Commentary Technological differences between Kostenki 17/II (Spitsynskaya industry, Central Russia) and the Protoaurignacian: Reply to Dinnis et al. (2019) Guido Bataille a, b, * , Armando Falcucci b, c , Yvonne Tafelmaier b , Nicholas J. Conard b, d a Landesamt für Denkmalpflege im Regierungspr€ asidium Stuttgart (State Office for Cultural Heritage Baden-Wuerttemberg), Management UNESCO- Welterbe “H€ ohlen und Eiszeitkunst der Schw€ abischen Alb” (Management UNESCO World Heritage “Caves and Ice Age Art in the Swabian Jura”), Kirchplatz 10, D-89143 Blaubeuren, Germany b Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, University of Tübingen, Schloss Hohentübingen, D-72070 Tübingen, Germany c DFG Center for Advanced Studies “Words, Bones, Genes, Tools”, University of Tübingen, Rümelinstraße 23, D-72070 Tübingen, Germany d Tübingen-Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Paleoecology, Schloss Hohentübingen, D-72070 Tübingen, Germany article info Article history: Received 2 May 2019 Accepted 26 September 2019 Available online xxx Keywords: Aurignacian Lithic technology Fumane Labeko Koba Arbreda Aquitaine model 1. Introduction 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 Kos- tenki 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. Moreover, they assumed a pan-European validity of the Aquitaine model, neglecting regional peculiarities and developments during the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. In our view, the Proto- aurignacian association of Kostenki 17/II and the general adoption of the Western European chronocultural system fails due to severe technological and typological inconsistencies (Table 1). Our arguments, as presented in the following, are based on our own empiric analyses of Protoaurignacian and Aurignacian assem- blages from Eastern, Central, Southern and Western Europe, and especially the sequences of Kostenki 17 and Kostenki 14. Despite its chronological position, Dinnis et al.'s (2019) arguments for a Proto- aurignacian attribution of Kostenki 17/II are based merely on the ty- pology of a few retouched bladelets and purported technological affinities: (1) the presence of six retouched bladelets with straight profiles and the absence of curved and/or twisted bladelets; (2) “two previously unrecognized pieces that meet the typological criteria for Dufour bladelets” with alternate retouch and straight profiles (Dufour subtype; Dinnis et al., 2019: SOM S2, p. 2); (3) a mainly unidirectional blade production, which is said to be typical for Protoaurignacian assemblages; and (4) a generally “good agreement-chronologically and in terms of the modified bladelets produced” of “the early EUP assemblages from Kostenki 1, Kostenki 14 and Kostenki 17 […] with the archaeological record further west in Europe” (Dinnis et al., 2019: 35). The retouched bladelets have been identified in the “entire available part of Boriskovskii's lithic collection” stored in the “Institute for the History of Material Culture” (St. Petersburg) and Dinnis and colleagues have subsequently associated them with the lower layer II of Kostenki 17 decades after the excavation campaigns in 1953 and 1955 (Dinnis et al., 2019: 26). For details of the discovery of the Dufour bladelets see Dinnis et al. (2019: SOM S2). Dinnis et al.'s (2019) arguments for an Early Aurignacian asso- ciation of Kostenki 1/III and Kostenki 14/LVA are as follows: (1) the presence of one supposed “strangulated blade” in Kostenki 1/III in addition to “pieces bearing heavy Aurignacian-type retouch”, and “carinated-scraper-cores with debitage faces sufficiently wide that * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: guido.bataille@ifu.uni-tuebingen.de, guido.bataille@rps.bwl. de (G. Bataille). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102685 0047-2484/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx Please cite this article as: Bataille, G et al., Technological differences between Kostenki 17/II (Spitsynskaya industry, Central Russia) and the Protoaurignacian: Reply to Dinnis et al. (2019), Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102685