Early Acheulian of north-western Europe

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Anthropological Archaeology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa The Early Acheulian of north-western Europe Marie-Helene Moncel a,⇑, Nick Ashton b, Agnes Lamotte c, Alain Tuffreau c, Dominique Cliquet d, Jackie Despriée a a Department of Prehistory, CNRS-UMR 7194, National Museum of Natural History, Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, 1 rue René Panhard, 75013 Paris, France Department of Britain, Europe and Prehistory, British Museum, Franks House, 56 Orsman Road, London N1 5QJ, UK c Halma, UMR 8164, University of Lille, 1-Sciences et Technologies, 59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, France d Ministry of Culture, Regional office of Archaeology, Caen, France b a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 26 March 2015 Revision received 17 September 2015 Keywords: North-west Europe Acheulian Bifaces Core technology Bifacial technology Peopling a b s t r a c t The introduction of biface technology in the Lower Palaeolithic arguably marked a fundamental change in how early hominins dealt with their world. It is suggested to reflect changes not just in tool form and innovative shaping, but also in planning depth, landscape use and social structures. This paper examines in detail the chronology of the first Acheulian industries in north-west Europe with the earliest sites from c. 700 ka through to later sites at c. 400 ka. It asks whether evidence from these sites can further our understanding of how the Acheulian and the bifacial technology emerged in this region, but more critically whether it was the underlying behavioural changes that enabled the more sustained occupation of northern latitudes. In particular the paper assesses whether cultural signatures can be identified and whether this reflects changes in group dynamics and social structures that could be a fundamental aspect of surviving in more seasonal, cooler climates. To achieve this, the industries are examined in their chronological and biogeographical framework and compared over time and with the south European sites. The study discusses the influencing factors on variability such as raw material, site function, palaeogeography and questions regarding the background conditions for the introduction of the bifacial technology in Europe. The flexibility in behaviour makes the identification of cultural traditions across Europe difficult due to the situational responses of the early hominins. The large geographical area, the long time period, the fragmented record and a chronology, that still needs improvement, all mean that only glimpses of traditions can be identified, usually at a very local level. However, due to the more extreme climatic cycles of northern Europe, compared to southern Europe, it seems inevitable that populations colonized repeatedly from south to north as climate warmed and retreated or populations became locally extinct as climate cooled. Although there are broad similarities in technology, attempts to identify cultural links have been hampered by the greater variety of raw materials in the south compared to the generally better quality siliceous raw materials in the north. Broad patterns over time might be discernible, with perhaps a refinement through time, but there are also many exceptions to this observation. What seems clearer are other technological innovations from 600 to 500 ka that seem part of an Acheulian package and might reflect other changes in human cultures and societies. It is suggested that these developments were a critical part of more sustained occupation of northern latitudes. Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The introduction of Acheulian or Mode 2 technology (Clark, 1969) marked a critical stage in early human development, when bifaces, cleavers and other Large Cutting Tools (LCTs), such as bifacially and unifacially worked tools on large flakes, became the characteristic industry. The most obvious change was the ⇑ Corresponding author. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2015.09.005 0278-4165/Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. introduction of the artefacts themselves with the obvious advantages of a multi-functional tool that was easily transportable, could be resharpened and adapted for further use. However, beyond the simple functional advantages there were arguably a multitude of other changes in human behaviour that accompanied this development in tool form (Gamble, 1999; Gamble and Porr, 2005; Petraglia et al., 2005; Machin, 2009; Shipton et al., 2009; Shipton, 2013; Ashton, 2015). One of the procedural changes was the planning, shaping and time-investment in producing bifaces and the consequent shift in M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 the relationship between hominins, resource acquisition and landscape use. The development of planning in tool production is likely to have been accompanied improved planning in other aspects of life, such as other resource use. At the same time, tool curation would likely lead to wider landscape use and greater flexibility in daily routines, according to resource distribution. If territory was extended, then larger groups could be supported and would have affected group dynamics and social structures. This then inevitably leads to the question of whether material culture and material expression played a role in the success of new social structures at the inter- and intra-group scale. If the acquisition of biface technology was a critical stage in human development, an important question is why its introduction seems to have occurred at different times and in different areas in the Old World. In eastern and southern Africa bifacial tools can be seen occasionally from c. 1.8 Ma (Kokiselei 4; Lepre et al., 2011) and more persistently from 1.6 to 1.5 Ma ago at for example Konso-Gardula (Asfaw et al., 1992; Beyene et al., 2013), Olduvai bed II (Leakey, 1951; Torre de la and Mora, 2005a, 2005b), Gadeb (Torre de la, 2011a, 2011b), Peninj (Torre de la et al., 2008), Sterkfontein and Wonderwerk (Kuman and Clarke, 2000; Chazan et al., 2008). Soon after, bifaces appear in the Levant at Ubeidiya from 1.4 to 1.2 Ma (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993) and then what has been defined as the Large Flake Acheulian (LFA) at 800 ka at GBY (Goren-Inbar et al., 2000; Goren-Inbar and Sharon, 2006; Sharon, 2010, 2011; Sharon et al., 2011). At Attirampakkam, in southern India, the Acheulian appears possibly as early as 1.1–1.5 Ma and certainly by 1.0 Ma (Pappu et al., 2011). Assemblages have been also described as belonging to the LFA (Gaillard et al., 2010). Further east asymmetric bifaces on thick pebbles and unifaces have been found in China from 0.8 Ma (Hou et al., 2000; Bodin, 2011). The European record stands in contrast to that of Africa, the Levant and southern Asia. Although there are now early records of hominin dispersals into southern Europe and Southern Caucasus from 1.7 to 1.2 Ma at for example Dmanisi, Georgia (1.7 Ma; Lordkipanidze et al., 2007), Pirro Nord, Italy (1.4 Ma; Arzarello et al., 2006) and the sites of Orce (1.4 Ma; Toro Moyano et al., 2011) and Atapuerca, Spain (1.2 Ma; Carbonell et al., 1999, 2003, 2007), these sites are all associated with simple flakes from cores. Similar industries are found at Lunery Rosières in France that may also date to as early as 1.2 Ma (Despriée et al., 2010, 2011). Further north, there are again early records from the UK of perhaps pioneer populations during temperate periods with simple flake tools from Pakefield at 0.7 Ma (Parfitt et al., 2005) and at Happisburgh Site 3 at over 0.8 Ma (Parfitt et al., 2010; Ashton et al., 2014). The reason for the time-lag in the introduction of this technology to Europe compared to Africa and large parts of Asia need addressing. Was it the geography, climates and environments of Europe that meant this region was a relative back-water (Belmaker, 2009; Almogi-Labin, 2011; Abbate and Sagri, 2012)? Was it ultimately bifaces with other new technologies (perhaps fire and clothing) that enabled early humans to adapt successfully to northern latitudes in Europe? Did new and more resilient social structures facilitate a more sustained occupation? Or rather than a sustained occupation with indigenous developments, can we recognize new arrivals with different technologies from outside Europe? Of importance in answering these questions, is the resolution of the timing of the first biface industries in Europe, which has been refined over the last decade through the discovery of new sites, new fieldwork at old sites and the application of better dating. Other than the recent discovery of two crude bifacial tools at the Spanish site of La Boella at 1–0.9 Ma, which might be evidence of African intrusions or, in our opinion, a local development (Mosquera et al., 2013; Vallverdú et al., 2014), the first good evidence for their introduction is perhaps as late as 0.6 or perhaps 0.7 Ma both in south and north-west Europe (Piperno, 1999; 303 Doronichev, 2008; Scott and Gibert, 2009; Barsky and Lumley de, 2010; Despriée et al., 2010; Jiménez-Arenas et al., 2011; Guadelli et al., 2012; Turq et al., 2012; Moncel et al., 2013), followed by what appears to be much more extensive evidence from 500 ka (Tavoso, 1986; Turq, 1992; Bridgland et al., 1995, 1998, 2006; Roebroeks and Van Kolfschoten, 1995; Tuffreau et al., 2008; Moncel, 2010; Ashton and Lewis, 2012; Moncel et al., 2013; Ashton, 2015). This paper examines in detail the chronology of the first Acheulian industries in north-west Europe and asks whether evidence from these sites can further our understanding of how the Acheulian emerged in this region from the earliest sites at la Noira from c. 700 ka through to later sites at c. 400 ka (MIS 11) (Figs. 1 and 2). Although the area was linked by a common set of geologies, particulary the Cretaceous Chalklands of south-east England and northwest France, it was also an area that was sometimes divided by the English Channel and the North Sea due to changing climate and palaeogeography. The area was subject to larger-scale climatic oscillations than southern Europe, which must have had an impact on the occupation of the entire area. Therefore the main aim of this paper is to discuss the emergence of Acheulian technology in north-west Europe, to understand better the nature of the variation in assemblages through time, deduce whether cultural traits can be identified and whether other technological developments were part of a package that underpinned the successful occupation of northern latitudes. In order to achieve this, it is critical to understand the influences of not only changing climate and palaeogeography, but also how collection history, context, raw material, function and indeed the history of the subject have affected the record. 2. Discussion of the problems of comparison 2.1. History, origins and definitions One of the major problems with dealing with the Acheulian is the way the term has evolved from its first definition in the Somme Valley in France to a global term that has slightly different connotations and definitions in different parts of the world. Although Boucher de Perthes first found a biface associated with Elephas antiquus bones in 1847, it was not until 1872 that Gabriel de Mortillet coined the term Acheulian to describe the lithic assemblages from Saint-Acheul (Mortillet de, 1872, 1875, 1885; Mortillet de and Mortillet de, 1883, 1900). He considered the coup-de poing or the langue-de-chat of St-Acheul workers (i.e. biface) as a ‘‘fossile directeur” and the term Acheulian was then used for the sites located on the old terraces with these artefacts. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the definition of the Acheulian changed several times. De Mortillet himself changed the word to Chelléen before redefining the term to denote a period between the Chellean and Mousterian. Victor Commont identified four phases of the Acheulian based on biface morphology and relative terrace stratigraphy (Commont, 1910, 1911), which was modified by Breuil (Breuil Abbé and Kelley, 1954). Breuil also identified two parallel phyla of assemblages with bifaces (Chelléen, Abbevillien and Acheuléen) and those based on flakes (Clactonian and Levalloisian; Breuil Abbé and Kelley, 1954). This idea was challenged by Bordes who considered that the Clactonian was older than the Acheulian and that the Levalloisian was a facies of the Mousterian (Bordes, 1961). He divided the Acheuléen into ancien, moyen, supérieur and final (Micoquian) and also distinguished a southern late Acheuléen méridional without Levallois. With the discovery of bifaces beyond Europe, the term Acheulian was adopted for sites in Africa and Asia and, to avoid using the term too far from its geographical origin, Graham Clark proposed five modes each denoting a technological stage (Clark, 1969). Thus Mode 2 denoted assemblages with bifaces, between 304 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Fig. 1. Map of sites with bifacial tools (earlier than MIS 13 and MIS 13). Fig. 2. Map of sites with bifacial tools (MIS 12 and 11). M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 the cores and flakes of Mode 1 and the prepared core technologies of Mode 3, such as Levallois. Since the mid-20th century it has been clear that the origin of biface technology and the Acheulian lies in Africa (Leakey, 1951, 1971) and its onset is now thought to date back to over 1.7 Ma (Asfaw et al., 1992; Quade et al., 2004; Lepre et al., 2011). To define the Acheulian, it is necessary to understand how it emerged from earlier technologies. The history of research parallels that of Europe. With the discovery of artefacts by Louis Leakey in the long geological sequence at Olduvai Gorge in 1931, the first scheme in East Africa followed those of Europe with the recognition of an evolutionary development of pre-Chellean (later to be named Oldowan), Chellean and Acheulian (Leakey, 1951, 1971). This scheme emphasized the in situ and gradual development of technology, with the introduction of crude bifaces in the early Chellean through to more refined bifaces in the Acheulian. From the early 1960s there were two significant changes. The first was methodological with Kleindienst (1961) arguing that with larger assemblages that quantitative, rather than qualitative, analyses should be undertaken. Mary Leakey adopted this approach at Olduvai and using the relative proportions of tools such as choppers, spheroids, heavy and light-duty tools and bifaces, defined the assemblage types of Oldowan, Developed Oldowan (formerly Chellean) and Acheulian (Leakey, 1971). The adoption of this method led directly to the second major change through the reinterpretation of Louis Leakey’s unilinear evolutionary progression. Mary Leakey concurred with the development of the Oldowan in Bed I into the Developed Oldowan of Bed II, but significantly suggested the contemporaneity of the Developed Oldowan B (DOB) and Acheulian in Middle and Upper Bed II (Leakey, 1971). She further argued that they were made by different hominin types (Homo habilis and H. erectus) with acculturation leading to occasional bifaces in the DOB. Although the Acheulian was primarily characterized with quantitative methods with at least 40% of the tools being bifaces, qualitative factors were also considered such as the bifaces being larger and often made on flake blanks longer than 10 cm (Kleindienst, 1961; Leakey, 1971). The debates about the relationship between the DOB and Acheulian have raged ever since with some researchers accepting Leakey’s cultural distinction between the two assemblage types (Davis, 1980; Roe, 1994; Callow, 1994), while others have argued for differences in function and site location (Isaac, 1977, 1984; Isaac et al., 1997; Bower, 1977) and differences in raw material use (Stiles, 1991). The same debates are reflected at other East African sites, where very low percentages of bifaces have been used as a main criterion to classify Developed Oldowan sites across East Africa, such as Chesowanja (Harris and Gowlett, 1980), Koobi Fora (Braun et al., 2008), West Turkana (Texier et al., 2006), Melka Kunture (Chavaillon and Piperno, 2004; Piperno, 1999), Middle Awash (Clark et al., 1984), Gadeb (Clark and Kurashina, 1979) and Gona (Semaw et al., 2009). The lack of consensus has led to more recent research on the original collections with Torre de la and Mora (2005a, 2005b, 2013) adopting a more typo-technological breakdown of the artefact categories, which includes large cutting tools (LCTs; tools including bifaces made on large flakes). They suggest that there is little meaningful distinction between the DOB and Acheulian with LCTs of a similar size range occurring in both. They attribute both the DOB and the Acheulian to the Acheulian techno-complex and that there is a simple distinction with the Oldowan assemblages lacking LCTs stratigraphically below. A further problem has been that Industries without LCTs exist after the appearance of the Acheulian during the late Early Pleistocene and even into the Middle Pleistocene, such as Middle Awash in Ethiopia (de Heinzelin et al., 2002; Schick and Clark, 2003), Nadung’a 4 site, West Turkana, (Delagnes et al., 2006), 305 Mwanganda’s Village, Malawi (Clark and Haynes, 1969; Surovell et al., 2005), Nyabusosi (Texier and Roche, 1995; Texier, 2001), the Peninj ST site complex (Torre de la et al., 2003), Chesowanja (Gowlett et al., 1981), and Olorgesailie (Isaac, 1977). These assemblages are often interpreted as local variants of the Acheulian, sometimes reflecting specialized activities. Therefore, in an African context, other criteria have been sought to define the Acheulian rather than simply the presence of LCTs or bifaces. It has been suggested that small debitage technologies could also provide a key. Gowlett (1986) suggested that bifacial flaking of discoid cores share the same concepts and mental templates as biface production, and therefore are interrelated. On similar lines, Torre de la (2009) and Torre de la et al. (2008) argued that complex debitage systems appear concurrently with the first LCTs in East Africa. Other criteria to characterize the Acheulian include mobility within the landscape, better raw material management, functional distinctions between sites and greater intensity of stone tool production (Roche et al., 1988, 2003; Harmand, 2009; Torre de la, 2009; Gallotti et al., 2010; Raynal et al., 2001, 2011). However such criteria are often difficult to establish or apply to individual sites. Outside Africa, similar debates surround the interpretation of assemblages lacking bifaces such as the Clactonian in Britain (Ashton et al., 1994; White, 2000; McNabb et al., 2004), the Colombanien in western France (Monnier and Molines, 1993; Molines et al., 2005), or assemblages lacking bifaces in central Europe. In some cases it has been suggested that there are different activity facies, for example at Barnham in Britain (Ashton et al., 1994, 1998). The Colombanien also occasionally contains bifaces, for example at Menez Dregan, and it has been defined as different to the Acheulian simply on the basis of atypical and the low quantity of bifaces (Monnier and Molines, 1993; Molines et al., 2005). It is also arguable that central Europe lacks suitable raw materials for biface manufacture and, therefore, it is inevitable that these industries lack such technologies. Finally, at the Early Pleistocene site of Happisburgh 3 and the early Middle Pleistocene site of Pakefield, the assemblages are simply too small to be statistically viable to demonstrate presence or absence of biface technology with 80 and 32 artefacts respectively (Parfitt et al., 2005, 2010). Therefore similar debates exist in Europe as well as Africa (Carbonell et al., 2015). For the purposes of this paper in a European context, there are no clearly established criteria that define the Acheulian except the presence of bifacial technology. This should come with the proviso that many sites for reasons of function, raw material limitations or simply sampling, may lack bifaces, but may still be part of the broader Acheulian techno-complex. This definition can be broadened, however, to include tools that adopt a similar technological management. In Africa and Asia, the term Large Cutting Tool (LCT) is used due the frequent use of large flakes longer than 10 cm (Kleindienst, 1961). In a study of Olduvai Gorge, Peninj and Gadeb, LCTs cover a diversity of tools including bifaces, cleavers, knives and pointed retouched tools (Torre de la et al., 2003, 2008; Torre de la, 2011a, 2011b). Aside from the traditional concept of the biface, other tools are on pebbles, slabs or large flakes with shaping often limited to the edges. Retouch is usually unifacial, irregular and non-invasive and while pointed forms are sought, bifacial and bilateral symmetry is uncommon. Sharon (2008, 2009) suggests that Acheulian LCT technologies show remarkable similarities world-wide, regardless of the raw materials employed. Use of the term therefore by-passes many of the problems surrounding different raw materials, so that for example large, minimally shaped flakes from blocks of igneous rock can be studied on the same basis as bifacially worked nodular flint from north-west Europe. It is the technological management of producing large cutting tools that is important, which are flexible and adapted to locally available raw materials rather than strict 306 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 adherence to the morphology of the finished form (Isaac, 1984). If the idea of LCTs is applied more widely to a European context as the principle defining feature of the Acheulian, then it makes regional comparisons, particularly between northern and southern Europe that much easier. It also allows a full consideration of the various influences that operate on LCT form. 2.2. Europe: the question of variation In Europe a significant problem for understanding the variation in site composition and heavy-duty tools/LCT forms is the history of collection. Museum collections, particularly in Britain and France, have been heavily biased by the past practices of both collectors and sometimes excavators where often only the finer bifaces, or those made of more easily identifiable raw materials such as flint, have been retained (Ashton et al., 2015). Despite Britain having a rich Lower Palaeolithic record, the number of recent large-scale excavations is low compared to other parts of Europe. This inevitably has an influence on how the different regions are compared (see below). These problems can at least be factored into any subsequent analysis that seeks to understand the variations in both site composition and LCT forms in the original assemblages. One of the main parameters affecting variation in LCT form was raw material, which included variation in the rock type, size, shape, proximity and basic knapping qualities (Villa, 1981; Ashton and McNabb, 1994; White, 1998a; Villa, 2001; Ashton and White, 2003; Lamotte, 2012). As part of this, rock type also affected blank type, whether this was nodules, pebbles, slabs or large flakes. In northwest France and southern England the availability of Cretaceous flint nodules led to a wide range of biface forms, where large nodules were often worked into finely-finished ovate bifaces whereas long, narrow nodules often led to the production of elongated, often pointed forms (Ashton and McNabb, 1994; White, 1998a). In contrast, in some areas of southern Europe, there was reliance on other rock types, such as quartzite on the alluvial terraces of the Tarn and Garonne or flat limestone slabs such as at Terra Amata and Notarchirico leading to simpler forms of LCTs shaped by only a few, deep removals (Piperno, 1999; Lumley de, 2009). Equally, the rarity of large stone nodules at Castel di Guido possibly led to the use of bone fragments for partial bifacial tools combining a bifacial tip, and sometimes a lateral unifacial or bifacial cutting edge, perhaps used for scraping and a worked butt for holding the tool (Zutovski and Barkai, 2015). At a micro-scale, the influence of raw materials is much less obvious dependent on the site, similar modes of shaping being applied on various stones or fragments of bones on the same site or between sites in the same area (evidence of regional traditions?). Site function also affected LCT quantity and quality. Occasionally more specialized manufacturing sites can be identified where LCTs dominate assemblages (Lamotte and Tuffreau, 2001a, 2001b; Moncel et al., 2013). Bifaces at least, and perhaps LCTs more generally, seem to be associated predominantly with butchery although other functions have also been suggested (Clark, 1967; Clark and Haynes, 1970; Keeley, 1980; Jones, 1980, 1994; Villa, 1990; Schick and Toth, 1993; Ashton and McNabb, 1994; Mitchell, 1995, 1997; Roberts and Parfitt, 1999a; Berthelet, 2002; Santonja et al., 2001; Santonja and Perez-Gonzales, 2005; Santonja and Villa, 2006; Machin et al., 2007; Rabinovich et al., 2008; Bello et al., 2009; Juana de et al., 2010; Chazan, 2013; Garcia-Medrano et al., 2014; Aureli et al., 2015). Therefore sites with low quantities or an absence of LCTs probably reflect a wider range of site functions or more ephemeral site occupation (see for instance Soucy in France, Visogliano in Italy, or some British sites; Ashton et al., 1998; Roberts and Parfitt, 1999a; Lhomme et al., 2000, 2003; Falguères et al., 2008; Aureli et al., 2012). The Q1B site at Boxgrove has a high proportion of bifaces and is associated over a period of time with butchery (Roberts and Parfitt, 1999a). Equally, opportunis- tic butchery may have led to the expedient production of crude bifaces (Piperno, 1999; Lumley de et al., 2004; Vallverdú et al., 2014) or the use of bone bifaces (Boschian, 1993; Radmilli and Boschian, 1996; Anzidei et al., 2012; Boschian and Sacca, 2015). A further factor influencing LCTs, in particular biface form, was resharpening. McPherron (2000, 2006) argued, using a metrical analysis on a series of north-west French and southern English assemblages that bifaces were initially pointed in form and that resharpening led to more ovate forms. Although this contradicted some of the raw material explanations for biface variation (Ashton and White, 2003), the idea of resharpening as an important factor has received more recent support from a study of British sites, in particular Boxgrove (Emery, 2010). Finally, understanding of the variation in biface form has been influenced by the different methods of analysis. Simple descriptive typologies dominated the early years of research with the range of types largely based on planform where individual forms were viewed as mental templates and could be used to write culture histories (Mortillet de, 1872; Breuil Abbé and Kelley, 1954; Clark Howell, 1966; Roe, 1964, 1981; Wymer, 1968; Hayden, 1979). The introduction of morphometric types had a similar theoretical base, but provided a more objective means of defining types (Bordes, 1961; Roe, 1968). The use of ever more sophisticated ways of measuring has allowed for the development of these interpretations (Lycett and Gowlett, 2008; Lycett and Von Cramon-Taubadel, 2008) and of alternative theories, such as the resharpening model of (McPherron, 2000, 2006) or a better understanding of the basic rules of variation in form (Compton and Gowlett, 1993). Technological approaches start from a very different theoretical stance and seek to understand the chaine operatoire or life history of the artefact (Boëda et al., 1990; Lepot, 1993; Roche and Texier, 1996; Grimaldi, 1998; Soriano, 2000; Texier, 2001; Mourre, 2003; Yazbeck, 2004; Delagnes et al., 2006; Chevrier, 2011; Nicoud, 2013). The finished form is viewed as the consequence of a series of actions which incorporate raw material, the types of modification and the functional needs. Experimental programmes have helped to define some of the parameters (Jones, 1979, 1980, 1994; Newcomer, 1971; Wenban-Smith, 1989; Wenban-Smith and Ashton, 1998; Machin et al., 2007). Whereas purely typological approaches view bifaces as a series of mental templates, technological approaches can use particular methods of manufacture to describe nuances in shaping or perhaps resharpening. The latter approach does not exclude the possibility that some variation in form might represent differences in culture history (Soriano, 2000; Boëda et al., 1990; Boëda, 1994, 2001; Cliquet, 2001; Wenban-Smith, 2006; White, 1998b; Bridgland and White, 2014). 3. Methods This study is based on most of the major, well-contextualised Acheulian sites in north-west Europe between 700 and 400 ka. Some have been known since the late 19th century, but in all of these cases recent fieldwork has led to a better understanding of the geolocal context and in some cases the human habitat. Other sites have been discovered through recent excavations (Table 1). The sites are all in central and northern France or in eastern and southern England, with no evidence surviving for this period outside these regions. For each site, it has been noted whether the assemblage was collected or excavated, and whether it was in primary or secondary context (Table 1). The geological context, date and where known the human habitat has also been noted. One of the problems to overcome has been the different systems of lithic analysis used in France and the UK, so a common system has been developed to describe the main elements of each assemblage with a series of predominantly qualitative terms to summarize the Large Cutting 307 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Table 1 Main descriptors used to summarize the form and technological features of the LCTs and the core technology from the sites. LCT descriptors Blank type Phases of working Position of retouch Relative thickness Cortex retention Planform Tip Lateral edges Butt Cross-section Core technology Single platform Alternate platform Multiple platform Discoidal Unifacial or simple prepared core Levallois Nodule, pebble, slab, flake Hard hammer, soft hammer, edge retouch Lateral edges, tip, butt Thick = W/Th < 1.5; thin = W/Th > 1.5 Minimal, moderate Triangular, sub-triangular, cordiform, ovate, cleaver Pointed, rounded, tranchet Sinuous, straight, S-twist Worked, unworked Symmetrical, plano-convex Flake(s) removed from one platform or from flake scar(s) in the same plane Flake(s) removed alternately using the proximal end (s) of the previous flake scar(s) for the next removal(s) Multiple platforms, sometimes incorporating several series of single and alternate platform techniques Flakes removed alternately and centripetally from the peripheral edge of the core Flakes removed from one face of a core from simple, unfacetted platform(s). Cores previously termed ‘‘proto-Levallois” fall into this category Cores that conform to the six criteria of Boëda (1994) Tool (LCT) signatures from each site (Table 2). In general, the terms biface, cleaver and bifacial cleaver are used for describing in detail the assemblages rather than the broader term of LCT, the latter including large tools made on flakes >10 cm (Kleindienst, 1961, 1962). Biface s.s. and bifacial tools are also sometimes used to distinguish tools with a general bifacial management of the volume to tools with peripheral bifacial removals suggesting the addition of distinct functional areas. Although a small number of European bifacial tools were made on flakes, particularly in the north-west, for convenience, the term LCT refers principally to all types of bifacial tool in this paper. The main core technology has also been described combining the systems used by Ashton (1992), Ashton and White (2003), White and Ashton (2003) and Boëda (1994). The types of flake tool have also been noted, which in most cases are restricted to simple scrapers, notches and denticulates. 4. The sites of north-west Europe The sites fall into two main periods of the Pleistocene. The early Middle Pleistocene dates from c. 780 ka through to c. 480 ka, while the following late Middle Pleistocene dates from c. 480 ka until c. 125 ka. The periods have been divided into a series of marine isotope stages (MIS) which reflect the climatic history of these periods. MIS 12 is a major cold episode that is used to divide the Middle Pleistocene into the early and late episodes and is represented by the Anglian Glaciation in the UK and the Elsterian Glaciation in northern Europe. All the sites are described below. 4.1. Early Middle Pleistocene (Tables 2 and 3) 4.1.1. UK sites Many of the earliest sites in the UK relate to a pre-MIS 12 (Anglian glaciation) drainage system that was destroyed by a MIS 12 glacial advance (Rose, 1992, 2009; Lewis, 1992). In particular the now extinct Bytham River, at times confluent with the Thames, is thought to have flowed from the English Midlands across to East Anglia and to have emerged on the coast in the Lowestoft to Great Yarmouth areas. The river sediments have been recognized by a significant quartz and quartzite lithology that originated from the Midlands. The earliest sites are those on the coast at Happisburgh Site 3 (Parfitt et al., 2010; Ashton et al., 2014) and Pakefield (Parfitt et al., 2005) but neither contain bifaces and are therefore not considered here. However, inland several Bytham terraces have been recognized, which form the main framework for understanding the archaeology contained within them, with the biface sites associated with terraces 1 and 2. During the MIS 12 glaciation the ice front reached as far as north London, destroying in its path the pre-existing drainage pattern and carving out the Wash Basin. From MIS 11 the modern drainage pattern was established with rivers from both the Midlands and central East Anglia flowing into Table 2 General data on MIS 17 to MIS 13 British and French sites. Dominant forms or types are denoted in bold and ordered by prevalence. Site level Context MIS Excavation/ discovery Excavated area (m2) Artefacts Raw mat. Brandon Fields Fluvial gravel 15? 1860s–1890s Collected – Maidscross Hill Fluvial gravel 1860s–1890s Collected – Warren Hill Fluvial gravel 1870s–1940s Collected High Lodge, Bed E Fluvial sand 1960s 400 462 Local Flint High Lodge ‘Sands and gravels’ Waverley Wood Fluvial sand and gravel 1870s–1920s Collected – Local Flint Fluvial silts 13– 15? Late 13 early 12 Late 13 early 12 Late 13 early 12 13 Local Flint Quartzite Local Flint Quartzite Local Flint Quartzite 1980s–2006 Collected – Happisburgh Site 1 Fluvial silts 13? 2004–2011 40 200 Local Quartzite Andesite Non-local Flint Local Flint Boxgrove Q1B La Noira Stratum a Lower level Lagoonal silt 13 1990s 220 Diamicton 17–16? 1974–2011 20 Several 1000 350 Local Flint Local Jurassic siliceous Cores Flake stages Flake tools Scrapers Scrapers Scrapers Alternate plat. Single plat. All stages Notches Denticulates Scrapers Scrapers Scrapers Notches Final stages Alternate plat. Unifacial Discoidal Alternate plat. All stages All stages Notches Denticulates scrapers Notches ret. flakes Scrapers 308 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Table 3 Data on the LCTs from MIS 17 to MIS 13 British and French sites. Dominant forms or types are denoted in bold and ordered by prevalence. Site level Number Morphology Size range (mm) Cortex Shaping Finishing/retouch Core-bifaces Brandon Fields 136 (BM) 58–167 Frequent Alternate face/face Edges Tips Cores/cortical bifaces? Maidscross Hill 191 (BM) 56–193 Frequent Alternate face/face Edges Tips Cores/cortical bifaces? Warren Hill 1177 (BM) 52–216 Rare Alternate face/face High Lodge, Bed E 14 Thick, crude pointed Ovates Cordiforms Thick, crude pointed Ovates Cordiforms Cordiforms Ovates Thick, crude pointed Cordiforms Ovates 67–186 Rare Alternate High Lodge ‘Sands and gravels’ 69 (BM) Cordiforms Ovates 64–194 Rare Alternate face/face Waverley Wood 9 211–101 Moderate Alternate Happisburgh Site 1 Boxgrove Q1B La Noira Stratum a Lower level 1 414 Cordiforms Ovates Thick, crude pointed Ovate Ovates Cordiforms Pointed Ovates Biface-cleaver Edges Tips Tranchet Edges Tranchet Tips Edges Tranchet Tips ? 63–195 Rare Rare 5–15 Frequent Alternate Alternate face/face Face/face alternate Edges Edges Tranchet Edges Tips 50 the newly formed Wash Basin. Many of the MIS 11 sites relate to the new drainage system and often lie above or are cut into MIS 12 glacial (Lowestoft) till. 4.1.1.1. Brandon Fields, Maidscross Hill, Warren Hill and High Lodge, UK. The sites of Brandon Fields, Maidscross Hill, Warren Hill and High Lodge all lie within 10 km of each other with closely related stratigraphic positions. During the latter half of the 19th century, a biface assemblage was recovered during gravel extraction from a series of small pits at Brandon Fields (Suffolk, UK). Flower (1869) recorded their location and as being associated with quartz–quartzite rich gravel, which is now interpreted as being indicative of Bytham river sediments (see above). Recent geological fieldwork has suggested that these sediments lie on the 2nd terrace of the Bytham (Ashton and Lewis, 2005). As the Bytham River was destroyed by Anglian (MIS 12) ice the lowest terrace is interpreted as dating to MIS 13 (Bridgland et al., 1995). The age of the 2nd terrace is unknown, but is probably a cold–warm cycle earlier and possibly dates to MIS 15 (Ashton et al., 2011). Maidscross Hill lies at a similar height (c. 25 m) to Brandon Fields and is situated only 4 km to the south-west. This site too was discovered in gravel workings by Flower (1869) who described a similar quartz–quartzite rich gravel containing bifaces and also interpreted as belonging to the 2nd terrace of the Bytham River, possibly dating to MIS 15. The lower terrace has been identified both here and at the nearby site of Warren Hill (see below; Ashton and Lewis, 2005). From the British Museum collections there are only five bifaces that can be definitely attributed to the site, although a much larger collection has the general location of Lakenheath. From study of the history of quarrying they all probably originate from the 2nd terrace at Maidscross Hill (see below). Warren Hill lies 9 km to the south of Maidscross Hill and is one of the most prolific sites in Britain with over 2000 bifaces, mainly recovered during gravel extraction in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Bridgland et al., 1995). The gravel is also rich in quartz and quartzite, but being at the lower height of c. 15 m is interpreted as being the youngest terrace of the Bytham River and interpreted as dating to MIS 13 or early MIS 12. High Lodge is 1 km north of Warren Hill, but with a different geological sequence, providing two distinct lithic assemblages (Ashton Choppers/cores ? No No Cores/cortical bifaces? et al., 1992). Overbank sediments from the Bytham River contain a rich scraper assemblage associated with Stephanorhinus hundsheimensis dating to MIS 13 or possibly earlier. These sediments have been subglacially deformed and emplaced above younger glacial till of MIS 12 age (Lewis, 1992). Above these sediments lies a thick sequence of glaciofluvial sands and gravels from the base of which a biface assemblage has been recovered. The fresh condition of the bifaces and associated debitage suggests that they have been derived from underlying sediment nearby, potentially the same overbank sediments that contain the flake tool assemblage, but perhaps from a different location on the floodplain. The floodplain sediments contain pollen and beetle remains that indicate coniferous forest in a cool-temperate climate (Coope, 1992; Hunt, 1992). The assemblages from these sites bear several similarities and collectively three artefact groups can be distinguished, but in various states of derivation. All the assemblages are made on locally Fig. 3. Bifaces from Brandon Fields and Maidscross Hill (Photograph: Craig Williams). M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 available flint nodules from the fluvial gravels. The first group consists of moderately rolled, crudely fashioned bifaces and typified by many of those from Brandon Fields and Maidscross Hill (Fig. 3). The LCTs are generally bifacially made with a hard hammer on pebbles, half-pebbles, occasionally flakes and are of variable size. They are generally elongated, thick and crudely shaped often resulting in sinuous cutting edges, tending towards a cordiform shape with pointed tips and cortical butts. The method of shaping is alternate or face-on-face, with little final retouch or evidence of resharpening (Ashton, 1992). Some have plano-covex cross-sections due to the use of split pebble blanks or by shaping with few removals. The result is a mix of morphological and technological types with both bifaces sensu stricto and cruder bifacial tools. Similar bifaces form a significant part of the Warren Hill assemblage. A second group of artefacts consists of thinner ovates and cordiforms (Figs. 4 and 5). These are found at the base of the glacial sands at High Lodge and from their relatively fresh condition appear to have been moved very little from their original context, forming a coherent group. Shaping is evident with a soft-hammer with final retouch on the main cutting edges. They are generally symmetrical both in plan-form and cross-section. Some of the bifaces have been sharpened with removal of a tranchet flake across the tip. They are similar in form to the majority of bifaces from Warren Hill, although the latter have been moderately 309 Fig. 5. Bifaces from Warren Hill (Photograph: Craig Williams). abraded. A small number of similar bifaces can be found in the assemblages from Maidscross Hill and Brandon Fields, again bearing moderate abrasion. The third group of artefacts consists of scrapers with unusually invasive retouch, sometimes on both lateral sides and typified by those from the overbank sediments at High Lodge (Fig. 6). However, a small number of more rolled examples also contribute to Fig. 4. Bifaces from High Lodge, Bed E (Ó British Museum). 310 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 the assemblages at Warren Hill, Maidscross Hill and Brandon Fields. High Lodge is the only site to have been excavated rather than collected and therefore is the only site to have an assemblage containing representative cores and flakes. These consist of a mixture of single platform, alternate platform and multi-platform cores undertaken on medium to large flint nodules with a hard hammer (Fig. 7; Ashton, 1992). Flaking appears to use these simple methods, with the chosen platforms being determined by the evolving form of the core rather than any pre-planning. The resulting flakes Fig. 6. Flake tools from High Lodge, Bed C (Illustration by Phil Dean; Ó British Museum). Fig. 7. Core and refitting flakes from High Lodge, Bed C (Illustration by Phil Dean; Ó British Museum). M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 reflect these knapping methods. This type of flaking is typical of that found at other UK sites both from MIS 13 and MIS 11 (see below). 4.1.1.2. Waverley Wood, Bubbenhall, UK. Waverley Wood also lies on a former course of the Bytham River, but upstream 135 km to the west. Here rich organic channel deposits lie within Bytham River gravels and contain a rich fauna and flora (Shotton et al., 1993; Keen et al., 2006). The environmental evidence reflects a fluctuating cool-temperate climate and has been attributed to the end of MIS 13. The only artefacts found in situ in the channel deposits consist of a quartzite flake and an andesite biface. However eight other bifaces have been recovered from nearby gravel heaps and almost certainly come from the gravel or channel deposits. The bifaces were made from local quartzite, Cretaceous flint and andesite. The nearest source for Cretaceous flint is over 100 km to the east, while the andesite was probably found locally as erratics. The andesite bifaces consist of finely-made elongated cordiforms, while the quartzite and flint pieces tend to be thicker in form often retaining cortex. 4.1.1.3. Happisburgh Site 1 (HSB1), UK. Excavations by AHOB and the University of Leiden have revealed organic muds and silty clays, exposed on the foreshore 1 km to the south-east of Happisburgh, which have yielded flint artefacts and bones. They lie within a channel beneath Happisburgh Till (Ashton et al., 2008b) and the site has been attributed to a late Cromerian Complex age (probably MIS 13) based on the presence of Arvicola cantiana (Preece et al., 2009). The combination of faunal and floral remains indicates marshland on the edge of a slow-flowing river with surrounding heathland and boreal forest in a cool-temperate climate (Coope, 2006; Ashton et al., 2008b). The in situ flint assemblage consists of almost 300 flakes, simple flake tools, cores and a single, thin, ovate biface. Most if not all the debitage reflects core working, which uses single, alternate and multiple platform techniques. The archaeological evidence also comprises humanly modified bones of rhinoceros, roe deer and bovid, indicative of butchery by humans (Ashton et al., 2008b). 4.1.1.4. Boxgrove, UK. The extensive landscape exposed through excavations at Boxgrove consisted of freshwater pools and associated landsurfaces, situated within a semi-enclosed marine embayment beneath a marine-cut Chalk cliff (Roberts et al., 1994; Parfitt, 1998a; Roberts and Parfitt, 1999a, 1999b). The artefact-bearing sediments of freshwater and lagoonal silts with overlying soil horizons have been attributed to a cooling climate at the end of MIS 13. The fauna and flora suggest a mosaic of grassland and freshwater pools, with developing scrub and woodland with a relatively cool climate (Parfitt, 1999; Holman, 1999; Holmes et al., 2010). The immensely rich artefact assemblage has been manufactured from extensive flint deposits from the nearby Chalk cliff. The artefacts consist of in situ knapping floors and associated bifaces scattered across the landscape with clear patterns of manufacture, discard and use (Pope and Roberts, 2005; Pope et al., 2009). The bifaces are predominantly thin and ovate in shape. The combination of refitting and partially-made bifaces show that initial roughingout with a hard hammer followed by shaping and final retouching with a soft hammer. The final retouching is predominantly on the lateral edges and sometimes tip. The bifaces are generally symmetrical in planform and cross-section, while the retention of cortex is rare. The tips are generally rounded or straight due to the frequent removal of tranchet flakes. Cores are rare, although where present reflect the use of single, alternate and multiple platform techniques. Equally, there is only occasional production of flake tools, which tend to be simple scrapers or minimally retouched flakes. 311 4.1.2. French sites The Cher, a tributary of the Middle Loire, has terrace sediments that were deposited during successive phases of downcutting and aggradation in response to climate cycles during the Early and Middle Pleistocene (Despriée et al., 2011; Voinchet et al., 2010). Electronic Spin Resonance (ESR) applied on optically bleached quartz has produced approximately 80 age estimates helping to construct a preliminary chronological framework for the region (Voinchet et al., 2010; Despriée et al., 2011). Bifacial tools have been found in Terrace D (690 ± 80 ka), Terrace C (510 ± 75 ka) and Terrace B (400 ± 60 ka) (Despriée et al., 2011). 4.1.2.1. La Noira (lower level), France. La Noira is one of three sites associated with Terrace D that lies 14–20 m above the valley bottom. It was discovered in a quarry at the beginning of the 1970s and fieldwork took place from 2003 to 2012. The substratum of tertiary lacustrine limestone (Stratum A), weathered green clay (Stratum a), is overlain by five quaternary strata; a coarse slope deposit (Stratum b) is covered by two sequences of fluvial sediments (Stratum c and d), a pebble horizon (Stratum a) and a silty soil (Stratum a). The artefacts are associated with the basal coarse sand of stratum b, the lower part of which consists of an accumulation of local ‘millstone’, a rock formed as slabs by diagenetic silicification within Oligocene lacustrine limestone. The slabs vary in size from a few up to 50 cm in length, have no trace of fluvial transport, but instead appear to be part of a slope deposit laid down after a phase of river incision. The position of the artefacts between deposition of slope materials on the limestone bedrock and later phases of gelifluction and cryoturbation, would suggest that hominins were present after the period of river incision at the beginning of a cold climate at the beginning of MIS 16 (Despriée et al., 2011). The first assemblage recovered from stratum b consists of 340 artefacts, of which 17% are LCTs and 21% of the flakes are retouched (Moncel et al., 2013). Core technology is focused on the production of medium to large flakes from which some larger flakes were used as further cores or the production of LCTs. The main core method is partial bifacial flaking of the millstone slabs. Some cores are trifacial or crude cores. Some unifacial cores have a secondary expedient debitage parallel or perpendicular to the face of the slab. Multiple platform cores are rare. The LCTs are mainly made on 20–40 mm thick slabs, generally between 60 and 160 mm in length, although one was 240 mm long. Several groups can be distinguished with a variety of sizes and varying retention of cortex (Figs. 8 and 9). They show three different stages of production with initial hard hammer flaking, invasive soft hammer flaking and sometimes final retouching on the cutting edges. Partially finished forms suggest that the site is a Fig. 8. Millstone pointed bifacial tool from la Noira (Centre, France, lower level). 312 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Fig. 9. Millstone biface on a flake and bifacial cleaver from la Noira (Centre, France, lower level) (drawings Angeliki Theodoropoulou). workshop. Some pieces have isolated areas of bifacial working, several are bifacially worked opposite a natural back, three are bifacial cleavers, while others are bifaces sensu stricto with shaping of the volume and symmetrical, convergent edges. These are cordiform, triangular or ovate in plan-form with rounded or pointed tips. Cross-sections are plano-convex or symmetrical dependent on the mode of shaping of the slab. Finally, fragments of slabs have sometimes been worked into large scrapers, partial or complete bifacial tools, bilateral unifacial tools or tools with a ‘‘bec” made by abrupt retouch. 4.2. Late Middle Pleistocene (Tables 4–7) 4.2.1. UK sites 4.2.1.1. Barnham, UK. The stratigraphic sequence at East Farm, Barnham consists of silts and clays that infill a fluvial channel attributed to the Hoxnian Interglacial which is correlated with the first part of MIS 11 (MIS 11c; Ashton et al., 1998, 2008a). These sediments are cut into Anglian till and associated glaciofluvial gravels of MIS 12 age (see above; Ashton et al., 1998; Lewis, 1998; Parfitt, 1998b; Preece and Penkman, 2005). In the centre of the channel rich biological remains suggest a mix of deciduous woodland with some grassland nearby in a temperate environment with summers slightly warmer than Britain today. The main archaeological industries were excavated at the edge of the channel from a lag gravel and overlying silt and consist of both biface and non-biface assemblages. The lag gravel consists of small to large flint cobbles and was the source of raw material. In one area (Area I) the assemblage consists of simple flake tools, cores and flakes, while 50 m to the east (Area IV) in the same context the assemblage has in addition biface manufacturing flakes and a single small cordiform biface. The core technology, as with other UK sites, consists of a mix of single, alternate and multiple platform techniques with a hard hammer (Fig. 10). Flake tools are dominated by notches and denticulates with occasional retouched flakes and scrapers. 4.2.1.2. Elveden, UK. Elveden lies 8 km to the west of Barnham and may form part of the same river system. The site has a very similar stratigraphic sequence with fine-grained fluvial sediments dating to the Hoxnian Interglacial of MIS 11c, infilling a fluvial channel cut in Anglian till and Chalk (Ashton et al., 2005). The human habitat, like Barnham, is again fully interglacial in character. The lithic assemblages were again excavated at the edges of the channel from a lag gravel and overlying silts. The lag gravel forms the raw material source, although fresher quality flint would also have 313 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Table 4 General data on MIS 11 British sites. Dominant forms or types are denoted in bold and ordered by prevalence. LMG = Lower Middle Gravel. UMG = Upper Middle Gravel. MIS 11 is divided into substages 11c, 11b and 11a. Site level Context MIS Excavation/ discovery Excavated area (m2) Artefacts Raw mat. Cores Flake stages Flake tools Barnham Fluvial 11c 1989–94 140 2045 Local Flint Alternate plat. Single plat. All stages Elveden Fluvial 11c 1995–99 110 2064 Pool 11c 1992–1999 106 c. 2000 Swanscombe LMG Fluvial 11c 1968–72 75 Alternate plat. Single plat. Alternate plat. Single plat. Alternate plat. Single plat. All stages Beeches Pit Local Flint Local Flint Local Flint Swanscombe UMG Fluvial 11c 1955–60 346 8500+ Local Flint Alternate plat. Single plat. Fluvially sorted Hoxne Lower Industry Hoxne Upper Industry Fluvial 11a 1971–78 700 774 Local Flint Alternate plat. Single plat. All stages Colluvial/ alluvial 11a 1971–78 460 ? Local Flint Alternate plat. Single plat. All stages Notches Denticulates Scrapers Notches Scrapers Denticulates Scrapers Notches Denticulates Scrapers Notches Denticulates Scrapers Scrapers Notches Denticulates Scrapers Notches Denticulates 145 All stages Fluvially sorted Table 5 Data on the LCTs from MIS 11 British sites. Dominant forms or types are denoted in bold and ordered by prevalence. LMG = Lower Middle Gravel. UMG = Upper Middle Gravel. Site level Morphology Size range (L – mm) Cortex Shaping Finishing/retouch Barnham 1 Cordiform 64 None Alternate Elveden 3 101–141 Rare Beeches Pit 7 ? Rare Alternate Face/face Alternate Swanscombe LMG Swanscombe UMG 3 Ovate Cordiforms Ovate Pointed Thick, crude pointed Thick cordiform Thick, crude pointed Pointed Ovates Cordiforms Cordiforms Ovates Pointed Cordiforms 62–79 Rare 44–165 Moderate Alternate Face/face Edges Tip Edges Tip Edges Tip Edges Tip Edges Tip 65–150 Rare 56–130 Rare Alternate Face/face Alternate Face/face Edges Tip Edges Tip Hoxne Lower Industry Hoxne Upper Industry Number 203 12 8 been available from the nearby eroding Chalk. Unlike Barnham, in addition to simple flake tools, flakes and cores, biface manufacture was a major activity at the site where the full chaîne opératoire of manufacture is represented. Only three bifaces were excavated from the recent work, but they are similar to the larger assemblage from the old collections from the site and tend to be cordiform and ovate in form (Fig. 11). They are carefully thinned, with final retouch often modifying the edges and tip. The retention of cortex is rare. Many of the forms also have an S-twist on both lateral edges, which may either be part of a resharpening process, or reflect the original intended form. The majority of bifaces are symmetrical in cross-section. Partially-made bifaces have also been recovered, where there is little thinning or final retouch. Cores are usually on nodules, being worked either from a single platform or by alternate flaking. Multiple platform cores are also common. There is a small assemblage of flake tools which is dominated by notches and denticulates with occasional minimally retouched scrapers. 4.2.1.3. Beeches Pit, West Stow, UK. At Beeches Pit fine-grained interglacial sediments, including tufaceous clay, lie in a shallow basin above Anglian glacial deposits (Preece et al., 2006, 2007). The site is again attributed to the Hoxnian interglacial of MIS 11c, although the molluscs suggest a slightly later date than Core-bifaces Core-biface Core-biface Core-biface Barnham and Elveden within this substage. The rich environmental evidence indicates that freshwater springs from the adjacent Chalk fed small shallow pools surrounded by calcareous grassland and deciduous woodland. The artefacts, some of which refit, were excavated from several horizons including from the tuffaceous clay. They consist of simple flake tools, flakes, cores and seven bifaces of both pointed and ovate form. The core working consists of single, alternate and multiple platform techniques. Both burnt and unburnt artefacts are associated with a series of hearths (Preece et al., 2006). 4.2.1.4. Swanscombe, UK. The sequence and associated archaeology at Swanscombe has been known since the early 20th century (Smith and Dewey, 1913). The Thames terrace deposits, which rest on Chalk and Thanet Sand, consist of the Lower Gravel, Lower Loam (Stage I), Middle Gravels (Stage II), and a series of overlying sands, loams and gravels (Stage III). The fluvial sediments (Stages I and II) are attributed to the Hoxnian interglacial (MIS 11c) and associated with a fully temperate climate (Conway et al., 1996). Most of the artefact assemblages are abraded and probably in secondary context. The Stage I deposits contain non-biface assemblages (Conway et al., 1996) and date to the first half of the interglacial, while the biface assemblages from the Stage II deposits date to the second part of the interglacial (Preece et al., 2007; Smith, 2013). 314 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Table 6 General data on MIS 12–11 French sites. Dominant forms or types are denoted in bold and ordered by prevalence. Site level Context MIS Excavation/ discovery Excavated area (m2) Artefacts Raw mat. Cores Flake stages Flake tools Cagny-La-Garenne I Cxv assemblage Gravel 12 1986–87 30 197 Local Flint Unifacial Levallois All stages Cagny-La-Garenne I Cxb assemblage Slope deposit 12 1986–87 30 776 Local Flint Unifacial Levallois All stages Cagny-La-Garenne I Lg assemblage Fluvial sand 12 1986–87 30 191 Local Flint Unifacial All stages Cagny-La-Garenne I Lj assemblage Fluvial sand 12 1986–87 30 335 Local Flint Unifacial Levallois All stages Cagny-La-Garenne I Ca assemblage Fluvial sand 12 1986–87 30 513 Local Flint Unifacial bifacial All stages Cagny-La-Garenne II I3 assemblage Fluvial sand & gravel 12 Late 1993–2005 75 518 Local Flint Unifacial Levallois All stages Cagny-La-Garenne II I4 assemblage Fluvial sand & gravel 12 Late 1993–2005 75 1306 Local Flint Unifacial Levallois All stages Cagny-La-Garenne II J assemblage Fluvial sand & gravel 12 Late 1993–2005 55 833 Local Flint Unifacial Levallois All stages Ferme de l’Epinette MS assemblage Rue De Cagny Series 3 La Celle Fluvial sand & gravel Fluvial sand & gravel Tufa 11–10 1994–1995 2500 1116 1908 15–20 ? Unifacial Levallois Unifacial All stages 12–11 11 2003–2006 20 74 – ? St-Pierre-lèes-Elbeuf Loess Tufa 10–11 2005–07 170 120 Local Flint Local Flint Local Flint Local Flint Unipolar, centripetal Alternate plat. All stages Notches denticulates scrapers Notches Denticulates scrapers Notches Denticulates scrapers Notches Denticulates scrapers Notches Denticulates scrapers Notches Scrapers Denticulates Notches Denticulates scrapers Notches Denticulates scrapers Notches Denticulates Scrapers End-scrapers Pebble-tools Ret. flakes Notches Denticulates scrapers ? Table 7 Data on the LCTs from MIS 12 French sites. Dominant forms or types are denoted in bold and ordered by prevalence. Site level Number Morphology Size range (L – mm) Cortex Shaping Finishing/retouch Core-bifaces Pointed Thick, pointed Thick, crude pointed 62–139 Moderate 41–126 Moderate Alternate face/face Alternate Tip Edges Tip Edges Core-biface Choppers Core-biface Chopping tools Frequent Alternate Chopping tools 82–186 Frequent Alternate 130–140 Moderate Alternate Tip Edges Tip Edges Tip 77–187 Frequent Alternate Tip 65 Frequent Alternate Tip 48–161 Rare Alternate Edges Tip Core-bifaces 150–200 Moderate Alternate Core-bifaces 70–17 Moderate Alternate 110–145 Rare Face/face Alternate Edges Tip Edges Tip Edges I 15 I 21 I 2 Broken I 4 30–128 I 23 II 7 II 19 Cagny-La-Garenne II I3 assemblage Ferme de l’Epinette MS 5 Broken tips Backed biface Pointed Thick, pointed Thick pointed Cordiform Thick pointed Thick, crude pointed Cleaver Crude, broken Ovate Pointed Cordiform Ovate Pointed Pointed Cordiform Cordiform Sub-triangular Cagny-La-Garenne Cxv assemblage Cagny-La-Garenne Cxb assemblage Cagny-La-Garenne Lg assemblage Cagny-La-Garenne Lj assemblage Cagny-La-Garenne Ca assemblage Cagny-La-Garenne J assemblage Cagny-La-Garenne I4 assemblage Rue De Cagny Series 3 La Celle Saint-Pierre-lès-Elbeuf 18 300 2 7 Frequent The Stage II deposits are divided into the Lower Middle Gravels and the Upper Middle Gravels. The former were the subject of limited excavation by John Waechter from 1968–72 and yielded three small bifaces, which were small, thick, crudely-flaked and pointed in form (Conway et al., 1996). Core-biface Choppers Chopping-tools Core-biface Chopping tools The excavations of the Upper Middle Gravels by Wymer in the 1950s were much more extensive and provided a large series of bifaces associated with the Swanscombe skull (Ovey, 1964). The assemblage is in secondary context, but was probably derived from the nearby floodplain of the river, using nearby flint gravels as the M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 315 Fig. 10. Core and refitting flakes from Barnham (Illustration by Phil Dean; Ó British Museum). Fig. 12. Bifaces from Swanscombe Middle Gravels (Photograph: Craig Williams). Fig. 11. Bifaces from Elveden (Photograph: Craig Williams). source for raw material. Nodules and occasionally large flakes were used for blanks for biface manufacture. Many pieces are subtriangular or cordiform, thick elongated forms with large removals, retaining cortex and with little retouch, except sometimes on the tip (Fig. 12). Others are more formalized ranging from cordiform to sub-triangular in shape with more attention paid to symmetry and less cortex retention. There are also partially flaked forms on large flakes and occasionally bifacial cleavers. Most bifaces have a symmetrical cross-section. Cores are usually on nodules, being worked either from a single platform or by alternate flaking and multiple platform cores are also common. The simple flake tools consist of notches, denticulates and occasional scrapers. The old collections from the Middle Gravels reinforce some aspects of the excavated assemblages, where the bifaces are dominated by sub-triangular forms, often with finely retouched tips, varying in size from very small (<100 mm) to quite large (>200 mm), and with thick, but sometimes worked butts. There are several thousand such forms, showing that these biface types are a persistent characteristic of the Swanscombe Middle Gravel assemblage. 4.2.1.5. Hoxne, UK. The stratigraphy at Hoxne is composed of finegrained sediments infilling a basin cut into Anglian till. The lower 316 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 part of the sequence is composed of lacustrine sediments that date to the first half of the Hoxnian interglacial of MIS 11c (West, 1956; Evans et al., 1896; Wymer et al., 1993; Ashton et al., 2008a). After a major unconformity, the upper part of the sequence is composed of an ‘Arctic Bed’ attributed to MIS 11b overlain by fluvial sediments consisting predominantly of silts and sands, and then by colluvial and solifluction deposits at the top. These fluvial and slope deposits probably date to MIS 11a and the associated environmental data suggests a relatively open landscape with pine and birch with a cool-temperate climate. The excavations by John Wymer in the 1970s yielded two artefact assemblages from this part of the sequence (Singer et al., 1993). The first of these assemblages (‘Lower Industry’) was in primary context in the fluvial sediments and consists of occasional flake tools, flakes cores, biface manufacturing flakes and several thin, ovate and cordiform bifaces. Also associated with this industry are a series of horse teeth bearing cut-marks from butchery. The ‘Upper Industry’ was in secondary context in the overlying colluvial and solifluction deposits, consisting of a large number of finely made scrapers together with flakes, cores and a few bifaces of predominantly pointed form (Fig. 13). In both assemblages the core technology, as with other British sites, has a mix of single, alternate and multiple platform techniques using a hard hammer. 4.2.2. French sites Other than sites from the Loire Basin, French sites with LCT assemblages in the Somme and Seine Valleys are younger than MIS 13, although new data is awaited from the upper part of the sequence of Carpentier Quarry (Abbeville). Artefacts related to core technology were discovered at the early MIS 13 site of ‘‘Rue du Manège” but so far no bifaces (Antoine et al., 2014). The ‘Somme Valley Acheulean’ with the eponymous site of St-Acheul is frequently considered as a specific and typical case, differing from the British Acheulean although also on flint (Antoine et al., 2007). Variation in the composition of assemblages and technological choices has been observed between sites of plateaus and valleys. The use of soft hammer is attested from MIS 12 (Tuffreau et al., 1997a). Unifacial cores dominate over discoid debitage which arrived late while ‘‘protoLevallois” or ‘‘prepared core technology” is evident as early as MIS 12 (Tuffreau, 1981, 1987; White and Ashton, 2003; Tuffreau et al., 1997a, 1997b, 2008). A diverse range of LCTs made on flint nodules contribute to the assemblages, although ratios vary. 4.2.2.1. Cagny-la-Garenne, Amiens, France. Cagny-la-Garenne is located in fluvial deposits of the Middle Terrace of the Somme Fig. 13. Biface from Hoxne, Lower Industry and Hoxne, Upper Industry (Photograph: Craig Williams). Valley. The gravels have been attributed to MIS 12 based on the regional geological framework of the Somme (Antoine et al., 2007), which is supported by ESR dates of around 400 ± 101 ka. La Garenne 1 was excavated in 1986 and is composed of fluvial silts interstratified with chalky sediments derived from the nearby Chalk slope. The six artefact assemblages are made from the locally available flint and the site is interpreted as a workshop. Assemblages CXCA and CA are in primary context close to the Chalk slope, LJ and LG come from fluvial silts, CXB from limestone gravels and at the top CXV comes from coarse, periglacial gravels (Tuffreau, 1981; Antoine and Tuffreau, 1993; Lamotte, 1999; Lamotte and Tuffreau, 2001a, 2001b; Tuffreau and Lamotte, 2010). The assemblages consist of bifaces, core and flake manufacture with notches and denticulates. The assemblages include large numbers of crude bifacially worked LCTs often retaining cortex and revealing the original form of the nodule (Figs. 14 and 15). In LJ and LG, all stages from crude to finished bifaces are represented (Lamotte, 1994). In contrast, other levels have crude bifaces and tools made by large, invasive removals, often with cortical butts. There is little retouch except to the edges and tip of some elongated, pointed bifaces. Shaping of the tip is part of the overall shaping of the biface. There are two biface-cleavers and some bifaces have transverse tips. The plan-forms are usually elongated cordiform, triangular and ovate. Cross-sections are mainly plano-convex produced by sequential flaking of face-on-face, while some symmetrical bifaces were made by alternate flaking. The cores are mainly unifacial with some evidence of Levallois core technology. Garenne 2, 100 m from Garenne 1, was excavated from 1993 to 2005. Once again, the fluvial sequence is banked up against the Chalk slope. Towards the base, four archaeological levels (R1–R3 and KR) were recovered, while at the top, five levels (I0–I4 and J) came from gravels. Raw material was available on site in the form of large flint nodules many of which have minimal flaking, are far more numerous than the cores and show a selection for long, broad forms (Lamotte and Tuffreau, 2001b). All stages of core working (unifacial and Levallois cores) and biface manufacture are present, including crude and broken bifaces, tranchet flakes, notches, denticulates, scrapers, and few choppers and chopping tools. LCTs are represented by bifaces using both hard and soft hammer flaking predominantly on nodules. Types vary between levels. Three technological groups can be distinguished: (1) bifaces with large cortical areas with partial cutting edges or partial convergent edges; (2) crude bifaces; and (3) being the most common, extensively worked elongated, pointed forms. Biface-cleavers are very rare with a few core-bifaces. The bifaces have been abandoned at various stages of shaping, while some are finished with a round tip. They are characterized by large regular removals over the volume of the piece with final retouch on parts of the more asymmetric and irregular edges. Some crude bifaces with large, invasive removals are of various sizes and approach the form of chopping-tools due to large areas of cortex. The cores were worked unifacially and occasionally with the Levallois method. In all these levels, flake-tools are dominated by numerous notches and a few denticulate and scrapers (Lamotte and Tuffreau, 2001a). 4.2.2.2. Ferme de l’Epinette, Amiens, France. Ferme de l’Epinette was 1 km from La Garenne lying on the upper part of the valley slope on the route of a motorway south of Amiens. One main Acheulian level (MS) was recovered as a rescue excavation in 1994. The artefacts come from a grey forest soil attributable to the beginning of the fourth glacial cycle from present, MIS 11/10 (Tuffreau et al., 1997a, 1997b). LCTs are prevalent with a variety of bifaces from roughouts to ovates made on nearby flint. Long distance refits are numerous with biface shaping flakes refitting between 7 and 15 m, a cortical flake onto a core 39 m distant and many different M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 317 Fig. 14. Cagny-la-Garenne 1, North France. Series CXV, (1, 2) cordiform bifaces, (3, 4) cores with bipolar removals. Series LJ, (5) Levallois core (drawings from Agnès Lamotte). stages of debitage represented (Lamotte, 1999). The low density of material (0.44/m2), the topographic position, the introduction of a few finished and exotic bifaces, numerous cores and bifaces made in situ, together with new flake-tools and heavy tools suggest a multi-purpose activity location (Lamotte and Tuffreau, 2001b; Tuffreau and Lamotte, 2010). 4.2.2.3. Rue de Cagny, Amiens, France. The site of ‘‘Rue de Cagny” in Saint-Acheul was described by V. Commont (1908). Series n° 3 was collected from the red sandy level in the Middle terrace of the Somme and has been attributed to MIS 11 or 10. The 300 artefacts were made on flint with little patination. Ovate bifaces are the most common and are frequently twisted. The butts are sometimes cortical and the pieces have been shaped with several series of large invasive removals. Some show a transverse cutting edge on the tip. The degree of symmetry of the cross-section is dependent on the location of the final retouch, which is frequently on the lateral cutting edges and oval tip. They are associated with large, thick scrapers and unifacial points and evidence of knapping on site. 4.2.2.4. La Celle, France. The site is located in the Seine basin in north-west France. A 9 m deep, tufaceous sequence records an interglacial optimum and the beginning of a cold period. The molluscan assemblage contains a Lyrodiscus fauna which characterize MIS 11 tufas in north-west Europe (Limondin-Lozouet et al., 2006). This age is supported by U–Th dating on indurated tufa and RPE/U–Th dating on horse tooth enamel. In an area of 20 m2, 57 pieces of fauna were recovered from Cervus sp., Equus sp., Macaca sylvanus, Hippopotamus incognitus and one indeterminate carnivore. Leaf prints have also been preserved which in combination with other evidence suggests a humid landscape of Mediterranean vegetation with meadows and forested patches in a temperate climate. The site has yielded artefacts including bifaces in a grey horizon (lgt). Nine artefacts were associated with 318 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Fig. 15. Bifaces from Cagny-la-Garenne 2, I4 (Photographs: Agnès Lamotte). the fauna, some of them from biface manufacture. New excavations have yielded two flint bifaces with cortical butts and described as bifacial tools (Limondin-Lozouet et al., 2010). 4.2.2.5. Saint-Pierre-les-Elbeuf, France. The site of Saint-Pierre-lèsElbeuf is located in the Seine Valley and discovered through old quarrying, but there has been fieldwork since 2005 on the lower part of the sequence (Lautridou and Verron, 1970). Four loess layers are interspersed with four interglacial soils: Elbeuf I (Eemian) to Elbeuf IV. The oldest soil (Elbeuf IV) is immediately overlain by white alluvial sands with faunal and lithic remains in secondary position. It is also covered by a limestone tufa which includes faunal remains, occasional flint artefacts and an interglacial molluscan fauna with Lyrodiscus. This fauna indicates both oceanic and continental climate, together with Lusitanian (Iberian seaboard) species that have also been recorded at the nearby site of Vernon (Dollfus, 1898; Rousseau, 1987; Lécolle et al., 1990; Cliquet et al., 2009; Limondin-Lozouet et al., 2010). As with La Celle, this tufa has been attributed to MIS 11. Above the tufa a loess, attributed to MIS 10, was deposited with molluscan remains, badly preserved bifaces and flake-tools associated with the banks of a river. Other Acheu- lian artefacts were found during the 19th and early 20th centuries, but these have been poorly documented. The recent fieldwork has investigated the white sands and tufa overlying the paleosol Elbeuf IV. One area of 45 m2 yielded in situ Acheulian artefacts and faunal remains (Cliquet et al., 2009), while rolled artefacts and some bones in secondary context were recovered from another area at the same level. From the old and new collections, two occupation phases have been identified from below and above the tufa. The flint raw material is derived from nearby fluvial gravels and both phases of occupation indicate the manufacture of bifaces (Fig. 16). The lower assemblage is mainly composed of large pointed elongated bifaces with thin, well-worked tips. Cores are bifacial or multifacial with flake tools including Quina scrapers and points. Bifaces from the higher assemblage are varied in size and form, both thick and thin ovates, cordiforms, pointed and sub-triangular forms with final retouch on the cutting edges. They are symmetrical in form with thin tips, thick butts, occasionally twisted edges and often with a plano-convex cross-section. Two bifaces have a tranchet blow, perhaps indicating resharpening. The cores were unifacial using the natural convexities of the nodules. M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 319 Fig. 16. Saint-Pierre-lès-Elbeuf, (West France), Level LA (early silt under the paleosol Elbeuf I (Eemian; level 5). (1) Biface with a « coup de tranchet » and a retouch of the transversal edge, (2) pointed biface; Level AR (red clay into the paeéosol Elbeuf IV, below the limestone tuf). (3) Pointed and completely worked biface. New excavations 2005–2007, into a lœss of a MIS 10 cold event affected by pedogenesis of Elbeuf III (around 320 ka), (4) Levallois cores, (5) cordiform bifaces (drawings Dominique Cliquet). Fig. 17. Trends of biface forms over time in north-west Europe. 320 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 5. Discussion 5.1. Broad scale comparison in north-west Europe As discussed in Section 2, there are problems of comparison across north-west Europe due to the means of collection, raw material variability, site function and methods of description. Bias in collection history is a particular problem for examining the earliest sites, where the British record is largely dependent on 19th century collections (e.g. Brandon Fields, Maidscross Hill and Warren Hill) compared to the more recently excavated sites in France (e.g. la Noira and Cagny la Garenne). This means that quantitative comparisons in terms of proportions of bifaces to flakes and flake tools have little meaning and therefore qualitative analyses have to be used. For some of the sites, particularly from MIS 11, assemblage size is also an issue where for example Barnham, Beeches Pit and La Celle have very small numbers of bifaces, making comparison statistically unviable. However despite these problems some common elements can be identified across the chronological time-span and across north-west Europe to provide a backdrop against which time-transgressive or regional differences might be identified. 5.1.1. Time-transcendent similarities Most of the sites used in this study are united by similar positions within the landscape. All of them are open-air sites and most are within or close to fluvial contexts. At the time of occupation, they would have been within or on the edge of river valleys. Those sites in secondary context (e.g. Brandon Fields, Maidscross Hill and Warren Hill) may of course have been derived from valley slopes or floodplains. Beeches Pit and La Celle are located next to spring-fed pools, but both lie again on the margins of river valleys. Meanwhile Boxgrove also lay adjacent to spring-fed pools, but on the edge of a coastal floodplain. It has been suggested that riparian environments provided a richer array of resources than interfluve situations, not least being raw material supplies (Ashton et al., 2006; Stout et al., 2014). However, it is also necessary to consider the biases inherent in the recovery of artefacts through the concentration of artefacts adjacent to raw material sources and by the quarrying of gravel, sand and alluvial silts and clays within river valley situations. For the comparisons in this paper however, it is useful that the sites have a similar context within the landscape. The sites are also for the most part united by their geological situation, largely being situated on or close to Cretaceous Chalk bedrock, which has provided a rich source of flint raw material either directly (e.g. Boxgrove, Cagny la Garenne and Beeches Pit) or from flint rich gravels (e.g. Warren Hill, Swanscombe and St Pierre les Elbeuf). The large majority of the flint knapping is based on nodules, whose size and quality varies. At times, this may have had some impact on biface form and shaping intensity and mode, for example the size and amount of cortex retained on some of the bifaces from Swanscombe UMG and perhaps from Cagny la Garenne. There are two sites where Cretaceous flint was not locally available. At Waverley Wood a variety of quartzite, andesite and non-local flint was used and there is a striking difference between the finely-made ovates in andesite and the crude bifaces made in flint and quartzite. At la Noira, the industry was made from local sliciceous ‘millstone’ slabs. The morphology of the slabs has had a clear impact on the knapping of the bifaces, sometimes with fewer removals required to achieve the desired form particularly on thin slabs. A few bifaces are made on large flakes. Overall, although raw material has had some effect on biface form, there are still underlying patterns of possible regional and chronological significance that can be discerned (see below). The size of the bifaces at all sites is also varied, with both larger and smaller bifaces being present in every sizable assemblage. This probably reflects a number of factors, including the variety in the size of original nodules or slabs at each site, but also the degree of working and resharpening. The latter probably has an important impact in the variety of biface lengths at Boxgrove (Emery, 2010). The largest LCTs are observed at la Noira, High Lodge, Elveden, Swanscombe UMG, and La Garenne I. Contrary to what is commonly perceived, relative thickness of LCTs does not decrease over time, in particular for the well-worked pieces. For example average thickness over breadth for the early sites are la Noira (0.48), High Lodge (0.42) and Boxgrove (0.39), whereas for the MIS 12 sites of Cagny la Garenne I and II relative thicknesses are 0.59 and 0.5 respectively. The core technology show some differences across the area although most sites use varying quantities of single, alternate and multiple platform cores and at some sites unifacial working. The complexity of the knapping again appears to have been dependent on the size and shape of the original nodule or in the case of Cagny la Garenne and la Noira the partial working of cores because of its workshop situation. Occasionally at sites such as High Lodge, alternate flaking has led to apparent discoidal core technology, but this is probably by accident, rather than design. At la Noira the use of slabs has produced a slightly different signature with a higher range of forms and numerous bifacial cores. This has led to a greater management of the core volume than is apparent at most other sites and seems independent of the slab shape. At Cagny la Garenne, some Levallois working is also present, sometimes in the form of preferential flake removals from former bifaces. Here there are also simple prepared or unifacial cores, indicative of some planning in the core working. The overall composition of the excavated assemblages across the area bears some similarities and is likely to reflect the range of functions at the sites. Generally the ratio of bifaces to debitage within an assemblage is low, often around 1%. Where ratios are higher this is probably due to the specific function of the site, such as the probable butchery use area of Q1B at Boxgrove, or the knapping workshop sites at some levels of Cagny la Garenne. All the excavated sites have in situ knapping, and the range of tools suggests other functions taking place at most sites with probable tool manufacture, use and discard. One notable feature is the preponderance of notches and denticulates over scrapers, even in the case of High Lodge, with slight variations perhaps reflecting differences in the proportion of woodworking over hide processing activities. With the exception of High Lodge and the Upper Industry at Hoxne, flake tools tend not to be formalized with retouch undertaken on the most suitable edge for minor modification. Although the ratio of flake tools to debitage varies, this is again probably due to functional differences between sites, duration of occupation or in some cases differences in the quantity of raw material. Overall there are only small quantitative differences in the composition of the assemblages, reflecting a similar range of functions at the different sites. However, qualitative comparisons in biface form can still be made to show any larger scale regional or chronological patterns that might be of cultural significance. 5.1.2. Chronological comparisons (Fig. 17) 5.1.2.1. Pre MIS 13 sites. The oldest Acheulian site in north-west Europe is la Noira. It is not alone in the same basin. Other sites such as Gièvres also yielded series with bifaces at the same age (Despriée et al., 2011). As described above the form of the bifaces reflects to some degree the use of slabs, which in some cases has led to less working of the volume to attain the required form. However, in other cases there are clear phases of working from initial shaping with both hard and soft hammer and final retouching of the edges. This technology indicates use of all the phases of manufacture that is found commonly at biface sites of much later date. This contrasts with the more rolled, generally crude and thick bifaces from the Bytham River sites of Brandon Fields, Maidscross M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Hill and the more rolled element from Warren Hill, possibly dating to MIS 15. With these assemblages, the bifaces tend to be thick, retain cortex and have little evidence of soft hammer working. Retouch to the edges is also minimal. Although there is a range of planforms, this probably relates more to the shape of the nodule or split pebble, rather than a planned design. The assemblages appear to reflect a more basic knowledge of biface technology, which stands in contrast to the more elaborate systems being used at the earlier site of la Noira. The core technology at la Noira reflects the elaborate behaviour observed on the LCTs. Some bifacial cores show a management independent of the slab form. They are associated with unifacial and multifacial cores common to the other sites. Flake-tools are scrapers, notches and denticulates. There are insufficient cores from the other pre-MIS 13 sites to make a comparison. 5.1.2.2. MIS 13–12 sites. The UK has a wealth of pre-Anglian sites dating to MIS 13, many of which have features in common. High Lodge (Bed E) and the fresher material from Warren Hill are dominated by well-made ovates and cordiforms, generally thin with invasive flaking produced with a soft hammer, little retention of cortex, working of the base and final retouching to the edges. The small number of the ovates and cordiforms from Brandon Fields and Maidscross Hill might also be of the same age. The bifaces from High Lodge and occasionally from Warren Hill also have resharpening with tranchet removals. The small assemblage from Waverley Wood also displays similarities. Although the bifaces made from quartzite and flint have been limited by the form of the raw material, those made from andesite are ovate in shape and again display soft hammer shaping and retouching of the edges. The Boxgrove bifaces have all the characteristics of the other MIS 13 assemblages, generally adhering to an ovate form with clearly organized stages of manufacture, soft hammer flaking, final retouching and frequently tranchet finishing or resharpening to the tip. Even the single example of a biface from Happisburgh Site 1 could be argued to fit into this group, altogether suggesting a consistent style of biface manufacture in the UK at this time. The MIS 12 sites at Cagny la Garenne are influenced by their workshop situation (crude tools) and therefore provide a different signature with a less consistent biface style, varying from ovate to more elongated pointed forms. The use of soft hammer can be clearly identified and final retouch to some of the edges. Therefore although all the techniques of manufacture were known, the endproducts are less consistent in form. The core technology for the British sites can only be described for High Lodge, which as shown by refitting is typified by single, alternate and multiple platform cores (Ashton, 1992; Forestier, 1993). There is no pre-planning in the process, but instead the knapping proceeds according to the availability of suitable platforms as the core develops. This is in contrast to the cores from Cagny la Garenne where unifacial or simple prepared cores (‘proto-Levallois cores’) are found, showing the first step towards core preparation. The distinctive, elaborate and often invasively flaked scrapers from High Lodge (Bed C), but also those in smaller quantities from Warren Hill, Brandon Fields and Maidscross Hill, are difficult to directly relate to the biface industries from these sites. At High Lodge they are in situ within the floodplain silts, which might be the origin of the overlying slightly derived ovate biface assemblage from Bed E. At the other three sites the scrapers are in secondary context, as is the case with the biface assemblages. Therefore it is not known whether this industry is simply a functional facies of the ovate assemblages or a distinctive industry in its own right. These flake tools contrast with those from Cagny la Garenne, which are diverse in type, dominated by denticulates (40%) and notches. 321 They are made on thick and irregular products in varying proportions. Overall for this period there are clear differences in the assemblages between Britain and France. This may simply be due to the different ages of the sites with different traditions of manufacture, or alternatively could be due to the function of the Cagny la Garenne sites as workshop locations. If the High Lodge type scrapers are genuinely associated with the ovate bifaces from the Breckland sites, then there does appear to be a distinctive mode of manufacture, representing a distinctive tradition. 5.1.2.3. MIS 11. The sites attributed to MIS 11 divide into several groups. The East Anglian sites of Elveden, Barnham and the Lower Industry at Hoxne all contain thin, ovate to cordiform bifaces. Elveden has the only large assemblage and here several of the bifaces have distinctive ‘S-twists’ on both lateral edges, suggesting either re-working of the general volume of part of the edges of the biface or imposition of a specific design. It has been argued that this is a particular characteristic of other British MIS 11 assemblages, such as Hitchin, Dartford and Greenhithe (White, 1998b). There is also an S-twist ovate from Hoxne from old collections, but probably of a slightly later date in MIS 11. The characteristic flake tools from MIS 11 assemblages are notches, denticulates and very simple scrapers or minimally retouched flakes. These flake-tools stand in contrast to those from some of the earlier British sites but also to those from Hoxne Upper Industry (see below). The Hoxne Upper Industry only has a few bifaces, but these tend towards sub-triangular forms with pointed tips. Although the assemblage is small, it does have notable differences from the earlier MIS 11 sites from East Anglia. It also has a series of more elaborate scrapers often on large thick flakes with intensive retouch, perhaps due to resharpening. The final British site is the Upper Middle Gravel assemblage from Swanscombe. Although the excavated assemblage included many crudely worked, thick forms, there were also more intensively-worked, finely-retouched subtriangular forms with or without a worked butt. The prevalence of these pointed bifaces is highlighted by the large number of similar forms in the old collections from the Middle Gravels. The form of the bifaces in many cases does not seem to have been influenced by raw material. Molluscan evidence suggests that the Middle Gravels are directly contemporaneous with Beeches Pit. Three of the bifaces from the very small assemblage at Beeches Pit are pointed and bear some similarities to those from Swanscombe. All these sites have a similar array of core technologies, which like the earlier British sites includes single, alternate and multiple platform cores. There is no evidence of simple prepared cores or Levallois technology. Occasionally discoidal cores can be distinguished, but these are probably the result of fortuitous use of alternate platform technique, rather than an intended technology. The French sites show a similar array of technologies to the British sites, though there appears to be little patterning in terms of age. At St Pierre-lès-Elbeuf, the assemblage from the lower white sand has some similar characteristics to the Middle Gravels at Swanscombe and perhaps with the Upper Industry at Hoxne with sub-triangular, finely-finished pointed bifaces. There are also intensively retouched scrapers, again characteristic of the Upper Industry at Hoxne, but different to those at Swanscombe. Although the lower assemblage at St Pierre and Swanscombe are probably similar in age, the Hoxne industries are probably later in MIS 11. The upper assemblage at St Pierre has a more varied array of bifaces from ovates through to subtriangular forms. The Somme sites of Ferme de l’Epinette and Rue de Cagny have ovate bifaces and in the case of the latter, S-twist forms are found. These would appear to be reminiscent of the East Anglian sites, particularly of Elveden. The thick flake tools (scrapers and 322 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 end-scrapers) at Rue de Cagny appear to be similar to those from the Hoxne Upper Industry and to those from St Pierre-lès-Elbeuf. Both the latter sites are associated however with different biface forms and modes of shaping (leading to either plano-convex or symmetrical tools). The core technology in the Somme Valley is mainly composed of unifacial cores as for the earliest periods and some rare Levallois cores are evident. Overall there appear to be several technological repertoires that were adopted at different times in different places. These included: thin ovate to cordiform bifaces with S-twists usually associated with informal flake tools; finely-made pointed bifaces with subtriangular planforms and thicker butts again associated with less formalized flake tools and similar more pointed biface assemblages associated with more elaborate scrapers. 5.1.3. Effect of climate and palaeogeography The archaeological record for Britain has notable differences and similarities to that of northern France. This is in part due to the greater impact of climate on the British record, but also due to the changing geographical configuration of Britain during this time period and its connection with the continent. Prior to MIS 12, Britain was a peninsula of mainland Europe with a continuous landlink. The earliest sites of Happisburgh Site 3 (either MIS 25 or 21; Parfitt et al., 2010; Ashton et al., 2014) and of Pakefield (probably MIS 17; Parfitt et al., 2005) both appear to lack handaxes, in contrast to la Noira of a similar age. During the cold of MIS 16, there is no evidence of occupation in north-west and mid-west Europe. After this point, the British record may reflect the incursion of several different handaxe-using populations. At least two, possibly three, traditions of tool-making can be identified, with the thick crude bifaces from the Breckland sites, the thin ovate bifaces from sites such as High Lodge, Warren Hill and Boxgrove, and finally the elaborate scrapers from sites such as High Lodge. It is not clear whether the latter represent a different functional area and are part of the same industry as the ovate bifaces, or are a separate tradition. Unfortunately due to the lack of well-dated sites that can be attributed to MIS 13 or possibly MIS 15 on mainland Europe, the source areas for these colonising populations is not known. There is no evidence for human occupation of Britain during the extreme cold of MIS 12, whereas the sites of Cagny la Garenne in the Somme valley indicate occupation during this episode and possibly at end of MIS 13. Whether this was during an interstadial period, or that humans were able to survive this far north during a glacial episode cannot be resolved due to the lack of resolution of the dating. As noted above there is no evidence for humans during the cold of MIS 16. During the later part of MIS 12 as ice melted, a pro-glacial lake in the southern North Sea Basin spilt over the ridge of Chalk of the Kent-Artois anticline to create the Strait of Dover. With rapid warming in early MIS 11 the English Channel formed creating a barrier to human occupation across this area (Smith, 1985; Gibbard, 1995; Lee et al., 2004; Toucanne et al., 2009; Candy et al., 2011; Carrión et al., 2011; MacDonald et al., 2012). However, the floor of the North Sea Basin has been subject to tectonic downwarping through the Pleistocene and during MIS 11 was probably only slightly lower than modern day sea-levels. High sea levels during pollen zone IIb of the Hoxnian interglacial (MIS 11c) probably cut Britain off from the mainland, but during the subsequent pollen zones IIc and III the recovery of the ‘Rhennish’ molluscan fauna in the Thames indicates a fluvial link between the Scheldt and the Thames. Therefore access was possible across the North Sea Basin and also during the later substages of MIS 11 (Schreve et al., 2002; Ashton and Hosfield, 2010; Ashton et al., 2011, 2015; Preece and Parfitt, 2012; White et al., 2013; Ashton, 2015). These geographical changes are likely to have had an effect on the colonization of Britain during MIS 11 and may account in part for the variety of assemblages (Ashton et al., 2006; Ashton and Hosfield, 2010). For the earliest part of MIS 11 as climate was still warming, access would have been possible across the North Sea Basin. The first evidence for humans is probably in the Thames valley at Swanscombe (Lower Gravels) and Clacton with their distinctive non-biface ‘Clactonian’ assemblages. The source areas of these populations is not known, although could have conceivably have been from Rhineland areas of central Europe where biface manufacture was not practiced (White and Schreve, 2001; Valoch, 2003). During the peak interglacial of the Hoxnian (pollen zone IIa–IIb) access across the North Sea Basin may have been more difficult with higher sea-levels. The appearance of the first biface industries at sites such as Barnham and Elveden in East Anglia could have been due to a new incursion of people, or alternatively the in situ development of bifaces in areas with good raw material. The slight lowering of sea level during Hoxnian pollen zone IIc–III would have created easier access to Britain and may account for the distinctive, pointed bifaces from Swanscombe Middle Gravels. During most of the remainder of MIS 11 there could have been continuous occupation of southern and eastern England, with access to the continent. This may account for some of the persistent archaeological signatures found for example in the East Anglian sites such as Hoxne (Lower Industry) but also for the introduction of slightly different knapping traditions such as Hoxne Upper Industry with its distinctive scrapers. The source areas for these industries probably lies in northern France, where the same range of knapping traditions can be found, particularly in the sites of the Somme and the Seine. Currently the dating resolution of these sites makes it difficult to identify direct links between the British and French sites, although more work on correlating the environmental records should improve understanding of the relationships between the knapping traditions. 5.2. Comparisons between northern and southern Europe Only limited comparisons can be made between northern and southern Europe due to the small number of well-dated sites, the variable history of recovery with old collections and new excavations, and also due to the different signatures from open air sites, caves or rockshelters. One notable similarity between the geographic regions is the generally low ratio of LCTs to other tools within the assemblages, generally averaging between 1% and 5% (e.g. Arago P-Q < 1%; Terra Amata 1.7%) compared to the Levant and East Africa averaging c. 15% for most sites (i.e. Jagher and Le Tensorer, 2011). There are exceptions such as Q1B at Boxgrove (an excavated site) and Atelier Commont (a collected assemblage from a small area) perhaps reflecting specialized use in those areas (Commont, 1908; Roberts and Parfitt, 1999a). By contrast other sites indicate in situ LCT manufacture from biface manufacturing flakes, but with the LCTs being exported from the site (e.g. Barnham and La Celle). It is clear that activities and the movement of artefacts affect the composition of the assemblages and therefore detailed comparative studies. However, some observations can be made that show the diversity of assemblages from Europe with or without LCTs. 5.2.1. Early Middle Pleistocene assemblages The earliest LCTs in northern Europe vary from sites such as Brandon Fields, where most bifaces tend to be made on nodules, are thick in form with large, hard hammer removals, to those at la Noira which are made on thin slabs and occasionally on flakes, with soft hammer finishing. The southern French site of Arago (levels P and Q – Unit I; MIS 14) has several similarities with la Noira, in particular the ratio of ovate forms and methods of shaping (Barsky and Lumley de, 2010; Falguères et al., 2010, 2015; Barsky, 2013). However there are notable differences; at Arago M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 the assemblages include poorly standardized cleavers on flakes, some particularly large bifaces, but also standardized, wellworked LCTs made on pebbles. In addition there is a range of raw materials including some exotic rocks from 30 km away, showing mobility of artefacts, whereas such evidence is lacking at la Noira and Brandon Fields due to the use of very local raw material. The flake tools at Arago are predominantly scrapers, notches and points made in quartz, while those at la Noira are mainly scrapers made on both large and small flakes. At Brandon Fields, there are also well-made scrapers, but they are probably unrepresentative of the original assemblage due to biases in collection. At La Boella, Spain, two large, crude LCTs made on local schist have been found associated with numerous small flakes and a fauna, with evidence of butchery that dates to 1–0.9 Ma (Vallverdú et al., 2014; Mosquera et al., 2015). The first LCT is a crude pick made on a split cobble or a flake, while the second is a cleaver on a flake. Although they show African features, it is impossible to know if the butchery context may have led to the ad hoc production of these unusual tools, as opposed to belonging to a longer tradition of LCT manufacture. At Notarchirico (Italy; MIS 16) there is less diversity, but also less standardization in the LCTs with numerous pointed chopping tools and a few pseudo-cleavers on limestone pebbles (Piperno, 1999; Lefèvre et al., 2010). Occasionally bifaces s.s. (levels B, D, F) were made on quartzite, limestone and flint pebbles or flakes, with deep removals, either invasive or on the edge and sometimes modified by retouch to the tip. A range of other retouched tools on quartz, quartzite, limestone and flint include pointed pebble tools, scrapers, notches, denticulates and Tayac points. The differences in LCTs between southern and northern European sites seem to depend to some extent on the type, size and shape of raw material, where in the south there is more variety in the lithologies and larger flakes for shaping. The raw materials also affected features such as the symmetry in cross-section and plan-view, the final shaping to tip and cutting edges and the areas of flaking on the LCTs. The thickness of LCTs does not seem to be related to chronology or to the type of production whether by alternate or face-on-face knapping, which produced symmetrical and plano-convex cross-sections respectively. Rather it seems to be partially due to the use of flat nodules or flakes, sometimes with the use of only hard hammers or at other times to the invasiveness of final retouch to cutting edges and tips, dependent on the use of soft hammer. However similar modes of shaping were applied on different lithologies in the south, the impact of raw materials is clearly not the only explanation of variation. Other features in common in both northern and southern assemblages include the occurrence of cortical butts and occasional twisted edges, which in the case of these early Middle Pleistocene examples, seem to be due to over-worked or resharpened edges rather than intended shaping. The final form of the bifaces, especially when non-cortical, may of course be the result of a long history of use and re-sharpening which modified the form. LCT forms are varied including bifacial cleavers mainly in the north, cleavers on flakes often in the south and irregular crude tools, which are sometimes roughouts from workshop locations. The assemblages are often composed of two main LCT types, the first being crude, thick tools with few removals and irregular cutting edges, while the second are more completely-worked LCTs with regular cutting edges from invasive removals or retouch. Other than bifacial tools with distinct functional areas as for some pieces at la Noira, the management of the volume is generally geared towards creating two convergent edges and a tip. Resharpening is sometimes indicated by tranchet removals to the tip. By MIS 13 there is evidence of a higher standardization in form, particularly at Boxgrove with ovate bifaces with tranchet resharp- 323 ening (Roberts and Parfitt, 1999). This contrasts with the contemporary assemblages from unit II of Arago with a few very large tools and Aldene in France or Fontana Ranuccio and Venosa Loretto in Italy with a few well-made bifaces (alternate or face to face shaping) associated with small pebble tools, including one on an elephant bone for Fontana Ranuccio (Crovetto, 1993; Lefèvre et al., 2010; Muttoni et al., 2009). For the cores, there is a similar range of technology at most southern sites to those in the north, with unifacial cores, occasionally ‘simple prepared cores’, multiple platform cores and discoidal cores. There are few removals per core and the technology was often adapted to the blank. At Arago unit I (levels P and Q), small bifacial cores were flaked alternately without hierarchical surfaces. Here, cores on local raw material were less worked than those on distant sources. Bipolar knapping was also used. At Notarchirico, in levels with or without bifaces, cores are mainly unifacial or multi-platformed, usually very small and sometimes knapped by ‘salami’ flaking. On a large variety of raw materials (flint, limestone and others), the products are always small and thick except thinner flakes from discoidal debitage. The later (MIS 13) assemblages from Arago unit II are characterized by selective use of quality materials and discoidal cores with alternate flaking. Large flakes are produced on sandstone, while bipolar technique is used on quartz. The range of core technology is similar in assemblages without LCTs, such as Happisburgh Site 3 (>800 ka), Pakefield (c. 700 ka), Isernia (c. 600 ka), Vallparadis (c. 800 ka) and TD6 Gran Dolina (c. 800 ka) to those with LCTs noted above (i.e. Garcia et al., 2013a). They all deploy opportunistic knapping with unifacial and multiple platform techniques, but on occasion, bipolar and discoidal flaking. From 700 ka there is evidence of more structured knapping at both the LCT site of la Noira, but also at the non-LCT site of Isernia (Longo et al., 1997; Mosquera, 1998; Anconetani, 1999; Peretto, 1999, 2006; Rodríguez, 2004; Coltorti et al., 2005; Parfitt et al., 2005, 2010; Martinez et al., 2010; Ollé et al., 2013; Gallotti and Peretto, 2015). 5.2.2. Late Middle Pleistocene assemblages There are more southern sites dating to MIS 12 and 11 than earlier periods such as the basal part of Galeria in Atapuerca and Cueva del Angel (both Spain), Torre in Pietra (Italy), Terra Amata, Arago Unit III and La Grande Vallée (all France). Local raw material always predominates, although with some semi-local rocks (Piperno and Biddittu, 1978; Lumley de, 2009; Barroso Ruiz et al., 2011; Barsky, 2013; Garcia et al., 2013b; Ollé et al., 2013). Problems in distinguishing between different flint types hinder indentification of LCT movement, which is better noted for MIS 9 sites. The base of Galeria II is an exception, where there is a low proportion of debitage and most of the pointed and pick-like LCTs on pebbles were brought into the site ready-made for scavenging (Falguères et al., 2013; Ollé et al., 2005, 2013). Overall the assemblages show a higher proportion of thin LCTs with fine retouch of the edges and tip by soft hammer. Whatever the meaning of the variability, there is again a diversity of forms and thickness which is not related to the raw material. The shaping shows variation within the same assemblage, but also between assemblages of a general, sometimes minimal, management of the volume. The form of the cross-section is dependent on the mode of shaping by face-on-face or alternate flaking and more thinning of the tip. General or minimal management, finished by extensive retouch of the cutting edges, has resulted in asymmetric cross-sections (distinct functional edges?). Bifacial cleavers are rare while cleavers on flakes characterize some southern sites. For some MIS 11–9 assemblages a distinction has been made between assemblages with bifaces and/or bifacial tools, with the latter worked bifacially, but with distinct functional areas (Moncel et al., 2012, 2013; Nicoud, 2013). However identifying the meaning of these two categories in the absence of use-wear 324 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 is problematic. In the current paper, it is argued that management of the bifacial volume with series of removals suggests the intention of creating a ‘biface’ s.s. while peripheral removals or intensive and final shaping of some parts of the bifacial volume might suggest in some cases distinct functional edges, or might just be resharpening. Even from the early Middle Pleistocene, some bifaces could be interpreted as bifacial tools, although removals in an isolated area could also be part of the general management of the piece in order to create expedient tools which were functionally adequate or final retouch to regularize or resharpen the edge. As for the early Middle Pleistocene sites, while large flakes could have been produced in French and British sites, few have been used as blanks, reflecting perhaps the suitability of flint nodules and slabs for the LCTs. By contrast, in southern Europe, the blank-shape of raw materials (pebbles, nodules, flakes and slabs) has influenced the morphological endproducts with adaptation of shaping such as minimal flaking of the ventral face of flakes. These tools may be either bifaces s.s. or bifacial tools (see above). Once again the southern assemblages include crudely worked tools, for instance use of the limestone pebbles from the local beach at Terra Amata and, in the west of France, the minimally worked LCTs at Menez Dregan. At the base of the sequence at Cueva del Angel (MIS 11), the raw materials of flint, quartzite and limestone have been procured from a distance of 60 km. The LCTs are small, made on large flakes or broken pebbles and include cleavers, picks, pointed and ovate bifaces with form related to resharpening and the intensity of shaping (Barroso Ruiz et al., 2011). At the site of La Grande Vallée, three chaînes opératoires co-exist, on flakes, nodules and slabs, explaining the diversity of LCT forms some of which are partially worked, including some with a transversal edge or a back possibly combining various functions or purposes. Both hard and soft hammers are successively used (Herisson et al., 2012). The stone procurement is up to 30 km from the site. For the core technology, there are few differences between northern and southern Europe, other than the Levallois cores and ‘prepared core technology’ which form a component of some northern assemblages such as Cagny-la-Garenne (Tuffreau et al., 1997a, 1997b). Unit III (MIS 12) at Arago displays a core and flake technology with unidirectional, bidirectional and multiple platform flaking with an increase in small debitage in level D associated with a few well-worked bifaces on a range of raw materials (Barsky, 2013). At Cueva del Angel, flakes were introduced into the site and the reduction process is intense with unifacial technology being more common on flint and bifacial technology on quartzite. As with northern sites, the flake tools are dominated by scrapers, denticulates and notches independent of the associated bifaces, so that the same range of flake tools can be found at Terra Amata with crude bifaces as at Arago with better-worked forms. 5.3. Interpreting the European Acheulian Since the first identification of the Acheulean by Gabriel de Mortillet (1872) and the earliest use of the term biface by Vayson de Pradennes in 1920 in the Somme Valley in France, many definitions and classifications have been proposed. Some of these discussions have been typological and have focused on the biface and its morphology; others have looked at biface to tool ratios, while other studies have focused on technological aspects from blank selection to management of the bifacial volume. All these aspects are important in understanding the duration, geographical spread and production by different hominin species of bifaces, and the Acheulian has to be regarded as a technocomplex within which there is much variation. However, it is now recognized that the Acheulian is also associated with a wide range of other technological innovations, skills and behaviours, which are perhaps more important for understanding the success of the human expansion into Europe, particularly the more northerly latitudes. From 1.7 to 0.8 Ma, there is good evidence of human occupation in southern Europe from Atapuerca and Orce in Spain, to Pirro Nord in Italy and Dmanisi in Georgia. All are associated with a simple core and flake industry. Whether the scarcity of sites and generally small lithic assemblages reflect sporadic occupation is not clear, although there certainly seem to be large gaps in the record. From over 0.8 Ma, a similar record emerges in north-west Europe with sites such as Happisburgh 3 and Pakefield in the UK, both with very small assemblages of simple cores and flakes. Other than the two bifaces from La Boella in northern Spain, the first good evidence of biface production in Europe is from c. 700 ka at la Noira (France) and from 600 ka at Notarchirico (Italy), Brandon Fields and Maidscross Hill (UK) and Arago (France). One notable feature is the larger size of the assemblages, but also the apparently rapid appearance in both southern and northern Europe. Certainly by 500 ka, there are a significant number of sites in southern and north-west Europe. The evidence from la Noira shows a systematic production of bifaces with clear symmetry, the use of soft hammer and regularization of the edges by retouch. Developed biface production of this type can be recognized in African Acheulian assemblages from c. 1 Ma with tool standardization by c. 700 ka (Texier and Roche, 1995; Clark, 1996; Sharon and Goren-Inbar, 1999). It is therefore tempting to see an African origin for the la Noira assemblage particularly given the lack of evidence for indigenous development. In addition, it is about this time, or certainly by 600 ka, that Homo heidelbergensis first appeared in Europe and arguably with an African origin (Stringer, 2012; Meyer et al., 2014). The diversity of anatomical features of H. heidelbergensis remains suggest that diverse hominins could have existed in Europe at this time. Direct association between H. heidelbergensis and biface technology is well documented at the later site of Boxgrove or Arago (Roberts et al., 1994; Stringer, 1996; Stringer et al., 1998; Rightmire, 2001; Carbonell et al., 2003, 2005; Manzi, 2004; Martinòn-Torres et al., 2007; Hublin, 2009; Mounier et al., 2009; Premo and Hublin, 2009; Wagner et al., 2010; Bermúdez de Castro and Martinòn-Torres, 2013; Lumley de, 2015). Although there are clear differences in many of the assemblages across Europe, much of this variation can be understood in terms of differences in raw material and site function even if in some areas or sites, similar modes of shaping were applied on various stones. These aspects explain much of the variation between southern and northern Europe. However, through better understanding of these situational factors within single regions, where raw material is more constant, and through better chronology, it is possible to discern more localized traditions of manufacture. This is particularly the case for Britain, where due its palaeogeography and the effective opening and closing of the valve that allowed humans in and out of Britain, better definition can be given to the assemblages. It is now possible to discern some patterning in the sites that might be related to knapping traditions and an expression of material culture. Are there other technological developments that can be recognized, other than bifaces? Unfortunately many of the sites do not preserve such evidence, but there are hints of some innovations (Ashton, 2015). At Boxgrove, the overprinting of cut-marks from human butchery by hyaena gnawing indicates that humans are at least the top carnivore and first to the kill by 500 ka (Roberts and Parfitt, 1999; Belmaker, 2009). A puncture wound in a horse scapula at the same site is an indication of spear-use and probably hunting. More direct evidence for the use of spears comes from Clacton at c. 400 ka (Warren, 1911) or from Schöningen at c. 350 ka (Thieme, 1997). If humans were the top predator with effective hunting, or even top scavenger, then this importantly gave them first access to hides. Hints of possible hide processing are provided by the elaborate scrapers from High Lodge, Warren Hill, M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Brandon Fields and Maidscross Hill (all UK) between 500 and 600 ka. Scrapers generally become a more persistent part of the lithic record from c. 500 ka. Evidence for careful hide-removal with tail intact comes again from Schöningen (Voormolen, 2008). Presumably the hides were used for clothing or shelter, although direct evidence for this lacking. The controlled use of fire is more difficult to demonstrate, although convincing evidence comes from Beeches Pit (UK) and Menez Dregan (France) at c. 400 ka (Gowlett, 2006; Preece et al., 2006, 2007; Molines et al., 2005). These are isolated examples, though, and it may not have been a persistent innovation until much later (Roebroeks and Villa, 2011). All these technological innovations provided a critical advantage in the more seasonal climates of Europe, particularly in the north, where more efficient meat acquisition during longer winters, and coping with winter cold, would have been essential for survival. It is therefore perhaps the suite of other technological innovations that are of most importance that seem to arrive alongside or soon after the introduction of bifacial technology. The innovations would have inevitably led to behavioural changes. More efficient meat acquisition, particularly through hunting, would have required greater cooperation and communication between group members. Although group size is difficult to estimate, a cycle of positive feedback can be envisaged whereby more efficient food gathering may have led to the ability to support larger groups, which in turn may have required larger territories. Some indications of movement, perhaps reflecting territory, can be seen in the archaeological record. At Arago, some of the raw materials were transported from 30 km to the site. Even greater distances are shown at Waverley Wood, where Cretaceous flint was brought from over 100 km away. These distances presumably reflect seasonal cycles of movement and show that significant distances were covered. The transport of finished tools across the landscape shows significant planning, reflected equally by the production of such tools. Finally, the bifaces themselves show evidence that they are not purely utilitarian tools, but at times have a repeated style through symmetry and form. At the most basic level, this could simply be the repeated gestures through generations of learning, but even at this level the bifaces unconsciously reflected group identity. As the Acheulian world expanded and as competition for resources increased, expressions of identity would have become more important, at both the group and individual level. In can, therefore, be suggested that bifaces played an important role in group interactions, beyond their primary function as tools (Gamble, 1999; Petraglia, 2003; Derricourt, 2005; Gamble and Porr, 2005; Petraglia et al., 2005; Winton, 2005; Machin, 2009; Shipton et al., 2009; Hopkinson and White, 2005; Shipton, 2013; Hopkinson et al., 2013; Ashton, 2015). Bifaces are therefore a small, but important part of the package of technological innovations from c. 700 ka in Europe. Within this region, the innovations enabled a more sustained occupation of Europe, particularly in the north. Despite apparent conservatism in lithic technology, the European record really shows flexibility in behaviourial responses to changing circumstance. It was this flexibility that enabled humans to expand into northern latitudes and cope with the long-term cyclical changes in climate, through expansion or reduction in range. It is these aspects that characterize the Acheulian in Europe, with bifaces acting as translucent window on a suite of other technological and behavioural developments. 325 However, at a deeper level beneath the lithic technology, there are indications of more planned, but also flexible behaviour in applying a suite of techniques to differing circumstances, whether this is due to raw materials, resharpening, different activities or varying environments. Current evidence would suggest that in Europe this technology is initially deployed by H. heidelbergensis or diverse hominins grouped under the name of H. heidelbergensis and that other developments in technology might also begin to appear at this time, such as improved hunting, fire-use, clothing and possibly shelter. In essence it is the flexibility in behaviour that makes the identification of cultural traditions across Europe difficult due to the situational responses of these early hominins. The large geographical area, the long time period, the fragmented record and a chronology that still needs improvement all mean that only glimpses of traditions can be identified, usually at a very local level. However, due to the more extreme climatic cycles of northern Europe, compared to southern Europe, it seems inevitable that populations colonized repeatedly from south to north as climate warmed and retreated or populations became locally extinct as climate cooled (i.e. Guthrie, 1984; Orain et al., 2013). So far, however, although there are broad similarities in technology, attempts to identify cultural links have been hampered by the greater variety of raw materials in the south compared to the generally better quality siliceous raw materials in the north. Broad patterns over time might be discernible, with perhaps a refinement through time, but there are also many exceptions to this observation (see above). For the identification of cultural traditions, northern France and southern and eastern England have the benefit of being united by a common geology with a similar range of siliceous rocks and the same range of environments. Even here, it is difficult to establish clear traditions. The exception is perhaps England where the record is filtered due to palaeogeography and climate. This has led to a succession of colonization events by different populations, and possibly different hominins, and a pattern might be emerging. Although the source areas are probably France, clear cultural links between the two countries are still difficult to establish, in part due to the precision of the chronology. These patterns of repeated colonization may also exist in central France and northern France, but so far are more difficult to recognize. In central France, there are certainly gaps in the record between 700 and 500 ka, although in the Somme valley there would appear to be a more continuous record from 500 ka. Although this study has shown many advances over the last 20 years in explaining the variation in Acheulian assemblages, with new sites, improved chronologies and better understanding of environment, site function and the role of raw materials, there has still been little headway in understanding the complexities of how distinct human groups relate across the different regions over vast lengths of time. With a fragmented record, this will always be difficult to achieve, but a more precise and accurate chronology would certainly help. If the last 20 years have been largely devoted to understanding the situational factors that lead to the complexity of technology and typology, then perhaps the next 20 years should use this knowledge to understand better the relationship between different human groups and their traditions of making stone tools. Acknowledgments 6. Conclusion The term Acheulian has a long history and has been used in different ways in various parts of the Old World. For many decades it has been regarded as a techno-complex and within Europe, this is no less the case. Although superficially it is united by the use of biface technology, this can be broadened to more generalized LCTs. This analysis was financially supported by a French and British project (ANR – Agence National de la Recherche, n°2010 Blanc 2006 01). This project was devoted to a review of sites with the bifacial technology in the north-west part of Europe through interdisciplinary studies and new fieldworks. The comparison of the sites was made through research visits to Lille, Paris, Rennes 326 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 and London to work directly on the lithic assemblages. We would like to thanks all the researchers and institutions which permitted us to work on the south European assemblages and many colleagues for the rich discussions about the Acheulean. NMA would like to thank Craig Williams for the production of figures for the British sites and the two distribution maps. We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editor J. O’Shea for their relevant comments on this paper which enhance and enrich it. References Abbate, E., Sagri, M., 2012. Early to Middle Pleistocene Homo dispersals from Africa to Eurasia: geological, climatic and environmental constraints. Quatern. Int. 267, 3–19. Almogi-Labin, A., 2011. The paleoclimate of the Eastern Mediterranean during the transition from early to mid Pleistocene (900 to 700 ka) based on marine and non-marine records: an integrated overview. J. Hum. Evol. 60 (4), 428–436. Anconetani, P., 1999. L’assemblage faunique du gisement paléolithique inférieur d’Isernia-La-Pineta (Molise, Italie) et l’exploitation du bison. In: Brugal, J.-P., David, F., Enloe, J.G., Jaubert, J. (Eds.), Le Bison: gibier et moyen de subsistance des hommes du Paléolithique aux Paléo indiens des grandes plain. Proceedings of the International Conference, Toulouse 1995. Éditions APCDA, Antibes, pp. 105–120. Antoine, P., Tuffreau, A., 1993. Contexte stratigraphique, climatique et paléotopogrpahique des occupations acheuléennes des moyennes terrasses de la Somme. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française 90 (4), 243–250. Antoine, P., Limondin-Lozouet, N., Chaussé, C., Lautridou, J.P., Pastre, J.-F., Auguste, P., Bahain, J.J., Falguères, C., Galehb, B., 2007. Pleistocene fluvial terraces from northern France (Seine, Yonne, Somme): synthesis and new results. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 26, 2701–2723. Antoine, P., Limondin-Lozouet, N., Moncel, M.-H., Locht, J.-L., Auguste, P., Stoetzel, E., Dabkowski, J., Voinchet, P., Bahain, J.-J., Falgueres, C., 2014. Dating the earliest human occupation of Western Europe: new evidences from the fluvial terraces system of the Somme basin (Northern France). Quatern. Int. 370, 77–99. AnzideI, A.P., Bulgarelli, G.M., Catalano, P., Cerilli, E., Gallotti, R., Lemorini, C., Milli, S., Palombo, M.R., Pantano, W., Santucci, E., 2012. Ongoing research at the late Middle Pleistocene site of La Polledrara di Cecanibbio (central Italy), with emphasis on human elephant relationships. Quatern. Int. 255, 171–187. Arzarello, M., Marcollini, F., Pavia, G., Pavia, M., Petronio, C., Petrucci, M., Rook, L., Sardella, R., 2006. Evidence of earliest human occurrence in Europe: the site of Pierro Nord (Southern Italy). Naturwissenschaften 94, 107–112. Ashton, N.M., 1992. The High Lodge flint industries. In: Ashton, N.M., Cook, J., Lewis, S.G., Rose, J. (Eds.), High Lodge: Excavations by G. de G. Sieveking 1962–68 and J. Cook 1988. British Museum Press, London, pp. 124–163. Ashton, N.M., 2015. Ecological niches, technological developments and physical adaptations of early humans in Europe: the handaxe-heildelbergensis hypothesis. In: Coward, F., Hosfield, R., Pope, M., Wenban-Smith, F.F. (Eds.), Settlement, Society and Cognition in Human Evolution: Landscapes in Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 138–153. Ashton, N.M., Cook, J., Lewis, S.G., Rose, J. (Eds.), 1992. High Lodge: Excavations by G. de G. Sieveking 1962–68 and J. Cook 1988. British Museum Press, London. Ashton, N.M., McNabb, J., 1994. Bifaces in perspective. In: Ashton, N.M., David, A. (Eds.), Stories in Stone. Occasional Paper of the Lithic Studies Society No. 4. Proceedings of the Anniversary Conference at St Hilda’s College, Oxford, April 1993, pp. 182–191. Ashton, N., McNabb, J., Irving, B., Lewis, S., Parfitt, S., 1994. Contemporaneity of Clactonian and Acheulian flint industries at Barnham, Suffolk. Antiquity 68, 585–589. Ashton, N.M., Lewis, S., Longo, G., Parfitt, S.A. (Eds.), 1998. Excavations at Barnham 1989–94. British Museum Occasional Paper 125, London. Ashton, N.M., White, M., 2003. Bifaces and raw materials: flexible flaking in the British Early Palaeolithic. In: Soressi, M., Dibble, H. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technology. University Museum Monography, 115. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 109–124. Ashton, N.M., Lewis, S.G., 2005. Maidscross Hill, Lakenheath. Proc. Suffolk Inst. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. XLI (part 1), 122–123. Ashton, N., Lewis, S., Parfitt, S., Candy, I., Keen, D., Kemp, R., Penkman, K., Thomas, G., Whittaker, J., White, M., 2005. Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic site at Elveden, Suffolk, UK. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 71, 1–61. Ashton, N.M., Lewis, S.G., Parfitt, S.A., White, M., 2006. Riparian landscapes and human habitat preferences during the Hoxnian (MIS 11) Interglacial. J. Quat. Sci. 21, 497–505. Ashton, N.M., Lewis, S.G., Parfitt, S.A., Penkman, K.E.H., Coope, G.R., 2008a. New evidence for complex climate change in MIS 11 from Hoxne, UK. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 27, 652–668. Ashton, N.M., Parfitt, S.A., Lewis, S.G., Coope, G.R., Larkin, N., 2008b. Happisburgh Site 1 (TG388307). In: Candy, I., Lee, J.R., Harrison, A.M. (Eds.), The Quaternary of Northern East Anglia. Quaternary Research Association, Cambridge, pp. 151–156. Ashton, N.M., Hosfield, R.T., 2010. Mapping the human record in the British early Palaeolithic: evidence from the Solent River system. J. Quat. Sci. 25, 737–753. Ashton, N., Lewis, S.G., Hosfield, R., 2011. Mapping the human record: population change in Britain during the Early Palaeolithic. In: Ashton, N., Lewis, J.E., Stringer, C. (Eds.), The Ancient Human occupation of Britain. Quaternary Science. Ashton, N.M., Lewis, S.G., 2012. The environmental contexts of early human occupation of northwest Europe: the British Lower Palaeolithic record. Quatern. Int. 271, 50–64. Ashton, N.M., Lewis, S.G., De Groote, I., Duffy, S., Bates, M., Bates, R., Hoare, P.G., Lewis, M., Parfitt, S.A., Peglar, S., Williams, C., Stringer, C.B., 2014. Hominin footprints from Early Pleistocene deposits at Happisburgh, UK. PLoS ONE 9 (2), e8832. Ashton, N.M., Harris, C.R.E., Lewis, S.G., 2015. The distribution of early Palaeolithic sites in Britain. In: Ashton, N.M., Harris, C.R.E. (Eds.), No Stone Unturned: Papers in Honour of Roger Jacobi. AHOB and LSS Occasional Paper 9, London, pp. 19–30. Asfaw, B., Beyene, Y., Suwa, G., Walter, R.C., White, T.D., Wolde Gabriel, G., Yemane, T., 1992. The earliest Acheulean from Konso-Gardula. Nature, 732–735. Aureli, D., Contardi, A., Giaccio, B., Modesti, V., Palombo, M.R., Rozzi, R., Sposato, A., Trucco, F., 2012. Straight-tusked elephants in the Middle Pleistocene of northern Latium: preliminary report on the Ficoncella site (Tarquinia, central Italy). Quatern. Int. 255, 29–35. Aureli, D., Contardi, A., Giaccio, B., Jicha, B., Lemorini, C., Madonna, S., et al., 2015. Palaeoloxodon and human interaction: depositional setting, chronology and archaeology at the Middle Pleistocene Ficoncella site (Tarquinia, Italy). PLoS ONE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124498. April 21. Barroso Ruiz, C., Botella Ortega, D., Caparrós, M., Moigne, A.M., Celiberti, V., Testu, As., Barsky, D., Notter, O., Riquelme Cantal, J.A., Rodríguez, M.P., Carretero León, M.I., Monge Gómez, G., Khatib, S., Saos, T., Gregoire, S., Bailón, S., García Solano, J.A., Cabral Mesa, A.L., Djerrab, A., George Hedley, I., Abdessadok, S., Batalla Llasat, G., Astier, N., Bertin, L.T., Boulbes, N., Cauche, D., Filoux, A., Hanquet, C., Milizia, C., Moutoussamy, J., Rossoni, E., Verdú Bermejo, L., Lumley de, H., 2011. The Cueva del Angel (Lucena, Spain): an Acheulean hunters habitat in the South of the Iberian Peninsula. Quatern. Int. 243 (1), 105–126. Barsky, D., Lumley de, H., 2010. Early European Mode 2 and the stone industry from the Caune de l’Arago’s archeostratigraphical levels ‘‘P”. Quatern. Int. 223–224, 71–86. Barsky, D., 2013. The Caune de l’Arago stone industries in their stratigraphical context. C.R. Palevol 12 (5), 305–325. Bar-Yosef, O., Goren-Inbar, N., 1993. The Lithic Assemblages of Ubeidiya. A Lower Palaeolithic Site in the Jordan Valley (Quedem, Jerusalem). Bello, S.M., Parfitt, S.A., Stringer, C., 2009. Quantitative micromorphological analyses of cut marks produced by ancient and modern handaxes. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 1869–1880. Belmaker, M., 2009. Hominin adaptability and patterns of faunal turnover in the Lower-Middle Pleistocene transition in the Levant. In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), A Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions: Methods, Theories and Interpretations. Springer, pp. 211–227. Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Martinòn-Torres, M., 2013. A new model for the evolution of the human Pleistocene populations of Europe. Quatern. Int. 295, 102–112. Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., WoldeGabriel, G., Hart, W.K., Sudo, M., Kondo, M., Hyodo, M., Renne, P.R., Suwa, G., Asfaw, B., 2013. The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. PNAS 110 (5), 1584–1591. Berthelet, A., 2002. Barogali et l’Oued Doure. Deux gisements représentatifs du Plaéolithique ancien en République de Djibouti. L’Anthropologie 106, 1–39. Breuil Abbé, H., Kelley, H., 1954. Le Paléolithique ancien. Abbevillien. Clactonien. Acheuléen. Levalloisien. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française LI (8), 1–18. Bridgland, D.R., Lewis, S.G., Wymer, J.J., 1995. Middle Pleistocene stratigraphy and archaeology around Mildenhall and Icklingham, Suffolk: report on the Geologists’ Association Field Meeting, 27th June 1992. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 106, 57–69. Bridgland, D.R., Keen, D.H., Schreve, D.C., White, M.J., 1998. Fordwich. In: Murton, J. B., Whiteman, C.A., Bates, M.R., Bridgland, D.R., Long, A.J., Roberts, M.B., Waller, M.P. (Eds.), The Quaternary of Kent and Sussex. Field Guide. Quaternary Research Association, London, pp. 41–42. Bridgland, D.R., Antoine, P., Limondin-Lozouet, N., Santisteban, J.I., Westaway, R., White, M.J., 2006. The Palaeolithic occupation of Europe as revealed by evidence from the rivers: data from ICGP 449. J. Quat. Sci. 21 (5), 437–456. Bodin, E., 2011. Analyse techno-fonctionnelle des industries à pièces bifaciales aux pléistocènes inférieur et moyen en Chine. Université de Paris X, Nanterre, p. 600. Boëda, E., 1994. Le concept Levallois. Variabilité des méthodes. CNRS, CRA Monograph 9, Paris. Boëda, E., 2001. Détermination des unités techno-fonctionnelles 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 Liège, pp. 51–77. Boëda, E., Geneste, J.M., Meignen, L., 1990. Identification des chaînes opératoires lithiques du paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo n°2. Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Delmas, Bordeaux. Boschian, G., 1993. Castel di Guido - scavi 19801991. Atti della XXX Riunione Scentifica dell’istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Paleosuperfici del Pleistocene e del primo Olocene in Italia. Proc. formazione e interpretazione. Venosa 1, 167–178. Boschian, G., Sacca, D., 2015. In the elephant, everything is good: carcass use and reuse at Castel di Guido (Italy). Quatern. Int. (in press). Bower, J.R.F., 1977. Attributes of Oldowan and Lower Acheulean tools: ‘‘tradition” and design in the Early Lower Palaeolithic. S.Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 32, 113–126. M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Braun, D.R., Tactikos, J.C., Ferraro, J.V., Arnow, S.L., Harris, J.W.K., 2008. Oldowan reduction sequences: methodological considerations. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35 (8), 2153–2163. Bridgland, D.R., White, M.J., 2014. Fluvial archives as a framework for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: patterns of British artifact distribution and potential chronological implications. Boreas 43, 543–555. Candy, I., Silva, B., Lee, J., 2011. Climates of the Early Middle Pleistocene in Britain: environments of the earliest humans. In: Ashton, N., Lewis, S.G., Stringer, C. (Eds.), The Ancient Human Occupation of Britain. Quaternary Science 14, pp. 11–23. Callow, P., 1994. The Olduvai bifaces: technology and raw materials. In: Leakey, M. D., Roe, D.A. (Eds.), Olduvai Gorge, Excavations in Beds III, IV and the MASEK beds, 1968–1971, vol. 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 235–253. Carbonell, E., Garcia-Anton, M.D., Mallol, C., Mosquera, M., Ollé, A., Rodriguez, X.P., Sahnouni, M., Sala, R., Vergès, J.M., 1999. The TD6 lithic industry from Grand Dolina, Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain) production and use. J. Hum. Evol. 37, 653–693. Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., Ollé, A., Rodríguez, X.P., Sala, R., Vergès, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., 2003. Les premiers comportements funéraires auraient-ils pris place à Atapuerca, il y a 350 000 ans? L’Anthropologie 107 (1), 1–14. Carbonell, E., Bermùdez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Allué, E., et al., 2005. An Early Pleistocene hominin mandible from Atapuerca-TD6, Spain. PNAS 102 (16), 5674–5678. Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., Rodriguez, X.P., 2007. The emergence of technology: a cultural step or long-term evolution? C.R. Palevol 6 (3), 231–233. Carbonell, E., Barsky, D., Sala, R., Celiberti, V., 2015. Structural continuity and technological change in Lower Pleistocene toolkits. Quatern. Int. (in press). Carrión, J.S., Rose, J., Stringer, C., 2011. Early human evolution in the Western Palaearctic: ecological scenarios. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 30 (11–12), 1281–1295. Chavaillon, J., Piperno, M. (Eds.), 2004. Studies on the Early Paleolithic Site of Melka Kunture, Ethiopia. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence. Chazan, M., Ron, H., Matmon, A., Porat, N., Goldberg, P., Yates, R., Avery, M., Sumner, A., Horwitz, L.K., 2008. Radiometric dating of the Earlier Stone Age sequence in Excavation I at Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa: preliminary results. J. Hum. Evol. 55 (1), 1–11. Chazan, M., 2013. Butchering with small tools: the implications of the Evron Quarry assemblage for the behaviour of Homo erectus. Antiquity 87, 350–367. Chevrier, B., 2011. Les assemblages à pièces bifaciales au Pléistocène inférieur et moyen ancien en Afrique de l’Est et au Proche-Orient. Nouvelle approche du phénomène bifacial appliquée aux problématiques de migrations, de diffusion et d’évolution locale. Préhistoire. Université de Nanterre, Paris X, Nanterre, 864 p. Clark, J.D., Asfaw, B., Assefa, G., Harris, J.W.K., Kurashina, H., Walter, R.C., White, T.D., Williams, M.A.J., 1984. Palaeoanthropological discoveries in the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Nature 307, 423–428. Clark, J.L., Haynes, C.V., 1970. An elephant butchery site at Mwanganda’s villiage. Karonga, Malawi and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archaeol. 1 (3), 390–441. Clark, J.D., Kurashina, H., 1979. Hominid occupation of the east-central highlands of Ethiopia in the Plio-Pleistocene. Nature 282, 33–39. Clark Howell, F., 1966. Observations on the earlier phases of the European Lower Palaeolithic. Am. Anthropol. 68 (2), 89–133. Clark, G., 1969. World Prehistory: A New Outline. Cambridge University Press, London. Clark, J.D., 1967. The Middle Acheulian occupation of Latamne, Northern Syria. Quaternaria 9, 1–68. Clark, J.D., Haynes, C.V., 1969. An elephant butchery site at Mwanganda’s village, Karonga, Malawi, and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archaeol. 1, 390–411. Clark, J.D., 1996. Decision-making and variability in the Acheulean. In: Pwiti, G., Soper, R. (Eds.), Aspects of African Archaeology. 10th Congress of the Panafrican Association for Prehistory and Related Studies. University of Zimbabwe, Harare, pp. 93–98. Cliquet, D. (Ed.), 2001. Les industries à outils bifaciaux du paléolithique moyen d’Europe occidentale, Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée à Caen (Basse-Normandie-France), 1999, ERAUL, n° 98. Université de Liège. Cliquet, D., Lautridou, J.P., Antoine, P., Lamotte, A., Leroyer, M., Limondin-Lozouet, N., Mercier, N., 2009. La séquence loessique de Saint-Pierre-lès-Elbeuf (Normandie, France): nouvelles données archéologiques, géochronologiques et paléontologiques. Quaternaire 20 (3), 321–343. Coltorti, M., Feraud, G., Marzoli, A., Peretto, C., Ton-Thate, T., Voinchet, P., Bahain, J.J., Minelli, A., Thun Hohenstain, U., 2005. New 40Ar/39Ar, stratigraphic and paleoclimatic data on the Isernia La Pineta Lower Palaeolithic site, Molise, Italy. Quatern. Int. 131, 11–22. Commont, V., 1908. Les industries de l’ancien Saint-Acheul. L’Anthropologie XIX, 527–572. Commont, V., 1910. Niveaux industriels et faunique dans les couches quaternaires de St-Acheul. Congrès préhistorique de France, n° 392, 432–436. Commont, V., 1911. Les gisements préhistoriques de St-Acheul et de Montière. Bull. Soc. Linnéenne du nord France. Compton, R., Gowlett, J.J., 1993. Allometry and multidimensional form in Acheulean bifaces from Kilombe, Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 25, 175–200. Conway, B., McNabb, J., Ashton, N.M. (Eds.), 1996. Excavations at Swanscombe 1968–1972. British Museum Occasional Paper 94, London. 327 Coope, G.R., 1992. The High Lodge insect fauna. In: Ashton, N.M., Cook, J., Lewis, S.G., Rose, J. (Eds.), High Lodge: Excavations by G. de G. Sieveking 1962–68 and J. Cook 1988. British Museum Press, London, pp. 117–119. Coope, G.R., 2006. Insect faunas associated with Palaeolithic industries from five sites of pre-Anglian age in central England. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 25, 1738–1754. Crovetto, C., 1993. Le Paléolithique inférieur de Loreto (Venosa, Basilicate, Italie). The Lower Paleolithic of Loretto (Venosa, Basilicatte, Italy). Bull. Musée d’anthropologie préhistorique Monaco 36, 31–57. Davis, D.D., 1980. Further consideration of the developed Oldowan at Olduvai Gorge. Curr. Anthropol. 21, 840–843. Delagnes, A., Lenoble, A., Harmand, S., Brugal, J.-P., Prat, S., Tiercelin, J.J., Roche, H., 2006. Interpreting pachyderm single carcass sites in the African Lowe rand Early Middle Pleistocene record: a multidisciplinary approach to the site of Nadung’a 4 (Kenya). J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 25, 448–465. Derricourt, R., 2005. Getting ‘‘Out of Africa”: sea crossing, land crossing, and culture in the hominin migrations. J. World Prehist. 19, 119–132. Despriée, J., Voinchet, P., Tissoux, H., Bahain, J.-J., Falguères, C., Courcimault, G., Dépont, J., Moncel, M.-H., Robin, S., Arzarello, M., Sala, R., Marquer, L., Messager, E., Puaud, S., Abdessadok, S., 2011. Lower and Middle Pleistocene human settlements recorded in fluvial deposits of the middle Loire River Basin, Centre Region, France. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 30 (11–12), 1474–1485. Despriée, J., Voinchet, P., Tissoux, H., Moncel, M.-H., Arzarello, M., Robin, S., Bahain, J.J., Falguères, C., Courcimault, G., Dépont, J., Gageonnet, R., Marquer, L., Messager, E., Abdessadok, S., Puaud, S., 2010. Lower and Middle Pleistocene human settlements in the Middle Loire River Basin, Centre Region, France. Quatern. Int. 223–224, 345–359. Dollfus, G.-F., 1898. Sur un tuf quaternaire reconnu à Montigny, près Vernon. CR l’Acad. Sci., 1369–1370 Doronichev, V.B., 2008. The Lower Palaeolithic in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus: a reappraisal of the data and new approaches. PaleoAnthropology 2008, 107–157. Emery, K., 2010. A Re-examination of Variability in Handaxe Form in the British Palaeolithic. Unpublished PhD, University of London. Evans, J., Morse, E., Reid, C., Ridley, E.P., Ridley, H.N., 1896. The relation of Palaeolithic man to the glacial epoch. Rep. Brit. Assoc., Liverpool 1896, 400–416. Falguères, C., Bahain, J.-J., Tozzi, C., Boschian, G., Dolo, J.-M., Mercier, N., Valladas, H., Yokoyama, Y., 2008. ESR/U-series chronology of the Lower Palaeolithic palaeoanthropological site of Visogliano, Trieste, Italy. Quatern. Geochronol. 3, 390–398. Falguères, C., Bahain, J.-J., Duval, M., Shao, Q., Han, F., Lebon, M., Mercier, N., PerezGonzalez, A., Dolo, J.-M., Garcia, T.A., 2010. 300–600 ka ESR/U-series chronology of Acheulian sites in Western Europe. Quatern. Int. 223–224, 293–298. Falguères, C., Bahain, J.-J., Bischoff, J.L., Perez-Gonzalez, A., Ortega, A.I., Ollé, A., Quiles, A., Ghaleb, B., Moreno, D., Dolo, J.-M., Shao, Q., Vallverdu, J., Carbonell, E., Bermudez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., 2013. Combined ESR/U-series chronology of Acheulian hominid-bearing layers at Trinchera Galeria site, Atapuerca, Spain. J. Hum. Evol. 65 (2), 168–184. Falguères, C., Shao, Q., Han, F., Bahain, J.J., Richard, M., Perrenoud, C., Moigne, A.M., Lumley de, H., 2015. New ESR and U-series dating at Caune de l’Arago, France: a key-site for European Middle Pleistocene. Quatern. Geochronol. (in press). Flower, J.W., 1869. On some recent discoveries of flint implements of the Drift in Norfolk and Suffolk., with observations of theories accounting for their distribution. Quart. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 25, 449–460. Forestier, H., 1993. Le Clactonien: mise en application d’une nouvelle méthode de débitage s’inscrivant dans la variabilité des systèmes de production lithique du Paléolithique ancien. PALEO 5, 53–82. Gaillard, C., Mishra, S., Singh, M., Deo, S., Abbas, R., 2010. Lower and Early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian in the Indian sub-continent. Quatern. Int. 223–224, 234–241. Gallotti, R., Collina, C., Raynal, J.-P., Kieffer, G., Geraads, D., Piperno, M., 2010. The Early Middle Pleistocene site of Gombore II (Melka Kunture, Upper Awash, Ethiopia) and the issue of Acheulean bifacial shaping strategies. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 27, 291–322. Gallotti, R., Peretto, C., 2015. The Lower/early Middle Pleistocene small debitage productions in Western Europe: new data from Isernia La Pineta t.3c (Upper Volturno Basin, Italy). Quatern. Int. (in press). Gamble, C., 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gamble, C., Porr, M., 2005. The Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales and Artefacts. Routledge, Abingdon. Garcia, J., Landeck, Gn., Martinez, K., Carbonell, E., 2013a. Hominin dispersals from the Jaramillo subchron in central and south-western Europe: Untermassfeld (Germany) and Vallparadís (Spain). Quatern. Int. 316, 73–93. Garcia, J., Martinez, K., Carbonell, E., 2013b. The Early Pleistocene stone tools from Vallparadís (Barcelona, Spain): rethinking the European Mode 1. Quatern. Int. 316, 94–114. Garcia-Medrano, P., Ollé, A., Mosquera, M., Caceres, I., Diez, C., Carbonell, E., 2014. The earliest Acheulean technology at Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain): oldest levels of the Galería site (GII Unit). Quatern. Int. 353, 170–194. Gibbard, P.L., 1995. The formation of the Strait of Dover. In: Preece, R.C. (Ed.), Island Britain: A Quaternary Perspective. Geological Society of London Special Publication 96, Bath, pp. 15–26. Gowlett, J.A.J., 1986. Culture and conceptualisation: the Oldowan-Acheulian gradient. In: Bailey, G.N., Callow, P. (Eds.), Stone Age Prehistory: Studies in 328 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Memory of Charles McBurney. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 243–260. Gowlett, J.A.J., Harris, J.W.K., Walton, D., Wood, B.A., 1981. Early archaeological sites, hominid remains and traces of fire from Chesowanja, Kenya. Nature 294, 125–129. Goren-Inbar, N., Feibel, C.S., Verosub, K.L., Melameb, Y., Kislev, M.E., Tchernov, E., Saragusti, I., 2000. Pleistocene milestones on the Out-of-Africa corridor at Gesher Benot Yakov, Israel. Science 289, 944–947. Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., 2006. Invisible handaxes and visible Acheulian biface technology at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox Publishing Ltd, London, pp. 111–137. Gowlett, J.A.J., 2006. The early settlement of northern Europe: fire history in the context of climate change and the social brain. Colloque « Climats-CulturesSociétés aux temps préhistoriques De lﾒapparition des Hominidés jusquﾒau Néolithique ». Palevol, pp. 299–311. Grimaldi, S., 1998. Analyse technologique, chaïne opératoire et objectifs techniques, chaîne opératoire et objectifs techniques. Torre in Pietra (Rome, Italie). Paleo 10, 109–122. Guadelli, J.L., Turq, A., Seronie-Vivien, R., 2012. Le site de Pradayrol à Caniac-duCausse (Lot). In: Turq, A., Airvaux, J., Despriée, J., Texier, P.J. (Eds.), La Conquête de l’Ouest Il y a un Million d’Années en Europe. Musée des Eyzies, Maison de l’Histoire de France, pp. 136–137. Guthrie, R.D., 1984. Mosaics, allelochemics and nutrients: an ecological theory of Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions. In: Martin, P.S., Klein, R.G. (Eds.), Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. University of Arizona Press, pp. 259–298. Harmand, S., 2009. Raw materials and techno-economic behaviours at Oldowan and Acheulean sites in the West Turkana region, Kenya. In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 1–14. Harris, J.W.K., Gowlett, J.A.J., 1980. Evidence of early stone industries at Chesowanja, Kenya. In: Leakey, R.E., Ogot, B.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Panafrican Congress of Prehistory and Quaternary Studies, Nairobi, 1977. TILLMIAP, Nairobi, pp. 208–212. Hayden, B., 1979. Palaeolithic reflections. Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavations among Australian Aborigines. Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. de Heinzelin, J., Clark, J.D., Schick, K., Gilbert, W.H.E., 2002. The Acheulean and the Plio-Pleistocene Deposits of the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Tervuren. Herisson, D., Airvaux, J., Lenoble, A., Richter, D., Claud, E., Primault, J., 2012. Le gisement acheuléen de La Grande vallée à Colombiers (Vienne, France): stratigraphie, processus de formation, datations préliminaires et industries lithiques. Paleo 23, 1–18. Holman, J.A., 1999. Herpetofauna. In: Roberts, M.B., Parfitt, S.A. (Eds.), Boxgrove. A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. English Heritage, London, pp. 181–187. Holmes, J.A., Atkinson, T., Darbyshire, D.P.F., Horne, D.J., Joordens, J., Roberts, M.B., Sinka, K.J., Whittaker, J.E., 2010. Middle Pleistocene climate and hydrological environment at the Boxgrove hominin site (West Sussex, UK) from ostracod records. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 29, 1515–1527. Hopkinson, T., Nowell, A., White, M., 2013. Middle Pleistocene life histories, metapopulation ecology and innovation in the Acheulian. J. Paleoanthropol. Soc. 2013, 61–76. Hopkinson, T., White, M.J., 2005. The Acheulean and the handaxe: structure and agency in the Palaeolithic. In: Gamble, C.S., Porr, M. (Eds.), The Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales and Artefacts. Routledge, London, pp. 13–28. Hou, Y., Potts, R., Baoyin, Y., Zhentang, G., Deino, A., Wei, W., Clark, J., Guangmao, X., Weiwen, H., 2000. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like stone technology of the Bose Basin, South China. Science 287, 1622–1626. Hublin, J.-J., 2009. The origin of Neandertals. PNAS 106 (38), 16022–16027. Hunt, C.O., 1992. Pollen and algal microfossils from the High Lodge clayey-silts. In: Ashton, N.M., Cook, J., Lewis, S.G., Rose, J. (Eds.), High Lodge: Excavations by G. de G. Sieveking 1962–68 and J. Cook 1988. British Museum Press, London, pp. 109–115. Isaac, G., 1977. Olorgesailie. Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake Basin in Kenya. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Isaac, G., 1984. The archeology of human origins: studies of the Lower Pleistocene in East Africa 1971–1981. In: Wendorf, F., Close, A.E. (Eds.), Advances in World Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, pp. 1–87. Isaac, G., Harris, J.W.K., Kroll, E.M., 1997. The stone artefact assemblages/A comparative study. In: Isaac, G. (Ed.), Koobi Fora Research Project. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 262–362. Jagher, R., Le Tensorer, J.-M., 2011. El Kowm, a key area for the Palaeolithic of the Levant in Central Syria. In: Le Tensorer, J.M., Jagher, R., Otte, M. (Eds.), The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring. ERAUL, Université de Liège, University of Basel, pp. 197–209. Jones, P.R., 1979. Effects of raw materials on biface manufacture. Science 204, 835–836. Jones, P.R., 1980. Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Prehist. 12, 153–165. Jones, P.R., 1994. Results of experimental work in relation to the stone industries of Olduvai Gorge. In: Leakey, M.D., Roe, D.A. (Eds.), Olduvai Gorge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 254–298. Jiménez-Arenas, J.M., Santonja, M., Botella, M., Palmqvist, P., 2011. The oldest handaxes in Europe: fact or artefact? J. Archaeol. Sci. 38 (12), 3340–3349. Juana de, S., Galan, A.B., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., 2010. Taphonomic identification of cutmarks made with lithic handaxes: an experimental study. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37 (88), 1841–1850. Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Keen, D.H., Hardaker, T., Lang, A.T.O., 2006. A Lower Palaeolithic industry from the Cromerian (MIS 13) Baginton formation of Waverley Wood and Wood Farm Pits, Bubbenhall, Warwickshire, UK. J. Quat. Sci. 21, 457–470. Kleindienst, M.R., 1961. Variability within the late Acheulian assemblage in Eastern Africa. S.Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 16, 35–52. Kleindienst, M.R., 1962. Component of the East African Acheulian assemblages: an analytic approach. In: Mortelmans, G., Nenquin, J. (Eds.), Actes du Congrès Panafricain de Préhistoire et de l’Etude du Quaternaire. Tervuren. Belgie Annalen, Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Leopoldville, 1959, pp. 81–198. Kuman, K., Clarke, R.J., 2000. Stratigraphy, artefact industries and hominid associations for Sterkfontein, Member 5. J. Hum. Evol. 38 (6), 827–847. Lamotte, A., 1994. Les industries à bifaces du Pléistocène moyen dans l’Europe du Nord-Ouest: données nouvelles des gisements du bassin de l’Escaut, de la Somme et de la Baie de St-Brieuc. Thèse. Doct. Univ. Scienc. Techn. Lille. Lamotte, A., 1999. L’apport des remontages dans la compréhension des méthodes de débitage et de façonnage des gisements acheuléens du bassin de la Somme: les exemples de la Ferme de l’Epinette à Cagny (Somme, France). Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française 96 (2), 117–131. Lamotte, A., Tuffreau, A., 2001a. Les industries acheuléennes de Cagny (Somme) dans le contexte de l’Europe du nord ouest. In: Tuffreau, A. (Ed.), L’Acheuléen dans la Vallée de la Somme et le Paléolithique Moyen dans le Nord de la France: Données Récentes. Publications du Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Préhistoriques 6, pp. 149–153. Lamotte, A., Tuffreau, A., 2001b. Les industries lithiques de Cagny-la-Garenne II (Somme, France). In: Tuffreau, A. (Ed.), L’Acheuléen dans la Vallée de la Somme et le Paléolithique Moyen dans le Nord de la France: Données Récentes. Publications du Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Préhistoriques 6, pp. 59–89. Lamotte, A., 2012. Le Paléolithique inférieur et moyen des bassins-versants de la Somme et de la Saône: aspects cognitifs de l’environnement pétrographique et considérations techno-typologiques. Préhistoire. HDR Unpublished, Université de Lille 1, Lille. Lautridou, J.-P., Verron, G., 1970. Paléosols et lœss de Saint-Pierre-lès-Elbeuf. Bull. l’Assoc. Française pour l’étude Quatern. 2, 145–165. Leakey, L.S.B., 1951. Olduvai Gorge. A Report on the Evolution of the Hand-axe Culture in Beds I-IV. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leakey, M.D., 1971. Olduvai Gorge: Excavations in Bed I and Bed II, 1960–1963. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lécolle, F., Rousseau, D.D., Lautridou, J.-P., Puisségur, J.-J., 1990. Le tuf de Vernon: nouvelles données (stratigraphie, paléoclimatologie, datations, corrélations). Bull. Centre Géomorphol. du CNRS, Caen 38, 131–149. Lee, J.R., Rose, J., Hamblin, R.J.O., Moorlock, B.S.P., 2004. Dating the earliest lowland glaciation of eastern England: a pre-MIS 12 early Middle Pleistocene glaciation. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 23, 1551–1566. Lefèvre, D., Raynal, J.-P., Vernet, G., Kieffer, G., Piperno, M., 2010. Tephrostratigraphy and the age of ancient Southern Italian Acheulean settlements: the sites of Loreto and Notarchirico (Venosa, Basilicata, Italy). Quatern. Int. 223– 224, 360–368. Lepot, M., 1993. Approche techno fonctionnelle de l’outillage lithique moustérien: essai de classification des parties actives en terme d’efficacité technique. Mémoire de maîtrise de l’Université Paris X Nanterre. Lepre, C.L., Roche, H., Kent, D.V., Harmand, S., Quinn, R.L., Brugal, J.P., Texier, P.J., Lenoble, A., Feibel, C., 2011. An earlier origin for the Acheulian. Nature 477, 2–85. Lewis, S.G., 1992. High Lodge – stratigraphy and depositional environments. In: Ashton, N.M., Cook, J., Lewis, S.G., Rose, J. (Eds.), High Lodge: Excavations by G. de G. Sieveking 1962–68 and J. Cook 1988. British Museum Press, London, pp. 51–93. Lewis, S.G., 1998. Quaternary geology of East Farm brick pit, Barnham and the surrounding area. In: Ashton, N.M., Lewis, S.G., Parfitt, S.A. (Eds.), Excavations at Barnham 1989–94. British Museum Occasional Paper 125, London, pp. 23–78. Lhomme, V., Connet, N., Bemilli, C., Chausse, C., 2000. Essai d’interprétation du site paléolithique inférieur de Soucy 1 (Yonne). Gallia Préhist. 42, 1–44. Lhomme, V., Connet, N., Chaussé, C., 2003. Le gisement de Soucy 6 (Yonne) et son industrie lithique dans le contexte des industries à éclats du Paléolithique inférieur en Europe du Nord-Ouest. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française 100 (2), 241–253. Limondin-Lozouet, N., Antoine, P., Auguste, P., Bahain, J.-J., Carbonel, P., Chausse, C., Connet, N., Duperon, J., Duperon, M., Falgueres, C., Freytet, P., Ghaleb, B., JollySaad, M.-C., Lhomme, V., Louzouet, P., Mercie, N., Pastre, J.-F., Voinchet, P., 2006. Le tuf calcaire de la Celle-sur-Seine (’Seine-et-Marne): nouvelles données sur un site clé du stade 11 dans le Nord de la France. Quaternaire 17 (2), 5–29. Limondin-Lozouet, N., Nicoud, E., Antoine, P., Auguste, P., Bahain, J.-J., Dabkowski, J., Dupéron, J., Dupéron, M., Falguères, C., Ghaleb, B., Jolly-Saad, M.-C., Mercier, N., 2010. Oldest evidence of Acheulean occupation in the Upper Seine valley (France) from an MIS 11 tufa at La Celle. Quatern. Int. 223–224, 299–311. Longo, L., Peretto, C., Sozzi, M., Vannucci, S., 1997. Artefacts, outils ou supports épuisés ? Une nouvelle approche pour l’étude des industries du Paléolithique ancien: le cas dﾒIsernia la Pineta (Molise, Italie Centrale). L’Anthropologie 101 (4), 579–596. M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Lordkipanidze, D., Jashashvili, T., Vekua, A., Ponce De Leon, M.S., Zollikofer, C.P.E., Rightmire, G.P., Pontzer, H., Ferring, R., Oms, O., Tappen, M., Bukhsianidze, M., Augusti, J., Kahlke, R., Kiladze, G., Martinez-Navarro, B., Mouskhelishvili, A., Nioradze, M., Rook, L., 2007. Postcranial evidence from early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Nature 449, 305–310. Lumley de, H., Grégoire, S., Barsky, D., Batalla, G., Bailon, S., Belda, V., Briki, D., Byrne, L., Desclaux, E., El Guenouni, K., Fournier, A., Kacimi, S., Lacombat, F., Lumley de, M-A., Moigne, A-M., Moutoussamy, J., Paunescu, C., Perrenoud, C., Pois, V., Quilès, J., Rivals, F., Roger, T., Testu, A., 2004. Habitat et mode de vie des chasseurs paléolithiques de la Caune de l’Arago (600 000-400 000 ans). L’Anthropologie 108, 159–184. Lumley de, H., 2009. Terra Amata, Nice, Alpes-Maritime. Des Campements Acheuléens Datés de 400 000 à 380 000 Ans. CNRS Editions. Lumley de, M.-A., 2015. L’homme de Tautavel. Un Homo erectus européen évolué. Homo erectus tautavelensis. L’Anthropologie 119 (3), 303–348. Lycett, S.J., Gowlett, J.A.J., 2008. On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘‘tradition”. World Archaeol. 40 (3), 295–315. Lycett, S.J., Von Cramon-Taubadel, N., 2008. Acheulean variability and hominin dispersals: a model-bound approach. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 553–562. MacDonald, K., Martinez-Torres, M., Dennell, R.W., Bermudez de Castro, J.M., 2012. Discontinuity in the record for hominin occupation in south-western Europe: implications for occupation of the middle latitudes of Europe. Quatern. Int. 271, 84–97. McNabb, J., Binyon, F., Hazelwood, L., 2004. The large cutting tools from the South African Acheulean and the question of social traditions. Curr. Anthropol. 45, 653–677. McPherron, S.P., 2000. Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. J. Archaeol. Sci. 27 (8), 655–663. McPherron, S.P., 2006. What typology can tell us about Acheulian handaxe production. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox Publishing Ltd, London, pp. 267–287. Machin, A., Hosfield, R., Mithen, S., 2007. Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness. J. Archaeol. Sci. 34 (6), 883–893. Machin, A., 2009. The role of the individual agent in Acheulean biface variability. A multi-factorial model. J. Soc. Archaeol. 9, 35–58. Manzi, G., 2004. Human evolution at the Matuyama-Brunhes boundary. Evol. Anthropol. 13, 11–24. Martinez, K., Garcia, J., Carbonell, E., Agusti, J., Bahain, J.-J., Blain, H.-A., Burjachs, F., Caceres, I., Duval, M., Falguères, C., Gomez, M., Huguet, R., 2010. A new Lower Pleistocene archaeological site in Europe (Vallparadis, Barcelona, Spain). PNAS 107 (13), 5762–5767. Martinòn-Torres, M., Bermùdez de Castro, J.-M., Gòmez-Robles, A., Arsuaga, J.-L., Carbonell, E., Lordkipanidze, D., Manzi, G., Margvelashvili, A., 2007. Dental evidence on the hominin dispersal during the Pleistocene. PNAS 104, 13279– 13282. Meyer, M., Fu, Q., Aximu-Petri, A., Glocke, I., Nickel, B., Arsuaga, J.-L., Martınez, I., Gracia, A., Bermudez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., Paabo, S., 2014. Amitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos. Nature 505, 403–406. Mitchell, J.C., 1995. Studying biface butchery at Boxgrove: roe deer butchery with replica handaxes. Lithics 16, 64–69. Mitchell, J.C., 1997. Quantitative image analysis of lithic microwear on flint handaxes. Microsc. Anal., September Molines, N., Monnier, J.-L., Hinguant, S., Hallegouet, B., 2005. L’Acheuléen de l’ouest de la France: apports du site de Menez Dregan I (Plouhinec, Finistère, France). In: Molines, N., Moncel, M.-H., Monnier, J.-L. (Eds.), Les Premiers Peuplements en Europe. BAR International Series, Oxford, pp. 533–544. Moncel, M.-H., 2010. Oldest human expansions in Eurasia: favouring and limiting factors. Quatern. Int. 223–224, 1–9. Moncel, M.-H., Moigne, A.-M., Combier, J., 2012. Towards the Middle Paleolithic in Western Europe: the case of Orgnac 3 (South-Eastern France). J. Hum. Evol. 63, 653–666. Moncel, M-H., Despriée, J., Voinchet, P., Tissoux, H., Moreno, D., Bahain, J-J., Courcimault, G., Falguères, C., 2013. Early evidence of Acheulean settlement in north-western Europe – la Noira site, a 700 000 year-old occupation in the Center of France. PLoS ONE 8 (11), e75529. Monnier, J.-L., Molines, N., 1993. Le ‘‘Colombanien”: un faciès regional du Paléolithique inférieur sur le littoral armoricano-atlantique. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française 90, 283–294. Mounier, A., Marchal, F., Condemi, S., 2009. Is Homo heidelbergensis a distinct species? New insight on the Mauer mandibule. J. Hum. Evol. 56, 219–246. Mosquera, M., 1998. Differential raw material use in the Middle Pleistocene of Spain: evidence for Sierra de Atapuerca, Torralba, Ambrona and Aridos. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 8 (1), 15–28. Mosquera, M., Ollé, A., Rodriguez, X.P., 2013. From Atapuerca to Europe: tracing the earliest peopling of Europe. Quatern. Int. 295, 130–137. Mosquera, M., Ollé, A., Saladié, P., Cáceres, I., Huguet, R., Rosas, A., et al., 2015. The Early Acheulean technology of Barranc de la Boella (Catalonia, Spain). Quatern. Int. (in press). Mourre, 2003. Implication culturelles de la technologie des hachereaux. Université de Paris X, Nanterre, Paris, p. 333. Mortillet de, G., 1872. Classification des diverses périodes de l’âge de la pierre. In: Congrès international d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie préhistoriques, 6ème session, Bruxelles, 1872. C. Muquardt, Bruxelles, pp. 432–459. 329 Mortillet de, G., 1875. L’Acheuléen et le Moustérien, réponse à M.E. D’Acy. In: Matériaux, l’Histoire primitive et naturelle de l’Homme, t.VI, XIe année, 2e série, juillet, Toulouse. Mortillet de, G., Mortillet de, A., 1883. Le Préhistorique, Antiquité de l’homme, 1ère éd. Mortillet de, G., 1885. Le préhistorique, antiquité de l’homme, deuxième édition. C. Reinwald, Paris. Mortillet de, G., Mortillet de, A., 1900. Chapitre III: evolution du coup de poing. In: Frères, Schleicher (Ed.), Le Préhistorique 3. Paris, pp. 152–156. Muttoni, G., Scardia, G., Kent, D.V., Swisher, C., Manzi, G., 2009. Pleistocene magnetochronology of early hominin sites at Ceprano and Fontana Ranuccio, Italy. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 286, 255–268. Newcomer, M.H., 1971. Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World Archaeol. 3, 85–94. Nicoud, E., 2013. Le Paradoxe Acheuléen. Editions du CTHS. Ollé, A., Caceres, I., Vergès, J-M., 2005. Human occupations at Galeria Site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain) after the technological and taphonomical data. In: Molines, N., Moncel, M-H., Monnier, J-L. (Eds.), Données Récentes sur les Modalités de Peuplement et sur le Cadre Chronostratigraphique, Géologique et Paléoanthropologique des Industries du Paléolithique Inférieur et Moyen en Europe. BAR S1364. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 269–281. Ollé, A., Mosquera, M., Rodríguez, X.P., de Lombera-Hermida, A., Garcia-Anton, M.D., García-Medrano, P., Peña, L., Menéndez, L., Navazo, M., Terradillos, M., Bargalló, Al., Márquez, Bn., Sala, R., Carbonell, E., 2013. The Early and Middle Pleistocene technological record from Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). Quatern. Int. 295, 138–167. Orain, R., Lebreton, V., Russo Ermolli, E., Sémah, A.-M., Nomade, S., Shao, Q., Bahain, J.-J., Thun Hohenstein, U., Peretto, C., 2013. Hominin responses to environmental changes during the Middle Pleistocene in central and southern Italy. Clim. Past 9, 687–697. Ovey, C.D. (Ed.), 1964. The Swanscombe Skull. A Survey of Research on a Pleistocene Site. Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper No. 20. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, London. Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Akhilesh, K., Braucher, R., Taieb, M., Demory, F., Thouveny, N., 2011. Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian hominins in South India. Science 331, 1596–1599. Parfitt, S.A., 1998a. Pleistocene vertebrate faunas of the West Sussex coastal plain: their stratigraphic and palaeoenvironmental significance. In: Murton, J.B., Whiteman, C.A., Bates, M.R., Bridgland, D.R., Long, A.J., Roberts, M.B., Wallers, M.P. (Eds.), The Quaternary of Kent and Sussex. Quaternary Research Association, London, pp. 121–135. Parfitt, S.A., 1998b. The interglacial mammalian fauna from Barnham. In: Ashton, N. M., Lewis, S.G., Parfitt, S.A. (Eds.), Excavations at Barnham 1989–94. British Museum Occasional Paper 125, London, pp. 111–147. Parfitt, S.A., 1999. Mammalia. In: Roberts, M.B., Parfitt, S.A. (Eds.), A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. English Heritage, London, pp. 197–290. Parfitt, S.A., Barendregt, R.W., Breda, M., Candy, I., Collins, M.J., Coope, G.R., Durbidge, P., Field, M.H., Lee, J.R., Lister, A.M., Mutch, R., Penkman, K.E.H., Preece, R.C., Rose, J., Stringer, C.B., Symmons, R., Whittaker, J.E., Wymer, J.J., Stuart, A.J., 2005. The earliest record of human activity in northern Europe. Nature 438, 1008–1012. Parfitt, S.A., Ashton, N., Lewis, S.G., Abel, R.L., Coope, G.R., Field, M.H., Gale, R., Hoare, P.G., Larkin, N.R., Lewis, M.D., Karloukovski, V., Maher, B.A., Peglar, S.M., Preece, R.C., Whittaker, J.E., Stringer, C.B., 2010. Early Pleistocene human occupation at the edge of the boreal zone in northwest Europe. Nature 466, 229–233. Peretto, C. (Ed.), 1999. I suoli d’abitato del giacimento paleolitico di Isernia La Pineta, natura e distribuzione dei reperti. Cosmo Iannone Editore, Isernia. Peretto, C., 2006. The first peopling of southern Europe: the Italian case. C.R. Palevol 5, 283–290. Petraglia, M., 2003. The Lower Paleolithic of the Arabian Peninsula: occupations, adaptations, and dispersals. J. World Prehist. 17 (2), 141–179. Petraglia, M.D., Shipton, C., Paddayya, K., 2005. Life and mind in the Acheulean: a case study from India. In: Gamble, C., Porr, M. (Eds.), The Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales and Artefacts. Routledge, London, pp. 197–219. Piperno, M., Biddittu, I., 1978. Studio tipologico ed interpretazione dell’industria acheuleana e pre-musteriana dei livelli m e d di Torre in Pietra (Roma) in Torre in Pietra, Roma. Quaternaria 20, 441–536. Piperno, M. (Ed.), 1999. Notarchirico. Un sito del Pleistocene medio iniziale nel bacino di Venosa. Edizioni Osanna. Pope, M., Roberts, M.B., 2005. Individuals and artefact scatters at Boxgrove. In: Gamble, C.S., Porr, M. (Eds.), The Hominid Individual in Context. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 81–97. Pope, M., Roberts, M., Maxted, A., Jones, P., 2009. The Valdoe: archaeology of a locality within the Boxgrove. Palaeolandscape, West Sussex. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 75, 239–263. Preece, R.C., Penkman, K.E.H., 2005. New faunal analyses and amino acid dating of the Lower Palaeolithic site at East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 116, 363–377. Preece, R.C., Gowlett, J.A.J., Parfitt, S.A., Bridgland, D.R., Lewis, S.G., 2006. Humans in the Hoxnian: habitat, context and fire use at Beeches Pit, West Stow, Suffolk, UK. J. Quat. Sci. 21, 485–496. Preece, R.C., Parfitt, S.A., Bridgland, D.R., Lewis, S.G., Rowe, P.J., Atkinson, T.C., Candy, I., Debenham, N.C., Penkman, K.E.H., Rhodes, E.J., Schwenninger, J.-L., Griffiths, H.I., Whittaker, J.E., Gleed-Owen, C., 2007. Terrestrial environments during MIS 330 M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 11: evidence from the Palaeolithic site at West Stow, Suffolk, UK. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 26, 1236–1300. Preece, R.C., Parfitt, S.A., Coope, G.R., Penkman, K.E.H., Ponel, P., Whittaker, J.E., 2009. Biostratigraphic and aminostratigraphic constraints on the age of the Middle Pleistocene glacial succession in north Norfolk, UK. J. Quat. Sci. 24, 557–580. Preece, R.C., Parfitt, S.A., 2012. The Early and early Middle Pleistocene context of human occupation and lowland glaciations in Britain and northern Europe. Quatern. Int. 271, 6–28. Quade, J., Levin, N., Semaw, S., Stout, D., Renne, P., Rogers, M.J., Simpson, S., 2004. Paleoenvironments of the earliest stone toolmakers, Gona, Ethiopia. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 116, 1529–1544. Premo, L.S., Hublin, J.-J., 2009. Culture, population structure, and low genetic diversity in Pleistocene hominins. PNAS 106 (1), 33–37. Rabinovich, R., Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., Goren-Inbar, N., 2008. Systematic butchering of fallow deer (Dama) at the early middle Pleistocene Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov (Israel). J. Hum. Evol. 54, 134–149. Radmilli, A., Boschian, G., 1996. Gli scavi a Castel di Guido. Instituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, ETS, Firenze. Raynal, J.-P., Sbihi Alaoui, F.Z., Geraads, D., Magoga, L., Mohi, A., 2001. The earliest occupation of North Africa: the Moroccan perspective. Quatern. Int. 75, 65–77. Raynal, J.-P., Sbihi-Alaoui, F.Z., Michib, A., El Graoui, M., Lefèvre, D., et al., 2011. Contextes et âge des nouveaux restes dentaires humains du Pleistocène moyen de la carrière Thomas I à Casablanca (Maroc). Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française 108 (4), 645–671. Rightmire, G.P., 2001. Patterns of hominid evolution and dispersal in the Middle Pleistocene. Quatern. Int. 75, 77–84. Roberts, M.B., Parfitt, S.A., 1999a. Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene Hominid site at Eartham Quarry. English Herirage, London. Roberts, M.B., Parfitt, S.A., 1999b. Biostratigraphy and summary. In: Roberts, M.B., Parfitt, S.A. (Eds.), Boxgrove. A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. English Heritage, London, pp. 303–307. Roberts, M.B., Stringer, C.B., Parfitt, S.A., 1994. A hominid tibia from Middle Pleistocene deposits at Boxgrove, UK. Nature 369, 311–313. Roche, H., Brugal, J.P., Lefevre, D., Ploux, S., Texier, P.J., 1988. Isenya: état des recherches sur un nouveau site acheuléen d’Afrique orientale. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 6, 27–55. Roche, H., Texier, P-J., 1996. Evaluation of technical competence. Homo erectus in East Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. In: Bower, J., Sartono, S. (Eds.), Human Evolution in its Ecological Context. Leiden University, Leiden. 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: un bilan synthétique 1997–2001. C.R. Palevol 2, 663–673. Roe, D.A., 1968. British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 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, Excavations in Beds III, IV and the Masek Beds, 1968–1971, vol. 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 146–234. Roebroeks, W., Van Kolfschoten, T., 1995. The Earliest Occupation of Europe. University of Leiden, Leiden. Roebroeks, W., Villa, P., 2011. On the earliest evidence for habitual use of fire in Europe. PNAS 108, 5209–5214. Rodríguez, X.P., 2004. Technical Systems of Lithic Production in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene of the Iberian Peninsula. BAR International Series 1323, Oxford. Roe, D.A., 1964. The British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: some problems, methods of study and preliminary results. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 30, 245–267. Roe, D.A., 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Britain. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Rose, J., 1992. High Lodge – regional context and geological background. In: Ashton, N.M., Cook, J., Lewis, S.G., Rose, J. (Eds.), High Lodge: Excavations by G. de G. Sieveking 1962–68 and J. Cook 1988. British Museum Press, London, pp. 13–24. Rose, J., 2009. Early and Middle Pleistocene landscapes of eastern England. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 120, 3–33. Rousseau, D.-D., 1987. Les associations malacologiques forestières des tufs « holsteiniens » de la France septentrionale. Une application du concept de biome. Actes du colloque « Paléontologie et formations quaternaires dans le domaine Normandie-Manche, Rouen, 20 mars 1986. Bull. Centre Géomorphol. du CNRS, Caen 32, 9–18. Santonja, M., Pérez-González, A., Villa, P., Soto, E., Sesé, C., 2001. Elephants in the archaeological sites of Aridos (Jarama valley, Madrid, Spain). In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International, Congress the World of Elephants. CNR, Roma, pp. 602–606. Santonja, M., Perez-Gonzales, A. (Eds.), 2005. Los Yacimientos Paleoliticos de Ambrona y Torralba (Soria). Un siglo de investigaciones arqueologicas. Alcala de Henares. Museo Arqueologico Regional. Santonja, M., Villa, P., 2006. The Acheulian of Western Europe. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox Publishing Ltd, London, pp. 429–479. Schick, K.D., Toth, N., 1993. Making Silent Stones Speak: Human Evolution and the Dawn of Technology. Simon and Schuster, New York. Schick, K.D., Clark, J.D., 2003. Biface technological development and variability in the Acheulean industrial complex in the Middle Awash Region of the Afar Rift, Ethiopia. In: Soressi, M., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), Multiples Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies. Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 1–30. Schreve, D.C., Bridgland, D.R., Allen, P., Blackford, J.J., Gleed-Owen, C.P., Griffiths, H.I., Keen, D.H., White, M.J., 2002. Sedimentology, palaeontology and archaeology of late Middle Pleistocene River Thames terrace deposits at Purfleet, Essex, UK. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 21 (12–13), 1423–1464. Scott, G.R., Gibert, L., 2009. The oldest hand-axes in Europe. Nature 461, 82–85. Semaw, S., Rogers, M., Stout, D., 2009. The Oldowan-Acheulian transition: is there a ‘‘Developed Oldowan” artifact tradition? In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions. Springer, pp. 173–194. Sharon, G., 2008. The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1329–1344. Sharon, G., 2009. Acheulian giant-core technology. Curr. Anthropol. 50, 335–367. Sharon, G., 2010. Large flake Acheulian. Quatern. Int. 223–224, 226–233. Sharon, G., 2011. Flakes crossing the straits? Entame flakes and Northern AfricaIberia contact during the Acheulean. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 28, 125–140. Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N., Goren-Inbar, N., 2011. Cultural conservatism and variability in the Acheulian sequence of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov. J. Hum. Evol. 60 (4), 387–397. Sharon, G., Goren-Inbar, N., 1999. Soft percussor use at the Gesher Benot Ya’aqov Acheulian site? J. Israel Prehist. Soc. 28, 55–79. Shipton, C., 2013. A Million Years of Hominin Sociality and Cognition: Acheulean Bifaces in the Hunsgi-Baichbal Valley, India. BAR International Series 2468. Archaeopress, Oxford. Shipton, C., Petraglia, M., Paddayya, K., 2009. Inferring aspects of Acheulean sociality and cognition from lithic technology. In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Palaeolithic Societies. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 219–231. Shotton, F.W., Keen, D.H., Coope, G.R., Currant, A.P., Gibbard, P.L., Aalto, M., Peglar, S. M., Robinson, J.E., 1993. Pleistocene deposits of Waverley Wood Farm Pit, Warwickshire, England. J. Quat. Sci. 8, 293–325. Singer, R., Gladfelter, B.G., Wymer, J.J. (Eds.), 1993. The Lower Paleolithic Site at Hoxne, England. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Smith, A.J., 1985. A catastrophic origin for the palaeovalley system of the eastern English Channel. Mar. Geol. 64, 65–75. Smith, G.M., 2013. Taphonomic resolution and hominin subsistence behaviour in the Lower Palaeolithic: differing data scales and interpretive frameworks at Boxgrove and Swanscombe (UK). J. Archaeol. Sci. 40 (10), 3754–3767. Smith, R.A., Dewey, H., 1913. Stratification at Swanscombe: report on excavations made on behalf of the British Museum and H.M. Geological Survey in 1913. Archaeologia 64, 177–204. Stiles, D., 1991. Early hominid behaviour and culture tradition: raw material studies in Bed II, Olduvai Gorge. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 9, 1–19. Stringer, C.B., Trinkaus, E., Roberts, M.B., Parfitt, S.A., Macphail, R., 1998. The Middle Pleistocene human tibia from Boxgrove. J. Hum. Evol. 34, 509–547. Soriano, S., 2000. Outillage bifacial et outillage sur éclat au Paléolithique ancien et moyen: coexistence et interaction, Thèse de doctorat de l’université Paris X Nanterre. Stout, D., Apel, J., Commander, J., Roberts, M., 2014. Late Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK. J. Archaeol. Sci. 41, 576–590. Stringer, C.B., 1996. The Boxgrove Tibia: Britain’s oldest hominid and its place in the Middle Pleistocene record. In: Gamble, C., Lawson, A.J. (Eds.), The English Heritage Reviewed. Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury, pp. 53–56. Stringer, C.B., 2012. The status of Homo heidelbergensis (Schoetensack 1908). Evol. Anthropol. 21, 101–107. Surovell, T., Waguespack, N., Brantiglan, P.J., 2005. Global archaeological evidence for proboscidian overkill. PNAS 102, 6231–6236. Tavoso, A., 1986. Le Paléolithique inférieur et moyen du Haut-Languedoc. Gisements des terrasses alluviales du Tarn, du dadou, de l’Agout, du Sor et du Fresquel. Laboratoire de paléontologie et de préhistoire, Marseille. Université de Provence. Texier, P.-J., 2001. Du seuil de l’hominisation aux premières cultures: potentialité et apports de la taille expérimentale. Praehistoria 2, 51–61. Texier, P-J., Roche, H., 1995. The impact of predetermination on the development of some acheulean chaînes opératoires. In: Bermudez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Carbonell, E. (Eds.), Evolucion Humana en Europa y los Yacimientos de la Sierra de Atapuerca. Junta de Castilla y Leon, Vallaloid, pp. 403–420. Texier, P.-J., Roche, H., Harmand, S., 2006. Kokiselei 5, Formation de Nachukui, West Turkana (Kenya): un témoignage de la variabilité ou de l’évolution des comportements techniques au Pléistocène ancien? Préhistoire en Afrique. In: Proceedings XIV UISPP Congress, Liege, September 2–8, 2001. BAR International Series 1522, Oxford, pp. 11–22. Thieme, H., 1997. Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature 385, 807–810. Toro Moyano, I., Barsky, D., Cauche, D., Celiberti, V., Gregoire, S., Le begue, F., Moncel, M-H., Lumley de, H., 2011. The archaic stone tool industry from Barranco León and Fuente Nueva 3, (Orce, Spain): evidence of the earliest hominin presence in southern Europe. Quatern. Int. 243, 80–91. Torre de la, I., 2009. Technological strategies in the Lower Pleistocene at Peninj (West of Lake Natron, Tanzania). In: Schick, K., Toth, N. (Eds.), The Cutting Edge: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Human Origins. Stone Age Institute Press, Bloomington, pp. 93–113. Torre de la, I., 2011a. The Early Stone Age lithic assemblages of Gadeb (Ethiopia) and the developed Oldowan/early Acheulean in East Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 60 (6), 768–812. Torre de la, I., 2011b. The origins of stone tool technology in Africa: a historical perspective. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B366, 1028–1037. M.-H. Moncel et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 302–331 Torre de la, I., Mora, R., 2005a. Technological strategies in the Lower Pleistocene at Olduvaï beds I and II. Université de Liège ERAUL 112, 247. Torre de la, I., Mora, R., 2005b. Unmodified lithic material at Olduvai. Bed I: manuports or ecofacts? J. Archaeol. Sci. 32, 273–285. Torre de la, I., Mora, R., 2013. The transition to the Acheulean in East Africa: an assessment of paradigms and evidence from Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2013, 1–43. Torre de la, I., Mora, R., Dominguez- Rodrigo, M., de Luque, L., Alcala, L., 2003. The Oldowan industry of Peninj and its bearing on the reconstruction of the technological skills of Lower Pleistocene hominids. J. Hum. Evol. 44, 203–224. Torre de la, I., Mora, R., Martinez-Moreno, J., 2008. The early Acheulean in Peninj (Lake Natron, Tanzania). J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 27, 244–264. Toucanne, S., Zaragosi, S., Bourillet, J.F., Cremer, M., Eynaud, F., Vliet-Lanoe van, B., Penaud, A., Fontanier, C., Turon, J.L., Cortijo, E., Gibbard, P.L., 2009. Timing of massive ‘Fleuve Manche’ discharges over the last 350 kyr: insights into the European ice-sheet oscillations and the European drainage network from MIS 10 to 2. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 28, 1238–1256. Tuffreau, A., 1981. L’Acheuléen dans la France septentrionale. Anthropologie, Brno XIX/2, 171–183. Tuffreau, A., 1987. Le Paléolithique inférieur et moyen du nord de la France (Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Picardie) dans son cadre stratigraphique, doctorat d’état de l’Université de Lille. Tuffreau, A., Lamotte, A., 2010. Oldest Acheulean settlements in Northern France. Quatern. Int. 223–224, 455. Tuffreau, A., Lamotte, A., Antoine, P., Marcy, J.-L., 1997a. Le gisement acheuléen de la Ferme de l’Epinette à Cagny (Somme, France). Archäol. Korrespondenzblatt 27, 513–530. Tuffreau, A., Lamotte, A., Goval, E., 2008. Les industries acheuléennes de la France septentrionale. L’Anthropologie 112, 104–139. Tuffreau, A., Lamotte, A., Marcy, J.-L., 1997b. Land-use and site function in Acheulean complexes of the Somme Valley. World Archaeol. 29 (2), 225–241. Turq, A., 1992. Le Paléolithique inférieur et moyen entre les vallées de la Dordogne et du Lot. University of Bordeaux 1. Turq, A., Despriee, J., AIrvaux, J., Texier, J.-P., Maureille, B., 2012. A la Conquête de l’ouest: il y a 1 Million d’Années en Europe. Editions Maison de l’Histoire de France, Musée national de Préhistoire, Les Eyzes. Valoch, K., 2003. The excavations of the Lower Palaeolithic site Stanska Skala I in Brno-Slatina. Acta MusMoraviae Sci. Soc. LXXXVIII, 3–65. Vallverdú, J., Saladié, P., Rosas, A., Huguet, R., Cáceres, I., Mosquera, M., GarciaTabernero, A., Estalrrich, A., Lozano-Fernández, I., Pineda-Alcalá, A., Villalaín, J.J., Bourlès, D., Braucher, R., Lebatard, A., Vilalta, J., Esteban-Nadal, M., Lluc Bennàsar, M., Bastir, M., López-Polín, L., Ollé, A., Vergé, J.M., Ros-Montoya, S., Martínez-Navarro, B., García, A., Martinell, J., Expósito, I., Burjachs, F., Agustí, J., Carbonell, E., 2014. Age and date for Early arrival of the Acheulian in Europe (Barranc de la Boella, la Canonja, Spain). PLoS ONE 9 (7), e103634. Villa, P., 1981. Matières premières et provinces culturelles dans l’Acheuléen français. Quaternaria 23, 19–35. Villa, P., 1990. Torralba and Aridos: elephant exploitation in Middle Pleistocene Spain. J. Hum. Evol. 19, 299–309. Villa, P., 2001. Early Italy and the colonization of Western Europe. Quatern. Int. 75, 113–130. Voinchet, P., Despriée, J., Tissoux, H., Falguères, C., Bahain, J.J., Gageonnet, R., Dépont, J., Dolo, J.M., 2010. ESR chronology of alluvial deposits and first human 331 settlements of the Middle Loire Basin (Region Centre, France). Quat. Geochronol. 5 (2–3), 381–384. Voormolen, B., 2008. Ancient Hunters, Modern Butchers. Schöningen 13II-4, a Killbutchery Site Dating from the Northwest European Lower Palaeolithic. Unpublished, PhD Thesis, University of Leiden. Wagner, G.A., Krbetschek, M., Degering, D., Bahain, J.J., Shao, Q., Falguères, C., Voinchet, P., Dolo, J.M., Rightmire, P., 2010. Radiometric dating of the type-site for Homo heidelbergensis at Mauer, Germany. PNAS 107 (46), 19726–19730. Warren, S.H., 1911. On a Palaeolithic (?) wooden spear. Quart. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 79, 99. Wenban-Smith, F.F., 1989. The use of canical variates for determination of biface manufacturing technology at Boxgrove Lower Palaeolithic site and the behavioural implications of this technology. J. Archaeol. Sci. 16, 17–26. Wenban-Smith, F.F., 2006. Handaxe typology and the Lower Palaeolithic cultural development: ficrons, cleavers and two giant handaxes from Cuxton. Lithics 25, 11–21. Wenban-Smith, F.F., Ashton, N.M., 1998. Raw material and technology. In: Ashton, N.M., Lewis, S.G., Parfitt, S.A. (Eds.), Excavations at Barnham 1989–94. British Museum Occasional Paper 125, London, pp. 237–244. West, R.G., 1956. The Quaternary deposits at Hoxne, Suffolk. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B239, 265–356. White, M.J., 1998a. On the significance of Acheulian biface variability in southern Britain. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 64, 15–44. White, M.J., 1998b. Twisted ovate bifaces in the British Lower Palaeolithic: some observations and implications. In: Ashton, N.M., Healy, F., Pettitt, P. (Eds.), Stone Age Archaeology: Essays in Honour of John Wymer. Oxbow Monograph 102. Lithic Studies Occasional Paper 6. Oxbow Press, Oxford, pp. 98–104. White, M.J., 2000. The Clactonian question: on the interpretation of core and flake assemblages in the British Isles. J. World Prehist. 14, 1–63. White, M.J., Schreve, D.C., 2001. Island Britain-Peninsula Britain: palaeogeography, colonisation and the Lower Palaeolithic settlement of the British Isles. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 66, 1–28. White, M., Ashton, N., 2003. Lower Palaeolithic core technology and the origins of the Levallois method in North-western Europe. Curr. Anthropol. 44 (4), 598–609. White, T.S., Preece, R.C., Whittaker, J.E., 2013. Molluscan and ostracod successions from Dierden’s Pit, Swanscombe: insights into the fluvial history, sea-level record and human occupation of the Hoxnian Thames. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 70, 73–90. Winton, V., 2005. An investigation of knapping-skill development in the manufacture of Palaeolithic handaxes. The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour. In: Roux, V., Brill, B. (Eds.), Stone Knapping. MacDonald Institute Monograph, Cambridge, pp. 109–119. Wymer, J.J., 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain as Represented by the Thames Valley. John Baker, London. Wymer, J.J., Gladelter, B.G., Singer, R., 1993. The industries at Hoxne and the Lower Paleolithic of Britain. In: Singer, R.S., Gladfelter, A., Wymer, J.J. (Eds.), The Lower Palaeolithic Site at Hoxne. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 218–224. Yazbeck, C., 2004. Le Paléolithique du Liban: bilan critique. Paléorient 30 (2), 111–126. Zutovski, K., Barkai, R., 2015. The use of elephant bones for making Acheulian handaxes: A fresh look at old bones. Quatern. Int. (in press).