Introduction Understanding of "an Aurignacian phenomenon" in the frames of Early Upper Paleolithic period of the Old World Prehistory has, without question, a crucial importance in modern Paleolithic archaeology. It is connected to the fol- lowing main basic reasons: its "very true" Upper Paleolithic industrial characteristics with no archaeologi- cally visible preceding them Middle Paleolithic traits, high likelihood of its anthropological association with Homo sapiens and, finally, occurrence of sites with Aurignacian archaeological levels in diverse places of Europe, Middle and Near East. In the context of European Early Upper Paleolithic, Aurignacian is the most intrigu- ing by its two aspects. On one hand, Aurignacian com- plexes are known virtually all throughout Europe chrono- logically from the very beginning of Early Upper Paleolithic time period ( ca. 37-36 000 - 30 000 BP) that means a very quick, in historical terms, spreading of their cultural traditions bearers through the Continent. On the other hand, there are different non-Aurignacian Early Upper Paleolithic industries literally in each European particular region co-existing in one and the same time with Aurignacian industries. Moreover, these non- Aurignacian complexes ( e.g. Chatelperronian, Uluzzian, Szeletian) are assumed to be products of Neanderthal local European population, while Aurignacian Homo sapi- ens are mostly considered as representing non-European newcomers. Because of this anthropological situation, problems of an interaction between non-Aurignacian and Aurignacian populations and, what is more, a possible cultural influence of Homo sapiens on Neanderthals are highly debatable and still far from a final resolution. So, not all dots on "i" are not yet put for elucidation of the Aurignacian role during the Early Upper Paleolithic time in Europe and "Bataille Aurignacienne" still continues (see d'Errico et al. 1998; Zilhão, d'Errico 1999). While these issues are not discussed here, it is worth noting one of the basic biases for Pan-European analyses of the prob- lems: the vast territories of Eastern Europe are not includ- ed in these encompassing studies and, therefore, they simply represent "a blank spot" on European maps in this regard ( e.g. Mellars 1989: fig. 3; 1996: fig. 13.10; Zilhão, d'Errico 1999: fig. 17; Straus 1995: fig. 1). The main rea- son of this situation is explained by basically not a good knowledge of the Eastern European Upper Paleolithic and particularly of the Eastern European Aurignacian among the Western archaeologists thoroughgoing even some- times till claiming on a complete absence of Aurignacian sensu stricto industries in this part of Europe (e.g. Hoffecker 1988). Thus, none of the modern concepts on the European Early Aurignacian do not usually go beyond "an iron curtain" of the western border of the former Soviet Union. As a rule, the same is true for the whole Aurignacian of Eastern Europe. But time goes on and it has become clear that Aurignacian industries are present in Eastern Europe. But for proving that, it is needed to use only very definite Aurignacian assemblages and not to confuse them either with non-Aurignacian complexes having just a few, most- ly atypical Aurignacian tool types and/or Epi-Aurignacian assemblages then grouping them under the industrially uncertain term "Aurignacoid Route of Development" ( e.g. Anikovich 1992) or with various Upper Paleolithic com- plexes named as "Aurignacian" only because of some "specialists" personal desires to define Aurignacian indu- stries for some ill-founded speculations on the Middle- Upper Paleolithic transition period in Eastern Europe with not even actual knowledge of how real Aurignacian core and tool types look like ( e.g. Cohen, Stepanchuk 1999; 2000). Thus, we really need in etalon-like Aurignacian complexes from Eastern Europe with close comparisons in the West (Western and Central Europe) where industri- al characteristics of Aurignacian assemblages are well- elaborated and defined. A good starting point for such the researches can serve materials of Siuren-I rock-shelter (Crimea). The rock-shelter was first investigated as long ago as in 1879 - 1880, then it is became well-known after researches of 1926 - 1929 (Bonch-Osmolowski 1934; Vekilova 1957), and last time was excavated very recent- ly in 1994 - 1997 (Demidenko et al. 1998; Demidenko 1998; 1999; 2000; 2001; Demidenko, Otte this volume). According to their industrial and chronological indica- 147 THE EUROPEAN EARLY AURIGNACIAN OF KREMS-DUFOUR TYPE INDUSTRIES : A VIEW FROM EASTERN EUROPE Yu. E. Demidenko * * Dr. Yu. E. Demidenko, Crimean Branch of Institute of Archaeology National Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine, Yaltinskaya St. 2, Simferopol 95007, Crimea, UKRAINE. E-mail: <demidenko@mail-in.net> Préhistoire Européenne, volumes 16 - 17 / 2000 - 2001, p. 147 à 162.