late pleistocene population interaction in western europe

events has been adopted by most since its formulation by Breuil and Boule, with
surprisingly little opposition (but see Clark 1992 and Straus 1997). Genetic arguments
have been used to support these propositions (e.g., Stringer and Andrews 1988). Because
of a purported synchronism in anatomical and cultural changes during the Middle to
Upper Paleolithic transition in Western Europe, the hypothesis of an Aurignacian
migration was perceived as better supported than most other replacement events proposed
by Breuil. However, there are several reasons to think that the hypothesis of a modern
human Aurignacian migration event is controversial.
First, it is important to note that we still know very little about the anatomy of the
Early Aurignacians of Western Europe. The few specimens known are from Isturitz,
Fontéchevade, Font de Gaume, La Ferrassie, La Crouzade, Les Cottés, Acy-sur-Cure, and
Les Rois, but are very fragmentary, being mostly limited to skull fragments and teeth
(Leroi-Gourhan 1958; Gambier 1989a, 1989b; Gambier et al. 1990). We can add to this
list a proximal phalanx found in the Aurignacian I of Saint-Césaire (this study). In fact,
questions can legitimately be raised about the makers of this industry. Although some
skeletal features, mostly from the cranium, mandible, and teeth, suggest an affiliation
with modern humans, it is not possible to be absolutely positive about this attribution, as
pointed out by Gambier (1989a). This taxonomic uncertainty also holds for the early
Upper Paleolithic of the Levant (Bar-Yosef 2002). Thus the issue of which hominid
group is associated with the Early Aurignacian should remain open, given what we have
learned from the Saint-Césaire discovery.
The re-dating of several supposedly early modern humans now known to be very
recent, for instance Velika Pecina and Staroselje (Marks et al. 1997; Smith et al. 1999),
60