2 comments.
First
It appears obvious to us that the Danube corridor is an potentially easy migration route into the heart of Europe. I suspect that it would not necessarily have that appearance to a native African, who would see nearly any major river drainage as a potential tsetse habitat and even might see it as a deadly avenue to follow for that reason. In most of Africa, nearly all river corridors are certain to be completely blocked in places by tsetse infestation. I suspect that ease of movement between areas outside of Africa was much greater than between areas inside Africa, resulting in greater isolation of individual populations in Africa, therefore resulting in accelerated genetic drift in those populations. That would "exaggerate" the appearance of age in the characters of those distinct populations mostly likely to be subject to that degree and type of isolation.
Hi Dutch,
The Danube is potentially an easy migration route into the heart of Europe, but it is not necessarily the only route to consider. Conard and Bolus (2003, abstract) are advocating that, "innovations of the Aurignacian and Gravettian in Swabia predate similar developments in other regions of Europe," citing dates from Geissenklosterle. Recent dating at Geissenklosterle (Richter et al. 2000) placed the earliest Aurignacian (level III at Geissenklosterle) in the Hengelo Interstadial (c. 43.0-40.5 kyr BP) by paleoecological analysis. 14C-AMS results yielded a mean of 38.4 +/- 0.85 kyr BP, whereas a mean of 40.2 +/- 1.5 kyr BP was obtained by TL on burnt silex, confirming the correlation of the level III Early Aurignacian with the Hengelo Interstadial.
The Swabian caves might be earliest manifestations in the "Danube Corridor" of the Aurignacian "innovations" as Conard & Bolus say, but they lie near the source of the river and far upstream of Bacho Kiro and Temnata, proposed by Bolus & Conard (2001:31) as "Early Balkan Aurignacian" entry point for the "replacement" migration.
But it could be questioned whether the Aurignacian "innovations" found in the Swabian caves actually predate similar developments at Kostenki? Certainly Kostenki, on the East European Plain, lies in one of the "other regions of Europe" (Conard & Bolus 2003, abstract). Hoffecker et al. (2002) write: "...A volcanic ash layer dated to 38,000-35,000 years BP represents a widespread stratigraphic marker horizon. Several Upper paleolithic occupation levels underlie this horizon at Kostenki 12 and 14, and they appear to date to roughly 45,000-40,000 years BP..."
In the press release from University of Colorado at Boulder (21 March 2002), Hoffecker is quoted: "The Kostenki sites, which date beyond 40,000 years ago, may have hosted Neanderthals as well as modern humans...It looks like there were two separate industries at work here. One culture was advanced in terms of bone and ivory tool-making and decorative figurine art, while the other produced little more than crude stone tools".
Regardless of Hoffecker's opinion of the Streletskaya industry (the one with the "crude stone tools"), both it and the "advanced" (usually described as the Aurignacoid technocomplex) lie in the "lower humic beds" at Kostenki, and have been correlated (by A.A. Sinitsyn) with the Hengelo Interstadial.
So if we have an industry with the same basic "innovations" (bone and ivory tool making and decorative figurine art) at Geissenklosterle and Kostenki, and both are dated (paleoecologically) to the Hengelo Interstadial, what would be the logical "corridor" connecting these two localities?
I would suggest we not forget the Moravian Gate (SW of Krakow, Poland) which was certainly in use for crossing the Carpathians from Eastern Europe by the later Gravettian populations. I'm not advocating anything specific here (dating is inadequate, and it's a long, long way from G to K), but there are possible migration routes into the upper Danube which do not require traveling the lower river.
Second
Are there not quite late Neanderthal examples in Croatia, late enough even with "Middle Paleolithic Dating Anomaly" mentioned to put recognized populations of Neanderthals essentially in the same river corridor in very similar time frames to the non-Neanderthal populations in the Swabia?
Dutch
Bolus & Conard (2001:31) say of this: "The exact stratigraphic positions and cultural attributions, as well as the dates of the hominid remains from Southwestern Central Europe belonging to this period, have been questioned (Mellars et al. 1999; Zilhao and d'Errico, 1999a, b). Among others, this is true for the Neanderthals from the Early Upper Paleolithic level G1 of Vindija cave in Croatia (Fig. 1:11) which yielded AMS radiocarbon ages of 33 +/- 0.4 kyr BP (Karavanic and Smith, 1998, Fig. 2) and 28-29 kyr BP (Smith et al. 1999) respectively..."
Although they are not critical "in the specifics", there does seem, in this wording, to be an inclination towards questioning the dating of the Croatian Neanderthals. Taken along with their (Conard & Bolus 2003, abstract) expressed idea of a possible tendency for dating effects to "exaggerate" AMH/N temporal overlap, I might guess that any possible reduction of this overlap would better fit their "Kulturpumpe" hypothesis, but I've not looked into this far enough to be sure.
Peace back at ya,
Dar
References:
Bolus, M. & Conard, N.J. (2001). The late Middle Paleolithic and earliest Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe and their relevance for the Out of Africa hypothesis. Quaternary International 75: 29-40.
Hoffecker, J.F., Anikovich, M.V., Sinitsyn, A.A., Holliday, V.T. & Forman, S.L. (2002). Initial Upper Paleolithic in Eastern Europe: new research at Kostenki. Abstracts from the Paleoanthropology Society Meetings. Denver Colorado, March 19-20, 2002.
Richter, D., Waiblinger, J., Rink, W.J. & Wagner, G.A. (2000). Thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance and 14C-dating of the Late Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic site of Geissenklostere Cave in Southern Germany. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 71-89.
