u/Either_Stress8545

Wherever I look the Baradostian is described as Aurignacian, but reading into the studies supposedly showing this, like The Zagros Aurignacian
1994 by Olszewski and Dibble, I find the following: "While the industry from Shanidar Cave layer C fits the definition of Levantine Aurignacian quite well, other Baradostian assemblages, including those from Warwasi, appear to fuse Aurignacian and Ahmarian features. Such combinations of characteristics, however, are known in the northern Levant, at Ucaagizli in Anatolia (MinzoniDeroche i992), and from levels XIII-IX at Ksar Akil in Lebanon (Bergman i987)."

But having read about XIII-IX and Üçağızlı, these don't seem to be related to the Aurignacian at all. Üçağızlı is an Emiran to Ahmarian site, and Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 2006 classify XIII-IX as not being related to the Aurignacian either. They write: "After more than 30 years of dispute there is finally a modicum of consensus that assemblages defined as “Levantine Aurignacian” from the central parts of the northern Levant (i.e. el-Wad E-D; Sefunim 8; Hayonim D; Ksar-Akil VIII-VII) are unrelated to other, non-Ahmarian Upper Paleolithic assemblages reported mainly from the southern and northern, arid areas of the Levant (but see also the northern assemblages of Ksar Akil XIII-IX)."

They also explicitly mention that XIII-IX uses lateral carcination rather than broad carcination, and that only broad carcination is genuinely Aurignacian. That casts doubt on whether the "Aurignacian features" of the Baradostian actually have anything at all to do with the Aurignacian rather than simply looking vaguely similar, like some of the previously "Levantine Aurignacian" classified assemblages.

Is there any relationship to the European Aurignacian or did the Baradostian simply evolve out of an Ahmarian movement into Iran, similar to the Ahmarian-like sites in the Caucasus?

Wherever I look the Baradostian is described as Aurignacian, but reading into the studies supposedly showing this, like The Zagros Aurignacian
1994 by Olszewski and Dibble, I find the following: "While the industry from Shanidar Cave layer C fits the definition of Levantine Aurignacian quite well, other Baradostian assemblages, including those from Warwasi, appear to fuse Aurignacian and Ahmarian features. Such combinations of characteristics, however, are known in the northern Levant, at Ucaagizli in Anatolia (MinzoniDeroche i992), and from levels XIII-IX at Ksar Akil in Lebanon (Bergman i987)."

But having read about XIII-IX and Üçağızlı, these don't seem to be related to the Aurignacian at all. Üçağızlı is an Emiran to Ahmarian site, and Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 2006 classify XIII-IX as not being related to the Aurignacian either. They write: "After more than 30 years of dispute there is finally a modicum of consensus that assemblages defined as “Levantine Aurignacian” from the central parts of the northern Levant (i.e. el-Wad E-D; Sefunim 8; Hayonim D; Ksar-Akil VIII-VII) are unrelated to other, non-Ahmarian Upper Paleolithic assemblages reported mainly from the southern and northern, arid areas of the Levant (but see also the northern assemblages of Ksar Akil XIII-IX)."

They also explicitly mention that XIII-IX uses lateral carcination rather than broad carcination, and that only broad carcination is genuinely Aurignacian. That casts doubt on whether the "Aurignacian features" of the Baradostian actually have anything at all to do with the Aurignacian rather than simply looking vaguely similar, like some of the previously "Levantine Aurignacian" classified assemblages.

Is there any relationship to the European Aurignacian or did the Baradostian simply evolve out of an Ahmarian movement into Iran, similar to the Ahmarian-like sites in the Caucasus?