Next Article in Journal
Discover the Acoustics of Vanvitelli Architecture in the Royal Palace of Caserta
Next Article in Special Issue
Diagnostic Methods Used in Detecting Multiple Myeloma in Paleopathological Research—A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
Bridging Creative Industries and Museums: Collaborative Pathways for Sustainable Development
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploitation, Transport, and Circulation of the Rohri Hills Chert (Sindh, Pakistan) during the Indus Period
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 8
Issue 4
10.3390/heritage8040141
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Aurignacian Assemblage from the Island of Lemnos (Greece): Some Aspects of the Beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in the Northeast Aegean

by
Paolo Biagi
1,*,
Elisabetta Starnini
2,*,
Yulia Agafonova
3,
Nikos Efstratiou
3,
Nicola Campomenosi
4 and
Roberto Cabella
4
1
Department of Asian and North African Studies, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, 30125 Venice, Italy
2
Department of Civilizations and Forms of Knowledge, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy
3
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece
4
Department of Earth, Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Genova, 16132 Genova, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2025, 8(4), 141; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8040141
Submission received: 13 March 2025 / Revised: 7 April 2025 / Accepted: 11 April 2025 / Published: 15 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Archaeology and Anthropology of the Ancient World)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The discovery of an Aurignacian lithic assemblage along the northern coast of the Island of Lemnos in the northeastern Aegean Sea has opened new perspectives on the study of the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in this region. The site is located some 93 m from the present seashore. It was discovered in the summer of 2020, ca. 2 km west of the Pournias Bay. The lithics were exposed in a well-defined oval concentration, ca. 25 × 10 m wide, buried by a Holocene sand dune. They were uncovered following sand removal by a bulldozer for the construction of a parking lot. The knapped stones are made almost exclusively from hydrothermal siliceous rocks, a raw material available on the island. Raman spectroscopy and optical observations confirmed that this raw material is chalcedony. The surfaces of most artefacts are weathered due to deposition in an environment rich in marine salt, which does not preserve any organic material suitable for radiocarbon dating. The knapped stone assemblage consists of diagnostic artefacts, among which are different types of carinated end scrapers, cores, and a few bladelets. The discovery of an Aurignacian site plays an important role in the study of the Paleolithic peopling of Lemnos and the Northeast Aegean in general, a period that was previously known only through Epipaleolithic sites discovered and excavated mainly along the eastern coast of the island.

1. Introduction

Surveys carried out by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki over the last decades on the island of Lemnos have led to the discovery of a few Epipaleolithic open-air sites, most of which are located along the eastern coast of the island [1]. Moreover, the presence of knappable stone outcrops has yielded evidence of local raw material availability and their exploitation over different periods of prehistory [2].
The island of Lemnos (presently 475.6 km2) is located in the northeastern Aegean Sea, very close to the Anatolian coastline, from which it is separated by a sea stretch, a maximum of 100 m deep and 62 km wide, as the crow flies. The most recent reconstruction of the Holocene relative sea level (RSL) in this Aegean coastal sector, located within the South Marmara microplate, is consistent with a continuous RSL rise in the last 6.0 ka BP across the whole NE Aegean Sea [3]. This is consistent with the glacio-hydro-isostatic curves available for the area [4,5,6]. The continuous rise in sea level after the Younger Dryas separated Lemnos from the Anatolian mainland, but during the Last Glacial Period, the island was connected to the western coast of Anatolia [7,8], easy to access for the Upper Paleolithic hunters.
The objective of this paper is to present and discuss an early Upper Paleolithic Aurignacian knapped stone assemblage [9] discovered during the surveys carried out in the summers of 2020 and 2021 along the northern coast of the island, some 2 km west of the Bay of Pournias (Figure 1).
To date, a few Aegean islands have yielded lithic assemblages attributed to different Paleolithic periods [10], shedding some light on the Pleistocene peopling of the Aegean [11,12]. According to some authors, these finds show that seafaring was practiced during some Paleolithic periods [13,14]. This issue has been widely debated, although the Paleolithic sites are few and mostly undated. In contrast, information regarding sea level changes is detailed, at least for the entire Upper Paleolithic ([6], Figure 4). The discovery of an Aurignacian assemblage in Lemnos is intriguing. This cultural aspect, which is related to the spread of the first modern humans towards Europe [15,16,17,18,19], is poorly known in Anatolia [20,21] and Greece [22,23], as it is in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula [24]. This is why the site of Pournias plays an important role in the Pleistocene archaeology of the Aegean and southern Europe in general.

2. The Pournias Site

The Paleolithic open-air site of Pournias is located ca. 93 m from the present shoreline. It lies in an area of Holocene sand dunes ([25], XII Figure 1), which are partially fixed
The site was exposed during the construction of a parking lot and an earthen road that leads from the interior to the beach. On this occasion, the topmost part of the sand dune was partially removed with a bulldozer, revealing the presence of a reddish-brown paleosol with a cluster of knapped stone artefacts (see Figure 2), which were discovered during the June 2020 surveys. The coordinates of the central point of the concentration of artefacts, which extends in a southwest–northeast direction over a surface area of ca. 25 m × 10 m, are 39°57′31.40″ N, 25°16′11.97″ E; the altitude is 6 m a.s.l.
Two seasons of surface collection were carried out in 2020 and 2021 (Figure 3). Each artefact was precisely positioned with the aid of a GPS and numbered in sequence (see Supplementary Materials, Table S1). Data were then incorporated into QGIS 3.22 software for spatial analysis. It was thus possible to build high resolution distribution maps (Figure 4 and Figure 5), which suggest the presence of a dense lithic cluster and a potential site [26,27].
Most lithics were recovered lying flat on the exposed east–west inclined surface of the sandy soil (Figure 2a,b). The distribution maps show the concentration of all knapped stones collected in the two fieldwork seasons (Figure 5b). Unfortunately, no other artefacts, such as bone tools, or organic materials, like faunal remains, mollusks, or charcoal, have been found in association with lithics. Some artefacts were likely slightly moved when the surface of the dune was removed. However, it seems that they have only recently been exposed due to the rain-induced erosion of the soil covering them. To date, the site has never been test-trenched or excavated. Besides the concentration of lithic artefacts, one isolated end scraper (KOT000) was collected during a visit in September 2022, a few meters north of the site. Its coordinates were taken with a GPS device produced by Garmin Ltd., Olathe, KS, USA (39°57′33.5″ N-25°16′14.0″ E: Supplementary Materials, Table S1). This find shows that the site likely originally extended beyond the present exposed surface and part of it may still be buried beneath the sand dunes. Considering the scarcity of information regarding the Upper Paleolithic peopling of this part of the Aegean, we believe that it is important to report the discovery of this assemblage to the scientific community.
The collected artefacts were later stored and studied at the Myrina Archaeological Museum.

3. Materials and Methods

During the different fieldwork years, the lithic finds were labeled with the prefixes PII (i.e., Pournias II, site 3, 2020 season) and KOT (i.e., Kotsinas, 2021 season). The PII collection covers artefacts from #65 to #177, and the KOT collection covers artefacts from #129 to #182, for a total of 185 pieces weighing 825.27 g.
A preliminary analysis of the knapped stone artefacts suggests that Pournias is a homogeneous complex. The artefacts were classified according to the typological lists available for the European Upper Paleolithic [28,29,30].
The maximum length, width, and thickness of all the artefacts were measured with a caliper and the measurements of the complete end scrapers were plotted for the dimensional analysis.
The raw material employed for making the artefacts consists mainly of chalcedony. One geological sample was collected from a secondary deposit on the island for micro-Raman analysis to verify the accuracy of the visual identification.

4. Results

The assemblage consists of 185 artefacts which, in quantitative descending order, are made of chalcedony, a hydrothermal siliceous rock (175: 94.6%), radiolarite (6: 3.3%), radiolarian chert (2: 1.1%), chert (1: 0.5%), and limestone (1: 0.5%) (Supplementary Materials, Table S1).
All these raw materials are available within a radius of ca. 15 km from the site [1]. Chalcedony, which represents the most employed raw material for making artefacts in this complex, can be found in the volcanic formations on the island, while radiolarites and radiolarian chert pebbles are common in the coarser sedimentary formations, among which are the Ifestia Unit Conglomerates [1,31].
The occurrence of chalcedony was confirmed by combining optical observations at the stereomicroscope and Raman spectroscopy (see Supplementary Materials File S1 and Figures S1 and S2).
At present, hydrothermal alteration areas in Lemnos are located in the western part of the island, the Fakos Peninsula, Sardes, Roussopouli, and Paradeisi Hill [32]. In the latter locality, the outcropping raw material is clearly visible at the top of the small valley upstream from Havouli beach. It was employed for the manufacture of threshing sledge inserts by local farmers until the 1960s ([1], Figure 2; [2], Figure 10).
Only 47 (25.40%) artefacts are complete; 138 (74.60%) are heavily weathered, damaged, or fragmented (Table 1). As reported above, most of the surface weathering is due to the salty environment. In some cases, salt needle crystals form on the artefact surface after collection (see KOT163).
The retouched pieces are represented by 48 (25.94%) end scrapers (1 long, 10 short, 4 semicircular, and 33 carinated, one of which is nosed and two of which are on tablets: Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9), five side or transversal scrapers and one bilateral backed bladelet (or point) obtained with abrupt, deep, direct, continuous retouch on both sides (PII-165-1: Figure 6), and one retouched bladelet with straight sides and a trapezoidal cross-section (PII-136-1: Figure 6). Dufour bladelets are not represented in the studied assemblage.
The length/width–thickness scatterplot of the complete end scrapers shows the high percentage of carinated specimens (Figure 10).
The technical pieces consist of one core rejuvenation flakelet (PII-135), two tablets (PII-146 and PII-173), two carinated end scrapers on tablette (PII-139-1 and PII-140-1), and one cornice (KOT182) (Figure 9). There are eight cores (one remnant piece: KOT136) and two raw material chunks (PII-92-2 and PII-137). Three carinated end scrapers were most likely first exploited as cores to detach microbladelets (see [33]). One complete, unretouched red radiolarite bladelet is twisted (KOT135: Figure 6), as is one microflakelet (KOT134), both of which are characteristic of the Aurignacian debitage ([9], p. 14). Most unretouched artefacts are fragmented. They consist of microflakelets (71: 61.73%), flakelets (36: 31.31%), microbladelets (2: 1.74%), and bladelets (6: 5.22%), following the nomenclature proposed by G. Laplace [28]. The presence of cores, one raw material chunk, and technical pieces suggests that the artefacts were manufactured within or very close to the site, exploiting raw material collected from sources available within one day’s walk ([1], pp. 26–27). One of the possible collection areas was most likely the beach, as a few pieces exhibit a neocortical part with characteristic beach pebble scars ([2], Figure 2d). A few artefacts exhibit a flat, inclined butt, a characteristic that fits into the general picture of the early Upper Paleolithic knapping technology [34].
According to the categories proposed by F. Martini [29], the Pournias end scrapers can be classified as hyper-carinated (3: 13.63%), carinated (9: 40.90%), sub-carinated (4: 18.18%), flat (4: 18.18%), and very flat (2: 9.09%). The three classes of more-or-less-carinated specimens (16 out of 22 complete pieces) predominate.
The techno-typological characteristics of the knapped stone artefacts—represented by a high percentage of carinated end scrapers ([35], p. 55), some of which were primarily exploited as cores for the production of microbladelets, a few fragments of twisted bladelet and microbladelets, flat, oblique butts, the employment of the percussion technique, and the homogeneous state of preservation, weathering, and white patina—suggest that they form a coherent cluster. Furthermore, given the impossibility of obtaining radiocarbon dates, the chronology of the lithic assemblage can only be inferred by comparing its techno-typological characteristics. For example, some carinated end scrapers (PII-81, PII-104, and PII-91: Figure 7) resemble the so-called nucleus-burin caréné or nucleus-grattoir ([30], Figure 15), which are typical of many European Aurignacian complexes. The characteristic débitage bladelet products detached from 2- to 3-centimeter-wide carinated “end scrapers″ are not represented in the Pournias assemblage [36]. In contrast, several end scrapers on core tablette (KOT178, KOT160, KOT172, and KOT171: Figure 8) reproduce the semi-tournant laminar operating scheme of the early Aurignacian ([37], Figure 17). Therefore, based on these common typo-technological characteristics shared with other Aurignacian assemblages in Europe, the site of Pournias can be attributed with good confidence to a period of development of the Aurignacian culture, an aspect that is poorly represented in the Aegean in general [23] and, so far, unknown in the Aegean islands [36].

5. Discussion

The Aurignacian is the first techno-complex related to Anatomically Modern Humans, which “is not a pan-European cultural event with a single point of origin” ([38], (p. 252). Studies show that Aurignacian groups made their appearance around 43-42 kyr cal BP and dispersed rapidly in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic. It is becoming increasingly clear that the events that took place between 45,000 and 35,000 BP are very difficult to interpret due to the scarcity of dated human remains and the complexity of the so-called “transitional period” [9,39]. Recent studies show that Aurignacian techno-complexes made their appearance roughly around 41-40,000 BP in the Balkans [40], and that they dispersed rapidly during the Upper Paleolithic, although the entire process is not yet well understood [18,36]. Conventionally, the Aurignacian is divided into the Proto, Early, Evolved, and Late phases, though the techno-typological and chronological differences between the first two periods are difficult to distinguish and far from being fully understood [18,41,42].
In Greece, Aurignacian and early Upper Paleolithic sites are scarce ([43], p. 60). Some are cave sequences (Franchthi, Klisoura, and Kolominitsa). Open-air sites are known in Epirus at Megalo Karvounari and Spilaion. From the former, Ligkovanlis [44] has reported an Aurignacian component, while the assemblage from the latter is represented by carinated end scrapers and burins, though Dufour bladelets are absent ([27], pp. 138–146). Another open-air surface site is Eleochori, in Achaïa, extending over a surface area of ca. 6-7000 sq meters. The site, disturbed by farming, yielded characteristic Aurignacian artefacts, among which are carinated end scrapers, dihedral burins, and Mousterian Levallois pieces [45].
The discovery of a concentration of knapped stone artefacts at Pournias contributes to the knowledge of the Aurignacian in Southeast Europe and the Aegean in particular. We know that during the Last Glacial Period (LGP), in the first half of the MIS-3, the sea was ca. −60 m below that of the present level, and it dropped to ca. −80 m during the second half ([46], p. 23), [8,47], which is our period of interest, when the Aurignacian culture developed. The Pournias assemblage is not radiocarbon dated, due to the absence of organic material. However, the techno-typological characteristics of the lithic assemblage suggest that the site was settled roughly during this period, when the island was part of the Anatolian Peninsula, remaining connected with the continent until the Younger Dryas ([48], Figure 3).
According to the available radiocarbon chronology, the Aurignacian period in Greece covers a long time span. This is suggested by the dates available from Klisoura (Klissoura) [22] and Franchthi [23], two caves which open in different regions of Argolis (Peloponnese). The Early and Middle Aurignacian sequence of Klisoura has been radiocarbon dated to between ca. 33,000 and 31,000 BP [49]. Considering the full picture of the Aurignacian radiocarbon chronology of the two caves, the entire cultural aspect developed roughly between 41,080 ± 390 BP (OxA-21070 from marine shells at Franchthi) and 15,490 ± 410 BP (Gd-10701 from charcoal at Klisoura), although the latter result seems too recent. Another site is the Kolominitsa Cave, which opens in the Mani Peninsula (south Peloponnese), where a probable Aurignacian occupation has been dated to between 34,150 ± 280 BP (Beta-333516) and 33,870 ± 550 BP (Beta-193416) from charcoal ([50], Table 7.5).
The situation is quite similar in neighboring Albania, where a few open-air and cave sites have been discovered and partially excavated. Only one radiocarbon date is available from the Blazi Cave (COL1958.1.1: 40,713 ± 827 BP: [51], Table 1). The lithic assemblage from the open-air site of Shën Mitri consists of carinated end scrapers and microbladelets, but simple burins and Dufour bladelets are absent. According to the excavators, the knapped stone assemblage from Shën Mitri can be chrono-typologically compared with that recovered from the early Aurignacian horizons of the Klisoura cave ([51], p. 158).
Moving east, our knowledge of the early Upper Paleolithic along the Mediterranean coastline is limited to the Karain cave sequence in the interior of the Gulf of Antalya [21].

6. Conclusions

Lemnos is one of the few North Aegean islands to have yielded an impressive number of prehistoric sites and artefacts covering a wide cultural and chronological spectrum, from the Middle Paleolithic [1] to the end of the Bronze Age [52,53,54]. At present, only a few Middle Paleolithic knapped stone artefacts have been collected from three different locations on the island, the findings from most of which are still unpublished. However, it has been stated that Neanderthals were present in the Aegean from the last interglacial, MIS-5e ([55], p. 148), and Middle Paleolithic industries have been recorded on the neighboring island of Imbros (Gökçeada) and the North Aegean Anatolian coastline [56,57]. Therefore, the possible presence of Middle Paleolithic artefacts in Lemnos is not surprising.
Thanks to the results of research carried out over the last three decades, the island has also shown considerable potential for the study of the events that took place around the beginning and the end of the LGP and its connections with the Anatolian Peninsula and the Balkans during this period.
Following the techno-typological characteristics of the Pournias assemblage, and its location in southern Europe, we can infer that the site can be attributed either to the Early or Middle Aurignacian, according to the subdivision proposed by J.A. Svoboda for the Danube region [58]. The presence of the concentration of lithics at the Pournias site poses a few important questions to solve, including the following: (1) the itineraries followed by Aurignacian hunters moving northwest, (2) the presence of other Paleolithic sites in this part of the Aegean, and (3) the reason why an early Upper Paleolithic community settled in the present Pournias region. To answer the first question, we must consider that we still know very little about this problem. This is made evident by the scarcity of data, which has only slightly improved over the last decades [59], and the absence of early Upper Paleolithic sites in the entire Anatolian Peninsula [60]. This fact makes the discovery of the Pournias site very important. The waters of this part of the Aegean, where Lemnos is located, are shallow. A wide territory around the island was certainly exposed during the MIS-3. Consequently, we can infer that many Paleolithic sites are now underwater, difficult, though not impossible, to detect [61,62]. Moreover, we still know little about the presence and circulation of knappable raw material along the western coast of Anatolia [56,63,64]. We can infer that Aurignacian hunters were attracted to the Pournias territory due to the presence of rich hydrothermal siliceous rocks [65,66] and radiolarite outcrops available in its surroundings.
To conclude, the discovery of an Aurignacian assemblage on the island of Lemnos is an important event that may contribute to the improvement of knowledge of the distribution and movement of Aurignacian hunters during the early Upper Paleolithic in southern Europe.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/heritage8040141/s1: Table S1: Pournias: A list and description of the lithic artefacts studied; Figure S1: A stereomicroscope view of the chalcedony geological sample; Figure S2: Compared chalcedony and quartz Raman spectra; File S1: Raman measurements.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.B., E.S., Y.A. and N.E.; methodology, P.B. and E.S.; formal analysis, P.B., E.S., Y.A., N.C. and R.C.; investigation, N.C. and R.C.; resources, N.E.; data curation, Y.A.; writing—original draft preparation, P.B. and E.S.; writing—review and editing, P.B., E.S., Y.A., N.E., N.C. and R.C.; supervision, N.E.; project administration, N.E.; funding acquisition, N.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Secretariat General of the Aegean and Island Policy of the Greek Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Islands and Fisheries; funds were granted to N.E.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting reported results and datasets generated during the study can be found in the Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Pavlos Triantafyllidis, Director of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Lesbos and Lemnos (Greece), for the permissions and support offered to our research. Thanks are also due to the staff of the Archaeological Museum of Lemnos in Myrina, which hosted us during the study of the lithic artefacts. Last but not least, we extend our sincere thanks to Marcel Otte (Liège University, Belgium) and the three anonymous reviewers who greatly helped with improving the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Efstratiou, N.; Biagi, P.; Starnini, E.; Kyriakou, D.; Eleftheriadou, A. Agia Marina and Peristereònas: Two Epipalaeolithic sites in the Island of Lemnos (Greece). J. Paleolit. Archaeol. 2022, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Efstratiou, N.; Biagi, P.; Starnini, E. The Epipalaeolithic Site of Ouriakos on the Island of Lemnos and its Place in the Late Pleistocene Peopling of the East Mediterranean Region. Adalya 2014, XVII, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  3. Vacchi, M.; Rovere, A.; Chatzipetros, A.; Zouros, N.; Firpo, M. An updated database of Holocene relative sea level changes in NE Aegean Sea. Quat. Int. 2014, 328–329, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lambeck, K.; Purcell, A. Sea-level change in the Mediterranean Sea since the LGM: Model predictions for tectonically stable areas. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2005, 24, 1969–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lambeck, K. Sea-level change and shore-line evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic time. Antiquity 1996, 70, 588–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lambeck, K.; Rouby, H.; Purcell, A.; Sun, Y.; Sambridge, M. Sea level and global ice volumes from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 15296–15303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lykoussis, V. Sea-level changes and shelf break prograding sequences during the last 400ka in the Aegean margins: Subsidence rates and palaeogeographic implications. Cont. Shelf Res. 2009, 29, 2037–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Koukousioura, O.; Kouli, K.; Gkouma, M.; Theocharidis, N.; Ntinou, M.; Chalkioti, A.; Dimou, V.-G.; Fatourou, E.; Navrozidou, V.; Kafetzidou, A.; et al. Reconstructing the Environmental Conditions in the Prehistoric Coastal Landscape of SE Lemnos Island (Greece) Since the Late Glacial. Water 2025, 17, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bar-Yosef, O. Defining the Aurignacian. In Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, Proceedings of the Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, 25–30 June 2002; Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J., Eds.; Trabalhos de Arqueologia: Lisbon, Portugal, 2006; Volume 45, pp. 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  10. Galanidou, N. Advances in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeology of Greece for the new millennium. Pharos 2014, 20, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Galanidou, N.; Cole, J.; Iliopoulos, G.; McNabb, J. East meets West: The Middle Pleistocene site of Rodafnidia on Lesvos, Greece. Antiq. Proj. Gallery 2013, 87, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sakellariou, D.; Galanidou, N. Aegean Pleistocene Landscapes Above and Below Sea-Level: Palaeogeographic Reconstruction and Hominin Dispersals. In Under the Sea: Archaeology and Palaeolandscapes of the Continental Shelf; Bailey, G., Harff, J., Sakellariou, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2017; pp. 335–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Howitt-Marshall, D.; Runnels, C. Middle Pleistocene sea-crossings in the eastern Mediterranean? J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 2016, 42, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Simmons, A.H. Stone Age Sailors. In Paleolithic Seafaring in the Mediterranean; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hoffecker, J.F. The Spread on Modern Humans in Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 16040–16045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Haws, J.A.; Benedetti, M.B.; Talamo, S.; Bicho, N.; Cascalheira, J.; Ellis, M.G.; Carvalho, M.M.; Fried, L.; Pereirai, T.; Zinsious, B.K. The early Aurignacian dispersal of modern humans into westernmost Eurasia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 25414–25422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Shao, Y.; Limberg, H.; Klein, K.; Wegener, C.; Schmidt, I.; Weniger, G.-C.; Hense, A.; Rostami, M. Human-existence probability of the Aurignacian techno-complex under extreme climate conditions. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2021, 263, 106995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shao, Y.; Wegener, C.; Klein, K.; Schmidt, I.; Weniger, G.-C. Reconstruction of human dispersal during Aurignacian on pan-European scale. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 7406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chu, W.; McLin, S.; Wöstehoff, L.; Ciornei, A.; Gennai, J.; Marreiros, J.; Doboş, A. Aurignacian dynamics in Southeastern Europe based on spatial analysis, sediment geochemistry, raw materials, lithic analysis, and use-wear from Românești-Dumbrăvița. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 14152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kozłowski, J.K.; Otte, M. The Formation of the Aurignacian in Europe. J. Anthropol. Res. 2000, 56, 513–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yalçinkaya, I.; Otte, M. Début du Paléolithique supérieur à Karain (Turquie). L’Anthropologie 2000, 104, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Koumouzelis, M.; Ginter, B.; Kozłowski, J.; Pawlinowski, M.; Bar-Yosef, O.; Albert, R.-M.; Litynska-Zajac, M.; Stworzewicz, E.; Wojtal, P.; Lipecki, G.; et al. The Early Upper Palaeolithic in Greece: The Excavations in Klisoura Cave. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2001, 28, 515–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Douka, K.; Perlès, C.; Valladas, H.; Vanhaeren, M.; Hedges, R.E.M. Franchthi Cave revisited: The age of the Aurignacian in south-eastern Europe. Antiquity 2011, 85, 1131–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kozłowski, J.K. The Problem of Cultural Continuity between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe. In The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean; Bar-Yosef, O., Pilbeam, D., Eds.; Peabody Museum Bulletin; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000; Volume 8, pp. 77–108. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sidiropoulou, M.; Fouache, E.; Pavlopoulos, K.; Triantaphyllou, M.; Vouvalidis, K.; Syrides, G.; Greco, E. Geomorphological Evolution and Paleoenvironment Reconstruction in the Northeastern Part of Lemnos Island (North Aegean Sea). Aegaeum 2014, 37, 49–57. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bond, C.J. The value, meaning and protection of lithic scatters. Lithics 2011, 32, 29–48. [Google Scholar]
  27. Runnels, C.; Karimali, E.; Cullen, B. Early upper Palaeolithic Spilaion: An artifact-rich surface site. In Landscape Archaeology in Southern Epirus, Greece I; Wiseman, J., Zachos, K., Eds.; Hesperia Supplement 32; American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Athens, Greece, 2003; pp. 135–156. [Google Scholar]
  28. Laplace, G. Essai de typologie systématique. Ann. dell’Università Ferrara 1964, I (Suppl. II), 1–85. [Google Scholar]
  29. Martini, F. L’Epigravettiano di Poggio alla Malva (Firenze). Atti Della Soc. Toscana Sci. Nat. Mem. 1981, 88, 303–326. [Google Scholar]
  30. Le Bruns-Ricalens, F. Chronique d’une reconnaissance attendue. Outils “carénés”, outils “nucléiformes”: Nucléus à lamelles. Bilan après un siècle de recherches typologiques, technologiques et tracéologiques. Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien: Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles. In Proceedings of the XIVe Congrès de l‘UISPP, Liège, Belgium, 2–8 September 2001; ArchéoLogiques: Luxembourg, 2005; Volume 1, pp. 23–72. [Google Scholar]
  31. Innocenti, F.; Manetti, P.; Mazzuoli, R.; Pertusati, P.; Fytikas, M.; Kolios, N.; Vougioukalakis, G.E.; Androulakakis, N.; Critelli, S.; Caracciolo, L. Geological map (scale 1:50,000) of Limnos Island (Greece): Explanatory notes. Acta Vulcanol. 2009, 21, 123–134. [Google Scholar]
  32. Anifadi, A.; Parcharidis, I.; Sykioti, O. Hydrothermal alteration zones detection in Limnos Island, through the application of Remote Sensing. Bull. Geol. Soc. Greece 2016, 50, 1595–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bataille, G. Extracting the “Proto” from the Aurignacian. Distinct Production Sequences of Blades and Bladelets in the Lower Aurignacian Phase of Siuren I, Units H and G (Crimea). Mitteilungen Der Ges. Für Urgeschichte 2016, 25, 49–85. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gennai, J.; Peresani, M.; Richter, J. Blades, bladelets or blade(let)s? Investigating early Upper Palaeolithic technology and taxonomical considerations. Quartär 2021, 68, 71–116. [Google Scholar]
  35. Laplace, G. Recherches sur l’Origine et l’Evolution des Complexes Leptolithiques; l’École française de Rome: Rome, Italy, 1966; Volume 4, Available online: https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0000-0000_1966_mon_4_1 (accessed on 9 October 2024).
  36. Carter, T.; Daniel, A.; Contreras, D.A.; Holcomb, J.; Mihailović, D.A.; Karkanas, P.; Guérin, G.; Taffin, N.; Athanasoulis, D.; Lahaye, C. Earliest occupation of the Central Aegean (Naxos), Greece: Implications for hominin and Homo sapiens’ behavior and dispersals. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Teyssandier, N. Les débuts de l’Aurignacien dans leur cadre européen: Où en est-on? [The beginnings of the Aurignacian in a European framework: Where do we stand?]. Gall. Préhistoire 2023, 63, 103–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Teyssandier, N.; Bolus, M.; Conard, N. The Early Aurignacian in central Europe and its place in a European perspective. In Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, Proceedings of the Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, 25–30 June 2002; Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J., Eds.; Trabalhos de Arqueologia: Lisbon, Portugal, 2006; Volume 45, pp. 241–256. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kuhn, S.L.; Brantingham, P.J.; Kerry, K.W. The Early Upper Palaeolithic and the Origin of Modern Humans. In The Early Upper Palaeolithic Beyond Western Europe; Brantingham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W., Eds.; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA; London, UK, 2004; pp. 242–248. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kozłowski, J.K. A dynamic view of Aurignacian technology. In Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, Proceedings of the Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, 25–30 June 2002; Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J., Eds.; Trabalhos de Arqueologia: Lisbon, Portugal, 2006; Volume 45, pp. 21–34. [Google Scholar]
  41. Higham, T.; Wood, R.; Moreau, L.; Conard, N.; Ramsey, C.B. Comments on ’Human-climate interaction during the early Upper Paleolithic: Testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and the early Aurignacian’ by Banks. J. Hum. Evol. 2013, 65, 806–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Teyssandier, N.; Zilhão, J. On the entity and antiquity of the Aurignacian at Willendorf (Austria): Implications for modern human emergence in Europe. J. Paleolit. Archaeol. 2018, 1, 107–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tourloukis, V.; Harvati, K. The Palaeolithic record of Greece: A synthesis of the evidence and a research agenda for the future. Quat. Int. 2017, 446, 48–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ligkovanlis, S. Megalo Karvounari Revisited. In Thesprotia Expedition II. Environment and Settlement Patterns; Forsén, B., Tikkala, E., Eds.; Finnish Institute at Athens: Athens, Greece, 2011; Volume XVI, pp. 159–180. [Google Scholar]
  45. Darlas, A. Palaeolithic Research in Western Achaïa. In The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina, Greece, September 1994; Bailey, G., Adam, E., Panagopoulou, E., Perlès, C., Zagros, C., Eds.; British School at Athens Studies: Athens, Greece, 1999; Volume 3, pp. 303–310. [Google Scholar]
  46. Siddall, M.; Rohling, E.J.; Thompson, W.G.; Waelbroeck, C. Marine isotope stage 3 sea level fluctuations: Data synthesis and new outlook. Rev. Geophys. 2008, 46, RG4003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Benjamin, J.; Rovere, A.; Fontana, A.; Furlani, S.; Vacchi, M.; Inglis, R.H.; Galili, E.; Antonioli, F.; Sivan, D.; Miko, S.; et al. Late Quaternary sea-level changes and early human societies in the central and eastern Mediterranean Basin: An interdisciplinary review. Quat. Int. 2017, 449, 29–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chalkioti, A. Reconstructing the Coastal Configuration of Lemnos Island (Northeast Aegean Sea, Greece). In Géoarchéologie Des îles De La Méditerranée; Ghilardi, M., Ed.; CNRS Éditions: Paris, France, 2016; pp. 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kuhn, S.L.; Pigati, J.; Karkanas, P.; Koumouzelis, M.; Kozłowski, J.K.; Ntinou, M.; Stiner, M.C. Radiocarbon dating results for the early Paleolithic of Klissoura Cave. Eurasian Prehist. 2010, 7, 37–46. [Google Scholar]
  50. Darlas, A.; Psathi, E. The Middle and Upper Paleolithic on the Western Coast of the Mani Peninsula (Southern Greece). In Paleoanthropology of the Balkans and Anatolia Human Evolution and Its Context; Harvati, K., Roksandic, M., Eds.; Springer Science + Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 95–117. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hauck, T.C.; Ruka, R.; Gjipali, I.; Richter, J.; Vogels, O. Recent discoveries of Aurignacian and Epigravettian sites in Albania. J. Field Archaeol. 2016, 41, 148–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bernabò Brea, L. Città preistorica nell’isola di Lemnos. In Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente; Poliochni II.1, II.2; Bretschneider: Rome, Italy, 1976; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  53. Triantaphyllou, M.V.; Firkasis, N.; Tsourou, T.; Vassilakis, E.; Spyrou, E.; Koukousioura, O.; Oikonomou, A.; Skentos, A. “Geo-Archaeo-Routes” on the Island of Lemnos: The “Nalture” Experience as a Holistic Geotouristic Approach within the Geoethical Perspective. Geosciences 2023, 13, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Menelaou, S.; Kouka, O.; Müller, N.S.; Kiriatzi, E. Longevity, creativity, and mobility at the “oldest city in Europe”: Ceramic traditions and cultural interactions at Poliochni Lemnos, northeast Aegean. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2024, 16, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sakellariou, D.; Galanidou, N. Pleistocene submerged landscapes and Palaeolithic archaeology in the tectonically active Aegean region. In Geology and Archaeology: Submerged Landscapes of the Continental Shelf; Harff, J., Bailey, G., Lüth, F., Eds.; Geological Society: London, UK, 2016; Volume 411, pp. 145–178. [Google Scholar]
  56. Bulut, H.; Taşkıran, H.; Özçelik, K.; Karahan, G. Lower and Middle Palaeolithic evidence from the North Aegean coastline of Çanakkale, Turkey. Antiquity 2022, 96, 981–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Erdoğu, B.; Yücel, N.E.; Demir, K. The new evidence for the Palaeolithic on the island of Gökçeada (Imbros), north-eastern Aegean. J. Lithic Stud. 2021, 8, 5121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Svoboda, J.A. The Aurignacian and after: Chronology, geography and cultural taxonomy in the Middle Danube region. In Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, Proceedings of the Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, 25–30 June 2002; Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J., Eds.; Trabalhos de Arqueologia: Lisbon, Portugal, 2006; Volume 45, pp. 259–274. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bar-Yosef, O.; Pilbeam, D. (Eds.) Afterword. In The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean; Peabody Museum Bulletin; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000; Volume 8, pp. 183–187. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kuhn, S.L.; Stiner, M.C.; Güleç, E. Initial Upper Palaeolithic in south-central Turkey and its regional context: A preliminary report. Antiquity 1999, 73, 505–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Grøn, O.; Hermand, J.-P. Settlement archaeology under water. Practical, strategic and research perspective. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/OES Acoustics in Underwater Geosciences Symposium (RIO Acoustics), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 29–31 July 2015; IEEE Foundation: Piscataway, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Grøn, O.; Boldreel, L.O.; Smith, M.F.; Joy, S.; Tayong Boumda, R.; Mäder, A.; Bleicher, N.; Madsen, B.; Cvikel, D.; Nilsson, B.; et al. Acoustic Mapping of Submerged Stone Age Sites—A HALD Approach. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Balci, S. The Chipped Stone Industry of Aktopraklık C (Bursa). Preliminary Results. Anatolia Antiq. Eski Anadolu 2011, 19, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Atakuman, C.; Erdoğu, B.; Gemici, H.C.; Baykara, I.; Karakoç, M.; Biagi, P.; Starnini, E.; Guilbeau, D.; Yücel, N.; Turan, D.; et al. Before the Neolithic in the Aegean: The Pleistocene and the Early Holocene record of Bozburun—Southwest Turkey. J. Isl. Coast. Archaeol. 2022, 17, 323–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Flörke, O.W.; Köhler-Herbertz, B.; Langer, K.; Tönges, I. Water in microcrystalline quartz of volcanic origin: Agates. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1982, 80, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Schmidt, P.; Bellot-Gurlet, L.; Slodczyk, A.; Fröhlich, F. A hitherto unrecognised band in the Raman spectra of silica rocks: Influence of hydroxylated Si–O bonds (silanole) on the Raman moganite band in chalcedony and flint (SiO2). Phys. Chem. Miner. 2012, 39, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heritage 08 00141 g001
Figure 1. Pournias: The location of the Aurignacian site (yellow dot) along the northern coast of the island of Lemnos (map by Y. Agafonova and E. Starnini).
Figure 1. Pournias: The location of the Aurignacian site (yellow dot) along the northern coast of the island of Lemnos (map by Y. Agafonova and E. Starnini).
Heritage 08 00141 g001
Heritage 08 00141 g002
Figure 2. Pournias: The Aurignacian site in the center of the picture taken from the south (a) and knapped stone artefacts on the surface of the sandy paleosol (b,c) (photographs by P. Biagi, 2022).
Figure 2. Pournias: The Aurignacian site in the center of the picture taken from the south (a) and knapped stone artefacts on the surface of the sandy paleosol (b,c) (photographs by P. Biagi, 2022).
Heritage 08 00141 g002
Heritage 08 00141 g003
Figure 3. Pournias: The team from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, during the 2020 fieldwork season, recording the lithic artefacts on the exposed reddish-brown paleosol, from the north (photograph by N. Efstratiou, 2020).
Figure 3. Pournias: The team from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, during the 2020 fieldwork season, recording the lithic artefacts on the exposed reddish-brown paleosol, from the north (photograph by N. Efstratiou, 2020).
Heritage 08 00141 g003
Heritage 08 00141 g004
Figure 4. Pournias: The distribution maps (a,b) of the knapped stone artefacts recovered during the 2020 survey (maps by Y. Agafonova and E. Starnini).
Figure 4. Pournias: The distribution maps (a,b) of the knapped stone artefacts recovered during the 2020 survey (maps by Y. Agafonova and E. Starnini).
Heritage 08 00141 g004
Heritage 08 00141 g005
Figure 5. Pournias: The distribution map of the knapped stone artefacts recovered during the 2021 survey (a) and all artefacts together (b) (maps by Y. Agafonova and E. Starnini).
Figure 5. Pournias: The distribution map of the knapped stone artefacts recovered during the 2021 survey (a) and all artefacts together (b) (maps by Y. Agafonova and E. Starnini).
Heritage 08 00141 g005
Heritage 08 00141 g006
Figure 6. Pournias: Knapped stone artefacts: bladelet [PII-136-1], bilateral backed bladelet [PII-165-1], proximal blade fragments [PII-159 and KOT181], twisted bladelet [KOT135], carinated end scrapers [PII-128-1 and KOT156], and prismatic core fragment [KOT136]. For details, see Table S1. Dotted arrows show the presence of the percussion bulb, horizontal lines indicate different views of the same artefact (photographs by E. Starnini).
Figure 6. Pournias: Knapped stone artefacts: bladelet [PII-136-1], bilateral backed bladelet [PII-165-1], proximal blade fragments [PII-159 and KOT181], twisted bladelet [KOT135], carinated end scrapers [PII-128-1 and KOT156], and prismatic core fragment [KOT136]. For details, see Table S1. Dotted arrows show the presence of the percussion bulb, horizontal lines indicate different views of the same artefact (photographs by E. Starnini).
Heritage 08 00141 g006
Heritage 08 00141 g007
Figure 7. Pournias: Knapped stone artefacts: Different types of carinated end scrapers. For details, see Table S1. Dotted arrows show the presence of the percussion bulb, horizontal lines indicate different views of the same artefact (photographs by E. Starnini).
Figure 7. Pournias: Knapped stone artefacts: Different types of carinated end scrapers. For details, see Table S1. Dotted arrows show the presence of the percussion bulb, horizontal lines indicate different views of the same artefact (photographs by E. Starnini).
Heritage 08 00141 g007
Heritage 08 00141 g008
Figure 8. Pournias: Knapped stone artefacts: Different types of end scrapers. For details, see Table S1. Dotted arrows show the presence of the percussion bulb, horizontal lines indicate different views of the same artefact (photographs by E. Starnini).
Figure 8. Pournias: Knapped stone artefacts: Different types of end scrapers. For details, see Table S1. Dotted arrows show the presence of the percussion bulb, horizontal lines indicate different views of the same artefact (photographs by E. Starnini).
Heritage 08 00141 g008
Heritage 08 00141 g009
Figure 9. Pournias: Knapped stone artefacts: carinated end scrapers [PII-146-1 and KOT000], carinated end scrapers on tablette [PII-139-1 and PII-140-1], tablette [PII-173], cornice [KOT182], and microflakelet with salt needle crystals [KOT163]. For details, see Table S1. Dotted arrows show the presence of the percussion bulb, horizontal lines indicate different views of the same artefact (photographs by E. Starnini).
Figure 9. Pournias: Knapped stone artefacts: carinated end scrapers [PII-146-1 and KOT000], carinated end scrapers on tablette [PII-139-1 and PII-140-1], tablette [PII-173], cornice [KOT182], and microflakelet with salt needle crystals [KOT163]. For details, see Table S1. Dotted arrows show the presence of the percussion bulb, horizontal lines indicate different views of the same artefact (photographs by E. Starnini).
Heritage 08 00141 g009
Heritage 08 00141 g010
Figure 10. Pournias: The length/width [L/W]–thickness [T] scatterplot of the complete end scrapers (black dots); the red line shows the 1:1 ratio between the 2 values (graphic by P. Biagi).
Figure 10. Pournias: The length/width [L/W]–thickness [T] scatterplot of the complete end scrapers (black dots); the red line shows the 1:1 ratio between the 2 values (graphic by P. Biagi).
Heritage 08 00141 g010
Table 1. Pournias: The composition of the knapped stone assemblage.
Table 1. Pournias: The composition of the knapped stone assemblage.
Artefact TypeCompleteFragmentTotal
Core268 (4.32%)
Core rejuvenation101 (0.54%)
Carinated end scraper132033 (17.83%)
Semicircular end scraper314 (2.16%)
Long end scraper011 (0.54%)
Short end scraper4610 (5.40%)
Side/transversal scraper336 (3.24%)
Backed bladelet101 (0.54%)
Bladelet246 (3.24%)
Microbladelet022 (1.08%)
Flakelet53136 (19.45%)
Microflakelet106171 (38.37%)
Tablette/Cornice303 (1.62%)
Cortex beach pebble011 (0.54%)
Chunk022 (1.08%)
Totals47 (25.40%)138 (74.60%)185 (100%)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Biagi, P.; Starnini, E.; Agafonova, Y.; Efstratiou, N.; Campomenosi, N.; Cabella, R. An Aurignacian Assemblage from the Island of Lemnos (Greece): Some Aspects of the Beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in the Northeast Aegean. Heritage 2025, 8, 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8040141

AMA Style

Biagi P, Starnini E, Agafonova Y, Efstratiou N, Campomenosi N, Cabella R. An Aurignacian Assemblage from the Island of Lemnos (Greece): Some Aspects of the Beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in the Northeast Aegean. Heritage. 2025; 8(4):141. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8040141

Chicago/Turabian Style

Biagi, Paolo, Elisabetta Starnini, Yulia Agafonova, Nikos Efstratiou, Nicola Campomenosi, and Roberto Cabella. 2025. "An Aurignacian Assemblage from the Island of Lemnos (Greece): Some Aspects of the Beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in the Northeast Aegean" Heritage 8, no. 4: 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8040141

APA Style

Biagi, P., Starnini, E., Agafonova, Y., Efstratiou, N., Campomenosi, N., & Cabella, R. (2025). An Aurignacian Assemblage from the Island of Lemnos (Greece): Some Aspects of the Beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in the Northeast Aegean. Heritage, 8(4), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8040141

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop