lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e70

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

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

El Castillo (Cantabria, northern Iberia) and the TransitionalAurignacian: Using radiocarbon dating to assess site taphonomy

Rachel Wood a, b, *, Federico Bernaldo de Quir�os c, Jos�e-Manuel Maíllo-Fern�andez d,Jos�e-Miguel Tejero e, f, Ana Neira c, Thomas Higham b, g

a Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australiab Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, UKc Area de Prehistoria, Universidad de Le�on, Le�on 24071, Spaind Prehistoria y Arqueología, UNED, Madrid 28040, Spaine Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique de France, UMR 7041, ArScAn �equipe Ethnologie pr�ehistorique, Nanterre 92023, Francef Seminari d'Estudis i Recerques Prehist�oriques, Universitat de Barcelona, Spaing Keble College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PG, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 1 April 2016

Keywords:RadiocarbonPretreatmentSplit base pointTransitional AurignacianUpper PalaeolithicMiddle Palaeolithic

* Corresponding author. Research School of EarthUniversity, Canberra 2601, Australia.

E-mail address: rachel.wood@anu.edu.au (R. Wood

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.03.0051040-6182/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

a b s t r a c t

The majority of archaeological remains found at El Castillo in northern Iberia were excavated between1910 and 1914 by Hugo Obermaier. Since the 1980s El Castillo has been studied through a detailedanalysis of Obermaier's original excavation notes, the cleaning and study of the extant section, and theexcavation of material in the shelter entrance. Radiocarbon dating of charcoal from the modern (1980sonwards) excavation suggested that unit 18, corresponding to Aurignacian Delta of the 1910s excavation,was significantly earlier than other Aurignacian assemblages in western Europe. Combined with areanalysis of the lithic and osseous industry, these dates led to the suggestion that material in unit 18 andAurignacian Delta was a transitional industry, showing a gradual transformation of the Mousterian intothe Upper Palaeolithic. The conclusion has profound implications for understanding the appearance ofthe Upper Palaeolithic in western Europe. However, the theory has been heavily debated, with criticismfocusing on the analysis of the lithic and bone assemblage as well as the chronology. We focus on thelatter, and assess whether the original dates were accurate, whether they were well associated with thearchaeology, and whether there was vertical and lateral variation in the age of the assemblages withinunit 18 and Aurignacian Delta. New radiocarbon dates on humanly modified bone suggest that in thenew area of excavation, unit 18 is found to be earlier than 42 cal kBP, with no evidence of material of ayounger age. In contrast, in the old excavation area, Aurignacian Delta does include material of a youngerage. This suggests that discussion of the Transitional Aurignacian can only include material from unit 18,in the new area of excavation.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition

The interpretation of archaeological sites excavated in the earlytwentieth century is plagued by stratigraphic uncertainties result-ing from poor excavation methods and the potential mixture ofexcavated objects during decades of study and curation. However,detailed study of the original excavation notes, cleaning of standing

Sciences, Australian National

).

reserved.

sections and excavations at the site perimeter can recover sub-stantial amounts of information. In addition, the dating of bones orcharcoal from a sedimentary unit can shed light on the chrono-logical homogeneity of a lithic assemblage. Here we discuss hownew radiocarbon dates help to resolve some of the lengthy debatessurrounding the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition at the siteof El Castillo near Puente Viesgo in Cantabria, northern Iberia(Fig. 1) (Cabrera Vald�es and Bischoff, 1989; Cabrera Vald�es et al.,1993, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006; Cabrera Vald�esand Bernaldo de Quir�os, 1996; d'Errico et al., 1998; Zilh~ao andd'Errico, 1999; Zilh~ao and d'Errico, 2003; Zilh~ao, 2006a,b;Bernaldo de Quir�os et al., 2008; Bernaldo de Quir�os and Maíllo-Fern�andez, 2009; Pastoors and Tafelmaier, 2013).

Fig. 1. Location of El Castillo and other sites mentioned in the text. 1. La Güelga, 2.Esquilleu, 3. El Castillo, 4. Cueva Morín, 5. Arrillor, 6. Labeko Koba, 7. Lezetxiki, 8.L'Arbreda, 9. Abric Romaní, 10. Abri Castenet, 11. Abri Pataud, 12. Trou de la M�ereClochette 13. Geissenklosterle, 14. Pesk€o.

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e70 57

The Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian, produced by Neanderthals,disappeared from western Europe by 41,030e39,260 cal BP (at95.4% probability, Higham et al., 2014), if debates surrounding lateNeanderthals in southern Iberia are excluded due to problematicdates (Wood et al., 2013a). Spatially, this disappearance appears tohave been patchy with, for example, variability in the age of thefinal Mousterian in different parts of Europe and the Chatelperro-nian in southern France and the Basque country dating betweenc.45 and 41 cal kBP (Higham et al., 2014).

The majority of Palaeolithic scholars suggest that the UpperPalaeolithic Aurignacian (sensu lato) appeared in western Europearound 42e41 cal kBP (Szmidt et al., 2010a; Douka et al., 2012;Higham et al., 2012; Wood et al., 2014; Jacobs et al., 2015), prob-ably being carried from somewhere in the east (Kozlowski, 2006;Mellars, 2006). The earliest Aurignacian assemblage in the Canta-brian region (the region including the Basque Country, Cantabria

Fig. 2. El Castillo A) photograph and B) drawing of the extant standing section of the 1914 exthe excavation with excavation areas marked (red, 1912; blue 1913; green 1914; black 1980)version.

and Asturias) is found in level VII at Labeko Koba and is dated to41,960e40,710 cal kBP (Wood et al., 2014), remodeled againstIntCal13 (Reimer et al., 2013).

Although they cannot be easily dated directly, analysis of humanteeth from layers containing the Proto-Aurignacian at Fumane andRiparo Bombrini strongly suggests that anatomically modernhumans (AMHs) produced the earliest phase of the Aurignacian(Benazzi et al., 2015), supporting the prevailing view (Kozlowskiand Otte, 2000; Trinkaus, 2005; Higham et al., 2011a). However,skeletal evidence is exceptionally scarce, especially for the earliestphases of the Aurignacian, and Neanderthal or hybrid authorshipremains a possibility (Zilh~ao, 2006a; Trinkaus and Zilh~ao, 2013).This is particularly pertinent given aDNA from Pestera cu Oase 1,dated at 41690e37490 cal BP (OxA-11711 and GrA-2281034,950 þ 990, �890 BP (Trinkaus, 2013)), which suggests the in-dividual had a Neanderthal ancestor within just 4e6 generations(Fu et al., 2015).

In contrast to this prevailing view, the excavators of El Castillopropose that characteristic elements of the Upper PalaeolithicAurignacian appear within the Mousterian at the site, and continueto develop into the Proto-Aurignacian. This is attested archaeo-logically by the so-called Transitional Aurignacian assemblage(Cabrera Vald�es and Bernaldo de Quir�os, 1996; Cabrera Vald�es et al.,2001; Bernaldo de Quir�os and Maíllo-Fern�andez, 2009). This hasled to the hypothesis that the Upper Palaeolithic was the conse-quence of greater communication between indigenous groups andwas a reaction to the influxof a newpopulation (Bernaldo de Quir�osand Maíllo-Fern�andez, 2009). If true, this hypothesis would haveprofound consequences in, for example, our understanding ofNeanderthal cognition (Bernaldo de Quir�os and Maíllo-Fern�andez,2009; Villa and Roebroeks, 2014).

1.2. Site description

The first major excavations at El Castillo were undertaken byHugo Obermaier between 1910 and 1913 (Fig. 2). It was

cavation. C) detailed image of units 17e21. Image shows a 1 m wide section. D) plan ofas well as the extent of levels 18b (grey) and 18c (striped). For colour, please see web

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e7058

immediately recognized as one of the most important Palaeolithicsites in Europe (see discussion in White, 2006), containing 26sedimentological units with archaeological assemblages rangingfrom the early Middle Palaeolithic to the Azilian (Cabrera Vald�es,1984; Cabrera Vald�es et al., 2006), often separated by archaeolog-ically sterile units. In addition, an extensive collection of rock arthas been found within the karstic system behind the excavatedrock-shelter (Leroi-Gourhan, 1965; Valladas et al., 1992; Pike et al.,2012; García-Diez et al., 2015). Most of the archaeological materialsfrom this earlier excavation were sent to the Institute dePal�eontologie Humaine (IPH) in Paris, and later repatriated to Spainand/or separated for further study (Cabrera Vald�es, 1984). Theturbulent events of the early 20th century and the death of Ober-maier in 1946meant that the intended series of monographs on thesite were never written. It was not until the early 1980s thatdetailed descriptions of the original excavation notes, standingsection, and lithic and faunal assemblages were published byCabrera Vald�es (1984).

Since 1980, excavations led by V. Cabrera Vald�es and F. Bernaldode Quir�os have been undertaken towards the cave entrance (Fig. 2).As the cave roof collapsed during the Late Pleistocene, the areaoccupied by humans decreased in size and moved towards the rearof the cave (Cabrera Vald�es et al., 1993). This meant that the area ofmodern excavations only included the two earliest Upper Palae-olithic levels (units 16 and 18) and the underlyingMousterian units.Through the careful reconciliation of Hugo Obermaier's field notes,annotated section drawings and photos, and the extant section,Cabrera Vald�es (1984) was able to link the stratigraphy of the oldand new excavations. Unit 18 could be confidently related toObermaier's Aurignacian Delta by the location of several largeboulders and the presence of the two sterile units 17 and 19(Cabrera Vald�es and Bernaldo de Quir�os, 1996).

This paper will examine the chronology of unit 18, Obermaier'sAurignacian Delta, which contains the so-called Transitional Auri-gnacian (Fig. 2). Unit 18 is capped by an archaeologically sterile unit17 and unit 16, Obermaier's Aurignacian Gamma, containing theProto-Aurignacian (Maíllo-Fern�andez and Bernaldo de Quir�os,2010). Likewise, unit 18 is separated from the underlying unit 20,Obermaier's Mousterian Alpha, by a second sterile layer, unit 19. Inthe modern excavations, both unit 18 and unit 20 have been sub-divided into several levels on the basis of sedimentology; unit 18into 18a (sterile), 18b (originally separated into b1 and b2, but nowcombined) and 18c, and unit 20 into 20aee (Cabrera Vald�es et al.,1993). Cabrera Vald�es (1984) uses the numerical system todescribe the stratigraphy throughout the entire site. However, forclarity in distinguishing the 1980s and 1910s excavations, we willuse the numerical notation to describe the assemblages recoveredfrom the new excavation area, and Obermaier's terminology

Table 1Published radiocarbon dates from El Castillo. Dates are calibrated against IntCal13 (ReimeAF an ultrafiltration protocol and an asterisk a treatment with solvent washing prior to

Context Industry Chronology

Sampletype

Lab no. Date (BP oryears ± 1s)

16 Aurignacian Charcoal GifA-95539a 34,300 ± 100018B1 Transitional Aurignacian Charcoal AA-2406b 38,500 ± 1800

18B2 Transitional Aurignacian Charcoal OxA-2473a 37,100 ± 2200

18B2 Transitional Aurignacian Charcoal AA-2407b 37,700 ± 1800

18B2 Transitional Aurignacian Charcoal OxA-2474a 38,500 ± 130018B2 Transitional Aurignacian Charcoal OxA-2475a 40,700 ± 1600

(e.g. Aurignacian Delta) to describe the assemblages and strati-graphic units from the old excavation.

The typological ascription of unit 18 (levels 18b and 18c) hasbeen the focus of considerable debate since Cabrera Vald�es andBernaldo de Quir�os (1996) suggested that the industry was tran-sitional between the Charentian Mousterian and Aurignacian,assigning the industry its own name, the Transitional Aurignacian(Cabrera Vald�es et al., 2001). They argued that this industryappeared to be Middle Palaeolithic with abundant substrate ele-ments such as sidescrapers, but also contained indicators of theUpper Palaeolithic, namely a bone industry, ornaments, and UpperPalaeolithic tool types including a limited number of bladelets.These bladelets, they argued, were an indigenous development,first seen in the Mousterian of units 21 and 20. Therefore the in-dustry was tentatively assigned to the Neanderthals. Unfortunatelyseveral fragmentary human fossils from Obermaier's AurignacianDelta were lost, and only two deciduous molars were recoveredduring the new excavations (Garralda, 2006).

More recently, Pastoors and Tafelmaier (2013) have publishedan analysis of the lithic reduction systems from the Mousterian toAurignacian Gamma using an assemblage from Obermaier's exca-vation curated in the Museo Arqueol�ogico Nacional, Madrid. Theysee a similar pattern to previous publications at the site, withmethods of bladelet production continuing throughout thesequence. However, their interpretation of this pattern is markedlydifferent. They suggest that it was the shape and quality of rawmaterial that led to the continued use of some reduction systemsthroughout these units. However, as highlighted by Pastoors andTafelmaier (2013), Obermaier probably selected which lithics tocurate, and the operational sequences are not limited to a specificraw material type. For example, in Aurignacian Gamma, both flakeand bladelet production were undertaken on quartzite (Maíllo-Fern�andez and Bernaldo de Quir�os, 2010).

Radiocarbon dates on charcoal fragments from unit 18 recov-ered during the recent excavations (Table 1, Cabrera Vald�es andBischoff, 1989; Hedges et al., 1994; Cabrera Vald�es et al., 1996)were around 2000 years earlier than the majority of Proto-Aurignacian assemblages in the region (Fortea, 1996; Maíllo-Fern�andez et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2014), and contributed to thedevelopment of the Transitional Aurignacian hypothesis. No ma-terial from Aurignacian Delta from the old excavation has beendated, although Stuart (2005) and Bernaldo de Quir�os et al. (2006)published a suite of mostly infinite radiocarbon dates on ultra-filtered collagen from Mousterian Alpha. Note that although origi-nally published as found in Aurignacian Delta (Stuart, 2005), andrepeated in Zilh~ao (2006b), OxA-10187 and OxA-10188 are on asingle Palaeoloxodon antiquus tooth from Mousterian Alpha(Bernaldo de Quir�os et al., 2006).

r et al., 2013) in OxCal v.4.2 (Ramsey, 2009a). ZR refers to an acid-base-acid protocol,the main pretreatment (Brock et al., 2010a).

C:N

Calibrated date(cal BP, 95.4%probabilityrange)

Method Pre-treat Yield(mg)

Yield(%)

%C d13C(‰ VPDB)

41,140e36,440 AMS47,210e39,810h

AMS

47,680e37,700h

AMS ZR 25 60.4 63.3 �26.4 N/A

46,320e38,880h

AMS

45,350e40,710 AMS ZR 29.2 60.2 63.3 �26.5 N/AAMS ZR 93 48.9 23.1e �25.1 N/A

Table 1 (continued )

Context Industry Chronology C:N

Sampletype

Lab no. Date (BP oryears ± 1s)

Calibrated date(cal BP, 95.4%probabilityrange)

Method Pre-treat Yield(mg)

Yield(%)

%C d13C(‰ VPDB)

48,290e42,180h

18C Transitional Aurignacian Charcoal GifA-89147a 39,500 ± 2000 48,690e40,840h

AMS

18C Transitional Aurignacian Charcoal OxA-2478a 39,800 ± 1400 46,760e41,720 AMS ZR 58.3 56.1 60.0 �26.6 N/A18C Transitional Aurignacian Charcoal AA-2405b 40,000 ± 2100 49,120

e41,370hAMS

18C Transitional Aurignacian Charcoal OxA-2476a 40,700 ± 1500 47,980e42,250h

AMS ZR 131 60.6 56.7 �26.4 N/A

18C Transitional Aurignacian Charcoal OxA-2477a 41,100 ± 1700 48,830e42,420h

AMS ZR 93.4 61 50.0 �25.6 N/A

18C Transitional Aurignacian Tooth 39,900 ± 4600c,i ESR20B2 Mousterian Charcoal GifA-89144a 39,300 ± 1900 48,270

e40,660hAMS

20B2 Mousterian Charcoal GifA-92506a 43,300 ± 2900 …e43,560h AMSMousterian

alphaMousterian Palaeol-

oxodonantiquusTooth

OxA-10187d 42,900 ± 1400 49,570e44,250h

AMS AF*f 12 3.3 42.6 �19.7 3.4

OxA-10188d >47,300 AMS AF*f 8.2 1 44.4 �20.4 3.4

Mousterianalpha

Mousterian Stephan-orhinusTooth

OxA-10327d >45,700 AMS AF*f 5 0.7 39.9 �20.7 3.7g

Mousterianalpha

Mousterian Stephan-orhinusTooth

OxA-10233d 42,100 ± 1500 49,130e43,260h

AMS AF*f 14.8 2.2 42.6 �19.6 3.3

OxA-10328d 45,700 ± 1700 …e46,410h AMS AF*f 14.8 2.2 43.2 �19.9 3.4Mousterian

alphaMousterian Megalo-

cerosgiganteusBone

OxA-10329d >43,800 AMS AF*f 3.9 0.7 45.5 �20.6 3.5g

a Cabrera Vald�es et al., 1996.b Cabrera Vald�es and Bischoff, 1989.c Rink et al., 1996.d Bernaldo de Quir�os et al., 2006.e Low %C.f Ultrafiltration undertaken during a time when collagen samples were contaminated with ancient glycerol from the ultrafilter.g High C:N, suggesting severe contamination from the glycerol (see note f), possibly because the mg collagen yield was low (<5 mg).h Date may extend beyond the calibration curve.i Average of 7 samples. In a note added in proof Rink et al. (1996) recalculated their dates and present only the average.

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e70 59

The Transitional Aurignacian was defined using the lithicassemblage from the new area of excavation, supported by thelithic assemblage from Obermaier's excavation and osseous toolassemblages from both the new and old excavations (CabreraVald�es et al., 2001). Obermaier's excavation removed most of themain living area, leaving only the edge of the occupation zone forthe modern excavators. Level 18c was interpreted as a dump de-posit, containing large dispersed lenses of charcoal with abundantlithic debitage, whilst level 18b is thought to be a butchery area,with numerous fragments of skull, jaw bones and parts of the axialskeleton together with large lightly worked limestone pieces andquartzite hammers (Cabrera Vald�es and Bernaldo de Quir�os, 1996).

The elements most diagnostic of the Early Aurignacian wereuncovered by Obermaier, including 10 split base points, the indexfossil of the Early Aurignacian (Peyrony, 1933, 1934; Sonneville-Bordes, 1960). However, both level 18 and Aurignacian Deltacontain tools thought to be Upper Palaeolithic, including end-scrapers, burins and borers. 415 pieces from unit 18 have beenassigned to a typological type and a technological analysis hasidentified a flake reduction scheme as well as a blade/bladeletreduction sequence (Cabrera Vald�es et al., 2001, 2002).

No other site contains the Transitional Aurignacian. AlthoughArrizabalaga Valbuena andMaíllo-Fern�andez (2008) suggested thatmaterial in Lezetxiki level IIIa in the Basque Countrymay be similar,radiocarbon dating has shown that bones in this unit range by over20 ka, and it is now thought most likely that the lithic assemblage is

a mixture of younger and older material (Maroto et al., 2012), aspreviously suggested by Baldeon (1993).

Zilh~ao and d'Errico (d'Errico et al., 1998; Zilh~ao, 2006b; Zilh~aoand d'Errico, 1999) disagree with the conclusion that the as-semblages in unit 18 and Aurignacian Delta represent a transi-tional industry. Their main arguments fall into four categories(Table 2):

1. The technological and typological ascription of tools to the Auri-gnacian. The identification of various pieces of the osseous andlithic assemblage to the Aurignacian from unit 18 has beenqueried. The presence of tools pertaining to the Aurignacianwithin Aurignacian Delta has not been questioned.

2. Vertical variation within unit 18 and Aurignacian Delta. Duringexcavation, Obermaier changed the name of the assemblagefromMousterian Alpha to Aurignacian Delta when the first splitbase points were found in 1912, although hemaintained that theunit was richer in sidescrapers towards its base and split basepoints towards the top (Cabrera Vald�es, 1984). Combined withslight differences between the radiocarbon dates in level18b1eb2 and level 18c, Zilh~ao and d'Errico (1999) proposed thatthe unit was composed of at least two separate assemblages, oneAurignacian (probably in 18b) and one Mousterian (18c), sand-wiched between the two sterile units. The thinness of level 18b,coupled with pressure from roof fall may have led to the mixingof the two levels (Zilh~ao, 2006b).

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e7060

3. Lateral variation within unit 18 and Aurignacian Delta. Associatedwith the vertical variation discussed in point 2, Zilh~ao andd'Errico (1999) proposed that the Aurignacian component wasalmost entirely missing from the front of the cave in the area ofthe new excavations, either because of the spatial differencesacross the site, or because the roof fall on top of unit 18 trun-cated the deposition of the unit within the area of modernexcavations.

4. Dating of charcoal that is not related to human activity may havecaused the unit to appear erroneously old. For example, becausethe charcoal was an inherited component of the sediment, orbecause the finer component of unit 18 resulted from theredeposition of earlier human occupations from the main livingarea of Obermaier's excavation.

Bernaldo de Quir�os et al. (2008) and Bernaldo de Quir�os andMaíllo-Fern�andez (2009) have published a rebuttal, focusing onpoints 1e3, explaining the stratigraphy and their lithic analysis, andusing the consistent set of radiocarbon dates from unit 18 to arguefor stratigraphic integrity (Table 2). We have no new information tocontribute on the typological and technological definition of the

Table 2A summary of the debate surrounding the Transitional Aurignacian at El Castillo compar

Area of debate d'Errico et al., 1998, Zilh~ao and d'Errico 1999, 2003,Zilh~ao 2006b

Berna

Technological andtypologicalascription oftools to theAurignacian.

� Query typological identification of some osseousand lithic pieces from unit 18 to the Aurignacian.

� Point out the presence of a few Upper Palaeolithictypes within the Middle Palaeolithic is commonand vice versa.

� The presence of tools pertaining to theAurignacian within Aurignacian delta has notbeen questioned.

� Maiosse

� TheunitCab

� Thewithapp

� Statusediff

Vertical variationwithin unit 18and Aurignaciandelta.

� Obermaier suggested Aurignacian delta wasricher in sidescrapers towards its base and splitbase points towards the top.

� Slight differences between the radiocarbon datesin 18b1eb2.

� 18 and Aurignacian delta were composed of atleast two separate assemblages, one Aurignacian(probably in 18b) and one Mousterian (18c).

� Mixing of 18b and c may have occurred due totheir thinness and pressure from later roof falls.

� NoObe

� Largcontheearltow

� Maithenew

Lateral variationwithin unit 18and Aurignaciandelta.

� Aurignacian component was almost entirelymissing from the front of the cave, but waspresent at the rear.

� See

Dating of charcoalthat is notrelated to humanactivity mayhave caused theunit to appearerroneously old.

� Charcoal may have been an inherited componentof the sediment.

� Charcoal may have been redeposited from themain area of excavation into unit c.

� Largwith

assemblages and will therefore limit our discussion of the firstpoint. This paper aims to use radiocarbon dating to examine points2e4 further.

In addition to three of the four points raised by Zilh~ao andd'Errico, we will also test:

1. Whether areas of disturbance within the early 20th area of ex-cavations, some distance from the extant section and newexcavation, were undetected and may have resulted in intrusiveAurignacian elements from the overlying Aurignacian Beta(Maíllo-Fern�andez and Bernaldo de Quir�os, 2010) appearingwithin Aurignacian Delta.

2. The accuracy of dates on charcoal produced before thedevelopment of ABOx-SC (Bird et al., 1999). Radiocarbon dateson Pleistocene-aged materials are extremely sensitive toyoung contaminants. Just 1% modern contamination in asample of 50 ka BP will cause a measured age of 37 ka BP. Untilaround 2000 few chemical cleaning or ‘pre-treatment’ tech-niques were able to always effectively remove such contami-nation, leading to the underestimation of many dates(Higham, 2011). Although these charcoal samples were notidentified to species any inbuilt age is likely to be a few

ed to the results of this study.

ldo de Quir�os et al., 2008 This study

ntain typological adscription of lithic andous industry to the Upper Palaeolithic.proportion of Upper Palaeolithic types within18 is extremely high (40.1% and 43.25%,rera Vald�es et al., 2001).proportion of Middle Palaeolithic typesin other Aurignacian assemblages isreciable.istical analysis of typological analysis wasd to suggest lithics from level 18 areerent from other MPal assemblages.

� Not studied.

second layer observed in the section left byrmaier after cleaning.e lithic objects were likely to sink in wetditions which might have been present insite, making it appear to archaeologists in they 20th century that MPal lithics occurredards the base of the site.ntain a third level within unit 18 containingAurignacian has not been identified in thearea of excavations.

� Age of material found abovelevel 18 suggests that level18 predates the age of theAurignacian in northernIberia. No bones or charcoalwith ages similar to theAurignacian have been foundwithin unit 18.

� Young bones are present inAurignacian delta. Given thestratigraphic continuitybetween the new and oldexcavations, this is likely tobe due to excavation error asmight be expected forexcavations occurring at thebeginning of the 20thcentury.

comments about typology above. � Agree with Zilh~ao andd'Errico (1999) that theAurignacian is present in therear of the cave. We see noevidence in the dates that it ispresent in the front of thecave.

e number of radiocarbon dates consistentESR dates on teeth.

� Dates on bone from aboveunit 18 place unit 18 beyondthe earliest Aurignacian innorthern Spain.

Fig. 3. Examples of AeC) examples of dated cut-marked and anthropogenicallymodified bone and D) the antler blank baguette type from Aurignacian Delta. For

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e70 61

hundred years, which is insignificant in comparison to thelarge error range.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sample selection

To test whether the age of unit 18 varies substantially withdepth, we have produced further measurements from unit 18, butmore importantly, from deposits found stratigraphically above thisunit from the new excavation. To test whether there was significantlateral variation, we have also dated material from AurignacianDelta. We have focused on dating cut-marked or otherwise an-thropologically modified bone to test whether the charcoal issignificantly earlier than the human activity evident in the unit, andhave used the ultrafiltration technique to effectively remove con-taminants from the bone collagen (Ramsey et al., 2004a; Brocket al., 2010a; Higham, 2011).

The sampled materials fall into three groups:

2.1.1. Group 1: cut-marked fauna from the Cabrera Vald�esexcavation

Cut-marked bones (Table 3) excavated between 1981 and 1996from the archaeological units 18 and 20 were dated (Fig. 3AeC). Tofurther constrain the age of unit 18, bone from the sterile unit 19and Mousterian level 20c beneath, and units 17/16 above, weredated. All sampled bones were disarticulated, and most werefractured. Units 17 and 16 were thin and only present in row N inthe new excavation, and as a result few bones were recovered andnone were anthropogically modified. These units have beengrouped together, as one of the dated samples could have beenfound in either level. This material is curated by theMuseo Regionalde Prehistoria y Arqueologia de Cantabria.

Table 3Samples selected for radiocarbon dating from El Castillo.

Sample Context Industry Excavation year, square, spit orfind number

Sample type Modification

Group 1: Cut-marked fauna from the Cabrera Vald�es excavationCS2 Level 16 Sterile 1981, N15, spit 3 cf. Bos/Bison, tibia UnmodifiedCS3 Level 16/17 Sterile 1981, N15, spit 3 Cervus elaphus, tibia UnmodifiedCS5 Level 18B Transitional Aurignacian 1981, L-11, find 79 cf.. Bos/bison, femur/tibia CutmarkedCS6 Level 18B Transitional Aurignacian 1981, G13, find 51 Indeterminate, diaphysis fragment CutmarkedCS7 Level 18B Transitional Aurignacian 1981, J-11, find 42 Indeterminate, diaphysis fragment CutmarkedCS15 Level 18C Transitional Aurignacian 1987, N-16-2, find 1616 Cervus elaphus, tibia CutmarkedCS17 Level 18C Transitional Aurignacian 1987, N-16-5, find 945 Cervus elahpus, humerus/femur CutmarkedCS19 Level 18C Transitional Aurignacian 1985, N-17-5, find 436 Cervus elahpus, tibia CutmarkedCS24 Level 19 Sterile 1993, N16-9, find 11 Ursus spelaeus, canine UnmodifiedCS25 Level 19 Sterile 1993, N-16-7, find 22 Cervus elaphus, rib UnmodifiedCS27 Level 20C Mousterian 1996, N16-2, find 1291 cf. Bos/Bison, humerus CutmarkedCS31 Level 20C Mousterian 1996, N16-7, find 1515 Cervus elaphus, radius CutmarkedGroup 2: Cut-marked fauna from the Obermaier excavationAMNH1 Aurignacian delta Transitional Aurignacian Indeterminate, diaphysis fragment CutmarkedAMNH2 Aurignacian delta Transitional Aurignacian cf. Cervus, diaphysis fragment CutmarkedAMNH4 Aurignacian delta Transitional Aurignacian cf. Cervus, cf. femur CutmarkedAMNH8 Aurignacian delta Transitional Aurignacian Indeterminate, pelvis CutmarkedGroup 3: Split base pointsCS1 Aurignacian Delta Aurignacian Collection number 51/33/102/

2/3Cervus elaphus, antler Split base point baguette

(Tejero et al., 2012)

colour, please see web version.

2.1.2. Group 2: cut-marked fauna from the Obermaier excavationDuring the 100 years since excavation, much of the faunal

assemblage from El Castillo has been subject to repeated study andfrequent relocation before deposition within several institutions(Cabrera Vald�es, 1984). A small collection of bone, sediment andlithics from the 1913 excavationwas sent to the AmericanMuseum

of Natural History (AMNH) by Hugo Obermaier in collaborationwith Nels Nelson in response to a request for reference materialfor construction of a copy of the cave section (White, 2006). Thissection was never built and the collection appears to haveremained unstudied until 2007e8 (Tejero et al., 2010). Althoughrepackaged, the labels written by Nelson are found within the

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e7062

boxes containing the archaeological materials. As the least studiedfaunal collection from El Castillo, this collection was consideredthe most suitable for assessing the integrity of the originalassemblage, as it was less likely to be affected by minor post-excavation mixing and conservation treatment which may resultfrom study, relocation and curation over the course of 100 years.As with all of the material recovered by Obermaier there are nodetailed indications of the location of the assemblage in plan, butthe area excavated in 1913 is shown in Fig. 2C. Cut-marked bonewas selected (Table 3).

2.1.3. Group 3: split base point blankUnfortunately the collection of split base points from El Castillo,

the largest in Iberia (Cabrera Vald�es, 1984; Liolios, 2006; Tejero,2010, 2013), was not suitable for dating. The points have beenseparated from the faunal bone since excavation and are heavilyconserved (Cabrera Vald�es, 1984). However, a piece of antler,thought to be a blank for a split base point was discovered by Tejeroet al. (2012) (Fig. 3D) within the faunal assemblage at the MuseoArqueol�ogio Nacional, Madrid. Kept separate from the split basepoints, it is less likely to have been conserved, providing a moresuitable material for radiocarbon dating. However, givenits long curation the sample was treated as potentially conservedas a precaution during radiocarbon pretreatment, followingroutine protocols at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit(Brock et al., 2010a).

2.2. Radiocarbon dating

Radiocarbon dating was undertaken using the methodsdescribed in Brock et al. (2010a) at the Oxford RadiocarbonAccelerator Unit (ORAU). Given the poor preservation of bonecollagen at some sites in the Cantabrian region (Wood et al., 2013b,2014), a large number of bones were screened to assess collagenpreservation using %N (Brock et al., 2010b, 2012). Subsequently,300e1000 mg material was taken for dating from a subsample ofbones the screening test identified as most likely to containcollagen. Samples were taken with a tungsten carbide drill awayfrom any visible glue or conservation treatment. However, as aprecaution, if glue was visible or suspected anywhere on the bone,the drilled powder was washed in a series of solvents prior todemineralisation in 0.5 M HCl overnight. The insoluble crudecollagenwas washed in 0.1 M NaOH (room temperature, 30 min) toremove alkali soluble humic acids, and 0.5 M HCl (room tempera-ture, 1 h), before gelatinization in 0.001 M HCl (70 �C, 20 h) andfiltration to remove large insoluble particulates (Ezee™ filter,45e90 mm). Gelatin was then ultrafiltered using a precleaned30 kDa MWCO Vivaspin™ 15 ultrafilter, and freeze-dried. Theproduct was combusted in an elemental analyser (ANCA-GSL),connected to an isotope-ratio mass spectrometer (Sercon 20-20)operating in continuous mode, allowing measurement of carbonand nitrogen stable isotope and elemental information. Excesscarbon dioxide was cryogenically collected and converted tographite over an iron catalyst, and dated in an Accelerator MassSpectrometer (Ramsey et al., 2004b). All dates are corrected for asample size specific background (Wood et al., 2010).

Given the published data (Table 1), most radiocarbon dates fromunit 18 were expected to fall close to the limit of the radiocarbondating method and thus have errors of >±1500 14C years (often>5000 cal years at 95.4% probability) and abut the end of theradiocarbon calibration curve (Table 1). Whilst this makes investi-gation of the fine chronostratigraphy within unit 18 difficult,identifying material of Aurignacian age (<42 cal kBP) where errorranges drop below 1500 14C years and <4000 cal years (at 95.4%probability), should be possible. To aid interpretation, Bayesian

models were used to assess whether the radiocarbon dates areconsistent with specific hypotheses.

2.3. Calibration and Bayesian analysis

It is now common for stratigraphic information from archaeo-logical sites to be combinedwith radiocarbon data in a chronologicalmodel (Bayliss, 2009) using Bayesian statistical software such asOxCal (Ramsey, 2009a,b; Ramsey et al., 2010) or BCal (Buck et al.,1999). The construction of such models is particularly useful fortwo reasons. First, probability distributions of modeled ages for thestart and end of stratigraphic or typological phases can be extracted,and comparisons made between sites (Whittle and Bayliss, 2007;Higham et al., 2014). Second, statistical analysis aids analysis of thecomplicated, and often wide, probability distributions of calibratedradiocarbon dates. As elegantly shown by Bayliss (2009), the lengthof time represented by a group of calibrated dates will be over-estimated when analysed by eye, and statistical analysis of groups ofdates is required to accurately assess duration, whether two phasesoverlap in time, and to identify outliers.

Bayesian analysis lends itself to studies where knowledge isdeveloped using an iterative process, as is the case in archaeologywhere data is normally obtained incrementally (Bayliss et al., 2007;Bayliss, 2009; Buck and Meson, 2015). We start with some priorknowledge about the age of a sample (normally stratigraphy),combine it with some new evidence (the radiocarbon dates), anduse this to inform a hypothesis, which in turn becomes our newprior. Moreover, where stratigraphy is not clear, we may have morethan one possible set of priors and multiple models may need to bepresented and evaluated.

An extension to this fluid perception of chronological modeling,is the use of Bayesian techniques to assess whether the radiocarbondates obtained agree or disagree with a given prior assumption,rather than simply provide, for example, an estimated start date foran occupation. In an early example, Needham et al. (1998) usedBayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates on organic material associ-ated with Bronze Age metalwork from southern England to assesswhether it was more likely typological groupings were coeval orwere sequential. It is in this vein that Bayesian models are con-structed in this paper. Chronological models have been primarilybuilt to assess whether radiocarbon dates support the various hy-potheses surrounding the stratigraphy and taphonomy of ElCastillo.

All radiocarbon dates presented in the paper have been cali-brated in OxCal v.4.2 (Ramsey, 2009a) against IntCal13 (Reimeret al., 2013). Any models referred to in this paper publishedbefore 2013 have been rerun against this calibration curve. Agemodels have been constructed in OxCal v.4.2 (Ramsey, 2009a),assuming all dates have a 5% prior probability of being an outlierwithin the General t-type Outlier Model (Ramsey, 2009b).

Archaeological units are considered Phases and are arranged instratigraphic order within a Sequence, assuming those lower in thestratigraphy are older than those above. A Boundary is placed aboveand below each Phase. The posterior probability distribution func-tions (PDFs) of these Boundaries provide estimates for the transitiondate between units. It is possible to establish whether two BoundaryPDFs are different by subtracting one from the other using the Dif-ference function in OxCal. If the resulting PDF does not include zeroat 95.4% probability, the two Boundaries are considered different(Supplementary information 1). Convergence, or the degree towhich a representative solution has been generated, should typicallybe above 95% (Ramsey, 1995). The Agreement Index, originally usedto assess whether a date can be considered an outlier, is not relevantwhere an Outlier Model is employed (Ramsey, 2009b). All modelcodes are given in Supplementary information 2.

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e70 63

3. Results

Radiocarbon dates are given in Table 3. Of 42 bones screened for%N, 38 contained more than 0.8%N, and were therefore likely tocontain sufficient collagen for dating (Brock et al., 2010b, 2012). Ofthese, 17 were selected for dating and sufficient collagen to producea radiocarbon date (1 wt% (Van Klinken, 1999)) was recovered from14 bones. Carbon and nitrogen isotopic and elemental values werewithin the expected range for collagen (Van Klinken, 1999) sug-gesting the samples were not grossly contaminated.

3.1. Group 1: cut-marked fauna from the Cabrera Vald�es excavation

Radiocarbon dates on cut-marked bone from units 20 to 16/17 ofthe recent excavations are similar to those previously obtained oncharcoal, although the new dates on cut-marked bone visuallyappear very slightly older (Fig. 4, Supplementary information 3).

Fig. 4. Bayesian model of dates from the modern excavation of El Castillo unit 21e16/17.modeling has been undertaken in OxCal v.4.2 (Ramsey, 2009a) assuming all samples have a2009b). Grey probability distributions represent dates obtained in this study, red distributionteal distribution represents the average of 7 ESR dates on teeth (Rink et al., 1996). Pale distrib95.4% modeled probability ranges are indicated by horizontal bars beneath the PDFs. For c

However, only three outliers at >10% are found when both the newand published dates are placedwithin a Bayesianmodel, suggestingthat the charcoal and bone dates are relatively consistent with eachother and the stratigraphic priors.

GifA-95539 has a 20% likelihood of being an outlier as it isyounger than the two new bone dates from units 17/16. This dif-ference in age may relate to the presence of young contaminants inGifA-95539. However, with no dates from unit 15, it is impossible toassess whether this sample is out of sequence, or whether it sug-gests unit 16 formed over several millennia.

Two dates from this study, OxA-21972 and OxA-21973, bothfrom level 18b, appear older than the charcoal from the samecontext (27% and 28% likelihood of being outlying respectively).Both samples were found towards the edge of 18b, where thearchaeological level thins, whereas the charcoal towards the inte-rior of the cave where the level was thickest. It is possible that thebone samples derived from deeper within unit 18.

Radiocarbon dates are calibrated in IntCal13 (Reimer et al., 2013) and calibration and5% prior likelihood of being a outlier within the General t-type Outlier Model (Ramsey,s radiocarbon dates obtained in previous studies (see Table 1 for references) whilst theutions depict the calibrated PDF and dark distributions the modeled PDF. The 68.2% andolour, please see web version.

Fig. 5. Bayesian model of dates from the 1910e1913 excavation of El Castillo unit Aurignacian Delta. Radiocarbon dates are calibrated in IntCal13 (Reimer et al., 2013) and calibrationand modeling has been undertaken in OxCal v.4.2 (Ramsey, 2009a) assuming all samples have a 5% prior likelihood of being a outlier within the General t-type Outlier Model(Ramsey, 2009b). The probability distribution functions for the start and end of unit 18 are taken from the chronological model derived for the modern excavation (Fig. 4) to assesswhether the samples from Aurignacian Delta are of a consistent age with the area of modern excavation.

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e7064

Although useful for examining the consistency of the data, thisBayesian model cannot be used to examine the fine stratigraphywithin unit 18 or provide an accurate start and end date for unit 18,because, like the majority of published dates, all of the newradiocarbon dates on bone in or below unit 18 may extend beyondthe limit of the calibration curve. Instead, this model providesminimum calibrated estimates. We can therefore conclude thatdeposition of unit 18 ended by at least 44,940e42,110 cal BP(Boundary 18B/17e16).

3.2. Group 2: cut-marked fauna from the Obermaier excavation

Dates on bone fromAurignacian Delta have been placedwithin asingle Phase model in Fig. 5, alongside the date on the antler pointbaguette. The Boundary PDFs calculated for the start and end of unit18 using Group 1 (Fig. 4) are used as the lower and upper Bound-aries of Aurignacian Delta. This enables the consistency betweenthe two groups of samples to be assessed. As can be seen in Fig. 5(Supplementary Information 3), the data from the old excavationdo not change the Boundaries from the new area of excavation.OxA-22016 is slightly younger than the other two dates, but isfound to have only an 8% chance of being an outlier by the model.The model therefore demonstrates that the dated cutmarked bonesfrom Aurignacian Delta are consistent in age with those from unit18.

3.3. Group 3: split base point blank

The antler blank from Obermaier's excavation of AurignacianDelta (OxA-21713) is clearly younger than unit 18 of the new ex-cavations, having a 99% posterior probability of being an outlierwhen placed in the model with the cut-marked bones from the oldexcavations (group 2) and Boundaries derived from the new exca-vation (group 1) (Fig. 5).

Split base points are most often associated with Early Aurigna-cian lithic assemblages (Liolios, 2006; Tejero, 2014). Unfortunately,direct dating of split base points has been hampered by their smallsize, typological value and, as a result of their value, frequent

consolidation. Therefore only a few split base points have beendirectly dated using similar methods to those used at El Castillo(Trou de la M�ere Clochette, NE France (Szmidt et al., 2010b) andPesk€o, Hungary (Davies et al., 2015)). However, several sites con-taining these points have been dated, such as Labeko Koba (BasqueCountry) where they appear in units VI and V (ArrizabalagaValbuena et al., 2003), L'Arbreda (Catalonia) unit H (Maroto et al.,1996), Abri Pataud unit 11 (Aquitaine, France) (Chiotti, 2005;Higham et al., 2011b), Abri Castanet (Aquitaine, France (Whiteet al., 2012)) and Geissenklosterle unit II (Swabia, Germany(Conard and Bolus, 2003; Higham et al., 2012)). The date of thisbaguette is similar in age to some of the earlier points at L'Arbredaand Labeko Koba ((Wood et al., 2014) Fig. 6).

4. Discussion

4.1. Critique of the chronology of unit 18 and Aurignacian Delta

These results allow us to address some of the criticisms levelledat the chronology and integrity of unit 18 and Aurignacian Delta atEl Castillo (Table 2). First, although the published charcoal datesappear very slightly younger than the bone dates obtained here, thedifference is not significant, and does not change the main inter-pretation of Cabrera Vald�es and Bischoff (1989) that unit 18 isstatistically significantly earlier than 42 cal kBP. It is unlikely thatthe majority of charcoal samples were grossly contaminated, orthat they were, for example, an inherited component from thesediment being substantially older than the human activity withinthe unit. Neither is it likely that unit 18 contains large amount ofmaterial of greatly varying age having been redeposited from themain occupation area of the cave during an episode of cleaning(Table 2). As stated by Bernaldo de Quir�os et al. (2008), the con-sistency of the radiocarbon dates and absence of any which overlapwith the earliest Aurignacian in the region, suggests that theassemblage in unit 18 does not contain material produced duringthe period when the Aurignacian was present in Cantabria.

Radiocarbon dates from unit 18 in the new area of excavationdemonstrate that theunitmustbeolder thanat least44,940e42,110cal

Fig. 6. Radiocarbon date on an antler baguette from El Castillo Aurignacian Delta (OxA-21713) compared to modelled PDFs for the start (green) and end (red) of assemblagescontaining split base points from Aurignacian assemblages across western Europe. References to the original models are given. However, all models have been rerun against IntCal13(Reimer et al., 2013) and Boundary PDFs may differ from those published. For colour, please see web version.

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e70 65

BP at 95.4% probability (Boundary 18B/17e16). The PDF for thisBoundary is earlier thanother PDFsofBoundaries representing the startofAurignacianassemblages acrossnorthern Iberia andwesternEurope(Fig. 7). This disproves hypotheses (Zilh~ao and d'Errico, 2003) that theapparentmixture of Aurignacian andMousterian lithicswithin unit 18reflects the time over which the deposit was formed.

The similarity between the dates in unit 18 and the cutmarkedfauna from the AMNH suggest that there may not have beensubstantial lateral variation in age between the new and old areas

Fig. 7. PDF for the Boundary between unit 18 and 16e17 from the modern area of excavMousterian, Uluzzian, Chatelperronian and Aurignacian assemblages across western Europethe Mousterian in the Cantabrian region (Asturias, Cantabria and the Basque Country) is takbeen rerun against IntCal13 (Reimer et al., 2013) and Boundary PDFs may differ from those

of excavation. Moreover, the baguette appears younger than theend date of unit 18 calculated from the dates from the new exca-vation the data. This suggests that there was some intrusion ofmaterial from the Aurignacian above unit 17 into AurignacianDelta, presumably due to excavation error or undetected mixing ofsediments in this part of the site. The consistency between thedate of the baguette and the age of other split base points in theregion, suggests that all split base points in Aurignacian Delta areprobably of an age typical of the Early Aurignacian. Presumably

ation (Fig. 4), compared to modelled PDFs for the start (green) and/or end (red) of. This is not an exhaustive list, but the age distributions are representative. The end ofen from Fig. 8. References to the original models are given. However, all models havepublished. For colour, please see web version.

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e7066

lithics of this age also exist in the assemblage from the oldexcavation.

Given the mixture of pre- and post-42 cal kBP material withinAurignacian Delta, material from the early 20th century excavationscannot be used to support the identification of the TransitionalAurignacian. Neither can this assemblage be used to assess theintegrity of the assemblage in unit 18 of the new excavations(Zilh~ao and d'Errico, 1999). New analyses of material from Ober-maier's excavation, such as that completed by Pastoors andTafelmaier (2013) need take into consideration the possibilitythat material from Aurignacian Delta is not temporally homoge-nous. The proportion of younger material cannot be assessed fromthe limited dating work undertaken here. In contrast, the radio-carbon data supports the interpretation that unit 18 only containsmaterial that is earlier than 42 cal kBP.

Table 4Radiocarbon dates from El Castillo produced in this study. Dates are calibrated against IntCprotocol and an asterisk a treatment with solvents prior to the main pretreatment (Brockratios should lie within the approximate range of each species (Van Klinken, 1999).

Sample Context Industry OxA Date (BP) Cal(caproran

Group 1: Cut-marked fauna from the Cabrera Valdes excavationCS2 Level 16 Proto-Aurignacian 22200 38,600 ± 1000 44,CS3 Level 16/17 Sterile 22201 39,100 ± 1000 44,CS5 Level 18B Transitional Aurignacian 21972 45,800 ± 2300 …e

CS6 Level 18B Transitional Aurignacian 21973 46,000 ± 2400 …e

CS7 Level 18B Transitional Aurignacian Failed on low % yieldCS15 Level 18C Transitional Aurignacian 22403 42,700 ± 1600 49,CS17 Level 18C Transitional Aurignacian 22202 43,100 ± 1700 49,CS19 Level 18C Transitional Aurignacian 22203 42,000 ± 1500 49,CS24 Level 19 Sterile Failed on low % yieldCS25 Level 19 Sterile 21974 44,900 ± 2100 …e

CS27 Level 20C Mousterian 22204 48,700 ± 3400 65,CS31 Level 20C Mousterian 22205 49,400 ± 3700 68,Group 2: Cut-marked fauna from the Obermaier excavationAMNH1 Aurignacian delta Transitional Aurignacian Failed on low % yieldAMNH2 Aurignacian delta Transitional Aurignacian 22016 36,000 ± 1800 44,AMNH4 Aurignacian delta Transitional Aurignacian 22018 42,100 ± 1500 49,AMNH8 Aurignacian delta Transitional Aurignacian 22637 39,900 ± 1100 45,Group 3: Split base pointsCS1 Aurignacian Delta Aurignacian 21713 35,000 ± 600 40,

a Denotes a calibrated date which may extend beyond the limit of the calibration curv

Table 5Radiocarbon dates from the uppermost dated contexts containing datedMiddle Palaeolithare calibrated against IntCal13 (Reimer et al., 2013) in OxCal v.4.2 (Ramsey, 2009a). AF re

Context Sample type Pre-treat Lab code Date (BP)

CuevaMorin. When the same charcoal fragment was cleanedwith ABA it produced a you11, not treated with ABOx-SC, is not included.

11 Charcoal XR OxA-19459a 43,600 ± 600Esquilleu. When ABOx-SC and ABA treatments have been used to clean charcoal the date

SC have not been included.VI Bone AF OxA-19965a 43,700 ± 1400

AF OxA-19966a 44,100 ± 1300ArrillorLmc Bone AF OxA-21986b 44,900 ± 2100Lamc Bone, cutmarked

Cervus elaphusastragalus

AF OxA-22654b >46,800

Lamc AF OxA-22655b 45,600 ± 2300

4.2. Chronological relationship of unit 18 with sites across westernEurope

Several sites containing Mousterian assemblages from theCantabrian region have been dated after samples were rigorouslycleaned with, for example ABOx-SC, ultrafiltration and ninhydrin(de Torres et al., 2010; Maroto et al., 2012;Wood et al., 2013b). Withthe exception of the anonymously late Middle Palaeolithic assem-blage within Esquilleu unit III (Maroto et al., 2012), dates from theuppermost dated Mousterian contexts which fall within range ofthe radiocarbon dating technique are presented in Table 5. The finalMousterian at Sope~na (Maroto et al., 2012), Covalejos (SanguinoGonz�alez and Montes Barquín, 2005) and El Mir�on (Straus andGonz�alez Morales, 2003) have been dated within the range ofradiocarbon. However, at these sites the ability of the pretreatmenttechniques to remove contaminants has not been compared to e.g.ultrafiltration and ABOx-SC, and the dates are not used here.

al13 (Reimer et al., 2013) in OxCal v.4.2 (Ramsey, 2009a). AF refers to an ultrafiltrationet al., 2010a). C:N ratio of collagen should be 2.9e3.4, %C should be >30% and isotopic

ibrated datel BP, 95.4%babilityge)

Treatment Yield (mg) Yield(%)

%C d13C(‰ VPDB)

d15N(‰ AIR)

C:N

610e41,350 AF 33.69 3.3 41.4 �22 2.9960e41,750 AF 17.14 1.7 42.1 �20.1 3.045,910a AF 12.92 2.7 44.3 �20.8 6.1 3.245,940a AF* 11.18 2.4 43.8 �19.4 3.1 3.2

AF 3.43 0.8690e43,900a AF* 21.29 2.7 43.6 �21.7 4.9 3.2950e44,360a AF* 25.59 2.5 41.8 �20.5 3.0050e43,180a AF* 14.91 1.8 41.4 �20.3 3.0

AF 1.96 0.545,490a AF 14.47 3.4 41.4 �20 5.1 3.2220e43,660a AF* 12.74 1.3 41.9 �20.3 3.1300e44,220a AF 19.47 1.9 40.3 �20.8 3.1

AF 6.16 0.7670e36,760 AF 11.93 1.2 39.0 �20.6 3.5 3.3120e43,270a AF 13.13 1.3 41.9 �19.9 3.7 3.3790e42,160 AF 71.81 7.0 45.0 �20.4 4.9 3.3

990e38,430 AF* 13.95 4.8 47.4 �19.6 2.5 3.3

e.

ic assemblages in the Cantabrian region (Asturias, Cantabria, Basque Country). Datesfers to an ultrafiltration protocol and XR to ABOx-SC (Brock et al., 2010a).

Calibrated date (calBP, 95.4%probability range)

Yield(mg)

Yield(%)

%C d13C(‰VPDB)

C:N

nger date (OxA-19083 41,800 ± 450). Therefore GifA-96264 on charcoal from level

48,340e45,650 N/A N/A 84.5 �24.2 N/As are very different (Maroto et al., 2012). Dates on charcoal not treated with ABOx-

49,890e45,140d 12.1 1.3 46.2 �19.1 3.449,950e45,600d 13.5 1.4 44.4 �19.2 3.4

…e45,490d 8.4 1.5 37.4 �19.5 3.2N/A 42.4 4.2 41.9 �20.7 3.2

…e45,780d 35.6 4 42.6 �20.9 3.3

Fig. 8. Radiocarbon dates from the uppermost dates Mousterian assemblages from the Cantabrian region (Asturias, Cantabria and the Basque Country) calibrated against IntCal13(Reimer et al., 2013) in OxCal v.4.2 (Ramsey, 2009a) assuming each sample has a 5% prior probability of being and outlier within the General t-type Outlier Model (Ramsey, 2009b). Alldates have been obtained using the ultrafiltration protocol (Brock et al., 2010a), but are not all on anthropogenically modified bone. References are given in Table 4.

Table 5 (continued )

Context Sample type Pre-treat Lab code Date (BP) Calibrated date (calBP, 95.4%probability range)

Yield(mg)

Yield(%)

%C d13C(‰VPDB)

C:N

Bone, cutmarked cf.Cervus elaphusdiaphysialfragment

La Güelga. Dates from the uppermost Middle Paleolithic within the D exterior excavation area are at or beyond the limit of radiocarbon and not includedD interior,

level 9Bone AF OxA-19244c 43,700 ± 800 48,990e45,500d 26.4 2.5 44 �19.0 3.3

AF OxA-19245c 44,300 ± 1200 49,950e45,850d 15.2 1.7 45.1 �19.0 3.3

a Maroto et al., 2012.b Higham et al., 2014.c Men�endez et al., 2009.d May extend beyond the calibration curve.

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e70 67

Only a limited number of dates have been obtained from thelatest Middle Palaeolithic units at each site, hindering the con-struction of individual site models. Instead, all dates for lateMousterian assemblages in Table 5 have been modeled as a singlePhase, so that the PDF for the end Boundary provides an estimate forthe end of the Mousterian in the region (Fig. 8, Supplementaryinformation 3).

Using this PDF, the final Mousterian appears to end earlier in theCantabrian region than in northeastern Iberia, where the end ofMousterian contexts at Abric Romani (Camps and Higham, 2012;Vaquero and Carbonell, 2012) and L'Arbreda (Wood et al., 2014)have been dated (Fig. 7). Although the timing for the end of unit 18falls within the range of Mousterian assemblages in Catalonia, itappears to fall into a unique timeframe within the Cantabrian re-gion, continuing for longer than other Mousterian contexts in theregion, and ending at the same time as the Chatelperronianappeared at Labeko Koba, Basque country (Wood et al., 2014). Couldit be that the perceived ‘uniqueness’ of the assemblage in unit 18simply exists because no comparative assemblages exist within theregion? To test this conclusion with confidence, the chronology ofthe final Mousterian in the region needs to be clarified because themodel used to estimate the final Mousterian of Cantabria is basedon dates from only five samples from four sites.

5. Conclusion

Radiocarbon dates on three sets of bones in combination withthe published radiocarbon dataset on charcoal have been used todemonstrate that unit 18 was deposited before the Proto-Aurignacian first appeared in northern Iberia. There is no radio-carbon evidence for the presence of later material within theassemblage recovered in the modern excavations, which has beenused to describe a technocomplex transitional between the Middleand Upper Palaeolithic.

In contrast, the radiocarbon evidence shows that theassemblage within Aurignacian Delta contains material chro-nologically consistent with an Early Aurignacian attribution, inaddition to cut-marked bones that are of a similar age to ma-terial in unit 18. It is likely that other young material exists inthis unit. Therefore material from Obermaier's AurignacianDelta cannot be used to support the diagnosis of the Transi-tional Aurignacian. The mixture of material of very differentages within these old excavations must be considered beforeany analysis.

The lithic and bone industry within unit 18 has been exten-sively debated, and since 2008 seems to have reached an uneasystalemate with Bernaldo de Quir�os et al. (2008) maintaining thatthe industry is Upper Palaeolithic, whilst Zilh~ao (2006b) proposes,amongst other things, that various tools have been misidentified.Chronologically the position of unit 18 is clear, at the end, andpossibly the very end, of the Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian in the

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e7068

Cantabrian region and before the start of the Upper PalaeolithicAurignacian. We hope that this will allow a more secure com-parison of unit 18 to assemblages of a similar age in the future.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a NERC Standard grant (NE/D014077/1) as part of the project ‘Dating of the MiddleeUpperPalaeolithic transition inwestern Europe using ultrafiltration AMSradiocarbon’ for which we are extremely grateful. R. Wood wasfunded by a tied studentship to this grant, and was supported byan ARC DECRA fellowship (DE150100070) whilst drafting part ofthe manuscript. The research of Jos�e-Miguel Tejero was supportedby a Postdoctoral abroad mobility grant of Spanish EducationMinistry, and HAR2011-26193 research project of the MICINN andthe Quality Research Group of the Generalitat de CatalunyaSGR2014-108. Museo Regional de Prehistoria y Arqueologia deCantabria, Carmen Cacho at the Museo Arqueologico Nacional,and the American Museum of Natural History are thanked foraccess to materials and advise whilst sampling. Roger Jacobi,British Museum, and Ana Belen Marin-Arroyo, Universidad deCantabria, are thanked for bone identifications. William Davies,University of Southampton, and Roger Jacobi are thanked forhelpful discussions. Alvaro Arrizabalaga Valbuena and MartaCamps are thanked for discussions at El Castillo. Roger Jacobi, akey member of our research group, sadly passed away during thecourse of this project.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.03.005.

References

Arrizabalaga Valbuena, A., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., 2008. Technology vs typology?The Cantabrian archaic Aurignacian/Proto Aurignacian example. In: Aubry, T.,Araujo, A.C., Tiffagom, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XV World Congress of theInternational Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Space and Time:Which Diachronies, Which Synchronies, Which Scales?: Typology vs. Technol-ogy, vol. 1831, pp. 133e139. Oxford.

Arrizabalaga Valbuena, A., Altuna, J., Areso, P., Elorza, M., García, M., Iriarte, M.J.,Mariezkurrena, K., Mujika, J., Pem�an, E., Tarri~no, A., Ujiz, A., Viera, L., Straus, L.G.,2003. The initial upper paleolithic in northern Iberia: new evidence fromLabeko Koba. Current Anthropology 44 (3), 413e421.

Baldeon, A., 1993. El yacimiento de Lezetxiki (Gipuzkoa, País Vasco). In: Los nivelesmusterienses Munibe (Antropologia-Arkeologia), vol. 45, pp. 3e97.

Bayliss, A., 2009. Rolling out revolution: using radiocarbon dating in archaeology.Radiocarbon 51 (1), 123e147.

Bayliss, A., Ramsey, C.B., Van Der Plicht, J., Whittle, A., 2007. Bradshaw and Bayes:towards a timetable for the neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(Suppl. 1), 1e28.

Benazzi, S., Slon, V., Talamo, S., Negrino, F., Peresani, M., Bailey, S.E., Sawyer, S.,Panetta, D., Vicino, G., Starnini, E., Mannino, M.A., Salvadori, P.A., Meyer, M.,P€a€abo, S., Hublin, J.J., 2015. The makers of the Protoaurignacian and implicationsfor Neandertal extinction. Science 348 (6236), 793e796.

Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., 2009. The transitional Aurignacianand the middle-upper palaeolithic transition model in Cantabrian Iberia. In:Camps, M., Chauhan, P. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions. Springer,New York, pp. 341e359.

Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Cabrera Vald�es, V., Stuart, A.J., 2006. Nuevas dataciones parael Musteriense y el Magdaleniense de la Cueva de el Castillo. In: CabreraVald�es, V., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M. (Eds.), En el de la cuevade El Castillo: El ocaso de los Neandertales. Centro Asociado a la UniversidadNacional de Educaci�on a Distancia en Cantabria, Madrid, pp. 455e457.

Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., Neira, A., 2008. The place of unit 18 ofEl Castillo cave in the middle to upper palaeolithic transition. Eurasian Pre-history 5 (2), 57e71.

Bird, M.I., Ayliffe, L.K., Fifield, L.K., Tumey, C.S.M., Cresswell, R.G., Barrows, T.T.,David, B., 1999. Radiocarbon dating of “old” charcoal using a wet oxidation,stepped-combustion procedure. Radiocarbon 41 (2), 127e140.

Brock, F., Higham, T., Ditchfield, P., Ramsey, C.B., 2010a. Current pretreatmentmethods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the oxford radiocarbon accelerator unit(orau). Radiocarbon 52 (1), 103e112.

Brock, F., Higham, T., Ramsey, C.B., 2010b. Pre-screening techniques for identifica-tion of samples suitable for radiocarbon dating of poorly preserved bones.Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (4), 855e865.

Brock, F., Wood, R., Higham, T.F.G., Ditchfield, P., Bayliss, A., Ramsey, C.B., 2012.Reliability of nitrogen content (%N) and carbon:nitrogen atomic ratios (C:N) asindicators of collagen preservation suitable for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon54 (3e4), 879e886.

Buck, C.E., Meson, B., 2015. On being a good Bayesian world. Archaeology 1e18.Buck, C.E., Christen, J.A., James, G.N., 1999. BCal: an on-line Bayesian radiocarbon

calibration tool Internet. Archaeology 7.Cabrera Vald�es, V., 1984. El yacimiento de la cueva de “El Castillo”: Puente Viesgo,

Santander. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Espa~nol dePrehistoria, Madrid.

Cabrera Vald�es, V., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., 1996. The origins of the upper palae-olithic: a Cantabrian perspective. In: Carbonell, E., Vaquero, M. (Eds.), The LastNeanderthals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans: a Tale about the HumanDiversity. Cultural Change and Human Evolution: the Crisis at 40 ka BP. Uni-versitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, pp. 251e265.

Cabrera Vald�es, V., Bischoff, J.L., 1989. Accelerator 14C dates for early upper paleo-lithic (basal Aurignacian) at El Castillo Cave (Spain). Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 16 (6), 577e584.

Cabrera Vald�es, V., Hoyos, M., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., 1993. La transici�on del Pale-olítico Medio al Superior en la cueva de El Castillo: características paleo-clim�aticas y situaci�on cronol�ogica. In: Cabrera Vald�es, V. (Ed.), El Origen delHombre Moderno en el Suroeste de Europa. Universidad Nacional de Educaci�ona Distancia, Madrid, pp. 81e101.

Cabrera Vald�es, V., Valladas, H., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Hoyos, M., 1996. La transitionPal�eolithique moyen-Pal�eolithique sup�erieur �a El Castillo (Cantabrie): nouvellesdatations par le carbone-14. Compte-Rendus de l'Acad�emie des Sciences deParis 332 (IIa), 1093e1098.

Cabrera Vald�es, V., Hoyos, M., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., 1997. The transition from themiddle to the upper paleolithic in the cave of El Castillo (Cantabria, Spain). In:Clark, J.A., Willermet, C.M. (Eds.), Conceptual Issues in Modern Human OriginsResearch. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 177e188.

Cabrera Vald�es, V., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., 2000. Esquemasoperativos laminares en el Musteriense final de la Cueva del Castillo (PuenteViesgo, Cantabria). Espacio, Tiempo y Forma I (13), 51e78.

Cabrera Vald�es, V., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., Lloret, M., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., 2001. Latransition vers le Pal�eolithique sup�erieur dans la grotte du Castillo (Cantabrie,Espagne): La couche 18 Anthropologie, vol. 105(4), pp. 505e532.

Cabrera Vald�es, V., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., Valladas, H.,Martinez de la Riva, M.L., 2002. El Auri~naciense arcaico de El Castillo (Canta-bria): descripci�on technol�ogica y objetivos de la producci�on. Espacio, Tiempo yForma I (15), 67e86.

Cabrera Vald�es, V., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., Pike-Tay, A.,Garralda, M.D., 2005. Excavaciones en El Castillo: Veinte a~nos de reflexiones. In:Montes, R., Lasheras, J.A. (Eds.), Neandertales cant�abricos, estado de la cuesti�on,vol. 20. Museo de Altamira, Santander, pp. 505e526.

Cabrera Vald�es, V., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., 2006. LaCueva de El Castillo: Las nuevas excavaciones. In: Cabrera Vald�es, V., Ber-naldo de Quir�os, F., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M. (Eds.), En el centenario de lacueva de El Castillo: El ocaso de los Neandertales. Centro Asociado a laUniversidad Nacional de Educaci�on a Distancia en Cantabria, Madrid,pp. 351e365.

Camps, M., Higham, T., 2012. Chronology of the middle to upper palaeolithictransition at Abric Romaní. Catalunya Journal of Human Evolution 62 (1),89e103.

Chiotti, L., 2005. Les industries lithiques aurignaciennes de l'abri Pataud, Dordogne,France. Les fouilles de Hallam L. Movius Jr. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modernhumans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and newchallenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331e371.

d'Errico, F., Zilh~ao, J., Julien, M., Baffler, D., Pelegrin, J., 1998. Neanderthal accultur-ation in western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpreta-tion. Current Anthropology 39 (Suppl. 1), S1eS44.

Davies, W., White, D., Lewis, M., Stringer, C., 2015. Evaluating the transitionalmosaic: frameworks of change from Neanderthals to Homo sapiens in easternEurope. Quaternary Science Reviews 118, 211e242.

de Torres, T., Ortiz, J.E., GrüN, R., Eggins, S., Valladas, H., Mercier, N., Tisn�ERat-Laborde, N., Juli�A, R., Soler, V., Mart�INez, E., S�ANchez-Moral, S., Ca~NAveras, J.C.,Lario, J., Badal, E., Lalueza-Fox, C., RosAs, A., Santamar�IA, D., de la Rasilla, M.,Fortea, J., 2010. Dating of the hominid (Homo neanderthalensis) remainsaccumulation from El Sidr�on cave (Pilo~na, Asturias, North Spain): an example ofa multi-methodological approach to the dating of upper pleistocene sites.Archaeometry 52 (4), 680e705.

Douka, K., Grimaldi, S., Boschian, G., del Lucchese, A., Higham, T.F.G., 2012. A newchronostratigraphic framework for the upper palaeolithic of Riparo Mochi(Italy). Journal of Human Evolution 62 (2), 286e299.

Fortea, J., 1996. Le Pal�eolithique sup�erieur en Espagne: Galice et Asturias(1991e1995) UISSP. In: Congr�es de Forli, Commission Pal�eolithique Sup�eeriur,Bilan 1991e1995. ERAUL, Li�ege, pp. 329e344.

Fu, Q., Hajdinjak, M., Moldovan, O.T., Constantin, S., Mallick, S., Skoglund, P.,Patterson, N., Rohland, N., Lazaridis, I., Nickel, B., Viola, B., Prüfer, K., Meyer, M.,Kelso, J., Reich, D., P€a€abo, S., 2015. An early modern human from Romania with arecent Neanderthal ancestor. Nature 524 (7564), 216e219.

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e70 69

García-Diez, M., Garrido, D., Hoffmann, D.L., Pettitt, P.B., Pike, A.W.G., Zilh~ao, J., 2015.The chronology of hand stencils in European Palaeolithic rock art: implicationsof new u-series results from el Castillo cave (Cantabria, Spain). Journal ofAnthropological Sciences 93, 135e152.

Garralda, M.D., 2006. ¿Y si las gentas del nivel 18b de la cueva de El Castillo fueranNeandertales? In: Cabrera Vald�es, V., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M. (Eds.), En el centenario de la cueva de El Castillo: El ocaso de losNeandertales. Centro Asociado a la Universidad Nacional de Educaci�on a Dis-tancia en Cantabria, Madrid, pp. 435e454.

Hedges, R., Housley, R., Bronk Ramsey, C., Van Klinken, G.J., 1994. Radiocarbon datesfrom the Oxford AMS system: archaeometry datelist 18. Archaeometry 36 (2),337e374.

Higham, T., 2011. European middle and upper palaeolithic radiocarbon dates areoften older than they look: problems with previous dates and some remedies.Antiquity 85 (327), 235e249.

Higham, T., Compton, T., Stringer, C., Jacobi, R., Shapiro, B., Trinkaus, E., Chandler, B.,Gr€oning, F., Collins, C., Hillson, S., O'Higgins, P., FitzGerald, C., Fagan, M., 2011a.The earliest evidence for anatomically modern humans in northwestern.Europe Nature 479 (7374), 521e524.

Higham, T., Jacobi, R., Basell, L., Ramsey, C.B., Chiotti, L., Nespoulet, R., 2011b. Pre-cision dating of the palaeolithic: a new radiocarbon chronology for the AbriPataud (France), a key Aurignacian sequence. Journal of Human Evolution 61(5), 549e563.

Higham, T., Basell, L., Jacobi, R., Wood, R., Ramsey, C.B., Conard, N.J., 2012. Testingmodels for the beginnings of the Aurignacian and the advent of figurative artand music: the radiocarbon chronology of Geißenkl€osterle. Journal of HumanEvolution 62 (6), 664e676.

Higham, T., Douka, K., Wood, R., Ramsey, C.B., Brock, F., Basell, L., Camps, M., Arri-zabalaga Valbuena, A., Baena, J., Barroso-Ruíz, C., Bergman, C., Boitard, C.,Boscato, P., Caparr�os, M., Conard, N.J., Draily, C., Froment, A., Galv�an, B.,Gambassini, P., Garcia-Moreno, A., Grimaldi, S., Haesaerts, P., Holt, B., Iriarte-Chiapusso, M.J., Jelinek, A., Jord�a Pardo, J.F., Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., Marom, A.,Maroto, J., Men�endez, M., Metz, L., Morin, E., Moroni, A., Negrino, F.,Panagopoulou, E., Peresani, M., Pirson, S., de la Rasilla, M., Riel-Salvatore, J.,Ronchitelli, A., Santamaria, D., Semal, P., Slimak, L., Soler, J., Soler, N.,Villaluenga, A., Pinhasi, R., Jacobi, R., 2014. The timing and spatiotemporalpatterning of Neanderthal disappearance. Nature 512 (7514), 306e309.

Jacobs, Z., Li, B., Jankowski, N., Soressi, M., 2015. Testing of a single grain OSLchronology across the middle to upper palaeolithic transition at Les Cott�es(France). Journal of Archaeological Science 54, 110e122.

Kozlowski, J.K., 2006. Early human migrations: incipient stages of old worldpeopling. Diogenes 53 (3), 9e22.

Kozlowski, J.K., Otte, M., 2000. The formation of the Aurignacian in Europe. Journalof Anthropological Research 56 (4), 513e534.

Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1965. Pr�ehistoire de l'art occidental. Mazenod, Paris.Liolios, D., 2006. Reflections on the role of bone tools in the definition of the Early

Aurignacian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilh~ao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of theAurignacian. Instituto Portugues de Arquologia, Lisoba, pp. 37e51.

Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., 2010. Archaic Aurignacian in ElCastillo cave (Spain): technology and typology composition. Anthropologie 114(1), 1e25.

Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., Valladas, H., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Cabrera Vald�es, V., 2001.Nuevas dataciones para el Paleolítico Superior de Cueva Morín (Villanueva deVillaescusa, Cantabria) Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. In: Serie I, Prehistoria yArqueología, vol. 14, pp. 145e150.

Maroto, J., Soler, J., Fullola, J.M., 1996. Cultural change between middle and upperpalaeolithic in Catalonia. In: Carbonell, E., Vaquero, M. (Eds.), The Last Nean-dertals the First Anatomically Modern Humans. Cultural Change and HumanEvolution: the Crisis at 40 Ka BP. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona,pp. 219e250.

Maroto, J., Vaquero, M., Arrizabalaga Valbuena, �A., Baena, J., Baquedano, E., Jord�a, J.,Juli�a, R., Montes, R., Van Der Plicht, J., Rasines, P., Wood, R., 2012. Current issuesin late middle palaeolithic chronology: new assessments from Northern Iberia.Quaternary International 247 (1), 15e25.

Mellars, P., 2006. Archeology and the dispersal of modern humans in Europe:deconstructing the “Aurignacian”. Evolutionary Anthropology 15 (5),167e182.

Men�endez, M., Quesada, J.M., Jord�a, J.F., Carral, P., Trancho, G.J., Garcia, E., �Alvarez, D.,Rojo, J., Wood, R., 2009. Excavaciones arqueol�ogicas en la cueva de la Güelga(Cangas de Onís). Excavaciones Arqueol�ogicas en Asturias 2003e2006. Serviciode Publicaciones de la Consejería de Educaci�on, Cultura, Deportes y Juentud,Oviedo, pp. 209e221.

Needham, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Coombs, D., Cartwright, C., Pettitt, P., 1998. An in-dependent chronology for British Bronze Age metalwork: the results of theOxford radiocarbon accelerator programme. Archaeological Journal 154,55e107.

Pastoors, A., Tafelmaier, Y., 2013. The middle-upper palaeolithic transition at ElCastillo (Spain). A re-evaluation of the lithic reduction systems from theObermaier excavation. In: Pastoors, A., Auffermann, B. (Eds.), Pleistocene For-agers: Their Culture and Environment. Festschrift in Honour of Gerd-ChristianWeniger for His Sixtieth Birthday. Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Neander-thal Museums, Mettmann, pp. 35e49.

Peyrony, D., 1933. Les industries “aurignaciennes” dans le bassin de la V�ez�ere.Bulletin de la Societ�e Pr�ehistorique Française 30, 543e559.

Peyrony, D., 1934. La Ferrassie: Moust�erien, P�erigordien, Aurignacien Pr�ehistoire,vol. 3, pp. 1e92.

Pike, A.W.G., Hoffmann, D.L., García-Diez, M., Pettitt, P.B., Alcolea, J., De Balbín, R.,Gonz�alez-Sainz, C., De Las Heras, C., Lasheras, J.A., Montes, R., Zilh~ao, J., 2012. U-series dating of paleolithic art in 11 caves in Spain. Science 336 (6087),1409e1413.

Ramsey, C.B., 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCalprogram. Radiocarbon 37 (2), 425e430.

Ramsey, C.B., 2009a. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51 (1),337e360.

Ramsey, C.B., 2009b. Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating.Radiocarbon 51 (3), 1023e1045.

Ramsey, C.B., Higham, T., Bowles, A., Hedges, R., 2004a. Improvements to the pre-treatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46 (1), 155e163.

Ramsey, C.B., Higham, T., Leach, P., 2004b. Towards high-precision AMS: progressand limitations. Radiocarbon 46 (1), 17e24.

Ramsey, C.B., Dee, M., Lee, S., Nakagawa, T., Staff, R.A., 2010. Developments in thecalibration and modeling of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 52 (3), 953e961.

Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C.,Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P.,Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatt�e, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G.,Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W.,Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Turney, C.S.M., van derPlicht, J., 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves0e50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55 (4), 1869e1887.

Rink, W.J., Schwarcz, H.P., Lee, H.K., Cabrera Vald�es, V., Bernaldo De Quir�os, F.,Hoyos, M., 1996. ESR dating of tooth enamel: comparison with AMS 14C at ElCastillo Cave, Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 23 (6), 945e951.

Sanguino Gonz�alez, J., Montes Barquín, R., 2005. Nuevos datos para el conocimientodel Paleolítico Medio en el centro de la Regi�on Cant�abrica: La Cueva de Cova-lejos. In: Montes, R., Lasheras, J.A. (Eds.), Neandertales cant�abricos, estado de lacuesti�on. Museo de Altamira, Santander, pp. 489e538.

Sonneville-Bordes, D.d., 1960. Le Pal�eolithique sup�erieur en P�erigord. Delmas,Bordeaux.

Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M., 2003. El Mir�on Cave and the 14C chronology ofCantabrian Spain. Radiocarbon 45 (1), 41e58.

Stuart, A.J., 2005. The extinction of woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius)and straight-tusked elephant (Palaeoloxodon antiquus) in Europe. QuaternaryInternational 126e128 (1 Spec. iss.), 171e177.

Szmidt, C.C., Normand, C., Burr, G.S., Hodgins, G.W.L., LaMotta, S., 2010a. AMS 14Cdating the protoaurignacian/early Aurignacian of Isturitz, France. Implicationsfor Neanderthal-modern human interaction and the timing of technical andcultural innovations in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (4),758e768.

Szmidt, C.C., Brou, L., Jaccottey, L., 2010b. Direct radiocarbon (AMS) dating of split-based points from the (proto)Aurignacian of Trou de la M�ere Clochette,Northeastern France. Implications for the characterization of the Aurignacianand the timing of technical innovations in Europe. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 37 (12), 3320e3337.

Tejero, J.M., 2010. La explotaci�on de las materias duras animales en el Paleolíticosuperior inicial. In: Una aproximaci�on tecno-econ�omica a las producciones�oseas auri~nacienses en la Península Ib�erica. UNED, Madrid.

Tejero, J.M., 2013. La explotaci�on de las materias �oseas en el Auri~naciense.Caracterizaci�on tecnoecon�omica de las producciones del Paleolítico superiorinicial en la Península Ib�erica. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Tejero, J.M., 2014. Towards complexity in osseous raw material exploitation by thefirst anatomically modern humans in Europe: Aurignacian antler working.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36, 72e92.

Tejero, J.M., Avezuela, B., White, R., Ramlett, S., Quam, R., Tattersall, I., Bernaldo deQuir�os, F., 2010. Un pedazo de la Prehistoria c�antabria en Nueva York. LasColecciones de la Cueva de El Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria) en el AmericanMuseum of Natural History ( Nueva York, EEUU). Munibe (Antropologia-Arkeologia) 61, 5e16.

Tejero, J.M., Christensen, M., Bodu, P., 2012. Red deer antler technology and earlymodern humans in Southeast Europe: an experimental study. Journal ofArchaeological Science 39 (2), 332e346.

Trinkaus, E., 2005. Early modern humans. Annual Review of Anthropology 34,207e230.

Trinkaus, E., 2013. Radiocarbon Dating of the Pestera cu Oase Human RemainsLifeand Death at the Pestera cu Oase: a Setting for Modern Human Emergence inEurope. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 229e233.

Trinkaus, E., Zilh~ao, J., 2013. Paleoanthropological implications of the Pestera cuOase and its contents. In: Trinkaus, E., Constantin, S., Zilh~ao, J. (Eds.), Life andDeath at the Pestera cu Oase: a Setting for Modern Human Emergence inEurope. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 389e400.

Valladas, H., Cachier, H., Maurice, P., Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Clottes, J., CabreraVald�es, V., Uzquiano, P., Arnold, M., 1992. Direct radiocarbon dates for prehis-toric paintings at the Altamira, El Castillo and Niaux caves. Nature 357 (6373),68e70.

Van Klinken, G.J., 1999. Bone collagen quality indicators for palaeodietary andradiocarbon measurements. Journal of Archaeological Science 26 (6), 687e695.

Vaquero, M., Carbonell, E., 2012. Some clarifications on the middle-upper paleo-lithic transition in Abric Romaní: reply to Camps and Higham (2012). Journal ofHuman Evolution 63 (5), 711e717.

R. Wood et al. / Quaternary International 474 (2018) 56e7070

Villa, P., Roebroeks, W., 2014. Neandertal demise: an archaeological analysis of themodern human superiority complex. PLoS One 9 (4).

White, R., 2006. From Puente Viesgo to Central Park west: Hugo Obermaier, NelsNelson and the American Museum of Natural History's collections from Can-tabrian Spain. In: Maíllo-Fern�andez, J.M., Baquedano, E. (Eds.), Miscel�anea enhomenaje a Victoria Cabrera, pp. 58e77.

White, R., Mensan, R., Bourrillon, R., Cretin, C., Higham, T.F.G., Clark, A.E., Sisk, M.L.,Tartar, E., Gard�ere, P., Goldberg, P., Pelegrin, J., Valladas, H., Tisn�erat-Laborde, N.,De Sanoit, J., Chambellan, D., Chiotti, L., 2012. Context and dating of Aurignacianvulvar representations from Abri Castanet, France. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (22), 8450e8455.

Whittle, A., Bayliss, A., 2007. The times of their lives: from chronological precisionto kinds of history and change. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17 (1), 21e28.

Wood, R.E., Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T.F.G., 2010. Refining background correctionsfor radiocarbon dating of bone collagen at ORAU. Radiocarbon 52 (2), 600e611.

Wood, R.E., Barroso-Ruíz, C., Caparr�os, M., Jord�a Pardo, J.F., Santos, B.G., Higham, T.F.G.,2013a. Radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late chronology of the Middle toUpper Palaeolithic transition in southern Iberia. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 (8), 2781e2786.

Wood, R.E., Higham, T.F.G., De Torres, T., Tisn�erat-Laborde, N., Valladas, H., Ortiz, J.E.,Lalueza-Fox, C., S�anchez-Moral, S., Ca~naveras, J.C., Rosas, A., Santamaría, D., de la

Rasilla, M., 2013b. A new date for the neanderthals from El Sidr�on cave(Asturias, northern Spain). Archaeometry 55 (1), 148e158.

Wood, R.E., Arrizabalaga Valbuena, A., Camps, M., Fallon, S., Iriarte-Chiapusso, M.J.,Jones, R., Maroto, J., de la Rasilla, M., Santamaría, D., Soler, J., Soler, N.,Villaluenga, A., Higham, T.F.G., 2014. The chronology of the earliest upperpalaeolithic in northern Iberia: new insights from L'Arbreda, Labeko Koba andLa Vi~na. Journal of Human Evolution 69 (1), 91e109.

Zilh~ao, J., 2006a. Aurignacian, behavior, modern: issues of definition in the emer-gence of the European Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilh~ao, J. (Eds.), To-wards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Instituto Portugues de Arquologia,Lisboa, pp. 53e69.

Zilh~ao, J., 2006b. Chronostratigraphy of the middle-to-upper paleolithic transitionin the Iberian Peninsula. Pyrenae 37 (1), 7e84.

Zilh~ao, J., d'Errico, F., 1999. The chronology and taphonomy of the earliest Auri-gnacian and its implications for the understanding of Neandertal extinction.Journal of World Prehistory 13 (1), 1e68.

Zilh~ao, J., d'Errico, F., 2003. The chronology of the Aurignacian and transitionaltechnocomplexes. Where do we stand? In: Zilh~ao, J., d'Errico, F. (Eds.), TheChronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes:Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Instituto Portugues de Arquologia,Lisboa, pp. 313e349.