Technological differences between Kostenki 17/II (Spitsynskaya industry, Central Russia) and the Protoaurignacian: Reply to Dinnis et al. (2019)

Abstract

With great interest, we read the new study on early Upper Palaeolithic assemblages of the Kostenki region conducted by Dinnis et al. (2019). In this reply, we point out analytical and interpretative inconsistencies we found in that article. Dinnis et al. (2019) associated the early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) assemblages from the three Central Russian sites Kostenki 1, 14 and 17 with the Aurignacian four-phase model developed in Southwestern Europe. Thus, Dinnis et al. (2019) assigned the EUP assemblage from Kostenki 17 layer II to the Protoaurignacian and Kostenki 1/III as well as Kostenki 14/layer in volcanic ash (LVA; ~40 ka cal BP) to the Early Aurignacian. By doing so the authors promoted a unidirectional expansion of modern humans from the southeast into Europe.

Armando Falcucci

Lecturer in Palaeolithic Archaeology

I am a Lecturer in Palaeolithic Archaeology at the University of Southampton (CAHO). My research investigates the interplay between technological evolution, mobility, and human-climate interactions across Europe, the Levant, and southern Africa. Using a combination of traditional and computational methods, I explore cultural transmission and demic spread during the MIS3.