Accepted Manuscript

Title: A critical review of the German Paleolithic hominin record Authors: Martin Street, Thomas Terberger, Jörg Orschiedt

PII: DOI: Reference: To appear in:

S0047-2484(06)00137-0 10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.04.014 YJHEV 963 Journal Of Human Evolution

Received Date: 7 March 2005 Revised Date: 19 April 2006 Accepted Date: 19 April 2006

Please cite this article as: Street, M., Terberger, T., Orschiedt, J. A critical review of the German Paleolithic hominin record, Journal Of Human Evolution (2006), doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.04.014

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A critical review of the German Paleolithic hominin record
Martin Street1, Thomas Terberger,2 and Jörg Orschiedt3

Dr. Jörg Orschiedt Archäologisches Institut der Universität Hamburg Vor-und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie Johnsallee 35 D-20148 Hamburg orschiedt@uni-hamburg.de

3

Keywords: Germany, Western Central Europe, Dating of hominin record, Context of hominin remains 67 PAGES 5 TABLES

19 FIGURES

AC

CE PT ED

M AN U
1

Priv.-Doz. Dr. Thomas Terberger Lehrstuhl für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Historisches Institut Ernst Moritz Arndt Universität Greifswald Hans-Fallada-Strasse 1 D-17489 Greifswald terberge@uni-greifswald.de

2

SC R

IP T

Dr. Martin Street (corresponding author) Forschungsbereich Altsteinzeit des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Schloß Monrepos D-56567 Neuwied street@rgzm.de

1

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Abstract We review the hominin fossil record from western Central Europe in light of the recent major revisions of the geochronological context. The mandible from Mauer (Homo

hominin and may coincide with the occupation of Europe north of the high alpine mountain

chains. Only limited new evidence is available for the Middle Pleistocene, mostly in the form of skull fragments, a pattern that may relate to taphonomic processes. These finds and their ages suggest the gradual evolution of a suite of Neandertal features during this period. Despite new finds of classic Neandertals, there is no clear proof for Neandertal burial from Germany. Alternatively, cut marks on a skull fragment from the Neandertal type site suggest special treatment of that individual.

New AMS radiocarbon dates of previous finds leave little reliably dated evidence for anatomically modern humans (AMH) in Europe before 30,000 BP; the remains from

Thus, a correlation of AMH with the Aurignacian remains to be proven, and the general idea of a long coexistence of Neandertals and AMH in Europe may be questioned. In western Central Europe, evidence of Gravettian human fossils is also very limited, although a new double grave from lower Austria may be relevant. The only dated burial from the German Upper Paleolithic (from Mittlere Klause) falls into a time period (circa 18,600 BP)

remains at Magdalenian sites appear to result from variable (secondary) burial practices. In contrast, the Final Paleolithic (circa 12,000–9,600 cal. BC) yields an increase of hominin finds, including multiple burials (Bonn-Oberkassel, Neuwied-Irlich), similar to the situation in western and southern Europe.

AC

represented by only a few occupation sites in western Central Europe. A number of human

CE PT ED

Hahnöfersand, Binshof-Speyer, Paderborn-Sande, and Vogelherd are now of Holocene age.

M AN U
2

SC R

IP T

heidelbergensis), dated to circa 500,000 years ago, continues to represent the earliest German

in approximate order from oldest to youngest. the context of human remains provides insight into aspects of social behavior. Also.g. their likely taxonomic affinities. these interpretations were no doubt influenced by initially wrong dating results in some cases. we suggest it would be appropriate for undated hominin remains attributed to a Pleistocene context to be submitted to direct readiometric dating in the near future. 2003a. At the end of each section.g. In each section we review the major hominin find sites. in common with many researchers. major revisions of the age of some German hominin specimens demonstrate that both the palaeoanthropological attribution and interpretation of several finds have been incorrect.ARTICLE IN PRESS Introduction From the perspective of archaeological research. Auffermann and Orschiedt. hominin finds can contribute to the discussion of possible interactions between different human species or subspecies and to the (e. and probable geological age.). As a result of direct radiometric dating. we provide a summary of the implications of these finds for hominin evolution and behavior. The earliest fossil hominins of Germany 3 AC CE PT ED We therefore propose that a comprehensive and critical overview of the current status M AN U SC R IP T originators of various Paleolithic techno-complexes such as the Mousterian or Aurignacian . In addition. such as care for the old and infirm or burial practices (e. In view of the elevated importance of hominin finds relative to the quite small number of known specimens. van Andel and Davies. geological context... 2002: 72 ff. Zilhão and d’Errico. of the German Pleistocene hominin record will be useful at this juncture. Here we provide a catalog of known German material as a framework of reference for future work beginning with the Middle Pleistocene and working through the Upper Paleolithic. The paper is arranged by time period. 2003). it is crucial that the database available for scientific discussion is reliable.

Henke and Rothe. Pathological modification of the Mauer specimen was reported by Czarnetzki et al.e. which clearly would also have implications for western Central Europe. Rightmire. leading to his publication of the find as Homo heidelbergensis (Schoetensack. 1908).000 years ago (Parfitt et al. 1992. Currently. and for discussion see also Day. the mandible was also attributed to Homo erectus (Campbell. Schoetensack.ARTICLE IN PRESS Although western Eurasia was occupied by circa 1.. 1997.. Rightmire..000 years BP (e. hominins appear in the western Central European fossil record at a much later date (Fig. Krantz. Investigations at Pakefield in eastern England now appear to push the date for the earliest occupation of northwestern Europe back to 700. 1994: 383. 1992. and by some authors it was awarded the sub-specific status of Homo erectus heidelbergensis (Wolpoff. Table 1). Mauer worker near Heidelberg in 1908 (Figs. Although several sites have been suggested to reflect human presence during the earliest Middle Pleistocene (or before) (e. 2000). Tattersall and Schwartz. 1996: 196). the attribution of the Mauer find to Homo heidelbergensis is widely accepted (i. Table 1). Baales et al.. but see Stringer. 1998. 1. 2001. 1984. 1986: 72.. 1–2. (2003a). Bosinski.75 million years ago as witnessed by the discovery of the Dmanisi fossils in the Republic of Georgia (Vekua et al. AC CE PT ED The Mauer mandible was discovered in fluviatile sands of the river Neckar by a quarry M AN U 4 SC R IP T .. 2002). Roebroeks et al. the earliest universally accepted evidence for hominin penetration into Europe north of the high alpine mountain ranges has long been the mandible from the type site of the “Mauer interglacial” circa 500. 2005). 1985. 2002). 2000: 174). 1990. 1964). Fiedler. 1990. Johanson and Edgar. Fiedler and Franzen..g. 1980.g. Subsequently. The significance of the massive lower jaw and intact dentition was immediately recognized by O. 1995.

1997). A large bone fragment with regularly spaced cut marks has been interpreted as showing that the Bilzingsleben hominin had the capacity for abstract thought or AC Among the faunal remains are human-modified bones and antlers. individual III is represented by only a gracile mandible (Mania et al. specimens with cut marks. 1999: 216. but we prefer an attribution to Homo heidelbergensis. 1998. Recent investigations have confirmed the correlation of the find with the "Mauer interglacial" (OIS 13?) approximately 500. 1 and 3) have confirmed the site as a very important Middle Pleistocene interglacial locality with a number of remains identified as Homo.g. including CE PT ED M AN U 5 outlet of a travertine spring. Whereas the robust individuals I and II are represented by a series of skull fragments. the calcareous deposits of which have preserved macroscopic SC R Excavations over the last three decades by D. Wagner. as this appears to be the hominin represented in Europe at this period (see Rightmire. erectus specimens Zhoukoudian skull III and Sangiran 17 (Pithecanthropus VIII.ARTICLE IN PRESS Whatever its taxonomic affiliation. The total of 29 skull fragments and eight teeth recovered at Bilzingsleben are assigned to three individuals and classified as Homo erectus bilzingslebenensis (Vlček. Sigmon.000 BP (e. 2001). 1984). 2003).. Mania et al. The site was originally located at the botanical remains and numerous faunal specimens (Mania. Mania at Bilzingsleben in Thuringia IP T . Henke and Rothe. Bilzingsleben (Figs. The Bilzingsleben individuals also share characters with archaic Homo sapiens (Stringer et al.g... 1978). the best morphological correspondence with the individuals from Bilzingsleben is shown by hominin 9 from Olduvai Gorge.. the Mauer mandible is still the oldest hominin find from western Central Europe. e. According to Vlček. 2000). although similarities were also seen with Asian H.. 2000).

AC al. 1999).. Special . 1989) interprets the excavations as revealing the traces of three oval significance is attached to a neighboring area containing numerous hand-sized rocks interpreted as an artificial pavement... He argued that at Bilzingsleben the dead were treated in a particular.e. 1999: 60). Mania. Orschiedt. Steguweit. Most skull. Hominin presence is also attested to by numerous small lithic tools and stones used as anvils. The highly fragmented state of the hominin remains (Fig. while radial fractures. However. 1983: 189). 1998b. analysis of the Bilzingsleben antler material by Vollbrecht (2000) suggests that the role of re-deposition and other taphonomic processes in the accumulation of the find layer was probably underestimated by the excavator. culturally determined way (e. A study of the hominin specimens and their distribution suggests a different interpretation.g. This is not an unusual situation at archaeological sites as the robust parts of the skull survive burial better than do the weaker elements of the face. are not observed. the fragments of individuals I and II were widely scattered within an erosion channel suggesting the movement of specimens from the settlement site to the lake. probably by erosional processes due to surface water runoff. The skull fragments often show regular breaks. Mania (1983. In addition. Differences in the distribution patterns of the two individuals may also imply a degree of time depth during deposition. running mainly perpendicular to the long axis of the skull. Mai et al. 1997: 108 ff.. Teschler-Nicola et heavily influenced by such taphonomic factors as trampling (see also Orschiedt. such as the supraorbital torus or occipital bone. which might be expected to occur during the intentional smashing of the skull (i.. 3) and the spatial concentration of the skull fragments in the "paved" area led Mania to the hypothesis that the skulls were deliberately broken on anvils by other hominins. The state of preservation of the skulls suggests that they are CE PT ED fragments are less than 6 cm in size and the few larger specimens consist of robust parts of the M AN U 6 SC R IP T dwelling structures with hearths in front of the entrance and defined activity zones.g. in press)..ARTICLE IN PRESS even for aesthetic appreciation (e.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Mania has long suggested a correlation of the Bilzingsleben interglacial with the Holstein Interglacial Complex. In a comparison with the stratigraphy at the site of Schöningen in Lower Saxony, known internationally since the 1990s due to the preservation of several wooden throwing spears (Thieme, 1997a, 1997b), Mania initially suggested parallels between the Bilzingsleben interglacial and the Reinsdorf/Schöningen II interglacial (Mania, 1998). Since then he has distanced himself from this interpretation because of the divergent

molluscan spectra at the two sites and is of the opinion that we "…must reckon with several climatic optima within the Holstein Complex…" (Mania and Mai, 2001: 48). A recent comparison of the Middle Pleistocene mammalian biostratigraphies of central and

northwestern Europe strongly favors the correlation of the Bilzingsleben find layer to OIS 11 (Schreve and Bridgland, 2002), and a recent correlation of the Schöningen and Bilzingsleben sections concludes that the hominin remains at the latter site can be attributed to OIS 11e (Jöris and Baales, 2003).

Bad Cannstatt

Two tooth fragments from a Middle Pleistocene “Holstein” travertine deposit at Bad Cannstatt, near Stuttgart (Wagner, 1986, 1990), may represent hominins. Adam (1986) reconstructed them as a red-deer incisor, an interpretation rejected by A. Czarnetzki (1999), who identified a crown fragment of a pathological hominin lower canine on the basis of micromorphological analysis and metric evaluation, and considers the second fragment to possibly represent the root of a non-pathological upper molar.

Steinheim The skull from Steinheim, in Swabia, represents one of the most important Central European individuals of this group (Day, 1986: 79 ff.). Discovered in July 1933 by Karl 7

AC

CE PT ED

M AN U

SC R

IP T

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Sigrist in a gravel pit at Steinheim an der Murr, a few kilometers north of Stuttgart (Adam, 1988: 4 f.), the find has been identified as belonging to a female about twenty five years of age. There is a marked supraorbital torus, and the long, narrow, and relatively vault form has a volume of about 1,100 cm³ (Day, 1986: 80). Despite major plastic deformation, which must be considered in its interpretation, the Steinheim specimen shows close similarities with the skull fragments from Swanscombe.

The weak facial prognathism of the Steinheim cranium, originally attributed to Homo (sapiens) steinheimensis, was initially interpreted as indicating the derived character of the fossil. However, Day (1986: 81–82) characterizes the find “...as an example of a Homo erectus/Homo sapiens transitional form that is at the root of the European Neanderthal side branch” and stresses the combination of primitive and more developed features of the cranium. While accepting the fossil as an ancestor of the Neandertals, a classification as Homo heidelbergensis is also proposed, showing similarities to the fossils Arago XXI and

Steinheim represents “a member of a distinct species that is closely related to Neanderthals”. Recently the specimen was diagnosed as showing evidence for meningioma (Czarnetzki et al., 2003b).

Because of the relatively well-documented geological section the Steinheim cranium can be associated with a layer containing an Elephas antiquus fauna. On geological evidence,

(Czarnetzki, 1983: 225; Adam, 1988; Henke and Rothe, 1994: 435).

Reilingen A large skull fragment found during gravel extraction at Reilingen near Heidelberg (Henke and Rothe, 1994: 397) has been interpreted as a late form of Homo erectus 8

AC

an age for this layer of circa 250,000 or > 300,000 years (OIS 9?) is widely accepted

CE PT ED

Petralona (Henke and Rothe, 1999: 216). Tattersall and Schwartz (2000: 201) conclude that

M AN U

SC R

IP T

ARTICLE IN PRESS

(subspecies “reilingensis,” Czarnetzki, 1991). However, this viewpoint is not unchallenged and the specimen is also claimed to show features of a more developed hominin form suggestive of an early Neandertal or late “archaic” Homo sapiens (Condemi, 1996; Dean et al., 1998; see also Tattersall and Schwartz, 2000: 201). The context of the find does not allow precise dating, and on the evidence of the faunal analysis it could date anywhere from the Holstein to the Würm (Ziegler and Dean, 1998).

Ehringsdorf

Ehringsdorf travertine quarry in Thuringia, where human fossils were discovered in 1908 (Vlček, 1993: 56 ff.). In 1914, the mandible of an adult human and, in 1916, the remains of a child were recovered some meters apart. A calvaria was found in September 1925. More systematic field work was conducted in the 1950s by Behm-Blancke who concentrated on the

confirmed earlier claims for the presence of structures such as fire places. On the basis of the long term investigations it seems that the find horizon must have covered more than 1,500 m2 (Behm-Blancke, 1960: 9).

The human fossils (Ehringsdorf A to I) derive from a minimum of six individuals. The better preserved cranium Ehringsdorf H is long, narrow, and relatively flat. The maximum width lies in the posterior third of the skull. The supraorbital torus is well pronounced. The skull, with a capacity of about 1,400 cm³, is characterized by both derived and primitive features and shows some correspondence with the Steinheim cranium (Vlček, 1993: 68 ff., 94) However, it should be mentioned that Gieseler (1974) estimated a smaller capacity for Ehringsdorf (see discussion in Grimm, 1993). Most workers consider the Ehringsdorf fossils

AC

CE PT ED

investigation of the different occupation floors connected with the human remains. He

M AN U
9

Of major relevance for the Middle Paleolithic period are the finds from the Weimar-

SC R

IP T

1997: 98 f. The dating of the Ehringsdorf hominins has been the subject of long debate. The presence of Arvicola cantiana terrestris is seen as a strong argument for an attribution to a pre-Eemian warm period. 2002. Dating the Ehringsdorf material to an interglacial before the Eemian also correlates CE PT ED conclusion. 1993: 38 f. Mania. The Ehringsdorf skulls show weak development of neandertaloid features.000 for the lower travertine horizon agree with the biostratigraphical arguments (Blackwell and Schwarcz. If we accept that the Ehringsdorf hominins lived during OIS 7. The find horizons in the lower travertine have traditionally been associated with the Eemian interglacial (Steiner.ARTICLE IN PRESS early Neandertals together with.). placing the assemblage into OIS 7. 1999: 216. 2002). provide a terminus ante quem for the travertine sequence (Mania. stresses that faunal and microfaunal evidence argues for dating the (lower) travertine to an earlier interglacial period. for example. which are clearly of Eemian date. Although debate still continues. which suggests a relationship to the Ante-Neandertals (Henke and Rothe. 2000: 201). 2000). 1986. 1993: 19). on the other hand. the current balance of evidence suggests the attribution of the Ehringsdorf fossils to an older well with the palaeoanthropological results. Mania (1993. 1994: 442). 1993: 33 f. Faunal comparisons between Ehringsdorf and southern English material from the Thames Valley reach a similar Sandy Lane (Schreve. the finds from Biache-St. Absolute dates of > 200. and analyses of molluscs from a younger fissure in the upper travertine. along with material from Ponds Farm and M AN U 10 SC R IP T stratigraphic sequence consists of two main travertine deposits separated by the so-called . and that the AC period than previously considered. and according to new dating of the travertine horizon an age up to the “late Holstein” seems possible (Jäger. Tattersall and Schwartz. and even in recent literature this view point is favored by some authors.). The Pariser horizon.. Vaast and La Chaise (Henke Rothe. Schreve and Bridgland. 1997: 98).

A. 2000. Protsch von Zieten et al. AC 2004). 1912. Flohr et al. 2002. 1922. 1920. Wegner. close to a known Middle Paleolithic site (Justus... von Berg. respectively) discovered occasions (summary in Steiner and Wiefel. the discovery in March 1997 of a hominin calotte at Ochtendung in the Central Rhineland Neuwied Basin is of particular relevance (Fig. 1960) and by human-modified teeth is in some question. 2000). Human activity is certainly represented at the site. 4) (von Berg. Bratlund. von Berg et al. 2002. 1977: 42–43). Quarrying activities limited the scope of investigations. The travertine at Taubach dates to the Eemian interglacial (OIS 5e). 2004a. the discoverer. however. reports that the skull cap was associated with three artifacts including a scraper of Cretaceous flint that originates from the Meuse region about 100 km to the Northwest. 1997b. 1997a. The specimen was found at the foot of an exposure of late Middle Pleistocene CE PT ED M AN U 11 animal bone (Soergel. 2002).ARTICLE IN PRESS Steinheim hominin lived during OIS 9. The age of two hominin molars (from an adult and a juvenile. 1993: 211). volcanic and loess deposits at the Wannen volcano complex. both by lithic artifacts (Behm-Blancke. it is possible to interpret the finds as reflecting successive stages in the neandertalization of an indigenous European hominin population. although the provenience of the SC R at Taubach near Weimar at the end of the 19th century has been discussed on several IP T Taubach . 1999. Vlček. contemporary with the travertine hominin site of Gánovce in Slovakia (Adloff. Ochtendung In view of the limited number of hominin fossils from the western Central European Middle Pleistocene..

1997).ARTICLE IN PRESS The calotte consists of three conjoining fragments. 1997b). while Steinheim probably corresponds to OIS 9 and WeimarEhringsdorf to OIS 7. April 2004). Rosendahl [Darmstadt]. AC sites. Hunas Cave It seems that chronological revision will be necessary for a single hominin tooth from the Hunas cave in Bavaria (Groiß and Kaulich. probably at least since OIS 10 (Mania. pers.5 cm in length with a thickness of 1.. Together they measure 17. The age and context of the early German hominin sites Discussion continues concerning the dating of certain Middle Pleistocene German within the Holstein Complex.1 cm. Although the discoverer originally classified the Ochtendung find as a (late) early or Ante-Neandertal individual (von Berg. probably of an adult male. comm. 1987). 1997). The most probable age for the specimen is therefore within the Saalian. The Ochtendung find represents the earliest hominin in western Central Europe from a glacial context (probably to be equated with OIS 6). Late Weichselian loess.000 year old basaltic scoria consisted of loessic sediment and slope debris deposited during the penultimate (Saalian) glaciation and. 1997a. S. Bilzingsleben to OIS 11 CE PT ED M AN U 12 SC R IP T . Mounting evidence from U/TH dates suggests that the entire cave fill dates to the last glaciation (W. The sedimentary sequence overlying the circa 220. in the case of the uppermost levels. We follow the suggestion that Mauer probably dates to OIS 13. Condemi assigns it to a classic Neandertal on specific morphological features (Condemi. traditionally assigned to the Riss glaciation. although find horizons with stone artifacts obviously prove the occupation of Central Europe in earlier glacial periods.

with travertines forming a common location. At Mauer and Steinheim the context in fluviatile horizons indicates redeposition of the finds.. AC exclusive preservation of skull fragments at a travertine site like Bilzingsleben. although Weimar-Ehringsdorf demonstrates that larger parts of the body can be preserved in isolated cases. the fossil evidence is in accordance with the idea of a cumulative development of Neandertal patterns (Dean et al. suggest to us that a single European sequence from Homo heidelbergensis to the early and finally classic Neandertals is the most plausible scenario. Beerli and Edwards.ARTICLE IN PRESS All earlier archaic hominin remains from western Central Europe comprise skull fragments which have been assigned to various taxa which are probably best accepted as Homo heidelbergensis (Rightmire. Archaic Homo finds from younger contexts are also dominated by skull fragments. 1998).. it appears more difficult to explain the would not dispute that cultural behavior could theoretically have led to the predominance of skull elements at Bilzingsleben. In the past it was suggested that different contemporaneous hominin populations inhabited Central Europe during the Middle Pleistocene. Although the more or less secondary deposition of finds may favor the preservation of skull elements. Most hominin finds were recovered from interglacial contexts. 1998). while at Ochtendung skull fragments were probably moved by erosion to the center of a volcanic crater. together with the palaeogenetic evidence for a long separation of the Neandertal lineage from modern humans (Krings et al. The growing consensus on dating hominin remains and the identification of diagnostic neandertaloid features in European Middle Pleistocene specimens. 2000. 2005). 2002. Although the database is limited. 1999: 31). we prefer the view that features such as the fragmentary preservation and the distribution pattern of the remains at Bilzingsleben were actually caused by taphonomic processes (see also Orschiedt. Lalueza- Fox et al. Ovchinnikov et al... 2000. While we CE PT ED M AN U 13 SC R IP T .

Street. we have . 1999: 31 f. Although large scale excavations have been conducted at these sites and much faunal material collected. 2002). SchweinskopfKarmelenberg.g. Since the Ochtendung finds became buried at the center of a small volcanic crater following limited AC CE PT ED (e. no hominin remains were found away from the Wannen archaeological site. there is no conclusive evidence for an intentional burial.ARTICLE IN PRESS Behavior of early German hominins Evidence for disposal of the dead or burial practices by Middle Pleistocene hominins is slim. the skull fragments show intentional fracture and wear on the outer surface that lead him to interpret the calotte as an artifact deliberately deposited with three stone artifacts (von Berg. A direct connection of the Ochtendung hominin with a living site is not demonstrable. Possible manipulations to the skull fragments from Ochtendung may be mentioned in this context. and Tönchesberg. Known examples of cut marks and further manipulations of Neandertal bones show that the use of the skull as an artifact or its deposition as a secondary burial are not impossible.. 2002). Wannen. since the Ochtendung specimen was found only some 200 m M AN U 14 SC R IP T living sites. it is possible that the hominin represents the deposition of an individual (or parts of it) only a short distance outside the occupation area. At Bilzingsleben and Weimar-Ehringsdorf the dead were apparently left at the actual indications that a more or less complete body was embedded in the travertine (Vlček. This observation corresponds to the evidence from neighboring Middle Paleolithic occupation sites at extinct East Eifel volcanoes such as Plaidter Hummerich.). In the case of the eleven-year-old child Weimar-Ehringsdorf G. While in this case the presence of a grave cannot be excluded. since there was no evidence for an occupation layer in the geological section adjacent to the find.).. although it is first necessary to rule out other natural processes as the cause of alteration (see Orschiedt. According to von Berg. 1993: 60 f. 188 ff. However.

Classic German Neandertals Recent years have seen an increase in the number of classic Neandertal remains reported from western Central Europe and the critical revision of some of the previously described specimens (Fig. these will be discussed first. Table 2). Another aspect of social behavior is potentially reflected by evidence for injuries or Steinheim fossil caused by a heavy frontal blow. 5. 1997a: 536). which had itself been destroyed by limestone quarrying in 1953. 1996). 1993: 126). the basal layers AC Remains removed from the Paleolithic record CE PT ED M AN U 15 SC R IP T damage to fossils. The proposed intentional manipulation of the foramen magnum should probably also be refuted (Czarnetzki. we believe it more probable that the abraded surfaces and “wear traces” were caused by geological processes. Gieseler (1974) had suggested there was injury to the left parietal of the . Adam. 1988: 10. The clear damage to the skull by post mortem taphonomic processes renders this suggestion unacceptable. Indeed. Hesse. but not deadly. A biface made of indurated schist from the cave interior supported the scenario of Middle Paleolithic activity at the site.ARTICLE IN PRESS transport in sediment (von Berg. A number of remains are either no longer considered hominin. The fracture of the mandible and loss of teeth indicate a severe. injury that may have been caused by an accident or a conflict. In the 1960s skull fragments from Wildscheuer cave. Wildscheuer Cave in the Lahn Valley. Orschiedt. 1967). were published by Knußmann as the remains of two Neandertals (Knußmann. 1983: 228. or are no longer of Paleolithic age. although excavation had not revealed an unambiguous cultural layer. More reliable evidence for a blow to the face of an adult individual is observed on the mandible of Weimar-Ehringsdorf F (Vlček.

1993). August 2004) and are therefore irrelevant for the present discussion. Classic Neandertals Neandertal. More encouragingly. 1984). found at a gravel quarry in Magdeburg and believed to represent a Neandertal were similarly shown to be from the Iron Age (Bronk Ramsey et al.. pers. comm. new fieldwork at the Neandertal type site. These have now been directly M AN U SC R IP T . originally excavated (and destroyed by quarrying) in 1856. All of the specimens were identified as unfused parietal bones of young cave bears (Turner et al. The Wildscheuer "Neandertals" are removed from the hominin record. already known for three fragments of hominin parietal and occipital bone (summary in Hublin.W.ARTICLE IN PRESS of the cave sediments were instead characterized by the presence of large numbers of naturally accumulated cave-bear bones (Terberger. 2000a. independently confirming the previously expressed opinion of Smith (1984: 170). the discovery of a larger series of similar skull fragments prompted a critical examination of the original "Neandertal" skull fragments.. "From a study of casts of Wildscheuer A and B. During examination of the faunal collections as part of an archaeological dating program. The analysis of faunal remains from the last glacial Middle Paleolithic site Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Salzgitter-Lebenstadt. I am of the opinion that they are not hominid fragments". identified two previously undescribed hominin radiocarbon dated to a Holocene context (S. R. Schmitz and J. has brought surprising results.. 2002). who noted. Gaudzinski. 2000b). Investigation of the rediscovered sediments 16 AC CE PT ED femora among the Pleistocene specimens (Gaudzinski 1999). Thissen (2000) relocated the foot of the original cliff face and interstratified spoil heaps left by dumping the cave fills of the Feldhofer Grotte (find location of the type Neandertal skeleton) and the neighboring Feldhofer Kirche. including a frontal bone. Remains.

later Middle Paleolithic context (Schmitz and Thissen. The specimen is an incomplete right parietal described as morphologically identical to that of the Neandertal type specimen and of La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Another new Neandertal discovery is the Warendorf skull fragment (Fig. Schmitz. 17 AC CE PT ED Provisional typological classification of associated Middle Paleolithic stone tools supports the M AN U SC R IP T others found by the recent investigation shows that some of the new material belongs. Schmitz et al. Typological characteristics of the large number of lithic artifacts suggest a general attribution to the Keilmessergruppen techno-complex (Czarnetzki and Trellisó-Carreño. ETH-19660: 39.ARTICLE IN PRESS has revealed both Upper and Middle Paleolithic artifacts together with 62 new hominin specimens. 2002. NN1 [Humerus].000 BP (Neandertal 1 type specimen. Klostermann. ETH-19661: 40.900 ± 620 BP.. Rüschoff-Thale. 2002). Lanser. in press. and a deciduous tooth shows that a subadult hominin was also present in the sample. Duplication of other elements shows that at least one other adult Neandertal is represented. Czarnetzki and Trellisó-Carreño.. ETH-20981: 39. 2002: 13345) and suggest that the remains derive from very late Neandertals. Cross-conjoining of fragments of the cranium and the femur recovered in 1856 to unequivocally. to the Neandertal individual from the Feldhofer Grotte (Fig. 2000. 1999.. in press). Warendorf. 2002: 13344– 13345). 7. in press. in press. . Direct absolute dates exist for the type specimen from Neandertal and for newly recovered humerus and tibia fragments from the site. 1999. AMS results fell consistently between 39.000–40. recovered from early Weichselian “Knochenkiese” (layers of silts and gravels) close to Neuwarendorf in eastern North-RhineWestphalia. 6.360 ± 760 BP) (Schmitz et al. in press).240 ± 670 BP. NN4 [Tibia]. Schmitz et al.

Lower Saxony (Czarnetzki et al. and a much larger number of still unpublished hominin remains has now been accumulated (K. occipital (Sarstedt II). 2002: 28).000 BP (Czarnetzki et al. Lithic artifacts recovered close to the skull fragments can probably be assigned to the Keilmessergruppen techno-complex (Czarnetzki et al. although an Eemian or late Saalian date cannot be ruled out.-W. An attempt to date the Sarstedt II specimen by 14C failed.. on the basis of geological analysis of the supposed layer of origin and on the composition and typology of recovered faunal remains and stone tools. 2001. The deposits also produced Pleistocene fauna and Middle Paleolithic artifacts. fragments from gravel dumps in quarries near Sarstedt in the Leine Valley. the age of which is probably bracketed by the stratigraphy to between 117. Czarnetzki as temporal (Sarstedt I). The Sarstedt spoil heaps are regularly monitored by several amateur collectors. Between the end of 1997 and late 1999. August 2004). respectively.. the Warendorf parietal fragment has been assigned to an interstadial of the Weichselian. Frangenberg.. The Sarstedt hominin specimens (Sarstedt I–III) have been assigned to the Weichselian on the evidence of the geological analysis of their supposed layer of origin. 2002: 29–36).ARTICLE IN PRESS Despite the lack of immediate archaeological or geological context. Analysis some years ago of a nearly complete right femoral diaphysis found in 1937 near the entrance of the Hohlenstein-Stadel cave in southern Germany 18 AC CE PT ED comm. and parietal (Sarstedt III) bones with clear Neandertal characteristics. Sarstedt I is assigned to a very young (2–4 years old) individual. collectors recovered three hominin skull IP T .000–25. pers. M AN U SC R Sarstedt. possibly Brørup.. The three specimens were identified by A. Hohlenstein-Stadel. 2002: 28). 2002).. possibly due to contamination by recent material (Czarnetzki et al.

The remaining 12 specimens are limb bones and ribs of a late term fetus or neonate (Sesselfelsgrotte 1) found in a third horizon. http://www. Altmühl valley: Sesselfelsgrotte. Associated faunal material in the find-bearing “schwarze Tiefschicht” (black deep layer) suggests an Eemian or early Würm context. 1998. M AN U SC R immature Neandertal individuals were identified during analysis of faunal material from the IP T . Two further finds which must be mentioned are an isolated milk tooth (i1) from the nearby cave site Klausennische (Abel.6 m in height (Kunter and Wahl. in press. Orschiedt.uni-erlangen. A number of finds of Bavarian cave site Sesselfelsgrotte (1–3) (Freund. The second find is described as the “outer (acromial) half of a typical Neandertal clavicle” but was found in 1962 by the quoted author in “old spoil removed from the cave used as a bier cellar” (Schoch. which still remains the most complete 19 AC CE PT ED from Middle Paleolithic layers at the neighboring cave site Untere Klause (Schoch. 1936. Two deciduous teeth from different horizons G2 and M2 would. Rathgeber. have been lost by children about 12 years of age.ARTICLE IN PRESS identified typical Neandertal features and assigned it to a male adolescent some 1. Schoch. by analogy with modern humans. 5. The only find complexes represented by several skeletal parts are the type specimen recovered in 1856 from the Neandertal (and augmented in 1997 and 2000). The age and context of German Neandertal remains Important Neandertal remains are now known from several German sites. 1973).uf.000 BP. 1973: 88–89) and a clavicula recovered The lithic assemblage at the former site contains bifacially worked tools which now define the eponymous Klausennische variant of the Keilmessergruppen and probably date to around 50. G5 (Fig. Untere Klause. Klausennische. while a number of further sites have yielded less significant material (Fig.de/projekte/sesselfelsgrotte). 8). 2000: 101–102. Table 2). 1992). 1973: 101).

2002. An early Würmian age is proposed for the Hohlenstein-Stadel femur.ARTICLE IN PRESS individual.000 BP (Richter. A tooth from the nearby Klausennische was attributed to an early Würmian context but is now lost. The probable find horizon of the Neandertal cranial bones from SalzgitterLebenstedt is assigned to a middle Weichselian interstadial. The circumstances of discovery of the finds from Sarstedt and Warendorf provide insufficient information on their geological or archaeological context.000 M2 is associated with Mousterian artifacts and is believed to date to before the early Würmian pleniglacial (Weissmüller. The heavy fragmentation of these specimens precludes a more detailed morphological determination. With the exception of the radiometric dates for the original Neandertal site (39–40 ka). 14C dates would place the formation of this sediment complex between 57. 1997. 1995). there is no indisputable evidence for the absolute age of other Neandertal remains in Germany. it remains unclear whether the original Neandertal type skeleton was in a primary 20 AC CE PT ED and 47. 2001). The typological attribution of the associated lithic assemblage is to the Keilmessergruppen techno-complex (Pastoors. All remaining. The deciduous tooth from horizon M AN U SC R IP T . Rathgeber. there is no unambiguous evidence for Neandertal burials from Germany. The remains from the G-complex horizons at the Sesselfelsgrotte are assigned to the middle of the Würm and are associated with artifacts attributed on typological grounds to the late Middle Paleolithic Micoquian. This absence may relate to retrieval of most of the German remains from quarry spoil piles. and the foetus/neonate from Horizon G5 at the Sesselfelsgrotte. Behavior of the classic Neandertals of Germany In contrast to western Europe and the Near East. Due to its early (1856) and uncontrolled discovery by quarry workers. highly fragmentary finds derive either from uncertain or disturbed stratigraphic contexts or were only subsequently identified as hominin during faunal analysis. in press).

Protsch (Frankfurt University) dated a number of skull fragments recovered by gravel dredging in different regions of Germany (Fig. 1992. Bräuer. 1980). both because of their otherwise low chances of survival and by analogy with observations of probable child and fetal burials at La Ferrassie (Rathgeber. The possibilities of radiocarbon dating offered the potential to obtain more exact information on hominin finds with no or poorly documented contexts. 1978. Hahnöfersand The skull fragment from Hahnöfersand was recovered from the bank of the river Elbe in Hamburg in 1973 and was supposedly associated with Pleistocene faunal remains.uf.unierlangen. Cut marks around the edge of the 1856 calotte suggest the scalp was removed and the nuchal muscles were cut through (Czarnetzki. A number of these radiocarbon dates have proven unreliable. Damage patterns to the acetabulum of a right innominate and the right femoral head caused by workmens’ tools suggest that the skeleton was at least partially articulated at the time of discovery (Orschiedt et al. The situation changed when a number of new finds were introduced into the discussion around 1980 (Henke and Protsch. and R.. German early Upper Paleolithic hominins Up until the late 1970s evidence for early anatomically modern humans in western Central Europe was limited. Schmitz and Pieper. Protsch and Semmel. 1978. Table 3). It has been suggested that the fetal remains at the Sesselfelsgrotte may have been intentionally buried. 1977b. 1999: 39). and information under http://www.de/projekte/sesselfelsgrotte). in press. as shown by the following revisions. Schmitz. 9. 1980. 2002) and might suggest more complex secondary mortuary preparation or other activities. Henke. These 21 AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T .ARTICLE IN PRESS burial.

the fragment is described as a possible example of an individual showing a mixture of Neandertal and anatomically modern features. 1984c. The validity of these conclusions was recently demonstrated by a direct AMS date of 238 ± 39 BP (OxA-9879). 1984a) with a radiocarbon date of 36.ARTICLE IN PRESS had the same brown surface color as the human skull.. 2002). The skull fragment was recently redated using the AMS radiocarbon method (Terberger et al. Their study regarded the broad skull type of the Paderborn-Sande specimen as a “progressive” feature and also recognized the great similarities of various morphological features with those of Neolithic to medieval populations. Bräuer (1980. Street and Terberger. On the evidence of the date. 1984b. 1992). which was suggested might represent attempted trepanation. 1984a.300 ± 300 BP (Fra-24) provided by R. BC). 2001. The skull fragment was published by G. A possible healed injury in the region of the forehead.500 ± 55 BP (OxA10306) is methodologically reliable and assigns the Hahnöfersand skull to the early Atlantic Mesolithic (6.339 ± 69 cal. The result conforms much better to the evidence for human presence in northern Germany where it is not unusual for the dredging of river valleys to disturb peat layers containing Mesolithic organic material (e.g. 2001a). was considered unusual for a specimen of proposed Pleistocene age (Henke. Paderborn-Sande The Paderborn-Sande (Westphalia) hominin skull fragment was recovered from gravel deposits in 1976 by a suction dredger and published by Henke and Protsch (1978) with a radiocarbon date of 27. but only the human specimen can be located today. in his African hybridization model (1981..400 ± 600 BP (Fra-15). Terberger. The new date of 7. which places the specimen in a post-medieval context (Street and Terberger. Protsch. 2002). Bräuer referred to the specimen as probably the oldest anatomically modern human in Europe and. The new result is perfectly consistent with the poor contextual 22 AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T . 1983: 6).

calibrated circa 1. 2004a). Against the background of AC Finally. was recovered in 1974 during sand extraction by suction a radiocarbon date of 21. The younger context is not problematic since the morphological analysis showed that the cranium lies within the range of variation of recent Central European material (Henke. 1982: 150). The robust morphology of the Paderborn specimen can probably be explained by the sex (male) and the advanced age of the specimen (Henke. An exceptionally well-preserved cranium. The cranium was published with SC R Binshof IP T .ARTICLE IN PRESS information and the relatively good preservation of the specimen and has since been independently confirmed by a second AMS result from a different laboratory (M. although a comparative morphological analysis within a sample of Upper Paleolithic hominins showed that its closest similarity was with later Upper Paleolithic specimens (Henke. The find was CE PT ED relocates the specimen into the Middle Bronze Age (Terberger and Street. 2001. 1983: 12). including most facial bones and a practically intact maxillary dentition. A direct AMS date of 3. 1980: 277.000 ± 45 BP published by Protsch and Semmel (1978). 2002).). Kelsterbach attributed to the early Upper Paleolithic context on the basis of a radiocarbon date of 32. 1980: 276). Baales. Herne.420–1. Street and M AN U 23 dredging at Binshof close to Speyer (Rhineland-Palatinate). pers. 1982: 172). and it has subsequently been established that the specimen is now missing from the Frankfurt University anthropological collection (Schulz. This specimen was unavailable for AMS dating.290 BC) now Terberger. comm. 1980: 292. the calvaria from Kelsterbach near Frankfurt must be mentioned.090 ± 45 BP (OxA-9880.300 ± 320 BP (Fra-40) (Henke.

2000a. in the case of Stetten 2. From the first appearance of Modern Humans the different forms of skulls survived until today. There. M AN U 24 valley. Czarnetzki (1983: 234) interprets the special shape of the skull as a consequence of developmental problems during the growth of AC …shape is not a reliable factor for the dating of a find. but implied rather that Again. the Kelsterbach date cannot be accepted as a valid result. Riek excavated human remains of clearly modern character (see SC R directly dated to the Mesolithic. Binshof-Speyer. 2000b) in apparent association with Aurignacian cultural levels. Churchill and Smith. Czarnetzki. CE PT ED must now be removed from the Paleolithic hominin record. Only on the basis of a pattern of certain features is it possible to differentiate samples of people. Although Riek’s excavation notes suggested quite accurate observation of the provenance of the finds in or near the cave. With the Hahnöfersand. in his view. While Czarnetzki (1983: 231) found in the case of the relatively gracile Stetten 1 specimen that “…the shape of the find would fit much better to a later Neolithic context…” (authors’ translation). this was not. 1991. the earliest human IP T Vogelherd . direct dating results published by Conard et al. in 1931. 1934.ARTICLE IN PRESS the massive revision of dates from the Frankfurt laboratory described above. and Paderborn-Sande skull fragments fossils in western Central Europe still apparently associated with the Upper Paleolithic were believed to be those from the Vogelherd cave near Stetten in the southwestern German Lone Riek. 1983. Bronze Age. (2004) show this not to be the case. which W. G. and 18th century or younger. These finds too In light of this revision. 1932. it may be instructive to review briefly some of the previous discussions on the Vogelherd material. Haas. an argument for a younger context for the find. Gieseler (1974) did not accept as an Upper Paleolithic individual because of its rounded shape.

255) assigned both skulls to anatomically modern humans with archaic features. possibly a molar tooth from Schafstall (Orschiedt. 1988: 140). Rüschoff-Thale. More recently. 1991: 702) include a fragment of the mandible of an eighteen-year- . Churchill and Smith (2000a. especially if multivariate analyses are applied. 2000: 79–80). 1984: 388). Isolated remains of probably Aurignacian Age A few teeth from southern German cave sites were detected in Aurignacian find layers. comm. specifically: one adult premolar from the Hohlenstein-Stadel (Czarnetzki.to nine-year-old child (Tinnes. and an unpublished deciduous tooth from Geißenklösterle (Orschiedt. 1983: 234). it is interesting to note that these initially correct impressions were modified to fit a presumed (but with hindsight clearly inappropriate) age model. But none have had their ages confirmed by direct dating. pers. Revisions of the German early Upper Paleolithic hominin record: some conclusions 1 Unfortunately the remains can no longer be located. three teeth from Sirgenstein (Czarnetzki. 2000: 46). This indicates the utility of direct dating of hominid material. old.ARTICLE IN PRESS the individual. 1939: 599. 1983: 234. Landesmuseum Herne. B. Their association with possibly Aurignacian stone tools is described as unclear1 (Bosinski. one tooth from Kleine Ofnet (Orschiedt. Human remains from the Honerthöhle in Westphalia (Andree. some skull fragments and eleven loose teeth of an eight. AC CE PT ED M AN U 25 SC R IP T Herrmann and Ullrich. 2000: 99–100). Orschiedt. However. 1928: 91. 2000: 56–59). These interpretations show that it might in some cases be possible to identify cranial specimens as Neolithic (or at least non-Paleolithic) by their morphological characteristics.

Orschiedt. comm. 2004). 2000: 47) and Rohrhof (3.uni-frankfurt.630 ± 50 BP [B. Orschiedt..]. comm. but also by numerous other results on hitherto undated German M AN U SC R IP T . 2000: 38–39. pers. 2000: 26).210 ± 110 BP. Street and Terberger.070 ± 110 BP. OxA-8948 [G. Orschiedt. We also suggest rejection of the date for the hominin calvaria found at Kelsterbach. 2004a. Kn-2810. 2000: 45). Henke to J.670 ± 50 BP [B. Far from being of Pleistocene origin. pers. 2000: 90).ARTICLE IN PRESS AMS dates for Hahnöfersand. Pincock. Heukemes to J.315 ± 135 BP. Orschiedt. Altrip 1 (3.pdf and . Bad Oldesloe (496 ± 39 BP.. Groningen: Orschiedt. comm.615 ± 40 BP. pers. and Binshof-Speyer reveal major discrepancies in comparison with earlier conventional results obtained by R. 3.]. Protsch and suggest consistent error in the case of the latter series. Orschiedt. 105–106). The assumption that fluviatile deposits are a reliable context for the discovery of “Upper Paleolithic” human remains has been seriously challenged./pm/040-protsch-wiss-praxis-regularien. Oppau and Urspring remain undated (Orschiedt. OxA-10048. It is unclear whether the now defunct radiocarbon laboratory at Frankfurt University ever achieved a reliable standard of precision and there are even doubts that the samples have been analyzed (Schulz. Human remains from Bottrop. Eppelheim (3. comm. Orschiedt. pers. 26 AC Heukemes to J. Protsch in general did not follow the “rules of good scientific practice”. LAA-14792.muk.de/02_dokumente/pm/039-protsch-chronologie. 2000: 53).pdf).]. Tromnau to J. Orschiedt. finds of this type seem to date regularly to the Bronze Age or younger. we recommend that the three crania should be removed from the corpus of European Late Pleistocene human remains. Orschiedt. 81. 2004b. 2002). As a result. CE PT ED results described above. 2000: 28) and the Reilingen 2 specimen (1. (http://www.. Paderborn-Sande. not only by the revised gravel-pit finds of human remains previously attributed to the Late Pleistocene.. Gleidingen (3. Orschiedt. Younger still are SarstedtHeisede (W. Orschiedt. Specimens now shown to be irrelevant for Pleistocene anthropology include the Bronze Age specimens Emsdetten (2460 ± 37 BP. The report of a scientific committee at the University of Frankfurt on these problems concluded that R. 2000: 92). Kn-2811.

All these teeth might simply be specimens lost due to illness or other natural causes. although it is conceivable that the teeth at Sirgenstein cave represent the remains of originally more extensive skeletal material lost due to taphonomic processes. this total of 22 sites also includes some. as was reported for the Neandertal femoral diaphysis from the Hohlenstein-Stadel cave (Kunter and Wahl. a small number of teeth from southern German cave sites can still be attributed to an Aurignacian context. no hominin fossils bore traces of red ochre which might support such an interpretation. they form a rare category of find relative to the total of 22 German Aurignacian sites assigned some importance (Terberger. While we can well imagine that such processes are responsible for the reduction of an originally intact human skeleton to a collection of fragments. all remaining German hominin remains attributed to Aurignacian levels were recovered from caves (Fig. While it is often expected that Upper Paleolithic human fossils would most often be found in the context of intentional burials. such as secondary burial practices with a selective transport of certain remains into the caves. Behavior at early Upper Paleolithic sites in Germany finds. as is reported below from a Magdalenian context. Sometimes traces of carnivore activity are found on human bones from caves.ARTICLE IN PRESS The identification of the Vogelherd specimens as Neolithic leaves the German hominin record with no postcranial material relevant to the early Upper Paleolithic. the character and the location of the recovered German material does not suggest the existence of such burials in this region during the early Upper Paleolithic. to interpret all the repeated carnivores is perhaps too simplistic an explanation. We also need to consider cultural activities. 1992). Equally. However. Numerically. such as the Wildhaus cave in the 27 AC CE PT ED occurrences at sites of only a single hominin specimen as the result of destruction by M AN U It is unclear to what extent taphonomic processes are responsible for isolated fossil SC R IP T . 2001b). However. In summary. 9. Table 4).

Within Germany. and revisions of the direct radiometric ages have made them even rarer (see Auffermann and Orschiedt. Bolus and Conard. 2003). the Neolithic age for the previously undated Vogelherd hominins demonstrates. Since all human remains were found in southwestern Germany. and interpreting this as a reflection of the precocious influx of modern humans along a hypothetical “Danube Corridor” (Conard and Floss. and the presence of what seem to be the earliest bone flutes. A similar regional concentration of specific categories of Aurignacian artifacts. 2001. that even 28 AC CE PT ED potentially weakening arguments for a “Danube Corridor” and point out that it now seems M AN U SC R IP T . This appears to us to draw a rather extreme conclusion from an age correction of material which has apparently owed its status purely to a contextual mistake made during the rapid and early (1931) excavation. not for the first time. we prefer to look at the broader picture. Indeed. Conard et al.. Conard. such as ivory figurines (from a total of four sites). have inspired a model assigning the Swabian region a special role (“Kulturpumpe”) in the development of the earliest Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe.ARTICLE IN PRESS Lahn valley or the Hermanhöhle cave in the Harz. at which only isolated finds of Aurignacian bone points were discovered. 200). Before progressing to such a major paradigm shift. 2001. it seems possible that the frequency of human fossils for this period simply equates with the small number and quality of Aurignacian sites overall. 2003b). 2002: 90 f. in press). Implications of the chronological revision of the hominins Anatomically modern humans with possible early Aurignacian context are rare anywhere in Europe. a claim immediately challenged by other researchers (Zilhão and d’Errico. where major Aurignacian sites are best represented. 2000. (2004) themselves see the new dates for the Vogelherd finds as equally possible that Neandertals produced the earliest Upper Paleolithic plastic art: that known from the Swabian Alb (ibid.

but a reliable archaeological association CE PT ED fossils from the early Upper Paleolithic of Britain and Romania. A key site where direct radiocarbon dates on human remains are not available is Abri Cro-Magnon at Les Eyzies in southwestern France. is unfortunately not conclusively dated (Smith. The Kent Cavern’s four maxilla in Britain have been directly dated by AMS to 30. OxA-11053) for a specimen previously attributed to the Aurignacian (Orschiedt. Beta-157439) suggests a Gravettian rather than Aurignacian context (Henry-Gambier. a radiocarbon date recently obtained on an associated shell of Littorina (27. be intrusive. This specimen is probably. Mousterian and for the human remains cannot be given. direct accelerator dating also gave a Gravettian date (23. research in progress attempts to set a more reliable basis for the discussion of Upper Paleolithic hominins. Over the past several years new results have improved our knowledge of potential Cioclovina in Romanian Transylvania. 1989. At the same time. though not definitely. 2002). 2000: 193.000 and 37. 2002b).. 2006: 555). An adult skull cap from M AN U 29 SC R IP T .680 ± 270 BP. Another Romanian skull found with additional remains in 1952 at the Woman’s Cave in Gorj County gave an AMS result of 30.000 years old (Higham et al.150 ± 800 BP (Olariu et al. Austria. 2000b: 100). asssociated with the Aurignacian (Cârciumaru and Anghelinu.. A child's mandible from an Aurignacian level at Miesslingstal.630 ± 130 BP. 1984: 177–178 and Table 1).000 ± 700 BP. rediscovered in storage at a German university. 2005). In the case of a human ulna from La Rochette (Dordogne). has been dated to 29.ARTICLE IN PRESS material long accepted as deriving from relatively competently excavated and adequately documented contexts can. but new 14C results on animal bone from surrounding layers suggest the specimen may in fact be between 35. discussion of the taxonomic AC Aurignacian finds have been observed in the cave. found during exploitation of phosphate deposits in 1941.900 BP (Hedges et al.. however. Churchill and Smith. in fact. 2005). At the same time.. Olariu et al.

. 8. Nevertheless.290 +970/–870 BP (GrA-22810). the removal of evidence for modern humans in clear Aurignacian context by revised results of direct dating demonstrates that our data basis for this conclusion is less reliable than has been thought. the majority of researchers would probably favor CE PT ED remains discovered recently in a karstic chamber of the Peştera cu Oase.. 2002: 958)..930 ± 520–490 BP. Cranial remains collected in 2003 during a survey in the same cave are supposed to be of the same age (Trinkaus et al.. 2. so that the exact significance of the find has to be considered as presently under review.160 ± 520– 490 BP.. the oldest directly dated European anatomically modern humans are the mandible has been AMS-dated to 34. A M AN U 30 SC R IP T Republic) still represent the most important series of human fossils believed to be of . 2000a: 251). 2004). and the early date has been confirmed by a date of >35. Two dates on calcite layers that originally sealed the find layer at Mladeč supported the attribution of the hominin remains to the early Upper Paleolithic (34. New direct radiocarbon dates on the human remains themselves place the individuals Mladeč 1.ARTICLE IN PRESS status of the find has been initiated. Churchill and Smith. To date.g. 2005).. the human fossils have no archaeological associations (Trinkaus et al. The dates confirm the proposed early Upper Paleolithic context and make the Mladeč hominin remains “the oldest directly dated substantial assemblage of modern human remains in Europe” (Wild et al. the fossils from the Mladeč cave (Czech Aurignacian age. If we combine the current absence of convincing anthropological evidence for the AC On the basis of the current evidence. Romania.. but contamination problems due to reservoir effects needed to be taken into consideration (Svoboda et al. 34.200 BP from the Oxford facility (OxA-11711) (Trinkaus et al. GrN-26334). and 9 into the time period around 31. However. 2003b). 2005: 334). 2003). Despite these Romanian and British finds. a causal connection between the appearance of early modern humans and the emergence of the Aurignacian in Europe (e.000 BP (Wild et al. GrN-26333.

. M AN U 31 SC R IP T . for the coexistence of two hominin species. Here. is CE PT ED phase of hybridization of Neandertals and early modern humans in Europe. and it therefore seems advisable also to consult the archaeological record. 1998.. 2000). in general.. 1999. 2002) does not furnish appropriate material for this discussion. a potential scenario emerges in which the makers of the European early Aurignacian could theoretically have been either hominin form or indeed both. Zilhão and Trinkaus. 1999). 2006) and the Iberian Peninsula (e.ARTICLE IN PRESS early part of the European Aurignacian with the hypothesis of late Neandertal survival suggested for Croatia (Smith et al. the systematic and differentiated analysis of 14C dates on bone and charcoal from late Middle Paleolithic and AC years and. the Portuguese Lagar Velho skeleton (Duarte et al. whereas at first sight the radiocarbon record from a number of sites does appear to demonstrate a long period of chronological overlap of two traditions. Bolus and Conard.g. The dating of the find horizon to circa 24. leading to the hypothesis of an Iberian “Ebro frontier” (Zilhão. Young individuals do not. In our view. Again. whether implicitly or explicitly.. we see no convincing evidence for an interstratification of Middle Paleolithic and Aurignacian industries or for a superstratification of the former. Regarding anthropological evidence for hybridization. 1999. given the loss of the Hahnofersand specimen as a potential hybrid due to revision of its chronology. 2001: 38). we suspect that there are at present no convincing European candidates demonstrating an admixture of modern and archaic Homo.500 BP also suggests a younger context than should be relevant for a The palaeoanthropological record is at present unable to provide an answer to the question of authorship of the Aurignacian. The main argument for the parallel existence of two European technologies over thousands of therefore provided by the apparent evidence of radiometric (mainly 14C) dating. Higham et al. form a reliable basis for the identification of such patterns and the analysis has been contested (Tattersall and Schwarz.

2003).g..500 BP (e. If this reservation is valid. 1997).ARTICLE IN PRESS Aurignacian assemblages changes this picture (Jöris et al. 32 AC Plain by 12. on the evidence of the separation of the charcoal dates. We suggest that. (2003: 34–35) even suggest that their revised data “…would imply local in situ developments of Aurignacian industries…” and “…that Neandertals did indeed produce at least the earliest Aurignacian industries…” The present authors believe that an alternative scenario of rapid replacement of both chronological resolution attainable for the late Middle Paleolithic/Early Aurignacian transition. the timing and dynamics of anthropological and archaeological transition at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic may remain unsolved by radiocarbon dating.000 BP and of the Creswellian and Hamburgian. given similar circumstances. The final answer to the question of the “Makers of the Aurignacian” may indeed be provided only by discoveries of clearly identified hominins in unambiguous association with stratigraphically contemporary archaeological remains. would also probably not be detected as CE PT ED archaeological industry and hominid species is at least as plausible. It is suggested that the dates on bone could be affected by contamination and depletion problems for samples at the limit of radiocarbon dating and that. In a discussion of the “Makers of the Aurignacian. 2003: 33). it could remove supposedly convincing evidence for Middle Paleolithic/Upper Paleolithic co-existence across Europe. there is no prolonged parallel survival of Middle and Upper Paleolithic industries on two sides of an “Ebro frontier” (Jöris et al. occupying the North European movement but seen as a “simultaneous” event.. At the level of M AN U SC R IP T .” Jöris et al. Whereas dates on bone continue to imply long-term co-existence of the late Middle Paleolithic and the Aurignacian.. Housley et al. the results for dates on charcoal alone permit a diachronous separation of these industries. If this methodological revision of the radiocarbon dating evidence is confirmed. events at a centennial rather than a millennial scale cannot readily be picked up. the staggered timing recognizable for the late glacial spread of the Magdalenian from southwestern France to southern Poland between 14..000–13.

. Oliva. On the contrary. 2000). The almost total absence of human remains for the middle part of the IP T between 30. AC CE PT ED complements the pattern of burial slightly further to the east. 2001b). Equivalent and contemporary burials are also known from Italy (Mussi. Middle Upper Paleolithic open sites with bone preservation are also known from the Rhineland. rather than taphonomic selection. the overall modest number of sites with reasonable conditions of preservation suggests that any interpretation of the absence of human remains in terms of different cultural behavior. 2005) burial dates to around 27.ARTICLE IN PRESS The middle Upper Paleolithic hominins of Germany Western Central Europe has almost no significant human remains in the period from the Hohle Fels cave (Pasda and Hahn. This first Austrian Gravettian M AN U 33 SC R cave (Haas. 1996: 59 ff. Predmost. 1995. the majority of them from the karst regions of southern Germany. These burials are impressive in both their number and the quality of grave goods. some 18 important Gravettian sites are known from the region (Terberger. 2000). and Dolní Vestonice (e.000–20.000 BP and can be seen as an argument that the absence of burials in western Central Europe might merely reflect a gap in our knowledge. Worthy of note are only a deciduous tooth . 1991) and two molars from the Geißenklösterle western Central European Upper Paleolithic is the more surprising given the existence of several very important Gravettian/Pavlovian specimens at the Moravian sites of Brno. must be treated with caution. Table 4). 10. 1991: 37). Klíma. Certainly..The recently discovered double grave of two newborn children with intensive ochre coloring and some personal adornments at the site of Krems-Wachtberg in Lower Austria (Einwögerer.000 BP (Fig.g. Vlček. the absence of human remains in western Central Europe cannot be explained by an absence of settlement at this time. 1991. Nevertheless.

1979. Nevertheless. 12).200 ± 200 BP. UCLA-1869) taken in the 1970s on a tibia fragment (Protsch and Glowatzki.ARTICLE IN PRESS The late Upper Paleolithic and the Final Paleolithic hominins Beginning with the Magdalenian. Wüller. the high standard of sample pre-treatment at the Oxford laboratory gives us confidence that the result confirms the earlier conventional result. Confirmation by AMS dating of a conventional radiocarbon date for a burial at the Mittlere Klause near Neuessing. Schröter. however. makes this skeleton the earliest German Upper Paleolithic hominin directly dated by 14C (Fig. the majority of the . A recently obtained AMS date of 18. although the ochre-stained bones were treated with consolidants soon after their discovery. a first radiocarbon date (18.590 ± 260 BP (OxA9856) is in good agreement with the earlier result and. It is nevertheless interesting to examine this group of material against the background of presence/absence of burials and of other forms of treatment of the dead. in view of the lack of other archaeological evidence for human presence during this part of the last glacial. While the excavators favored a "Solutrean" age for the skeleton. Excavations in 1914 revealed the burial of a man 30–40 years old at death.. 11. which is represented in western Central Europe by some 150 archaeological sites. The stratigraphy suggests that the skeleton lay above a Middle Paleolithic horizon and immediately below a Magdalenian layer. The date was believed to be unreliable. there is an increase in the number of human remains compared finds include only a few fragments of tooth or bone. 1999). close to 34 AC CE PT ED M AN U Primary and secondary burials SC R IP T with earlier periods of the Upper Paleolithic (Fig. recent research at the sites of Wiesbaden-Igstadt (Hesse) and Kastelhöhle-Nord (Swiss Jura) has suggested an archaeological context for the burial. However. Additionally. this interpretation was subsequently criticized (e. Bavaria.g. Table 5). Mittlere Klause. 1974: 143) yielded a result close to the age originally proposed.

2001b.ARTICLE IN PRESS the Last Pleniglacial and in accordance with its reported stratigraphic position (Street and Terberger. Calibration of the radiocarbon age (18. Terberger and Street. The most complete Late Pleistocene human remains from an open site are those from the double burial at Bonn-Oberkassel (Figs. This latter sculpture of a cervid body compares well with other contemporary depictions (Veil and Breest. and a flat engraved carving (of antler?) (Fig. 1999). This would assign the burial to the transition from the latest Magdalenian to the earliest Final Paleolithic Federmessergruppen which can be well reconciled with the associated dog skeleton. 1999. 2003b).000 cal. Terberger and Street. On the European Magdalenian (equivalent to western European Middle Magdalenian IV.600 BP) suggests that the burial falls into a period more favorable to settlement shortly after the Greenland Interstadial 2 and it is possible that contact between the makers of the developing Badegoulian to the west and technologically similar (“aurignacoid”/Epigravettian) assemblages in eastern Central Europe were possible over a brief time window (Terberger. a series of seven AMS dates from two laboratories on different elements of the grave (including one on each human skeleton) all suggest a late Magdalenian or early Final Paleolithic age (circa 12. 2003). 1986). 1995. 2002. However. Bonn-Oberkassel. since the burial from La Madeleine (Dordogne) itself. 11. 15). 2003a). at a time when human presence in the region is . Wüller. Baales and Street. Terberger. The Mittlere Klause burial dates to a period well before the expansion of the rarely documented. 1998). 1998: 83. traditionally assigned to the AC CE PT ED basis of associated finds the burial was traditionally assigned to an early phase of the Central M AN U 35 SC R IP T Magdalenian into western Central Europe. a decorated bone artifact. BC) (Baales and Street. A revision of the age of Bonn-Oberkassel is not unique. 13–14) (Henke. 2003a.

Direct AMS dates assign one adult individual IP T Neuwied-Irlich.310 ± 120 BP) and a neonatal individual (12. UtC-9221.. Remains of at least three individuals were uncovered by quarrying in 1957 at . One adult male. The remains were scattered across about 20 m and associated by the excavator with the Paleolithic artifacts (Bach. Baales.110 ± 90 BP.660 ± 40 BP. 2004: 65).. now appears to be younger in age (Gambier et al. and one juvenile came from a 4 m broad chamber above the 26 m long main gallery. 2002. The late glacial adult and neonate may represent the burial of a mother and newborn infant (Baales. two adult females. Both Irlich and Bonn-Oberkassel appear to represent isolated burials. see also Terberger. It therefore seems plausible that disposal of the dead at this period took the form of is correspondingly low. Neuwied. 2000. 1971).965 ± 65 BP. Urdhöhle. 16–17). 1974. While it was not possible to identify a clearly defined cultural layer. Richter from 1946–1959 (Feustel et al. although a result for a skull (2. OxA-9848) to the beginning of the Final Paleolithic (Figs. 2004).ARTICLE IN PRESS Magdalenian. several flint artifacts and Pleistocene faunal remains recovered from a loessic deposit show that humans were present during the later Paleolithic. 1989). 2002). AMS dating of two samples (skull and humerus) of the published Urdhöhle human remains from the chamber show the specimens to be early 36 AC CE PT ED interment away from the settlement and that the chance of finding human remains at the latter M AN U SC R Regional Museum (Kreismuseum). the site of Neuwied-Irlich (Central Rhineland) and recently rediscovered in storage at the (11.910 ± 70 BP. OxA-9876) stored with the other finds places it in the Iron Age (von Berg and Baales. 11. OxA-9847. The Urdhöhle cave is located close to the better known Kniegrotte near Pößneck in Thuringia and was discovered and excavated by M. and possibly OxA-9736: 12. Feustel.

KIA-3837. At the Brillenhöhle cave site there is.400 ± 50 BP. Brillenhöhle.500 BP/13.470 ± 50 BP. although even the early period is marked by a great increase in the number of sites in western Central Europe at around 13. Magdalenian and Late Paleolithic fossils in nonburial context Burghöhle. the expected Magdalenian age of the specimens has to be rejected. On the basis of these results. However. 18) (directly dated by AMS to 12.290 ± 34 BP.700 cal. 37 AC CE PT ED fragments of at least two adults and one child (Fig.420 ± 60 BP. Cut marks on the occipital bone are probably due to scalping (Fig. 12. a process that is paralleled. OxA-10828)..450 ± 110 BP. not Magdalenian. Of particular interest are the cut marks on these remains. Of five skull fragments from the Burkhardtshöhle (Baden-Wurttemberg) attributed to the Magdalenian.ARTICLE IN PRESS Mesolithic in age (8. for example. Cauwe. 1996).g. Only slightly younger than Brillenhohle is the skull fragment from the Burghöhle cave at Dietfurt. ETH-7613) (Orschiedt. 8. 2002a). and Belgium (e. 1995. 2000: 40–41). which were subsequently deposited at the edge of a Magdalenian hearth. OxA-11054) (Orschiedt. a secondary burial of bone BP. OxA-10827. apparently.210 ± 60 BP. BC. The hominin remains possibly document use of the Urdhöhle as a burial site during the earlier Mesolithic. OxA-10829). in the British Isles. no primary inhumations can be attributed to the Magdalenian period of Germany. Thus. northern France. one specimen is directly dated (12. which is placed in the later Magdalenian by two direct AMS dates (12.470 ± 65 M AN U SC R IP T . KIA-3838). A third sample from an unpublished skull from a different part of the cave indicates an even younger human presence at the site (1. Ducrocq et al. 2001). 19. which are interpreted as evidence for intensive disarticulation and excarnation of the skeletons. there are several finds which can be interpreted as evidence for other forms of treatment of the dead. 1997.. Gietz.

2000: 54–55). Schaaffhausen at Andernach-Martinsberg as Homo (Schaaffhausen. Isolated teeth. Vlček. which was the Late Paleolithic (10. in some cases decidous. Orschiedt. Three more finds from Hohler Fels (Pasda and Hahn. Undated. Orschiedt. 2000: 51–52) can probably be attributed to the later Upper Paleolithic on the evidence of their stratigraphic position. A find of a well-preserved skull from the open site Rhünda in Hesse. Alternatively. A single evulsed deciduous molar tooth is described from the late Magdalenian horizon IIIb at the Felsställe rockshelter (Czarnetzki. Human remains at the large Magdalenian open sites Gönnersdorf (Rhineland-Palatinate) and Nebra (Thuringia) are confined to isolated. fossils in unknown burial context AC CE PT ED M AN U 38 originally believed to be of a female Neandertal. possibly late Upper Paleolithic. A premolar and a molar tooth from the Bavarian Hanseles Hohl cave (Orschiedt.. 1888) was later demonstrated to be erroneous and the specimens correctly identified as reindeer (Poplin. Isolated teeth are relatively common at Magdalenian sites. 1987: 373). including two femora with cut marks and a fibula. 2000: 72–73). . 1972). was recently directly dated to the very end of SC R IP T Petersfels (Albrecht et al.200 ± 60 BP. including those of children (Orschiedt.ARTICLE IN PRESS Peterfels. 2000: 84–86). suggest that such practices were not uncommon at this time. GrA-15947) (Rosendahl. are recorded from the Magdalenian site 1991. 1999. Rhünda. teeth (Poplin. 2002). 1994: 49 ff). 1976: 3. the identification of incisor teeth recovered by H. A number of teeth and fragments of bone with cut marks from several individuals.

Schröter. including a femur from the Gnirshöhle 39 AC authenticity as a Pleistocene specimen. Flohr et al. 1939: 510. In both cases. while the second specimen. Likewise.ARTICLE IN PRESS Isolated remains. 1974) and a juvenile mandible from the Ilsenhöhle (Hülle. One is supposedly the long-lost skeleton from Weißenthurm (Günther. had never been published. Bavaria. Plaidt. Since the Plaidt specimen is now missing. Two finds of human material were discovered by one of the authors in Rhineland museum collections with records suggesting that they had been recovered from below late glacial volcanic deposits in the Central Rhineland Neuwied Basin. Weißenthurm and Niedermendig. 1979). 1977).). the mandible of a child about five years old and a juvenile mandible from the cave site of Kastlhänghöhle in the Altmühl valley. The supposed Magdalenian age of three limb bones from the Kniegrotte (Bach. 1998. claimed to represent the Weißenthurm specimen and a cranium from a further Neuwied Basin site. a cranium from Niedermendig. Gnirshöhle. but are undated. An Upper Paleolithic age is unconfirmed or rejected for other human remains described by Herrmann and Ullrich (1991: 701 f. remains unsubstantiated.. the lack of correspondence between the photograph and the originally published description of the specimens suggests great caution in accepting its relevance. has resulted in two publications (Schröter. are supposed to have been recovered from a late Upper Paleolithic context (Andree. 1924). In the case of the former site. direct dating has revealed the documentation to be erroneous and the specimens are irrelevant archival photographs. it is not possible to determine its available material claimed as “Pleistocene” in museum archives (see above) suggests that the context of the Plaidt specimen could be much younger. 2004b). The negative results provided by dates obtained on the CE PT ED for the Pleistocene hominin record (Street and Terberger. both cave sites in Thuringia. The discovery of M AN U SC R IP T . 2002: 14–16).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

cave. The femur is more probably associated with an occupation of the site during the Holocene (Atlantic period) (Czarnetzki, 1977a: 181).

apparently associated with late Upper Paleolithic finds and as showing evidence of an

edges (Wahl, 1997: 142). These defects are clearly due to recent damage and the Paleolithic association of the skull fragment also remains unclear (Orschiedt, 1999: 70).

Kohlerhöhle. A single human third molar tooth is known from the Kohlerhöhle, Swiss Jura. The cave was sealed by scree deposits and contained only Paleolithic finds. The tooth probably dates to the younger of two identified layers, assigning it to the late Magdalenian. Of special interest are traces of manipulation on this tooth interpreted as showing repeated activities connected with dental hygiene, a phenomenon unusual for that time (Alt and Sedlmeier, 1990). By contrast, the association of a cranial fragment from Baarhausen (Switzerland) appears to be uncertain (Höneisen et al., 1993: 154 and 255).

Grotte du Bichon (Switzerland). An unusual find of Final Paleolithic human remains was

killed in a hunting accident. A directly dated human skull and postcranial skeleton (11,760 ± 110 BP, ETH-8773; 11,610 ± 110 BP, ETH-8774) were associated with the remains of a brown bear (11,360 ± 120 BP, ETH-8775; 11,680 ± 90 BP, ETH-8301) killed by an arrow (Morel, 1993: 115). Even though in the absence of an intentional burial, the bodies may have lain together on the cave floor for an appreciable length of time, major parts of the skeletons survived. This circumstance is perhaps relevant for the question of whether discoveries of 40

AC

made at the Grotte du Bichon in Switzerland (Table 2), where a hominin appears to have been

CE PT ED

M AN U

SC R

unhealed perforation of the frontal bone together with fracture and rounding at the preserved

IP T

Röthekopf. An undated skull fragment from Röthekopf (Bad Säckingen) was described as

ARTICLE IN PRESS

only single bones or skulls in cave contexts do not, after all, represent selective import and disposal of only these body parts, and thus reflect cultural decisions and not merely differential taphonomic survival.

Behavior in the late Upper Paleolithic

dead, it is clear that the overall increase in numbers of both sites and human remains is not mirrored by an increase in the number of sites with better preserved skeletons or graves. On

deposition of only parts of human bodies in caves, something which the authors interpret as reflecting a treatment of the dead other than simple interment. The Brillenhöhle find, with its differentiated traces of manipulation of the skeleton, provides particularly clear evidence for such secondary deposition or burial. At the Burghöhle Dietfurt the continuation of similar

German evidence for the manipulation of the skeleton from subsequent Final Paleolithic contexts, but a skull fragment with cut marks from Gough’s Cave, Cheddar Gorge, Britain (Cook, 1991) dates to this period. During the earlier Mesolithic, the deposition of human remains in caves can be observed at a supra-regional scale, and a secondary burial is the most probable context for the human remains from the “Upper Hall” of the Urdhöhle cave in Thuringia (Terberger et al., 2003). These similarities in the treatment of the dead are noteworthy in providing an element of continuity between the later Upper Paleolithic and the earlier Mesolithic. Against this background of continuity we can also observe innovation. Whereas we do not know of a single case of primary interment of a body in the classic Magdalenian of western Central Europe, we recognize the adoption of this practice at the transition to the 41

AC

CE PT ED

practices in the treatment of the dead can be observed into the late Magdalenian. There is no

M AN U

the contrary, during the late Upper Paleolithic the common practice seems to have been the

SC R

To summarize what we know of late Upper Paleolithic burial and treatment of the

IP T

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Final Paleolithic circa 12,000 BP/12,000 cal BC. The burial of two or more individuals and their association with (sometimes opulent) grave goods seem to be typical for the burials of this period. Contemporary parallels, such as the site of Aven d’Ibousserie, can be found in western and southern Europe and suggest that this burial rite was a common practice at this time (e.g., d’Errico and Vanhaeren 2000, 327).

Summary and conclusions

During the few years since the publication of the last update of the standard catalog of

subject of major revision, making a review of the current situation desirable. A number of new specimens have been added to the record, due either to new field work or rediscovery of material in museum collections. Losses of previously accepted specimens are due in part to their specific re-identification, but are mainly due to correction of their status by the application of direct AMS radiocarbon dating. Additionally, the interpretation of a number of the localities of still valid Pleistocene specimens has been subject to revision, with regard either to their chronological status or the taphonomy of deposition of the hominin remains.

The oldest German fossil hominin is the specimen of Homo heidelbergensis from Mauer and the age of the site (500,000 BP) seems confirmed by newer investigations. The age of the Bilzingsleben site continues to be debated, but there seems to be increasing consensus that the site should date to OIS 11. The taphonomy of the Bilzingsleben hominins and of the site in general has also been the subject of many interpretations. The taxonomic status of the hominins at both sites remains a subject of discussion, with authors describing the specimens as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus, or H. sapiens heidelbergensis. The hominin status of tooth fragments from Bad Cannstatt remains disputed. 42

AC

CE PT ED

M AN U

German hominins (Orschiedt, 2000), the German Pleistocene hominin record has been the

SC R

IP T

These include Steinheim (OIS 9?). More encouraging are the sites of Salzgitter- M AN U 43 SC R IP T . Paderborn- first appearance of Homo sapiens in Central Europe. internationally less-wellknown specimens. By contrast. the latter find may provide some indication of social behavior. the most positive development has certainly been the relocation and partial excavation of material from the type locality. The suggested dates for the first four sites are the most plausible estimates at present. Vogelherd. have also lost their Pleistocene status. whereas the authors prefer to treat suggested interpretations of the manipulation of the Steinheim calvaria and the Ochtendung calotte skeptically. In the case of the classic Neandertals.g. other finds have completely lost their relevance for palaeoanthropology (e. This experience leads the authors to the inescapable conclusion that hominin remains from uncertain contexts should routinely be subjected to direct absolute dating before accepting a Pleistocene age.. Warendorf). Several prominent fossils (Hahnöfersand. Ehringsdorf (OIS 7?). whereas the Reilingen specimen remains undated. Arguments can be made for the presence of settlement structures (hearths and possibly a burial) at Ehringsdorf. Ochtendung (OIS 6?). in most cases previously undated but generally accepted as of Paleolithic age. Several other. Perhaps the most far-reaching revision of the German Pleistocene hominin record is the loss of all major specimens of early anatomically modern humans as a result of direct AMS radiocarbon dating.ARTICLE IN PRESS A number of younger archaic hominin remains can plausibly be interpreted as transitional forms along the gradient from Homo heidelbergensis to Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis. and possibly Reilingen. Wildscheuer) or remain uncertain in their Lebenstedt. AC Sande) can now be seen to date to the Holocene and thus are irrelevant for the question of the CE PT ED chronological status (Sarstedt. Hohlenstein-Stadel. Taubach (OIS 5e). Together with absolute dating results and DNA analysis this confirms the importance of the type specimen 150 years after the original discovery. and Sesselfelsgrotte at which hominin remains are securely dated to the last glaciation.

g. could be from a final Younger Dryas or also been lost from this group of specimens (e. the loss of Binshof-Speyer (now seen to be Bronze Age) and the almost complete absence of anatomically modern human fossil material before the Last Glacial Maximum means that there are no directly dated. Other direct dating results change our interpretation of the double burial at Bonn-Oberkassel and identify a new burial of an adult and an infant at Neuwied-Irlich. Human remains previously attributed to the Upper Paleolithic have M AN U 44 SC R IP T . which can perhaps be seen in the context of “Epigravettian”/Badegoulian contacts across Central Europe. Other reported late glacial specimens (“Weißenthurm. The unreliability of the context of the latter has been repeatedly AC the 1920s is problematic.ARTICLE IN PRESS The removal of the more complete human remains from the early Upper Paleolithic record leaves only a small number of teeth from the Aurignacian levels of southern German cave sites relevant to this period. although the identification of the Holocene “Weißenthurm” specimen with the original find described from periods are represented mainly by specimens recovered from travertine beds or fluviatile deposits. Exceptions are the Mittlere Klause burial. Classic Neandertals and early anatomically modern human remains are mainly known from cave sites and from fluviatile deposits. Human remains from horizons dated to after the LGM can usually be attributed to either the Magdalenian or to the transition from the Upper to the Final Paleolithic (Federmessergruppen). under discussion. in most cases. This leaves no clear evidence for the characterization of the German hominin record for the whole of the Aurignacian and Gravettian periods.000 BP and the Mittlere Klause burial at 18. the ages of which are still. The older CE PT ED earliest Holocene context. Indeed. or particularly diagnostic. according to its absolute date. and the Rhünda specimen which.600 BP. Urdhöhle.. The site context of recovered Pleistocene hominin material varies greatly.” Niedermendig) proved to be spurious. specimens between the Neandertal type specimen at about 40. now possibly Mesolithic burials).

and T. Robert Hedges. Grupe. Aufleger. B. Magdalenian human remains are mostly fragmentary specimens found in caves. With a few important exceptions. Almost all material from fluvial contexts controlled by direct dating is of Holocene age. G. von Berg. Bußmann. Furthermore we would like to especially thank Susan Antón for her patience and her always useful comments and advice! A number of people made photos available for the article and we would like to thank A. Of particular interest is the nature of the recovered human material. Tom Higham). A. Dr. Ch. all the material from this period is highly fragmentary and taxonomically undiagnostic. After the LGM. Dr. A. We also would like to thank Thomas Rathgeber for some M AN U 45 SC R IP T . Rathgeber for their personal support. Rüschhoff-Thale. AC CE PT ED Ramsey. Paul Pettitt. Acknowledgements The authors thank the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (Prof.ARTICLE IN PRESS demonstrated by the direct dating of human remains. Dr. More complete human skeletons that can be interpreted as evidence for primary inhumation seem to be present only from the very end of the Magdalenian and/or the earlier part of the Final Paleolithic. Bronk- information on the new hominin fossils from the Sesselfelsgrotte and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. many of which show evidence of intensive manipulation consistent with secondary burial practices. and the case of Vogelherd shows that cave stratigraphies can also be easily misinterpreted. human remains tend to come from either caves or open terrestrial sites.

. Der Molar von Taubach. J. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 11/12 (1919/1920).D. Habilitationsschrift Universität Frankfurt a. Der eiszeitliche Mensch in Deutschland und seine Kulturen. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 68.. J. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 35.. 241-248. M. Berke.. 2000. 256-259. 1994. Notae Praehistoricae 18. Orschiedt.. Eine Spurensuche. Stuttgart. 1-62. M. 3-23. In: Section 6: Le Paléolithique Supérieur / The Upper Palaeolithic “Sessions générales et posters / AC Baales. Kleinere Mitteilungen. Gemeinde Brislach. Auf dem Weg zum mordernen Menschen. Die Funde vom Petersfels in der Städtischen Sammlung Engen im Hegau. Adam. Umwelt und Archäologie der Alleröd-Zeit im Neuwieder Becken. Mannus-Bibliothek 42. B. Albrecht. Sedlmeier. Die Neandertaler. M AN U 46 203-205. 77-92. SC R IP T . Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 19/1. J. in press. Andree.ARTICLE IN PRESS Literature Abel. research and changing views. Die Neandertaler. G. Final Palaeolithic archaeology of the northern Rhineland and the Belgian Ardenne: State of research..W.. W. Hahn-Weishaupt. P. B.. Ein menschlicher Milchschneidezahn aus der Klausenhöhle (Niederbayern).D. Ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit vor einem Viertel Million Jahren. K.. Der Urmensch von Steinheim an der Murr und seine Umwelt. Street.. Baales.. Zur Besiedlungsarchäologie der spätpaläolithischen Federmesser-Gruppen vor rund 13000 Jahren am Mittelrhein. W.. 1-16. 1920. Auffermann. 1986. Kanton Bern. S... Baales. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde B 125. 1998. A.. Haas-Campen. J. Burkert. M. 1936. Orschiedt. H. M. Alt. 1928. Late Palaeolithic Backed Point assemblages in the northern Rhineland: current CE PT ED Korrespondenzblatt 20. Der vermeintliche Fossilbeleg eines Urmenschen aus mittelpleistozänem Travertin von Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt. 1990. K.. Adam. 1988.. Leipzig. K. Stuttgart. Auffermann.. Sonderheft 2002. Stuttgart. 2002. Archäologisches Andree. 2004.. Anthropologische Untersuchung und kulturhistorische Bedeutung des menschlichen Zahnfundes aus der Kohlerhöhle.. Adloff. Archäologie in Deutschland. Das Paläolithikum der Höhlen des Hönnetales in Westfalen. J. 1939.. M.

Germania 78 (1)... 1..). Bräuer. Carbonell. Eine Magdalénien-Station in Thüringen.100. G. Die morphologischen Affinitäten des jungpleistozänen Stirnbeins aus dem Elbmündungsgebiet bei Hahnöfersand. Sarmiento. J. New evidence on the transitional period between Neanderthal and Modern Man. Proc. Congress. Hammaburg N.ARTICLE IN PRESS General sessions and posters”. R. 1-42. P. University of Liège. 1981. 1984a. Weimar. 63-71. pp. Der Stirnbeinfund von Hahnöfersand – und einige Aspekte zur Neanderthalerproblematik. British Archaeological Reports (International Series) 1240. Edwards. Weimar. N. G. When did Neanderthals and modern humans diverge? Evol. 11992-11996. 2-8 September 2001. E. H. Die ersten Menschen in Eurasien. Res.L. Acts of the XIVth U. Rates of anterior tooth wear in Middle Pleistocene hominins from Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca. Bosinski.. J. Kölner Geographische Arbeiten 45. 2001.V. Die Kniegrotte... Evol. Bolus. 25. AC 1992 (1995). 131-181... Sci. 1-20. 371-398.P. M. Alt-Thüringen 4. Blackwell. 2002. Acad. O... Arsuaga. Behm-Blancke. Roebroeks. U-series analyses of the lower travertine at Ehringsdorf. G. Int. 2003. 2000.I. 1995. 467-474. G. Jöris. Natl. 10. Philipp von Zabern. 1984. Altsteinzeitliche Rastplätze im Travertingebiet von Taubach. Ehringsdorf. B.P. Schwarcz. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 39. S. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 71.. Spain).. Anthropol. CE PT ED M AN U 47 SC R IP T Mainz.. The late Middle Palaeolithic and earliest Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe and their relevance for the Out of Africa hypothesis.. 11-28. 202-206. 2002. J.M. 1986. H. M. A.. 75.. Bermudez de Castro. In: Feustel.F. DDR. 60-63.. G. Quatern. 29-40. Köln. Bräuer...S. 215-222.. 1960. Bach... W. M. 6. Beerli. Conard. Hum. G.. M. Martinon-Torres.. 1980.P. Quatern. Bosinski. Lozano. Menschliche Skelettreste aus Kniegrottte und Urdhöhle. Natur oder Kultur? Zur Frage ältestpaläolithischer Artefaktensembles aus Hauptterrassenschottern in Deutschland. Paläolithische Funde in den Höhlen Nordrhein-Westfalens. S. 1974. . Justus. Baales. Bräuer. (Ed.

). Mainz.E. Churchill.L. Africa’s place in the evolution of Homo sapiens. (Ed. 17. (Eds..G... . 1995. Taubach revisited. Rotterdam.. pp.H. Hedges. M. G. pp.. S.. Higham. B. D. 2002.G. Colloquium Zagreb 1988. B. J. T. In: Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 31. pp. G. J. (Ed).. Balkema..M. 2000. New York. Notae Praehistoricae 15. Rotterdam and Brookfield.. 2000a. 112.000 . In: Franzen. A. The Carpathian Mousterian and the transition from Middle to Upper Cauwe. 61-174.. 255-262.F. Chronologie des sépultures de l'abri des Autours à Anseremme-Dinant. Anthropogenic factors in the thanatocoenose of the Last Interglacial travertines at Taubach (Germany). Spencer. J. Elbe-Kieswerk. 2000. Monographien des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 42. A Modern Human humerus from the Early Aurignacian of Vogelherdhöhle. A Worlds Survey of the Fossil Evidence. Bräuer. and hominid evolution in Asia during the Middle and Bräuer. Bronk Ramsey. G.000 B.. The Role of Early Humans in the Accumulation of European Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Bone Assemblages. The Afro-European sapiens-hypothesis.Discussing the transition: Central and Eastern Europe from 50. pp. N. C. M. F. Owen. Am. Phys. Quantitative taxonomy and human evolution. 1984b. Magdeburg. (Eds. G.30.W. AC Palaeolithic in southern Romania. 51-60. Bratlund.P. A craniological approach to the origin of anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Africa and implication for the appearance of modern Europeans.. G.. Neanderthals and Modern Humans . 315. In: Orschiedt. 1992. F.)..). F.C. Archaeometry 44. 251-273. CE PT ED M AN U 48 SC R IP T Upper Pleistocene. 190-195. Smith. pp.. The Origins of Modern Humans... In: Washburn. Campbell. 327-410. (Eds. Continuity or Replacement. R. 83-98. 1964. B. Anthropol. S. Cârciumaru. Methuen & Co. 50-74.. Smith. Classification and Human Evolution.). G. Anghelinu. Bräuer.).H. Pike. A. 1984c. 1999.G..H. Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Neanderthal Museums 2. London.E. F. In: Bräuer. Bratlund. Weniger..-C. pp.. Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. Courier Forschung Senckenberg 69. In: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz (Ed. In: Smith. p. 1992.A. (Eds. Smith.ARTICLE IN PRESS Bräuer.. F. 145-165. Continuity or Replacement. Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution.H. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 46 (1999).).

Nature 430. A. N.J. pp.E. 830-832. Das Felsställe.. Condemi. P.). N. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 77. pp 215-219.. 1997.E. F. 2003. N. In: Barton.J. Floss H. (Ed. Grootes. Makers of the early Aurignacian of Europe.. Nature 426. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 30. 1983. 69-77. 2004. A.).000 B. 23-28. Somerset.N. Preliminary report on marked human bones from the 1986-1987 excavations at Gough’s Cave.. trouvée au Hohle Fels près de Schelkingen (Baden-Württemberg.. Floss.. Smith.. R. 2000b.J. 217-240. 473480. P. Phys... H. 1977a. In: Müller-Beck. Zur Entwicklung des Menschen in Südwestdeutschland. 2001. Czarnetzki.. (Ed. A. Yearb. CE PT ED M AN U 49 SC R IP T .P. Allemagne).M. Eine Elfenbeinplastik vom Hohle Fels bei Schelklingen und ihre Bedeutung für die Entwicklung des Jungpaläolithikums in Südwestdeutschland. Preliminary study of the calotte of the Ochtendung Cranium. Does the human fossil specimen from Reilingen (Germany) belong to the Homo erectus or to the Neanderthal lineage? Anthropologie 34.. S. Cook. The Late Glacial in North-west Europe: Human Adaptation and Environmental Change at the end of the Pleistocene. Czarnetzki. Berichte zur Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 5 (Trierer Zeitschrift Beiheft 23). Condemi. S. H. Smith. C. Alb-Donau-Kreis. Une statuette en ivoire de 30. Roe. (Ed. 160-168. Eine Femurdiaphyse aus der Gnirshöhle bei Engen-Bittelbrunn. 43. F. Paléo 13. Festschrift 75 Jahre Anthropologische Staatssammlung München.. 198-201.H. Conard. 1996. 61115. 1991.. 181-184.H. 241-244. 1987. J. S. Conard. (Eds. 2000. Oxford. Stuttgart. Roberts. In: Kind. D. Conard. Eine magdalénienzeitliche Zahnkrone aus dem archäologischen Horizont IIIb des Felsställe bei Mühlen.. Eine AC Czarnetzki. pp. A. Urgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg. England. 1977b. Conard.. A. In: Schröter. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 7. N.ARTICLE IN PRESS Churchill. Czarnetzki. Unexpectedly recent dates for human remains from Vogelherd.). Artifizielle Veränderungen an den Skelettresten aus dem Neandertal. Anthropol.. 1-2.). Palaeolithic ivory sculptures from southwestern Germany and the origins of art. München.. Stadt Ehingen...

Warendorf-Neuwarendorf.. Jakob. P. Pusch. A. Trellisó-Carreño.. 479-495. Hum. Germany. Actes du colloque international de Besançon 1998..-J. Czarnetzki. Pusch.. Hum. Le mobilier funéraire de l’Aven des Iboussières et l’identification de marqueurs culturels à l’Èpipaléolithique.und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 23. 41. K. van der Plicht. Rohde.. The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia.. Landkreis Hildesheim. Germany. 2003a. T. p. Nouvelle découverte d’un fragment de crâne d’une homininé archaïque dans le sud-ouest de l’Allemagne (rapport préliminaire). In: Les derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs d’Europe occidentale.. Fossil record of meningioma. Besançon. Germany)... Vanhaeren. 1999... Evol. Frangenberg. d’Errico. Das Fragment eines Os parietale des klassischen Neandertalers aus Warendorf-Neuwarendorf.M. Gaudzinski. Czarnetzki. J. Czarnetzki. 1999. J. A.. B. O. 53. 34/5. Proc... P. A. Schwaderer. 23-45. A. M. 44 (4).. E. Mes morts et les morts de mes voisins. S. Souto. 175-189. Czarnetzki. The fragment of a hominin tooth from the Holstein II period from Stuttgart-Bad-Cannstatt. S-W. 237-248. Die Kunde N. Natl. L. P. Duarte. London. 1999. 1986. J.M. Alb-Donau-Kreis. R. Gaudzinski. Evol. A. L. A. S. 2002. A.. J.. Holloway. Hublin.M. M. Pettitt. Germany).. 103-112.-W. Lancet 362 (9381). 325-342... Maurício. 14.F. J. L’Anthropologie 95. D. Day. Czarnetzki. Frangenberg... C. 373. Czarnetzki. A. L´Anthropologie 103/2.. Die NeandertalerFundstätte bei Sarstedt. Trellisó-Carreño. 485-508. On the phylogenetic position of the pre-Neandertal specimen from Reilingen.. C. 1991.. Ausgrabungen und Funde in Westfalen-Lippe 10/A.. Hominin skull fragments from Late Pleistocene layers in Leine Valley (Sarstedt.. district of Hildesheim. Evol.ARTICLE IN PRESS jungpaläolithisch . Le fragment d´un os parietal du Néandertalien classique de IP T . Archäologie und Anthropologie.. Hum. 96... E. Hum. Trinkaus.. 2000. J. F. Ziegler. Fourth Edition. C. Stuttgart. 408.frühmesolithische Abri-Station bei Ehingen-Mühlen. Pusch. Acad. Zilhão. 7604-7609. Guide to Fossil Man. 2001. 133-140. Czarnetzki.. C. AC CE PT ED M AN U 50 SC R Czarnetzki.. 1998. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor. Sci. Geologie. Evol. in press. Dean. Palaeopathological and variant conditions of the Homo heidelbergensis type specimen (Mauer. 2003b. R. H..

D. W.. Kerkmann. Valentin. Gieseler. 1974. 1989. Protsch von Zieten.. Archäologie in der DDR. pp. 381-384.. (Ed. 211-216. 1998. La sépulture secondaire mésolithique de la Chaussée-Tirancourt (Somme). 2005. S. D. H. Europe. A. A. von Berg. J. Germany. L. S. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 93/2.ARTICLE IN PRESS Ducrocq. Sesselfelsgrotte I – Grabungsverlauf und Stratigraphie. 2004a. H. L. Die Urdhöhle bei Döbritz.. 1-10. Stuttgart.und Frühgeschichte von Hessen 18. pp.. Feustel. 133-141.. Valladas.. Fiedler. Die verschollenen „pleistözänen“ Menschenfunde von Weißenthurm. Flohr.und Regionalkunde des Feustel.. W.. Die Auffindung einer jungpaläolithischen Säuglings-Doppelbestattung im Zuge neuer Ausgrabungen am Wachtberg in Krems. Catalogue of fossil hominids. R. Gaudzinski. 2002. Rehbach.. 1997. Denkmale und Funde 2. 2004b. 1996. 1971. Gieseler.. Artefakte vom altpleistozänen Fundplatz „Dorn-Dürkheim 3“ am nördlichen Oberrhein.. Die Fossilgeschichte des Menschen. Analyse einer Neanderthaler-Schädeldecke aus Rheinland-Pfalz. Das jungpaläolithische Skelett von Neuessing.. 39-51. G.. E.. Bresson. . 399-404. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 62 (1).. F. In: Festschrift 75 Jahre Anthropologische Staatssammlung München 1902-1977.. N... S. R. W. R.. Datation de vestiges humains présumés du Paléolithique supérieur par la méthode du carbone 14 en spectrométrie de masse par accélérateur. Flohr. Freund. Kreis Mayen-Koblenz: Neue und alte Informationen.. Germania 80. Materialien zur Vor. Natur und Museum 134 (5). Archäologie der ältesten Kultur in Deutschland. Fiedler. 421-440.. 1971. K.. Jakob... München. 2000. M. I. J. Alt-Thüringen 11. Schmid. Gieseler. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 45 (1). Part II. Protsch von Zieten. Der älteste Rheinländer. (Ed.. NÖ. 163-221. Saarbrücken. Tisnérat-Laborde. Fundorte und Funde. R. F. AC Paleo 12. Musil.-J..... Quartär-Bibliothek Band 8. R. Döbritz. Le Goff. T. Mania. Arnold. 201-212. In: Herrmann. D. Leipzig. Knochen und Knochengeräte der mittelpaläolithischen Fundstelle Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Deutschland). T.L. 1977. N. Franzen. Gambier.). von Knorre. Einwögerer. CE PT ED M AN U 51 SC R IP T Waldviertels und der Wachau 54 (4/2005). von Berg. Wiesbaden.. 131-226. Das Paläolithikum und Mesolithikum des Unteren Altmühltals II/I. 1999. Das Waldviertel: Zeitschrift für Heimat..).

M. Der jungpaläolithische Schädel von Paderborn-Sande. W. Das Archäologische Jahr in Bayern 1986. Henke. Zur Geschichte und zum Stand der Forschung an den Homininenresten. Protsch.und Bimssandablagerungen des Neuwieder Beckens und ihre Bedeutung für die Urgeschichtsforschung. (Eds. Die Paderborner Calvaria – ein diluvialer Homo sapiens. 1982. 1987. 1965. Rheinische Heimatblätter 1924.. J. S. Henke.). Zum Stand neuerer Untersuchungen der Steinzeit-Archäologie.. Grimm. J. Das Calvarium von Binshof (Speyer) im Vergleich mit anderen Jungpaläolithikern.. 86-92. Th. 147-175. Ullrich.. In: Urgeschichte in Oberschwaben und der mittleren Schwäbischen Alb. Morphologische und röntgenologische Befunde. Der Jungpaläolithiker von Binshof bei Speyer – eine vergleichend-biometrische Studie. Hahn. 50-55.. A. Grimm. In: Gehlen. Archäologische Informationen aus Baden-Württemberg 17. Stuttgart. Vulkanische Baustoffe 5 (9-11). Mittelfranken. A. 1986.und Bimssandablagerungen des Neuwieder Beckens und ihre Bedeutung für die Urgeschichtsforschung. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 45. 317-366.ARTICLE IN PRESS Gietz. AC CE PT ED M AN U 52 SC R Groiß.. pp. 275-294. 195-200. Die menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem paläolithischen Fundhorizont der Burghöhle Dietfurt.. Gemeinde IP T . B. 1924. Heinen. 167-171. Die Löß. 85-108. 51-56. Pössneck. B. Henke. AltThüringen 7. Tillmann. 1991.. 1983. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 70. 1995. Die Löß.. pp. W.. 1-20. Haas. Ein jungpaläolithischer Schädel und Skelettreste aus Döbritz. W. H. Günther. 50-89.. Zeit-Räume. Mainzer Naturwissenschaftliches Archiv 20. Günther. Pommelsbrunn. Neue Beschleuniger-14C-Daten zum Jungpaläolithikum in Südwestdeutschland. Neue Funde menschlicher Skelettreste und ihre Ergebnisse. Ausgrabungen und Funde in Westfalen-Lippe 1. Die magdalénienzeitlichen Menschenfunde von Oberkassel bei Bonn. R.. 1922. Henke... Archäologische Berichte 14. A. 2001. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 36. 1978. 1993. Henke. Rißzeitliche Primatenreste aus der Höhlenruine Hunas. Kaulich. Kr. Bonner Jahrbücher 186.. 465-473. Neuwied pp. Bonn. 37-38. H. Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Taute.. 1980. 29-31. H. W. W.. F.. Landkreis Nürnberger Land. In: Vlček 1993.

Leesch.. R. Hülle. New York. T. J.. Le Tensorer. 1977. Budapest. Hong Kong.ARTICLE IN PRESS Henke. J.. 63. Tokyo.. H. D. Jöris. (Eds. Erkenntnisjäger. Proc. Karavanic. Paläolithikum und Mesolithikum.. Revised direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Palaeolithic Neandertals.H. Les fossiles de Cro-Magnon (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac. Hong Kong. AC CE PT ED M AN U 53 SC R Herrmann. Jöris.. 56. Heinrich. Hublin. 45-56. Paléo 14. The fossil man from Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (F. Housley. Paris. London. O. M. Street. C. 1999. Radiocarbon evidence for the Late glacial human recolonisation of Northern Europe. J... Tokyo. London. Paris. Natl. Sci. Berlin. Veröffentlichungen des Landesamt für Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte 57 (1). Barcelona. In: Die Schweiz vom Paläolithikum bis zum frühen Mittelalter I.. E. pp. I. D. Zur quartärstratigraphischen Zuordnung der fossilen Menschenfunde von WeimarEhringsdorf (Thüringen).. pp.. D.. Ullrich.. 1994. 1996. P. E. 153-202. Justus. 2000. From Lucy to Language..M. geisteswissenschaftliche Ergebnisse. Weninger. pp.. p. 1993. London. Eine Einführung. (Eds. Jäger. W. Acad. In: Burdukiewicz. M. Das späte Jungpaläolithikum. 25-54. Barcelona.. Henke. Homo (Suppl. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 75 (1)..).G. Halle (Saale). Basel. W. H. Thüringen: eine paläolithische Jägerstation (Stuttgart – New York 1977). New York. Gamble. Smith. L. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. B. Higham. Brühl. M. Menschwerdung.. 2003.S.. Prehist. Rothe. Festschrift für Dietrich Mania. 272. W. E. 201-204. 553-557. 1991. 2006.. W... Die Ilsenhöhle unter Burg Ranis. Millionen Jahre Menschheitsentwicklung – natur. Trabajos de Prehistoria 60 (2). J. Rothe.. 281-288.R. A. 2003. Kultur und Umwelt des frühen Menschen. Heidelberg. K.. Stammesgeschichte des Menschen. 2002. Henry-Gambier.).103 (3). Álvarez Fernández.. Edgar. Radiocarbon evidence of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southwestern Europe. B.und IP T . Budapest. Berlin. Heidelberg. Johanson.. H.A. Pettitt. O. 15-38. 1997. 1984.) 51. F..-D. C. Dordogne): nouvelles données sur leur position chronologique et leur attribution culturelle. Fiedler...-J. Proc. Berlin.. Paläoanthropologie. Soc..) and its place in human evolution during the Pleistocene in Europe.-D. Höneisen. Trinkaus.. 381-402. Baales. Zur Altersstellung der Schöninger Speere. Bronk Ramsey.

S. Wahl. Von Haeseler. (Eds. 1-25.-P. 2005. D. Mania. AC CE PT ED M AN U 54 (Ed. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 47. 111-124. Meyer. Paunovic.. Ausgrabungen und Funde in Westfalen-Lippe 10. Geologie des Fundortes von Neuwarendorf. in press.. J. Die mittelpaläolithischen menschlichen Knochenfragmente von der Wildscheuer bei IP T . Säugetierreste aus der Tiefentsandung der Warendorfer Hartsteinwerke. 1077-1081. Autochtone Lagerplatzstrukturen im altpaläolithischen Fundhorizont auf der Steinrinne bei Bilzingsleben. Kr. M.. 24. Mania. E. C. Halle 36. 30. Calafell. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 17/1. 2000: A view of Neandertal genetic diversity. Steeden (Oberlahnkreis). in press.seine Kultur und seine Umwelt. Puder. R. Beinhauer. Dolní Vestonice II: Ein Mammutjägerplatz und seine Bestattungen. Martinez-Maza. B. Ausgrabungen und Funde in Westfalen-Lippe 10. C. Bilzingsleben II. Kraatz. Mannheim.Homo erectus heidelbergensis. A review of recent research on Heidelberg Man. Heinrich... Caramelli... Das Femurfragment eines Neandertalers aus der Stadelhöhle des Hohlensteins im Lonetal. pp. Bastir. Ethnograph. Lalueza-Fox.. M. Vlček. Y. In: Delson. D.85 Jahre Homo erectus heidelbergensis. A.. A. D. 2002.).W. 1991. 1985. Arch. 155-300.. 187-194. Evol. E. 1983. H.. Nassauische Annalen 68. Ancestors: the Hard Evidence... V. Klostermann. 222-230. M. New York. Lari. Neandertal evolutionary genetics: Mitochondrial DNA data from the Iberian Peninsula. 1983. T. G. Capelli.. Lanser..D. Fortea. ERAUL 73 (Liège). Bertranpetit. Zeitschr. Klíma. Zur zonalen Gliederung der altpaläolithischen Freilandsiedlung bei Bilzingsleben. 2000 (2002)..-Arch. F.. Kunter. Rosas. Geisert.. R. F.. W. & Pääbo. Tschentscher. Mania. Veröfftl.A. Der Mensch von Mauer . In: Wagner.. J. D. K. Mai. Possnert. Lourdes Sampietro. 1995.. 1992.. Rasilla. Stadt Warendorf.... Kreis Mayen-Koblenz..H. A..ARTICLE IN PRESS Justus. Toepfer. K. 268-271. 296-303.. B. R. 1992. Homo erectus . Vorgesch.. Biol. Quartär 41/42. Colloquium New York 1984.. S. J. M. Mol. Nötzold. 22-35. D. C.. Ethnograph. 1989. J. 22 (4). Klíma. K... Kraatz. de la. Homo erectus heidelbergensis... Krings. 1967. Landesmus. Der mittelpaläolithische Fundplatz "In den Wannen" bei Ochtendung. Grossschmidt.. Das paläolithische Massengrab von Predmosti. M.). Zeitschr. SC R Knußmann. pp. Warendorf. G... M. 26: 144-146. Nature Genetics. J. Schichten von Mauer .

P. Altpaläolithikum und frühes Mittelpaläolithikum im Elbe-Saale-Gebiet. R. 355-374. pp. W.. 2005. Meiklejohn. M.. Ch.... Faarinen.). R. Bemerkungen zu den Skelettfunden aus der Mittleren Klause.. E. Neptun. F. Evol. M. In: Roebroeks. 1997. D. Zur Paläontologie der Travertine von Weimar-Ehringsdorf. Praehistoria Thuringica 2. Ascenzi. Persson. Ein neuer Fossilfund des frühen Menschen von Bilzingsleben (Thüringen).. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30.. International Conference on Applications of High Precision Atomic & Nuclear Methods. J. J. In: Roebroeks. Leiden.. Morel.. (Eds. pp. Mania. U. In: Fiedler.. M.. K. Hellborg. Proc.. Hunters of the Golden Age. AC CE PT ED Fennema. Alexandrecu. The Brno II Upper Palaeolithic Burial.ARTICLE IN PRESS Mania.).000 – 20. R. Hellborg. Vlček. Une chasse à l’ours brun il y a 12000 ans: nouvelle découverte à la grotte du Bichon (La Chaux-de-Fonds). Romania. 2000. hominid from Ceprano.. 2000.. Festschrift 75 Jahre Anthropologische Staatssammlung.. Narr. Constandse-Westermann. Das Rätsel von Neuessing. 46-91. In: Olariu. 1993. Hum.000 BP. G.. Fennema. A cranium for the earliest Europeans: Phylogenetic position of the SC R Eiszeitalters. D. 1993. 2001.. Mania.. 2000. D. Molluskenfaunen und Floren im Elbe-Saalegebiet während des mittleren Mania. Mussi. 1977. Italy.. 143-154. Mai. Mania. E. 86194. In: Vlček. D. Praehistoria Thuringica 5. Mallegni. Praehistoria Thuringica 6/7.... Dating of some fossil Romanian bones by Accelerator Mass Spectronomy.H. J. 1-228. 1997.). IP T . Olariu.. P. 10011-10016. pp. 110-117. 1993. A. 5-21. Leiden. 53-56.. K. M AN U 55 Manzi. W. Mussi. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30. Bucuresti. Heading south: the Gravettian colonisation of Italy. Archäologie der Schweiz 16. Natl.000 – 20. Ph. 26-42. Hunters of the Golden Age.. 2002. 98. Zum Ablauf der Klimazyklen seit der Elstervereisung im Elbe-Saalegebiet. The skeletal remains of Mesolithic man in western Europe: an evaluative catalogue. 1979. T. 235-239. Sci. Acad. A. 1998. 8. Svoboda.. E. K.000 BP. Newell. Mussi. (Eds.. Mania. D. Svoboda.).S... Stenström. Stenstrom. M. (Ed.. D. In: Schröter.. 2001. 2-6 September. Munich. 17-31. (Eds. K. K.. A. Oliva. pp. M.

.. (Eds..... R. Breda. J. Goodwin.. M. J. 1997.. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 13. Alb-Donau-Kreis. Eine neolithische Sekundärbestattung aus dem Vogelherd bei Stetten. K.. Kind. R. Gemeinde Schelklingen. 490-493. I. Manipulationen an menschlichen Skelettresten.. 1996. Collins. Orschiedt.). 193-206.. 241-256. J. Familientreffen. 161-172.. Dordogne) par la méthode du carbone 14 en spectrométrie de masse. Tübinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte 11. Germany. Symmons. 467-472.V..J.. Barendregt. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. J. R.H.C.. Weniger. Romanova. AC CE PT ED M AN U 56 SC R IP T Kreis (Baden-Württemberg)....).J. C. Paléo 14. A. 1998a.E. J. 2005.. Festschrift Prof. Hansjürgen MüllerBeck.. Aktuelle Forschungen zum Mesolithikum.. Ch. K. J. In: Campen.E.M. The earliest record of human activity in northern Europe. . Penkman.. Preece.. Lister.. J. Archäologische Informationen aus Baden-Württemberg 17.. N. Durbidge. Orschiedt. M. Orschiedt. R. A. Stringer. In: Conard.R. 147-160. G.. Parfitt. Uerpmann. Southwest Germany). J. Spuren der Jagd – Die Jagd nach Spuren. Tübingen. Hominin Remains – an Up-Date 10..J. Orschiedt. J.J. B. Hohler Fels bei Schelklingen. G. Zum Stand neuerer Untersuchungen der Steinzeit-Archäologie.. Paléo 14. P. Götherström. Mettmann. Ovchinnikov. Lee. Hahn. 2002a. J. Katalog zur Sonderausstellung. Pasda. I. A.W. I.. J. Datation d´un vestige humain provenant de La Rochette (Saint-Léon-sur-Vézère.. Sekundärbestattungen oder Kannibalismus?. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 22. 1999. 1008-1012.. Alb-Donau- Orschiedt. pp.-C. Field. 1998b. M. Baden-Württemberg.. C. Wymer. W. Zur Frage der Manipulationen am Schädel des „Homo steinheimensis“.J. 2000.H. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 12 (Tübingen 1998). Brussels. V.. Auffermann. B. Ergebnisse einer neuen Untersuchung der spätmesolithischen Kopfbestattungen aus Süddeutschland.. pp.A. Orschiedt. Rose. 1991. In: Urgeschichte in Oberschwaben und der mittleren Schwäbischen Alb. 96-98. J. J. Whittaker. Mutch.. Candy. Stuttgart. Lidén. 2002b. Nature 404. Secondary Burial in the Magdalenian: The Brillenhöhle (Blaubeuren. S. 2000. J. Der Nachweis einer Sekundärbestattung aus dem Magdalénien der Brillenhöhle.ARTICLE IN PRESS Orschiedt. Kharitonov. Taphonomische Prozesse. Deutsche Neanderthaler 1856 – 1999. I.. Coope. G. J.. Hahn. M. (Eds.. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 27. 239-240. P.R. Nature 438. Orschiedt. Stuart.. 1999... Orschiedt.

200-210.. Der Magdalénien-Fundplatz Gönnersdorf Protsch. Die Eiszeitjägerstation am Vogelherd im Lonetal I. Richter. 2001. 1976... Rightmire. Die Kulturen. Pincock. AC CE PT ED M AN U 57 Protsch.. Beiträge zur Archäozoologie und Prähistorischen Anthropologie III. A.. Glowatzki. Human evolution in the Middle Pleistocene: the role of Homo heidelbergensis. Riek.. 1990. Bundesrepublik Deutschland). 1998. 12. The Evolution of Homo erectus. R.P.. Benecke. (Eds. Das absolute Alter des paläolithischen Skeletts aus der Mittleren Klause bei Neuessing. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 28. SC R 2. Poplin. Germania 16. Ein neuer Neanderthalerfund aus Ochtendung. Richter. 9-15. Paläolithische Station mit Tierplastiken und menschlichen Skelettresten bei Stetten ob Lonetal.). G. 235-238. 218-227. Genese der Fundstelle und Systematik der Steinbearbeitung. 1-8. Salzgitter Forschung 3. Fossile Menschenreste aus der Sesselfelsgrotte im unteren Altmühltal (Bayern. G. Deutschland. N. 1932.. S. 1934. E. Saarbrücken. Germania 80 (1). Cambridge. Riek. F. R. S. Kreis Mayen-Koblenz. Stuttgart. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 34. G. F.. Rheinland-Pfalz. Der G-Schichten-Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte. 2004. Notebook: Faking it in Frankfurt. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 2. Salzgitter. The Scientist 19.. in press. 2002. Semmel. IP T .. 140-144. In: May. Quartär 53/54.. Konstanz. G. Zum Verständnis des Micoquien. J. Rathgeber. Zur Chronologie des Kelsterbach-Homininen. Flohr..M.. Wiesbaden.. J. Die 14C-Daten aus der Sesselfelsgrotte und die Zeitstellung des Micoquien / M.P. Protsch von Zieten. Poplin. 2005. pp. Quartär-Bibliothek 7. Sesselfelsgrotte III... 1-22. G. Comparative Anatomical Studies of an Extinct Human Species. Evol.O. Kreis Kelheim. Anthropol. 1997.. 1998. Rightmire. Abgeschnittene Rentier-Schneidezähne von Gönnersdorf. Les grandes vertébrés de Gönnersdorf Fouilles 1968. 1974. A. T..ARTICLE IN PRESS Pastoors. A. Die mittelpaläolithische Freilandstation von Salzgitter-Lebenstadt. von Berg. 1978. R. Bayern. 1972. Cambridge University Press.

Schmitz. 551-586. S. pp. P. D. F. Bonani.ARTICLE IN PRESS Rightmire. Berichte aus der Arbeit des Museums 2/92.. First archaeological finds and new human remains at the rediscovered site of the Neanderthal type specimen. 1992. 75. 1-41.). pp. R.Discussing the transition: Central and Eastern Europe from 50. Schoetensack.C. Neues zur Altersstellung des fossilen Menschenschädels von Rhünda in Hessen.. R.. Schreve.P. and the Palaeolithic settlement of Northern Europe. G.). 2002. N. Acad.. Dense forests.. 17-19... In: Straus. Hillgruber. Weniger. Natl.. Out of Africa in the Pleistocene. D. 1908. 108-112. Bar-Yosef.. Ahnenforschung im Gen-Labor. Schnittspuren und Kratzer. The Neandertal type site revisited: Interdisciplinary investigations of skeletal remains from the Neander Valley. Die vorgeschichtliche Ansiedelung in Andernach. J. Proc. Ausgrabungen IP T . Fossile Menschenreste. 2002. in press. 2000.. Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis aus den Sanden von Mauer bei Heidelberg. 77-84. Neanderthal Museum Mettmann. Archäologie in Deutschland. Germany. 15-20.G. Smith. Anthropogene Veränderungen am Skelett des Urmenschenfundes aus dem Neandertal . Conard. O. Pääbo. O. J. Colloquium Durban 1999. R.C. Quatern. Pieper.. A preliminary report. AC Schoch. N. (Eds. 13342-13347. UK. Krainitzki. F. E. Field Guide. Int. Feine. cold steppes.. Curr.. (Eds. London. G.-C. H.W. Bonner Jahrbücher 86. CE PT ED M AN U 58 SC R Rüschoff-Thale. Neues zum Neandertaler. D. 33.P... Berlin. Serre.W. In: Menschen – Zeiten – Räume. (Eds.. Roebroeks... Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Neanderthal Museums 2. Stadt Warendorf. Schaaffhausen.000 B. van Kolfschoten. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 32 (1). 1888. W. Sci. Leipzig. H. B. und Funde in Westfalen-Lippe 10. S. Schreve.. 99 (20). G. R. 1973. Ein Beitrag zur Paläontologie des Menschen.-W. Anthropol.A.30. W. Der Neandertaler-Fundplatz von Neuwarendorf. 2001.vorläufige Befundaufnahme. Thissen.. pp.W. L. 1992. Reappraisal of the age of the Ehringsdorf travertines: new views in the light of evidence fron the Thames valley. R. Schmitz. Rosendahl. T.. 2002. Schmitz.). Brehm-Bücherei 450.. In: Orschiedt. Patterns of hominin evolution and dispersal in the Middle Pleistocene. 179-185. 2002.. The Quaternary of Central Germany (Thuringia & surroundings).. Schmitz. Neanderthals and Modern Humans .000 . In: Meyrick...H. 267-274.

A. 64-79. 2004a. Paunovic. 81. Brühl. M.C. pp. 12281-12286. Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz. pp. Soergel.. W. Festschrift für Dietrich Mania.R. 2002.. 559-563. M... 137-209. Direct radiocarbon dates for Vindija G1 and Velika Pecina Late Pleistocene hominin remains. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 9.und Artefaktfundschichten.Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte 57 (1 & 2) (2003). Steiner. Der Spiegel (Hamburg) 34 (August 2004). IP T . Smith.. Zur Geschichte der geologischen Erforschung des Travertins von Taubach bei Weimar... W... I.. L. Steguweit.. W. Mogelei im Knochenkeller. Die Regeln mache ich. Hamburg.. 1993.. (Eds. Menschen. Zum spätpaläolithischen Schädelfund an der Rauschermühle bei Plaidt. Sigmon. Heinrich.. W.H. Netherlands J. 156-160. P. p. 1999. P. Erectus. Soergel. Karavanic. Correlation of English and German Middle Pleistocene fluvial sequences based on mammalian biostratigraphy. 1993. Germany. Smith. Quartärpaläontologie 2. 9-81. E. Praehistoria Thuringica 3. Steiner. 1998. 2003. 45. 128-131. 14-25. Acad. H. Geosci. Justus. 96. 1977.). Sci. Schulz. 1912. M. W. Wiefel.. Schröter. 1979.. In: The origins of modern humans: a world survey of fossil evidence. F. 357-373. D. In: Vlček. pp. F. D.. Geologischer Aufbau und Bildungsgeschichte der Travertine von Weimar-Ehringsdorf unter besonderer Beachtung der Homininen. E. In: Burdkiewicz. P. Hamburg. Proc.M. 1922. Plaidter Hummerich... Pellenz-Museum 7. M.. L. Fossil hominins from the Upper Pleistocene of Central Europe and the origin of modern Europeans. Erkenntnisjäger: Kultur und Umwelt des frühen SC R Schulz. E. Street. Schröter.ARTICLE IN PRESS Schreve. J. AC CE PT ED M AN U 59 Fiedler... 155-158. An early Weichselian Middle Palaeolithic site in the Central Rhineland. Bonn. 514.-D. Die Jagd der Vorzeit. Intentionelle Schnittmarken auf Tierknochen von Bilzingsleben – Neue Lasermikroskopische Untersuchungen. 2002. Natl. Der Spiegel (Hamburg) 42 (Oktober 2004). Ein Knochenartefakt beim "jungpaläolithischen" Skelettfund aus der Mittleren Klause bei Neuessing (Niederbayern). A. Bilzingsleben and adaptive radiation in Homo after H. Pettitt. Trinkaus. 1999. 1984. Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Archäologie SachsenAnhalt . 2004b.. Das Aussterben diluvialer Säugetiere und die Jagd des diluvialen Menschen... B. B. Bridgland.

1999.. T. F. J. Proc. Stringer.ARTICLE IN PRESS Street. Drei verzierte Funde aus der Peene nahe Verchen. J.H. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 31. Street. Archaeometry 44 (Suppl. (Eds. Hominins and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution. Habilitation University Greifswald. Mesolithic on the Move.. Neue Forschungen zum „jungpaläolithischen“ Menschenschädel von Binshof bei Speyer. Europe. Rheinland-Pfalz. Moravia and Bohemia (Czech Republic): some new 14C dates... K. 2001b. J. Liss. Acad.. New York. 2002. 2000. Jahrbuch 2000 (2001). M. Senckenberg 69... Ch. T.. Knutsson. Solving the Puzzle of Human Origins... A. pp. Demmin. The last Pleniglacial and the human settlement of Central Europe. 1999. C. Das Lahntal-Paläolithikum. Vom Gravettien zum Magdalénien in Mitteleuropa – Aspekte der menschlichen Besiedlungsgeschichte in der Zeit um das zweite Kältemaximum der letzten Eiszeit.. Åkerlund..H. Bodendenkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 48. J. Antiquity 76 (294). 1993. 1993. 1984.. 2001a. Terberger. Sci.. 2001. Review of B. Tattersall. T. 305-308. Kindgren. K. Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe.B. In Search of the Neanderthals. Antiquity 73. Terberger. Kuželka... Vandermeersch. Terberger. 33-37... Gamble. In: Smith. F. 2002. AC CE PT ED M AN U 60 Svoboda. Stringer. Schwartz. Schwartz. T. Terberger. Tattersall. 259-272. Wiesbaden. The Origins of Modern Humans: A World Survey of the Fossil Evidence. The definition of Homo erectus and the existence of the species in Africa and Europe. 2003. Hublin. Exeter. J. 7117-7119. Terberger. 1984.. 131-143. 957-961. Materialien zur Vor. 51-135. Decorated objects of the older Mesolithic from the northern lowlands. London. 2000. Germania 80. (Eds). 11-16.und Frühgeschichte von Hessen. Alan R.H. pp.. Street. Stockholm. T. Wüller 1999... Terberger. V. Nevraumont Book.-J. Van der Plicht... Courier Forschungsinst. T. C. New information from the Rhineland site Wiesbaden-Igstadt. Terberger. H. 7-30. Loeffler. New York. M. I. B. L. Natl. I. Extinct Humans.. M. Spencer. D. Terberger. German Pleistocene human remains series. In: Larsson. 96. C.. A Peter N. T. Lkr. 2002.). Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic human fossils from SC R Stringer... The origin of anatomically modern humans in Western IP T .) 1. 547-557.. 11.

Schwerin.. Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Terberger. S. In: Lüth.. Proc. J. An early modern human from the Peştera cu Oase. Saale-Orla-Kreis. Münster. 521-526.ARTICLE IN PRESS Terberger. E. Alt. Terberger. A.. 4-20. Märkischer Kreis. Street. M.. 2002. K... in press. 2003a. 1997a. H. Erkenntnisjäger: Kultur und Umwelt des frühen Menschen. Thieme.).. K.. T.. Nordharzvorland. Stadt Balve. (Eds. T. J. Street. AC CE PT ED Teschler-Nicola. Festschrift für Dietrich Mania... Cultural Implications. den aktuellen Diskurs endlinearbandkeramischer Phänomene in Zentraleuropa. St. M.. Mesolithische Menschenreste aus der Urdhöhle bei Döbritz. 11231-11236.. G. M. 579-591.-D. Prohaska. Bronk-Ramsey. Romania.W. Higham. Homo heidelbergensis von Mauer.. T. A. pp. J. 2003b. M.. Nature 385. T. The Chronology of the Proceedings of Symposium 6. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. SC R IP T Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. F. M. Bräuer. Milota. 2003a. G.... Fiedler. Brühl. Mircea. Küßner. Lisbon.A.Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte 57 (1 & 2). O. Dating. Terberger. Ch. Natl... In: Günther. Der Fundkomplex von Schletz und seine Bedeutung für M AN U 61 Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt . J.. Belgium September 2001. G. Antiquity 76.. 137140. Stratigraphies.1 of the XVth Congress of the UISPP Liège. Beinhauer.. Thieme. T. Street. Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. (Eds. In: d'Errico. (Eds. Terberger. F... Workshop Warnemünde. New evidence for the chronology of the Aurignacian and the question of pleniglacial settlement in western Central Europe. T. Street. T. 213-221. T. In: Burdkiewicz.. Sci. pp.. 1997b. Acad. Schüler.und mittelsteinzeitliche Fundplätze in Westfalen 2... W. Altpaläolithische Wurfspeere aus Schöningen. E.. Hiatus or continuity? New results for the question of pleniglacial settlement in Central Europe. November 2003.. Bilgäre.M.E. Der menschliche Schädelrest aus der Elbe bei Hahnöfersand und seine Bedeutung für die Steinzeit Norddeutschlands. (Eds. pp. Jungpaläolithische Menschenreste im westlichen Mitteleuropa und ihr Kontext. Altsteinzeitliche Fundplätze in Westfalen. Alt-Thüringen 36. E. (Hrsg. L. H.). Trinkaus. Bailey.). Justus. M. pp.). Zilhao. M. T. 1988. 2003. Wild. In: Wagner... Van der Plicht. .M. Rodrigo.. Heinrich. 691-698. Piek. Sarcina. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 31. R. Molodovan. 2001. Tinnes. Street. 100/20.).. Athreya.. Frühe Spuren der Gewalt.. L... J. Terberger. S. Honerthöhle. Heidelberg. 304-312. 807-811.

245-253. Franciscus.P. Sarcina.. Ldkr. (Eds. 2004. In: Svoboda.. M. Terberger. Tappen. 1995. 7... G.. Rodrigo. pp. Mouskhelishvili.. O. Evol.. 1996. Ferring. E.P.. Hessen. Bailey. Street. J.. von Berg. 29-47. 167-168.. St. Milota. Early modern human cranial remains from the Peştera cu Oase.E. E. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 25. Van Andel.G.. A. Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Archäologie SachsenAnhalt 54. Weimar. D. M.. A new discovery of Homo erectus in central Europe. Neandertaler oder Höhlenbär? Eine Neubewertung der „menschlichen“ Schädelreste aus der Wildscheuer. Maisuradze. Rightmire. Romania. 21-33. Terberger. pp. A. Fossile Menschenfunde von Weimar-Ehringsdorf. 2003.. Lüchow-Danneberg (Niedersachsen). 1997a. E. E. Veil. Romania. Henke. A new skull of early Homo from Dmanisi.. Georgia. E. McDonald Institute Monographs. Figurenfragmente aus Bernstein vom Federmesser-Fundplatz Weitsche bei Lüchow.. J. S.. Rodrigo. Agusti.. Patterns of human evolution. Ponce de León. Evol.. Vlček. Vlček. T. (Eds. (Ed. Vollbrecht.H. E. Bodies and Bears in the Peºtera cu Turner. 45/3.. M. 1978. Notae Praehistoricae 20. 1999. W. E. Germany. The Palaeolithic of Moravia. Bones. Hum. New York.. Tvalchrelidze. Davies. 1-14. G.. CE PT ED M AN U 62 SC R IP T Oase.. E. K. Gerhase. M. 239-251. Milota.... In: Mania. .... T. Mircea.. Science 297. Short Run Press. Turner. C.). D. Vlček.. 2000a. 2000. 2002.. Bilgar. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 30. V.. J. G.. M... M. Breest..).). Internet Archaeology 8.. J. Vekua. Vlček. Henke.E. Moldovan.. R. St. Ein Vorbericht. Nebra – eine jungpaläolithische Freilandstation im Saale-Unstrut-Gebiet.. Zollikofer. E. R. 1993. 56-74. J. R. Street.. M. T. M. Ausgrabungen 1969-1993. De Leon. A. PalaeoAnthropology 2004. A. Kreis Mayen-Koblenz.. R.. W. A71.. Neanderthaler or cave-bear? A re-appraisal of the cranium fragments from the Wildscheuer Cave in Hessen. 2003b. Trinkaus. 2000b. Weimarer Monographien zur Ur. Halle. S. Lordkipanidze. 85-89. Moldovan. Zollikofer. Der menschliche Milchmolar von Nebra. O.und Frühgeschichte 30. Nioradze. AC and West. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 27. L.. Die Geweihfunde aus Bilzingsleben. Lozek.. C.P. Ein Homininenrest aus dem Wannenvulkan bei Ochtendung. Hunters between East Vlček. Neanderthals and modern humans in the European landscape during the last glaciation: Archaeological results of the Stage 3 Project. 531-538... W.ARTICLE IN PRESS Trinkaus. Hum.

Baales. Wegner. 110. Hum. In: Schmuck und Gerät aus „Bein“ vom Eiszeitalter bis zur Gegenwart. Cranial remains of Middle Pleistocene European hominins. Nature 435. 18-19.H. 1128.. 10-11. Wagner.. von Berg. Frechen. In: Adam. 56-58. Paläoanthropologie und Geologie. Wagner. von Berg. E. Zeugnisse des Urmenschen aus den Cannstatter Sauerwasserkalken. Berichte zur Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 5... C. 332-335. Die Schädelkalotte eines Neandertalers aus dem Wannenvulkan bei Ochtendung. (Eds. A. März 2000. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Moustérien. Der Neandertaler aus dem Eifelkrater. Frühe Menschen in Mitteleuropa : Chronologie. Owen. Berlin CE PT ED M AN U 63 SC R IP T . Die Silexartefakte der Unteren Schichten der Sesselfelsgrotte. Steier. A..). P. Wolpoff. In: Bronk Ramsey. Wagner. D... Kolloquium Heidelberg vom 9. Jäger und Sammler im Cannstatter Travertingebiet. M. T. 1997.. In: Menschen – Zeiten – Räume. pp. Comments on Irlich.. Wanek. E. 1-15. Weissmüller. Ausstellungskataloge der Prähistorischen Staatssammlung 30 (München 1997) 141-152.. Saarbrücken. M. M. A. W.. G. Archäologie in Deutschland 2002/6. Begleitband zur Ausstellung in der Prähistorischen Staatssammlung vom 7. (Ed. 2001. Direct dating of early Upper Palaeolithic human remains from Mladeč. Reiff. Umwelt. Das Schädeldach eines Neandertalers aus Ochtendung. 2002. Wahl. Pike. J. Februar bis 13.. Kultur. Wagner.... Quartär-Bibliothek 6.. H. (Eds. W.. E. pp. Trinkaus. S. A. W. 2002. 62-91. 1986. 9. Higham. 2002. Aachen. Kutschera. bis 11.. Fundberichte aus BadenWürttemberg 11.). Evol.. Archaeometry 44.. W. Condemi. Sesselfelsgrotte II.). Hedges. K. 339-358.-H. also Trierer Zeitschrift Beiheft 23. E. Die Schädelkalotte des Neandertalers von Ochtendung/Osteifel Archäologie. Kreis Mayen-Koblenz: Der älteste Mensch im Rheinland. 2005. R. 1980. von Berg. April 1997. Teschler-Noicola. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist 31.M. A. 1997b.. 2000. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 15... E. 1995. Wild... Ökonomie und Ökologie in den altpaläolithischen Travertinfundstellen von Bad Cannstatt. AC Archäologie in Deutschland. M.ARTICLE IN PRESS von Berg.D. Manipulierte Menschenknochen aus Baden-Württemberg. 1990. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 50. J.

34 (5). Zilhão. Portrait of the artist as a child. Stratigraphies.. In: Facchini. Ziegler. D. Cultural Implications.. Belgium September 2001. Die Ganzkörperbestattungen des Magdalénien.N. Lisbon. E. J. Trinkaus.. Table 3: Records of anatomically modern humans with an unclear contextual association which have been assigned to the Pleistocene.C.. d’Errico. Hum. Proceedings 2. AC CE PT ED M AN U 64 SC R IP T .. Neanderthals on the Edge. R. d’Errico. Germany. The Gravettian human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its archaeological context... Dean.. pp. J. J. J. The Ebro frontier: A model for the late extinction of Iberian Neandertals...). R. 111-121.. Proceedings of Symposium 6. Papers from a Conference Marking the 150th Anniversary of the Forbes´ Quarry discovery. Gibraltar. 1998. J. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Zilhão. 299-312. F. An Aurignacian "Garden of Eden" in southern Germany? An alternative interpretation of the Geissenklösterle and a critique of the Kulturpumpe model. Forli.B. C. Zilhão. Zilhão. Table 4: Records of anatomically modern humans from Early/middle Upper Paleolithic contexts in Germany. Piperno.. pp. Paléo 15.. The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. The extinction of Iberian Neandertals and its implications for the origins of modern humans in Europe. F. Table 2: Records of late/“classic” Neandertals from last glacial sites in Germany. (Eds. J.).ARTICLE IN PRESS Wüller.. (Eds. 2000. B. Bonn. 2002. C. XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. 2003a. Finlayson. 1998. Table 5: Records of anatomically modern humans from late Upper/Final Paleolithic contexts in Germany and Switzerland. Lisboa. Palma di Cesnola. Dating. Evol.. 469-484. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 57. Mammalian fauna and biostratigraphy of the pre-Neandertal site of Reilingen. 1999.E.1 of the XVth Congress of the UISPP Liège.). F. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 22. 2003b. Zilhão. Peretto. (Eds. In: Stringer. 69-86. Tables and Figures Table 1: Records of Homo from Middle and early Upper Pleistocene sites in Germany. Barton. M. J. A.

2: The mandible of Homo heidelbergensis from Mauer (photo by and published with the permission of S. Directly dated specimen Accepted specimen Questionable specimen or date Fig. 1: Mauer. 3: Klause. 7: The skull fragment from Warendorf (photo by Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Archäologie and published with the permission of Westfälisches Museum für Archäologie Herne). von Berg. Hominin remains from the Neandertal type site (photo by S.ARTICLE IN PRESS Fig. 5: Reilingen. 3: Hominin skull fragments from Bilzingsleben (photo by S. 4: Hominin skull fragment fom Ochtendung (photo by and published with the permission of A. CE PT ED Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Fig. 8: Taubach. AC permission of J. 9: Hunas. Accepted specimen Questionable specimen or date Fig. 5: Wildscheuer. Fig. 6: Weimar-Ehringsdorf. 3: Bad Cannstatt. Fig. 8: Untere M AN U Rejected specimen 65 SC R IP T . Orschiedt). 7: Klausennische. 9: Hohlenstein-Stadel. 5: Distribution of presumed last glaciation/”classic“ Neandertals. 6: Sesselfelsgrotte. 1: Neandertal. Rathgeber). Orschiedt). 7: Ochtendung. Pietrek). 10: Elbe-Kieswerke (Magdeburg). Fig. Pietrek and published with the Fig. 8: The Neandertal fossils from Sesselfelsgrotte (photo by and published with the permission of T. 1: Distribution of presumed Middle Pleistocene Homo and early Neandertals. 4: Sarstedt. 2: Bilzingsleben. Pietrek and published with the permission of J. 4: Steinheim. 6. Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Rheinland-Pfalz). 2: Warendorf.

14: Niedermendig. 15: Kelsterbach. 5: Hohler Fels. 7: Rees. 7: Honerthöhle. 7: Haldensteinhöhle (Urspring). 11: Köstritz. 21: Reilingen 2. 16: Kastlhänghöhle. 19: Eppelheim. 9: Fühlingen. 10: Gönnersdorf. 20: Burghöhle-Dietfurt. 6: Paderborn-Sande. 17: Kohlerhöhle (CH). 11: Distribution of anatomically modern humans from LUP and Final Paleolithic contexts. 10: Rhünda. 12: Weissenthurm. 13: Plaidt. 10: Distribution of anatomically modern humans from EUP (Aurignacian) and MUP (Gravettian) contexts. 6: Kleine Scheuer. Accepted Aurignacian specimen Accepted Gravettian specimen Fig. 8: Petersfels.ARTICLE IN PRESS Fig. 23: Röthekopf. 9: Gnirshöhle. Final Paleolithic: 18: Bonn-Oberkassel. 3: Hohlenstein-Stadel. 13: Urdhöhle. 4: Sirgenstein. 14: Kniegrotte. 22: Hanseles Hohl. 20: Binshof-Speyer. 4: Burkhardtshöhle. 17: Altrip I. 2: Geissenklösterle. Directly dated Pleistocene Homo sapiens Undated Homo sapiens Directly dated Holocene Homo sapiens Fig. 15: Ilsenhöhle AC (Ranis). 6: Kleine Ofnet-Höhle. 4: Gleidingen. Aurignacian: 1: Vogelherd (Stetten). Magdalenian: 2: Felsställe IIIb. 2: Bad Oldesloe. 11: Andernach-Martinsberg. Directly dated Magdalenian specimen Directly dated Final Paleolithic specimen Pre-Magdalenian specimen Presumed Magdalenian specimen Presumed Final Paleolithic specimen Rejected specimen (ID) or date CE PT ED M AN U 66 Rejected/uncertain Aurignacian specimen SC R IP T . 9: Distribution of anatomically modern humans from unclear contexts. 3: Brillenhöhle. 1: Hahnöfersand. 12: Nebra. 3: Emsdetten. 21: Bettelküche. 5: Schafstall. 1: Mittlere Klause. 5: Sarstedt-Heisede. Gravettian: 8: Hohler Fels. 8: Bottropp. 19: Neuwied-Irlich. 22: Grotte du Bichon (CH). 16: Oppau. 9: Geissenklösterle. 18: Rohrhof.

Orschiedt). Grupe). Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn). 13: The skeletal remains of the double burial from Bonn-Oberkassel (photo by Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn and published with the permission of Landschaftsverband Rheinland. Published with the permission of Gietz 2001. Fig. 17: Bones from a neonatal individual from Neuwied-Irlich dated to circa 11.950 BP (photo by and published with the permission of J. 16: Bone from an adult individual from Neuwied-Irlich dated to the transition to the Final Paleolithic (photo by and published with the permission of J. Fig. Taubmann and published with the permission of Landschaftsverband Rheinland. 15: Decorated bone pin and antler (?) plate of the double burial from Bonn-Oberkassel (photo by Landesmuseum Bonn). 14: The male skull of the double burial from Bonn-Oberkassel (photo by St. Fig. AC CE PT ED M AN U 67 S. Fig. Rheinisches SC R IP T . Orschiedt). Fig. Fig. Orschiedt).ARTICLE IN PRESS Fig. 2001). Fig. Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn). 19: Skull fragment with cut marks found at Burghöhle Dietfurt (after Gietz. Neuessing (photo by and published with the permission of G. 12: The hominin remains of the burial from Mittlere Klause. Schröder and published with the permission of Landschaftsverband Rheinland. 18: Hominin remains of a secondary burial found at a fireplace in Brillenhöhle (photo by and published with the permission of J.

/ early Neanderthals Steinheim. Czarnetzki 1999. erectus or heidelbergensis ? early H. heidelbergensis H. 206-207 Condemi 1996. von Berg et al. Orschiedt 2000. Baden-Wurttemberg Ante. Weimar. Bavaria H. 14 C Age Supposed age / context Confirmed age / context Reference H. 2002. Thuringia Hunas. Orschiedt 2000. Heidelberg. 2000 Adam 1986. Stuttgart. Czarnetski 1991. 197-198. 1997b. 2002 Gieseler 1971. neanderthalensis Homo cranium cranium several postcranial and cranial fragment cranial fragments tooth adult molar 3 M AN U AC CE PT ED SC R ? Riss IP T no associated archaeology no associated archaeology Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic “Holstein II” Interglacial . RhinelandPalatinate Taubach. Wagner 2001 Mania et al. Thuringia Ochtendung. erectus or heidelbergensis Cervus elaphus mandible several cranial fragments tooth / teeth? no associated archaeology Lower Palaeolithic ? late Cromerian ? OIS 11 identification disputed ? OIS 9 unstratified Middle Palaeolithic ? OIS 7 Middle Palaeolithic ? OIS 6 Middle Palaeolithic ? OIS 5 ? Würm Gieseler 1971. erectus H. 42-44 Gieseler 1971.ARTICLE IN PRESS Site Middle Pleistocene Homo Mauer. 211-214 von Berg 1997a. heidelbergensis H. Heidelberg. Nuremberg. 89-91 Gieseler 1971. neanderthalensis Homo Homo H. neanderthalensis ? early H. erectus or heidelbergensis H. steinheimensis H. Henke & Rothe 1994. 6061 Supposed species Confirmed species Description Lab. Orschiedt 2000. erectus reilingensis Homo H. BadenWurttemberg Bilzingsleben. Ludwigsburg.-Nr. neanderthalensis ? early H. 209-210 Groiß & Kaulich 1987. Baden-Wurttemberg Weimar-Ehringsdorf. Baden-Wurttemberg Reilingen. heidelbergensis ? H. SaxonyAnhalt Bad Cannstatt.

neanderthalensis H. neanderthalensis H. Lower Saxony H. Saxony-Anhalt H.575 ± 70 . 198-199. Orschiedt 2000. Magdeburg. sapiens H. neanderthalensis H. sapiens H.ARTICLE IN PRESS Late / classic Neanderthals Neandertal. neanderthalensis type specimen recovered 1856 62 new fragments of at least 3 individuals parietal occipital and parietal femur femur Sarstedt I: temporal Sarstedt II: occipital Sarstedt III: parietal Wildscheuer 1: temporal Wildscheuer 2: temporal femur diaphysis neonatal bones subadult tooth include frontal bone ETH-20981 ETH 19660 ETH-19661 39. neanderthalensis H. neanderthalensis H. neanderthalensis Warendorf. BadenWurttemberg Sesselfelsgrotte. neanderthalensis H. 2002 SC R IP T Middle Palaeolithic ? not given ? not given Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Knußmann 1967. North RhineWestphalia Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. 2001. 2000b Kunter & Wahl 1992 Rathgeber in press Gieseler 1971.900 ± 620 39. 6667 Schmitz & Thissen 1999. Hildesheim. 2002. neanderthalensis H. neanderthalensis H. neanderthalensis H. Schmitz 2002. Hublin 1984. neanderthalensis H. neanderthalensis Homo sapiens H. 2002 AC CE PT ED M AN U OxA-3998 2. Schmitz et al. neanderthalensis H. Orschiedt 2000. neanderthalensis H. neanderthalensis H. Bavaria Elbe-Kieswerke. Orschiedt 2000. neanderthalensis H. neanderthalensis H. neanderthalensis Ursus spelaeus Ursus spelaeus H. North Rhine-Westphalia H. Bavaria Klausennische. Lower Saxony Wildscheuer Cave. 2000a. Mettmann. 204-205. Hesse Hohlenstein-Stadel.360 ±760 Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic unstratified Middle Palaeolithic (Weichselian) Iron Age Iron Age unstratified unstratified unstratified cave bear den ? cave bear den ? Middle Palaeolithic Middle Würm Find is lost Iron Age Gieseler 1971. 68-71 Czarnetzki & Trellisó-Carreño in press Gieseler 1971. Turner et al. neanderthalensis H. 199-200 Bronk Ramsey et al.240 ±670 40. 93-96 Gaudzinski 1999 Czarnetzki et al. neanderthalensis Homo Homo Sarstedt.

RhinelandPalatinate Niedermendig. 89-91 Orschiedt 2000. 196 Flohr et al.615 ± 40 Late Weichselian Late Weichselian Late Weichselian Pleistocene “Würm”? Magdalenian? unconfirmed Bronze Age Bronze Age Roman? Protsch & Semmel 1978 Orschiedt 2000. adult Weichselian? Mediaeval Bronze Age Bronze / Iron Age Recent Bronze Age unstratified Poor context Late Pleistocene Dark Age Roman Iron Age Material lost Bronze Age Henke & Bräuer 1977. Hamburg Supposed species Confirmed species Homo sapiens Description Lab. 38-39 Gieseler 1971.470 ± 100 7. Northrhine-Westphalia Rees. infant frontal bone.670 ± 50 1. parietals. Rhineland-Palatinate Kelsterbach.313 ± 36 CE PT ED cranium and mandible cranium Fra-40 OxA-9880 Kn-2811 21. Lower Saxony Paderborn-Sande.210 ±110 Late Weichselian Palaeolithic Pleistocene Bronze Age frontal. Baden-Wurttemberg Hanseles Hohl. 25-26 Orschiedt 2000. Rhineland-Palatinate Binshof-Speyer. 203 Gleidingen.200 ± 60.500 ± 55 496 ± 39 3. parietal bone cranium bone femur (also cranium) cranium cranium M AN U IP T Bad Oldesloe.945 ± 70 2. 81 “Aurignacian“? Late Pleistocene Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic GrA-15947 BM-373 10. Terberger & Street 2004 Street & Terberger 2002 Orschiedt 2000. Baden-Wurttemberg Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens cranium Late Weichselian femur. 28 Orschiedt 2000. 194 Rosendahl 2002 Gieseler 1971. 53 Henke 1983.-Nr. Rhineland-Palatinate Oppau. mature male calvarium. Street & Terberger 2002.650 ± 1300 238 ± 39 2.480 ± 125 OxA-10900 OxA-10821 1. 51-52 Gieseler 1971. 45 Orschiedt 2000.400 ± 600 25. femur cranium Fra-5 GrAGrA- 31. RhinelandPalatinate Altrip I. Bavaria Röthekopf.300 ± 320 3. 87-88 Henke 1980. 1924. 2004 Orschiedt 2000. Terberger & Street 2004 Street & Terberger 2002. Northrhine-Westphalia Bottrop. Terberger & Street 2001. infant AC GrA- adult molar and premolar .300 ± 600 7. Henke & Protsch 1978 Street & Terberger 2002. Lower Saxony Sarstedt-Heisede. Orschiedt 200. Thuringia Weißenthurm. Northrhine-Westphalia Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens calvarium. 47 Orschiedt 2000. Hesse Köstritz. Terberger & Street 2004 Gieseler 1971. North Rhine-Westphalia Rhünda. Baden-Wurttemberg Rohrhof. 2004. North Rhine-Westphalia Fühlingen. Schleswig-Holstein Homo sapiens Homo sapiens frontal bone. 204 frontal bone. Günther 1922.630 ± 50 3.200 ± 600 3. Rhineland-Palatinate Plaidt. 14 C Age Supposed age / context Late Weichselian Confirmed age / context Reference Homo sapiens frontal bone Fra-24 P-11493 OxA-10306 OxA-8948 Kn-2810 36. 1.460 ± 37 Late Weichselian Emsdetten. 2001. 1982. 1984a Terberger et al. Hessen Eppelheim. Street & Terberger 2002.090 ± 45 3. mature male cranium Late Weichselian Pleistocene SC R Pleistocene Pleistocene Fra-15 UCLA-236 OxA-9879 OxA-10048 27. ulna. Baden-Wurttemberg Reilingen 2. Terberger & Street 2004 Orschiedt 2000.ARTICLE IN PRESS Supposedly Pleistocene Anatomically Modern Human remains from unclear contexts Hahnöfersand. Street & Terberger 2002.070 ± 110 Mesolithic Mesolithic Bräuer 1980. 92 Orschiedt 2000.

Schelklingen. molar decid. 2004 Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic undated Czarnetzki 1983. 1934. 195-196 Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens CE PT ED Gravettian Gravettian Gravettian Conard & Bolus 2003.Wurttemberg Sirgenstein. teeth (subadult) decid. Table 1. Baden-Wurttemberg Kleine Ofnethöhle. max.Wurttemberg Supposed species Confirmed species Description Lab. Schliz 1912. Baden. mand. Horizon VI.910 ± 25 4. Czarnetzki 1983. 56-59 Schmidt 1910. V base) (Stetten II. 2000b. Orschiedt 2000.735 ± 30 Aurignacian Aurignacian Aurignacian Aurignacian SC R Aurignacian IP T KIA-20967 KIA-20969 KIA-19538 4. max. 230. 99-100 Orschiedt 2000. Orschiedt 2000. mandible young male adult cranium male humerus 2 vertebrae metacarpus sin. 1 Orschiedt 2000. Czarnetzki 1983. canine sin. 234. Ulm. Haas 1991. Baden. IV top) (Stetten III V base) (Stetten IV V base) (Stetten V.Württemberg (Stetten I. Haas 1991. tooth molar tooth deciduous tooth Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens KIA-19537 KIA-19540 KIA-19539 3. 14 C Age Supposed age / context Aurignacian Confirmed age / context Neolithic Reference Homo sapiens Homo sapiens male cranium. Baden. Arnsberg.980 ± 35 4.715 ± 35 Riek 1932. Conard et al. molar Gieseler 1971. 54-55. 37 decid.ARTICLE IN PRESS Anatomically Modern Humans from Early / Middle Upper Palaeolithic contexts Vogelherd. molar AC . Conard & Bolus 2003. 79-80 Orschiedt 2000.-Nr. Baden-Wurttemberg Geißenklösterle. Baden. Table 1. North Rhine-Westphalia Hohler Fels. Bavaria Schafstall. molar sin.Wurttemberg Geißenklösterle. V base) Hohlenstein-Stadel. Conard &Bolus 2003. Baden-Wurttemberg Honerthöhle. Table 1. mand. canine dext. Churchill & Smith 2000a. Tab. 234.995 ± 35 4. premolar max. 46 M AN U Aurignacian Aurignacian Aurignacian Aurignacian Aurignacian? Aurignacian “Aurignacian” material destroyed Homo sapiens skull. mandible.985 ± 30 4. Pasda & Hahn 1991 Conard & Bolus 2003.

180 ± 100 11. Thuringia Ilsenhöhle.570 ± 100 12. Poplin 1972 Orschiedt 2000. Bavaria Grotte du Bichon.470 ± 50 8. Grimm & Ullrich 1965.450 ± 110 Magdalenian Magdalenian IP T Brillenhöhle. 105-106 Albrecht et al. Urspring. Gieseler 1971. Bavaria Supposed species Homo sapiens Confirmed species Homo sapiens Description Lab. 373 Gieseler 1971. Feustel et al. Switzerland Bonn-Oberkassel. patella Homo sapiens teeth and postcranial and cranial fragments of several individuals femur tooth incisor teeth M AN U Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens ? Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Rangifer tarandus Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens SC R Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian 8. North Rhine-Westphalia Irlich. Orschiedt 2002a Burkhardtshöhle. Ehingen.310 ± 120 2. 54-55. Henke 1986 Baales 2004.910 ± 70.210 ±60 12. Saxony-Anhalt Urdhöhle. Neuwied. Engen.Wurttemberg Kleine Scheuer. BadenWurttemberg Gönnersdorf. Street & Terberger 2002. Baden. Pasda & Hahn 1991 Gieseler 1971. Rhineland-Palatinate calvarium. Street & Terberger 2002.470 ± 65 Narr 1977. Bonnet & Steinmann 1919.660 ± 40 12. humerus. 11. Terberger & Street 2004 Bach 1974.400 ± 50 1. BadenWurttemberg Haldensteinhöhle.965 ± 65 12. Baden-Wurttemberg Petersfels. Thuringia Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens ETH-7613 12. tibia. 211. Döbritz.110 ± 90.590 ± 260 12. 192-193 Gieseler 1971. 12. Ranis. Feustel 1989. Switzerland CE PT ED KIA-3837 KIA-3838 OxA-10827 OxA-10828 OxA-10829 OxA-4790 OxA-4792 OxA-9847 OxA-9848 UtC-9221 OxA-9736 OxA-9876 Gietz 2001 Gieseler 1971. von Berg & Baales 2002. Döbritz.200 ± 200 18.ARTICLE IN PRESS Anatomically Modern Humans from Late Upper / Final Palaeolithic contexts Mittlere Klause. Orschiedt 2000. Neuwied. clavicula. BadenWürttemberg Bettelküche. Orschiedt 2000. Baden-Württemberg Hohler Fels. adult ?? adult ?? juvenile ?? skull 2 femora and 1 fibula teeth UCLA-1869 OxA-9856 OxA-11054 18. Terberger & Street 2004 Gieseler 1971. 190 Morel 1993 Homo sapiens skeleton . 74-75 upper molar tooth cranium 1 humerus cranium 2 Kniegrotte. 84-86 Homo sapiens deciduous tooth radius. 202-203 Alt & Sedlmeier 1990 Verworn. Rhineland-Palatinate Nebra. bone. Orschiedt 2000. 191-192. 1971. 14 C Age Supposed age / context Upper Palaeolithic Upper Palaeolithic Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian Confirmed age / context Upper Palaeolithic Upper Palaeolithic Magdalenian Reference bone. Baden-Wurttemberg Felsställe IIIb. Thuringia Kohlerhöhle.-Nr. phalanx juvenile mandible tooth Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens ? Homo sapiens Homo sapiens AC male skeleton (humerus) female skeleton (humerus) adult femur neonate rib neonate bone rib cranium cranium with cutmarks tooth Burghöhle Dietfurt. Rhineland-Palatinate Andernach-Martinsberg.420 ±60 Magdalenian Magdalenian Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Iron Age Final Palaeolithic Final Palaeolithic Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian Mesolithic Mesolithic Mediaeval Czarnetzki 1977a Poplin 1976 Schaaffhausen 1888. Baden-Württemberg Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Magdalenian Hahn 1995 Orschiedt 2000. 205-206 Czarnetzki 1987. Protsch & Glowatzki 1974. Engen. 72-73 Bach 1974.290 ± 34 Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian Magdalenian 11. vertebra. 1994. Baden-Wurttemberg Gnirshöhle.

AC CE PT ED ARTICLE IN PRESS M AN U SC R IP T .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .

AC CE PT ED M AN U SC R IP T ARTICLE IN PRESS .