The Acheulian of Western Europe

The Acheulian of Western Europe Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Abstract In฀the฀current฀state฀of฀knowledge,฀the฀European฀distribution฀of฀Acheulian฀industries฀that฀include฀handaxes฀ and฀cleavers฀appears฀to฀be฀centered฀in฀southwestern฀Europe;฀their฀maximum฀northward฀expansion฀ reaches฀England฀and฀Germany.฀North฀of฀latitude฀52°฀and฀east฀of฀Germany฀and฀Italy,฀handaxe฀industries฀ are฀ conspicuously฀ absent,฀ occurring฀ only฀ sporadically฀ in฀ southeastern฀ Europe.฀ Handaxe฀ industries฀ are฀again฀well฀documented฀in฀western฀Asia,฀from฀Georgia฀to฀Israel฀and฀the฀Arabian฀Peninsula,฀clearly฀ indicating฀an฀East฀African฀origin.฀The฀gap฀between฀eastern฀and฀western฀Eurasia฀and฀the฀high฀density฀of฀ finds in the Iberian Peninsula suggests that the Acheulian in southwestern Europe may derive from the Maghreb,฀notwithstanding฀the฀lack฀of฀direct฀evidence฀for฀the฀crossing฀of฀the฀Straits฀of฀Gibraltar.฀In฀the฀ Spanish฀Meseta฀the฀geological฀formations฀containing฀Acheulian฀industries฀are฀dated฀to฀the฀time฀range฀ of฀OIS฀11฀to฀6.฀The฀chronological฀gap฀between฀the฀earlier฀human฀occupation฀sites฀at฀Gran฀Dolina฀and฀ in฀the฀Orce฀region฀and฀the฀Spanish฀Acheulian฀(an฀interval฀of฀about฀300–400,000฀years)฀would฀seem฀to฀ reflect an earlier settlement in warm-temperate Europe that did not take a strong hold. The฀distribution฀of฀cleavers฀coincides฀only฀partly฀with฀that฀of฀Acheulian฀handaxes.฀Cleavers฀are฀ most฀ abundant฀ in฀ regions฀ in฀ which฀ the฀ raw฀ material฀ occurs฀ in฀ the฀ form฀ of฀ large฀ quartzite฀ cobbles฀ that฀do฀not฀need฀extensive฀decortication฀and฀shaping฀prior฀to฀the฀removal฀of฀large฀flakes, as in the Spanish฀Meseta฀and฀the฀Garonne฀and฀Tarn฀valleys฀of฀southwestern฀France.฀Elsewhere฀(northern฀France,฀ England,฀Italy),฀cleavers฀also฀occur฀in฀different฀raw฀materials฀(flint or limestone) but are not common. In฀Spain,฀the฀transition฀from฀Acheulian฀industries฀to฀assemblages฀characterized฀by฀the฀Levallois฀ method฀ without฀ large฀ cutting฀ tools฀ may฀ be฀ as฀ old฀ as฀ 300฀ ka,฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ age฀ of฀ stratigraphic฀ units฀TD฀10฀and฀11฀at฀Gran฀Dolina.฀However,฀the฀evidence฀from฀open-air฀sites฀suggests฀a฀possible฀ coexistence฀of฀industries฀traditionally฀called฀Upper฀Acheulian฀and฀others฀included฀in฀the฀Mousterian฀ complex฀up฀to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene.฀In฀northern฀France฀and฀adjacent฀countries฀(Belgium,฀ the฀Netherlands),฀assemblages฀containing฀rare฀bifaces฀and฀Levallois฀debitage฀occur฀during฀OIS฀8,฀ broadly฀ contemporaneous฀ with฀ assemblages฀ containing฀ bifaces฀ and฀ non-Levallois฀ debitage.฀ The฀ Levallois฀method฀is฀well฀documented฀from฀OIS฀7฀onward. Introduction The฀ traditional฀ European฀ image฀ of฀ the฀ Lower฀ Paleolithic,฀ first formed in the second half of the 429 430 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa nineteenth฀century฀and฀based฀essentially฀on฀the฀lithic฀industries฀of฀England฀and฀northern฀France,฀ was฀superseded฀when฀African฀archaeology฀revealed฀the฀true฀spatial฀and฀temporal฀dimensions฀of฀the฀ first stages of humanity. Today, it seems evident that basic questions such as the chronology, sites, paleoenvironment฀and฀lithic฀technology฀need฀to฀be฀addressed฀from฀a฀global฀perspective. East฀Africa฀is฀the฀center฀of฀origin฀of฀the฀first industries and it was in East Africa that the Acheulian Technocomplex฀emerged฀at฀about฀1.65฀ma฀(Roche฀et฀al.,฀2003).฀Europe฀occupies฀a฀marginal฀geographic฀ position,฀distant฀in฀time฀and฀space฀from฀the฀technocomplex’s฀origins฀(Villa,฀2001),฀since฀there฀is฀no฀ record฀of฀human฀presence฀in฀western฀Europe฀before฀the฀end฀of฀the฀Lower฀Pleistocene,฀except฀for฀ its฀southernmost฀regions,฀Orce฀and฀Atapuerca฀in฀Spain฀and฀perhaps฀Ceprano฀in฀Italy.฀After฀a฀void฀ of฀ several฀ hundred฀ millennia,฀ African-style฀ Acheulian฀ tools฀ appeared฀ in฀ Europe,฀ although฀ only฀ in฀ western฀regions,฀from฀the฀Iberian฀and฀Italian฀peninsulas฀to฀England฀and฀central฀Germany. In฀this฀paper฀we฀use฀a฀systematic฀approach฀to฀the฀chronology฀of฀the฀Acheulian฀assemblages฀ in฀southwestern฀Europe,฀discussing฀the฀nature฀of฀sites฀from฀a฀geoarchaeological฀point฀of฀view฀and฀ highlighting฀morphological฀and฀technological฀elements฀that฀are฀proper฀to฀the฀African-style฀Acheulian,฀ such฀as฀large฀cutting฀tools฀on฀flakes, particularly cleavers. Spain The earliest sites (Figure 1, Table 1) In฀the฀1970s฀and฀1980s,฀some฀European฀sites฀were฀thought฀to฀be฀as฀early฀as฀the฀Late฀Pliocene฀(but฀see฀ Villa,฀1983:฀12–14).฀In฀the฀early฀1990s,฀after฀a฀systematic฀revision฀of฀the฀available฀evidence,฀Roebroeks฀ and฀Kolfschoten฀(1994;฀1995)฀stated฀that฀the฀existence฀in฀Europe฀of฀human฀groups฀before฀the฀Middle฀ Pleistocene฀ was฀ not฀ demonstrated.฀ However,฀ the฀ subsequent฀ discovery฀ of฀ several฀ Spanish฀ sites,฀ Fuentenueva฀3,฀Barranco฀León฀(both฀in฀the฀Guadix-Baza฀basin฀near฀the฀city฀of฀Orce,฀southern฀Spain),฀ Gran฀Dolina฀and฀Sima฀del฀Elefante฀(both฀in฀the฀karstic฀system฀of฀Sierra฀de฀Atapuerca฀near฀the฀city฀of฀ Burgos,฀northern฀Spain),฀was฀to฀change฀this฀viewpoint,฀providing฀firm evidence of human occupation in฀southern฀Europe฀during฀the฀Lower฀Pleistocene.฀ Fuentenueva 3 and Barranco León (Orce, Granada) The฀ Tertiary฀ depressions฀ of฀ Granada฀ Province,฀ infilled with Plio-Pleistocene fluvial and lacustrine deposits,฀ contain฀ several฀ exceptional฀ paleontological฀ and฀ archaeological฀ sites฀ (Turq฀ et฀ al.,฀ 1996).฀ Among฀ these,฀ Fuente฀ Nueva฀ 3฀ (FN3)฀ and฀ Barranco฀ León฀ (BL)฀ have฀ yielded฀ faunal฀ and฀ lithic฀ assemblages.฀ The฀ age฀ proposed฀ for฀ these฀ two฀ sites฀ is฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ evolutionary฀ stage฀ of฀ fauna฀ and฀on฀magnetostratigraphic฀determinations.฀In฀both฀sites,฀paleomagnetism฀has฀been฀assessed฀in฀ sedimentary฀layers฀some฀20฀m฀thick,฀which฀exclusively฀show฀reversed฀magnetic฀polarity.฀Bearing฀in฀ mind฀that฀the฀faunal฀record฀(Martínez฀Navarro฀et฀al.,฀2003)฀corresponds฀to฀the฀Lower฀Pleistocene,฀the฀ entire฀sequence฀is฀ascribed฀to฀the฀Matuyama฀Chron,฀locating฀it฀between฀the฀Jaramillo฀and฀Olduvai฀ Subchrons฀(Oms฀et฀al.,฀2000).฀Faunal฀associations,฀and฀more฀specifically the presence in both sites The Acheulian of Western Europe 1฀ 2฀ 3฀ 4฀ Atapuerca Ambrona฀and฀Torralba La฀Maya El฀Basalito 5฀ 6฀ 7฀ 8฀ Áridos Transfesa฀and฀Orcasitas San฀Isidro Pinedo 9฀ Puente฀Pino 10฀ Sartalejo 11฀ Albalá 12฀ El฀Martinete 13฀ Porzuna 14฀ Solana฀del฀ Zamborino฀and฀ Cúllar-Baza฀I | 431 15฀ Fuentenueva฀3฀and฀ Barranco฀León 16฀ Bolomor Figure฀1:฀Map฀of฀the฀Iberian฀Peninsula฀showing฀regions,฀rivers฀and฀archaeological฀sites฀mentioned฀in฀the฀text.฀ Table฀ 1:฀ Stone฀ artifacts฀ from฀ Barranco฀ León฀ (BL),฀ Fuentenueva฀ 3฀ (FN3),฀ Gran฀ Dolina฀ level฀ TD6฀ (GD)฀ and฀ Sima฀ del฀ Elefante฀(SE).฀ Assemblage฀composition Cobbles฀with฀isolated฀scars฀(tested฀blocks,฀occasional฀cores)฀ Cores฀and฀core฀fragments Flakes฀and฀flake fragments >2 cm Flakes฀and฀flake fragments <2 cm Flakes฀with฀continuous฀or฀irregular฀retouch฀ Total฀ BL 3 6 124 146 16 ฀295฀ FN3 8 11 170 51 ฀4฀ 244 GD 18 1 159 27 205 SE 25 25 432 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa of฀Allophaiomys฀cf.฀lavocasti฀(=A.฀burgondiae),฀also฀suggest฀a฀provisional฀age฀of฀1.3/1.2฀ma฀(Agustí฀ and฀Madurell,฀2003).฀ In฀the฀BL฀site,฀faunal฀and฀lithic฀assemblages฀have฀been฀observed฀in฀a฀fluvial sand level of varying thickness฀(20฀to฀60฀cm).฀The฀energy฀of฀the฀environment฀could฀have฀displaced฀archaeological฀remains,฀ although฀appreciable฀amounts฀of฀small฀flakes and debris฀suggest฀a฀good฀state฀of฀preservation.฀The฀ set฀of฀artifacts฀obtained฀until฀the฀2002฀field season from 114 m2฀includes฀295฀artifacts฀(Table฀1)฀of฀flint (90%),฀as฀well฀as฀quartz,฀quartzite฀and฀limestone฀pebbles,฀all฀available฀in฀the฀immediate฀surroundings฀ (Toro฀et฀al.,฀2003b).฀Though฀the฀sample฀is฀rather฀small,฀some฀of฀its฀technological฀features฀point฀to฀a฀ certain฀degree฀of฀complexity: • Discoid฀cores฀with฀centripetal฀removals฀invading฀the฀entire฀main฀exploitation฀surface. •฀ Use฀of฀flakes as cores and presence of Kombewa flakes. •฀ Proportions฀of฀faceted฀butts฀approaching฀8%. •฀ Presence฀of฀well-configured side scrapers (a double alternate scraper and a multiple one). In฀FN3,฀the฀stratigraphic฀sequence,฀5฀m฀thick,฀comprises฀calcareous฀and฀marl฀levels฀deposited฀in฀ a฀shallow฀lacustrine฀environment,฀with฀archaeological฀levels฀appearing฀in฀the฀lower฀2฀m.฀As฀at฀BL,฀the฀ artifacts฀(Table฀1)฀were฀manufactured฀from฀the฀local฀pebbles,฀mainly฀flint. Limestone pebbles without knapping฀traces฀have฀also฀been฀observed฀and฀interpreted฀as฀manuports,฀although฀we฀lack฀information฀ on฀whether฀these฀stones฀could฀be฀natural฀and฀derived฀from฀the฀site’s฀periphery฀(Toro฀et฀al.,฀2003b).฀ The฀ FN3฀ assemblage฀ is฀ made฀ up฀ exclusively฀ of฀ cores฀ and฀ flakes and lacks true core tools or retouched฀flakes. Some cores were fully exploited, having yielded a high number of flakes. At least one฀core฀shows฀unipolar฀blade฀scars,฀and฀among฀the฀flakes we find several derived from discoid cores฀and฀the฀products฀of฀centripetal฀preparation฀surfaces,฀and฀others฀with฀small฀removals฀on฀the฀ proximal฀dorsal฀face,฀a฀technical฀feature฀that฀could฀be฀related฀to฀platform฀preparation.฀Despite฀the฀ lack฀of฀bifacial฀implements,฀some฀of฀the฀small฀flakes with non-cortical surfaces and a large number of฀scars฀could฀be฀products฀of฀biface฀maintenance.฀ Atapuerca (Burgos) The฀lower฀levels฀(TD4฀and฀TD6)฀of฀Gran฀Dolina,฀one฀of฀the฀cavities฀forming฀part฀of฀the฀Atapuerca฀ karstic฀complex฀in฀the฀northern฀Meseta,฀contain฀human฀remains,฀fauna฀and฀stone฀artifacts.฀These฀ levels฀have฀been฀dated฀to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀Lower฀Pleistocene฀by฀the฀identification of the Matuyama/ Brunhes฀polarity฀change฀at฀the฀base฀of฀TD7฀(which฀overlies฀TD6);฀the฀Matuyama-Brunhes฀boundary฀ was฀previously฀located฀in฀TD3฀(Parés฀and฀Pérez-González,฀1995;฀1999).฀Since฀all฀layers฀prior฀to฀TD7฀ show฀ negative฀ polarity฀ down฀ to฀ the฀ base฀ of฀ the฀ stratigraphic฀ sequence,฀ all฀ the฀ lower฀ portion฀ of฀ Gran฀ Dolina฀ is฀ dated฀ to฀ post-Jaramillo฀ pre-Brunhes฀ times.฀ Other฀ dates฀ (ESR฀ and฀ uranium฀ series)฀ corroborate฀ these฀ conclusions฀ and฀ fix the age of TD6 between 860 and 780 ka (Falguères et al., 1999;฀2001;฀Bermúdez฀de฀Castro฀et฀al.,฀2004).฀The฀fauna,฀and฀especially฀the฀evolutionary฀stage฀of฀ arvicolids,฀are฀attributed฀to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀Biharian;฀these฀paleomagnetic฀determinations฀and฀dates฀ provide,฀for฀the฀first time, a good calibration for this characteristic biochron in Spain (Cuenca-Bescós et฀al.,฀2004).฀ The Acheulian of Western Europe | 433 The฀industry฀of฀TD6฀comprises฀268฀pieces,฀205฀of฀which฀can฀be฀identified as artifacts (Table 1). There฀are฀also฀five natural blocks, 14 rounded pebbles with percussion traces and 44 pieces that cannot฀be฀identified because of their high degree of alteration. This assemblage was excavated from an฀area฀of฀about฀6฀m2,฀a฀surface฀constituting฀approximately฀10%฀of฀the฀preserved฀level;฀the฀original฀ extent฀of฀this฀level฀is฀unknown,฀since฀part฀of฀the฀cave฀was฀destroyed฀in฀the฀early฀twentieth฀century฀by฀ the฀construction฀of฀a฀railway฀line฀(Carbonell฀et฀al.,฀1999). In฀TD6,฀the฀artifact฀raw฀materials฀were฀mainly฀Neogene฀flint and quartzite. Miocene flint of poorer quality,฀ sandstone,฀ quartz฀ and฀ compact฀ limestone฀ are฀ rocks฀ existing฀ in฀ the฀ cave’s฀ surroundings฀ and฀ they฀ occur฀ in฀ lower฀ frequencies.฀ Apart฀ from฀ 19฀ non-worked฀ pieces฀ (some฀ with฀ characteristic฀ percussion฀ marks)฀ and฀ 44฀ unidentifiable pieces, the assemblage includes 19 cores and tested pebbles,฀145฀unretouched฀flakes, 14 flake fragments and 27 flakes with denticulate or฀scraper edges (Carbonell฀et฀al.,฀1999). Also฀recorded฀are฀two฀large฀flint flakes probably made elsewhere and transported to the cave to฀ be฀ used฀ as฀ blanks.฀ This฀ technological฀ trait,฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ the฀ presence฀ of฀ a฀ quartzite฀ discoid฀ core฀ and฀several฀flint flakes derived from cores with centripetal removals, indicates an Acheulian level of technology,฀in฀accordance฀with฀the฀age฀proposed฀for฀TD6.฀However,฀it฀has฀been฀repeatedly฀stated฀ that฀the฀technical฀level฀of฀this฀industry฀should฀be฀referred฀to฀as฀“Mode฀1”฀(Carbonell฀et฀al.,฀1999),฀ despite฀its฀having฀been฀being฀designated฀“Developed฀Oldowan”฀(Bermúdez฀de฀Castro฀et฀al.,฀2004)฀on฀ other฀occasions.฀The฀complete฀excavation฀of฀the฀level฀should฀provide฀a฀larger฀lithic฀assemblage฀on฀ which฀to฀base฀this฀type฀of฀discussion.฀ Recently,฀evidence฀of฀a฀lithic฀industry฀has฀also฀been฀discovered฀in฀the฀Lower฀Pleistocene฀levels฀ of฀ Sima฀ del฀ Elefante.฀ This฀ consists฀ of฀ 25฀ previously฀ undescribed฀ flint artifacts from the lower stratigraphic฀unit,฀for฀which฀an฀age฀even฀earlier฀than฀that฀of฀TD4–TD6฀has฀been฀proposed,฀since฀ its฀association฀of฀micromammals฀is฀considered฀to฀indicate฀an฀age฀of฀1.3–1.1฀ma,฀and฀the฀presence฀ of฀ the฀ carnivore฀ Pannonictis฀ nestii฀ suggests฀ a฀ minimum฀ age฀ of฀ 1.4–1.3฀ ma฀ (Rosas฀ et฀ al.,฀ 2004).฀ Nevertheless,฀ the฀ development฀ during฀ the฀ Pleistocene฀ of฀ the฀ topography฀ surrounding฀ the฀ cave,฀ as฀inferred฀from฀the฀statistical฀modeling฀of฀successive฀longitudinal฀river฀profiles, indicates that the opening฀of฀the฀cave฀to฀the฀outside฀and฀its฀possible฀human฀occupation฀are฀coeval฀with฀that฀of฀Gran฀ Dolina,฀and฀cannot฀predate฀the฀fourth฀terrace฀of฀the฀river฀Arlanzón฀(T4AZN,฀at฀+60/67฀m),฀assigned฀ to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀Lower฀Pleistocene฀(Benito฀and฀Pérez-González,฀2005;฀Pérez-González,฀personal฀ communication).฀ The Acheulian of the Middle Pleistocene Nature of sites and regional distribution (Table 2) The฀ known฀ Middle฀ Pleistocene฀ sites฀ of฀ the฀ Iberian฀ Peninsula฀ almost฀ invariably฀ appear฀ in฀ fluvial deposits฀of฀middle฀river฀terraces.฀From฀the฀higher฀terraces,฀which฀have฀also฀been฀intensely฀explored,฀ there฀have฀been฀no฀reports฀of฀anything฀but฀isolated฀lithic฀artifacts,฀often฀of฀difficult diagnosis. This situation฀is฀primarily฀determined฀by฀the฀general฀geological฀features฀of฀the฀area,฀which฀includes฀vast฀ regions฀devoid฀of฀calcareous฀formations฀or฀significant lacustrine basins. The most notable exceptions 434 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Table฀2:฀Terrace฀sequences฀in฀the฀Meseta. Rivers GUADALQUIVIR GUADIANA Jabalón TAGUS฀(Toledo) TAGUS฀(Talavera) Manzanares Jarama฀(Aridos) Jarama฀(Talamanca) Alto฀Henares Alagón DUERO Tera Pisuerga Tormes Yeltes-Huebra Eresma Lower฀Pleistocene From฀+212฀to฀+165฀(4฀ levels) +22/28 +45฀+40฀+31฀+25 From฀+125฀to฀+75 (6฀levels) From฀+195฀to฀+82 (7฀levels) +90฀+80฀+68฀+60 +147฀+125฀+99฀+82 From฀+190฀to฀+65 (11฀levels) From฀+125฀to฀+70 (5฀levels) From฀+144฀to฀+74 (7฀levels) – +130฀+105฀+80฀+70 +120฀+108฀+80 +60฀+40 +68 Middle฀Pleistocene +139฀+115฀+100฀+85฀+73฀+55฀+35 Upper฀Pleistocene +26฀+14฀+6/8 +16/18฀+10/13฀+8 +19/21฀+10/12฀+7 +60฀+50฀+40฀+25/30 +5/6฀+3 +2/3 +15/20฀+4/9฀+3/5 +60฀+40/45฀+25/30 +18/20฀+8฀+2/3 +52฀+44฀+35฀+25/30฀+18/20 Arganda฀I฀and฀II฀ +52฀+40฀ +50฀+40฀+38฀+30 +12฀+10฀+8฀+3 Arganda฀III฀+3/5 ฀+55฀+40฀+33฀+25 +60฀+40/45฀+35฀+26 +16฀+9 +18฀+10฀+6฀+2/4 +62฀+54฀+40/48฀+24/30 +18฀+8฀+3/5 ฀+35฀+20 +60฀+40฀+25/30 +62฀+50฀+40฀+34฀+22 +25฀+18/20฀+8/10 +60฀+54฀+45฀+30฀+26 +12฀+7฀+3 +15฀+7฀+5 +10/12฀+8฀+3/5 +5 +12฀+3 +12฀+8฀+3/5 Note:฀Major฀rivers฀are฀in฀capitals฀and฀thick฀lines฀separate฀the฀major฀river฀basins.฀Relative฀elevations฀in฀meters;฀levels฀with฀ Acheulian฀artifacts฀are฀indicated฀in฀bold.฀ are฀the฀cave฀sites฀of฀Atapuerca฀(Burgos)฀and฀Bolomor฀(Valencia),฀along฀with฀those฀appearing฀in฀the฀ lacustrine฀deposits฀of฀the฀Guadix-Baza฀depressions฀(Granada).฀The฀sites฀of฀Ambrona฀and฀Torralba,฀ although฀in฀karstic฀terrain,฀occur฀in฀fluvio-lacustrine deposits. Within a similar general setting, we should฀ mention฀ the฀ caves฀ of฀ Almonda฀ in฀ Portugal฀ (Estremadura),฀ presently฀ under฀ investigation฀ (Marks฀et฀al.,฀2002).฀It฀should฀be฀noted฀that฀in฀a฀good฀part฀of฀the฀calcareous฀regions฀of฀the฀interior฀ peninsula฀intensive฀surveys฀have฀not฀been฀undertaken,฀and฀consequently฀the฀situation฀might฀change฀ in฀the฀future.฀ There฀ is฀ currently฀ adequate฀ knowledge฀ on฀ terrace฀ systems,฀ providing฀ a฀ reference฀ framework฀ for฀the฀chronological฀ordering฀and฀linking฀of฀sites.฀In฀some฀cases฀it฀has฀been฀possible,฀based฀on฀ fauna,฀paleomagnetic฀determinations฀and฀absolute฀dates,฀to฀calibrate฀the฀fluvial morphostratigraphic framework.฀ Some฀sites฀appear฀on฀the฀surface฀of฀a฀middle฀terrace฀while฀others฀are฀in฀stratigraphic฀context,฀ although฀often฀in฀high-energy฀deposits.฀Primary฀context฀sites฀have฀been฀found฀in฀overbank฀deposits฀ (e.g.,฀Aridos฀and฀Arriaga฀in฀the฀Madrid฀area),฀in฀low-energy฀deposits฀(Puente฀Pino,฀Toledo)฀and฀in฀ fluvio-lacustrine deposits (Ambrona and Torralba in the province of Soria). The Acheulian of Western Europe | 435 Very฀ few฀ Middle฀ Pleistocene฀ sites฀ are฀ known฀ in฀ the฀ Mediterranean฀ region,฀ in฀ the฀ middle฀ and฀ lower฀ Ebro฀ basin,฀ in฀ Galicia฀ and฀ on฀ the฀ Cantabrian฀ coast฀ (Santonja,฀ 1996;฀ Montes,฀ 2003).฀ In฀ the฀ Mediterranean฀region,฀sites฀are฀almost฀exceptions.฀This฀lack฀of฀sites฀could฀be฀the฀result฀of฀the฀irregular฀ discharge฀ regimen฀ of฀ rivers฀ subjected฀ to฀ frequent฀ floods under the effects of the Mediterranean climate,฀impairing฀the฀preservation฀of฀sites฀in฀fluvial environments (Santonja and Pérez-González, 2001a).฀The฀middle฀terraces฀of฀the฀short฀Cantabrian฀and฀Galician฀river฀reaches,฀subjected฀to฀glacioeustatic฀sea฀level฀changes,฀are฀not฀well฀preserved,฀thus฀explaining฀the฀presence฀of฀sites฀only฀in฀places฀ where฀terraces฀have฀not฀suffered฀the฀effects฀of฀erosion.฀ The Guadalquivir depression The฀ Guadalquivir฀ basin฀ is฀ a฀ structurally฀ complex฀ area฀ comprising฀ several฀ units.฀ Besides฀ the฀ Fosa฀ del฀ Guadalquivir,฀ the฀ Neogene฀ depressions฀ east฀ of฀ Granada,฀ particularly฀ the฀ Guadix-Baza฀ basin,฀ are฀especially฀important.฀Though฀many฀sites฀are฀exclusively฀paleontological,฀others,฀such฀as฀those฀ in฀the฀Orce฀area,฀also฀have฀an฀archaeological฀record.฀In฀Cúllar-Baza฀I,฀an฀area฀has฀been฀identified that฀contains฀lithic฀artifacts฀(two฀choppers฀and฀six฀flakes) associated with fauna dated to the middle part฀of฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀(Ruiz฀Bustos฀and฀Michaux,฀1976).฀Several฀years฀ago฀an฀extensive฀site฀ was฀uncovered฀at฀Solana฀del฀Zamborino,฀close฀to฀Guadix;฀it฀comprises฀a฀broad฀succession฀of฀levels฀ in฀fluvial deposits of complex interpretation (partly overbank facies), in which an Upper Acheulian industry฀of฀the฀final Middle Pleistocene appeared in association with large mammals (Botella et al., 1976).฀ In฀ the฀ Guadalquivir฀ terraces,฀ Acheulian฀ industries฀ are฀ known฀ all฀ along฀ the฀ middle฀ and฀ lower฀ reaches฀of฀the฀river,฀between฀Jaén฀and฀Sevilla,฀along฀both฀the฀main฀river฀and฀several฀of฀its฀tributaries.฀ The฀morphostratigraphic฀sequence฀of฀the฀Guadalquivir฀in฀Sevilla฀is฀composed฀of฀14฀levels฀(Table฀2),฀ dated฀by฀U/Th฀and฀paleomagnetic฀determinations฀(Baena฀and฀Díaz฀del฀Olmo,฀1994).฀The฀Jaramillo฀ Subchron฀(ca.฀0.99–1.07฀ma;฀Cande฀and฀Kent,฀1995)฀is฀located฀between฀terraces฀T3฀(+169฀m)฀and฀T4฀ (+142฀m),฀while฀T5฀(+139฀m),฀showing฀normal฀polarity,฀would฀correspond฀to฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀ (Brunhes฀Chron,฀post-0.78฀ma).฀For฀T10฀(+55฀m),฀a฀date฀around฀0.3฀ma฀is฀proposed,฀and฀the฀carbonate฀ deposits฀at฀the฀top฀of฀T12฀(+29฀m)฀have฀been฀dated฀to฀80,000฀years. ฀The฀first known lithic industries were recorded in T5 and T6 (+115 m), terraces ascribed to the initial฀stages฀of฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀(Caro฀Gómez฀et฀al.,฀2005).฀Stone฀artifacts฀occur฀in฀high-energy฀ gravel฀levels฀lacking฀in฀fauna.฀T5฀contains฀not฀only฀simple฀cores฀and฀choppers฀but฀also฀retouched฀ flakes, sometimes fairly large, and there is even mention of a Levallois flake. In T6, trihedral picks and฀a฀cleaver฀have฀been฀described.฀If฀the฀age฀proposed฀is฀confirmed, we would be looking at an Acheulian฀industry฀of฀around฀0.7฀ma,฀a฀date฀unparalleled฀in฀other฀fluvial systems of the peninsula. The฀sequences฀described฀show฀substantial฀vertical฀development฀and฀since฀some฀of฀the฀gravel฀levels฀ containing฀the฀artifacts฀could฀represent฀sedimentary฀cycles฀developed฀on฀the฀terraces,฀the฀industry’s฀ age฀could฀be฀more฀recent.฀ Other฀assemblages฀in฀the฀Guadalquivir฀that฀include฀clearly฀Acheulian฀bifacial฀tools฀are฀known฀ from฀T8฀to฀T11.฀The฀industry฀of฀terrace฀T12,฀already฀into฀the฀Upper฀Pleistocene,฀would฀correspond฀to฀ 436 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa the฀Final฀Acheulian.฀All฀these฀industries฀are฀made฀on฀local฀quartzite฀cobbles;฀from฀T10฀onward,฀the฀ fluvial sediments contain flint, which was also worked. ฀Another฀ important฀ set฀ of฀ sites฀ has฀ been฀ recognized฀ in฀ Guadalete฀ (Cádiz),฀ with฀ an฀ Acheulian฀ industry,฀also฀dated฀to฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene,฀being฀identified in three successive terrace levels (Giles et฀al.,฀1989).฀ The Guadiana basin Middle฀Pleistocene฀sites฀are฀found฀along฀the฀entire฀Guadiana฀River,฀but฀mainly฀in฀Campo฀de฀Calatrava.฀ This฀Tertiary฀depression฀underwent฀some฀volcanic฀activity฀during฀the฀Pliocene฀and฀the฀beginning฀of฀ the฀Quaternary,฀but฀there฀are฀no฀records฀of฀human฀fossils฀or฀artifacts฀of฀this฀age.฀ During฀ the฀ Lower฀ Pleistocene,฀ drainage฀ of฀ the฀ eastern฀ sector฀ (Alto฀ Guadiana)฀ towards฀ the฀ Mediterranean฀occurred฀through฀today’s฀Júcar฀valley฀(Pérez-González,฀1994).฀The฀terraces฀associated฀ with฀this฀situation฀have฀provided฀faunal฀remains฀(Mazo฀et฀al.,฀1990),฀but฀so฀far฀there฀are฀no฀signs฀of฀ human฀occupation.฀ The฀downcutting฀of฀the฀Guadiana฀in฀the฀Quaternary฀was฀notably฀less฀than฀that฀of฀the฀Guadalquivir,฀ Tagus฀ or฀ Duero฀ rivers,฀ and฀ consequently฀ the฀ relative฀ heights฀ of฀ the฀ terraces฀ are฀ lower฀ here฀ than฀ those฀in฀the฀other฀basins.฀The฀middle฀levels฀of฀the฀Guadiana฀and฀Jabalón฀rivers฀contain฀Acheulian฀ artifacts.฀The฀most฀representative฀localities฀are฀El฀Martinete฀(+10/13฀m)฀and฀Albalá฀(+8฀m),฀both฀in฀the฀ Guadiana฀valley,฀where฀similar฀frequencies฀of฀bifaces฀and฀cleavers฀are฀found฀(Table฀3).฀These฀cleavers,฀ made฀on฀cortical฀or฀simple฀flakes, are mainly of types 0 and II, with some type I pieces and pieces with฀invasive฀bifacial฀retouch฀approaching฀type฀V฀(Figure฀2;฀Tixier,฀1956;฀Balout฀et฀al.,฀1967).฀The฀El฀ Martinete฀assemblage฀includes฀a฀type฀III฀cleaver฀manufactured฀from฀a฀Levallois฀flake, a method only sporadically฀used.฀None฀of฀these฀terraces฀contain฀fauna฀and฀an฀age฀somewhere฀in฀the฀second฀half฀of฀ the฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀is฀suggested฀only฀by฀their฀relative฀position฀in฀the฀general฀sequence฀(Santonja฀ and฀Pérez-González,฀2002).฀ The฀ Porzuna฀ site฀ is฀ located฀ on฀ a฀ terrace฀ at฀ +5฀ m฀ in฀ the฀ headwaters฀ of฀ the฀ Bullaque฀ River,฀ a฀ tributary฀ of฀ the฀ Guadiana.฀ Collections฀ of฀ quartzite฀ artifacts,฀ obtained฀ from฀ the฀ surface฀ and฀ amounting฀to฀over฀5000฀pieces,฀have฀been฀analyzed฀and฀described฀as฀Upper฀Acheulian฀(Vallespí฀ et฀al.,฀1985).฀Cleavers฀are฀common฀in฀this฀site฀(475฀specimens),฀their฀frequency฀being฀two฀to฀every฀ three฀bifaces.฀The฀artifacts฀show฀different฀features฀from฀those฀observed฀in฀Albalá฀and฀El฀Martinete฀ and,฀although฀there฀is฀still฀a฀predominance฀of฀items฀of฀types฀II฀(45%),฀0฀(25%)฀and฀V฀(18%),฀type฀ I฀ (5%)฀ is฀ also฀ represented.฀ Types฀ III฀ (6%)฀ and฀ VI฀ (2%),฀ made฀ on฀ Levallois฀ and฀ Kombewa฀ flakes respectively,฀are฀more฀frequent฀than฀in฀the฀other฀sites.฀The฀morphotechnical฀characteristics฀of฀the฀ bifacial฀ tools฀ (regular฀ shapes,฀ edges฀ frequently฀ retouched฀ by฀ soft฀ hammer)฀ are฀ comparable฀ to฀ those฀observed฀in฀El฀Basalito฀(Salamanca)฀and฀in฀the฀complex฀terrace฀of฀Butarque฀(Manzanares฀ valley,฀Madrid),฀sites฀discussed฀below. Sites along the middle reaches of the Tagus The฀discovery฀and฀investigation฀of฀Pinedo฀(Querol฀and฀Santonja,฀1979)฀and฀other฀sites฀near฀Toledo฀ The Acheulian of Western Europe | 437 Table฀3:฀Stone฀artifacts฀of฀several฀sites฀in฀fluvial context. Artifacts El฀Martinete Albalá Pinedo Non-cortical฀flakes and fragments Cortical฀or฀partly฀cortical฀(>50%)฀ flakes and fragments Tools฀on฀flake Flakes฀with฀some฀retouch฀ Heavy-duty฀tools฀on฀flake Cores฀and฀fragments 29 20 16 13 2812 1204 16 9 14 29 33 32 3 15 271 227 n.d. 261 Retouched฀cores Small฀tools฀on฀pebble Choppers Bifaces Biface฀fragments Flake฀cleavers฀and฀similar฀pieces Trihedral฀picks Total 1 0 9 17 (50%฀฀ on฀flake) 0 type฀0=5 type฀I=1 type฀II=8 type฀V=2 T.A.=1 5 7 30 (13฀%฀฀ on฀flake) 0 type฀0=10 type฀I=6 type฀II=11 type฀III=1 5 166 3 185 Puente฀ Pino 266 101 41 77 Sartalejo Arganda฀I 1166 74 341 238 14 6 2 15 56 848 2 5 985 72 (27%฀฀ on฀flake) 2 type฀0=25 type฀I=7 type฀II=3 2 0 6 8 (20%฀฀ on฀flake) 0 type฀0=1 type฀I=1 type฀II=2 T.A.=1 66 5943 3 565 n.d. 0 91 145 (>50%฀฀ on฀flake) 15 type฀0=214 type฀I=28 type฀II=60 type฀III=2 type฀V=15 type฀VI=4 T.฀A.=5 Others=15 26 3213 0 0 4 14 (36%฀฀ on฀flake) 0 type฀0=4 type฀I=1 type฀II=1 type฀III=1 3 139 Note:฀Cleaver฀types฀are฀those฀of฀Tixier฀(0–V).฀Type฀T.A.฀refers฀to฀a฀unifacial฀or฀bifacial฀cleaver฀similar฀to฀those฀described฀at฀Terra฀ Amata,฀in฀which฀the฀distal฀working฀edge฀is฀obtained฀by฀a฀single฀“cleaver”฀or฀“tranchet”฀blow฀(Villa,฀1983). containing฀ Quaternary฀ fauna฀ had฀ a฀ strong฀ impact฀ on฀ studies฀ of฀ the฀ Lower฀ Paleolithic฀ in฀ Spain,฀ resumed,฀after฀a฀long฀interval,฀from฀the฀1960s.฀ Immediately฀upstream฀from฀Toledo,฀a฀gravel฀quarry฀opened฀in฀a฀middle฀terrace฀of฀the฀right฀bank฀ of฀the฀river฀Tagus฀(+25/30฀m)฀showed฀a฀density฀of฀artifacts฀among฀the฀greatest฀known฀in฀the฀Iberian฀ Peninsula.฀Judging฀from฀the฀data฀obtained฀from฀the฀25฀m2฀excavated฀and฀during฀the฀subsequent฀ quarry฀works฀(30฀hectares),฀the฀density฀of฀artifacts฀is฀some฀50฀per฀m3฀in฀gravel฀and฀sand฀levels,฀with฀ a฀mean฀thickness฀of฀3–4฀m.฀This฀represents฀an฀impressive฀overall฀number฀of฀artifacts.฀Collections฀of฀ over฀12,000฀artifacts฀have฀been฀deposited฀in฀the฀Museo฀de฀Santa฀Cruz฀(Toledo). The฀Pinedo฀terrace฀occupies฀a฀middle฀to฀low฀position฀in฀the฀sequence฀of฀13฀levels฀of฀the฀Tagus฀in฀ Toledo฀(Table฀2).฀Faunal฀remains฀and฀reverse฀paleomagnetic฀determinations฀situate฀the฀+60฀m฀terrace฀ at฀the฀end฀of฀the฀Matuyama฀Chron฀(ca.฀780฀ka),฀while฀the฀faunal฀record฀of฀the฀+25/30฀m฀terrace฀ indicates฀an฀advanced฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀age฀(Soto,฀1979).฀The฀+50฀m฀and฀+40฀m฀terraces฀might฀ also฀correspond฀to฀this฀period.฀In฀the฀+40฀m฀terrace,฀Mammuthus฀trogontherii฀and฀micromammal฀ 438 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Figure฀2:฀Typology฀of฀cleavers฀according฀to฀J.฀Tixier฀(1956;฀Balout฀et฀al.,฀1997).฀Following฀Tixier’s฀definition, cleavers are฀tools฀on฀large฀flakes, shaped by retouch on the sides and with a wide cutting distal edge without retouch. Type 0฀=฀on฀a฀cortical฀flake with the distal edge formed by the intersection of the cortical dorsal face and the ventral face, without฀prior฀preparation;฀type฀I฀=฀on฀a฀cortical฀flake but with the distal edge formed by a removal on the core, prior to฀the฀extraction฀of฀the฀cleaver฀flake; type II = on an ordinary flake; type III =฀on a฀Levallois flake; type IV฀= TabelbalaTachengit฀type,฀with฀both฀sides฀configured by prior removals on the core, without retouch; type V = with invasive retouch;฀type฀VI฀=฀on฀a฀Kombewa฀flake. The Acheulian of Western Europe | 439 taxa฀suggest฀an฀age฀comparable฀to฀that฀of฀Cúllar-Baza฀(Granada)฀and฀older฀than฀the฀Aridos฀sites฀ (Sesé฀et฀al.,฀2000).฀This฀leaves฀open฀the฀possibility฀of฀chronological฀equivalence฀between฀the฀Pinedo฀ site฀and฀the฀Jarama฀sites.฀ The฀ industry฀ of฀ Pinedo฀ is฀ in฀ secondary฀ context,฀ in฀ fluvial deposits of medium energy. In technological฀ terms,฀ the฀ Pinedo฀ assemblage฀ (Querol฀ and฀ Santonja,฀ 1979)฀ contains฀ many฀ scarcely฀ exploited฀cores฀with฀isolated,฀independent,฀multidirectional฀or฀bifacial฀removals฀from฀a฀single฀edge.฀ The฀most฀organized฀forms฀are฀discoid฀cores,฀with฀no฀evidence฀of฀Levallois฀flake production, or at least฀no฀preferential฀Levallois฀cores.฀In฀the฀series฀excavated฀in฀the฀1970s฀(Table฀3)฀there฀are฀very฀few฀ flakes with intensive retouch. Tools were shaped mainly on pebbles to obtain choppers, trihedral picks฀and฀bifaces,฀many฀made฀with฀large฀removals฀without฀edge฀retouch.฀However,฀there฀are฀cleavers,฀ about฀half฀the฀number฀of฀bifaces;฀they฀are฀mainly฀of฀type฀0฀(71%)฀but฀also฀of฀types฀I฀(21%)฀and฀II฀(8%).฀ The฀apparent฀archaism฀of฀the฀Pinedo฀industry฀should฀not฀be฀interpreted฀in฀evolutionary฀terms,฀since฀ sites฀such฀as฀San฀Isidro,฀Aridos,฀Sartalejo฀or฀La฀Maya฀II,฀of฀comparable฀age,฀show฀more฀complex฀ technological฀features,฀and฀particularly฀bifacial฀tools฀of฀more฀symmetrical฀form฀(Santonja,฀1996). The฀ only฀ lithic฀ artifacts฀ detected฀ in฀ higher฀ levels฀ of฀ the฀ Pinedo฀ terrace฀ sequence฀ (apart฀ from฀ several฀doubtful฀artifacts฀found฀in฀a฀+75/80฀m฀terrace฀at฀El฀Espinar)฀are฀a฀few฀isolated฀pieces,฀i.e.,฀a฀ polyhedral฀core฀and฀some฀flakes in the +40 m terrace. In฀Talavera฀de฀la฀Reina,฀80฀km฀downstream,฀the฀fluvial sequence (Pérez-González et al., in press) is฀very฀similar฀to฀the฀Toledo฀sequence฀(Table฀2).฀Several฀sites฀are฀known฀in฀this฀sector,฀apparently฀ situated฀on฀the฀+40/45฀m฀terrace,฀though฀it฀cannot฀yet฀be฀ruled฀out฀that฀these฀sites฀are฀related฀to฀ alluvial฀fans฀more฀recent฀than฀the฀terrace฀and฀similar฀in฀age฀to฀Pinedo.฀A฀small฀sample,฀consisting฀ of฀14฀artifacts฀including฀at฀least฀one฀thick,฀sub-oval฀biface฀and฀a฀cleaver฀produced฀on฀a฀simple฀flake, was฀obtained฀from฀the฀stratigraphic฀section฀of฀Hornaguera฀(Malpica฀de฀Tagus).฀A฀more฀extensive฀site฀ is฀Puente฀Pino฀(Alcolea฀de฀Tagus),฀currently฀under฀excavation฀(Rodríguez฀de฀Tembleque฀et฀al.,฀2005).฀ The฀main฀level฀excavated฀at฀this฀site฀contains฀a฀lithic฀assemblage฀in฀a฀sand฀level฀lacking฀associated฀ fauna฀and฀covered฀by฀fine-grained, low-energy deposits. There are hammers, cores and flakes of all types,฀choppers,฀bifaces,฀cleavers฀and฀tools฀on฀flake (Table 3) made of local rocks, mostly quartzite but฀also฀quartz฀and฀flint. The Alagón valley In฀the฀area฀of฀the฀confluence of the Jerte and Alagón rivers near Cáceres, other Acheulian assemblages are฀known,฀especially฀from฀the฀+26฀m฀terrace฀(Santonja,฀1985;฀Moloney,฀1992),฀a฀position฀similar฀ to฀that฀of฀Pinedo฀(Table฀2).฀In฀the฀absence฀of฀fauna฀or฀dating฀of฀any฀kind,฀the฀morphostratigraphic฀ sequence฀is฀the฀main฀criterion฀for฀correlations฀with฀sites฀in฀the฀same฀catchment฀area.฀ Although฀the฀first indisputable human artifacts (a discoid core and several flakes at the Argeme chapel)฀once฀again฀appear฀in฀the฀terrace฀at฀+40/45฀m,฀El฀Sartalejo฀(Galisteo),฀on฀the฀+24/฀26฀m฀terrace,฀ offers฀the฀largest฀assemblage฀of฀the฀Alagón฀River,฀comprising฀3213฀artifacts฀(Table฀3;฀Figures฀3–5).฀฀ This฀ time฀ the฀ number฀ of฀ cleavers฀ is฀ double฀ that฀ of฀ the฀ bifaces,฀ also฀ often฀ made฀ on฀ flakes; the cleavers฀correspond฀to฀types฀0฀(52%),฀I฀(7฀%),฀II฀(23฀%),฀III฀(1฀%),฀V฀(4%)฀and฀VI฀(2%).฀A฀further฀9%฀ 440 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Figure฀3:฀Quartzite฀cleavers฀from฀El฀Sartalejo฀(Spain).฀(1)฀type฀0,฀an฀atypical฀piece฀since฀the฀cutting฀edge฀is฀formed฀by฀the฀ intersection฀of฀the฀cortical฀dorsal฀face฀with฀a฀ventral฀face฀that฀has฀a฀large฀removal฀present฀on฀the฀core฀before฀extraction฀ of฀the฀flake; (2–4) cleavers of the Terra Amata type (Villa, 1983: 122–123). The Acheulian of Western Europe | 441 Figure฀4:฀Quartzite฀cleavers฀from฀El฀Sartalejo฀(Spain).฀(1)฀type฀III;฀(2)฀type฀VI;฀(3)฀could฀be฀classified as intermediate between฀type฀0฀and฀type฀V,฀since฀this฀piece฀has฀bifacial฀invasive฀retouch;฀(4–5)฀cleavers฀on฀special฀flake. show฀signs฀of฀invasive฀retouch฀on฀the฀upper฀surface,฀precluding฀reliable฀identification of the blank. Another฀three฀pieces฀were฀made฀on฀the฀core฀itself.฀There฀are฀also฀examples฀of฀cores฀specifically prepared฀for฀manufacturing฀this฀type฀of฀cleaver,฀a฀flaking procedure making them approximately equivalent฀ to฀ Tixier’s฀ type฀ IV,฀ despite฀ the฀ different฀ preparation฀ method.฀ The฀ average฀ length฀ of฀ this฀ set฀ of฀ artifacts฀ is฀ 140–150฀ mm฀ and฀ their฀ average฀ weight฀ is฀ about฀ 650฀ g.฀ These฀ figures are appreciably฀higher฀than฀overall฀values฀recorded฀for฀the฀middle฀terraces฀of฀the฀Guadiana฀(125/135฀ mm฀and฀500฀g)฀or฀Pinedo฀(110฀mm฀and฀340฀g).฀The฀size฀of฀the฀raw฀materials฀may฀have฀influenced the฀higher฀frequency฀of฀cleavers฀observed฀in฀El฀Sartalejo,฀which฀is฀higher฀than฀in฀any฀other฀Meseta฀ site฀(Santonja,฀1985). 442 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Figure฀5:฀Quartzite฀cleavers฀from฀El฀Sartalejo.฀(1)฀ type฀II,฀with฀borer฀retouch฀on฀the฀distal฀edge;฀(2–3)฀ trihedral฀picks. The Acheulian of Western Europe | 443 The฀ comparison฀ with฀ Pinedo฀ is฀ interesting,฀ since฀ some฀ technological฀ differences฀ are฀ quite฀ marked.฀ In฀ Pinedo,฀ the฀ Levallois฀ strategy฀ seems฀ totally฀ absent,฀ while฀ El฀ Sartalejo฀ yielded฀ Levallois฀ cores฀and฀flakes, some of rather large size. At both sites, discoid cores account for a third of the total number฀of฀artifacts.฀In฀El฀Sartalejo,฀striking฀platforms฀were฀more฀frequently฀prepared,฀though฀in฀a฀ simple฀manner:฀dihedral฀butts฀comprise฀11%.฀Cores฀with฀large฀removals฀(often฀only฀one)฀suitable฀for฀ manufacturing฀cleavers฀and฀bifaces฀are฀common฀in฀El฀Sartalejo฀but฀absent฀from฀Pinedo.฀ Tool฀shaping฀processes฀differ฀to฀an฀even฀greater฀extent.฀In฀El฀Sartalejo,฀tools฀made฀on฀flakes of smaller฀size฀fall฀into฀standardized฀patterns,฀as฀a฀consequence฀of฀a฀more฀regular฀and฀systematic฀use฀ of฀ retouch.฀ There฀ are฀ even฀ flat bifaces, often made on flakes, and although the method of direct percussion฀without฀secondary฀trimming฀of฀edges฀(to฀produce฀bifaces฀of฀“Abbevillian”฀style)฀is฀common฀ in฀both฀sites,฀profiles and edges tend to be more regular in bifaces from El Sartalejo. Cleavers are more elaborate฀at฀El฀Sartalejo;฀there฀are฀pieces฀with฀very฀symmetrical฀outlines,฀sometimes฀on฀Kombewa฀or฀ Levallois฀flakes, and pieces that were completely predetermined on the core before removal. These฀ differences฀ could฀ in฀ fact฀ be฀ due,฀ at฀ least฀ in฀ part,฀ to฀ the฀ different฀ origins฀ of฀ the฀ two฀ assemblages.฀The฀El฀Sartalejo฀assemblage฀originated฀in฀the฀systematic฀survey฀of฀9.2฀hectares฀of฀a฀ terrace฀dismantled฀by฀agricultural฀activity,฀while฀that฀from฀Pinedo฀was฀recovered฀during฀the฀excavation฀ of฀ a฀ small฀ portion฀ of฀ a฀ terrace,฀ some฀ 25฀ m2.฀ A฀ quick฀ glance฀ at฀ the฀ collection฀ of฀ Martín฀ Aguado,฀ over฀7000฀pieces฀collected฀during฀the฀exploitation฀of฀the฀large฀Pinedo฀quarry,฀suggested฀that฀these฀ differences฀would฀be฀less฀obvious฀had฀we฀used฀this฀collection฀in฀our฀comparison,฀especially฀in฀terms฀ of฀the฀configuration of tools made on flake and bifaces. The Madrid region From฀1916฀to฀1934,฀the฀Manzanares฀River฀was฀a฀focus฀of฀archaeological฀attention.฀This฀explains฀the฀ large฀number฀of฀identified sites, although when talking about this region we should really talk about collections฀of฀material,฀since฀few฀of฀the฀Madrid฀area฀sites฀have฀been฀well฀defined and systematically excavated.฀ The฀middle฀and฀low฀terrace฀deposits฀of฀the฀last฀reach฀of฀the฀Manzanares฀River,฀spanning฀some฀ 22฀km฀from฀San฀Isidro฀in฀downtown฀Madrid฀to฀the฀confluence with the Jarama, contain the highest concentration฀of฀Paleolithic฀sites฀known฀in฀the฀Iberian฀Peninsula.฀The฀high฀density฀of฀remains฀was฀ undoubtedly฀favored฀by฀the฀synsedimentary฀subsidence฀processes฀that฀affected฀the฀lower฀stretch฀ of฀the฀valley฀since฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀(Pérez-González,฀1980),฀leading฀to฀a฀greater฀deposition฀of฀ fine-grained floodplain sediments. In these deposits, whose thicknesses exceed ten meters from San Isidro฀onward,฀faunal฀and฀lithic฀remains฀are฀much฀better฀preserved฀than฀in฀the฀gravel฀terraces฀of฀the฀ other฀rivers฀of฀the฀Meseta฀or฀even฀of฀the฀Manzanares฀itself฀north฀of฀Madrid.฀ Upstream฀from฀Madrid,฀the฀terrace฀sequences฀of฀La฀Zarzuela฀and฀La฀Casa฀de฀Campo฀(Table฀2)฀ are฀well฀preserved.฀At฀these฀points,฀13฀perfectly฀stepped฀levels฀have฀been฀identified, an arrangement that฀is฀not฀maintained฀beyond฀San฀Isidro,฀from฀which฀point฀these฀levels฀start฀to฀overlap.฀However,฀ terrace฀planes฀can฀still฀be฀distinguished฀at฀+8฀m,฀+12/15฀m,฀+18/20฀m฀and฀+25/30฀m,฀and฀are฀better฀ preserved฀on฀the฀right฀bank฀of฀the฀river.฀The฀deposits฀finally accumulate as a complex terrace east 444 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa of฀Madrid,฀in฀the฀last฀reach฀of฀the฀Manzanares฀before฀its฀confluence with the Jarama (Goy et al., 1989).฀ The฀ most฀ outstanding฀ Acheulian฀ sites,฀ such฀ as฀ San฀ Isidro,฀ Transfesa฀ and฀ Orcasitas฀ (Santonja฀ and฀Pérez-González,฀2002),฀are฀found฀in฀the฀+25/30฀m฀terrace฀and฀have฀yielded฀Acheulian฀industry฀ and฀ fauna฀ characterized฀ by฀ Paleoloxodon฀ antiquus.฀ In฀ those฀ sites,฀ single฀ elephant฀ carcasses฀ were฀ recovered฀in฀low-energy฀deposits,฀but฀it฀has฀not฀been฀possible฀to฀associate฀them฀securely฀with฀the฀ lithic฀industry฀or฀detect฀other฀signs฀of฀human฀intervention฀(Santonja฀et฀al.,฀2001).฀ ฀Though฀several฀thousand฀artifacts฀from฀San฀Isidro฀are฀preserved฀in฀Madrid’s฀museums,฀the฀ stratigraphic฀ origin฀ of฀ these฀ materials,฀ obtained฀ by฀ several฀ collectors฀ from฀ the฀ late฀ nineteenth฀ century฀ up฀ until฀ 1936,฀ is฀ not฀ precisely฀ known.฀ Flint฀ is฀ the฀ most฀ common฀ raw฀ material.฀ The฀ proportion฀of฀cleavers฀(23฀out฀of฀the฀more฀than฀5000฀artifacts฀comprising฀the฀collection฀of฀the฀ Museo฀Arqueológico฀Nacional฀de฀Madrid)฀is฀much฀lower฀than฀that฀of฀bifaces฀(191).฀This฀ratio฀of฀ca.฀ 1:8฀is฀much฀lower฀than฀proportions฀observed฀in฀the฀rest฀of฀the฀Meseta,฀where฀quartzite฀is฀almost฀ exclusively฀used.฀The฀Tafesa฀site฀on฀the฀same฀+25/30฀m฀terrace,฀where฀flint is also predominant, shows฀similar฀proportions:฀two฀cleavers฀versus฀22฀bifaces฀in฀an฀assemblage฀of฀297฀artifacts฀(Baena฀ and฀Baquedano,฀2004). In฀the฀area฀at฀the฀confluence with the Manzanares, the intermediate and low terraces of the Jarama,฀rather฀than฀being฀stepped,฀overlap฀each฀other฀(Pérez-González,฀1994)฀in฀a฀cut-and-fill pattern,฀as฀do฀the฀terraces฀of฀the฀last฀reach฀of฀the฀Manzanares.฀In฀the฀Arganda฀plain,฀all฀deposits฀ subsequent฀to฀the฀+40/41฀m฀terrace฀accumulate฀as฀a฀complex฀formation,฀topping฀at฀+15/20฀m,฀ in฀ which฀ the฀ stratigraphic฀ units฀ Arganda฀ I,฀ II,฀ III฀ and฀ IV฀ have฀ been฀ described฀ (Pérez-González,฀ 1980). Arganda฀ I,฀ which฀ includes฀ the฀ Aridos฀ sites฀ (Santonja฀ et฀ al.,฀ 1980;฀ Villa,฀ 1990),฀ has฀ provided฀ Acheulian฀assemblages฀made฀on฀flint and quartzite (Table 3). Based on its faunal association, this formation฀is฀considered฀equivalent฀in฀date฀to฀San฀Isidro฀and฀Pinedo฀(Santonja฀and฀Pérez-González,฀ 2002).฀In฀Aridos฀2,฀bifaces฀and฀cleavers฀have฀been฀found฀in฀probable฀association฀with฀the฀remains฀ of฀a฀single฀elephant.฀This฀association฀is฀more฀evident฀in฀Aridos฀1,฀where฀refitting links completely overlap฀the฀remains฀of฀the฀elephant฀carcass.฀In฀Aridos฀1฀flakes derived from retouch and maintenance of฀the฀edges฀of฀two฀bifaces฀have฀been฀identified, but there were no cleavers. The ratio of bifaces to cleavers฀is฀about฀2:1฀in฀Arganda฀I,฀where฀14฀bifaces฀and฀seven฀cleavers฀were฀observed฀in฀a฀series฀of฀ 163฀artifacts.฀In฀the฀younger฀stratigraphic฀unit฀(Arganda฀II)฀sites฀are฀currently฀under฀study฀(J.฀Panera,฀ personal฀communication).฀ Several฀ other฀ sites฀ are฀ known฀ in฀ the฀ complex฀ Butarque฀ terrace฀ of฀ the฀ Manzanares,฀ whose฀ ages฀according฀to฀the฀microfauna฀of฀unit฀IIa฀(Sesé฀and฀Soto,฀2000)฀are฀estimated฀as฀final Middle Pleistocene,฀younger฀than฀Aridos฀and฀San฀Isidro.฀In฀these฀levels,฀typical฀Levallois฀products,฀including฀ both฀flakes and cores, are documented. Cleavers made on Levallois and Kombewa flakes seem to be฀ most฀ common,฀ although฀ inferences฀ from฀ these฀ selectively฀ sorted฀ series฀ can฀ only฀ be฀ tentative.฀ Also฀abundant฀in฀these฀series฀are฀well-shaped฀bifaces฀with฀secondary฀edge฀trimming฀(Rus฀and฀Vega,฀ 1984). The Acheulian of Western Europe | 445 The Duero basin The฀ Acheulian฀ is฀ present฀ throughout฀ the฀ entire฀ region.฀ The฀ region’s฀ western฀ half฀ shows฀ a฀ higher฀ density,฀ perhaps฀ as฀ a฀ consequence฀ of฀ the฀ better฀ preservation฀ conditions฀ offered฀ by฀ the฀ fluvial formations฀of฀this฀zone.฀Acheulian฀artifacts฀are฀found฀in฀the฀middle฀terraces฀of฀the฀region’s฀main฀ rivers,฀especially฀in฀the฀center฀and฀west฀of฀the฀basin,฀from฀the฀Esla฀to฀the฀Pisuerga฀in฀the฀northeast฀ and฀in฀the฀Tormes,฀Yeltes-Huebra฀and฀Águeda฀valleys฀in฀the฀southeast฀(Santonja฀and฀Pérez-González,฀ 2002;฀Martín฀Benito,฀2000).฀Sites฀are฀also฀known฀on฀the฀eastern฀side฀(Rodríguez฀de฀Tembleque฀et฀al.,฀ 1999)฀and฀in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀Valladolid฀and฀Burgos฀(Díez฀Martín,฀2000).฀In฀most฀cases,฀in฀contrast฀to฀ the฀situation฀in฀the฀Tagus฀basin,฀the฀artifacts฀are฀found฀on฀the฀surface;฀faunal฀remains฀have฀almost฀ never฀been฀found฀in฀these฀terraces.฀ Acheulian฀ assemblages฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ almost฀ exclusive฀ exploitation฀ of฀ well-rounded฀ quartzite฀ cobbles฀are฀mainly฀found฀in฀the฀middle฀terraces฀(Table฀2);฀there฀has฀been฀mention฀of฀isolated฀pieces฀ (flakes and choppers) in levels at +60 m and +80 m, but always very few pieces of doubtful human manufacture.฀ In฀the฀north฀of฀the฀region,฀the฀major฀concentration฀of฀industry฀has฀been฀observed฀in฀the฀EslaOrbigo-Tera฀confluence zone and along the Pisuerga River. Along the middle to high reaches of this river,฀in฀the฀provinces฀of฀Burgos฀and฀Palencia,฀an฀extensive฀area฀of฀some฀2500฀km2,฀covering฀60฀km฀ of฀valley,฀has฀been฀systematically฀and฀intensively฀explored฀(Arnaiz,฀1991).฀Twenty-five surface sites were฀identified, one every 10 km2.฀ In฀ the฀ Tormes฀ valley,฀ the฀ sequence฀ of฀ terraces฀ in฀ the฀ middle฀ course฀ of฀ the฀ river฀ has฀ been฀ established฀in฀detail฀between฀Salamanca฀and฀La฀Maya฀(Table฀2;฀Santonja฀and฀Pérez-González,฀1984).฀ Acheulian฀ assemblages฀ have฀ been฀ stratigraphically฀ related฀ to฀ the฀ terraces฀ at฀ +32฀ m฀ (La฀ Maya฀ II),฀ +22฀m฀(Azucarera฀de฀Salamanca)฀and฀+18฀m฀(Galisancho).฀Some฀have฀also฀been฀observed฀on฀the฀ surface฀of฀higher฀levels,฀though฀not฀within฀fluvial deposits. More recent series including small bifaces and฀various฀flake tools have been reported in the lowest levels at +8 m and +12 m (Calvarrasa I, La Maya฀I). In฀ La฀ Maya฀ II,฀ as฀ in฀ other฀ Acheulian฀ assemblages฀ of฀ the฀ zone,฀ flakes larger than 15 cm are common฀ and฀ were฀ used฀ to฀ make฀ bifaces฀ and฀ large฀ cutting฀ tools.฀ Bifaces฀ and฀ cleavers฀ appear฀ in฀ similar฀numbers฀(15฀and฀12,฀respectively);฀cleavers฀correspond฀to฀types฀0฀(N=4)฀and฀II฀(N=8).฀Among฀ regular฀cores,฀discoid฀cores฀are฀more฀common.฀They฀have฀recurrent฀removals฀from฀a฀plain฀or฀natural฀ striking฀platform;฀thus฀facetted฀butts฀are฀rare.฀ Towards฀ the฀ west,฀ in฀ the฀ Yeltes-Huebra฀ river฀ valleys,฀ several฀ terraces,฀ whose฀ relative฀ heights฀ over฀the฀present฀channels฀do฀not฀exceed฀60฀m,฀form฀a฀sequence฀with฀its฀own฀particular฀altimetric฀ characteristics฀(Table฀2).฀Surface฀concentrations฀of฀Acheulian฀artifacts฀are฀found฀in฀the฀terraces฀at฀ +40฀m,฀+20/25฀m฀and฀+10/12฀m.฀The฀most฀outstanding฀site฀in฀this฀area฀is฀El฀Basalito,฀a฀surface฀site฀on฀ the฀dismantled฀terrace฀of฀a฀stream฀known฀as฀Valle฀Tiendas,฀a฀tributary฀of฀the฀Yeltes฀that฀established฀a฀ small฀drainage฀network฀starting฀from฀the฀+40฀m฀terrace฀of฀the฀Yeltes฀(Santonja฀and฀Pérez-González,฀ 2004).฀ The฀industry฀of฀El฀Basalito฀warrants฀particular฀attention.฀An฀excavation฀of฀18฀m2฀undertaken฀in฀ 446 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa 1987฀by฀L.฀Benito฀and฀J.฀I.฀Martín฀Benito฀revealed฀a฀high฀concentration฀of฀debitage฀derived฀from฀the฀ shaping฀of฀bifaces฀from฀local฀quartzite฀pebbles,฀as฀well฀as฀five cleavers, choppers, a few cores and a฀few฀retouched฀flakes. In most cases, cores were disorganized and weakly exploited, while some others฀were฀slightly฀more฀complex฀discoid฀forms;฀Levallois฀flakes are very rare. ฀Bifaces฀(33฀complete฀and฀11฀broken)฀constitute฀the฀most฀conspicuous฀type฀group.฀These฀are฀ generally฀ bifaces฀ sensu฀ stricto,฀ although฀ at฀ least฀ three฀ biface-tool฀ combinations฀ (sensu฀ Boeda,฀ 2001)฀are฀observed,฀two฀with฀secondary฀retouch฀at฀the฀tip฀and฀the฀other฀with฀a฀denticulate฀edge.฀ Some฀of฀the฀broken฀bifaces฀show฀retouch฀subsequent฀to฀their฀fracture.฀The฀bifaces฀are฀generally฀ carefully฀made,฀with฀pointed฀forms฀(lanceolate,฀Micoquian,฀subcordiform฀and฀amygdaloid);฀a฀slight฀ asymmetry,฀when฀present,฀derives฀from฀the฀blank฀morphology.฀Most฀are฀finished with retouch by soft฀hammer.฀ ฀This฀ assemblage฀ represents฀ the฀ complete฀ sequence฀ of฀ shaping฀ procedures,฀ including฀ all฀ the฀ range฀ of฀ expected฀ byproducts,฀ from฀ cortical฀ and฀ subcortical฀ flakes of the initial shaping process, to฀ the฀ final flakes derived from the sharpening and retouching of edges, and comprising pieces reflecting manufacturing error or break through use (fragments of proximal and distal ends). In other words,฀El฀Basalito฀documents฀both฀the฀shaping฀procedures฀of฀bifaces฀and฀cleavers฀and฀the฀following฀ stages฀of฀use฀and฀discard.฀ In฀the฀eastern฀part฀of฀the฀Northern฀Meseta,฀recent฀surveys฀(Rodríguez฀de฀Tembleque฀et฀al.,฀1999)฀ have฀revealed฀sites฀in฀middle฀terraces,฀in฀positions฀equivalent฀to฀those฀recorded฀in฀the฀western฀sector฀ (Table฀2).฀Along฀with฀several฀surface฀finds, artifacts have also been discovered in stratigraphic context in฀terraces฀at฀around฀+30฀m.฀Findings฀indicate฀a฀situation฀not฀unlike฀that฀of฀the฀western฀half฀of฀this฀ region.฀ The฀ lower฀ density฀ of฀ artifacts฀ could฀ be฀ attributed฀ to฀ factors฀ related฀ to฀ the฀ formation฀ and฀ preservation฀of฀Pleistocene฀deposits. Ambrona and Torralba The฀sites฀of฀Ambrona฀and฀Torralba฀(Soria)฀are฀found฀on฀a฀natural฀pass฀of฀the฀Iberian฀Range฀at฀the฀ eastern฀margin฀of฀the฀northern฀Meseta,฀among฀three฀large฀fluvial basins, the Duero and Tagus, which drain฀into฀the฀Atlantic,฀and฀the฀Ebro฀which฀flows into the Mediterranean. Extensive excavations at both฀sites฀were฀carried฀out฀by฀Howell฀and฀Freeman฀between฀1960฀and฀1963฀(Howell฀et฀al.,฀1962;฀ Freeman,฀1975)฀and฀between฀1980฀and฀1983฀at฀Ambrona฀(Howell฀et฀al.,฀1995).฀Between฀1993฀and฀ 2000฀geological฀and฀archaeological฀investigations฀were฀resumed฀at฀both฀sites฀by฀a฀Spanish฀team฀ under฀the฀direction฀of฀Santonja฀and฀Pérez-González฀(Figure฀6). In฀geomorphologic฀terms,฀Ambrona฀lies฀on฀a฀polje฀developed฀on฀Mesozoic฀limestones฀whose฀ base,฀in฀contact฀with฀clays฀of฀the฀Keuper฀facies,฀forms฀a฀local฀erosion฀level฀that฀constitutes฀the฀socalled฀ Ambrona฀ Surface,฀ on฀ which฀ fluvial and lacustrine deposits accumulated during the Middle Pleistocene฀(Pérez-González฀et฀al.,฀1999;฀2001b).฀ In฀contrast,฀Torralba,฀2.5฀km฀southeast฀of฀Ambrona,฀lies฀on฀the฀edge฀of฀a฀doline฀6–7฀m฀deep฀in฀ the฀+35฀m฀terrace฀of฀the฀Masegar.฀This฀stream,฀a฀tributary฀of฀the฀Jalón,฀carved฀its฀own฀valley฀starting฀ from฀the฀Ambrona฀Surface,฀which฀lies฀at฀a฀height฀of฀+39–40฀m฀above฀the฀bed฀of฀the฀Masegar฀River.฀ The Acheulian of Western Europe | 447 Figure฀6:฀Plan฀of฀the฀Ambrona฀excavations฀by฀Howell฀(1960–1963฀and฀1980–1983,฀in฀outline)฀and฀by฀Santonja฀and฀ Pérez-González฀(1993–1999,฀in฀black).฀The฀distance฀between฀grid฀lines฀is฀3฀m.฀ During฀the฀Middle฀and฀Upper฀Pleistocene,฀the฀stream฀built฀a฀polycyclic฀valley,฀with฀rocky฀terraces฀at฀ +35฀m,฀+22฀m,฀+15฀m฀and฀+7–9฀m,฀and฀an฀alluvial฀plain฀at฀+1฀m.฀Thus฀Torralba฀occupies฀a฀position฀ lower฀than฀the฀+35฀m฀level฀and฀is฀clearly฀younger฀than฀Ambrona฀(Pérez-González฀et฀al.,฀2001b).฀In฀ other฀words,฀the฀two฀sites฀do฀not฀belong฀to฀the฀same฀stratigraphic฀formation,฀as฀proposed฀by฀Butzer฀ (1965);฀they฀occupy฀distinct฀geomorphologic฀positions฀and฀have฀different฀ages. Correlation฀of฀the฀Masegar฀terraces฀with฀the฀upper฀Henares฀and฀Jalón฀terraces฀suggests฀that฀ Torralba฀is฀older฀than฀T4,฀the฀+22฀m฀terrace฀of฀the฀Henares,฀whose฀travertine฀formations฀have฀been฀ dated฀between฀243±18฀ka฀(230Th/234U)฀and฀202±18฀ka฀(234U/238U).฀Ambrona฀may฀be฀correlated฀with฀ T2,฀the฀+40฀to฀45฀m฀terrace฀of฀the฀Henares฀dated฀to฀>350฀ka฀(230Th/234U;฀Pérez-González฀et฀al.,฀2001b;฀ Howell฀et฀al.,฀1995).฀ The฀macrofaunal฀remains฀do฀not฀discriminate฀between฀the฀two฀sites฀of฀Ambrona฀and฀Torralba.฀ When฀considered฀in฀the฀Iberian฀context,฀both฀sites฀would฀be฀later฀than฀Cúllar-Baza฀and฀the฀faunas฀ of฀the฀+40฀m฀terrace฀of฀the฀Tagus฀in฀Toledo฀(Buenavista,฀Campo฀de฀Tiro).฀Ambrona’s฀microfauna฀ (which฀Torralba฀lacks)฀are฀older฀than฀the฀top฀levels฀of฀Atapuerca’s฀Gran฀Dolina฀and฀Galería฀(Sesé฀and฀ Soto,฀in฀press).฀ Both฀ the฀ Ambrona฀ and฀ Torralba฀ sites฀ show฀ a฀ complex฀ stratigraphy.฀ The฀ Ambrona฀ deposits฀ were฀divided฀by฀Howell฀into฀the฀Lower฀and฀Upper฀Member฀Complexes,฀and฀these฀subdivisions฀are฀ retained฀here฀for฀convenience.฀The฀Lower฀Member฀Complex฀was฀excavated฀by฀Howell฀over฀more฀ than฀2088฀m2,฀while฀the฀Upper฀Member฀Complex฀was฀excavated฀over฀909฀m2฀(Howell฀et฀al.,฀1995:฀ fig. 4).฀The฀total฀area฀excavated฀by฀the฀Spanish฀team฀between฀1993฀and฀2000฀is฀706฀m2,฀of฀which฀648฀ 448 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Table฀4:฀Ambrona:฀stone฀artifacts฀by฀level฀(excavations฀carried฀out฀in฀1993–2000฀by฀the฀Spanish฀team฀in฀the฀central฀ sector฀of฀the฀site). ฀ Level (excavated฀surface฀in฀m2) Non-cortical฀flakes Non-cortical฀flake fragments Cortical฀or฀partly฀cortical฀flakes Cortical฀or฀partly฀cortical฀flake fragments Small฀tools฀on฀non-cortical฀flake Small฀tools฀on฀cortical฀flake Cores Cores฀on฀flake Retouched฀cores Chunks Small฀tools฀on฀pebble Choppers Modified pebbles Hammers Bifaces Biface฀fragments Flake฀cleavers฀and฀similar฀pieces Trihedrals Total:฀682 AS1 (580) ฀25 ฀39 ฀23 ฀14฀ ฀25฀ ฀19฀ ฀19 ฀2฀ ฀1 ฀40 ฀4 ฀6 ฀1 ฀8 ฀5 ฀1 ฀2 ฀1฀ ฀235 AS1/2 (195) ฀1 ฀2 AS2 (195) ฀6 ฀3 AS2/3 (ca฀2) ฀ ฀1฀ ฀6 ฀1 ฀3 1 ฀4 1 AS3 (250) ฀11฀(6)฀ ฀13฀(1) ฀6฀ ฀3 ฀13฀(4) ฀4 ฀4฀(1) ฀2฀(2) ฀10฀(2) AS4 (379) ฀76 ฀83 ฀24 ฀27 ฀41 ฀10 ฀15 ฀3 ฀56 ฀1 ฀1 ฀4฀(?) ฀2฀(2) ฀1฀ ฀1 ฀72 ฀339 AS5 ฀(8) ฀1 ฀1 ฀2 ฀2 ฀1 ฀14 ฀14 ฀2 ฀6 Note:฀Artifacts฀showing฀no฀signs฀of฀edge฀rounding฀(edge฀rounding=0)฀in฀AS3฀are฀in฀parentheses.฀AS1฀here฀includes฀artifacts฀ from฀ the฀ sandy฀ channel฀ deposits฀ excavated฀ in฀ 2000฀ in฀ the฀ northern฀ part฀ of฀ the฀ site;฀ thus฀ totals฀ are฀ different฀ from฀ those฀ provided฀in฀Villa฀et฀al.,฀2005,฀where฀the฀channel฀deposits฀were฀not฀included.฀AS4฀was฀excavated฀over฀a฀total฀area฀of฀630฀m2฀ but฀only฀the฀detrital฀facies฀provided฀artifacts฀and฀bones. m2฀were฀in฀the฀central฀sector฀of฀the฀site.฀The฀area฀excavated฀in฀each฀level฀in฀the฀central฀sector฀of฀the฀ site฀is฀provided฀in฀Table฀4. The฀geomorphology฀and฀lithostratigraphy฀of฀the฀so-called฀Lower฀Member฀Complex฀at฀Ambrona฀ have฀been฀described฀in฀detail฀by฀Pérez-González฀(Pérez-González฀et฀al.,฀1999;฀2001b);฀the฀sequence฀ comprises฀ six฀ sedimentary฀ units฀ (AS1฀ to฀ AS6)฀ of฀ fluvial and fluvio-lacustrine origin. Taphonomic processes฀in฀the฀lower฀stratigraphic฀units฀AS1฀to฀AS4฀have฀been฀analyzed฀in฀Villa฀et฀al.,฀2005. The฀ lithic฀ industry฀ of฀ all฀ levels฀ at฀ Ambrona฀ is฀ made฀ on฀ several฀ varieties฀ of฀ flint and silicified limestone,฀ quartzite,฀ quartz฀ and฀ limestone.฀ Limestone฀ is฀ present฀ in฀ the฀ nearby฀ surroundings,฀ but฀ all฀other฀raw฀materials฀are฀allochthonous฀and฀were฀transported฀by฀humans฀into฀the฀site.฀Based฀on฀ collections฀stored฀in฀Spanish฀museums,฀the฀field seasons of F. C. Howell and L. G. Freeman yielded 3150฀artifacts฀(Panera฀and฀Rubio,฀1997),฀i.e.,฀1276฀from฀the฀Lower฀Member฀Complex฀(which฀appears฀ to฀ correspond฀ mainly฀ to฀ units฀ AS1,฀ AS3฀ and฀ AS4,฀ as฀ defined by Pérez-González) and 1874 from the฀Upper฀Member฀Complex.฀The฀first set includes 43 bifaces and seven cleavers manufactured on The Acheulian of Western Europe | 449 ordinary฀or฀cortical฀flake, sometimes with bifacial invasive retouch resembling type V. In the Upper Member฀ Complex,฀ the฀ numbers฀ of฀ bifaces฀ and฀ cleavers฀ drop฀ to฀ 17฀ and฀ two฀ respectively.฀ One฀ of฀ these฀cleavers฀was฀made฀on฀a฀Levallois฀flake and the proportions of implements with retouch and Levallois฀debitage฀are฀much฀higher.฀The฀overall฀picture฀of฀assemblages฀from฀two฀distinct฀stratigraphic฀ complexes฀in฀Ambrona฀should฀be฀treated฀with฀caution.฀Aside฀from฀their฀potential฀age฀differences,฀we฀ need฀to฀take฀into฀account฀other฀factors฀related฀to฀site฀formation฀processes฀(Santonja฀et฀al.,฀2001). Level฀AS1฀is฀an฀alluvial฀fan฀merging฀into฀sandy฀channel฀deposits฀in฀the฀northern฀part฀of฀the฀site.฀ It฀has฀provided฀235฀artifacts฀(Table฀4),฀most฀of฀which฀show฀clear฀signs฀of฀edge฀rounding.฀None฀of฀the฀ bifaces฀observed฀bear฀signs฀of฀edge฀reshaping฀or฀retouch.฀Cleavers฀of฀type฀II฀with฀reworked฀edges฀ and฀type฀0฀show฀more฀than฀one฀generation฀of฀lateral฀retouch.฀Among฀the฀debitage฀there฀is฀at฀least฀ one฀core฀with฀a฀preferential฀Levallois฀surface฀and฀flakes typical of those used for preparing further Levallois฀cores.฀There฀are฀also฀discoid,฀polyhedral฀and฀unipolar฀cores.฀Retouch฀on฀flake tools is not intensive;฀some฀scrapers฀were฀made฀on฀exhausted฀cores.฀Cortical฀flakes and small flakes and debris are฀well฀represented.฀Thus฀debitage฀and฀shaping฀or฀retouching฀of฀bifacial฀pieces฀are฀documented฀at฀ the฀site,฀although฀some฀of฀the฀large฀cutting฀tools฀may฀have฀been฀introduced฀ready-made,฀specifically cleavers,฀since฀in฀this฀level,฀as฀in฀the฀others,฀there฀are฀no฀cores฀capable฀of฀providing฀sufficiently large flakes to make these implements (Figure 7). Artifacts฀are฀scarce฀in฀the฀succeeding฀levels฀AS1/2,฀AS2฀and฀AS2/3,฀which฀are฀thin฀and฀of฀limited฀ extent.฀More฀artifacts฀have฀been฀observed฀in฀AS3,฀though฀three฀quarters฀of฀the฀pieces,฀with฀edge฀ rounding,฀could฀be฀eroded฀from฀lower฀levels฀and฀redeposited.฀Among฀the฀debitage,฀we฀find several flakes with good cutting edges. Formal tools are limited to a scraper and a couple of bifaces (one with฀a฀transverse฀edge),฀although฀some฀flakes could be the by-products of maintenance of other bifaces,฀suggesting฀a฀possible฀greater฀frequency฀and฀use฀of฀this฀type฀of฀implement฀in฀AS3;฀this฀level฀ has฀yielded฀important฀specimens฀of฀megafauna฀(Villa฀et฀al.,฀2005). ฀Level฀AS4,฀also฀of฀fluvial origin, shows the largest number of artifacts in the central Ambrona sector,฀although฀the฀mean฀density฀of฀its฀industry฀does฀not฀reach฀1฀per฀m2฀(1–2฀pieces฀per฀m3).฀These฀ lithic฀artifacts฀are฀nevertheless฀unevenly฀distributed,฀depending฀on฀the฀sedimentary฀characteristics฀ of฀the฀level,฀since฀lithics฀have฀been฀found฀almost฀exclusively฀in฀the฀detrital฀facies;฀the฀artifact฀sizes฀ are฀similar฀to฀those฀of฀the฀gravels฀that฀contain฀them.฀The฀cores฀appearing฀in฀this฀level฀are฀also฀ reduced฀in฀size.฀These฀are฀usually฀exhausted฀undetermined฀cores,฀although฀a฀few฀Levallois฀flakes are฀present.฀ Among฀the฀upper฀levels฀of฀the฀central฀sector฀of฀the฀Ambrona฀excavation,฀only฀AS5฀contains฀very฀ few฀artifacts.฀However,฀the฀situation฀is฀different฀in฀the฀site’s฀eastern฀sector.฀Here,฀it฀is฀common฀to฀find stone฀artifacts฀in฀low-energy฀deposits฀that฀are฀laterally฀equivalent฀to฀level฀AS6฀defined in the central sector.฀Before฀this฀stratigraphic฀interpretation฀(Pérez-González฀et฀al.,฀2005;฀Pérez-González,฀in฀press),฀ these฀levels฀in฀the฀eastern฀part฀of฀the฀site,฀constituting฀Howell’s฀Upper฀Member฀Complex฀(Howell฀et฀ al.,฀1995)฀had฀provisionally฀been฀identified as “AS7” and “AS8” (Pérez-González et al., 1999). The฀ general฀ characteristics฀ of฀ the฀ so-called฀ Upper฀ Member฀ Complex฀ industry฀ observed฀ in฀ Howell’s฀ field seasons of the 1980s (Panero and Rubio, 1977) coincide with our observations of 450 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Figure฀ 7:฀ Ambrona,฀ excavations฀ of฀ Santonja฀ and฀ Pérez-González.฀ (1)฀ Level฀ AS1,฀ preferential฀ Levallois฀ core฀ on฀ flint; after฀removal฀of฀the฀preferential฀flake the production of flakes continued on the same debitage surface; (2) Level AS1, quartzite฀cleaver,฀type฀II฀with฀retouched฀edge;฀(3)฀Level฀AS1,฀quartzite฀cleaver,฀type฀I;฀(4)฀Level฀AS3,฀flint biface with secondary฀retouch฀by฀soft฀hammer;฀(5)฀Level฀AS6฀(eastern฀sector),฀double฀scraper฀on฀a฀Levallois฀flake; (6) Level AS6 (eastern฀sector),฀flint scraper with alternate retouch on the distal edge; (7) Level AS6 (eastern sector), Levallois flake on฀flint. The Acheulian of Western Europe | 451 1993฀and฀1994,฀when฀we฀excavated฀20฀m2฀in฀levels฀that฀can฀be฀correlated฀with฀AS6.฀The฀industry฀is฀ better฀preserved฀here,฀where฀debitage฀is฀more฀common,฀than฀in฀the฀lower฀levels฀of฀the฀central฀sector.฀ Altogether฀182฀lithic฀pieces฀were฀recovered,฀almost฀10฀per฀m2.฀This฀assemblage฀includes฀good-quality฀ Levallois฀products,฀a฀high฀percentage฀of฀small฀tools฀with฀side-scrapers฀and฀denticulates฀retouched฀ by฀soft฀hammer,฀and฀some฀poorly฀made฀bifaces.฀This฀sample฀indicates฀a฀refined Levallois technique, with฀few฀bifaces฀and฀well-made฀small฀tools฀on฀flake. At฀ Torralba฀ the฀ first excavations by Cerralbo yielded 549 pieces including 96 bifaces (54 with฀distal฀cutting฀edges),฀some฀of฀which฀were฀probably฀true฀cleavers฀(Howell฀et฀al.,฀1962).฀In฀ the฀1960–1963฀seasons,฀Howell฀and฀Freeman฀recovered฀887฀artifacts฀(Freeman,฀1975:฀668–674),฀ although฀102฀were฀excluded฀from฀analysis฀due฀to฀their฀advanced฀degree฀of฀rolling.฀Bifaces฀and฀ cleavers฀were฀in฀lower฀proportions฀than฀in฀the฀Cerralbo฀sample,฀which฀was฀selectively฀sorted.฀ According฀to฀Freeman,฀the฀most฀frequent฀cores฀with฀organized฀removals฀were฀discoid;฀bifaces฀ had฀variable฀shapes,฀some฀with฀retouch฀by฀soft฀hammer฀and฀over฀half฀with฀transverse฀edges.฀ A฀reanalysis฀by฀Querol฀and฀Santonja฀(1978)฀identified 14 cleavers, which are made on ordinary flakes and may show a tranchet blow, consistent with observations made at Ambrona. Neither Ambrona฀nor฀Torralba฀have฀cores฀capable฀of฀providing฀flakes the size of cleavers. Hence, the intensive฀ retouch฀ generally฀ shown฀ by฀ these฀ tools,฀ uncommon฀ in฀ terrace฀ sites฀ of฀ the฀ Meseta,฀ could฀be฀linked฀to฀the฀need฀to฀keep฀them฀functional฀in฀the฀absence฀of฀raw฀materials฀from฀which฀ to฀make฀new฀implements.฀ In฀summary,฀Torralba฀has฀an฀Acheulian฀industry฀similar฀to฀that฀of฀the฀central฀sector฀of฀Ambrona฀ and฀to฀assemblages฀from฀the฀middle฀terraces฀of฀the฀Spanish฀Meseta,฀but฀of฀a฀later฀age.฀Indeed,฀the฀ Torralba฀industry฀is฀more฀recent฀even฀than฀the฀upper฀levels฀of฀the฀eastern฀Ambrona฀sector,฀which฀ contains฀an฀industry฀with฀Levallois฀debitage฀and฀highly฀standardized฀flake tools never observed in the฀open-air฀Acheulian฀sites฀of฀the฀Meseta.฀ Summary of the Spanish evidence The earliest sites Atapuerca฀ (the฀ lower฀ levels฀ of฀ Gran฀ Dolina฀ and฀ Sima฀ del฀ Elefante)฀ and฀ two฀ localities฀ in฀ Orce,฀ Fuentenueva฀ 3฀ and฀ Barranco฀ León,฀ are฀ the฀ only฀ sites฀ in฀ the฀ Iberian฀ Peninsula฀ for฀ which฀ fauna,฀ absolute฀dating฀and฀paleomagnetism฀are฀available฀to฀establish฀a฀Lower฀Pleistocene฀date,฀of฀postJaramillo฀age฀in฀the฀former฀case฀and฀possibly฀older฀in฀the฀latter.฀The฀archaic฀age฀assigned฀to฀several฀ sites฀ along฀ the฀ Portuguese฀ Atlantic฀ coast฀ has฀ not฀ been฀ corroborated฀ in฀ the฀ most฀ recent฀ reviews฀ (Raposo,฀1985).฀This฀is฀also฀the฀case฀for฀river฀valleys,฀since฀true฀sites฀are฀known฀only฀in฀the฀middle฀ terraces฀(Santonja฀and฀Pérez-González,฀2002). There฀ seems฀ to฀ be฀ a฀ very฀ low฀ density฀ of฀ sites฀ in฀ southern฀ Europe฀ before฀ the฀ appearance฀ of฀ the฀ Acheulian฀ (Carbonell฀ et฀ al.,฀ 1995;฀ Oms฀ et฀ al.,฀ 2000).฀ To฀ be฀ sure,฀ we฀ cannot฀ as฀ yet฀ completely฀ exclude฀the฀possibility฀that฀the฀lack฀of฀sites฀in฀river฀valleys฀during฀the฀Lower฀Pleistocene฀was฀due฀to฀a฀ preference฀for฀other฀less฀well-researched฀environments,฀such฀as฀caves฀and฀lake฀margins.฀ The฀ ages฀ proposed฀ for฀ all฀ these฀ early฀ sites฀ fall฀ well฀ within฀ the฀ time฀ frame฀ established฀ for฀ the฀ 452 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Acheulian฀ in฀ Africa฀ and฀ western฀ Asia.฀ Despite฀ this,฀ and฀ because฀ these฀ rather฀ small฀ assemblages฀ lack฀bifacial฀tools,฀the฀excavators฀of฀the฀sites฀of฀Atapuerca฀and฀Orce฀have฀preferred฀to฀assign฀the฀ industries฀to฀“Mode฀1”฀or฀more฀explicitly฀to฀Oldowan฀industries฀(Carbonell฀et฀al.,฀1995;฀Turq฀et฀al.,฀ 1996;฀Toro฀et฀al.,฀2003a). The฀ existence฀ of฀ industries฀ corresponding฀ to฀ a฀ pre-Acheulian฀ level฀ of฀ technology฀ in฀ Iberia฀ at฀ 1.2/0.8฀ ma฀ would฀ undoubtedly฀ be฀ anomalous.฀ The฀ temporal฀ and฀ human฀ evolutionary฀ distance฀ separating฀these฀occurrences฀from฀the฀African฀Oldowan฀is฀extensive.฀More฀importantly,฀we฀should฀ consider฀the฀chronologies฀of฀the฀geographically฀closest฀Acheulian฀sites,฀such฀as฀‘Ubeidiya฀and฀Gesher฀ Benot฀Ya’aqov฀in฀the฀Jordan฀Rift฀Valley,฀dated฀to฀1.4฀and฀0.8/0.7฀ma฀respectively,฀and฀Thomas-1฀in฀ Casablanca,฀ with฀ an฀ estimated฀ age฀ of฀ final Lower Pleistocene (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993; Goren-Inbar฀ and฀ Saragusti,฀ 1996;฀ Geraads฀ et฀ al.,฀ 2004;฀ Sahnouni฀ et฀ al.,฀ 2004).฀ The฀ presence฀ of฀ industries฀ representative฀ of฀ a฀ pre-Acheulian฀ technological฀ stage฀ within฀ the฀ Acheulian฀ time฀ range฀ should฀ be฀ treated฀ with฀ caution฀ when฀ not฀ based฀ on฀ strong฀ dating฀ evidence฀ and฀ on฀ the฀ study฀ of฀ coherent฀and฀representative฀assemblages.฀ If฀confirmed, the chronologies of Fuentenueva 3 and Barranco León would allow us to speculate that฀the฀group฀of฀hominins฀involved฀may฀not฀belong฀to฀the฀species฀antecessor/heidelbergensis,฀whose฀ origin฀is฀ascribed฀to฀ca.฀1฀ma฀(Bermúdez฀de฀Castro฀et฀al.,฀2004).฀We฀cannot฀exclude฀the฀possibility฀that฀ it฀was฀Homo฀erectus,฀as฀has฀been฀suggested฀for฀Sima฀del฀Elefante฀(Rosas฀et฀al.,฀2004). The Acheulian of the Meseta The฀Acheulian฀assemblages฀known฀in฀the฀Tagus฀and฀Guadiana฀basins฀occur฀in฀very฀specific terrace levels฀(Table฀2),฀thus฀corresponding฀to฀a฀limited฀time฀range.฀The฀situation฀is฀less฀clear฀in฀the฀Duero฀ basin,฀ where฀ Acheulian฀ industries฀ most฀ often฀ occupy฀ a฀ surface฀ position.฀ Nevertheless,฀ the฀ Duero฀ assemblages฀ are฀ also฀ mainly฀ correlated฀ to฀ middle฀ terraces฀ at฀ heights฀ equivalent฀ to฀ those฀ of฀ the฀ Tagus,฀ so฀ that฀ we฀ may฀ be฀ looking฀ at฀ the฀ same฀ time฀ interval.฀ The฀ differences฀ in฀ surface฀ (Duero)฀ or฀stratigraphic฀(Tagus฀and฀Guadiana)฀positions฀could฀reflect a temporal difference in aggradation and฀incision฀processes฀between฀these฀hydrographic฀basins,฀which฀in฀the฀Meseta฀are฀fundamentally฀ controlled฀by฀structural,฀lithological฀and฀tectonic฀factors. In฀Toledo,฀where฀there฀are฀faunal฀remains฀in฀several฀successive฀middle฀terraces฀(Sesé฀et฀al.,฀2000),฀ the฀first traces of an Acheulian industry appear in the +40 m terrace, along with fauna characterized by the฀presence฀of฀Mammuthus฀trogontherii฀and฀absence฀of฀Paleoloxodon฀antiquus.฀The฀development฀of฀ Acheulian฀industries฀occurs฀in฀the฀subsequent฀terrace฀(Pinedo),฀together฀with฀remains฀of฀P.฀antiquus,฀ a฀species฀also฀found฀in฀many฀of฀the฀Manzanares฀and฀Jarama฀sites฀and฀at฀Torralba฀and฀Ambrona฀in฀ association฀with฀Acheulian฀technology.฀Bearing฀in฀mind฀the฀age฀we฀propose฀for฀Ambrona฀(prior฀to฀ca.฀ 350฀ka),฀the฀expansion฀of฀the฀Acheulian฀industries฀of฀the฀Iberian฀Meseta฀might฀be฀dated฀at฀around฀ca.฀ 400฀ka,฀although฀its฀onset฀would฀be฀earlier,฀at฀the฀+40฀m฀terrace฀of฀the฀Tagus.฀The฀Acheulian฀persists฀ during฀the฀second฀half฀of฀the฀Pleistocene,฀although฀its฀duration฀has฀not฀yet฀been฀determined.฀ This฀Acheulian฀technology฀was฀to฀extend฀throughout฀the฀Iberian฀Meseta฀at฀a฀late฀time฀relative฀ to฀its฀African฀origins.฀It฀represents฀a฀unitary฀phenomenon฀dominated฀by฀bifaces฀and฀cleavers฀and฀ The Acheulian of Western Europe | 453 whose฀stages฀cannot฀be฀differentiated฀in฀evolutionary฀terms.฀The฀variation฀observed฀appears฀to฀be฀ related฀to฀the฀available฀raw฀materials฀and฀the฀nature฀of฀sites.฀For฀instance,฀in฀sites฀such฀as฀El฀Sartalejo,฀ the฀size฀of฀available฀pebbles฀facilitated฀the฀production฀of฀large฀flakes used as blanks for bifaces and cleavers.฀ The฀ Aridos฀ 1฀ assemblage,฀ lacking฀ bifaces฀ but฀ including฀ the฀ typical฀ flake byproducts of curating฀this฀type฀of฀tool฀and฀containing฀few฀retouched฀flakes and some with limited retouch, is a clear฀case฀of฀how฀site฀activities฀configure the assemblage composition. On฀the฀technological฀front,฀the฀shape฀of฀quartzite฀cobbles฀(the฀most฀common฀raw฀material฀in฀ the฀Meseta)฀promotes฀the฀radial฀exploitation฀of฀the฀debitage฀surface,฀with฀only฀limited฀preparation฀ of฀ the฀ periphery฀ forming฀ the฀ striking฀ platform.฀ This฀ strategy฀ gives฀ rise฀ to฀ a฀ recurrent฀ centripetal฀ discoid฀method฀which฀in฀some฀cases฀approaches฀the฀Levallois฀concept฀in฀a฀broad฀sense;฀cases฀of฀ predetermined฀preferential฀removals฀are฀few.฀The฀flakes produced in these debitage sequences most often฀have฀cortical฀or฀plain฀platform฀and฀also฀dihedral฀butts. The end of the Acheulian in the Meseta Spain’s฀open-air฀sites฀do฀not฀provide฀good฀data฀for฀understanding฀the฀decline฀and฀replacement฀of฀ the฀Acheulian฀industries.฀In฀the฀Guadiana,฀Tagus฀and฀Duero฀basins฀there฀are฀reports฀of฀assemblages฀ described฀as฀Upper฀Acheulian.฀Examples฀of฀such฀cases฀are฀Porzuna,฀Arriaga฀and฀El฀Basalito,฀in฀which฀ bifacial฀ tool฀ manufacture฀ includes฀ edge฀ reshaping฀ and฀ retouch,฀ procedures฀ that฀ are฀ infrequent฀ in฀ previous฀ Acheulian฀ series.฀ At฀ Porzuna฀ and฀ El฀ Basalito,฀ which฀ lack฀ associated฀ fauna,฀ only฀ their฀ morphostratigraphic฀position฀suggests฀an฀indeterminate฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀age.฀In฀Arriaga,฀and฀in฀ other฀sites฀of฀the฀complex฀terrace฀of฀Butarque฀in฀the฀Manzanares฀valley,฀the฀faunal฀record฀shows฀that฀ we฀are฀still฀in฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene,฀with฀micromammal฀associations฀younger฀than฀those฀of฀Aridos฀ I,฀ although฀ Paleoloxodon฀ antiquus฀ continues฀ to฀ be฀ present,฀ being฀ replaced฀ in฀ levels฀ immediately฀ above฀this฀complex฀terrace฀with฀Mammuthus฀primigenius฀(Sesé฀and฀Soto,฀2000). Nevertheless,฀there฀is฀some฀evidence฀pointing฀to฀occurrence฀of฀assemblages฀with฀progressive฀ technological฀ traits฀ attributable฀ to฀ the฀ Middle฀ Paleolithic฀ in฀ time฀ intervals฀ comparable฀ to฀ those฀ of฀ the฀ Acheulian฀ industries.฀ The฀ most฀ significant example from an open-air site is the industry of the฀upper฀level฀(AS6)฀of฀the฀east฀sector฀of฀Ambrona,฀a฀site฀for฀which฀an฀age฀above฀ca.฀350฀ka฀is฀ considered฀(Pérez-González฀et฀al.,฀2005).฀There฀we฀see฀clear฀evidence฀of฀Levallois฀technology฀and฀the฀ standardization฀of฀small฀tools.฀The฀upper฀levels฀of฀Gran฀Dolina฀and฀Galería฀and฀Bolomor฀cave฀(near฀ Valencia)฀have฀provided฀some฀data฀that฀should฀be฀taken฀into฀account.฀ Published฀ descriptions฀ for฀ the฀ Atapuerca฀ sites฀ (Carbonell฀ et฀ al.,฀ 1999:฀ 346),฀ albeit฀ somewhat฀ contradictory,฀indicate฀industries฀of฀Mousterian฀appearance฀including฀standardized฀flake tools and a฀well-developed฀Levallois฀technology฀in฀the฀upper฀level฀of฀Gran฀Dolina,฀i.e.,฀TD10฀which฀is฀dated฀to฀ OIS฀11฀to฀9;฀there฀are฀average฀weighted฀ages฀of฀372±33฀ka฀for฀the฀lower฀part฀and฀337±29฀ka฀for฀the฀ upper฀(Falguères฀et฀al.,฀2001).฀ In฀ Galería,฀ however,฀ the฀ industry,฀ which฀ is฀ described฀ as฀ Acheulian฀ or฀ Mode฀ 2฀ according฀ to฀ Carbonell,฀seems฀to฀be฀characterized฀by฀centripetal฀cores,฀lack฀of฀the฀Levallois฀technique฀and฀strong฀ presence฀ of฀ bifacial฀ tools,฀ sometimes฀ made฀ on฀ flakes (Carbonell et al., 2001). The age of Galería 454 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa seems฀to฀be฀a฀little฀more฀recent฀than฀TD10฀and฀TD11,฀i.e.฀350/300฀ka฀for฀the฀base฀of฀GII;฀the฀entire฀ stratigraphic฀sequence฀is฀placed฀between฀OIS฀10฀and฀7฀(Pérez-González฀et฀al.,฀2001a;฀Falguères฀et฀ al.,฀2001). The฀Bolomor฀cave,฀under฀excavation฀since฀1989฀(Fernández฀Peris฀et฀al.,฀1994),฀has฀a฀sequence฀ of฀ over฀ 10฀ m,฀ in฀ which฀ 17฀ levels฀ have฀ been฀ identified and grouped into four stages (Bolomor I฀ to฀ IV).฀ The฀ chronology฀ of฀ this฀ stratigraphic฀ complex฀ would฀ range฀ from฀ 350฀ ka฀ for฀ level฀ XVII฀ (stratigraphic฀top)฀to฀100฀ka฀estimated฀for฀level฀I.฀The฀three฀lower฀stages฀contain฀some฀limestone฀ macrotools฀ but฀ lack฀ typical฀ Acheulian฀ components.฀ Substantial฀ changes฀ occur฀ in฀ the฀ upper฀ Bolomor฀ IV,฀ comprising฀ levels฀ I฀ to฀ VII.฀ The฀ lithic฀ series฀ of฀ level฀ II,฀ dated฀ by฀ TL฀ to฀ 121±18฀ ka,฀ includes฀over฀15,000฀artifacts;฀about฀10%฀are฀retouched฀and฀the฀assemblage฀has฀been฀defined as Charentian฀Mousterian.฀ The฀technological฀progress฀observed฀in฀Dolina฀and฀Bolomor฀appears฀in฀open-air฀sites฀only฀ at฀ Ambrona฀ level฀ AS6฀ (east฀ sector),฀ and฀ yet฀ there฀ is฀ a฀ record฀ of฀ Acheulian฀ assemblages,฀ such฀ as฀ Torralba,฀ which฀ are฀ later฀ than฀ those฀ levels฀ at฀ Ambrona.฀ Assemblages฀ described฀ as฀ Upper฀ Acheulian,฀ containing฀ small฀ tools฀ of฀ elaborate฀ types,฀ along฀ the฀ Manzanares฀ (Arriaga฀ and฀ other฀ sites฀ of฀ the฀ Butarque฀ complex฀ terrace)฀ and฀ perhaps฀ in฀ the฀ Guadiana฀ (Porzuna)฀ and฀ Duero฀ (El฀ Basalito)฀basins,฀may฀well฀date฀to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀and฀thus฀be฀comparable฀in฀age฀ to฀the฀Mousterian฀levels฀of฀Bolomor.฀ Italy The earliest Acheulian Based฀ on฀ current฀ evidence,฀ the฀ earliest฀ occurrence฀ of฀ Acheulian฀ handaxes฀ in฀ Italy฀ is฀ in฀ the฀ Middle฀ Pleistocene฀ site฀ of฀ Notarchirico฀ in฀ the฀ Venosa฀ basin฀ of฀ southern฀ Italy฀ (Piperno,฀ 1999).฀ Several฀artifact฀assemblages฀are฀found฀in฀fluviatile deposits, rich in volcanic materials, which fill a฀paleovalley฀2–4฀km฀wide.฀Throughout฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀the฀Venosa฀basin฀was฀occupied฀ by฀a฀meandering฀river฀and฀witnessed฀several฀volcanic฀eruptions฀by฀the฀Vulture฀volcano,฀23฀km฀ to฀the฀west.฀The฀deposits฀containing฀archaeological฀materials฀are฀about฀6฀m฀thick฀and฀comprise฀ four฀stratigraphic฀units฀(1–4฀in฀descending฀order).฀They฀form฀an฀alternating฀sequence฀of฀fluvial sediments฀filling paleochannels, volcanic ashes reworked by water, and stone pavements formed by฀detrital฀slope฀deposits฀mobilized฀by฀volcanic฀activity.฀The฀fine sediments were then washed out,฀leaving฀the฀pebbles฀as฀lag฀deposits.฀Thus,฀the฀stone฀pavements฀represent฀old฀land฀surfaces,฀ with฀bones฀and฀stones฀forming฀part฀of฀the฀pavements฀or฀resting฀on฀top฀of฀them฀(Raynal฀et฀al.,฀ 1999). The฀archaeological฀sequence฀consists฀of฀nine฀levels,฀in฀descending฀order฀levels฀Alpha,฀A,฀A1,฀B,฀ C,฀D,฀E,฀E1฀and฀F.฀They฀have฀been฀excavated฀over฀variable฀surfaces,฀from฀a฀minimum฀of฀20฀m2฀to฀a฀ maximum฀of฀133฀m2.฀Four฀more฀levels฀at฀the฀base฀have฀only฀been฀tested.฀Levels฀A,฀A1,฀B,฀D฀and฀F฀have฀ yielded฀assemblages฀containing฀bifaces,฀made฀on฀limestone,฀flint and more rarely quartzite cobbles. These฀biface฀assemblages฀alternate฀with฀assemblages฀comprising฀only฀choppers,฀cores,฀flake and The Acheulian of Western Europe | 455 Table฀5:฀Venosa฀Notarchirico:฀the฀archaeological฀sequence. Stratigraphy Level฀alpha Level฀A Level฀A1 Level฀B Level฀C Level฀D Level฀E Level฀E฀1 Notarchirico฀ tephra Level฀F Date฀(ka) 359±154/97฀ Uranium฀series Size฀of฀excavated฀area฀(in฀m2) 60 120 24฀m2฀preserved 133 12 15 18 20 640±70 TL฀on฀quartz฀ 30 Archaeology Human฀femur฀(cf.฀erectus);฀950฀artifacts฀/฀ no฀bifaces 316฀artifacts฀/฀2฀bifaces 41฀artifacts฀/฀9฀bifaces 351฀artifacts฀/฀10฀bifaces 78฀artifacts฀/฀no฀bifaces 300฀artifacts฀/฀2฀bifaces 155฀artifacts฀/฀no฀bifaces 244฀artifacts฀/฀no฀bifaces Tephra฀with฀the฀same฀chemical฀ composition฀on฀the฀Vulture฀volcano฀is฀ dated฀654±11฀ Artifacts฀left฀in฀situ;฀some฀bifaces flake tools (levels E1, E, C, Alpha). At least one assemblage lacking bifaces is rather large (level Alpha at฀the฀top฀of฀the฀sequence฀with฀950฀artifacts);฀thus฀the฀absence฀of฀bifaces฀is฀not฀dependent฀on฀sample฀ size฀(Table฀5). In฀the฀biface฀assemblages฀we฀note฀the฀absence฀of฀flake cleavers, picks, trihedrals, double-pointed bifaces฀and฀spheroids.฀These฀tool฀types฀occur฀(though฀not฀invariably)฀in฀Acheulian฀assemblages฀ of฀North฀Africa฀such฀as฀Thomas฀Quarry฀unit฀L,฀dated฀to฀1฀ma฀(Raynal฀and฀Texier,฀1989;฀Raynal฀et฀ al.,฀2001)฀and฀in฀Israel฀at฀‘Ubeidiya฀and฀Gesher฀Benot฀Ya‘aqov฀(Bar฀Yosef฀and฀Goren-Inbar,฀1993;฀ Goren-Inbar฀and฀Saragusti,฀1996;฀Saragusti฀and฀Goren-Inbar,฀2001).฀However,฀two฀flake cleavers (one฀ on฀ a฀ flint flake) and one subspheroid on limestone were found in the general area of the Venosa฀basin.฀Unfortunately,฀these฀were฀surface฀collections฀and฀their฀age฀is฀unknown฀(Ferrara฀and฀ Piperno,฀1999). Two฀levels฀have฀yielded฀a฀relatively฀high฀number฀of฀bifaces:฀level฀A1,฀where฀the฀bifaces฀were฀ found฀in฀association฀with฀an฀elephant฀skull,฀and฀level฀B.฀The฀bifaces฀are฀made฀on฀limestone฀and฀ flint pebbles, occasionally on flake. Only two were made on quartzite. In general the frequencies of฀raw฀material฀for฀the฀bifaces฀are฀51%฀for฀limestone,฀30.2%฀for฀flint and siliceous limestone and 18.6%฀for฀quartzite.฀Most฀of฀the฀Notarchirico฀bifaces฀are฀amygdaloids฀with฀twisted฀edges฀and฀a฀ low฀degree฀of฀standardization.฀Based฀on฀the฀published฀illustrations,฀their฀mean฀length฀is฀13±3.5฀ cm฀(N=17).฀ Assemblages without bifaces and the question of multiple migration events in Italy It฀has฀been฀suggested฀that฀the฀occurrence฀of฀assemblages฀without฀bifaces฀in฀Southern฀Europe฀may฀ indicate฀two฀separate฀migration฀events.฀The฀older฀dispersal฀by฀hominins฀using฀only฀a฀core฀and฀flake technology฀(called฀“Mode฀1”)฀would฀include฀four฀Spanish฀sites,฀i.e.,฀Barranco฀León฀and฀Fuentenueva฀ 456 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa 3,฀all฀dated฀to฀about฀or฀before฀1฀ma,฀Gran฀Dolina฀level฀TD6,฀dated฀to฀0.8฀ma฀(Bermúdez฀de฀Castro฀ et฀al.,฀2004b;฀Oms฀et฀al.,฀2000)฀and฀Sima฀del฀Elefante,฀coeval฀of฀Gran฀Dolina฀(see฀the฀section฀on฀the฀ earliest฀sites฀in฀Spain).฀฀In฀Italy฀the฀two฀sites฀of฀Isernia฀and฀Monte฀Poggiolo฀have฀also฀provided฀coreand-flake assemblages. The Ceprano skull (see below) is not associated with stone artifacts. The฀total฀excavated฀assemblage฀of฀Monte฀Poggiolo฀is฀1310฀artifacts฀(1166฀flakes and 153 pebbles). Most฀flakes are smaller than 6 cm and the pebbles are generally 10 cm or smaller. A recent analysis of฀the฀Monte฀Poggiolo฀evidence฀suggests฀that฀the฀date฀of฀1฀ma฀remains฀to฀be฀verified and cannot be฀relied฀upon฀to฀support฀a฀precedence฀of฀core฀and฀flake industries over biface assemblages (Villa, 2001). ฀Isernia฀contained฀four฀core-and-flake assemblages (Sector I level 3c, level 3a, level 3S10 and Sector฀II)฀with฀579,฀334,฀114฀and฀4524฀artifacts฀respectively.฀As฀in฀the฀case฀of฀Monte฀Poggiolo,฀the฀ assemblages฀are฀large฀and฀hence฀the฀small฀sample฀size฀cannot฀be฀used฀as฀an฀explanation฀for฀the฀ absence฀of฀bifaces.฀The฀raw฀material฀blank฀size,฀however,฀is฀relatively฀small,฀as฀at฀Monte฀Poggiolo.฀ Flint฀angular฀blocks฀and฀slabs฀(the฀main฀raw฀material฀at฀Isernia)฀are฀generally฀smaller฀than฀8฀cm.฀The฀ occurrence฀of฀a฀primitive฀form฀of฀Arvicola฀cantiana,฀macrofaunal฀evidence฀and฀new฀dates฀of฀610±10฀ and฀ 606±2฀ ka฀ based฀ on฀ 40Ar/39Ar฀ for฀ a฀ layer฀ capping฀ the฀ archaeological฀ deposits฀ at฀ Isernia฀ also฀ indicates฀a฀younger฀age฀for฀the฀site,฀broadly฀contemporaneous฀with฀Venosa฀Notarchirico฀(Coltorti฀et฀ al.,฀2005;฀Villa,฀2001).฀In฀sum,฀the฀early฀core-and-flake assemblages from Italy have problematic or not฀very฀early฀dates฀and฀there฀is฀clear฀evidence฀of฀limitations฀imposed฀by฀the฀size฀of฀raw฀material฀for฀ the฀making฀of฀bifaces. However,฀ we฀ believe฀ that฀ another฀ argument฀ needs฀ to฀ be฀ taken฀ into฀ consideration.฀ The฀ alternation฀of฀assemblages฀with฀bifaces฀and฀assemblages฀without฀bifaces฀at฀Venosa฀Notarchirico฀ shows฀that฀the฀two฀technologies฀(with฀bifaces฀or฀core-and-flake only) are not mutually exclusive. Non-biface฀industries฀between฀1.6฀and฀0.5฀ma฀in฀Africa฀and฀western฀Asia฀coexisted฀with฀Acheulian฀ assemblages฀in฀the฀same฀stratigraphic฀sequences฀and฀in฀the฀same฀localities.฀The฀best-known฀case฀ is฀that฀of฀‘Ubeidiya฀(Figure฀8;฀Bar฀Yosef฀and฀Goren-Inbar,฀1993),฀where฀seven฀of฀the฀20฀reported฀ assemblages฀do฀not฀contain฀bifacial฀tools.฀The฀excavators฀rejected฀the฀hypothesis฀that฀two฀cultural฀ traditions฀were฀present฀at฀the฀site฀and฀view฀all฀finds as belonging to the same technical tradition. A฀similar฀view฀was฀expressed฀by฀Piperno฀et฀al.฀(1999)฀for฀the฀interstratification observed at Venosa Notarchirico.฀ Several฀African฀sites฀younger฀than฀1.6฀ma฀demonstrate฀the฀coexistence฀of฀the฀two฀technologies฀at฀ the฀same฀time.฀In฀the฀Middle฀Awash,฀two฀late฀Lower฀Pleistocene฀sites฀(BOD-A5฀and฀BOD-A6)฀dated฀ to฀1.5–1.3฀ma฀have฀yielded฀only฀cores฀and฀flakes with a few scrapers (de Heinzelin et al., 2000). Yet in฀East฀Africa฀the฀Acheulian฀technology฀is฀dated฀to฀1.65฀ma฀at฀Kokiselei฀4฀(West฀Turkana;฀Roche฀et฀ al.,฀2003),฀to฀1.4฀ma฀at฀Konso฀in฀Ethiopia฀(Asfaw฀et฀al.,฀1992)฀and฀to฀about฀1.5฀ma฀at฀Olduvai฀Gorge,฀ middle฀Bed฀II฀(site฀EF-HR;฀Leakey,฀1971). In฀the฀Middle฀Awash,฀other฀sites฀in฀the฀Dawaitoli฀Formation฀with฀only฀core฀and฀flake technology and฀a฀good฀number฀of฀artifacts฀are฀dated฀to฀the฀early฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀(e.g.฀BOD-A3,฀DAW-A6฀and฀ HAR-A2).฀They฀occur฀at฀the฀same฀time฀and฀in฀the฀same฀area฀as฀sites฀with฀bifaces฀and฀cleavers฀(e.g.฀ The Acheulian of Western Europe | 457 Figure฀8.฀Tool฀frequencies฀in฀the฀‘Ubeidiya฀assemblages฀(after฀Bar฀Yosef฀and฀Goren-Inbar,฀1993).฀Note฀the฀absence฀of฀ bifaces฀in฀several฀assemblages. HAR-A3฀and฀HAR-A4).฀Clark฀and฀Schick฀(2002)฀believe฀that฀the฀so-called฀“Mode฀1”฀assemblages฀are฀ no฀more฀than฀a฀behavioral฀facies฀of฀the฀Acheulian฀Industrial฀Complex. Other฀early฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀sites฀without฀bifaces฀are฀known฀in฀other฀parts฀of฀East฀Africa.฀For฀ instance,฀the฀site฀of฀Nadung’a฀(West฀Turkana),฀dated฀to฀ca.฀700฀ka,฀has฀a฀large฀assemblage฀of฀4000฀ artifacts฀in฀spatial฀association฀with฀a฀single฀elephant฀carcass.฀The฀formal฀tools฀consist฀of฀notches฀and฀ denticulates฀and฀there฀are฀no฀bifaces฀at฀all฀(Delagnes฀et฀al.,฀2004).฀ Based฀ on฀ these฀ observations,฀ there฀ is฀ no฀ reason฀ to฀ believe฀ that฀ different฀ technologies฀ must฀ necessarily฀be฀associated฀with฀different฀kinds฀of฀hominins.฀Thus,฀it฀may฀not฀be฀necessary฀to฀invoke฀ two฀separate฀migration฀events฀for฀the฀appearance฀of฀core-and-flake and Acheulian technologies in Italy.฀Nevertheless,฀we฀must฀admit฀that฀the฀current฀evidence฀is฀not฀sufficient to refute the alternative hypothesis฀of฀two฀or฀more฀migration฀events.฀To฀be฀sure,฀the฀African฀origin฀of฀both฀the฀core-andflake and biface technologies cannot be doubted. We note that the skull from Ceprano (central Italy) is฀ now฀ considered฀ a฀ representative฀ of฀ an฀ African฀ population฀ that฀ migrated฀ into฀ Italy,฀ perhaps฀ at฀ about฀1฀ma฀(Mallegni฀et฀al.,฀2003).฀As฀in฀Spain,฀the฀low฀density฀of฀early฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀sites฀fits a฀hypothesis฀of฀sporadic฀and฀discontinuous฀settlement฀of฀the฀Italian฀Peninsula;฀the฀density฀of฀sites฀ only฀increases฀in฀the฀second฀half฀of฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene. 458 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa The second half of the Middle Pleistocene Although฀ several฀ assemblages฀ with฀ bifaces฀ can฀ be฀ ascribed฀ to฀ the฀ second฀ half฀ of฀ the฀ Middle฀ Pleistocene,฀it฀is฀often฀not฀possible฀to฀be฀more฀precise฀about฀their฀ages฀and฀their฀chronostratigraphic฀ position฀relative฀to฀each฀other.฀Many฀surface฀finds in the Venosa basin document the occurrence of bifaces฀on฀pebbles฀and฀rarely฀on฀flakes, but they are not in a stratigraphic context. The finds from the Atella฀basin,฀south฀of฀the฀Vulture฀volcano฀and฀close฀to฀the฀Venosa฀basin฀(which฀are฀possibly฀as฀old฀ as฀Notarchirico),฀derive฀from฀limited฀test฀trenches฀along฀the฀shores฀of฀a฀paleolake฀and฀have฀provided฀ thick฀bifaces฀made฀on฀cobbles฀of฀quartzitic฀sandstone฀associated฀with฀a฀larger฀series฀of฀small฀tools฀ on฀flint flakes (Borzatti and Vianello, 1993). Assemblages from excavated contexts in various regions in฀Italy฀are฀often฀characterized฀by฀a฀very฀small฀number฀of฀bifaces฀and฀a฀larger฀proportion฀of฀flake tools฀and฀choppers.฀For฀instance,฀the฀site฀of฀Loreto฀in฀the฀Venosa฀basin฀is฀only฀slightly฀younger฀than฀ the฀Notarchirico฀sequence.฀The฀main฀archaeological฀level฀(level฀A)฀occurs฀in฀the฀upper฀part฀of฀the฀ Tufarelle฀formation,฀dated฀by฀correlation฀with฀the฀volcanic฀deposits฀of฀the฀Vulture฀volcano฀at฀about฀ 500฀ka฀(Lefevre฀et฀al.,฀1999),฀and฀contains฀a฀fairly฀large฀(if฀unspecified) number of flake tools and only฀one฀biface฀(Mussi,฀2001).฀In฀Northern฀Italy฀the฀karstic฀doline฀of฀Visogliano฀has฀provided฀a฀few฀ isolated฀human฀teeth฀and฀a฀mandible฀fragment.฀The฀stratigraphic฀sequence,฀dated฀by฀fauna฀to฀the฀ middle฀part฀of฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀(OIS฀13–11)฀and฀excavated฀over฀a฀restricted฀area,฀has฀yielded฀ a฀series฀of฀small฀assemblages;฀the฀lowest฀levels฀contain฀two฀bifaces฀together฀with฀23฀flake tools and a฀larger฀number฀of฀choppers฀(Abbazzi฀et฀al.,฀2000).฀ Many฀ Acheulian฀ occurrences,฀ mostly฀ in฀ river฀ valleys,฀ have฀ been฀ reported฀ from฀ Tuscany฀ and฀ Umbria฀(central฀Italy);฀unfortunately,฀their฀age฀and฀stratigraphic฀context฀are฀unknown.฀ A฀ few฀ sites,฀ all฀ open-air,฀ are฀ documented฀ from฀ the฀ Latium฀ region฀ (central฀ Italy).฀ They฀ are฀ as฀ follows: 1)฀ Fontana฀ Ranuccio,฀ 60฀ km฀ southeast฀ of฀ Rome฀ and฀ excavated฀ over฀ 60฀ m2,฀ is฀ dated฀ by฀ K/Ar฀ to฀458±5.7฀ka.฀It฀has฀yielded฀five bifaces made on lava and flint, a฀number of small tools on flint flakes (no precise counts are available), a large biface made on elephant long bone, and a few more modified bones (Biddittu, 1993; Mussi, 2001). 2)฀Castel฀di฀Guido,฀20฀km฀west฀of฀Rome,฀is฀a฀sandy฀paleosurface฀excavated฀over฀about฀1100฀m2,฀ covered฀with฀stone฀artifacts฀and฀fossil฀bones.฀The฀vertebrate฀fauna฀include฀abundant฀Bos฀primigenius฀ remains฀(NISP=2157)฀and฀Elephas฀antiquus฀bones฀(NISP=1459).฀There฀were฀292฀formal฀stone฀artifacts.฀ These฀counts฀include฀51฀choppers,฀153฀small฀tools,฀14฀polyhedrons฀and฀74฀bifaces.฀The฀bifaces฀are฀ made฀ on฀ limestone฀ and฀ flint pebbles; only four are said to be made on lava flakes. The counts exclude฀ whole฀ or฀ broken฀ cobbles฀ and฀ a฀ few฀ cores.฀ There฀ were฀ also฀ 163฀ reported฀ flakes, but this is฀probably฀an฀underestimate฀due฀to฀the฀lack฀of฀screening฀during฀excavation.฀The฀site฀monograph฀ (Radmilli฀and฀Boschian,฀1996)฀also฀reports฀99฀bifaces฀made฀on฀elephant฀long฀bones,฀many฀utilized฀ bone฀flakes and one ivory point; the latter is very likely a natural piece like the ivory points of Torralba and฀Ambrona฀(Villa฀and฀d’Errico,฀2001).฀The฀number฀of฀99฀bone฀bifaces฀is฀definitely an overestimate, since฀many฀bone฀pieces฀were฀rounded฀and฀abraded฀beyond฀secure฀identification, but many pieces are฀well-made฀handaxes฀with฀symmetrical฀shapes฀and฀regular฀bifacial฀flaking (Figure 9). Together The Acheulian of Western Europe | 459 Figure฀9.฀Biface฀on฀elephant฀bone฀from฀Castel฀di฀Guido฀(central฀Italy),฀length฀18.7฀cm฀(after฀Radmilli,฀1985). with฀the฀biface฀and฀the฀bone฀tools฀of฀Fontana฀Ranuccio,฀the฀single฀bone฀biface฀of฀Malagrotta฀and฀ the฀bone฀tools฀from฀La฀Polledrara,฀the฀Castel฀di฀Guido฀bone฀bifaces฀represent฀a฀very฀characteristic฀ tradition฀of฀bone฀tool฀making฀in฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀of฀the฀Latium฀region฀(Villa,฀1991;฀Anzidei,฀ 2001;฀Anzidei฀et฀al.,฀2001).฀Castel฀di฀Guido,฀which฀has฀yielded฀a฀few฀hominin฀cranial฀and฀postcranial฀ remains฀showing฀a฀mixture฀of฀erectus-like฀and฀Neanderthal-like฀features,฀belongs,฀like฀La฀Polledrara,฀ Malagrotta฀and฀Torre฀in฀Pietra฀level฀m,฀to฀the฀Aurelian฀Formation฀and฀is฀accordingly฀dated฀to฀OIS฀9฀ (Mariani-Costantini฀et฀al.,฀2001). 3)฀At฀La฀Polledrara,฀also฀20฀km฀NW฀of฀Rome,฀about฀400฀stone฀artifacts฀made฀on฀siliceous฀pebbles฀ have฀been฀found฀in฀association฀with฀numerous฀elephant฀bones.฀There฀are฀no฀bifaces฀at฀all,฀but฀seven฀ large฀bone฀tools฀are฀made฀on฀elephant฀long฀bones.฀It฀has฀been฀argued฀that฀the฀flaking of elephant bone฀ may฀ be฀ due฀ to฀ the฀ difficulty of obtaining suitable raw material for the production of large artifacts฀(Anzidei,฀2001;฀Gaudzinski฀et฀al.,฀2005).฀This฀seems฀to฀be฀the฀case฀for฀La฀Polledrara,฀where฀ only฀small฀siliceous฀pebbles฀were฀available,฀but฀less฀clearly฀so฀for฀Castel฀di฀Guido,฀where฀relatively฀ large฀limestone฀pebbles฀and฀other฀raw฀materials฀were฀available฀and฀used฀to฀make฀stone฀bifaces. 4)฀Torre฀in฀Pietra฀level฀m฀(excavated฀over฀an฀area฀of฀about฀200฀m2)฀is฀similar฀to฀Castel฀di฀Guido฀ in฀having฀a฀high฀proportion฀(29%฀of฀formal฀tools)฀of฀stone฀bifaces฀made฀on฀cobbles฀of฀limestone฀ (30),฀ flint (8) and siliceous limestone (4). The shapes are quite variable, but the level from which implements฀were฀collected฀was฀about฀80฀cm฀thick฀and฀the฀edge฀abrasion฀indicates฀that฀the฀artifacts฀ are฀in฀secondary฀context. 460 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa By฀ OIS฀ 7฀ bifaces฀ are฀ either฀ rare฀ or฀ completely฀ absent฀ at฀ most฀ sites.฀ Torre฀ in฀ Pietra฀ level฀ d,฀ excavated฀ over฀ about฀ 40฀ m2,฀ is฀ in฀ fluvial deposits and like level m฀ is฀ clearly฀ reworked.฀ The฀ total฀ number฀ of฀ artifacts฀ is฀ 744;฀ the฀ Levallois฀ technique฀ is฀ present฀ and฀ there฀ are฀ no฀ handaxes.฀ Other฀ broadly฀contemporaneous฀sites฀within฀or฀in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀Rome฀(Monte฀delle฀Gioie,฀Sella฀del฀Diavolo)฀ and฀various฀occurrences฀in฀northern฀Italy฀(e.g.,฀Torrente฀Conca,฀Cave฀di฀Quinzano)฀are฀characterized฀ by฀small฀flake tools, sometimes the use of the Levallois technique (in the two latter sites) and no or very฀few฀handaxes. As฀this฀reviews฀shows,฀flake cleavers (in fact even bifacial cleavers) are rare in Italian assemblages. Two฀flake cleavers have been published from the open-air site of Rosaneto (Calabria, southern Italy) and฀are฀of฀sandstone฀(L=180฀and฀129฀cm;฀Figure฀10);฀two฀other฀pieces฀made฀of฀flint are bifacial cleavers from฀large-sized฀cobbles฀(Piperno,฀1974;฀Segre฀et฀al.,฀1982).฀Since฀the฀layer฀originally฀containing฀the฀ industry฀was฀eroded฀and฀the฀stone฀artifacts฀were฀found฀on฀the฀surface,฀the฀assemblage฀is฀undated.฀ Typologically฀it฀can฀be฀attributed฀to฀the฀Late฀Acheulian,฀based฀on฀the฀regular฀secondary฀retouch฀on฀ the฀lanceolate฀bifaces฀and฀on฀the฀small฀tools. The฀Rosaneto฀occurrence฀shows฀that,฀although฀flake cleavers were part of the technical repertory of฀Acheulian฀craftsmen฀in฀Italy,฀they฀were฀not฀commonly฀used.฀It฀is฀possible฀that฀the฀relatively฀small฀ size฀of฀the฀raw฀material฀blanks฀at฀various฀Latium฀sites฀and฀the฀scarcity฀of฀large฀quartzite฀cobbles฀ (which฀seem฀to฀be฀the฀preferred฀raw฀material฀for฀cleavers,฀at฀least฀in฀western฀Europe,฀where฀large฀lava฀ slabs฀or฀boulders฀are฀rare฀or฀nonexistent)฀may฀at฀least฀in฀part฀be฀the฀cause฀for฀this฀phenomenon.฀We฀ note฀that฀in฀the฀two฀sites฀where฀bifaces฀are฀relatively฀common,฀such฀as฀Torre฀in฀Pietra฀level฀m฀and฀ Castel฀di฀Guido,฀the฀mean฀length฀of฀bifaces฀is฀small฀compared฀to฀African฀assemblages฀from฀Bed฀IV฀ and฀the฀Masek฀Beds,฀which฀contain฀both฀bifaces฀and฀cleavers.฀The฀mean฀length฀is฀12±3.2฀cm฀(N=42)฀ at฀Torre฀in฀Pietra฀and฀11.2±2.1฀cm฀(N=49)฀at฀Castel฀di฀Guido.฀At฀Olduvai฀the฀flake cleavers from HK (hill฀wash฀later฀than฀the฀Masek),฀FLK฀Masek,฀WK฀and฀HEB฀West฀2a,฀2b,฀3฀(all฀in฀Bed฀IV)฀have฀a฀mean฀ length฀of฀13–16฀cm฀(Roe,฀1994).฀The฀mean฀length฀of฀the฀quartzite฀flake cleavers from El Sartalejo Figure฀10.฀Flake฀cleaver฀from฀Rosaneto฀(southern฀Italy)฀on฀a฀sandstone฀cobble,฀length฀18฀cm฀(after฀Piperno,฀1974). The Acheulian of Western Europe | 461 (Spain)฀is฀14.2±2.2฀cm฀and฀similar฀values฀are฀provided฀by฀the฀cleavers฀from฀Torralba฀and฀Ambrona.฀ However,฀the฀flake cleavers from Campsas (Tarn valley, southwest France) made on quartzite cobbles have฀a฀mean฀length฀of฀12±2.3฀cm฀(Mourre,฀2003),฀very฀similar฀to฀the฀mean฀length฀of฀bifaces฀from฀the฀ Italian฀sites.฀Without฀an฀analysis฀of฀the฀flaking characteristics of the limestone cobbles used at Torre in฀Pietra฀and฀at฀Castel฀di฀Guido,฀it฀is฀not฀possible฀to฀establish฀if฀cleavers฀could฀or฀could฀not฀have฀been฀ made฀on฀those฀blanks฀if฀so฀desired.฀At฀other฀sites,฀bifaces฀of฀slightly฀larger฀dimensions฀are฀known,฀ e.g.,฀at฀Colle฀Avarone฀in฀Latium฀where฀a฀number฀of฀rather฀large฀bifaces฀(mean฀length฀14.3±3.7฀cm)฀ were฀made฀on฀limestone฀cobbles฀(Biddittu,฀1974).฀Limestone฀was฀at฀times฀used฀to฀make฀cleavers;฀ for฀example,฀in฀the฀Observatoire฀Cave฀in฀southern฀France,฀a฀few฀simple฀(type฀0)฀flake cleavers were made฀ on฀ large฀ flakes from oval limestone cobbles (Villa, 1983: 239–242). Siliceous limestone in the฀form฀of฀thick฀large฀slabs฀was฀quarried฀at฀Isampur฀in฀the฀Hunsgi฀valley฀(south-central฀India)฀to฀ produce฀flakes for the manufacture of side-struck cleavers (Petraglia et al., 1999). Thus, the meaning of฀the฀scarcity฀of฀flake cleavers in Italy remains an open question, since it is difficult, in the absence of฀detailed฀raw฀material฀analyses,฀to฀define the role played by raw material size and flaking quality in the฀abandonment฀of฀a฀traditional฀tool฀form. Northern France The฀ oldest฀ dated฀ occurrence฀ of฀ Acheulian฀ handaxes฀ in฀ France฀ is฀ at฀ Abbeville฀ in฀ the฀ Carpentier฀ Quarry,฀on฀the฀right฀bank฀of฀the฀Somme฀River฀in฀northern฀France.฀The฀sedimentary฀sequences฀of฀the฀ Somme฀and฀Avre฀valleys,฀already฀recognized฀by฀Boucher฀de฀Perthes฀in฀1847,฀has฀been฀the฀object฀of฀ intensive฀archaeological฀and฀geological฀fieldwork promoted and directed by A. Tuffreau since the later฀1970s.฀Recent฀work฀by฀Antoine฀suggests฀the฀presence฀of฀at฀least฀nine฀major฀fluvial stratigraphic groups฀(nappes)฀forming฀a฀terraced฀sequence,฀starting฀with฀the฀Nappe฀de฀Grâce,฀which฀has฀reversed฀ magnetic฀polarity.฀The฀fauna,฀normal฀magnetic฀polarity฀and฀ESR฀dates฀(600±90฀ka)฀of฀the฀Carpentier฀ Quarry฀(“nappe฀de฀Renancourt”)฀place฀it฀between฀OIS฀16฀and฀15;฀the฀Acheulian฀industries฀of฀SaintAcheul฀(rue฀de฀Cagny)฀and฀Cagny฀la฀Garenne฀are฀dated฀by฀ESR฀to฀OIS฀12,฀between฀450฀and฀400฀ka฀ (Saint-Acheul:฀403±73฀ka;฀Cagny฀la฀Garenne:฀443±53฀and฀448±68฀ka;฀Tuffreau฀and฀Antoine,฀1995;฀ see฀the฀papers฀by฀Van฀Vliet-Lanoë฀et฀al.,฀Bahain฀et฀al.฀and฀Antoine฀in฀Tuffreau,฀2001).฀At฀Cagny฀la฀ Garenne฀the฀recent฀excavations฀by฀Tuffreau฀(the฀excavation฀area฀about฀100฀m฀south฀of฀the฀classic฀ stratigraphic฀section,฀protected฀as฀a฀national฀monument,฀is฀called฀Cagny฀la฀Garenne฀II)฀have฀revealed฀ a฀series฀of฀archaeological฀levels฀contained฀in฀gravels฀and฀fine lenses of fluvial silts of the beginning of฀ a฀ glacial฀ period.฀ The฀ artifacts฀ in฀ the฀ lower฀ levels฀ (unit฀ K)฀ correspond฀ to฀ activities฀ linked฀ to฀ the฀ selection฀of฀raw฀materials฀(flint nodules derived from the erosion of the nearby chalk talus). These activities฀are฀documented฀by฀a฀majority฀of฀unmodified blocks, blocks tested only by a few removals, discarded฀biface฀roughouts,฀and฀only฀15%฀of฀flakes. In the upper series of levels (units J, I), activities linked฀to฀raw฀material฀procurement฀(testing฀of฀blocks,฀presence฀of฀unmodified nodules) are much less฀ frequently฀ represented฀ in฀ comparison฀ to฀ the฀ quantities฀ of฀ debitage,฀ products฀ of฀ shaping฀ of฀ bifaces,฀finished bifaces, small tools (often made on small flint slabs and dominated by notches with 462 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa smaller฀ numbers฀ of฀ denticulates฀ and฀ scrapers)฀ and฀ “heavy-duty”฀ tools฀ such฀ as฀ choppers฀ and฀ socalled฀“bloc-outils”฀i.e.,฀flint nodules with few removals, similar to choppers. Although the Levallois technique฀has฀been฀recognized฀by฀Tuffreau,฀it฀is฀represented฀by฀very฀few฀cores฀(recurrent฀bipolar฀ and฀with฀a฀preferential฀flake) and flakes. The debitage cannot really be defined as฀Levallois, since most฀cores฀have฀only฀one฀debitage฀surface฀and฀plain฀striking฀platforms.฀There฀are฀no฀flake cleavers and฀only฀one฀bifacial฀cleaver฀is฀described;฀the฀total฀of฀all฀levels฀is฀9097฀artifacts฀(including฀flakes and debris฀<2฀cm;฀Lamotte฀and฀Tuffreau,฀2001a).฀The฀proportions฀of฀bifaces฀in฀the฀total฀of฀formal฀tools฀ vary฀from฀3.1฀to฀18.4%. ฀The฀Levallois฀debitage฀is฀equally฀rare฀or฀non-existent฀in฀the฀series฀of฀Cagny฀l’Epinette,฀dated฀to฀ OIS฀9฀based฀on฀terrace฀stratigraphy.฀While฀the฀microfauna฀suggested฀a฀younger฀age฀(OIS฀7),฀one฀ESR฀ date฀on฀the฀sediments฀of฀unit฀I฀(296±53฀ka)฀supports฀the฀OIS฀9฀age฀estimate฀(Laurent฀et฀al.,฀1994).฀ The฀site,฀situated฀on฀a฀terrace฀of฀the฀Avre,฀a฀tributary฀of฀the฀Somme,฀was฀excavated฀by฀A.฀Tuffreau฀ for฀ many฀ years฀ from฀ 1980.฀ Levallois฀ cores฀ and฀ flakes comprise no more than 0.4% of the total assemblage฀and฀are฀too฀occasional฀to฀be฀significant; the bifaces comprise 6.4% of the formal tools in฀unit฀H,฀which฀overlies฀unit฀I.฀Proportions฀can฀be฀higher฀in฀levels฀of฀unit฀I,฀but฀the฀assemblages฀are฀ relatively฀small.฀It฀should฀be฀noted฀that฀a฀good฀proportions฀of฀artifacts฀at฀both฀Cagny฀la฀Garenne฀and฀ Cagny฀l’Epinette฀have฀clear฀edge฀damage฀due฀to฀the฀high฀energy฀of฀the฀fluvial environment; hence the integrity฀of฀the฀series฀is฀clearly฀doubtful.฀Counts฀provided฀here฀for฀both฀sites฀are฀based฀only฀on฀series฀ of฀artifacts฀with฀fresh฀edges฀(Lamotte฀and฀Tuffreau,฀2001b;฀see฀also฀Dibble฀et฀al.,฀1997). Assemblages฀rich฀in฀bifaces฀and฀with฀a฀repertoire฀of฀flake types in many respects indistinguishable from฀Mousterian฀industries฀of฀Upper฀Pleistocene฀age฀are฀found฀during฀OIS฀8฀(e.g.,฀Atelier฀Commont,฀ Gouzeaucourt).฀At฀about฀the฀same฀time฀the฀Levallois฀method฀is฀documented฀in฀assemblages฀with฀rare฀ bifaces฀such฀as฀Mesvin฀IV฀in฀Belgium,฀OIS฀8,฀and฀Le฀Pucheuil฀série฀C฀in฀northern฀France,฀end฀of฀OIS฀8฀ or฀beginning฀of฀OIS฀7฀(Soriano,฀2000;฀Delagnes฀and฀Ropars,฀1996)฀and฀slightly฀later฀in฀assemblages฀ without฀bifaces฀at฀Maastricht-Belvedère฀in฀the฀Netherlands฀at฀about฀250฀ka,฀OIS฀7฀(Roebroeks,฀1988).฀ Levallois฀ debitage฀ is฀ well฀ documented฀ at฀ several฀ sites฀ from฀ OIS฀ 7฀ onward฀ (Bapaume-les-Osiers,฀ La฀Cotte฀St.฀Brelade,฀Biache;฀Soriano,฀2000฀and฀references฀therein).฀Flake฀cleavers฀have฀never฀been฀ described฀from฀Acheulian฀assemblages฀of฀the฀Somme฀valley฀but฀only฀bifacial฀cleavers,฀i.e.,฀handaxes฀ with฀a฀transverse฀distal฀edge,฀which฀should฀not฀be฀confused฀with฀flake cleavers. England A฀few฀flake cleavers made on flint have been found in England: one in the Lower Thames valley at South฀ Woodford฀ (on฀ gravels฀ below฀ silty฀ clay,฀ from฀ a฀ road฀ cutting฀ and฀ found฀ together฀ with฀ three฀ handaxes฀and฀some฀flakes; Wymer, 1999: fig. 20), nine at Whitlingham near Norwich in East Anglia (in฀terrace฀gravels฀of฀the฀Yare฀River,฀where฀at฀least฀200฀handaxes฀were฀also฀found;฀Wymer,฀1999:฀ 133),฀ one฀ at฀ Keswick฀ (also฀ in฀ gravels฀ of฀ the฀ Yare฀ River,฀ which฀ yielded฀ at฀ least฀ 175฀ handaxes),฀ two฀ at฀Baker’s฀Farm฀and฀two฀at฀Furze฀Platt฀in฀gravels฀of฀the฀middle฀Thames฀valley฀(over฀365฀handaxes฀ were฀found฀at฀Baker’s฀Farm฀and฀678฀at฀Furze฀Platt),฀one฀in฀the฀Middle฀Gravels฀at฀Swanscombe฀and฀ The Acheulian of Western Europe | 463 one฀at฀Cuxton฀in฀the฀Medway฀valley฀near฀the฀Thames฀estuary,฀a฀prolific site that yielded about 200 handaxes฀in฀a฀small฀area฀(Roe฀1968a:฀p.฀III;฀Villa,฀1983;฀Cranshaw,฀1983;฀Wymer,฀1999:฀65–67,฀133,฀ 169,฀fig. 20; Mourre, 2003). The time range of these sites is OIS 11 to 8, but most sites are difficult to฀date฀precisely.฀Compared฀to฀the฀39,000฀handaxes฀recorded฀by฀D.฀Roe฀in฀his฀Gazetteer฀of฀British฀ Lower฀and฀Middle฀Palaeolithic฀Sites฀(1968a),฀it฀is฀clear฀that฀flake cleavers are a very rare tool type in northwestern฀Europe.฀Bifacial฀cleavers,฀with฀a฀transverse฀edge฀often฀obtained฀by฀a฀tranchet฀blow,฀are฀ less฀rare฀(Roe,฀1968b);฀however,฀according฀to฀Mourre฀(2003:฀251),฀bifacial฀cleavers฀cannot฀really฀be฀ considered฀a฀functional฀replacement฀of฀flake cleavers, since their edges have morphometric features quite฀different฀from฀those฀of฀flake cleavers Southern France It฀is฀difficult to establish the antiquity of the Acheulian Technocomplex in southern France. The great majority฀of฀sites฀with฀Acheulian฀handaxes฀occur฀in฀river฀valleys,฀mainly฀the฀Garonne฀basin฀in฀SW฀France,฀ very฀rarely฀in฀stratigraphic฀context฀and฀more฀commonly฀on฀the฀surface.฀In฀contrast฀to฀the฀situation฀in฀ the฀Iberian฀Peninsula,฀knowledge฀of฀terrace฀sequences฀at฀present฀is฀inadequate,฀and฀consequently฀a฀ reference฀framework฀for฀the฀chronologic฀ordering฀and฀linking฀of฀sites฀is฀lacking.฀Happily,฀the฀situation฀ is฀changing฀due฀to฀an฀increase฀in฀studies฀associated฀with฀preventive฀archaeology฀(Bruxelles฀et฀al.,฀ 2003),฀but฀faunal฀data,฀paleomagnetic฀determinations฀and฀absolute฀dates฀are฀still฀rare฀or฀lacking฀and฀ dating฀estimates฀are฀based฀on฀general฀typological฀features฀and฀even,฀for฀older฀publications,฀on฀the฀ outdated฀Alpine฀chronology.฀Over฀a฀stretch฀of฀more฀than฀100฀km฀along฀the฀Garonne฀and฀the฀Tarn฀ rivers,฀ Acheulian฀ findspots are very common; most are located on the Garonne and Tarn middle terraces฀or฀on฀equivalent฀terraces฀of฀their฀tributaries.฀In฀the฀Garonne฀valley฀bifaces฀and฀cleavers฀are฀ made฀on฀cobbles฀of฀good-quality฀quartzite,฀which฀have฀regular฀oval฀shapes฀since฀they฀have฀been฀ transported฀and฀rolled฀by฀the฀river฀over฀long฀distances฀from฀the฀Pyrenees.฀ In฀the฀Tarn฀river฀valley฀and฀in฀the฀Agout฀valley฀(a฀tributary฀of฀the฀Tarn),฀more฀than฀100฀findspots were฀ identified and studied by André Tavoso; five thousand large and heavy duty tools (bifaces, cleavers,฀unifaces,฀choppers)฀are฀described฀in฀his฀work฀(1986).฀In฀the฀Tarn฀basin฀Acheulian฀bifaces฀ and฀cleavers฀had฀to฀be฀made฀on฀materials฀of฀inferior฀flaking quality, quartzites, quartz and dolerites of฀the฀Massif฀Central฀and฀the฀Montagne฀Noire.฀However,฀at฀the฀interface฀between฀the฀two฀major฀ river฀valleys฀(the฀Tarn฀enters฀the฀Garonne฀northwest฀of฀Montauban)฀Acheulian฀artifacts฀on฀the฀Tarn฀ side฀are฀often฀made฀on฀imported฀Garonne฀quartzites.฀This฀raw฀material฀(greenish฀gray,฀fine-grained quartzite)฀ was฀ clearly฀ desirable;฀ the฀ longest฀ transport฀ distance฀ is฀ indicated฀ by฀ the฀ occurrence฀ of฀ artifacts฀of฀Garonne฀quartzites฀(N=6)฀among฀materials฀made฀on฀local฀quartzites฀of฀lower฀quality฀at฀ the฀findspot of Labastide d’Anjou (on a terrace of the Fresquel, which flows toward the Mediterranean and฀is฀at฀the฀eastern฀edge฀of฀the฀Garonne฀basin;฀Féblot-Augustin,฀1997:฀fig. 23). According to Tavoso (his฀thesis฀was฀written฀in฀1978฀but฀published฀only฀in฀1986),฀the฀transport฀distance฀was฀80฀km,฀but฀ he฀placed฀the฀source฀area฀near฀the฀confluence of the Tarn and Garonne; in fact the source could be farther฀south฀and฀in฀this฀case฀the฀transport฀distance฀would฀be฀in฀the฀order฀of฀50฀km฀(cf.฀discussion฀and฀ 464 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa maps฀in฀Féblot-Augustins,฀1997:฀85).฀Flint฀is฀available฀in฀this฀region,฀but฀is฀of฀rather฀mediocre฀flaking quality฀and฀blanks฀are฀rather฀small.฀The฀only฀good฀source฀of฀flint is in the Vere valley (a tributary of฀the฀Aveyron฀at฀the฀northern฀margin฀of฀the฀Garonne฀basin)฀and฀it฀was฀intensively฀exploited฀in฀the฀ Middle฀Paleolithic,฀as฀documented฀by฀a฀number฀of฀surface฀sites฀with฀Levallois฀debitage฀and฀small฀ MTA฀bifaces฀on฀flakes. To the east in the Causses and Quercy regions, Lower Paleolithic artifacts are made฀on฀quartz฀and฀bifaces฀are฀very฀rare;฀cleavers฀are฀totally฀absent฀(Jaubert,฀1991).฀ Among฀ the฀ Tarn฀ sites,฀ the฀ most฀ interesting฀ and฀ well฀ studied฀ is฀ Campsas,฀ on฀ the฀ Tarn฀ middle฀ terrace฀ at฀ the฀ border฀ of฀ the฀ Garonne฀ valley.฀ Fifteen฀ occurrences฀ were฀ identified and intensively collected฀between฀1933฀and฀1959฀by฀one฀person฀(M.฀Latapie).฀According฀to฀Tavoso,฀collections฀from฀ different฀findspots are identical in composition, morphology and technical features. These findspots are฀ very฀ close฀ to฀ each฀ other฀ and฀ it฀ is฀ not฀ certain฀ that฀ each฀ corresponds฀ to฀ a฀ distinct฀ occupation.฀ For฀ this฀ reason฀ the฀ material฀ from฀ nine฀ major฀ occurrences฀ was฀ studied฀ as฀ one฀ assemblage.฀ Two฀ interesting฀features฀characterize฀the฀Campsas฀assemblage:฀ 1)฀A฀high฀proportions฀of฀flake cleavers among the large, heavy-duty tools (which include many cores,฀mostly฀discoid).฀There฀are฀275฀flake cleavers, i.e., 11.9% of the total (N=2310). Counts are based on฀Tavoso,฀1986฀and฀are฀slightly฀different฀from฀those฀in฀Villa,฀1983.฀ 2)฀ A฀ clear฀ preference฀ for฀ the฀ Garonne฀ quartzite,฀ which฀ was฀ available฀ a฀ few฀ kilometers฀ to฀ the฀ west.฀The฀Garonne฀quartzite฀was฀the฀favorite฀raw฀material฀for฀the฀biface/uniface฀group;฀97%฀of฀the฀ cleavers฀were฀made฀of฀this฀quartzite,฀while฀the฀Tarn฀quartzite฀was฀more฀commonly฀used฀for฀heavyduty฀ tools฀ (choppers).฀ This฀ preference฀ for฀ the฀ Garonne฀ quartzite฀ can฀ be฀ explained฀ by฀ the฀ more฀ irregular฀morphology฀of฀the฀Tarn฀quartzites,฀which฀makes฀it฀less฀suitable฀for฀the฀production฀of฀large฀ and฀relatively฀thin฀flakes. The most common cleaver type is on cortical flake (type 0). Other฀occurrences฀with฀bifaces฀and฀cleavers฀have฀been฀reported฀more฀to฀the฀south฀from฀the฀Arros฀ valley฀(surface฀findspots) and the site of Lanne-Darré, both near Tarbes in the Pyrenean piedmont. Although฀Lanne-Darré฀occurs฀in฀colluvial฀sediments,฀the฀displacement฀seems฀relatively฀minor฀and฀ the฀assemblage฀has฀been฀considered฀relatively฀homogeneous.฀Frequencies฀of฀flake cleavers (all made on฀quartzite)฀vary฀from฀12.5฀to฀20.2%฀in฀the฀rather฀small฀series฀of฀the฀Arros฀valley฀and฀are฀more฀ abundant฀at฀Lanne-Darré฀(42.4%;฀Mourre,฀2003).฀Proportions฀of฀cleavers฀are฀calculated฀here฀in฀the฀ same฀way฀as฀in฀the฀Tarn฀assemblages,฀within฀the฀total฀of฀large฀and฀heavy-duty฀tools,฀including฀cores.฀ As฀at฀Campsas,฀cleavers฀are฀of฀the฀simple฀variety฀(types฀0,฀I,฀II). All฀these฀Acheulian฀assemblages฀are฀believed฀to฀be฀older฀than฀300฀ka,฀though฀this฀should฀be฀ considered฀a฀“guess-estimate”฀rather฀than฀an฀established฀date.฀Assignments฀to฀specific time units (early฀ Middle฀ Acheulian,฀ Middle฀ Acheulian฀ and฀ Final฀ Acheulian)฀ are฀ based฀ only฀ on฀ typological฀ evaluations.฀Internal฀seriation฀based฀on฀differences฀in฀physical฀conditions฀(a฀rolled฀series฀being฀older฀ than฀a฀fresh฀one;฀Tavoso,฀1986)฀is฀no฀longer฀considered฀a฀valid฀chronological฀argument.฀ Though฀ it฀ is฀ clear฀ that฀ the฀ Garonne฀ basin,฀ including฀ its฀ tributaries,฀ was฀ densely฀ occupied฀ in฀ Acheulian฀ times,฀ it฀ is฀ difficult to locate in฀ situ,฀ undisturbed฀ Acheulian฀ occurrences.฀ This฀ seems฀ to฀ be฀tied฀to฀the฀fact฀that฀most฀occurrences฀are฀located฀on฀top฀of฀terrace฀gravels฀but฀were฀not฀quickly฀ buried฀by฀fine-grained alluvial or loessic deposits, as in northern France; thus, materials were easily The Acheulian of Western Europe | 465 displaced฀by฀colluvial฀or฀alluvial฀processes.฀The฀silty฀deposits฀that฀sometimes฀occur฀on฀top฀of฀the฀ middle฀and฀low฀terraces฀seem฀to฀be฀of฀recent฀age,฀definitely younger than the formation of the middle terraces฀(Jaubert฀and฀Servelle,฀1996;฀Bruxelles฀et฀al.,฀2003).฀The฀rare฀excavations฀or฀test฀trenching฀of฀ occurrences฀ in฀ stratigraphic฀ context฀ (En฀ Jacca,฀ near฀ Toulouse฀ on฀ the฀ Garonne฀ middle฀ terrace;฀ Le฀ Prône,฀a฀doline฀in฀the฀Tarn฀valley;฀Servelle฀and฀Servelle,฀1981;฀cf.฀also฀Bruxelles฀et฀al.,฀2003)฀have฀not฀ provided฀more฀precise฀dating฀information.฀ Terra฀Amata฀in฀SE฀France฀(Nice)฀has฀a฀low฀proportion฀of฀bifaces฀(less฀than฀5%฀of฀the฀formal฀tools)฀ and฀no฀true฀flake cleavers. There is a small number of unifacial or partly bifacial cleavers (N=11) that have฀a฀distal฀edge฀formed฀by฀a฀single฀“tranchet”฀blow฀(Villa,฀1983).฀These฀pieces฀are฀made฀on฀finegrained฀limestone฀pebbles฀and฀have฀been฀called฀the฀“Terra฀Amata฀type”฀in฀Table฀3. Acheulian฀bifaces฀rarely฀occur฀in฀caves฀and฀rock฀shelters.฀Figure฀11฀shows฀the฀frequency฀of฀bifaces฀ on฀the฀total฀of฀formal฀tools฀at฀cave฀and฀open-air฀sites฀in฀France฀that฀are฀dated฀to฀older฀than฀OIS฀7฀or฀ sites฀for฀which฀no฀firm age estimate can be provided but which can be typologically assigned to the Middle฀Pleistocene฀Acheulian฀rather฀than฀the฀Middle฀Paleolithic.฀For฀stratified sites layers are treated as฀separate฀units;฀only฀assemblages฀from฀excavations฀in฀stratigraphic฀context,฀or฀in฀one฀case฀from฀a฀ controlled฀surface฀collection฀in฀a฀limited฀area฀(Combes;฀Turq,฀2000),฀are฀included.฀Cave฀sites฀that฀have฀ Figure฀11.฀Frequency฀of฀bifaces฀(including฀cleavers)฀in฀the฀total฀of฀formal฀tools฀at฀cave฀and฀open-air฀sites฀in฀France.฀ The฀sites฀are:฀Arago฀layers฀G,฀F,฀E,฀D;฀Lunel฀Viel;฀Montmaurin฀La฀Terrasse฀level฀1฀and฀2;฀Orgnac฀level฀6;฀Terra฀Amata฀ stratigraphic฀units:฀Dune,฀Beach฀and฀Lower฀Cycle;฀Soucy฀1฀(Yonne,฀probable฀OIS฀9);฀Nantet฀(Landes);฀Cazalège฀(Gers);฀ Combes,฀La฀Plane฀et฀Bourg฀de฀Tombeboeuf฀(Lot฀et฀Garonne,฀Dordogne);฀Cagny฀l’Epinette฀levels฀H,฀I1,฀I1B;฀Cagny-laGarenne฀levels฀I2,฀I3,I4,฀J,฀R1;฀Ferme฀de฀l’Epinette฀level฀MS฀(OIS฀10).฀Data฀from฀Lebel,฀1992;฀Le฀Grand,฀1994;฀Moncel,฀ 1996;฀Millet฀et฀al.,฀1999;฀Lhomme฀et฀al.,฀2000;฀Turq,฀2000;฀Lamotte฀and฀Tuffreau,฀2001a,฀b;฀Lamotte฀et฀al.,฀2001.฀Data฀on฀ Nantet,฀Montmaurin฀La฀Terrasse฀level฀1,฀and฀Terra฀Amata฀from฀Villa,฀1983. 466 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa provided฀small฀numbers฀of฀bifaces฀in฀stratigraphic฀context฀are฀Arago,฀Lunel฀Viel,฀Orgnac฀3฀level฀6฀and฀ Montmaurin฀La฀Terrasse฀levels฀1฀and฀2;฀all฀these฀sites฀are฀located฀in฀southern฀France.฀ Orgnac฀is฀actually฀a฀karstic฀cavity฀that฀was฀first used by carnivores only, then its opening became larger฀ through฀ time฀ and฀ the฀ cavity฀ was฀ accessible฀ through฀ a฀ talus;฀ the฀ last฀ human฀ occupations฀ correspond฀to฀an฀open฀air฀site.฀The฀human฀occupation฀sequence฀includes฀levels฀8฀to฀1฀and฀is฀dated฀ to฀OIS฀9฀between฀350฀and฀300฀ka฀by฀ESR฀and฀U/Th฀(Moncel,฀1996;฀1999).฀Level฀6฀toward฀the฀base฀of฀ the฀sequence฀contains฀a฀good฀number฀of฀carnivore฀remains฀(%฀MNI=7)฀and฀evidence฀of฀carnivore฀ activity฀on฀herbivore฀remains฀but฀also฀abundant฀stone฀artifacts฀(N=2288).฀This฀level฀is฀in฀fact฀one฀ of฀the฀numerous฀examples฀of฀sites฀with฀carnivore฀and฀human฀co-occurrences฀of฀Middle฀and฀Upper฀ Pleistocene฀ age฀ in฀ Western฀ Europe฀ (Villa฀ et฀ al.,฀ 2004).฀ There฀ are฀ five bifaces on flint (1.9% of the formal฀tools);฀there฀are฀no฀flake cleavers and the assemblage is dominated by small tools on flint flakes or thin slabs. Orgnac 6 is clearly not the oldest Acheulian occupation in Southern France. Three฀ flake cleavers on quartzite occur at Montmaurin La Terrasse level 1, together with 13 bifaces฀and฀two฀picks.฀The฀site฀is฀in฀the฀Garonne฀basin฀(Mourre,฀2003)฀and฀cannot฀be฀dated฀precisely.฀ One฀biface฀is฀reported฀from฀Lunel฀Viel฀(Hérault,฀SE฀France);฀the฀assemblage฀is฀made฀predominantly฀ on฀flint, quartzite, and quartz and the best-quality flint is the preferred raw material for producing Levallois฀ flakes (Le Grand, 1994; the biface is unfortunately not described). Although the site is generically฀dated฀to฀about฀350฀ka,฀this฀is฀essentially฀a฀“guess-estimate”;฀however,฀the฀fauna฀suggest฀ an฀age฀prior฀to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene. The฀site฀that฀has฀the฀best฀chance฀of฀being฀the฀oldest฀known฀occurrence฀of฀Acheulian฀tools฀in฀ southern฀France฀is฀Arago฀Cave.฀Very฀low฀frequencies฀of฀handaxes฀(1.4%฀and฀less)฀have฀been฀reported฀ from฀layers฀D,฀F฀and฀G฀(Middle฀Stratigraphic฀Complex,฀Unit฀III),฀which฀have฀yielded฀a฀wide฀scatter฀of฀ dates฀based฀on฀different฀dating฀methods.฀U-series฀dates฀on฀the฀stalagmitic฀formation฀above฀these฀ levels฀suggest฀a฀minimum฀age฀of฀>350฀ka฀for฀those฀levels฀that฀contain฀the฀human฀remains฀(Falguères฀ et฀ al.,฀ 2004).฀ Flake฀ cleavers฀ are฀ reported฀ but฀ remain฀ unpublished฀ (Mourre,฀ 2003).฀ At฀ the฀ base฀ of฀ the฀Middle฀Stratigraphic฀Complex,฀layer฀Q฀is฀reported฀to฀contain฀bifaces฀(not฀yet฀published;฀Byrne,฀ 2004);฀this฀stratigraphic฀unit฀is฀correlated฀to฀OIS฀14.฀If฀the฀date฀is฀confirmed, this would be the oldest occurrence฀of฀the฀Acheulian฀in฀southern฀France.฀No฀bifaces฀have฀been฀reported฀for฀Soleihac฀(Massif฀ Central),฀which฀is฀now฀dated฀to฀about฀0.6–0.5฀ma฀(Raynal฀et฀al.,฀in฀Roebroeks฀and฀Kolfshoten,฀1995). Conclusions The spatial distribution of flake cleavers In฀Europe฀the฀distribution฀of฀cleavers฀coincides฀only฀partly฀with฀that฀of฀Acheulian฀handaxes.฀We฀ should฀emphasize฀that฀flake cleavers are an integral part of African Acheulian assemblages in the sense฀that,฀although฀bifaces฀can฀occur฀without฀associated฀cleavers,฀cleavers฀always฀occur฀together฀ with฀bifaces,฀and฀this฀already฀at฀the฀very฀outset฀of฀the฀Acheulian฀(see,฀for฀instance,฀the฀records฀of฀ biface฀assemblages฀at฀Olduvai,฀Konso-Gardula,฀Olorgesailie,฀Isenya,฀Kalambo฀Falls;฀Callow,฀1994:฀ tables฀ 9.1–9.2;฀ Asfaw฀ et฀ al.,฀ 1992;฀ Potts,฀ 1993;฀ Roche฀ et฀ al.,฀ 1988;฀ Roe,฀ 2001a,฀ b).฀ Thus฀ it฀ seems฀ The Acheulian of Western Europe | 467 unlikely฀ that฀ the฀ spatial฀ distribution฀ of฀ flake cleavers is simply the result of different routes of expansion฀of฀Acheulian฀lithic฀technology฀out฀of฀Africa.฀Cleavers฀are฀made฀on฀large฀flakes and are most฀abundant฀in฀European฀regions฀in฀which฀the฀raw฀material฀occurs฀in฀the฀form฀of฀large฀quartzite฀ cobbles฀that฀do฀not฀need฀extensive฀decortication฀and฀shaping฀prior฀to฀the฀removal฀of฀large฀flakes, as฀in฀the฀Spanish฀Meseta฀and฀in฀the฀Garonne฀and฀Tarn฀valleys฀of฀southwestern฀France.฀Elsewhere฀ (northern฀France,฀England,฀Italy)฀cleavers฀also฀occur฀in฀different฀raw฀materials฀(flint or limestone) but฀are฀not฀common.฀Large,฀thick฀limestone฀slabs฀such฀as฀those฀used฀at฀Isampur฀(Petraglia฀et฀al.,฀ 1999)฀and฀lava฀blocks฀or฀boulders฀from฀which฀to฀extract฀large฀flakes as at Olduvai or Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov฀(Jones,฀1994;฀Madsen฀and฀Inbar,฀2004)฀do฀not฀seem฀to฀occur฀in฀southwestern฀Europe.฀ At฀the฀Late฀Acheulian฀site฀of฀Ma’ayan฀Barukh฀cleavers฀made฀of฀flint account for only 2% of the handaxe฀ total฀ and฀ the฀ majority฀ are฀ in฀ fact฀ bifacial฀ cleavers,฀ although฀ several฀ specimens฀ are฀ on฀ flake and are made on Levallois flakes (Gilead, 1973). It is clear that raw material resources are an important฀ factor฀ in฀ the฀ abundance฀ of฀ flake cleavers in certain areas and their scarcity in others (Villa,฀1983). Main route of entry into Europe There฀is฀no฀doubt฀that฀the฀Acheulian฀lithic฀technology฀was฀transported฀out฀of฀Africa.฀In฀Eurasia฀the฀ Acheulian฀has฀a฀distinctive฀distribution฀spanning฀the฀area฀from฀the฀Iberian฀and฀Italian฀peninsulas฀to฀ central฀Germany.฀North฀of฀latitude฀52º฀and฀east฀of฀longitude฀11º฀E฀in฀central฀Europe฀and฀the฀Russian฀ plain,฀handaxe฀industries฀are฀conspicuously฀absent,฀occurring฀only฀sporadically฀in฀southeastern฀Europe฀ (Kozlowski,฀2003;฀Runnels฀and฀van฀Andel,฀1993).฀Handaxe฀industries฀are฀again฀well฀documented฀in฀ western฀Asia฀and฀as฀far฀as฀the฀Caucasus฀(Lioubine,฀2002).฀Makers฀of฀typical฀Acheulian฀industries฀also฀ traveled฀as฀far฀as฀the฀Indian฀subcontinent฀(Roe,฀2001b).฀This฀distribution฀pattern,฀with฀peak฀densities฀ in฀the฀west฀and฀the฀east฀and฀empty฀spaces฀in฀central฀and฀eastern฀Europe,฀is฀intriguing.฀ It฀seems฀likely฀that฀the฀route฀of฀entry฀for฀Acheulian฀people฀into฀Europe฀was฀from฀northwestern฀ Africa฀ via฀ Gibraltar.฀ Although฀ this฀ hypothesis฀ has฀ frequently฀ been฀ suggested฀ (e.g.฀ Tavoso,฀ 1986;฀ Roe,฀2001b)฀there฀are฀arguments฀against฀it,฀such฀as฀the฀independence฀of฀fauna฀on฀both฀sides฀of฀the฀ Mediterranean฀and฀the฀lack฀of฀proof฀of฀crossings฀in฀either฀direction฀between฀Africa฀and฀Iberia,฀even฀ in฀ the฀ Upper฀ Paleolithic.฀ Evidence฀ of฀ navigation฀ in฀ the฀ Mediterranean,฀ including฀ settlement฀ of฀ the฀ Mediterranean฀islands,฀dates฀from฀late฀in฀the฀Upper฀Pleistocene฀(Mussi,฀2001;฀Straus,฀2001).฀ Yet฀the฀recently฀documented฀geography฀of฀the฀Acheulian฀outside฀Africa฀does฀suggest฀human฀ expansion฀from฀both฀ends฀of฀the฀Mediterranean฀via฀western฀Asia฀and฀Gibraltar,฀with฀no฀evidence฀ of฀linking฀routes฀across฀Europe.฀Population฀flows from Africa would have taken place at different times.฀Dmanisi฀in฀Georgia฀at฀ca.฀1.8฀ma฀(Vekua฀et฀al.,฀2002),฀south฀of฀the฀Caucasus,฀which฀would฀have฀ constituted฀a฀true฀geographic฀barrier,฀marks฀the฀earliest฀record฀of฀dispersal฀into฀Eurasia฀prior฀to฀the฀ emergence฀of฀the฀Acheulian.฀Other฀records฀of฀slightly฀younger฀age฀are฀known฀in฀Israel฀(1.4฀ma),฀India฀ (1.2฀ma),฀Java฀(>1.5฀ma)฀and฀China฀(1.66฀ma)฀(Bar-Yosef฀and฀Goren-Inbar,฀1993;฀Paddayya฀et฀al.,฀2002;฀ Larick฀et฀al.,฀2001;฀Zhou฀et฀al.,฀2004).฀The฀first indication of an early crossing into Mediterranean Europe฀through฀Gibraltar฀is฀provided฀by฀the฀sites฀in฀the฀Orce฀region฀(ca.฀1.3/1.2฀ma)฀and฀Atapuerca฀ 468 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa (ca.฀ 0.8฀ ma);฀ their฀ time฀ range฀ is฀ well฀ within฀ the฀ time฀ frame฀ of฀ the฀ Acheulian฀ technology฀ in฀ Africa฀ (Roche฀et฀al.,฀2003)฀and฀Asia฀(Goren-Inbar฀and฀Saragusti,฀1996;฀Paddayya฀et฀al.,฀2002;฀Hou฀et฀al.,฀ 2000),฀although฀clear฀Acheulian฀occurrences฀in฀Europe฀are฀documented฀only฀after฀the฀beginning฀of฀ the฀Middle฀Pleistocene.฀In฀sum,฀the฀European฀map฀presents฀the฀Acheulian฀as฀a฀late฀western/southern฀ phenomenon;฀given฀its฀geographic฀distribution,฀it฀would฀be฀illogical฀to฀dismiss฀out฀of฀hand฀direct฀ diffusion฀from฀the฀Maghreb฀and฀a฀hypothesis฀of฀a฀second฀or฀of฀multiple฀episodes฀of฀migrations฀into฀ western฀ Europe,฀ perhaps฀ during฀ OIS฀ 16฀ (659/620฀ ka),฀ when฀ a฀ sea-level฀ regression฀ of฀ 120–130฀ m฀ would฀have฀allowed฀a฀water฀crossing฀of฀10฀km฀or฀less฀(Straus,฀2001). References Abbazzi,฀L.,฀Fanfani,฀F.,฀Ferretti,฀M.฀P.,฀Rook,฀L.,฀Cattani,฀L.,฀Masini,฀F.,฀Mallegni,฀F.,฀Negrino,฀F.,฀Tozzi,฀ C.,฀2000.฀New฀human฀remains฀of฀archaic฀Homo฀sapiens฀and฀Lower฀Palaeolithic฀industries฀from฀ Visogliano฀(Duino฀Aurisina,฀Trieste,฀Italy).฀Journal฀of฀Archaeological฀Science฀27,฀1173–1186.฀ Agustí,฀J.,฀Madurell,฀J.,฀2003.฀Los฀arvicólidos฀(Muroidea,฀Rodentia,฀Mammalia)฀del฀Pleistoceno฀inferior฀ de฀ Barranco฀ León฀ y฀ Fuente฀ Nueva฀ 3฀ (Orce,฀ Granada).฀ Datos฀ preliminares.฀ In:฀ Toro,฀ I.,฀ Agustí,฀ J.,฀ Martínez-Navarro,฀ B.฀ (Eds.),฀ El฀ Pleistoceno฀ inferior฀ de฀ Barranco฀ León฀ y฀ Fuente฀ Nueva,฀ Orce฀ (Granada).฀Memoria฀científica campañas 1999–2002.฀Junta฀de฀Andalucía,฀Sevilla,฀pp.฀137–145. Anzidei,฀A.฀P.,฀2001.฀Tools฀from฀elephant฀bones฀at฀La฀Polledrara฀di฀Cecanibbio฀and฀Rebibbia-Casal฀de’฀ Pazzi.฀In:฀Cavarretta,฀G.,฀Gioia,฀P.,฀Mussi,฀M.,฀Palombo,฀M.฀R.฀(Eds.),฀The฀World฀of฀Elephants.฀Proceedings฀ of฀the฀Ist฀International฀฀Congress.฀Consiglio฀Nazionale฀delle฀Ricerche,฀Roma,฀pp.฀415–418. Anzidei,฀A.฀P.,฀Biddittu,฀I.,฀Gioia,฀P.,฀Mussi,฀M.,฀Piperno,฀M.,฀2001.฀Lithic฀and฀bone฀industries฀of฀OIS฀ 9฀ and฀ OIS฀ 7฀ in฀ the฀ Rome฀ area.฀ In:฀ Cavarretta,฀ G.,฀ Gioia,฀ P.,฀ Mussi,฀ M.,฀ Palombo,฀ M.฀ R.฀ (Eds.),฀ The฀World฀of฀Elephants.฀Proceedings฀of฀the฀Ist฀International฀Congress.฀Consiglio฀Nazionale฀delle฀ Ricerche,฀Roma,฀pp.฀3–9. Arnáiz,฀M.฀A.,฀1991.฀La฀ocupación฀humana฀en฀la฀cuenca฀alta฀del฀río฀Pisuerga฀durante฀el฀Pleistoceno฀ inferior฀y฀medio.฀Unpublished฀Ph.฀D.฀dissertation,฀Universidad฀de฀Valladolid. Asfaw,฀ B.,฀ Beyene,฀ Y.,฀ Suwa,฀ G.,฀ Walter,฀ R.฀ C.,฀ White,฀ T.฀ D.,฀ WoldeGabriel,฀ G.,฀ Yemane,฀ T.,฀ 1992.฀ The฀ earliest฀Acheulean฀from฀Konso-Gardula.฀Nature฀360,฀732–735. Baena,฀ J.,฀ Baquedano,฀ I.,฀ 2004.฀ Avance฀ de฀ los฀ trabajos฀ arqueológicos฀ realizados฀ en฀ el฀ yacimiento฀ paleolítico฀de฀Tafesa฀(Villaverde,฀Madrid).฀Zona฀Arqueológica฀4฀(IV),฀30–47. Baena,฀R.,฀Díaz฀del฀Olmo,฀F.,฀1994.฀Cuaternario฀aluvial฀de฀la฀Depresión฀del฀Guadalquivir:฀episodios฀ geomorfológicos฀y฀cronología฀paleomagnética.฀Geogaceta฀15,฀102–103. Balout,฀L.,฀Biberson,฀P.,฀Tixier,฀J.,฀1967.฀L’Acheuléen฀de฀Ternifine (Algérie), gisement de l’Atlanthrope. L’Anthropologie฀71,฀217–237. Bar-Yosef,฀O.,฀Goren-Inbar,฀N.,฀1993.฀The฀Lithic฀Assemblages฀of฀‘Ubeidiya.฀A฀Lower฀Palaeolithic฀Site฀in฀ the฀Jordan฀Valley.฀Qedem฀34,฀Institute฀of฀Archaeology,฀Hebrew฀University,฀Jerusalem. Benito฀Calvo,฀A.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀2005.฀Restitución฀estadística฀de฀los฀perfiles longitudinales fluviales en฀el฀valle฀medio฀del฀río฀Arlanzón:฀primeros฀resultados฀de฀la฀reconstrucción฀de฀paleorelieves฀ The Acheulian of Western Europe | 469 cuaternarios฀ en฀ la฀ Sierra฀ de฀ Atapuerca.฀ In:฀ Santonja,฀ M.,฀ Pérez-González,฀ A.,฀ Machado,฀ M.฀ J.฀ (Eds.),฀ Geoarqueología฀ y฀ Patrimonio฀ en฀ la฀ Península฀ Ibérica฀ y฀ el฀ entorno฀ mediterráneo.฀ Adema,฀ Soria,฀pp.฀451–462. Bermúdez฀de฀Castro,฀J.฀M.,฀Martinón-Torres,฀M.,฀Carbonell,฀E.,฀Sarmiento,฀S.,฀Rosas,฀A.,฀Van฀der฀Made,฀ J.,฀ Lozano,฀ M.,฀ 2004.฀ The฀ Atapuerca฀ sites฀ and฀ their฀ contribution฀ to฀ the฀ knowledge฀ of฀ human฀ evolution฀in฀Europe.฀Evolutionary฀Anthropology฀13,฀24–41. Biddittu,฀ I.,฀ 1974.฀ Giacimento฀ pleistocenico฀ ad฀ amigdale฀ acheuleane฀ nel฀ territorio฀ di฀ Ceprano฀ (Frosinone).฀Memorie฀dell’Istituto฀Italiano฀di฀Paleontologia฀Umana฀2,฀61–67. Biddittu,฀I.,฀1993.฀Fontana฀Ranuccio.฀Industrie฀litiche,฀ossa฀utilizzate฀e฀manufatti฀su฀osso.฀In:฀Gatti,฀ S.฀ (Ed.),฀ Dives฀ Anagnia.฀ Archeologia฀ nella฀ valle฀ del฀ Sacco.฀ L’Erma฀ di฀ Bretschneider,฀ Rome,฀ pp.฀ 38–47. Boeda,฀ E.,฀ 2001.฀ Determination฀ des฀ unités฀ techno-fonctionelles฀ de฀ pièces฀ bifaciales฀ provenant฀ de฀ la฀couche฀acheuléenne฀C´3฀Base฀du฀site฀de฀Barbas฀I.฀In:฀Cliquet,฀D.฀(Ed.),฀Les฀industries฀à฀outils฀ bifaciaux฀du฀Paléolithique฀moyen฀d´Europe฀occidentale.฀ERAUL฀98,฀Liège,฀pp.฀51–75. Borzatti฀von฀Löwenstern,฀E.,฀Vianello,฀F.,฀1993.฀Luoghi฀di฀sosta฀e฀di฀insediamento฀lungo฀le฀rive฀del฀ lago฀pleistocenico฀di฀Atella฀(Potenza).฀Atti฀della฀XXX฀Riunione฀Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria฀e฀Protostoria.฀Firenze,฀pp.฀139–150. Botella,฀M.,฀Vera,฀J.,฀Porta,฀J.฀de,฀1976.฀El฀yacimiento฀achelense฀de฀la฀Solana฀del฀Zamborino฀(Fonelas,฀ Granada).฀ Primera฀ campaña฀ de฀ excavaciones.฀ Cuadernos฀ de฀ Prehistoria฀ de฀ la฀ Universidad฀ de฀ Granada฀1,฀1–45. Bruxelles,฀L.,฀Berthet,฀A.฀L.,฀Chalard,฀P.,฀Colonge,฀D.,฀Delfour,฀G.,฀Jarry,฀M.,฀Lelouvier,฀L.฀A.,฀Arnouxt,฀T.,฀ One-Zime,฀O.,฀2003.฀Le฀Paléolithique฀ancien฀et฀moyen฀en฀Midi฀toulousain:฀nouvelles฀données฀et฀ perspectives฀de฀l’archéologie฀préventive.฀Paléo฀15,฀7–28. Butzer,฀K.฀W.,฀1965.฀Acheulian฀occupation฀sites฀at฀Torralba฀and฀Ambrona฀Spain.฀Their฀geology.฀Science฀ 150,฀1718–1722. Byrne,฀ L.,฀ 2004.฀ Lithic฀ tools฀ from฀ Arago฀ Cave,฀ Tautavel฀ (Pyrénées฀ Orientales,฀ France):฀ behavioral฀ continuity฀or฀raw฀material฀determinism?฀Journal฀of฀฀Archaeological฀Science฀31,฀351–364. Callow,฀P.,฀1994.฀The฀Olduvai฀bifaces:฀technology฀and฀raw฀materials.฀In:฀Leakey,฀M.฀D.,฀Roe,฀D.฀(Eds.),฀ Olduvai฀ Gorge,฀ vol.฀ V.฀ ฀ Excavations฀ in฀ Beds฀ III,฀ IV฀ and฀ the฀ Masek฀ Beds,฀ 1968-1971.฀ Cambridge฀ University฀Press,฀Cambridge,฀pp.฀235–253. Cande,฀S.฀C.,฀Kent,฀D.฀V.,฀1995.฀Revised฀calibration฀of฀the฀geomagnetic฀polarity฀timescale฀for฀the฀Late฀ Cretaceous฀and฀Cenozoic.฀Journal฀of฀Geophysical฀Research฀100฀(B4),฀6093–6096. Carbonell,฀ E.,฀ Bermúdez฀ de฀ Castro,฀ J.฀ M.,฀ Arsuaga,฀ J.฀ L.,฀ Díez,฀ J.฀ C.,฀ Rosas,฀ A.,฀ Cuenca-Bescós,฀ G.,฀ Sala,฀ R.,฀ Mosquera,฀ M.,฀ Rodríguez,฀ X.฀ P.,฀ 1995.฀ Lower฀ Pleistocene฀ hominids฀ and฀ artifacts฀ from฀ Atapuerca-TD6฀(Spain).฀Science฀269,฀826–832. Carbonell,฀E.,฀García-Antón,฀M.฀D.,฀Mallol,฀C.,฀Mosquera,฀M.,฀Ollé,฀A.,฀Rodríguez,฀X.฀P.,฀Sahnouni,฀M.,฀ Sala,฀R.,฀Vergès,฀J.฀M.,฀1999.฀The฀TD6฀level฀lithic฀industry฀from฀Gran฀Dolina,฀Atapuerca฀(Burgos,฀ Spain):฀production฀and฀use.฀Journal฀of฀Human฀Evolution฀37,฀653–693. Carbonell,฀ E.,฀ Mosquera,฀ M.,฀ Ollé,฀ A.,฀ Rodríguez,฀ X.฀ P.,฀ Sahnouni,฀ M.,฀ Sala,฀ R.,฀ Vergès,฀ J.฀ M.,฀ 2001.฀ 470 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Structure฀morphotechnique฀de฀l´industrie฀lithique฀du฀Pléistocène฀inférieur฀et฀moyen฀d´Atapuerca฀ (Burgos,฀Espagne).฀L´Anthropologie฀105,฀259–280. Caro฀Gómez,฀J.฀A.,฀Díaz฀del฀Olmo,฀F.,฀Baena฀Escudero,฀R.,฀2005.฀Interpretación฀geoarqueológica฀de฀las฀ terrazas฀aluviales฀del฀Pleistoceno฀Medio฀del฀Guadalquivir฀(Cerro฀Higoso,฀Sevilla).฀In:฀Santonja,฀M.,฀ Pérez-González,฀A.,฀Machado,฀M.฀J.฀(Eds.),฀Geoarqueología฀y฀Patrimonio฀en฀la฀Península฀Ibérica฀y฀ el฀entorno฀mediterráneo.฀Adema,฀Soria,฀pp.฀282–293. Clark,฀J.฀D.,฀Schick,฀K.,฀2002.฀Acheulean฀archaeology฀of฀the฀eastern฀Middle฀Awash.฀In:฀Heinzelin,฀J.฀de,฀ Clark,฀J.฀D.,฀Schick,฀K.฀D.,฀Gilbert,฀W.฀H.฀(Eds.),฀The฀Acheulean฀and฀the฀Plio-Pleistocene฀Deposits฀of฀ the฀Middle฀Awash฀Valley,฀Ethiopia.฀Annales฀Sciences฀Géologiques฀104,฀Musée฀Royal฀de฀l’Afrique฀ Centrale,฀Tervuren,฀Belgique,฀pp.฀51–121. Coltorti,฀M.,฀Feraud,฀G.,฀Marzoli,฀A.,฀Peretto,฀C.,฀Ton-That,฀T.,฀Voinchet,฀P.,฀Bahain,฀J.-J.,฀Minelli,฀A.,฀Thun฀ Hohenstein,฀U.,฀2005.฀New฀40Ar/39Ar,฀stratigraphic฀and฀paleoclimatic฀data฀on฀the฀Isernia฀La฀Pineta฀ Lower฀Paleolithic฀site,฀Molise,฀Italy.฀Quaternary฀International฀131,฀11–22. Cranshaw,฀S.,฀1983.฀Handaxes฀and฀Cleavers:฀Selected฀English฀Acheulian฀Industries.฀British฀Archaeological฀ Reports฀British฀Series฀113,฀Oxford. Cuenca-Bescós,฀G.,฀García,฀N.,฀Made,฀J.฀van฀der,฀2004.฀Fossil฀mammals฀of฀the฀Lower฀to฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀ site฀of฀Trinchera฀Dolina,฀Atapuerca฀(Burgos,฀Spain).฀Zona฀Arqueológica฀4฀(II),฀140–149. Delagnes,฀A.,฀Brugal,฀J.฀P.,฀Harmand,฀S.,฀2004.฀The฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀site฀of฀Nadung’a฀4,฀Kenya.฀Paper฀ presented฀to฀the฀annual฀meeting฀of฀the฀Society฀of฀American฀Archaeology,฀April฀2004,฀Montreal,฀ Canada. Delagnes,฀A.,฀Ropars,฀A.,฀1996.฀Paléolithique฀moyen฀en฀pays฀de฀Caux฀(Haute-Normandie).฀Documents฀ d’Archéologie฀Française฀56,฀Paris. Dibble,฀H.฀L.,฀Chase,฀P.฀G.,฀McPherron,฀S.฀P.,฀Tuffreau,฀A.,฀1997.฀Testing฀the฀reality฀of฀a฀“living฀floor” with archaeological฀data.฀American฀Antiquity฀62,฀629–651. Díez฀Martín,฀F.,฀2000.฀El฀poblamiento฀paleolítico฀en฀los฀páramos฀del฀Duero.฀Studia฀Archeologica฀90,฀ Universidad฀de฀Valladolid. Falguères,฀Ch.,฀Bahain,฀J.-J.,฀Yokoyama,฀Y.,฀Arsuaga,฀J.฀L.,฀Bermúdez฀de฀Castro,฀J.฀M.,฀Carbonell,฀E.,฀ Bischoff,฀J.฀L.,฀Dolo,฀J.฀M.,฀1999.฀Earliest฀humans฀in฀Europe:฀the฀age฀of฀TD6฀Gran฀Dolina,฀Atapuerca,฀ Spain.฀Journal฀of฀Human฀Evolution฀37,฀343–352. Falguères,฀Ch.,฀Bahain,฀J.-J.,฀Yokoyama,฀Y.,฀Bischoff,฀J.฀L.,฀Arsuaga,฀J.฀L.,฀Bermúdez฀de฀Castro,฀J.฀M.,฀ Carbonell,฀E.,฀Dolo,฀J.฀M.,฀2001.฀Datation฀par฀RPE฀et฀U-Th฀des฀sites฀pléistocenes฀d´Atapuerca:฀Sima฀ de฀los฀Huesos,฀Trinchera฀Dolina฀et฀Trinchera฀Galería.฀Bilan฀géochronologique.฀L´Anthropologie฀ 105,฀71–81.฀ Falguères,฀Ch.,฀Yokohama,฀Y.,฀Shen,฀G.,฀Bischoff,฀J.฀L.,฀Ku,฀T.฀L.,฀de฀Lumley,฀H.,฀2004.฀New฀U-series฀dates฀ at฀the฀Caune฀de฀l’Arago,฀France.฀Journal฀of฀Archaeological฀Science.฀31,฀941–952. Féblot-Augustins,฀J.,฀1997.฀La฀circulation฀des฀matières฀premières฀au฀Paléolithique.฀ERAUL฀75,฀Liège. Fernández฀ Peris,฀ J.,฀ Calatayud,฀ P.,฀ Fumanal,฀ Mª฀ P.,฀ Martínez,฀ R.,฀ 1994.฀ Cova฀ de฀ Bolomor฀ (Valencia)฀ primeros฀datos฀de฀una฀secuencia฀del฀Pleistoceno฀medio.฀Saguntum฀27,฀9–37. Ferrara,฀ F.,฀ Piperno,฀ M.,฀ 1999.฀ Localitá฀ di฀ interesse฀ preistorico฀ nel฀ bacino฀ di฀ Venosa.฀ Collezioni,฀ The Acheulian of Western Europe | 471 ritrovamenti฀isolati฀e฀scavi.฀In:฀Piperno,฀M.,฀(Ed.),฀Notarchirico.฀Un฀sito฀del฀Pleistocene฀medio฀iniziale฀ nel฀bacino฀di฀Venosa.฀Edizioni฀Osanna,฀Venosa,฀pp.฀41–66. Freeman,฀L.฀G.,฀1975.฀Acheulian฀sites฀and฀stratigraphy฀in฀Iberia฀and฀the฀Maghreb.฀In:฀Butzer,฀K.,฀Isaac,฀ G.฀Ll.฀(Eds.),฀After฀the฀Australopithecines.฀Mouton,฀The฀Hague–Paris,฀pp.฀661–744. Gaudzinski,฀ S.,฀ Turner,฀ E.,฀ Anzidei,฀ A.฀ P.,฀ Alvarez-Fernandez,฀ E.,฀ Arroyo-Cabrales,฀ J.,฀ Cinq-Mars,฀ J.,฀ Dobosi,฀ V.฀ T.,฀ Hannus,฀ A.,฀ Johnson,฀ E.,฀ Münzal,฀ S.฀ C.,฀ Scheer,฀ A.,฀ Villa,฀ P.,฀ 2005.฀ The฀ use฀ of฀ Proboscidean฀ remains฀ in฀ every-day฀ Palaeolithic฀ life.฀ Quaternary฀ International฀ 126–128,฀ 179– 194. Geraads,฀D.,฀Raynal,฀J.฀P.,฀Eisenmann,฀V.,฀2004.฀The฀earliest฀human฀occupation฀of฀North฀Africa:฀a฀reply฀ to฀Sahnouni฀et฀al.฀Journal฀of฀Human฀Evolution฀46,฀751–761.฀ Gilead,฀D.,฀1973.฀Cleavers฀in฀Early฀Palaeolithic฀industries฀of฀Israel.฀Paléorient฀1,฀73–86.฀ Giles,฀F.,฀Santiago,฀A.,฀Gutiérrez,฀J.฀M.,฀Mata,฀E.,฀Aguilera,฀L.,฀1989.฀El฀poblamiento฀paleolítico฀en฀el฀valle฀ del฀río฀Guadalete.฀In:฀El฀Cuaternario฀en฀Andalucía฀occidental.฀Asociación฀Española฀para฀el฀Estudio฀ del฀Cuaternario,฀Sevilla,฀pp.฀43–57. Goren-Inbar,฀ N.,฀ Saragusti,฀ I.,฀ 1996.฀ An฀ Acheulian฀ biface฀ assemblage฀ from฀ Gesher฀ Benot฀ Ya‘aqov,฀ Israel:฀indications฀of฀African฀affinities. Journal฀of฀Field฀Archaeology฀23,฀15–30. Goy,฀J.฀L.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀Zazo,฀C.,฀1989.฀Memoria฀de฀la฀Hoja฀a฀E.฀1:50.000฀de฀Madrid฀(559).฀Mapa฀ Geológico฀de฀España,฀Instituto฀Tecnológico฀GeoMinero฀de฀España,฀Madrid. Heinzelin,฀ J.฀ de,฀ Clark,฀ J.฀ D.,฀ Schick,฀ K.฀ D.,฀ Gilbert,฀ W.฀ H.฀ (Eds.),฀ 2000.฀ The฀ Acheulean฀ and฀ the฀ PlioPleistocene฀ Deposits฀ of฀ the฀ Middle฀ Awash฀ Valley,฀ Ethiopia.฀ Annales฀ Sciences฀ Géologiques฀ 104,฀ Musée฀Royal฀de฀l’Afrique฀Centrale,฀Tervuren,฀Belgique.฀ Hou,฀ Y.,฀ Potts,฀ R.,฀ Yuan,฀ B.,฀ Guo,฀ Z.,฀ Deino,฀ A.,฀ Wang,฀ W.,฀ Clark,฀ J.,฀ Xie,฀ G.,฀ Huang,฀ W.,฀ 2000.฀ MidPleistocene฀Acheulean-like฀stone฀technology฀of฀the฀Bose฀Basin,฀South฀China.฀Science฀287,฀1622– 1626. Howell,฀F.฀C.,฀Butzer,฀K.฀W.,฀Aguirre,฀E.,฀1962.฀Noticia฀preliminar฀sobre฀el฀emplazamiento฀achelense฀de฀ Torralba.฀Excavaciones฀Arqueológicas฀en฀España,฀10,฀Ministerio฀de฀Cultura,฀Madrid. Howell,฀F.฀C.,฀Butzer,฀K.฀W.,฀Freeman,฀L.฀G.,฀Klein,฀R.฀G.,฀1995.฀Observations฀on฀the฀Acheulean฀occupation฀ site฀of฀Ambrona฀(Soria฀Province,฀Spain),฀with฀particular฀reference฀to฀recent฀investigation฀(1980– 1983)฀ and฀ the฀ lower฀ occupation.฀ Jahrbuch฀ des฀ Römisch-Germanischen฀ Zentralmuseum฀ Mainz฀ 38,฀33–82. Jaubert,฀ J.,฀ 1991.฀ Production฀ lithique฀ du฀ Paléolithique฀ inférieur฀ et฀ moyen.฀ Exemples฀ du฀ Midi฀ de฀ la฀ France.฀Matières฀à฀faire,฀Actes฀des฀séminaires฀publics฀d’archéologie,฀pp.฀13–19. Jaubert,฀J.฀Servelle,฀C.,฀1996.฀L’Acheuléen฀dans฀le฀Bassin฀de฀la฀Garonne฀(région฀Midi-Pyrénés):฀état฀ de฀la฀question฀et฀implications.฀In:฀Tuffreau,฀A.฀(Ed.),฀L’Acheuléen฀dans฀l’Ouest฀de฀l’Europe.฀Actes฀du฀ colloque฀de฀Saint฀Riquier.฀Publications฀du฀CERP฀4,฀Lille,฀pp.฀77–108. Jones,฀P.฀R.,฀1994.฀Results฀of฀experimental฀work฀in฀relation฀to฀the฀stone฀industries฀of฀Olduvai฀Gorge.฀ In:฀Leakey,฀M.฀D.,฀Roe,฀D.฀(Eds.),฀Olduvai฀Gorge,฀vol.฀V.฀฀Excavations฀in฀Beds฀III,฀IV฀and฀the฀Masek฀ Beds,฀1968-1971.฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀Cambridge,฀pp.฀254–298. Kozlowski,฀J.฀K.,฀2003.฀From฀bifaces฀to฀leaf฀points.฀In:฀Soressi,฀M.,฀Dibble,฀H.฀L.฀(Eds.),฀Multiple฀Approaches฀ 472 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa to฀the฀Study฀of฀Bifacial฀Technologies.฀University฀of฀Pennsylvania,฀Museum฀of฀Archaeology฀and฀ Anthropology,฀Philadelphia,฀pp.฀149–164. Lamotte,฀A.,฀Tuffreau,฀A.,฀2001a.฀Les฀industries฀lithiques฀de฀Cagny-la-Garenne฀II฀(Somme,฀France).฀In:฀ Tuffreau,฀A.฀(Ed.),฀L’Acheuléen฀dans฀la฀vallée฀de฀la฀Somme฀et฀Paléolithique฀moyen฀dans฀le฀Nord฀de฀ la฀France:฀données฀récentes.฀Publications฀du฀CERP฀6,฀Lille,฀pp.฀59–90. Lamotte,฀ A.,฀ Tuffreau,฀ A.,฀ 2001b.฀ Les฀ industries฀ lithiques฀ de฀ la฀ sequence฀ fluviatile fine de Cagny l’Epinette฀(Somme).฀In:฀Tuffreau,฀A.฀(Ed.),฀L’Acheuléen฀dans฀la฀vallée฀de฀la฀Somme฀et฀Paléolithique฀ moyen฀dans฀le฀Nord฀de฀la฀France:฀données฀récentes.฀Publications฀du฀CERP฀6,฀Lille,฀pp.฀113–134. Lamotte,฀ A.,฀ Tuffreau,฀ A.,฀ Marcy,฀ J.฀ L.,฀ 2001.฀ La฀ série฀ MS฀ du฀ gisement฀ acheuléen฀ de฀ la฀ ferme฀ de฀ l’Epinette฀à฀Cagny฀(Somme,฀France).฀In:฀Tuffreau,฀A.฀(Ed.),฀L’Acheuléen฀dans฀la฀vallée฀de฀la฀Somme฀ et฀Paléolithique฀moyen฀dans฀le฀Nord฀de฀la฀France:฀données฀récentes.฀Publications฀du฀CERP฀6,฀Lille,฀ pp.฀137–149. Larick,฀R.,฀Ciochon,฀R.฀L.,฀Zaim,฀Y.,฀Sudijono,฀Suminto,฀Rizal,฀Y.,฀Aziz,฀F.,฀Reagan,฀M.,฀Heizler,฀M.,฀2001.฀ Early฀ Pleistocene฀ 40K/39Ar฀ ages฀ from฀ Bapang฀ Formation฀ hominins,฀ Central฀ Java,฀ Indonesia.฀ Proceedings฀of฀the฀National฀Academy฀of฀Science฀USA฀98,฀4866–4871. Laurent,฀M.,฀Falguères,฀C.,฀Bahain,฀J.฀J.,฀Yokohama,฀Y.,฀1994.฀Geochronologie฀du฀système฀des฀terrasses฀ fluviatiles du bassin de la Somme par datation RPE sur quartz, déséquilibre des familles de l’uranium et฀magnétostratigraphie.฀Comptes฀Rendus฀de฀l'Académie฀des฀Sciences,฀série฀II,฀318,฀521–526. Leakey,฀M.฀D.,฀1971.฀Olduvai฀Gorge.฀Excavations฀in฀Bed฀I฀and฀II,฀1960–1963.฀Cambridge฀University฀ Press,฀Cambridge. Lebel,฀ S.,฀ 1992.฀ Mobilité฀ des฀ hominidés฀ et฀ système฀ technique฀ d’exploitation฀ des฀ ressources฀ au฀ Paléolithique฀ancien:฀la฀Caune฀de฀l’Arago฀(France).฀Canadian฀Journal฀of฀Archaeology฀16,฀48–69. Le฀Grand,฀Y.,฀1994.฀Approche฀méthodologique฀et฀technologique฀d’un฀site฀d’habitat฀du฀Pléistocene฀ moyen.฀Unpublished฀Ph.฀D.฀dissertation,฀Université฀de฀Provence฀(Aix-Marseille). Lefèvre,฀D.,฀Raynal,฀J.฀P.,฀Vernet,฀G.,฀1999.฀Enregistrements฀pléistocènes฀dans฀le฀bassin฀de฀Venosa.฀In:฀ Piperno,฀M.฀(Ed.),฀Notarchirico.฀Un฀sito฀del฀Pleistocene฀medio฀iniziale฀nel฀bacino฀di฀Venosa.฀Edizioni฀ Osanna,฀Venosa,฀pp.฀139–174. Lhomme,฀V.,฀Connet,฀N.,฀Bémilli,฀C.,฀Chaussé,฀C.,฀2000.฀Essai฀d’interprétation฀du฀site฀paléolithique฀de฀ Soucy฀1฀(Yonne).฀Gallia฀Préhistoire฀42,฀1–44. Lioubine,฀V.฀P.,฀2002.฀L’Acheuléen฀du฀Caucase.฀ERAUL฀93,฀Liège. Madsen,฀B.,฀Goren-Inbar,฀N.,฀2004.฀Acheulian฀giant฀core฀technology฀and฀beyond:฀an฀archaeological฀ and฀experimental฀case฀study.฀Eurasian฀Prehistory฀2฀(1),฀3–52. Mallegni,฀F.,฀Carnieri,฀E.,฀Bisconti,฀M.,฀Tartarelli,฀G.,฀Ricci,฀S.,฀Biddittu,฀I.,฀Segre,฀A.,฀2003.฀Homo฀cepranensis฀ sp฀ nov.฀ and฀ the฀ evolution฀ of฀ African-European฀ Middle฀ Pleistocene฀ hominids.฀ Comptes฀ Rendus฀ Palevol.฀2,฀153–159. Mariani-Costantini,฀R.,฀Ottini,฀L.,฀Caramiello,฀S.,฀Palmirotta,฀R.,฀Mallegni,฀F.,฀Rossi,฀A.,฀Frati,฀L.,฀Capasso,฀ L.,฀2001.฀Taphonomy฀of฀the฀fossil฀hominid฀bones฀from฀the฀Acheulean฀site฀of฀Castel฀di฀Guido฀near฀ Rome,฀Italy.฀Journal฀of฀Human฀Evolution฀41,฀211–225. Marks,฀ A.฀ E.,฀ Brugal,฀ J.฀ Ph.,฀ Chabai,฀ V.฀ P.,฀ Monigal,฀ K.,฀ Goldberg,฀ P.,฀ Hockett,฀ B.,฀ Pemán,฀ E.,฀ Elorza,฀ The Acheulian of Western Europe | 473 M.,฀Mallol,฀C.,฀2002.฀Le฀gisement฀pléistocène฀moyen฀de฀Galeria฀Pesada฀(Estrémadure,฀Portugal):฀ premiers฀résultats.฀Paléo฀14,฀77–99. Martín฀Benito,฀J.฀I.,฀2000.฀El฀Achelense฀en฀la฀cuenca฀media฀occidental฀del฀Duero.฀Centro฀de฀Estudios฀ Benaventanos,฀Salamanca. Martínez-Navarro,฀ B.,฀ Espigares,฀ M.฀ P.,฀ Ros,฀ S.,฀ 2003.฀ Estudio฀ preliminar฀ de฀ las฀ asociaciones฀ de฀ grandes฀mamíferos฀de฀Fuente฀Nueva฀3฀y฀Barranco฀León-5.฀Orce,฀Granada,฀España฀(informe฀de฀ las฀campañas฀de฀1999–2002).฀In:฀Toro,฀I.,฀Agustí,฀J.,฀Martínez-Navarro,฀B.฀(Eds.),฀El฀Pleistoceno฀ inferior฀de฀Barranco฀León฀y฀Fuente฀Nueva,฀Orce฀(Granada).฀Memoria฀científica campañas 1999– 2002.฀Junta฀de฀Andalucía,฀Sevilla,฀pp.฀115–136. Mazo,฀A.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀Aguirre,฀E.,฀1990.฀Las฀faunas฀pleistocenas฀de฀Fuensanta฀del฀Júcar฀y฀El฀ Provencio฀y฀su฀significado en la evolución del Cuaternario Manchego. Boletín฀Geológico฀y฀Minero฀ 101,฀404–418. Millet,฀D.,฀Jaubert,฀J.,฀Duclos,฀G.,฀Capdeville,฀J.฀P.,฀Pons,฀J.฀C.,฀1999.฀Une฀exploitation฀paléolithique฀du฀ grès฀en฀Armagnac:฀le฀site฀de฀Cazalège฀à฀Castelnau-D’Auzan฀(Gers).฀Paléo฀11,฀43–70. Moloney,฀N.,฀1992.฀Lithic฀production฀and฀raw฀material฀exploitation฀at฀the฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀site฀of฀ El฀Sartalejo,฀Spain.฀Papers฀from฀the฀Institute฀of฀Archaeology฀3,฀11–22. Moncel,฀M.฀H.,฀1996.฀Les฀niveaux฀profonds฀du฀site฀Pléistocène฀moyen฀d’Orgnac฀3฀(Ardèche,฀France):฀ habitat,฀repaire,฀aven-piège?฀Bulletin฀de฀la฀Société฀Préhistorique฀Française฀93,฀470–481. Moncel,฀M.฀H.,฀1999.฀Les฀assemblages฀lithiques฀du฀site฀Pléistocène฀moyen฀d’Orgnac฀3฀(Ardèche,฀Moyenne฀ Vallée฀du฀Rhone,฀France).฀ERAUL฀89,฀Liège. Montes,฀ R.,฀ 2003.฀ El฀ primer฀ poblamiento฀ de฀ la฀ región฀ cantábrica.฀ Museo฀ Nacional฀ y฀ Centro฀ de฀ Investigación฀de฀Altamira,฀Monografías฀18,฀Madrid. Mourre,฀ V.,฀ 2003.฀ Implications฀ culturelles฀ de฀ la฀ technologie฀ des฀ hachereaux.฀ Unpublished฀ Ph.฀ D.฀ dissertation,฀University฀of฀Paris฀X-Nanterre. Mussi,฀M.,฀2001.฀Earliest฀Italy.฀An฀Overview฀of฀the฀Italian฀Palaeolithic฀and฀Mesolithic.฀Kluwer฀Academic/ Plenum฀Publishers,฀New฀York. Oms,฀O.,฀Parés,฀J.฀M.,฀Martínez-Navarro,฀B.,฀Agustí,฀J.,฀Toro,฀I.,฀Martínez-Fernández,฀G.,฀Turq,฀A.,฀2000.฀ Early฀ human฀ occupation฀ of฀ Western฀ Europe:฀ Paleomagnetic฀ dates฀ for฀ two฀ Paleolithic฀ sites฀ in฀ Spain.฀Proceedings฀of฀the฀National฀Academy฀of฀Science฀USA฀97(19),฀10666–10670. Paddayya,฀K.,฀Blackwell,฀B.฀A.฀B.,฀Jhaldiyal,฀R.,฀Petraglia,฀M.,฀Fevrier,฀D.฀A.,฀Chanderton฀II,฀D.฀A.,฀Blickstein,฀ J.฀I.฀B.,฀Skinner,฀A.฀R.,฀2002.฀Recent฀findings on the Acheulean of the Hunsgi and Baichbal Valleys, Kamataka,฀with฀special฀reference฀to฀the฀Isampur฀excavation฀and฀its฀dating.฀Current฀Science฀83฀(5),฀ 641–647. Panera,฀J.,฀Rubio฀Jara,฀S.,฀1997.฀Estudio฀tecnomorfológico฀de฀la฀industria฀lítica฀de฀Ambrona฀(Soria).฀ Trabajos฀de฀Prehistoria฀54฀(1),฀71–97.฀ Parés,฀ J.฀ Mª,฀ Pérez-González,฀ A.,฀ 1995.฀ Paleomagnetic฀ age฀ for฀ hominid฀ fossils฀ at฀ Atapuerca฀ archaeological฀site,฀Spain.฀Science฀269,฀830–832. Parés,฀J.฀Mª,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀1999.฀Magnetochronology฀and฀stratigraphy฀at฀Gran฀Dolina฀section,฀ Atapuerca฀(Burgos).฀Journal฀of฀Human฀Evolution฀37,฀325–342. 474 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Pérez-González,฀A.,฀1980.฀Geología฀y฀estratigrafía฀de฀los฀yacimientos฀de฀Áridos฀en฀la฀llanura฀aluvial฀ de฀Arganda฀(Madrid).฀In:฀Santonja,฀M.,฀López฀Martínez,฀N.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.฀(Eds.),฀Ocupaciones฀ achelenses฀en฀el฀valle฀del฀Jarama.฀Diputación฀Provincial,฀Madrid,฀pp.฀49–61. Pérez-González,฀A.,฀1994.฀Depresión฀del฀Tajo.฀In:฀Gutiérrez฀Elorza,฀M.฀(Ed.),฀Geomorfología฀de฀España.฀ Ed.฀Rueda,฀Madrid,฀pp.฀389–436. Pérez-González,฀A.,฀in฀press.฀Secuencias฀litoestratigraficas del Pleistoceno Medio del yacimiento de Ambrona.฀Zona฀Arqueológica฀5. Pérez-González,฀A.,฀Parés,฀J.฀M.,฀Carbonell,฀E.,฀Alexaindre,฀T.,฀Ortega,฀A.฀I.,฀Benito,฀A.,฀Martín฀Merino,฀ M.฀A.,฀2001a.฀Géologie฀de฀la฀Sierra฀de฀Atapuerca฀et฀stratigraphie฀des฀remplissages฀karstiques฀de฀ Galería฀et฀Dolina฀(Burgos,฀Espagne).฀L’Anthropologie฀105,฀27–43. Pérez-González,฀A.,฀Santonja,฀M.,฀Benito,฀A.,฀2001b.฀Geomorphology฀and฀stratigraphy฀of฀the฀Ambrona฀ site฀ (central฀ Spain).฀ In:฀ Cavarretta,฀ G.,฀ Gioia,฀ P.,฀ Mussi,฀ M.,฀ Palombo,฀ M.฀ R.฀ (Eds.),฀ The฀ World฀ of฀ Elephants.฀Proceedings฀of฀the฀Ist฀International฀฀Congress.฀Consiglio฀Nazionale฀delle฀Ricerche,฀Roma,฀ pp.฀587–591. Pérez-González,฀ A.,฀ Santonja,฀ M.,฀ Benito,฀ A.,฀ 2005.฀ Secuencias฀ litoestratigraficas del Pleistoceno Medio฀del฀yacimiento฀de฀Ambrona.฀Zona฀Arqueológica฀5,฀176–189. Pérez-González,฀A.,฀Santonja,฀M.,฀Mora,฀R.,฀Soto,฀E.,฀Sesé,฀C.,฀Ruiz฀Zapata,฀Mª฀B.,฀Aleixandre,฀T.,฀Villa,฀ P.,฀ Gallardo,฀ J.,฀ 1999.฀ Investigaciones฀ recientes฀ (1990–1997)฀ en฀ los฀ yacimientos฀ achelenses฀ de฀ Ambrona฀ y฀ Torralba฀ (Soria,฀ España).฀ Aproximación฀ al฀ Complejo฀ estratigráfico inferior de Ambrona.฀O฀Arqueólogo฀Português,฀s.฀IV,฀13/15,฀11–34. Pérez-González,฀A.,฀Silva,฀P.,฀Gallardo,฀J.,฀in฀press.฀Cuaternario฀y฀geomorfología.฀In:฀Memoria฀de฀la฀Hoja฀ a฀E.฀1:50.000฀de฀Talavera฀de฀la฀Reina฀(nº฀627).฀Mapa฀Geológico฀de฀España,฀Instituto฀Tecnológico฀ GeoMinero฀de฀España,฀Madrid. Petraglia,฀M.,฀LaPorta,฀P.,฀Paddayya,฀K.,฀1999.฀The฀first Acheulian quarry in India: stone tool manufacture, biface฀morphology,฀and฀behaviors.฀Journal฀of฀Anthropological฀Research฀55,฀39–70. Piperno,฀ M.,฀ 1974.฀ Presenza฀ di฀ hachereaux฀ nel฀ Paleolitico฀ inferiore฀ italiano.฀ Memorie฀ dell’Istituto฀ Italiano฀di฀Paleontologia฀Umana฀2,฀43–50. Piperno,฀ M.฀ (Ed.),฀ 1999.฀ Notarchirico.฀ Un฀ sito฀ del฀ Pleistocene฀ medio฀ iniziale฀ nel฀ bacino฀ di฀ Venosa.฀ Edizioni฀Osanna,฀Venosa. Piperno,฀ M.,฀ Biddittu,฀ I.,฀ 1978.฀ Studio฀ tipologico฀ e฀ interpretazione฀ dell’industria฀ acheuleana฀ e฀ premusteriana฀dei฀livelli฀m฀e฀d฀di฀Torre฀in฀Pietra฀(Roma).฀Quaternaria฀20,฀441–536. Piperno,฀M.,฀Lefèvre,฀D.,฀Raynal,฀J.฀P.,฀Tagliacozzo,฀A.,฀1999.฀Considerazioni฀conclusive.฀In:฀Piperno,฀M.฀ (Ed.),฀Notarchirico.฀Un฀sito฀del฀Pleistocene฀medio฀iniziale฀nel฀bacino฀di฀Venosa.฀Edizioni฀Osanna,฀ Venosa,฀pp.฀537–540. Potts,฀R.,฀1993.฀Olorgesailie:฀new฀excavations฀and฀findings in Early and Middle Pleistocene context, southern฀Kenya,฀Rift฀Valley.฀Journal฀of฀Human฀Evolution฀18,฀477–484. Querol,฀A.,฀Santonja,฀M.฀(Eds.),฀1979.฀El฀yacimiento฀achelense฀de฀Pinedo.฀Excavaciones฀Arqueológicas฀en฀ España,฀106.฀Ministerio฀de฀Cultura,฀Madrid. Radmilli,฀A.฀M.,฀1985.฀Scavi฀nel฀giacimento฀del฀Paleolitico฀Inferiore฀di฀Castel฀di฀Guido฀presso฀Roma.฀ The Acheulian of Western Europe | 475 In:฀ Bietti-Sestieri,฀ A.฀ M.฀ (Ed.),฀ Preistoria฀ e฀ Protostoria฀ nel฀ territorio฀ di฀ Roma.฀ Soprintendenza฀ Archeologica฀di฀Roma,฀Rome,฀pp.฀75–85. Radmilli,฀A.฀M.,฀Boschian,฀G.,฀1996.฀Gli฀scavi฀a฀Castel฀di฀Guido.฀Istituto฀Italiano฀di฀Preistoria฀e฀Protostoria,฀ ETS-Pisa,฀Firenze.฀ Raposo,฀L.,฀1985.฀Le฀Paléolithique฀inférieur฀archaïque฀au฀Portugal.฀Bulletin฀de฀la฀Société฀Préhistorique฀ Française฀82฀(6),฀173–180.฀ Raynal,฀J.฀P.,฀Texier,฀J.฀P.,฀1989.฀Découverte฀d’Acheuléen฀ancien฀dans฀la฀carrière฀Thomas฀1฀à฀Casablanca฀ et฀problème฀de฀l’ancienneté฀de฀la฀présence฀humaine฀au฀Maroc.฀Comptes฀Rendus฀de฀l'Académie฀ des฀Sciences,฀série฀II,฀308,฀1743–1749. Raynal,฀ J.฀ P.,฀ Lefèvre,฀ D.,฀ Vernet,฀ G.,฀ avec฀ la฀ collaboration฀ de฀ G.฀ Papy,฀ 1999.฀ Lithostratigraphie฀ du฀ site฀acheuléen฀de฀Notarchirico.฀In:฀Piperno,฀M.฀(Ed.),฀Notarchirico.฀Un฀sito฀del฀Pleistocene฀medio฀ iniziale฀nel฀bacino฀di฀Venosa.฀Edizioni฀Osanna,฀Venosa,฀pp.฀175–206. Raynal,฀J.฀P.,฀Sbibi฀Alaoui,฀F.฀Z.,฀Geraads,฀D.,฀Magoga,฀L.,฀Mohi,฀A.,฀2001.฀The฀earliest฀occupation฀of฀ North฀Africa:฀the฀Moroccan฀perspective.฀Quaternary฀International฀75,฀65–76. Roche,฀ H.,฀ Brugal,฀ J.฀ P.,฀ Lefevre,฀ D.,฀ Ploux,฀ S.,฀ Texier,฀ J.฀ P.,฀ 1988.฀ Isenya:฀ état฀ des฀ recherches฀ sur฀ un฀ nouveau฀site฀acheuléen฀d’Afrique฀orientale.฀The฀African฀Archaeological฀Review฀6,฀27–55. Roche,฀H.,฀Brugal,฀J.฀P.,฀Delagnes,฀A.,฀Feibel,฀C.,฀Harmand,฀S.,฀Kibunjia,฀M.,฀Prat,฀S.,฀Texier,฀P.-J.,฀2003.฀Les฀ sites฀archéologiques฀plio-pléistocènes฀de฀la฀formation฀de฀Nachukui,฀Ouest-Turkana,฀Kenya:฀bilan฀ synthétique฀1997–2001.฀Comptes฀Rendus฀Palevol.฀2,฀663–673. Roe,฀ D.,฀ 1968a.฀ A฀ Gazetteer฀ of฀ British฀ Lower฀ and฀ Middle฀ Palaeolithic฀ Sites.฀ Council฀ for฀ British฀ Archaeology฀Research฀Report฀8,฀London. Roe,฀D.,฀1968b.฀British฀Lower฀and฀Middle฀Palaeolithic฀handaxe฀groups.฀Proceedings฀of฀the฀Prehistoric฀ Society฀34,฀1–82. Roe,฀D.฀A.,฀1994.฀A฀metrical฀analysis฀of฀selected฀sets฀of฀handaxes฀and฀cleavers฀from฀Olduvai฀Gorge.฀ In:฀Leakey,฀M.฀D.,฀Roe,฀D.A.฀(Eds.),฀Olduvai฀Gorge,฀vol.฀V.฀฀Excavations฀in฀Beds฀III,฀IV฀and฀the฀Masek฀ Beds,฀1968-1971.฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀Cambridge,฀pp.฀146–234. Roe,฀D.฀A.,฀2001a.฀The฀Kalambo฀Falls฀large฀cutting฀tools:฀a฀comparative฀metrical฀and฀statistical฀analysis.฀ In:฀Clark,฀J.฀D.฀(Ed.),฀Kalambo฀Falls฀Prehistoric฀Site,฀vol.฀III.฀The฀Earlier฀Cultures,฀Middle฀and฀Earlier฀ Stone฀Age.฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀Cambridge,฀pp.฀492–599. Roe,฀D.฀A.,฀2001b.฀A฀view฀of฀the฀Kalambo฀Falls฀Early฀and฀Middle฀Stone฀Age฀assemblages฀in฀the฀context฀ of฀the฀Old฀World฀Palaeolithic.฀In:฀Clark,฀J.฀D.฀(Ed.),฀Kalambo฀Falls฀Prehistoric฀Site,฀vol.฀III.฀The฀Earlier฀ Cultures,฀Middle฀and฀Earlier฀Stone฀Age.฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀Cambridge,฀pp.฀636–647. Roebroeks,฀W.,฀1988.฀From฀Find฀Scatters฀to฀Early฀Hominid฀Behaviour:฀A฀Study฀of฀Middle฀Palaeolithic฀ Riversite฀Settlements฀at฀Maastricht-Belvedère฀(The฀Netherlands).฀Analecta฀Praehistorica฀Leidensia฀ 21,฀University฀of฀Leiden. Roebroeks,฀ W.,฀ Kolfschoten,฀ T.฀ v.,฀ 1994.฀ The฀ earliest฀ occupation฀ of฀ Europe:฀ a฀ short฀ chronology.฀ Antiquity฀68,฀489–503. Roebroeks,฀W.,฀Kolfschoten,฀T.฀v.฀(Eds.),฀1995.฀The฀Earliest฀Occupation฀of฀Europe.฀Analecta฀Praehistorica฀ Leidensia฀27,฀University฀of฀Leiden. 476 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Rodríguez฀ de฀ Tembleque,฀ J.,฀ Santonja,฀ M.,฀ Pérez-González,฀ A.,฀ 1999.฀ La฀ ocupación฀ humana฀ en฀ el฀ Sudeste฀ de฀ la฀ Meseta฀ Norte฀ y฀ en฀ el฀ entorno฀ de฀ Ambrona฀ y฀ Torralba฀ durante฀ el฀ Pleistoceno฀ Medio.฀Zephyrus฀51,฀19–34. Rodríguez฀ de฀ Tembleque,฀ J.,฀ Santonja,฀ M.,฀ Pérez-González,฀ A.,฀ 2005.฀ Puente฀ Pino:฀ un฀ yacimiento฀ achelense฀en฀Alcolea฀de฀Tajo฀(Toledo,฀España).฀In:฀Santonja,฀M.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀Machado,฀M.฀ J.฀(Eds.),฀Geoarqueología฀y฀Patrimonio฀en฀la฀Península฀Ibérica฀y฀el฀entorno฀mediterráneo.฀Adema,฀ Soria,฀pp.฀283–295.฀ Rosas,฀ A.,฀ Huguet,฀ R.,฀ Pérez-González,฀ A.,฀ Carbonell,฀ E.,฀ Vallverdú,฀ J.,฀ Made,฀ J.,฀ Allué,฀ E.,฀ García,฀ N.,฀ Martínez-Pérez,฀ R.,฀ Rodrúez,฀ J.,฀ Sala,฀ R.,฀ 2004.฀ Initial฀ approach฀ to฀ the฀ site฀ formation฀ and฀ Palaeoecology฀ of฀ the฀ “Sima฀ del฀ Elefante”:฀ a฀ Pleistocene฀ karst฀ locality฀ at฀ Atapuerca฀ Hill.฀ Zona฀ Arqueológica฀4฀(I),฀134–155. Ruiz฀Bustos,฀A.,฀Michaux,฀J.,฀1976.฀Le฀site฀préhistorique฀nouveau฀de฀Cúllar฀de฀Baza฀I฀(Province฀de฀ Grenade,฀ Espagne)฀ d´âge฀ pléistocène฀ moyen.฀ Étude฀ préliminaire฀ et฀ analyse฀ de฀ la฀ faune฀ de฀ Rongeurs.฀Géologie฀Méditerranéenne฀3,฀173–182. Runnels,฀C.,฀van฀Andel,฀T.฀H.,฀1993.฀A฀handaxe฀from฀Kokkinopilos,฀Epirus,฀and฀its฀implications฀for฀the฀ Paleolithic฀of฀Greece.฀Journal฀of฀฀Field฀Archaeology฀20,฀191–203. Rus,฀I.,฀Vega,฀G.,฀1984.฀El฀yacimiento฀de฀Arriaga฀II:฀problemas฀de฀una฀definición actual de los suelos de฀ocupación.฀Primeras฀Jornadas฀de฀Metodología฀de฀la฀Investigación฀Prehistórica.฀Ministerio฀de฀ Cultura,฀Madrid,฀387–404. Sahnouni,฀ M.,฀ Hadjouis,฀ D.,฀ Made,฀ J.฀ van฀ der,฀ Derradji,฀ A.,฀ Canals,฀ A.,฀ Medig,฀ M.,฀ Belahrech,฀ H.,฀ Harichane,฀Z.,฀Rabhi,฀M.,฀2004.฀On฀the฀earliest฀human฀occupation฀in฀North฀Africa:฀a฀reponse฀to฀ Gerard฀et฀al.฀Journal฀of฀Human฀Evolution฀46,฀763–775.฀ Santonja,฀ M.,฀ 1985.฀ El฀ yacimiento฀ achelense฀ de฀ El฀ Sartalejo฀ (Valle฀ del฀ Alagón,฀ Cáceres).฀ Estudio฀ preliminar.฀Series฀de฀Arqueología฀Extremeña฀2,฀Universidad฀de฀Extremadura,฀Cáceres. Santonja,฀ M.,฀ 1996.฀ The฀ Lower฀ Paleolithic฀ in฀ Spain:฀ sites,฀ raw฀ materials฀ and฀ occupation฀ of฀ the฀ land.฀In:฀Moloney,฀N.,฀Raposo,฀L.,฀Santonja,฀M.฀(Eds.),฀Non-Flint฀Stone฀Tools฀and฀the฀Palaeolithic฀ Occupation฀of฀the฀Iberian฀Peninsula.฀Tempus฀Reparatum.฀BAR฀International฀Series฀649,฀Oxford,฀ pp.฀1–20. Santonja,฀M.,฀López,฀N.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.฀(Eds.),฀1980.฀Ocupaciones฀achelenses฀en฀el฀valle฀del฀Jarama฀ (Arganda,฀Madrid).฀Arqueología฀y฀Paleoecología,฀1.฀Diputación฀Provincial,฀Madrid. Santonja,฀M.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀1984.฀Las฀industrias฀paleolíticas฀de฀La฀Maya฀I฀en฀su฀ámbito฀regional.฀ Excavaciones฀Arqueológicas฀en฀España฀135,฀Ministerio฀de฀Cultura,฀Madrid. Santonja,฀M.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀2001a.฀Cuesta฀de฀la฀Bajada฀(Teruel)฀and฀human฀occupation฀of฀the฀ eastern฀zone฀of฀the฀Iberian฀Peninsula฀in฀the฀middle฀Pleistocene.฀In:฀Büchner,฀D.฀(Ed.),฀Studien฀in฀ memoriam฀Wilhelm฀Schüle.฀Rahden/Westf,฀Leidorf,฀pp.฀418–426.฀ Santonja,฀M.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀2001b.฀Lithic฀artifacts฀from฀the฀lower฀levels฀of฀Ambrona.฀Taphonomic฀ features.฀ In:฀ Cavarretta,฀ G.,฀ Gioia,฀ P.,฀ Mussi,฀ M.,฀ Palombo,฀ M.฀ R.฀ (Eds.),฀The฀ World฀ of฀ Elephants.฀ Proceedings฀of฀the฀Ist฀International฀Congress.฀Consiglio฀Nazionale฀delle฀Ricerche,฀Roma,฀pp.฀592– 596. The Acheulian of Western Europe | 477 Santonja,฀M.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀2002.฀El฀Paleolítico฀inferior฀en฀el฀interior฀de฀la฀Península฀ibérica.฀Un฀ punto฀de฀vista฀desde฀la฀geoarqueología.฀Zephyrus฀53–54,฀27–77. Santonja,฀ M.,฀ Pérez-González,฀ A.,฀ 2004.฀ Geoarqueología฀ del฀ yacimiento฀ achelense฀ de฀ El฀ Basalito฀ (Castraz฀de฀Yeltes,฀Salamanca).฀Discusión฀acerca฀de฀su฀naturaleza฀y฀significado. Zona฀Arqueológica฀ 4฀(IV),฀472–482. Santonja,฀M.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀Vega฀Toscano,฀G.,฀Rus,฀I.,฀2001.฀Elephants฀and฀stone฀artifacts฀in฀the฀ Middle฀ Pleistocene฀ terraces฀ of฀ the฀ Manzanares฀ river฀ (Madrid,฀ Spain).฀ In:฀ Cavarretta,฀ G.,฀ Gioia,฀ P.,฀Mussi,฀M.,฀Palombo,฀M.฀R.฀(Eds.),฀The฀World฀of฀Elephants.฀Proceedings฀of฀the฀Ist฀International฀ Congress.฀Consiglio฀Nazionale฀delle฀Ricerche,฀Roma,฀pp.฀597–601. Saragusti,฀ I.,฀ Goren-Inbar,฀ N.,฀ 2001.฀ The฀ biface฀ assemblage฀ from฀ Gesher฀ Benot฀ Ya‘aqov,฀ Israel:฀ illuminating฀patterns฀in฀“Out฀of฀Africa”฀dispersal.฀Quaternary฀International฀75,฀85–90. Segre,฀A.,฀Biddittu,฀I.,฀Piperno,฀M.,฀1982.฀Il฀Paleolitico฀inferiore฀nel฀Lazio,฀nella฀Basilicata฀e฀in฀Sicilia.฀ Atti฀ della฀ XXIII฀ Riunione฀ Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria,฀ Firenze,฀ pp.฀ 177–184. Servelle,฀C.,฀Servelle,฀G.,฀1981.฀L’industrie฀acheuléenne฀de฀la฀doline฀du฀Prône,฀Saint-Gauzens฀(Tarn)฀ –฀Etude฀préliminaire.฀Congrès฀Préhistorique฀de฀France,฀XXI฀session,฀pp.฀287–307.฀ Sesé,฀ C.,฀ Soto,฀ E.,฀ 2000.฀ Vertebrados฀ del฀ Pleistoceno฀ de฀ Madrid.฀ In:฀ Morales,฀ J.฀ (Ed.),฀ Patrimonio฀ Paleontológico฀de฀la฀Comunidad฀de฀Madrid.฀Consejería฀de฀Educación฀de฀la฀Comunidad฀de฀Madrid,฀ pp.฀216–243. Sesé,฀ C.,฀ Soto,฀ E.,฀ in฀ press.฀ Mamíferos฀ del฀ yacimiento฀ del฀ Pleistoceno฀ Medio฀ de฀ Ambrona฀ (Soria,฀ España):฀análisis฀faunístico฀e฀interpretación฀paleoambiental.฀Zona฀Arqueológica฀6. Sesé,฀C.,฀Soto,฀E.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀2000.฀Mamíferos฀de฀las฀terrazas฀del฀valle฀del฀Tajo:฀primeras฀ notas฀de฀micromamíferos฀del฀Pleistoceno฀en฀Toledo฀(España฀central).฀Geogaceta฀28,฀137–140. Soriano,฀S.,฀2000.฀Outillage฀bifacial฀et฀outillage฀sur฀éclat฀au฀Paléolithique฀ancien฀et฀moyen:฀coexistence฀ et฀interaction.฀Ph.฀D.฀dissertation,฀University฀of฀Paris฀X-Nanterre. Soto,฀E.,฀1979.฀Estudio฀paleontológico฀del฀yacimiento฀de฀Pinedo.฀In:฀Querol,฀A.,฀Santonja,฀M.฀(Eds.),฀El฀ yacimiento฀achelense฀de฀Pinedo.฀Ministerio฀de฀Cultura,฀Madrid,฀pp.฀37–42. Straus,฀L.฀G.,฀2001.฀Africa฀and฀Iberia฀in฀the฀Pleistocene.฀Quaternary฀International฀75,฀91–102. Tavoso,฀ A.,฀ 1986.฀ Le฀ Paléolithique฀ inférieur฀ et฀ moyen฀ du฀ Haut-Languedoc.฀ Etudes฀ Quaternaires฀ 5,฀ Université฀de฀Provence,฀Paris. Tixier,฀J.,฀1956.฀Le฀hachereau฀dans฀l’Acheuléen฀nord-africain.฀Notes฀typologiques.฀Congrès฀Préhistorique฀ de฀France.฀XVe฀session,฀Poitiers-Angoulême,฀pp.฀914–923.฀ Toro,฀ I.,฀ Lumley,฀ H.฀ de,฀ Barsky,฀ D.,฀ Celiberti,฀ V.,฀ Cauche,฀ D.,฀ Doncel,฀ M.-H.,฀ Fajardo,฀ B.,฀ Toro,฀ M.,฀ 2003a.฀Estudio฀técnico฀y฀tipológico.฀Las฀cadenas฀operativas.฀Análisis฀traceológico.฀Resultados฀ preliminares.฀In:฀Toro,฀I.,฀Agustí,฀J.,฀Martínez-Navarro,฀B.฀(Eds.),฀El฀Pleistoceno฀inferior฀de฀Barranco฀ León฀ y฀ Fuente฀ Nueva,฀ Orce฀ (Granada).฀ Memoria฀ científica campañas 1999–2002.฀ Junta฀ de฀ Andalucía,฀Sevilla,฀pp.฀183–206.฀ Toro,฀ I.,฀ Martínez-Navarro,฀ B.,฀ Toro฀ Cano,฀ M.,฀ Fajardo,฀ B.,฀ 2003b.฀ La฀ excavación฀ arqueológica.฀ In:฀ Toro,฀I.,฀Agustí,฀J.,฀Martínez-Navarro,฀B.฀(Eds.),฀El฀Pleistoceno฀inferior฀de฀Barranco฀León฀y฀Fuente฀ 478 | Manuel Santonja and Paola Villa Nueva,฀Orce฀(Granada).฀Memoria฀científica campañas 1999–2002.฀Junta฀de฀Andalucía,฀Sevilla,฀pp.฀ 15–31. Tuffreau,฀A.฀(Ed.),฀2001.฀L’Acheuléen฀dans฀la฀vallée฀de฀la฀Somme฀et฀Paléolithique฀moyen฀dans฀le฀Nord฀de฀ la฀France:฀données฀récentes.฀Publications฀du฀CERP฀6,฀Lille.฀ Tuffreau,฀A.,฀Antoine,฀P.,฀1995.฀The฀earliest฀occupation฀of฀Europe:฀Continental฀Northwestern฀Europe.฀ In:฀ Roebroeks,฀ W.,฀ van฀ Kolfschoten,฀ T.฀ (Eds.),฀ The฀ Earliest฀ Occupation฀ of฀ Europe.฀ University฀ of฀ Leiden,฀pp.฀147–165. Turq,฀A.,฀2000.฀Paléolithique฀inférieur฀et฀moyen฀entre฀Dordogne฀et฀Lot.฀Paléo฀supplement฀2. Turq,฀ A.,฀ Martínez-Navarro,฀ B.,฀ Palmquist,฀ A.,฀ Arribas,฀ A.,฀ Agustí,฀ J.,฀ Rodríguez-Vidal,฀ J.,฀ 1996.฀ Le฀ Plio-Pléistocène฀ de฀ la฀ région฀ d´Orce,฀ province฀ de฀ Grenade,฀ Espagne:฀ bilan฀ et฀ perspectives฀ de฀ recherche.฀Paléo฀8,฀161–204. Vallespí,฀E.,฀Ciudad,฀A.,฀García฀Serrano,฀R.,฀1985.฀Achelense฀y฀Musteriense฀de฀Porzuna฀(Ciudad฀Real).฀ Materiales฀de฀superficie, II.฀Universidad฀de฀Castilla-La฀Mancha,฀Ciudad฀Real. Vekua,฀A.,฀Lordkipanidze,฀D.,฀Rightmire,฀J.,฀Agustí,฀J.,฀Ferring,฀R.,฀Maisuradze,฀G.,฀Mouskhelishvili,฀A.,฀ Nioradze,฀L.฀de,฀Tappen,฀M.,฀Tvalchrelidze,฀M.,฀Zollikofer,฀C.,฀2002.฀A฀new฀skull฀of฀early฀Homo฀from฀ Dmanisi,฀Georgia.฀Science฀297,฀85–89. Villa,฀ P.,฀ 1983.฀ Terra฀ Amata฀ and฀ the฀ Middle฀ Pleistocene฀ Archaeological฀ Record฀ of฀ Southern฀ France.฀ University฀of฀California฀Press,฀Berkeley฀and฀Los฀Angeles. Villa,฀ P.,฀ 1990.฀ Torralba฀ and฀ Aridos:฀ elephant฀ exploitation฀ in฀ Middle฀ Pleistocene฀ Spain.฀ Journal฀ of฀ Human฀Evolution฀19,฀299–309. Villa,฀P.,฀1991.฀Middle฀Pleistocene฀prehistory฀in฀southwestern฀Europe:฀the฀state฀of฀our฀knowledge฀and฀ ignorance.฀Journal฀of฀Anthropological฀Research฀47,฀193–218. Villa,฀P.,฀2001.฀Early฀Italy฀and฀the฀colonization฀of฀Western฀Europe.฀Quaternary฀International฀75,฀113– 130. Villa,฀ P.,฀ d’Errico,฀ F.,฀ 2001.฀ Bone฀ and฀ ivory฀ points฀ in฀ the฀ Lower฀ and฀ Middle฀ Paleolithic฀ of฀ Europe.฀ Journal฀of฀Human฀Evolution฀41,฀69–112. Villa,฀P.,฀Soto,฀E.,฀Santonja,฀M.,฀Pérez-González,฀A.,฀Mora,฀R.,฀Parcerisas,฀J.,฀Sesé,฀C.,฀2005.฀New฀data฀ from฀Ambrona:฀closing฀the฀hunting฀versus฀scavenging฀debate.฀ Quaternary฀International฀126– 128,฀223–250. Villa,฀P.,฀Castel,฀J.฀C.,฀Beauval,฀C.,฀Bourdillat,฀V.,฀Goldberg,฀P.,฀2004.฀Human฀and฀carnivore฀sites฀in฀the฀ European฀Middle฀and฀Upper฀Paleolithic:฀Similarities฀and฀differences฀in฀bone฀modification and fragmentation.฀Révue฀de฀Paléobiologie฀23,฀705–730. Wymer,฀ J.,฀ 1999.฀ The฀ Lower฀ Palaeolithic฀ Occupation฀ of฀ Britain.฀ Trust฀ for฀ Wessex฀ Archaeology฀ and฀ English฀Heritage,฀Salisbury. Zhou,฀R.฀X.,฀Potts,฀R.,฀Xie,฀F.,฀Hoffman,฀K.฀A.,฀Deng,฀C.฀L.,฀Shi,฀C.฀D.,฀Pan,฀Y.฀X.,฀Wang,฀H.฀Q.,฀Shi,฀R.฀P.,฀Wang,฀ Y.฀C.,฀Shi,฀G.฀H.,฀Wu,฀N.฀Q.,฀2004.฀New฀evidence฀of฀the฀earliest฀human฀presence฀at฀high฀northern฀ altitudes฀in฀northeast฀Asia.฀Nature฀431,฀559–562.