Article pp.96-102 du Vol.24 n°1-2 (2012)

(1)

ARTICLE /ARTICLE

Direct Radiocarbon Dates for the Mid Upper Paleolithic (Eastern Gravettian) Burials from Sunghir, Russia

Datations directes par radiocarbone des sépultures du Gravettien d’Europe de l’Est à Sunghir, Russie

M. Dobrovolskaya · M.-P. Richards · E. Trinkaus

Received: 28 October 2010, Accepted: 26 May 2011

AbstractNew direct AMS radiocarbon dates of the Sunghir 1 and 3 partial skeletons from the Mid Upper Paleolithic (eastern Gravettian) burials, using ultrafiltration sample preparation, provide ages of 27,050 ± 210 (KIA-27006) and 26,000 ± 410 (KIA-27007)¹⁴C BP. These dates place the two most elaborate Paleolithic burials known within the range of dates for the Mid Upper Paleolithic (eastern Gravet- tian) archeological levels of the Sunghir site. These determinations confirm earlier dates of the Sunghir 2 and 3 burial, but they are the first ones dating the culturally similar Sun- ghir 1 burial of the same age. These ages fall within the age range of other earlier Gravettian“red ochre”burials in central and western Europe and reinforce the widespread pattern of internments during this time period in Europe. In addition, the radiocarbon dating provides carbon and nitrogen stable isotope data, along with those from associated faunal remains, confirming the high trophic level of these Mid Upper Paleolithic individuals. To cite this journal: Bull.

Mém. Soc. Anthropol. Paris 24 (2012).

KeywordsEurope · Burial · Gravettian · Stable Isotopes · Carbon · Nitrogen

RésuméDe nouvelles datations absolues (méthode C¹⁴avec ultrafiltration du collagène) directes des squelettes partiels de Sunghir 1 et 3 (Gravettien d’Europe de l’Est) nous donnent les résultats de 27 050 ± 210 BP (KIA-27006) et 26 000 ± 410 BP (KIA-27007). Ces derniers placent donc les deux sépultures les plus élaborées du Paléolithique au sein de l’intervalle de variation des dates obtenues pour les niveaux archéologiques de ce site du Gravettien d’Europe de l’Est. Si elles confirment celles précédemment obtenues sur les sépultures de Sunghir 2 et 3, elles sont les premières nous assurant que la sépulture de Sunghir 1, rapportée au même ensemble culturel, se situe au sein de la même période chronologique. Elles tombent aussi dans l’intervalle de variation des autres sépultures « ocrées » du début du Gravettien en Europe de l’Ouest et en Europe centrale et complètent donc nos connaissances sur la forme de ces sépultures de cette période. Enfin, les analyses menées pour obtenir ces datations nous permettent de connaître les données concernant les isotopes stables du Carbone et de l’Azote des deux fossiles. Elles confirment la position élevée dans la chaîne trophique des deux spécimens.Pour citer cette revue : Bull.

Mém. Soc. Anthropol. Paris 24 (2012).

Mots clésEurope · Sépulture · Gravettien · Isotopes stables · Carbone · Azote

The Mid Upper Paleolithic, or Gravettiansensu lato, saw the appearance of a series of elaborate human burials across Europe (Fig. 1), approximately between 29,000 and 24,000 radiocarbon years BP (29–24 ka¹⁴C BP). They are charac- terized in most cases by variable numbers of beads of animal teeth, shells and/or ivory, occasional mobilary art objects, and the frequent presence of red ochre, on either the whole body or selected anatomical regions [1,2]. These burials are known principally from the Italian peninsula and the upper Danube drainage, but they also occur in Atlantic Europe and the eastern European plain (Fig. 1). They represent one of

M. Dobrovolskaya (*)

Institute of Archaeology of RAS, Dm. Ulianova str. 19, Moscow 117036, Russia

e-mail : [email protected] M.-P. Richards (*)

Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1, Canada

e-mail : [email protected] Department of Human Evolution,

Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103, Leipzig, Germany E. Trinkaus (*)

Department of Anthropology, Washington University, Saint Louis MO 63130, USA

e-mail : [email protected]

(2)

the primary cultural aspects of the Mid Upper Paleolithic, a period with a multitude of cultural developments [3,4].

A similar and contemporaneous burial is also present in eastern Asia [5]. These Gravettian burials contrast with the current absence of documented burials in western Eurasia during the preceding Early Upper Paleolithic (Aurignacian sensu lato), even though Early Upper Paleolithic burials are known from northeastern Africa [6] and possibly eastern Asia [7].

During the past dozen years, there has been a series of attempts to radiometrically date the various Mid Upper Paleolithic (MUP) burials, many of which were excavated decades ago. When possible, these dating attempts have been on the human remains, but in cases in which there is insufficient collagen preserved in the human hard tissue, archeologically associated materials have been used. The resultant burial dates are from Arene Candide, Barma Grande, Paglicci and Santa Maria di Agnano (Ostuni) in Italy, Brno-Francouzská, Dolní Věstonice, Pavlov and Předmostí in the Czech Republic, Cro-Magnon and Cussac in France, Krems-Wachtberg in Austria, Lagar Velho in Portugal, Paviland in Britain, and Kostenki and Sunghir in Russia [8–23]. However, the precision of these dates has been variable in determining the ages of the burials, depend- ing upon whether the dates were direct or on associated materials, the vagaries of geochemical preservation, and

the evolving techniques of radiocarbon sample preparation and dating.

The Sunghir Burials

Among these Gravettian burials, by far the most spectacular are the two burials from the Russian site of Sunghir (56° 08’ N, 40° 25’E; Fig. 1), discovered in 1964 and 1969 [24–26].

Grave I yielded the largely complete skeleton of an older adult male (Sunghir 1), and Grave II contained the well- preserved skeletons of an early adolescent (Sunghir 2) and a late juvenile (Sunghir 3) buried head-to-head, plus an adult femur (Sunghir 4) (Fig. 2). In addition to containing >13,000 mammoth ivory beads, which would have taken >10,000 hours to produce [27], the burials were abundantly covered in red ochre. Grave II in particular contained mobilary art objects, hundreds of fox canines, and ivory spears joining the two, head-to-head, skeletons, plus the Sunghir 4 adult femur shaft filled with ochre. Differing mainly in details, the two burials are remarkably similar culturally and differ from other Mid Upper Paleolithic burials in their exceptional richness. Except for a fatal wound, Sunghir 1 appears to have been largely normal, as does Sunghir 2 [28–30]. However, Sunghir 3 sustained congenital deformities of the femora and other anomalies [29,31,32].

Fig. 1 Map of Europe with the distribution of Mid Upper Paleolithic sites yielding human“red ochre”burials. 1: Sunghir; 2: Kostenki;

3: Moravian sites of Brno-Francouzská, Předmostí, Dolní Věstonice I and II, and Pavlov I; 4: Krems-Wachtburg and Miesslingtal; 5: Mit- tlere Klause; 6: Santa Maria di Agnano (Ostuni) and Veneri (Parabita); 7: Paglicci; 8: Ligurian sites of Arene Candide, Barma Grande, Bausu da Ture, Caviglione and Grotte-des-Enfants; 9: Cro-Magnon and Cussac; 10: Goat’s Hole (Paviland); 11: Lagar Velho /Carte de l’Europe avec la distribution des sépultures « ocrées » du Gravettien : 1 : Sunghir ; 2 : Kostenki ; 3 : gisements Moraviens de Brno- Francouzská, Předmostí, Dolní Věstonice I and II et Pavlov I ; 4 : Krems-Wachtburg et Miesslingtal ; 5 : Mittlere Klause ; 6 : Santa Maria di Agnano (Ostuni) et Veneri (Parabita) ; 7 : Paglicci ; 8 : gisements Liguriens d’Arene Candide, Barma Grande, Bausu da Ture, Caviglione et Grotte-des-Enfants ; 9 : Cro-Magnon et Cussac ; 10 : Goat’s Hole (Paviland) ; 11 : Lagar Velho

(3)

The dating issues relevant to Gravettian burials in general have applied in particular to the Sunghir burials. The archeological levels, with which the Sunghir burials are associated, have yielded a large series of radiocarbon dates that place the levels between ~26 and ~29 ka¹⁴C BP (Table 1).

All but one of these dates are conventional dates on bone, but the one accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) date, OxA-9039, falls in the middle of the GIN (Geological Insti- tute, Moscow) conventional dates, giving confidence to the previous GIN determinations. The dates do not distinguish

the MUP stratigraphic levels at the site, suggesting that the levels accumulated within a relatively short period of time.

At the same time, conventional radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the bottom of the Sunghir 1 burial (Grave I) produced a significantly younger pair of dates, ~22 ka¹⁴C BP (Table 2); even at two standard deviations, these Sunghir 1 burial dates are ~2,000 years younger than the youngest of the faunal dates.

The first AMS direct dates on the Sunghir burials were run by Pettitt and Bader [10], using a modified Longin technique [33] for sample preparation [34,35]. In this, the bone is powdered (through drilling), decalcified in 0.5 M hydrochloric acid (HCl) at room temperature, rinsed in 0.1 M NaOH and then filtered, gelatinized, and then passed though an ion- exchange column before being lyophilized [35]. Those determinations yielded dates of ~23 ka¹⁴C BP for Sunghir 1 and significantly older dates of ~24 ka ¹⁴C BP for the Sunghir 2 and 3 burial; the direct dates on Sunghir 2 and 3 were reassuringly within two standard deviations of each other (Table 2). Of concern, these determinations dated the two Sunghir graves substantially apart from each other in time, something which appeared unreasonable given their Fig. 2 Drawings of the Sunghir Mid Upper Paleolithic burials. Left:

Grave I with Sunghir 1. Right: Grave II with Sunghir 2 (above) and Sunghir 3 (below); the Sunghir 4 human femur is adjacent to the left humerus of Sunghir 2. Drawing courtesy of N.O. Bader, Institute of Archaeology of RAS /Dessins des sépultures Gravettiennes de Sunghir. À gauche : sépulture I avec Sunghir 1. À droite : sépulture II aves Sunghir 2 (en haut) et Sunghir 3 (en bas) ; le fémur humain de Sunghir 4 est à côté de l’humérus gauche de Sunghir 2. Dessin de NO Bader, institut d’archéologie du RAS

Table 1 Radiocarbon determinations for faunal remains from Sunghir /Datations C¹⁴des restes fauniques de Sunghir, d’après Sulerzhitskiet al. [11]

Laboratory Number

Material Dated Horizon Date (¹⁴C BP) GIN-8995 Mammoth–femur 3 26,300 ± 260 GIN-9034 Horse–5 fragments 3-4? 26,300 ± 300 GIN-9030 Mammoth–femur 1 26,600 ± 300 GIN-9035 Deer–vertebra -- 26,900 ± 260 GIN-9591 Mammoth–

tubular bone

-- 27,000 ± 320 GIN-9027 Mammoth–ulna -- 27,200 ± 400 GIN-9586 Mammoth–femur 3 27,200 ± 500 GIN-9036 Deer–vertebra -- 27,260 ± 500 GIN-9033 Horse–6 fragments -- 27,400 ± 400 OxA-9039 Mammoth–

tubular bone

4 27,460 ± 310 GIN-9031 Mammoth–femur 2 27,630 ± 280 GIN-5880 Mammoth–humerus -- 27,700 ± 500 GIN-9588 Mammoth–vertebra -- 27,800 ± 600 GIN-8997 Mammoth–femur -- 28,000 ± 250 GIN-9029 Mammoth–femur 2 28,000 ± 300 GIN-8999 Mammoth–humerus 3 28,120 ± 170 GIN-8996 Mammoth–femur -- 28,130 ± 370 GIN-9032 Mammoth–femur 1 28,350 ± 200 GIN-9028 Mammoth–ulna 3 28,800 ± 240 Modified from Sulerzhitski et al. [11].

(4)

remarkable cultural similarities and proximity in the site [11,25]. Moreover, these dates continued to place them substantially later than the abundant faunal dates for the cultural levels.

Subsequently, Kuzmin and colleagues [17] provided new determinations for the Sunghir burials, dating vertebral fragments from Sunghir 1 and rib fragments from Sunghir 2 and 3. They employed a sample preparation technique that involved collagen extraction using slow demineralization of whole bone fragments in weak (5%) hydrochloric acid at a temperature of 2–3°C for several days. This pretreatment, however, did not include any gelatinization or filtra- tion steps. The resultant determinations for the Grave II skeletal remains have modal values between 26 and 27 ka

14C BP (Table 2), and hence, they fall within the range of dates available for the Sunghir faunal remains. The Grave I result, however, at ~19 ka¹⁴C BP, is the youngest of the determinations for Sunghir 1, even younger than the original conventional dates on charcoal from the bottom of the burial.

With these results in mind, which placed the two remarkably similar burials substantially apart in time and/or provided a contrast with the long series of dates on the associated faunal remains, we attempted to provide new direct radiocarbon dates for the spectacular Sunghir burials.

Materials and methods

The dated human fossil samples consist of femoral (Sun- ghir 1) and humeral (Sunghir 3) bone sampled at the Labo- ratory of Anthropology and Ethnology, Russian Academy of

Sciences, Moscow, through the permission of T. Balueva.

They were obtained by D. Serre originally for ancient DNA analysis (samples SP-997 and SP-998, respectively).

They were then made available to MPR by S. Pääbo for isotopic analysis and radiocarbon dating. The associated faunal samples from the Sunghir excavated remains derive from the collections of the State Geological Museum, Moscow, and they were collected by MD with the permission of N.M. Kandynov.

Bone collagen was extracted from the Sunghir 1 and 3 and the faunal samples in the Department of Human Evo- lution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig. Whole bone pieces were fully demineralized in 0.5 M HCl at 5˚C, then gelatinized at 57˚C for 48 hours, and then filtered through a 5-μm filter [36]. The resulting collagen was then ultrafiltered [37], and the >30 kDa fraction was lyophilized for 48 hours. Ultrafiltration removes the small- molecular-weight collagen fraction, and it has been shown to produce dates that are older and/or more precise than with alternative AMS pretreatment techniques that do not include ultrafiltration [38]. All glassware was sterile, and the filters were pre-rinsed to remove any carbon contaminants.

The purified collagen samples from the Sunghir 1 and 3 human remains were submitted to the Leibniz Laboratory at the University of Kiel for AMS radiocarbon dating. Note that all sample preparation was done at the Max Planck Insti- tute, prior to submission for AMS¹⁴C dating. Isotopic and associated quality control measurements were made on the collagen extracts to determine their quality, and both of the human samples, as well as the faunal samples, fulfilled the acceptable criteria for collagen [39,40] in both the C:N ratios Table 2 Previous associated and direct radiocarbon dates of the Sunghir human remains /Datations C¹⁴précédentes de, directes et associées, des restes humains de Sunghir.

Laboratory Number Material Dated Date (¹⁴C BP) Reference

Sunghir 1

GIN-326a Charcoal from the floor of the burial 21,800 ± 1,000 [11]

GIN-326b Charcoal from the floor of the burial 22,500 ± 600 [11]

OxA-9036 Tibia fragments 22,930 ± 200 [10]

AA-36473 Vertebra fragments 19,160 ± 270 [17]

Sunghir 2

AA-36474 Right ribs 27,210 ± 710 [17]

AA-36475 Left ribs 26,200 ± 640 [17]

Sunghir 3

AA-36476 Rib fragments 26,190 ± 640 [17]

Note that Sunghir 2 and 3 were part of the same burial and should therefore be strictly contemporaneous. Sunghir 1 was buried sepa- rately but in close proximity /Noter que Sunghir 2 et 3 sont dans la même sépulture et devraient donc être strictement contem- poraines. Sunghir 1 était enterré séparément mais à côté

(5)

and the %C and %N values (Table 3). In particular, the %C and %N are close to the values of modern collagen, and the C:N atomic mass ratios are all well within the acceptable range of 2.9 to 3.6 [39].

Results Bone Chemistry

All of the Sunghir samples provide %C, %N, and especially C:N ratios that are well within the acceptable collagen criteria for well-preserved collagen (Table 3). These values are reinforced by the moderately positive carbon stable isotope (δ¹³C) values (–18.7‰to–19.8‰). The nitrogen stable isotope (δ¹⁵N) results, which generally indicate the trophic level of the individual, are as expected for the species in question. Theδ¹⁵N of 5.6‰and 5.7‰for the red deer (Cervus elaphus) are normal for herbivores, and the 4‰ higher value for the wolf (Canis lupus) is to be expected given the 3‰ to 5‰ higher values for collagen over that of an organism’s dietary protein [41–43]. Indeed, given the modest shifts inδ¹³C between tropic levels [42], the slight shift between the red deer and the wolves in δ¹³C values (Table 3), and the ~4‰difference inδ¹⁵N values, it would be reasonable to infer that at least this Sunghir wolf obtained most of its protein from similar red deer.

The humanδ¹³C values conform to the values seen in the associated fauna. As elsewhere among MUP humans, the δ¹⁵N values are substantially higher than the herbivores and modestly higher than those of carnivores such as the Sunghir wolf . The δ¹³C values here for Sunghir 1 and 3 are slightly more negative than those previously reported (–19.2‰and–18.9‰respectively), and theδ¹⁵N values are slightly lower than the earlier values (11.3‰for both individuals) [44]. The differences are minor and may largely reflect the differences in sample preparation (i.e., the use of

ultrafiltration here). The Sunghir 1 and 3 δ¹⁵N values are within the range of values for central and western European MUP individuals (10.4–13.1‰; 11.8 ± 1.0‰, N = 7) [45], but they are modestly lower than the three available for Early Upper Paleolithic Europeans (12.3‰, 12.4‰, and 13.3‰) [46]. They suggest a relatively high trophic level for the Sun- ghir individuals, a pattern consistent with the data available from earlier Upper Paleolithic modern humans from across Eurasia [46,47].

These bone chemistry and stable isotope values therefore provide confidence that the collagen from the Sunghir 1 and 3 appendicular remains was appropriately and thoroughly purified for isotopic analysis and radiocarbon dating.

Radiocarbon Dating

The resultant AMS radiocarbon determinations for Sunghir 1 and 3 are 27,050 ± 210 ¹⁴C BP (KIA-27006) and 26,000 ± 410 ¹⁴C BP (KIA-27007), respectively. At two standard deviations, the dates are statistically the same, even though the average value for Sunghir 1 is 1,000 years older. These dates therefore reinforce what has been main- tained given the cultural similarities of Graves I and II and their in situ proximity, that they were indeed roughly contemporaneous.

The Sunghir 3 date agrees closely with the Kuzmin et al.

[17] dates for the Sunghir 2 and 3 double burial, being essen- tially the same as AA-36475 and AA-36476 and within two standard deviations of AA-354474 (Table 2). The date is also within the range of the dates for the Sunghir faunal remains (Table 1), albeit at the younger end of that range. As with the Kuzmin et al. [17] determinations, it is substantially older than the Pettitt and Bader [10] dates.

The Sunghir 1 date of ~27 ka¹⁴C BP is especially impor- tant, since it is the first of the determinations on that burial that places it within the same time range as the Grave II double burial and the faunal remains from the site.

Table 3 Isotopic data from the Sunghir human and faunal remains /Résultats des analyses isotopiques des restes humains et fauniques de Sunghir.

Sample No. Species δ¹³C^a δ¹⁵N^a C:N %C %N

Sunghir 1 (SP-997) Homo sapiens –19.5 10.7 3.1 44.5 16.8

Sunghir 3 (SP-998) Homo sapiens –19.6 11.0 3.5 44.0 14.8

Sunghir 266/853 Canis lupus –19.8 9.8 3.3 41.4 14.8

Sunghir 266/753 Cervus elaphus –19.3 5.7 3.2 43.1 15.6

aδ¹³C is measured relative to the VPDB standard, andδ¹⁵N is measured relative to the AIR standard. Errors on theδ¹³C andδ¹⁵N values are <0.2‰.

(6)

Discussion and Conclusion

It is hoped that these direct radiocarbon determinations on the Grave I Sunghir 1 adult skeleton and on one of the Grave II immature skeletons will serve to establish their geological ages at approximately 26–27 ka ¹⁴C BP. Since these dates are unlikely to be too old for the true ages of the remains, given that contamination often makes radiocarbon determinations too young, they should be sufficient to establish that they were roughly, if not strictly, contemporaneous, and that these individuals were buried at the site during its principal MUP occupation between ~26 and ~29 ka¹⁴C BP.

These determinations for the Sunghir burials also place them within the general chronological range of the majority of the central and western European “red ochre” burials, most of which have direct or associated radiocarbon ages between ~24 and ~28 ka¹⁴C BP (only Paviland appears to be modestly older) (see references above). Although some of these“red ochre”burials should be re-dated given dates done earlier using different pretreatment techniques and/or uncer- tainties in the associations of the dated materials and the burials, the accumulating evidence, including now that from Sunghir, is serving to place these elaborate burials of the “hunters of the golden age” [4] into a moderately narrow time frame. It is hoped that additional radiometric assessments of these ages of Gravettian internments will further clarify their distribution in time, as well as in space.

It will also permit further consideration of the social implications of these burials, who was buried, who was not, and how differential treatment of the dead might reflect on these Late Pleistocene European foragers [cf., 1, 2, 30, 48, 49].

Acknowledgments:T. Balueva (Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Moscow) permitted the sampling of the Sun- ghir human remains, and N.M. Kandynov (State Geological Museum, Moscow) provided access to the associated faunal collections. The human samples were originally taken for aDNA analysis by D. Serre and S. Pääbo (Max Planck Insti- tute). A.P. Buzhilova (Moscow State University) provided assistance with the project. The research was funded by the Max Planck Society. To all we are grateful.

References

1. Formicola V (2007) From the Sunghir children to the Romito dwarf. Aspects of the Upper Paleolithic funerary landscape.

Curr Anthropol 48:446–53

2. Zilhão J, Trinkaus E (2002) Social implications. In: Zilhão J, Trinkaus E (eds) Portrait of the Artist as a Child. The Gravettian Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its Arche- ological Context. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 22:519–41

3. Knecht H, Pike-Tay A, White R (eds) (1993) Before Lascaux, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 304 p

4. Roebroeks W, Mussi M, Svoboda J, et al (eds) (2000) Hunters of the Golden Age, University of Leiden Press, Leiden, 410 p 5. Norton CJ, Gao X (2008) Zhoukoudian Upper Cave revisited.

Curr Anthropol 49:732–45

6. Vermeersch PM (2002) Two Upper Palaeolithic burials at Nazlet Khater. In: Vermeersch PM (ed) Palaeolithic Quarrying Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt. Leuven University Press, Leuven, pp 273–82

7. Shang H, Trinkaus E (2010) The Early Modern Human from Tianyuan Cave, China, Texas A&M University Press, College Station TX, 245 p

8. Mallegni F (1992) Squelette de femme d’une sépulture des couches gravetiennes de la Grotta Paglicci près de Rignano Garga- nico (Pouilles, Italie): Paglicci 25. Riv Antropol 70:209–16 9. Vacca E, Coppola D (1993) The Upper Paleolithic burials at the

cave of Santa Maria di Agnano (Ostuni, Brindisi): preliminary report. Riv Antropol 71:275–84

10. Pettitt PB, Bader NO (2000) Direct AMS radiocarbon dates for the Sungir mid Upper Palaeolithic burials. Antiquity 74:269–70 11. Sulerzhitski LD, Pettitt PB, Bader NO (2000) Radiocarbon dates

of the remains from the settlement Sunghir (in Russian with English summary). In: Alexeeva TI, Bader NO, Munchaev RM, et al (eds)Homo sungirensis. Upper Palaeolithic Man: ecological and evolutionary aspects of the investigation. Scientific World, Moscow, pp 30–4

12. Pettitt PB, Trinkaus E (2000) Direct radiocarbon dating of the Brno 2 Gravettian human remains. Anthropol (Brno) 38:149–50 13. Aujoulat N, Geneste JM, Archambeau C, et al (2002) La grotte

ornée de Cussac — Le Buisson-de-Cadouin (Dordogne) : pre- mières observations. Bull Soc Prehist Fr 99:129–37

14. Henry-Gambier D (2002) Les fossiles de Cro-Magnon (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne) : nouvelles données sur leur position chronologique et leur attribution culturelle. Bull Mem Soc Anthropol Paris 14:89–112

15. Pettitt PB, van der Plicht H, Ramsey CR, et al (2002) The radiocarbon chronology. In: Zilhão J,Trinkaus E (eds) Portrait of the Artist as a Child. The Gravettian Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its Archeological Context. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 22:132–8

16. Formicola V, Pettitt PB, del Lucchese A (2004) A direct AMS radiocarbon date on the Barma Grande 6 Upper Paleolithic skeleton. Curr Anthropol 45:114–8

17. Kuzmin YV, Burr GC, Jull ATJ, et al (2004) AMS¹⁴C age of the Upper Palaeolithic skeletons from Sungir site, central Russian Plain. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 223B–4B:731–4

18. Sinitsyn A (2004) Les sépultures de Kostenki: chronologie, attribution culturelle, rite funéraire. Études et Recherches Archéolo- giques de l’Université de Liège 106:237–44

19. Einwögerer T, Friesinger H, Händel M, et al (2006) Upper Palaeolithic infant burials. Nature 444:285

20. Svoboda JA (2006) The archeological contexts of the human remains. In: Trinkaus E, Svoboda JA (eds) Early Modern Human Evolution in Central Europe: the people of Dolní Vĕsto- nice and Pavlov. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 9–14 21. Svoboda JA (2008) The Upper Paleolithic burial area at Pře-

dmostí: ritual and taphonomy. J Hum Evol 54:15–33

22. Jacobi RM, Higham TFG (2008) The ‘‘Red Lady’’ages grace- fully: new ultrafiltration AMS determinations from Paviland.

J Hum Evol 55:898–907

23. Pettitt PB, Richards MP, Maggi R, et al (2003) The Gravettian burial known as the Prince (‘Il Principe’): new evidence for his age and diet. Antiquity 295:15–9

24. Zubov AA, Kharitonov VM (eds) (1984) Sunghir. Anthropological research (in Russian).“Nauka”, Moscow, 213 p

(7)

25. Bader ON (1998) Sungir. Palaeolithic burials (in Russian). In:

Bader NO (ed) Upper Palaeolithic Site Sungir (graves and environment). Scientific World, Moscow, pp 5–160

26. Alexeeva TI, Bader NO, Munchaev RM, et al (eds) (2000) Homo Sungirensis. Upper Palaeolithic Man: ecological and evolutionary aspects of the investigation (in Russian with English summaries).

Scientific World, Moscow, 468 p

27. White R (1999) Intégrer le contexte social et opérationnel : la con- struction matérielle de l’identité sociale à Sungir. In: Camps- Fabrer H (ed) Préhistoire d’os: recueil d’études sur l’industrie osseuse préhistorique. Publications de l’université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, pp 319–31

28. Buzhilova AP (2000) Palaeopathological analysis of the adult Sunghir man (in Russian with English summary). In: Alexeeva TI, Bader NO, Munchaev RM, et al (eds) Homo sungirensis.

Upper Palaeolithic Man: ecological and evolutionary aspects of the investigation. Scientific World, Moscow, pp 227–234 29. Buzhilova AP (2000) The analysis of anomalies and indicators of

physiological stress in non-mature Sunghir individuals (in Russian with English summary). In: Alexeeva TI, Bader NO, Munchaev RM, et al (eds) Homo sungirensis. Upper Palaeolithic Man:

ecological and evolutionary aspects of the investigation. Scientific World, Moscow, pp 302–14

30. Trinkaus E, Buzhilova AP (2011) The death and burial of Sunghir 1. Int J Osteoarchaeol doi 10.1002/oa.1227.

31. Formicola V, Buzhilova AP (2004) Double child burial from Sunghir (Russia): pathology and inferences for Upper Paleolithic funerary practices. Am J Phys Anthropol 124:189–98

32. Buzhilova AP (2005) The environment and health condition of the Upper Palaeolithic Sunghir people of Russia. J Physiol Anthropol ApplHuman Sci 24:413–8

33. Longin R (1971) New method for collagen extraction for radiocarbon dating. Nature 230:241–2

34. Hedges REM, Law IA, Bronk CR, et al (1989) The Oxford accelerator mass spectrometry facility: technical developments in routine dating, Archaeometry 31:99–114

35. Law IA, Hedges REM (1989) A semi-automated bone pretreatment system and the pretreatment of older and contaminated samples. Radiocarbon 31:247–53

36. Richards MP, Hedges REM (1999) Stable isotope evidence for similarities in the types of marine foods used by Late Mesolithic

humans at sites along the Atlantic coast of Europe. J Archaeol Sci 26:717–22

37. Brown T, Nelson D, Vogel J, et al (1988) Improved collagen extraction by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30:171–7 38. Higham TFG, Jacobi RM, Ramsey CR (2006) AMS radiocarbon

dating of ancient bone using ultrafiltration. Radiocarbon 48:179–95 39. DeNiro MJ (1985) Post-mortem preservation and alteration of in vivo bone collagen isotope ratios in relation to paleodietary reconstruction. Nature 317:806–9

40. Ambrose SH (1990) Preparation and characterization of bone and tooth collagen for stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis.

J Archaeol Sci 17:431–51

41. Schoeninger M, DeNiro M (1984) Nitrogen and carbon isotopic composition of bone collagen from marine and terrestrial ani- mals. Geochim Cosmochim Ac 48:625–39

42. Bocherens H, Drucker D (2003) Trophic level isotopic enrich- ment of carbon and nitrogen in bone collagen: case studies from recent and ancient terrestrial ecosystems. Int J Osteoarchaeol 13:46–53

43. Hedges REM, Reynard LM (2007) Nitrogen isotopes and the trophic level of humans in archaeology. J Archaeol Sci 34:1240–51 44. Richards MP, Pettitt PB, Stiner MC, et al (2001) Stable isotope evidence for increasing dietary breadth in the European mid-Upper Paleolithic. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:6528–32

45. Trinkaus E, Soficaru A, DoboşA, et al (2009) Stable isotope evidence for early modern human diet in southeastern Europe:

Peştera cu Oase, Peştera Muierii and Peştera Cioclovina Uscată. Materialeşi Cercetări Arheologice 5:4–14

46. Richards MP, Trinkaus E (2009) Isotopic evidence for the diets of European Neanderthals and early modern humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:16034–9

47. Hu Y, Shang H, Tong H, et al (2009) Stable isotope dietary analysis of the Tianyuan 1 early modern human. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:10971–4

48. Zilhão J (2005) Burial evidence for social differentiation of age classes in the Early Upper Paleolithic. Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 111:231–41

49. Trinkaus E, Svoboda J, Wojtal P, et al (2010) Human remains from the Moravian Gravettian: Morphology and taphonomy of additional elements from Dolní Vĕstonice II and Pavlov I. Int J Osteoarchaeol 20:645–69