa 37883; aMs. both cases date from the same divided sample but give dif-ferent results).

despite the problems that the final stretch of the sequence could present, the most recent chronologies obtained (including the pre-treatment of bone samples by ultra filtration; bird et al. 2010; Maroto et al. 2011) show the continuity of Mousterian lithic production schemas into the final part of Mis 3 (baena et al. 2011). whether or not this technology is produced by neanderthals or is the result of sapiens production is a sub-ject that requires separate treatment. until now, the most parsimonious explanations have linked it with developers of the same technology during a number of millennia.

in the case of el esquilleu we come across a problem common to other sequences from the iberian Peninsula. the cultural attribution of levels can be ambiguous and confusing, especially when, in the first instance, we refer to low-specialized operative chains like discoid production schemes. one of the problems frequently shown in the transition assemblages is their low level of diagnosis, particularly from a typological perspective. it is not surprising that the attribution of these assemblages to the Mous-terian is due to the absence of diagnostic elements or blade products, instead of the presence of proper elements of the specific techno-complex. although in the esquilleu sequence, economic and strategic reasons (without a mention of the concept of tradi-tion throughout time) point towards the existence of real late Mousterian, we cannot deny that some assemblages of the upper Palaeolithic base their production on mod-els similar (but only similar) to those used in the Mousterian (tiffagon 2006). there is no doubt that this inconsistency deserves to be analysed in further detail.

fig. 1 location of the Mousterian archaeological site of cueva de el esquilleu (castrocillorigo, canta-bria).


a comparable ecologic and techno-cultural level is documented in the ermitons cave (girona) which has a sequence including three Middle Palaeolithic levels (iv, v and vi). three radiocarbon dates have been obtained for level vi, a conventional date of 36,430 ± 1,800 bP and recently 40,580 +550/ -470 (Maroto et al. 1996; Maroto et al. 2002; Maroto et al. 2011). it is surprising that the levallois method is the most char-acteristic and that the typological composition is dominated by scrapers and dentic-ulates with a high percentage of upper Palaeolithic types (scrapers, drillers, burins, abrupt pieces, and two chatelperronian points). at a taphonomic level, level iv is char-acterised by the presence of carnivores, the cavern bear in particular, and herbivores, amongst which the presence of goat is most noticeable. another case used as example of possible Mousterian persistence is that of las fuentes de san cristóbal (huesca), which has shown a range that oscillates between 39 ka and 36 ka bP for levels e and g (rosell et al. 2000; Maroto et al. 2011). although the first results could indicate rela-tively recent dates for the Mousterian levels, dates under new protocols give older dates to the sequence. Moreover, in this site we find a poor and barely diagnostic assemblage of Middle and upper Palaeolithic.

anomalies also occur at roca dels bous (lleida). this archaeological site shows a date before 38,800 ± 1,200 bP for level r3 situated in the upper part of the Middle Palaeolithic sequence. the lithic industries show a dominance of levallois and discoid methods (terradas et al. 1993); over level r a sequence of 2 m. is seen in which there is a substantial decrease in the number of effectives, although industrial affinities can be appreciated.

in the east of the iberian Peninsula, the debate surrounding recent chronologies for the Mousterian era has been diluted. at cova negra (valencia) and cova beneito

fig. 2 Motilla complex and loca-tion of the cueva del higueral-guardia in Málaga.


(alicante; domènech, 2005) the geochronologic results have brought into question the climate interpretations of the sequence, showing chronological contradictions. the cova forada (alicante) and cueva antón (Murcia) sites are still the only clear examples of Mousterian presence with recent dates (iturbe et al. 1993; casabó, 2001; fernández Peris & villaverde 2001; Zilhao et al. 2010). the el salt in alicante (fig. 3) is also one of the best sequences under study (galván et al. 2006).

in the south, the sequences traditionally associated with the survival of nean-derthal communities are still not clearly decoded. at the carihuela cave (granada), the sedimentary and bio-stratigraphical records date the Mousterian units v and iv at the würm iii (vega et al. 1988) but there are no numerical dates for these levels. the most prominent of the neanderthal groups survivals in the south of the penin-sula come from deposits like Zafarraya (barroso 2003; barroso & lumley 2006), gorham (finlayson et al. 2006) or sima de las Palomas of cabezo gordo (Mucia). at this last site, equally recent chronologies have been obtained: ≥30 ka bP for the Mousterian deposit in relation with neanderthal remains. the dating series of other levels with other pro-cedures have offered slightly older chronologies (walker et al. 2008). at cave gorham (gibraltar) extremely recent dates have been obtained for level iv: between 24 and 23 ka bP (finlayson et al. 2006, 2008). similar sequences have been detected in other sites from andalucia (cortés 2007). another example has also recently been identified with the excavation of cueva del higueral-guardia (Málaga). this excavation is part of the project Kuretes Project ‘first human occupations and paleoecological and climatic evolution of the Quaternary at the western beticas (2010 – 2015)’ with the support of the Junta of andalucía and the city council of cortes de la frontera (Málaga). initial results have confirmed the presence of a sequence similar to Mousterian before the solutrean occupation, again in a relict mountainous area (fig. 2). the nearby sequence of the higueral de la valleja cave (cadiz) is similar from a technocultural point of view and offers equally recent dates (Jennings et al. 2009). if we consider that in the upper

fig. 3 location of the archaeologi-cal site of el salt in alicante (cor-tesy of galbán).


Palaeolithic levels of bajondillo (Málaga), dates are though to be between 34-32 ka bP (cortés et al. 2007; cortés 2007), only the chronologies of gorham show a clear very recent persistence of Mousterian technologies in the coast of this region. the absence of paleoanthropological remains for the Mousterian levels of this site open a similar debate to that of the esquilleu cave (Maroto et al. 2011).

we must be particularly cautious with assemblages whose number of effectives is especially limited (Maroto et al. 2011). this is the case of level iv from gorham’s caves (finlayson et al. 2006) or some other levels of the caldeirao and lapa dos furos sequences (Zilhão 1997, 2006). however, the argument could equally be applied for the reconsideration of levels initially attributed to the aurignacian era, as is the case of the lower levels from the rascaño cave which is dated based on its stratigraphy and conventional radiocarbon dates of ca. 27 ka bP and has a poor and slightly diagnostic assemblage (gonzález echegaray 1981).

for the Portuguese region, the evidence seems to have been questioned from the reinterpretation of the nature of the occupations, from its chrono-cultural attribution, and on the basis of their own stratigraphical coherence. Pedreira da salemas (with recent chronologies of ca. 29.89 and 27.17 ka bP), lapa dos furos (dated between 30.57 and 34.58 ka bP), figueira brava (with two radiocarbon ca. 30 ka bP) or caldeirao cave (dated at 27.6 ka bP) are examples of this problematic situation (raposo 1995, 2000; Zilhão 2000; davis et al. 2010). the only case that could remain valid is that of the oliveira cave, with a level 8 that shows a date 31.9 ± 0.2 ka bP, and perhaps the gruta da figueira brava deposit (for a critique of this see Zilhão 2006b). all seems to sug-gest that, at the final sections of many sequences with Mousterian occupations, some kind of event occurs that disrupts the continuity of the lower levels; perhaps reflect-ing a change in the strategies of territory exploitation, for the presence of hiatuses in the sequence, or for the abrupt transformation of continuity to discontinuity in these cultural processes. in this way, the sequences inform us about transformations whose origin is still not clearly known.

a similar situation to the one recorded at the final sequence of the esquilleu cave can be found at the caucasian deposit of Kalayan-2 (ghukasyan et al. 2010). level 19 offered a result of 45.4 ka calbP and level 7 gives dates of 31.6 and 39.6 ka calbP. the latter, from the contact 6/7 was dated twice by dividing a sample in two sub-samples, giving results of 19.9 and 23.9 ka calbP. however, the authors do not take thesenrecent dates into consideration, and the date obtained of 31.6 ka calbP is thought to be the result of contamination and stratigraphical problems, and that of 39.6 ka calbP is the only one deemed as a valid dating for level 7. once again we are faced with an example of discrepancy between the geo-chronological results and the chrono-cultural exist-ing paradigms.

in terms of the general perspective of the iberian Peninsula, we can conclude that the cultural outlook doesn’t seem to match very well with unique explanations.

in conclusion, with all options considered, three different conclusions can be drawn:

1. some kind of direct or indirect cultural flow exists between techno-complex and/or between human communities.

• from anatomically modern human with innovations to Mousterian, producing transitional assemblages. how can we explain differences among the transitional complex?

• from Mousterian to anatomically modern human; this would generate a very late Mousterian presence or techno-complex with the dominance of Mousterian sets but with isolated modern features (depending on how strong the modern tradition was within them). why is this process limited to the iberian Peninsula in western europe?


2. there is no human, cultural or material flow between separate coexisting groups. why have traces of interbreeding been documented in the western part of iberia? how can two different cultural entities competing with each other survive?

3. no relationships exist between the groups because they do not coexist (geographi-cally). how did an adaptive group like the neanderthals become extinct? why did other human groups slow down its colonisation?

the geograPhy of transition in iBeria

the geographical distribution of sites could also indicate the nature of the original occupational areas and displacements trends during the final Middle Palaeolithic. in the north, the deposits of recent Mousterian are found in preferably inner zones, upper lands and mountainous environments (las fuentes de san cristobal, roca dels bous, esquilleu, and surrounding deposits such as arrillor, etc. - vaquero et al. 2006). this assertion must be made with caution because the mountainous character of a loca-tion should not always be considered in terms of altitude asl, but rather in relation to the dominating slopes and the ecological character of the region. another factor that should also be taken into consideration is that some of the last and inner Mousterian sequences do not seem to have occurred with continuity to the upper Palaeolithic, as we see, for example, on the south coast. on the other hand, however, the interruption could be interpreted as abandonment or phases of inhabitation.

the inland distribution of the final Mousterian seems to indicate that we are fac-ing a relatively low density of settlement but one with a wide-spread distribution. examples are found at ermita cave (burgos) which has given a conventional radiocar-bon date of 31.1 ± 0.55 ka bP; level 2 of Jarama vi (guadalajara) with two old dates of 32 ± 1.86 and 29.5 ± 2.7 ka bP (Jordá 2001) recently re-dated in older chronolo-gies (wood et al. 2013), as well as the results of the upper fluvial unit of soto e hijos (Madrid) with chronologies by osl that give 32 ± 2.5 ka bP (baena 1994). another important example is found in the latest results from cañaveral which also provide recent dates inside Mis 3 by osl (baena et al. 2008). the upper Palaeolithic levels doc-umented in the region do not demonstrate continuity (Mousterian-Proto-aurignacian,

fig. 4 final Mousterian distribution cartography, in relation to an elevation model of the iberian Peninsula. chronologies used as relative values (see bibliography for each site).


aurignacian, gravetian, solutrean, etc.). Most of the sites present discontinuities after the last Mousterian occupations, and, in some cases, give way to a proto-solutrean/solutrean occupation, or a sequence without Mousterian with a very advanced upper Palaeolithic (vega et al. 2011). at a location nearby, the cave of toros de cantavieja (teruel) shows chronologies near to 35 ka bP (utrilla & Montes 2004). in such cases, the application of new dating techniques would push some of the dates backwards in time.

the geographical distribution of evidence for the final Mousterian occupations suggest, using a map created by the numeric dates of the most recent peninsular sequences drawn up using all dating procedures, a model of occupation with clear clusters of isolation in certain areas (fig. 4). elevation and inland areas could be a key factor in the distribution.

from our analysis, the southern deposits with the last Mousterian occupations seem to have an inland and mountainous distribution over altitudes of approximately 1000 meters asl (like Zafarraya and carihuela). on the other hand, the first known upper Pal-aeolithic occupations, like bajondillo (Málaga), the humo complex (Málaga) or cueva foradada (alicante), seem to be founded at very lower altitudes, near to coastal envi-ronments. the aurignacian case of gorham is still under discussion, and recent exca-vation does not confirm its existence (finlayson et al. 2006; cortés 2007b). despite whether this tendency was the case or not, the patched distribution of the early upper Palaeolithic levels at the south of iberia can not be considered as a definitive argu-ment for the survival of the Mousterian until recent chronological pre-treatments were applied. without taking post-depositional or erosive causes into consideration, this patched distribution is a common throughout the whole iberian Peninsula (vaquero et al. 2006).

without reasonable doubt, the peninsular panorama indicates that there is a ten-dency amongst modern human populations to advance following a northeast-south-west/south axis, but not in a clear continuous way. on the other hand, the movement of neanderthal populations does not follow a regular direction, so the isolation of groups seems possible. it does not seem logical to refer to a continuous single model for the settlement of these modern human populations. the fact that some populations do not seem to have been present in certain areas in the peninsular record (particularly in the south or the northwest), at these first phases of the upper Palaeolithic, suggests a razzia like occupation model, which would significantly undermine the resources traditionally exploited by the Mousterian groups (balter & simon 2006). it would also condition the response of the native groups towards irregular, disperse and peripheral displacements. this pattern of colonisation can explain the early presence of disperse fossil remains from sapiens in remote european areas such as Kent cave (uK), grotta cavallo (italy), oase (rumania), or Kostenki i (russia) (higham et al. 2011; benazzi et al. 2011). in many cases, discontinuity can be detected after the last Mousterian occu-pation, and reoccupation of sequences does not occur until the later stages of the upper Palaeolithic (aurignacian evolved to solutrean). as mention above, this situa-tion seems particularly evident in the south of the iberian Peninsula (Zilhão 2006b; cortés 2007b).

Models and exPlanations - final considerations

the survival of the last neanderthals versus Mousterian occupations and the appearance of the first anatomically modern humans is still a question that needs clarification. there is still an irreversible relationship between human species and assemblages. the problems inherent to the method (contrasting hypotheses) and our ability to establish a standard analysis are still pending consideration. for this reason, archaeological and paleoanthropologycal studies follow different paths and are not united as one as they should be. it is difficult to consider the sapiens as the creator of pure Mousterian technology since all the theoretical proposals start from a unidi-rectional perspective: influence or acculturation from Homo sapien sapiens to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. although no clear evidence exists in western europe, this


improbable option must be considered in light of recent records. on the other hand, the avalanche of geo-chronological data obtained over the last

10 years has provided a catalogue of data that is much more complex and extensive and that allows us to detect general tendencies. the recent pre-treatment and analysis protocols of samples oblige us to manage the dating results very carefully, using them as an approximation for the relative position in time. at this point, the value of a coher-ent archeo-stratigraphic sequence could question the validity of numerical chronolo-gies (for comparison see wood et al. 2013). dating results in combination with long archaeological sequences, studied under taphonomical and geo-archaeological criti-cism, could provide a fair historical scenario. until now, however, we have only been able to propose general tendencies for the Peninsula and formulate new questions or hypotheses.

some of the evidence used to support the general survival of neanderthals, the continuity of Mousterian occupations and the early arrival of modern humans in the south of the Peninsula, seem not to be as solid as they were many years ago. we should not, however, only take the south into consideration: new areas such as those inland and to the northwest could provide us with interesting results.

as discussed, it seems likely that responses of Mousterian groups throughout Mis 3 might not be homogeneous. the transition between the two chrono-cultural periods is noticeable in most of the sequences because of the drastic changes in very diverse directions. these changes include change-adaptation-continuity models with a slight rupture of traditional patterns (cueva Morín, valiña, etc), and continuity-rupture mod-els which are more or less drastic in character (esquilleu, roca dels bous, ermitons, fuentes de san cristobal, gorham, etc.). these situations of ending are registered in many sequences in western europe. the presence of levels with small assemblages with difficulties in its chrono-cultural adscription are frequent, in cases in which we find an increased index of carnivores at the last Mousterian occupation (baena et al. 2005; dis-camps 2010; davis et al. 2010). this is known as the hyena event. the change of occu-pation patterns, from residential models to logistic ones, would open up opportunities for these new settlers to use caves, which would also contribute to the alteration and mix of the archaeological transitional record.

if both techno-complex (Mousterian and upper Palaeolithic techno-complex) and human types (neanderthals and anatomically modern humans) coexisted in medium-long time periods and within close geographical contexts, this would have important interpretative implications. in the case of cantabria, for example, geographical and temporal proximity seems to have taken place if we compare dates, locations and cul-tural assignations at the el esquilleu or el castillo caves (we insist that these horizons are not necessary related to different human types). similar situations could have occured in italy at riparo Mezzena (longo et al. 2011). the geographic and chronological prox-imity of fumane (Proto-aurignacian) and Mezzena (Mousterian), open the door to an interpretation of the uluzzian (and for extension to the rest of the transitional sets) as the result of direct or indirect stimuli from the first anatomically modern humans. until now, no indicators of interbreeding have been found, and when it comes to Mezzena, coexistence has been suggested within the same geographical contexts with a short duration, but in advanced 14c chronologies around 34,540 ± 655 bP.

even if we reject many of the recent dates for neanderthal survival and assume that modern human groups are the authors of Mousterian assemblages (as could be the case of el esquilleu in levels iv and ii (baena et al 2012) or lagar velho in ee15 (almeida et al. 2009), the contact seem to have taken place. it is also extremely difficult to admit this cultural interchange in a short period of time, bearing in mind the low population density estimated (Zilhão 2009).

from another point of view, this coexistence could have had an active role in the extinction of Mousterians/neanderthals (wolff & greenwood 2010). if this type of fac-tor can contribute to the demographic evolution of native communities, it should, at the same time, affect the type of relationship existing between these two populations, as well as the mobility of both.

unlike the Portuguese example of lagar (Zilhão & trinkaus 2002; Zilhão 2011), in


which biological and cultural interbreeding is defended based on explanations regard-ing population, the main part of the Peninsula does not present clear examples of acculturation or interbreeding between both communities. this situation seems to be more evident in the south. the final neanderthal extinction implies the necessary iso-lation of populations, because otherwise our genes would have increased the nean-derthal component. examples of cultural evolution like grotte du renne (d’errico et al. 1998; Zilhão 2006) are limited to certain geographical areas. even the transitional complexes show a relatively isolated geographical extension. so then, it seems that the situation was probably much more complex than previously thought, even if assimila-tion did occur in other places (smith et al. 2005).

on the other hand, explanations of climatic or ecological ranges (Zilhão 2006b, finlayson 2008, Mallol et al. 2012) do not seem to support the notion that neanderthal populations had occupied the sequences during very changing conditions thoughout Mis 5-3, as is shown by most referential archaeological sequences (abric romaní, el esquilleu cave, cova negra, carihuela, etc). the fragmentation of neanderthal groups (finlayson et al. 2004, 2008) that seems to be proved, could not only be explained by climatic reasons but also by cultural or economic (subsistence) reasons. changes in conditions along all the upper Pleistocene (d’errico & sánchez goñi 2003) are clearly recorded in the archaeological sequences. the wide geographical continuity of Mousterian communities in the Peninsula throughout this period indicate a high degree of adaptation that seems to contradict the simplistic models that explain eco-logical extinction of these groups caused by the climatic reasons (d’errico & sanchez goñi 2003). the competitive scenario for resources with the presence of anatomically modern human throughout Mis 3 could explain the very diverse adaptative answers of the natives neanderthals, even if we deal with periods in which population densities must had been very low (and resources to share the same). the low density of modern human fossils or its archaeological records could only be assumed as part of a high mobile and sporadic occupational model.

we are of the opinion that the creation of models must pay more attention to the mosaic character of the iberian Peninsula and, at the same time, to the wide range of human abilities. new data suggests that the circumstances of the iberian Peninsula are much more complex that we first thought. in this way, it is difficult to establish unique general models to explain these historical processes at a peninsular level. we must take into account that neither the south nor the north of iberia are bio-geographical entities, because they are characterised by a mosaic of very diverse conditions (coastal areas, inland plateaux, mountain chains) that offer different options for subsistence (vaquero et al. 2006). the particular character of the peninsular is illustrated by the exploitation models used by the first aurignacian communities who developed subsis-tence strategies different from those documented in the rest europe.

in the same way, transitional complexes from the rest of europe also differ from those recorded in the iberian Peninsula. with the exception of some examples (Morin, labeko Koba, bajondillo, etc.) located in the north of the peninsula or in the south-coastal corridor, very few examples of real transitional techno-complex are clearly documented in the iberian Peninsula.

from an anthropological point of view, we could put cultural flow down to plain curiosity (as opposed to fear). thus, for example, the continuity of Mousterian com-munities in later chronological periods could be the result of differences in human response towards changes. although it must be considered that some anatomically modern human could produce Mousterian at very advanced periods in history, the most prudent hypothesis is to admit the persistence of native groups in a process of rapid or gradual extinction, interacting in some way with their new neighbours.

there are reasons that advocate for the pressure models that modern groups must have exercised over the native populations, no matter how long they were in a situ-ation of contact. equally, the answers that they must produce would have been very different depending on the geo-cultural background of the Mousterian communities (seasonal occupation, environments used and exploitation systems applied for each one). these could cause displacement patterns of medium to large mobility in search


of different environments through inland or upland regions, along wide latitudes of the continent. they could also indicate some kind of coexistence (but not married) in which natives (neanderthals) change from short-medium distance displacements to less attractive areas (high lands or mountain zones). at the same time, there is a clear tendency to colonize zones of southern europe leaving patches or residual areas. a similar situation could have arisen at the deposit of byzovava (rusia) where, despite opinions to the contrary, a refuge location could had been detected at the russian arctic zone with terminal chronologies near 28.5 ka bP (slimak et al. 2011).

in fact, within the Peninsular, the final Mousterian non-accultured behaviour patrons (despite not agreeing on the timeframes in which it took place) seem to have suffered changes in their circulation and exploitation models as an adaptive response to changes. deposits such as axlor or esquilleu (ríos garaizar 2008; baena et al. 2011) demonstrate a clear trend towards a transformation from residential models to higher logistic ones (that previously had a logistic character; cârciumaru 2000). such changes could possibly represent another means of adaptation in addition to acculturation, interbreeding or mixing. the coherence of the process can be confirmed with the exis-tence of similar features in southwest france (delagnes & Meignen 2006).

in any case, it seems that the cultural level of these Mousterian groups could have had a decisive affect on their decline. the cognitive-symbolic abilities or the tech-nological background of neanderthals are clearly close to those of modern humans. examples of this can be found in the ornamental elements at the grotte du renne (Zilhão 2006, 2011; highman et al. 2010; caron et al. 2011), cueva de los aviones, cueva antón at Murcia (Zilhão et al. 2010). an elaborated bone instrument has also been found at uluzziense (d’errico et al. 2011) as have ornaments at cueva fumane (Peresani et al. 2011). likewise, a greater organization of the living space has been recorded (cabanes et al. 2010; silvana et al. 2011; speth et al. 2012) inside neanderthal occupational models. it is also surprising that this modern behaviour took place at advanced dates such as 37.4 ka calbP (accepted for cueva antón or los aviones; Zil-hão et al. 2010). this questions the external stimulus of these processes (anatomically modern human), in favour of an independent character.

Modern human pressure and climatic instability (Mallol et al. 2012) could have been mutually-aiding factors in the downfall of these native groups. however, they do not make up the only possible explanation. their strong cultural tradition based on the geo-economical stability inside our continent throughout millennia, generated answers to new conditions that did not eventually work in the new human scenario. in fact, the process of disappearance does not happen in an opposite direction (extinc-tion of sapiens in favour of neanderthals) and this could help us to understand the importance of cultural tradition when explaining the process. we share the opinion of rios garaizar when he points that “[...] the Neanderthal societies were not passive agents that changed only as a result of external stimuli like the arrival of new human groups at Europe, but probably, some factors that explain their demise can be found at the own dynamics of Neanderthal societies” (rios 2010, 35).

the global explanation models indicate that there is a general tendency towards change between techno-complex following a northeast-southwest axis (Zilhão 2000; Zilhão & trinkaus 2002), but this has never been considered a colonial model. the endurance of indigenous populations seems not only to be recognized but also logi-cal. the anatomically modern humans did not deliberately search out annulations of Mousterian populations, but adhered to surviving model that led them to follow dif-ferent processes at different places.

these general models do not provide an explanation for local phenomena (vega 2005; hovers 2009; riel-salvatore 2010). as historians, but particularly as archae-ologists, we are obliged to give answers with different scales and ranges, checking the validity and meaning of the records at each moment in time and at each location, independently of predetermined ideas that devalue the explanation model. the afri-can and asian records from the last decades have showed us that historical processes are far from straightforward.

further research must be undertaken, with special attention paid to those areas


characterised by an ecological residual character. central spain and particularly the plain with examples of the central system (Jarama vi, Peña capón, etc.) or the recent excavations at el cañaveral (Madrid), could demonstrate the different solutions adopted by the last Mousterian communities. cantabrian deposits such as the el esquilleu cave (cantabria) or abrigo sopeña (asturias) would have also provided good examples of asymmetric adaptation, especially if we were to compare them with the classic north sequences. the east coast is another special area in which sites such as el salt, abric del Pastor (both in alicante), abrigo de la Quebrada (valencia) or cueva antón (Murcia), amongst others (villaverde et al. 2008), could provide important human and geoar-cheological evidence. in addition, the south of the iberian Peninsula could be another interesting territory with important differences arising between coastal and inland areas. all these regions are currently offering archaeological levels corresponding to the Middle to upper Palaeolithic that might provide essential data to clear up this question in coming years.

acknowledgeMents

this work was conducted as part of the following research projects: ‘chronologi-cal and cultural context of the end of Middle Palaeolithic at the Peninsular north ‘(huM2004-04679 and har2010-22013) and ‘something more than hand axes: towards the technical and technological definition of the Pleistocene lithic assemblages from Madrid region’ (har2010-20151) financed by the directorate-general for research (dirección general de investigaciones).

Javier baena Preyslerdpto. Prehistoria y arqueologíauniversidad autónoma de Madridcampus cantoblanco28049 [email protected]

elena carrión santafésubdirección general de Museos estatalesMinisterio de cultura28071 Madridspain


references cited

almeida, f., Moreno-garcía, M. & angelucci, d. e. (2009). under the bulldozer’s claws: the ee15 late gravettian occupation surface from the lagar velho rock shelter. World Archaeology 41(2): 242-261.

baena, J. (2002). el Paleolítico en Madrid durante el periodo 1916-1936. Zona arqueo-lógica 1, ejemplar dedicado a: bifaces y elefantes In: La investigación del Paleolítico Inferior en Madrid, 80-107.

baena, J., carrión, e., ruiz, b. et al. (2005). Paleoecología y comportamiento humano durante el Pleistoceno superior en la comarca de liébana: la secuencia de la cueva del esqulleu, occidente de cantabria, españa). In: J. a. lasheras corruchaga & r. Montes barquín (eds.) Neandertales cantábricos. Estado de la cuestión. Monografías Museo de altamira 20, 461-487.

baena, J. & carrión, e. (2006). Problemas acerca del final del Musteriense. Zephyrus 59: 51-66.

baena J. & cuartero, f. (2006). Más allá de la tipología lítica: lectura diacrítica y experi-mentación como claves para la reconstrucción del proceso tecnológico. In: J. Manuel Maillo & e. baquedano (eds.) Miscelánea en homenaje a Victoria Cabrera. Zona arqueo-lógica 7, 144-161.

baena, J., carrión, e., cuartero, f. & fluck, h. (2012). a chronicle of crisis: the late Mousterian in north iberia (cueva del esquilleu, cantabria, spain). Quaternary Interna-tional 247: 199-211.

baena, J., Polo, J., barez, s. et al. (2008). tecnología musteriense en la región madrileña: un discurso enfrentado entre valles y páramos de la meseta sur. Treballs d´Arqueologia 14: 249-278.

balter, v. & simon, l. (2006). diet and behavior of the saint-césaire neanderthal inferred from biogeochemical data inversion. Journal of Human Evolution 51: 329-338.

barroso, c. (ed.) (2003). El Pleistoceno Superior de la cueva del Boquete de Zafarraya. edita: Junta de andalucía. consejería de cultura.

barroso, c. & lumley, h. de (2006). La grotte du Boquete de Zafarraya. editorial andalu-cía. consejería de cultura.

benazzi, s., douka, K., fornai, c. et al. (2011). early dispersal of modern humans in europe and implications for neanderthal behavior. Nature 479: 525–528.

bird, M. i., charville-Mort, P. d-J., ascough, P. l. et al. (2010). assessment of oxygen plasma ashing as a pre-treatment for radiocarbon dating. Quaternary Geochronology 5: 435-442.

bischoff, J. l., soler, n., Maroto, J & Julià, r. (1989). abrupt Mousterian/aurignacian boundary at c. 40 ka b.P.: accelerator c-14 dates from l’arbreda cave (catalunya, spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 16: 563-576.

boëda, e., geneste, J. M. & Meignen, l. (1990). identification de chaines operatoires lithiques du paleolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo 2: 43-80.

cabanes, d., Mallol, c., expósito, i. & baena, J. (2010). Phytolith evidence for hearths and beds in the late Mousterian occupations of esquilleu cave (cantabria, spain). Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 37: 2947-2957.


cabrera, v. & bischoff, J. l. (1989). accelerator c-14 dates for early upper Paleolithic (basal aurignacian) at el castillo cave (spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 16: 577-584.

cabrera, v., Maillo, J. M., lloret, M. & bernaldo de Quirós, f. (2001). la transition vers le Paléolithique supérieur dans la grotte du castillo (cantabrie, espagne): la couche 18. L’Anthropologie 105: 505-532.

cârciumaru, M., Moncel M. h. & cârciumaru, r. (2000). le Paléolithique moyen de la grotte cioarei-borosteni (commune de Pestisani, département de gorj, roumanie). L’Anthropologie 104: 185-237.

caron, f., d’errico, f., del Moral, P. santos, f. & Zilhão, J. (2011). the reality of neander-tal symbolic behavior at the grotte du renne, arcy-sur-cure, france. PLoS One 6(6), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021545.

carrión santafé, e. (2003): Variabilidad técnica en el Musteriense de Cantabria. colección tesis en Microficha. universidad autónoma de Madrid. isbn 84-7477-860-3.

casabó, J. a. (2001). cova foradada (Xàbia, alacant). In: v. villaverde (ed.) De neander-tals a cromanyons. L’inici del poblament humà a les terres valencianes, universitat de valència, valència, 407-410.

cortés sánchez, M. (ed.) (2007a). Cueva Bajondillo. Secuencia cronocultural y paleoam-biental del Cuaternario reciente en la Bahía de Málaga. diputación de Málaga.

cortés sánchez, M. (2007b). El Paleolítico Medio y Superior en el sector central de Andalu-cía (Córdoba y Málaga). Museo de altamira. Monografías, nº 22. Ministerio de cultura. Madrid.

cortés sánchez, M., ferrer Palma, J. e., Marqués Merelo, i. & baldomero navarro a. (2007). “apuntes cronológicos, paleoambientales y culturales al tránsito Paleolítico Medio- superior en cueva bajondillo (torremolinos, Málaga)”. Mainake XXiX: 493-512.

delagnes, a. & Meignen, l. (2006). diversity of lithic production systems during the Middle Paleolithic in france. are there any chronological trends? In: e. hovers & s. Kuhn (eds.) Transitions before transition: evolution and stability in Middle Paleolithic and Mid-dle Stone Age, springer, new York, 85-107.

discamps, e. (2010). a hyena event at the Middle-to-upper Palaeolithic transition?: pre-liminary results from south-west of france. Zona arqueológica 13: 510-516.

domènech faus, e. (2005). la transición del Paleolítico medio al superior en la cova beneito (Muro, alicante). recientes aportaciones. In: M. santonja, a. Pérez gonzález & M. J. Maldonado (eds.) Geoarqueología y Patrimonio en la Península Ibérica y el entorno del Mediterráneo, soria, 197-206.

d’errico f., Zilhão, J., Julien, M., baffier d. & Pelegrin, J. (1998). neanderthal accultura-tion in western europe? a critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. Cur-rent Anthropology 39(2): s1-s44.

d’errico, f., borgia, v. & ronchitelli, a. (2012). uluzzian bone technology and its impli-cations for the origin of behavioural modernity. Quaternary International 259: 59-71.

d’errico, f. & sánchez goñi, M. a. (2003). neandertal extinction and the millennial scale climatic variability of ois 3. Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 769-788.


fernández Peris, J. & villaverde, v. (2001). el Paleolític mitjà: el temps dels neandertals. Periodització i característiques. In: v. villaverde (ed.) De neandertals a cromanyons. L’inici del poblament humà a les terres valencianes, universitat de valència, valència, 147-175.

finlayson, c., giles Pacheco, f., rodríguez-vidal J. et al. (2006). late survival of nean-derthals at the southernmost extreme of europe. Nature 443: 850–853.

finlayson, c., faa, d. a., Jiménez espejo f. et al. (2008). gorham’s cave, gibraltar—the persistence of a neanderthal population. Quaternary International 181: 64–71.

fortea, J., de la rasilla, M., Martínez, e. et al. (2003). la cueva de el sidrón (borines, Piloña, asturias): primeros resultados. Estudios Geológicos 59: 159-179.

galván, b., hernández, c. M. & francisco, Mª. i. (2006). territorio y produccion litica en los valles de alcoy (alicante) durante el Paleolitico Medio. aproximacion al modo de vida de los neandertales en la montana alicantina. In: g. Martinez fernandez, a. Mor-gado rodriguez & J. a. afonso Marrero (eds.) Sociedades Prehistoricas, Recursos abioti-cos y Territorio. actas de la iii.a reunion de trabajo sobre aprovisionamiento de recur-sos abioticos en la Prehistoria, loja, granada, 135-158.

geneste, J. M. (1988). economie des ressources ithiques dans le mousterien du sud-ouest de la france. In: M. otte (ed.) L’Homme de Néandertal. vol. 6. la subsistance, eraul, liège, 75-97.

guzman, f., brown, K., fuentes, n. et al. (2006). late survival of neanderthals at the southernmost extreme of europe. Nature 443: 850-853.

ghukasyan, r., colonge, d., nahapetyan, s. et al. (2010). Kalavan-2 (north of lake sevan, armenia): a new late middle paleolithic site in the lesser caucasus. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 38(4): 39-51.

green, r. e., Krause, J., briggs, a. w. et al. (2010). a draft sequence of the neandertal genome. Science 328(5979): 710-722.

higham, t., Jacobi, r., Julien, M. et al. (2010). chronology of the grotte du renne (france) and implications for the context of ornaments and human remains within the châtelperronian. PNAS 107(47), doi: 10.1073/pnas.1007963107.

higham, t., compton, t., stringer, c. et al. (2011). the earliest evidence for anatomically modern humans in northwestern europe. Nature 479: 521-524.

hovers, e. (2009). the Middle-to-upper Paleolithic transition: what news? In: M. camps & P. chauhan (eds.) Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions, springer, new York, 455-462.

hublin, J. J., barroso, c., Medina, P. et al. (1995). the Mousterian site of Zafarraya (andalucia, spain): dating and implications on the paleolithic peopling processes of western europe. Comptes-Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris 321: 931-937.

iturbe, g., fumanal, M. P., carrión, J. s., et al. (1993). cova beneito (Muro, alicante): una perspectiva interdisciplinar. Recerques del Museu d’Alcoi 2: 23-88.

Jennings, r. P., giles Pacheco, f., barton, r. n. e. et al. (2009). new dates and palaeoen-vironmental evidence for the Middle to upper Palaeolithic occupation of higueral de valleja cave, southern spain. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 830-839.


Jöris, o., terberger, t. & weninger, b. (2011). radiocarbon dating the Middle to upper Palaeolithic transition: the demise of the last neanderthals and the first appearance of anatomically Modern humans in europe. In: s. condemi & g.-c. weniger (eds.) Conti-nuity and Discontinuity in the Peopling of Europe: One Hundred Fifty Years of Neanderthal Study, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, springer, new York, 239-298.

lalueza-fox, c., sampietro, M. l., caramelli, d. et al. (2005). neandertal evolutionary genetics: Mitochondrial dna data from the iberian Peninsula”. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22(4): 1077-1081.

longo, l., boaretto, e., caramelli, d. et al. (2012). did neandertals and anatomically modern humans coexist in northern italy during the late Mis 3? Quaternary Interna-tional 259: 102-112.

Mallol, c., hernández, c. M. & Machado J. (2012). the significance of stratigraphic discontinuities in iberian Middle-to-upper Palaeolithic transitional sites. Quaternary International 275: 4-13.

Maroto, J., soler, n. & fullola, J. M. (1996). cultural change between Middle and upper Palaeolithic in catalonia. In: e. carbonell & M. vaquero (eds.) The Last Neandertals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans: a Tale about the Human Diversity, universitat rovira i virgili, tarragona, 219-250.

Maroto, J., vaquero, M., arrizabalaga, a. et al. (2005). Problemática cronológica del final del Paleolítico Medio en el norte Peninsular. In: Neandertales cantábricos. Estado de la cuestión. El Paleolítico Medio cantábrico: hacia una revisión actualizada de su prob-lemática, Monografías del Museo de altamira 20, santander, 101-114.

Maroto, J., vaquero, M., arrizabalaga, a. et al. (2011). current issues in late Middle Palaeolithic chronology: new assessments from northern iberia. Quaternary Interna-tional 247: 15-25.

Morin, e., tsanova, t., sirakov, n., rendu, w., Mallye, J.-b. & lévêque f. (2005). bone refits in stratified deposits: testing the chronological grain at saint-césaire. Journal of Archaeological Science 32(7): 1083-1098.

McPherron, s. J. P., dibble, h. l. & goldberg, P. (2005). Z. Geoarchaeology: An Interna-tional Journal 20(3): 243-262.

Pelegrin, J. (1995). Technologie lithique: le Châtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de La Côte (Dordogne). cahiers du Quaternaire 25, cnrs editions, Paris.

Peresani, M., fiore, i., gala, M., romandini M. & tagliacozzo, a. (2011). late neandertals and the intentional removal of feathers as evidenced from bird bone taphonomy at fumane cave 44 ky b.P., italy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences online, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1016212108.

riel-salvatore, J. (2010). a niche construction Perspective on the Middle-upper Paleo-lithic transition in italy. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17(4): 323-355.

rios-garaizar, J. (2008). variabilidad tecnológica en el Paleolítico Medio de los Pirineos occidentales: una expresión de las dinámicas históricas de las sociedades neander-tales. Treballs d’Arqueologia 14: 171-194.

rios-garaizar, J. (2010). organización económica de las sociedades neandertales: el caso del nivel vii de amalda (Zestoa, gipuzkoa). Zephyrus 65:15-37.


rios-garaizar, J., libano silvente i. & garate Maidagan, d. (2012). el yacimiento chatel-perroniense al aire libre de aranbaltza (barrika, euskadi). Munibe (Antropologia-Arkeo-logia) 63: 81-92.

sanguino, J. & Montes, r. (2004). nuevos datos para el conocimiento del Paleolítico medio en el centro de la región cantábrica: la cueva de covalejos (Piélagos, cantabria). In: Pre-actas de la reunión Neandertales cantábricos. Estado de la cuestión, Museo de altamira, altamira, 73.

sanguino, J., Montes, r. & Martín blanco, P. (2005). el marco cronoestatigráfico y paleo-climático del pleistoceno superiori inicial de la región cantábrica, ¿un gigante con pies de barro? In: a. Pérez gonzález, M. santonja gómez & M. José Machado (eds.) Geoar-queología y patrimonio en la Península Ibérica y el entorno mediterráneo, 127-138.

schmider, b. (ed.) (2002). L’Aurignacien de la Grotte du Renne. Les fouilles d’André Leroi-Gourhan à Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). cnrs editions, Paris.

slimak, l., svendsen, J., Mangerud, J. et al. (2011). late Mousterian persistence near the arctic circle. Science 332(6031): 841-845.

smith, f. h., Jankovic, i. & Karavanic, i. (2005). the assimilation model, modern human origins in europe, and the extinction of neandertals. Quaternary International 137: 7–19.

speth, J. d., Meignen, l., bar-Yosef, o. & goldberg P. (2012). spatial organization of Mid-dle Paleolithic occupation X in Kebara cave (israel): concentrations of animal bones. Quaternary International 247: 85-102.

straus, l. g., bischoff, J. l. & carbonell, e. (1993). a rewiew of the Middle to upper Paleolithic transition in iberia. Préhistorie Europeenne 13: 11-26.

straus, l. g. (2005). a mosaic of change: the Middle–upper Paleolithic transition as viewed from new Mexico and iberia. Quaternary International 137(1): 47-67.

tiffagon, M. (2006). De la pierre à l´Homme. eraul, liège.

trinkaus, e., Moldovan, o., Milota, Ş. et al. (2003). an early modern human from the Peştera cu oase, romania. PNAS 100: 11231-11236.

utrilla, P. & Montes, l. (2004). la cueva de los toros de cantavieja 20 años después: una revisión de sus niveles de transición Paleolítico medio al superior. In: Pre-actas de la reunión Neandertales cantábricos. Estado de la cuestión, Museo de altamira, altamira, 80-81.

vaquero, M., Maroto, J., arrizabalaga a. et al. (2006). the neandertal-Modern human Meeting in iberia: a critical view of the cultural, geographical and chronological data. In: n. J. conard. (ed.) When Neanderthals and modern humans met, Kerns verlag, tübin-gen, 419-440.

vega, g., sevilla, P., colino P. et al. (2011). nuevas investigaciones sobre los yacimiento paleolíticos de la sierra norte de la comunidad de Madrid. In: M. santonja (ed.) Actas de las quintas Jornadas de Patrimonio arqueológico en la Comunidad de Madrid, Madrid, 115-132.

villaverde, v., eixea, a. & Zilhão, J. (2008). aproximación a la industria lítica del abrigo de la Quebrada (chelva, valencia). Treballs d’Arqueologia 14: 213-228.


vitagliano, s. & bruno, M. (2011). late and final mousterian setting in the fossellone cave (latium, italy): Patterns of settlement, micro-environmental factors and evidence of coloured material in a transitional. Quaternary International 259: 48-58.

wolff, h. & greenwood a. d. (2010). did viral disease of humans wipe out the neander-tals? Medical Hypotheses 75: 99–105.

walker, M. J., gibert, J., lópez, M. v. et al. (2008). late neandertals in southeastern ibe-ria: sima de las Palomas del cabezo gordo, Murcia, spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(52): 20631-20636.

wood, r. e., barroso-ruíz, c., caparrós, M. et al. (2013). radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late chronology of the Middle to upper Palaeolithic transition in southern ibe-ria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1207656110.

Zilhão, J. (2000). the ebro frontier: a Model for the late extinction of iberian neander-thals. In: c. b. stringer, r. n. e. barton & J. c. finlayson (eds.) Neanderthals on the Edge, oxbow books, oxford, 111-121.

Zilhão, J. (2006a). neandertals and moderns mixed, and it matters. Evolutionary Anthro-pology: Issues, News, and Reviews 15(5): 183-195.

Zilhão, J. (2006b). chronostratigraphy of the Middle-to-upper Paleolithic transition in the iberian Peninsula. Pyrenae 37(1): 7-84).

Zilhão, J. (2009). szeletian and early, not aurignacian or late: a review of the chronology and cultural associations of the vindija g1 neandertals. In: M. camps & P. chauhan (eds.) A sourcebook of Paleolithic transitions. Methods, theories, and interpretations, springer, new York, 407-426.

Zilhão, J. (2011). aliens from outer time? why the human revolution is wrong, and where do we go from here? In: s. condemi & g.-c. weniger (eds.) Continuity and Dis-continuity in the Peopling of Europe: One Hundred Fifty Years of Neanderthal Study, Verte-brate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, springer, new York, 331-366.

Zilhão, J. & d’errico, f. (1999). the chronology and taphonomy of the earliest aurigna-cian and its implications for the understanding of neandertal extinction. Journal of World Prehistory 13(1): 1-68.

Zilhão, J. & trinkaus, e. (eds.) (2002). Portrait of the Artist as a Child. The Gravettian Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its Archaeological Context, trabal-hos de arqueologia 22. instituto Português de arqueologia, lisboa.

Zilhão, J., d’errico f., bordes J.-g. et al. (2008). grotte des fées (châtelperron): history of research, stratigraphy, dating, and archaeology of the châtelperronian type-site. PaleoAnthropology: 1−42.

Zilhão, J., angelucci d. e., badal-garcía e. et al. (2010). symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by iberian neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(3): 1023-1028.


taBle

level 14C age BP material lab-number pretreatment

vi 40.110 ± 500/420 charcoal gra-33816 aba

vi-1 43.700 ± 1.400 bone oxa-19965 uf

vi-1 44.100 ± 1.300 bone oxa-19966 uf

v 30.250 ± 500/430 charcoal gra-35065 a-only

iv 22.840 ± 280/250 charcoal aa-29664 a-only

iv 23.560 ± 120 bone beta-197525 standard collagen extraction

iiib 20.810 ± 110 bone oxa-19246 uf

iii-1 19.300 ± 100 bone oxa-19967 uf

iii-2 19.310 ± 80 bone oxa-19968 uf

iii 12.050 ± 130 bone aa-29664 aba

iii 3.640 ± 90 charcoal gra-33829 aba

tab. 1 esquilleu: aMs radiocarbon dates (baena et al. 2011; Maroto et al. 2011).

Marriage between relatives: a discussion of Mousterian survival in the Iberian Peninsula

Documents

Transcript of Marriage between relatives: a discussion of Mousterian survival in the Iberian Peninsula