See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226755283

Discussion 3: The Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition

Chapter · June 2009

DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-76487-0_17

CITATIONS READS

29 225

1 author:

Paola Villa
University of Colorado Boulder
107 PUBLICATIONS   4,773 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paola Villa on 25 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DISCUSSION 3: The Lower to Middle Paleolithic Transition
Paola Villa
Abstract This paper presents a synthesis of the cur-
rent state of knowledge about the Lower to Middle
Paleolithic transition in Western Europe. The Eur-
opean Middle Paleolithic is defined by the appear-
ance of Levallois technology by about 300,000 years
ago and associated changes in the conception of
tools. The Levallois technology is a major innova-
tion of the Middle Pleistocene. The apparent con-
tinuity between the two major phases of the Eur-
opean Paleolithic based on the presence of bifaces in
both periods is discussed and rejected. The Middle
Paleolithic bifaces are quite different in conception
from the classic Acheulian handaxes. The bifacial
knives of the Keilmesser group in Central and East-
ern Europe and the bifaces of the Mousterian of
Acheulian Tradition in SW France have a standar-
dized morphology and specific functions (for the
MTA bifaces this is now confirmed by recent micro-
wear analyses; Claud, 2008). Both kinds of tools
were resharpened, modified and had a long use
life. Other bifacial pieces had one or more working
edges and can be typologically assimilated to flake
tools. Current speculations about changes in hunt-
ing patterns and the reorganization of human socie-
ties around base camps in the Middle Pleistocene
are discussed.
Keywords Western Europe  Levallois technology 
Middle Paleolithic  Bifaces
P. Villa (*)
University of Colorado Museum of Natural History,
Boulder, Colorado, USA
M. Camps, P. Chauhan (eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-76487-0_17,
Ó Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC 2009
Introduction
As noted by Chazan (this volume), the distinctions
between the two earliest major phases of human
prehistory were first proposed for the Western Eur-
opean record by Gabriel de Mortillet in the 19th
century. Since no paper in this volume deals speci-
fically with the subject of the Lower to Middle
Paleolithic transition in Western Europe, it seems
useful to present a synthesis of the current state of
knowledge about this topic in the region, as a way of
introduction to the papers that follow. The Middle
and Upper Pleistocene European record is rich in
information on chronology and on changes in set-
tlements, paleoenvironments, and technology; thus
it can provide a contrast or lend support to inter-
pretations of the diversity of the evolutionary
record from other regions.
The Western European Record
To date, the oldest Acheulian sites in Africa are
Konso Gardula in Ethiopia (ca. 1.7 my) and
KS4 (ca. 1.65 my) in the Kokiselei Complex of
the Nachukui Formation in West Turkana,
Kenya (Gibbon et al., 2009; Roche et al. 2003).
In Western Europe, however, the oldest occur-
rences of the Acheulian are almost a million
years later. In Spain, France, and Italy, Acheu-
lian bifaces and cleavers are not found before
the early part of the Middle Pleistocene; thus,
265
266
the total duration of the Acheulian is much
shorter than in Africa (Santonja and Villa,
2006).
The European Middle Paleolithic, now com-
monly defined by the appearance of the Levallois
technology, began about 300,000 years ago; this is
the evidence as it stands now. The Levallois technol-
ogy is documented at a number of sites in western
Europe dating to MIS 8—e.g., Argoeuves and Sal-
ouel in the Somme valley (northern France), Mesvin
IV in Belgium, and Orgnac Level 5b in southern
France (Soriano, 2000; Moncel et al., 2005). Purfleet
in the Lower Thames Valley (England), with a core
technology that has been defined as simple prepared
core technology (= proto-Levallois of earlier
authors) appears to be slightly older, at the transition
between MIS 9 and 8 (White and Ashton, 2003). The
Levallois technology in Western Europe might even
be older than MIS 8, but at present, the evidence is
not strong enough. Published descriptions of levels
TD10 and TD 11 at Gran Dolina indicate the occur-
rence of Levallois technology. Those levels have been
dated to MIS 11 to 9; however, these dates remain
unconfirmed (Berger et al., 2008). Levallois technol-
ogy occurs in the upper levels of Ambrona (AS 6);
morphostratigraphic correlations with the terraces
of Jalón and Henares rivers in the region suggest an
age greater than 350 ka (Santonja and Villa, 2006).
However, the combined ESR/U-series dates
(Falguères et al., 2006) show a stratigraphic inver-
sion with lower levels having a date younger than the
upper levels; thus, the age of AS6 cannot be esti-
mated with a good degree of confidence.
Throughout the Middle Pleistocene, there is a
long coexistence between industries based on Leval-
lois technology and biface industries. In Western
Europe, industries with bifaces and non-Levallois
debitage (e.g., Cagny l’Epinette level H, Gouzeau-
court, Gentelle) occur throughout MIS 8 to 6,
together with industries without bifaces and without
Levallois debitage (e.g., Ariendorf, Schöningen,
Tönchesberg), industries with Levallois debitage
and some bifaces (e.g., Mesvin IV, Le Pucheuil,
Vimy, La Cotte de Saint-Brelade Layer 5) and indus-
tries with Levallois debitage and without bifaces
(e.g., Biache St. Vaast) (Soriano, 2000). A compar-
able record is documented in Spain and in Italy
(Santonja and Villa, 2006). Blade production
appears in northwestern France during MIS 6
P. Villa
(e.g., at La Cotte de St. Brelade Layer 5 and at
Le Pucheuil), and is well-represented during MIS 5
(Soriano, 2000; Delagnes and Meignen, 2006). In the
Upper Pleistocene, during MIS 4 and early MIS 3,
industries of Levallois debitage without bifaces are
common. Nevertheless, the Micoquian of Central
Europe and the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition
in France are both characterized by bifacial pieces:
the Micoquian has backed bifacial knives (Keilmes-
ser; Jöris, 2006) and plano-convex bifaces, the Mous-
terian of Acheulian Tradition has mostly cordiform
bifaces. Flat triangular bifaces are found at about
this time in northern France (Soressi, 2002).
Thus, if we were to take the disappearance or the
decline of bifaces as the marker of the Middle Paleo-
lithic, we should say that there is really no transition
nor a clear boundary between the Lower and Mid-
dle Paleolithic. Tools made on flakes, once consid-
ered a feature of the Middle Paleolithic, are com-
mon in Acheulian industries, as well as in Middle
Paleolithic industries; during the Middle Paleo-
lithic, industries with bifaces are as common as
industries without bifaces. However, the appear-
ance of Levallois technology marks important
structural changes in stone artifact assemblages.
A first observation is that there is a significant
degree of variability in early Middle Paleolithic
assemblages (i.e., MIS 8 to 6). Several kinds of
production sequences occur at the same site. Thus,
La Cotte Layer 5 is characterized by a predominant
unidirectional recurrent Levallois method, together
with blade production and bifacial shaping. Le
Pucheuil series B shows four different production
methods: (1) a recurrent unidirectional Levallois
system for the production of convergent flakes and
classic Levallois points; (2) a recurrent centripetal
Levallois system; (3) a system for the production of
a particular kind of flake: small, wide, with a thick
platform and a curved thin distal edge, apparently
used unretouched; and (4) production of blades and
elongated flakes. In addition, there are also a few
bifacial pieces and flakes from bifacial shaping
(Delagnes and Ropars, 1996). This diversity of pro-
duction sequences within the same site is a common
phenomenon in Middle Paleolithic assemblages
between MIS 5 to 3 (Delagnes and Meignen, 2006).
The second kind of observation concerns the
variability in the conception of tools. With the
exception of specialized forms such as cleavers and
DISCUSSION 3: The Lower to Middle Paleolithic Transition
ficrons, Acheulian bifaces were not made for any
exclusive function. The classic Acheulian bifaces
appear to be polyfunctional tools with high mobility
and resharpening potential; small tools were made
on flakes often obtained by the ‘‘clactonian’’
method, and only limited retouch (Keeley, 1980,
1993). In the Middle Paleolithic, bifacial pieces are
imported, exported, and resharpened—sometimes
recycled to the point that they lose their symmetrical
morphology and become a different kind of tool.
Flake tools are conceived for a shorter use-life, and
are made following two different conceptions: some
have a predetermined morphology and are directly
used in their raw form or with limited retouch (e.g.,
Levallois points or Levallois flakes); others are
made on blanks of variable, not predetermined,
morphology and are intensely retouched. Each
tool appears to consist of several functional ele-
ments (a back or prehension area; one or more
working edges or active areas; hafting areas present
on Mousterian points and convergent scrapers),
and retouch can be used in two ways—to resharpen
an acute edge or to create a stronger, less-acute
working angle, sometimes on the same tool. Middle
Paleolithic tools are very flexible and their versati-
lity and adaptation to different environmental con-
straints explains the long duration of the Middle
Paleolithic and also the fact that typologically iden-
tical pieces had different uses (Soriano, 2000).
It is also important to note that the Middle
Paleolithic bifacial pieces differ in conception from
the classic Acheulian hand axes. Some have an
asymmetrical shape that is in direct relation to
their function (e.g., the Keilmesser or backed bifa-
cial knives of Central and Eastern Europe, dated to
80 and 40 ka; Jöris, 2006). Others have a variable
shape, are often resharpened or reworked, and have
one or more specific working edges that can be a
denticulate, or a cutting edge, a scraping edge, or a
pointed edge; these bifacial pieces can be typologi-
cally assimilated to flake tools (Boëda et al., 1996).
This tendency is already in evidence in the early
Middle Paleolithic at sites such as La Cotte Layer
5 or Le Pucheuil.
In summary, the Levallois technology appears to
be a major innovation of the Middle Pleistocene;
associated phenomena are the development of more
elaborate and diversified flake-tool equipment,
changes in the nature and function of bifaces, and
267
the invention of hafting. Direct evidence that haft-
ing technology was already practiced in the Middle
Pleistocene by Neanderthals has been provided by
finds of birch-bark tar on the proximal part of two
flakes associated with a Palaeoloxodon antiquus at
the site of Bucine in central Italy, dated to MIS 6 by
rodent biostratigraphy (Mazza et al., 2006).
Origins of the Levallois Technology
It has been argued that the Levallois method is
conceptually derived from the shaping method
characteristic of hand axes. The final purpose of
the Levallois method is the production of select
flakes; in bifacial shaping, the block or blank is
reduced through flaking to a desired form. The
two systems appear opposite each other; yet, in the
Levallois there is an elaborate shaping phase con-
trolling the core volume and morphology prior to
the detachment of the desired flakes (White and
Ashton, 2003). Thus it should not be a surprise
that the Levallois technology never developed in
areas mostly lacking hand axes (as in China), and
that in the Middle Paleolithic bifaces underwent a
transformation that made them somewhat equiva-
lent to flake tools. It is significant that bifaces or
bifacial pieces are not an important element in early
Middle Paleolithic industries characterized by
Levallois debitage. There is, in fact, a marked
decrease in proportions of bifaces in industries of
MIS 8 and 7 compared to the previous periods. In
the MTA, the Levallois method and cordiform
bifaces can be quite common; but those bifaces
had become the support of other tools and had
different functional areas on different edges of the
same piece (Soriano, 2000; Soressi, 2002; White and
Ashton, 2003).
Some authors believe that the Levallois method
had its origins in Africa and was spread to Europe
and the Near East through the immigration of Afri-
can hominids (Foley and Lahr, 1997); for others,
the evolution of the Levallois technology in Europe
is an in situ phenomenon, emerging through a gra-
dual evolution. The fact is that the earliest manifes-
tations of Levallois technology in Europe are domi-
nated by the recurrent parallel (unidirectional or
bidirectional) method (e.g., Purfleet, Mesvin IV)
268
and by the lineal method (Mesvin IV). The centri-
petal method is known only later, in MIS 6 (Sor-
iano, 2000). It is difficult to reconcile the process of
gradual emergence and diversification of the Leval-
lois method in Europe (especially evident at Orgnac
3; White and Ashton, 2003) with the idea of the
introduction of a fully developed method through
immigration of African hominids. Unfortunately,
the origins and evolution of Levallois technology
in Africa is not very well-known. In South Africa,
the Victoria West is a prepared core technology for
the production of large flakes, preferentially struck
from the side of the core and used as cleaver blanks,
and less commonly, as hand-axe blanks. The Vic-
toria West method is associated with the Acheulian
at Canteen Koppie and other Vaal River sites; it has
an early date, in the early part of the Middle Pleis-
tocene, if not earlier, and is considered a develop-
ment from an earlier (undescribed) Levallois tech-
nology. The Fauresmith industrial complex—
defined by the presence of Levallois points and
hand axes—is younger and separated from the Vic-
toria West phase by an unknown span of time
(Sharon and Beaumont, 2006). In East Africa, in
the Kapthurin Formation, the Levallois technology
with the centripetal method is documented at Koi-
milot in assemblages without hand axes and an
estimated age of about 250 ka; the earliest evidence
of Levallois technology for the production of large
flakes with the centripetal method is found at
Acheulian sites with a minimum age of 285 ka
(Tryon and McBrearty, 2006; Tryon, 2006). Based
on available descriptions, there seems to be little
commonality between the origins and evolutionary
trajectory of the Levallois in Africa as compared to
Europe. This is why the suggestion of an indepen-
dent evolution is plausible.
The Record from Asia
The paper by Petraglia and James in this section
outlines the evidence for the gradual development
of the prepared core technology from regional
Acheulian technology in India. As in the case of
Western Europe, their argument is based on the
continuation of characteristic Acheulian bifaces
within assemblages dominated by the prepared
P. Villa
core technology, the associated reduction in the
size and numbers of bifaces, an increase in the num-
ber of retouched small tools (especially scrapers and
points), and the occurrence of a significant blade
component. A few long stratified sequences support
their argument; there is, however, a paucity of
chronological data for the period, so the ages and
the temporal boundaries of the lithic industries are
not well-known.
According to Norton, Gao, and Feng, the basic
division of the archaeological record into Lower
and Middle Paleolithic has little utility in East
Asia. The criteria used and the age estimates used
to separate the Lower from the so-called Middle
Paleolithic sites are not valid, and those terms
should be rejected in favor of a simpler term—
Early Paleolithic—representing the originally desig-
nated Lower and Middle Paleolithic sites. The wide
range of ages assigned to many sites make it difficult
to identify time trends in technology; nevertheless,
the authors argue that it would not be appropriate
to describe the East Asian record as homogeneous
and static and that there is much unrecognized varia-
tion in stone technology and in behavioral patterns.
A Different Perspective
The paper by Chazan addresses the topic of general
trends and large scale regularities in evolutionary
trajectories of change from the Lower to the Middle
Paleolithic periods. He states that the change from
Lower to Middle Paleolithic can be defined as the
change from Mode 2 to Mode 3 industries. He then
tries to define the social and behavioral factors that
supported these technological changes. Following
Rolland (2004), who first linked the appearance of
home bases and fireplaces at about 400 ka, and
discussions by Gowlett (2006) about the use of fire
at Beeches Pit and the possible evidence for master-
ing the art of fire kindling at the site, Chazan sug-
gests that the major change in the Lower to Middle
Paleolithic transition is the reorganization of homi-
nin societies around base camps. He sees a shift
from the Lower Paleolithic exploitation of very
large mammals to the hunting of large and med-
ium-sized prey in the Middle Paleolithic. Very large
mammals were butchered at their death site, while
DISCUSSION 3: The Lower to Middle Paleolithic Transition
smaller prey provided transportable food and
allowed sharing in a home-base context. The use
of fire—which is important in creating human habi-
tation—and the shift to hunting large- and medium-
sized game, mark a change in the way hominins
lived and is the defining criterion of the Lower to
Middle Paleolithic transition.
I find the author’s suggestions interesting, but I
must express reservations about how he advanced
the arguments and reached conclusions. The pro-
blem is that the author does not support his argu-
ments in a satisfactory manner; most of his state-
ments remain too general to be convincing, and
appear entrenched in a very synthetic and eclectic
reading of the data. What are the criteria by which
we identify home bases in the archaeological record?
If the use of fire is a diagnostic criterion, what should
we make of the evidence of a series of fireplaces in
several stratigraphic units at the Acheulian site of
Gesher Benot Ya’akov (Israel) at about 790 ka?
The associated burnt small artifacts indicate that
hearths were the center of specific activities, such as
flint knapping (Goren-Inbar et al. 2004; Alperson-
Afil et al., 2007; Alperson-Afil, 2008). Moreover, the
low level of preserved traces of fire at many sites, and
the lack of attention in the past to taphonomic pro-
blems mean that home bases (so defined) have very
low visibility in the archaeological record.
Other kinds of changes that, according to Chazan,
accompany the change from the Lower to the Middle
Paleolithic would be the shift from open-air sites to
caves and, as mentioned above, the shift in ways of
acquiring meat resources. The archaeological record
does not seem so clear-cut to me. Many Lower Paleo-
lithic sites associated with very large mammals, such
as elephants or hippopotami, are a complex mixture
of natural and anthropic components; some of the
faunal remains at these sites are natural occurrences
without a clear evidence of human intervention
e.g., FLK North Level 6, where the hypothetical cut-
marks have been shown to be abrasion striations,
Nadung’a 4 in Kenya, Ambrona in Spain, and La
Polledrara in Italy (Domı́nguez-Rodrigo, 2007;
Delagnes et al., 2006; Villa et al., 1999, 2005;). On
the other hand, several Middle Paleolithic sites are
associated with elephants (Palaeoloxodon antiquus
and Mammuthus primigenius)—e.g., Lynford in Eng-
land, La Cotte de St. Brelade on the island of Jersey
(English Channel), and Lehringen and Gröbern in
269
Germany (Schreve, 2006; Scott, 1986; Gamble, 1999;
Weber, 2000; Thieme and Veil, 1985). Lower Paleo-
lithic sites in caves are certainly rare in Western Eur-
ope (but see Gran Dolina, Sima del Elefante, and
Sima de los Huesos at Atapuerca in Spain, Arago,
Lunel Viel, Grotte de l’Observatoire, and the earlier
part of the sequence at Lazaret in France; Visogliano
in Italy), but what is the role of natural erosion in
destroying the record? Finally, many Lower Paleo-
lithic sites are associated with medium to large mam-
mals—e.g., Gran Dolina TD 6, Venosa Notarchirico
level alpha, Miesenheim I, Boxgrove GTP 17 Unit 4b,
and Isernia where Bison is the dominant species (Villa
and Lenoir, 2009).
Since the adaptive trends discussed by Chazan are
clearly time-transgressive, and differently expressed
in different areas of the Old World, one might draw
the conclusion that, as long as we try to find evolu-
tionary trends on a global scale, there is no chron-
ological boundary between the Lower and Middle
Paleolithic. But, as Chazan notes at the beginning of
his paper, the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition
is a durable archaeological construct. Chazan is right
to note that this boundary heralds the emergence of
profound behavioral changes. But a closer analysis
of lithic technology and its functional and social
context are needed to explain why ‘‘Mode 3’’ indus-
tries were so successful for such a long time and how
they articulate with the underlying reorganization of
hominin societies around base camps and fireplaces.
References
Alperson-Afil, N., Richter, D., Goren-Inbar, N., 2007, Phan-
tom hearths and the use of fire at Gesher Benot Ya’akov,
Israel. PaleoAnthropology: 1–15.
Alperson-Afil, N., 2008, Ancient flames: Controlled use of fire
at the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya’akov, Israel. Ph.
D. thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Berger, G.W., Pérez-González, A., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J.
L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Ku, T.L., 2008, Lumines-
cence chronology of cave sediments at the Atapuerca
paleoanthropological site, Spain. Journal of Human Evo-
lution 55: 300–311.
Boëda, E., Kervazo, B., Mercier, N., Valladas, H., 1996,
Barbas C13 (Dordogne). Une industrie bifaciale contem-
poraine des insdustrie sdu moustérien ancien: une varia-
bilité attendue. In Reduction Processes for the European
Mousterian, edited by A. Bietti and S. Grimaldi, pp.
465–504. Quaternaria Nova VI, Rome.
270
Claud, E., 2008. Le statut fonctionnel des bifaces au Paléo-
lithique moyen récent dans le Sud-Ouest de la France.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Bordeaux 1.
Delagnes, A., Meignen, L., 2006, Diversity of lithic produc-
tion systems during the Middle Paleolithic in France. In
Transitions Before the Transition, edited by E. Hovers and
S. Kuhn, pp. 85–107. Springer, New York.
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 lower and early middle Pleistocene
record: a multidisciplinary approach to the site of Nadung’a 4
(Kenya). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25: 448–465.
Delagnes, A., Ropars, A., (Eds.), 1996, Pale´olithique moyen
en pays de Caux (Haute Normandie). Documents
d’Archéologie Française no. 56, Paris.
Domı́nguez-Rodrigo, M., Barba, R., Egeland, C.P. (Eds.),
2007. Deconstructing Olduvai: A Taphonomic Study of Bed
1 Sites. Springer, Dordrecht.
Falguères, C., Bahain, J.J., Pérez-González, A., Mercier, N.,
Santonja, M., Dolo, J.M., 2006, The Lower Acheulian
site of Ambrona, Soria (Spain): ages derived from a com-
bined ESR/U-series model. Journal of Archaeological
Science 33: 149–157.
Foley, R., Lahr, M.M., 1997, Mode 3 technologies and the
evolution of modern humans. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 7: 3–36.
Gamble, C., 1999, The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gibbon, R.J., Granger, D.E., Kuman, K., Partridge, T.C.,
2009. Early Acheulean technology in the Rietputs
Formation, South Africa, dated with cosmogenic
nuclides. Journal of Human Evolution 56: 152–160.
Goren-Inbar, N., Alperson, N., Kislev, E., Simchoni, O.,
Melamed, Y., Ben-Nun, A., Werker, E., 2004, Evidence
of hominin control of fire at Gesher Benot Ya’akov,
Israel. Science 304: 725–727.
Gowlett, J.A.J., 2006, The early settlement of northern
Europe. Fire history in the context of climate change
and the social brain. Comptes Rendus Pale´vol 5: 299–310.
Jöris, O., 2006, Bifacially backed knives (‘‘Keilmesser’’) in the
Central European Middle Palaeolithic. In Axe Age.
Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard, edited by
N.Goren-Inbar and G. Sharon. Equinox, London.
Keeley, L.H., 1980, Experimental Determination of Stone
Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Keeley, L.H., 1993, The utilization of lithic artifacts. In The
Lower Palaeolithic Site at Hoxne, England, edited by R.
Singer, B.C.Gladfelter and J.J. Wymer, pp. 129–137. Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Mazza, P.P.A., Martini, F., Sala, B., Magi, M., Colombini, M.
P., Giachi, G., Landucci, F., Lemorini, C., Modugno, F.,
Ribechini, E., 2006, A new Palaeolithic discovery: tar-hafted
stone tools in a European Mid-Pleistocene bone-bearing
bed. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1310–1318.
Moncel, M.H., Moigne, A.M., Combier, J., 2005, Pre-Nean-
dertal behavior during isotopic stage 9 and the beginning
of stage 8. New data concerning fauna and lithics in the
different occupation levels of Orgnac 3 (Ardèche, south-
east France): occupation types. Journal of Archaeological
Science 32: 1283–1301.
View publication stats
P. Villa
Roche, H., Brugal, J.P., Delagnes, A., Feibel, C., Harmand,
S., Kibunjia, M., Prat, S., Texier, P.-J., 2003, Les sites
archéologiques plio-pléistocènes de la formation de
Nachukui, Ouest-Turkana, Kenya: bilan synthétique
1997-2001. Comptes Rendus Pale´vol 2: 663–673.
Rolland, N., 2004, Was the emergence of home bases and domes-
tic fire a punctuated event? A review of the Middle Pleistocene
record in Eurasia. Asian Perspectives 43: 248–280.
Santonja M., Villa P., 2006, The Acheulian of Western Eur-
ope. In Axe Age. Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to
Discard, edited by N.Goren-Inbar and G. Sharon, pp.
429–478. Equinox, London.
Schreve, D., 2006, The taphonomy of a Middle Devensian
(MIS 3) vertebrate assemblage from Lynford, Norfolk,
UK, and its implications for Middle Palaeolithic subsis-
tence strategies. Journal of Quaternary Science 21: 543–556.
Scott, K., 1986, The bone assemblages of layers 3 and 6. In La
Cotte de St. Brelade, 1961-1978, edited by P. Callow and
J.M. Cornford, pp. 159–183. Geo Books, Norwich.
Sharon, G., Beaumont, P., 2006, Victoria West: a highly stan-
dardized prepared core technology. In Axe Age. Acheulian
Tool-making from Quarry to Discard, edited by N.Goren-
Inbar and G. Sharon, pp. 181–199. Equinox, London,
Soressi, M., 2002. Le Mouste´rien de tradition acheule´enne du
sud-ouest de la France. PhD Dissertation, University of
Bordeaux 1.
Soriano, S., 2000, Outillage bifacial et outillage sur e´clat au
Pale´olithique ancien et moyen: coexistence et interaction.
Thèse de Doctorat, Université Paris X-Nanterre.
Thieme, H., Veil S., 1985, Neue Untersuchungen zum eem-
zeitlichen Elefanten-Jagdplaz Lehringen, Ldkr. Verden.
Die Kunde N.F. 36: 11–58.
Tryon, C.A., 2006, ‘‘Early’’ Middle Stone Age lithic technol-
ogy of the Kapthurin Formation (Kenya). Current
Anthropology 47: 367–375.
Tryon, C.A., McBrearty, S., 2006, Tephrostratigraphy of the
Bedded Tuff Member (Kapthurin Formation, Kenya) and
the nature of archaeological change in the later middle
Pleistocene. Quaternary Research 65: 492–507.
Villa, P., Anzidei, A.P., Cerilli, E., 1999. Bones and bone
modifications at la Polledrara, a middle Pleistocene site
in Italy. In The Role of Early Humans in the Accumulations
of Lower and Middle Paleolithic Bone Assemblages, edited
by S. Gaudzinski and E. Turner pp. 197–206. Römisch-
Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz.
Villa, P., Soto, E., Pérez-González, A., Santonja, M., Mora,
R., Parcerisas, Q., Sese, C., 2005, New data from
Ambrona (Spain): closing the hunting versus scavenging
debate. Quaternary International 126–128: 223–250.
Villa P., Lenoir M., 2009. Hunting and hunting weapons of
the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. In The
Evolution of Hominid Diet: Integrating Approaches to the
Study of Palaeolithic Subsistence, edited by M. Richards
and J.J. Hublin, pp. 59–84. Springer.
Weber, Th., 2000, The Eemian Elephas antiquus finds with
artefacts from Lehringen and Gröbern. ERAUL 51:
177–185. Université de Liège, Liège.
White, M., Ashton, N., 2003, Lower Palaeolithic core tech-
nology and the origins of the Levallois methods in north-
western Europe. Current Anthropology 44: 598–609.