Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

RKTG7: Essay - Discuss the evidence for the earliest appearance of

handaxe-using populations in Europe.

Introduction
Handaxes are large, bifacially-knapped stone tools, roughly teardrop in shape, which first
appear in the archaeological record in East Africa around 1.75 Ma (Lepre et al. 2011;
Beyene et al. 2013). Lithic assemblages containing handaxes, or indeed any other type of
bifacial tool such as “cleavers”, are generally classified as “Acheulean”1 after the site of St.
Acheul, northern France, where handaxes were first recognized as ancient stone tools.
Before the mid-1990s it was widely believed that there were no humans in Europe before
500 ka (the “short chronology”) and that the first inhabitants of Europe had dispersed
from Africa together with Acheulean technology (Roebroeks & van Kolfschoten 1994).
Evidence from Sima del Elefante (Atapuerca, northern Spain), and Happisburgh 3 (south-
east England) indicates that hominins were living in Europe between 1.2 – 0.85 Ma, but
their tools were simple core and flake industries without bifaces (Ashton et al. 2014;
Huguet et al. 2015). When and why handaxes first emerged in Europe remains the subject
of much debate.

The first handaxes in Europe

Until recently, it was thought that Acheulean industries arrived in Europe after 600 ka, but
a number of claims have been made for the presence of bifaces in Iberia dating from the
late Early Pleistocene or early Middle Pleistocene. Handaxes have been recovered from
the open-air site of Solana del Zamborino and from the rock-shelter of Estrecho del
Quípar (figure 1), which have been claimed to date to ca. 760 ka and 900 ka respectively
on the basis of biostratigraphy and palaeomagnetism showing reversed polarity (Scott &
Gibert 2009). However, this dating has been criticized on a number of grounds. In
particular, there are apparent inconsistencies in the faunal assemblages used to correlate
the palaeomagnetic dates, with most of the species being more typical of the Middle
Pleistocene after around 500 ka. The stratigraphic position of the single handaxe from

1 Sometimes also referred to as “Mode 2” technologies, in contrast to “Mode 1” which are Oldowan-like core and
flake technologies.

1
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

Estrecho del Quípar is uncertain, while apparent Levallois flakes from the site would be
out of place in the late Early Pleistocene. Likewise, the heart-shaped and lanceolate
handaxes from Solana are typical of later Middle Palaeolithic assemblages (Jiménez-
Arenas et al. 2011). At present, the dating and implications of these two sites must remain
uncertain unless more secure dates can be obtained.

Figure 1. Three handaxes from Solana del Zamborino (top two) and Estrecho del Quípar
(bottom). Reproduced from Scott & Gibert (2009, Supplementary Information p.12).

Further evidence for the early presence of Acheulean technology comes from the site of
Barranc de la Boella, north-eastern Spain. The El Forn locality has yielded a single
cleaver-like tool, while Pit 1 has produced a “pick” (figure 2). Both localities are dated by
biostratigraphy and palaeomagnetism to between 960 – 780 ka (Vallverdú et al. 2014).

2
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

Figure 2. The two bifacially-worked tools

from Barranc de la Boella: top, a cleaver-
like tool, and bottom, a pick (reproduced
from Mosquera et al. 2016).

Both of these tools were crudely made and are said to resemble Developed Oldowan B
artefacts from Olduvai Gorge (Mosquera et al. 2016). However, the question arises as to
whether these assemblages can really be classified as Acheulean. Apart from the two
isolated bifaces, the remainder of the artefacts are simple core and flake tools, as was the
entire assemblage from a third locality, La Mina. At the broadly contemporary sites of
Grand Dolina TD6 (northern Spain, ca. 860-780 ka) and Vallparadís (north-eastern Spain,
ca. 850 ka) only Mode 1 tools have been found (Carbonell et al. 1999; Martínez et al.
2010). The “pick” and “cleaver” from Barranco could perhaps be more accurately
classified as proto-bifaces. The term “Acheulean” has been used loosely to refer to a very
diverse range of industries, not all of which contain significant numbers, or even any,
handaxes; nor is there any agreement as to what constitutes an “Acheulean” assemblage
(Nicoud 2013; Voinchet et al. 2015; Rocca et al. 2016). In any event, these early Iberian
industries seem unrelated to the Middle Palaeolithic “classic” or “late Acheulean”
assemblages of north-western Europe, which are marked by more significant numbers of
handaxes, predominant use of flint, and greater retouching and symmetry (García-

3
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

Medrano et al. 2014, 191).

The earliest securely dated European assemblage with handaxes comes from the site of
Notarchirico, southern Italy. It has been possible to use multiple dating methods including
Ar/39Ar and electron spin resonance (ESR) on the volcanic sediments. The long
40

continuous sequence covers the period 670 – 614 ka, including the whole of glacial
Marine Isotope Stage 16 (MIS 16). Levels containing handaxes tend to alternate with
levels lacking such tools. The lowest handaxe-bearing Level F (figure 3) has been dated to
between 670 – 661 ka (Pereira et al. 2015). Subsequent Italian sites with handaxes are
somewhat later in date, including Valle Giumentina and Fontana Ranuccio in central Italy,
ca. 460 – 400 ka (Rubini et al. 2014; Villa et al. 2016).

Figure 3. A handaxe from the

lowest level at Notarchirico
(reproduced from Pereira et al.
2015, 644).

Further north, the site of La Noira in central France has produced bifacial tools that
could be as old as 700 ka, although ESR dates on overlying sediments show considerable
variation and do not respect the principal of stratigraphic superposition. Nevertheless, a
date of ca. 665 ka, similar to Level F at Notarchirico, is likely (Moncel et al. 2016).

In Britain, the handaxe assemblage from Warren Hill, south-east England, may be the
oldest such assemblage on the basis of ESR dates of ca. 540 ka, followed by Boxgrove,

4
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

southern England, dated by biostratigraphy to ca. 524 – 478 ka (Stout et al. 2014; Candy et
al. 2015; Voinchet et al. 2015).

Middle Pleistocene handaxes do not occur in Iberia before MIS 12 (Santonja et al. 2016,
369-370). Handaxes appear at Gran Dolina TD10 from 450 – 350 ka, and a single
handaxe has been found at Sima de los Huesos ca. 430 ka (Ollé et al. 2016). This is later
than northern Europe, so even if we accept the claim that “Acheulean” assemblages
occurred in Iberia before 780 ka, this discontinuity in the Iberian archaeological record
indicates that the later European handaxe industries are unrelated to these early Iberian
developments. The vast majority of bifacial industries in Europe date from after 500 ka,
and prior to this the evidence is sparse. There is currently no unambiguous evidence for
the presence of handaxe assemblages before MIS 17 at the earliest.

The origin of European handaxe industries

Once bifacial tools emerged in East Africa around 1.75 Ma the technology spread rapidly.
Bifaces are present in North Africa around 1.6 Ma at Ain Hanech, Algeria (Parés et al.
2014). They occur in the Levant at Ubeidiya around 1.3 – 1.2 Ma (Martínez-Navarro et al.
2012). Further east, bifaces may occur as early as 1.5–1.0 Ma at Attirampakkam, southern
India (Pappu et al. 2011). However, in Europe we see no convincing evidence for
handaxes before ca. 700 ka although hominins were present in Europe from 1.2 Ma at
least. A widespread view is that bifacial technology was brought to Europe by a new,
larger brained, species of hominin, Homo heidelbergensis, dispersing from Africa between
700 – 500 ka (Hublin 2009; Mosquera et al. 2013). This long delay is puzzling. It is
possible that geographical/climatic barriers (such as the arid mountains of Anatolia)
meant that hominin entry into Europe was easier for non-handaxe hominins from central
Asia than from Africa2. Alternatively, well-adapted non-handaxe populations in Europe
may have constituted an effective barrier to dispersing handaxe-making groups from
Africa, with the latter only able to penetrate (western) Europe once Mode 1 Homo
erectus/antecessor populations had become extinct.

2 Analysis of tooth morphology of Homo antecessor (Gran Dolina) suggests that this species has affinities with Asian
Homo erectus, displaying a Eurasian dental pattern (Martinón-Torres et al., 2007).

5
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

Mosquera et al. (2013) argue that an apparent gap in hominin occupation at Atapuerca
between ca. 800–500 ka reflects a continent-wide depopulation of Europe. Subsequently,
around 650–600 ka, there were small-scale ephemeral incursions of hominins with
handaxes as reflected in the assemblages from Notarchirico and la Noira. These could be
related to the Gesher-Benot-Ya’aqov industry. This was followed by a more substantial
occupation by H. heidelbergensis around 500 ka. In support of this scenario, morphological
analysis of hominin mandibles indicates that Middle Pleistocene specimens such as
Mauer, Arago, and Sima de los Huesos have derived Neanderthal-like traits that are not
found in the earlier H. antecessor specimens from Gran Dolina, suggesting demographic
discontinuity (Bermúdez de Castro et al. 2016).

However, two aspects of the archaeological record argue against such a scenario. Firstly, if
hominins had dispersed to Europe through the Levant after 700 ka one would expect
them to bring not only handaxe technology but also the controlled use of fire, which
would have been very advantageous in temperate Europe. There is evidence for fire at
Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (Israel) between ca. 800 – 700 ka, but the earliest accepted date for
fire use in Europe comes from Beeches Pit, England, around 400 ka (Alperson-Afil 2008;
Attwell et al. 2015; Gowlett & Wrangham 2013, 9). Secondly, handaxes are rare or absent
from much of central and eastern Europe and the Balkans. These areas are generally
considered to fall behind the “Movius Line” separating Acheulean from non-Acheulean
industries (figure 4). A few handaxes have been found in Greece, but the evidence is very
sparse. Lack of suitable raw materials, or the flexible strategies of hominins to local
circumstances, cannot adequately explain the lack of bifaces from such a vast area
(Doronichev 2016). These non-handaxe populations may be descended from Early
Pleistocene dispersals from Asia of Homo erectus/antecessor (Martinón-Torres et al. 2007;
Doronichev 2016, 235). Another possibility is that in these regions the population size fell
below the level necessary to sustain Mode 2 technologies (Lycett & von Cramon-Taubadel
2008).

6
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

Figure 4. Distribution of Mode 2

Acheulean or Acheulean-like industries
(orange) and Mode 1 or Oldowan-like
industries, ca. 500 ka (reproduced from
www.studyblue.com).

Other researchers, particularly those who accept that bifaces first appeared in Iberia
before ca. 780 ka, argue that this technology could have spread from North Africa across
the Strait of Gibraltar (figure 5). Bifacial tools at Thomas Quarry, Morocco, could date to
around 1.2–1.0 Ma (Geraads et al. 2010, 280), and some researchers see similarities
between the Iberian assemblages and those of North Africa such as the use of large
flakes struck from giant cores (Sharon 2011; Sharon & Barsky 2016). In support of this,
the remains of an African primate Theropithecus oswaldi have been found at Cueva Victoria,
Spain. If this animal was able to cross the Strait, it suggests that humans would have been
able to do so together with bifacial technology, probably during MIS 22 when sea-levels
were around 100m lower than present (Gibert et al. 2016). There is no unambiguous
evidence of human presence on any Mediterranean islands during the Early/Middle
Pleistocene, suggesting that these hominins probably did not have any sea-faring ability,
although the Strait would have been sufficiently narrow to swim across during periods of
low sea-level. This route into Europe is possible, but given the differences between the
early Iberian industries and later European handaxe tools it is unlikely that this is how the
“classic Acheulean” reached Europe.

7
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

Figure 5. The distribution of bifacial industries and possible route-ways into Europe. (A)
Afro-Iberian “large flake” industries with cleavers; (B) and (C) classic or late Acheulean
(reproduced from Santonja et al. 2016, 369).

A further possibility is that European handaxe technology evolved locally from earlier
Mode 1 industries. Nicoud (2013) analysed several European “Acheulean” assemblages
and concluded that they are highly diverse and constitute many different industries rather
than a homogeneous techno-complex. Moreover, these different industries are localized,
appearing and disappearing in different times and places. If the Acheulean had been
brought to Europe as a package by incoming hominins from Africa, one would have
expected a greater degree of homogeneity. It is argued, therefore, that these European
bifacial industries evolved locally and that the term “Acheulean”, which implies a
connection with East African industries, is unhelpful (Nicoud 2013).

Some researchers consider it unlikely that handaxes could have evolved independently
first in Africa and then in Europe around one million years later, bearing in mind that
different hominin species were probably involved (Santonja & Pérez-González 2010,
159). However, handaxes could have evolved from bifacially-flaked cores/choppers

8
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

(“protobifaces”). It would not have required a huge cognitive leap to realize that a sharp-
edged bifacially-flaked core could itself be used as a cutting tool. On the other hand,
other researchers argue that no European sites show any evidence of a transition from
Mode 1 to Mode 2 technology, and that there is a discontinuity between the two
(Mosquera et al. 2016, 107).

An alternative hypothesis posits a combination of local evolution and outside cultural

influence. Assuming continuous hominin occupation from the late Early Pleistocene, at
least in southern refugia, these hominins could have developed bifacial tools partly as
adaptations to changing climatic/environmental conditions as well as increasing inter-
group competition, and partly due to cultural influences resulting from contacts with
hominins in western Asia. In this scenario, the development of bifacial technology is seen
as a gradual and multi-causal process (Martínez & Garriga 2016). Against this hypothesis
is the likelihood that during glaciations, when European populations would be under
maximum environmental stress, relict populations would have been isolated in refugia in
southern Iberia and Italy. Moreover, one would expect cultural contacts to be stronger in
the Balkans and south-eastern Europe yet it is precisely in these areas, which are
geographically close to the Levant, that we fail to see any substantial evidence for handaxe
tools.

It has also been argued that the invention of handaxes was related to the disappearance
of sabre-tooth cats from Europe. Sabretooths inhabited Eurasia until around 500 ka and
were able to hunt very large animals, but their unusual dentition meant that they left large
amounts of meat on the carcasses which was available for hominins to scavenge with the
assistance of Mode 1 tools. Once the sabretooths became extinct hominins were forced
to develop hunting and butchery technology such as handaxes and wooden throwing
spears (Arribas & Palmqvist 1999).

Others notice a pattern which seems to suggest that handaxe technologies appeared
whenever the climate was cooling. For example, in Britain most handaxe sites indicate
human occupation of boreal landscapes, with average temperatures that were cooler than

9
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

today (Candy et al. 2015). Elsewhere in Europe, handaxe assemblages appear from very
late MIS 17 or MIS 16. This could indicate the emergence of handaxe technology as a
response to deteriorating climatic conditions.

The “Clactonian Question”: contemporaneous non-handaxe assemblages in

Western Europe
After ca. 500 ka, a large majority of assemblages contain handaxes. This could reflect a
genuine shift in technology or simply “recovery bias” because handaxes are more easily
recognized and therefore more likely to be recovered (Pope et al. 2016). Mode 1 industries
or assemblages without bifaces persist in Europe alongside handaxe industries. The terms
“Clactonian” or “Tayacian” have often been applied to a range of such non-handaxe
assemblages on the assumption that they represent distinct technological traditions, but
the relationship between the handaxe and non-handaxe assemblages is still uncertain. In
Britain it was traditionally assumed that the Clactonian represented the first hominin
occupation of Britain (since it always underlies handaxe assemblages) and that later
handaxe-making people replaced the Clactonian population (White 2000). Evidence from
Barnham (south-east England, ca. 400 ka) was argued to contradict this interpretation
since both Clactonian and handaxe tools appeared to occur contemporaneously at two
locations just 50 metres apart. This led to alternative explanations for the absence of
bifaces, such as the lack of suitable raw materials locally; the conduct of activities that did
not require handaxes; the use of non-handaxe tools for specialized activities such as
wood-working; or sampling bias (White 2000, 37).

However, a recent reassessment of the stratigraphy at Barnham has shown that the
apparent contemporaneity of the two assemblages is an illusion due to the fact that the
handaxe locality represented a much longer time period, both encompassing and
extending beyond that of the non-handaxe assemblage. Consequently, it is now argued
that the non-handaxe and handaxe assemblages represent distinct populations. These
different groups are considered to have originated from different parts of Europe, with
perhaps the non-handaxe groups coming from central Europe where the practice of
making handaxes could have died out due to poor raw materials. Since the handaxes from

10
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

Boxgrove and Warren Hill are much older than the non-handaxe tools at Barnham and
Clacton, Britain must have been colonized many times by diverse populations. Changes in
sea-levels saw Britain being sometimes a peninsula of mainland Europe and sometimes an
island, resulting in a cycle of colonization, local extinction, and recolonization by
populations with differing technologies (Ashton et al. 2016). Similarly, Voinchet et al.
(2015) propose a “source and sink” model for northern Europe.

However, at Notarchirico, handaxe-bearing levels alternate with non-handaxe levels, with

the longest non-handaxe level at the top of the sequence, which also contained a
fragmentary femur attributed to H. heidelbergensis (figure 6). It seems unlikely that two
distinct coexisting populations with different tool-kits were sharing the site over the
course of 60,000 years. Since southern Italy probably functioned as a refugium, the
population extinctions and recolonizations suggested to explain the British archaeological
record are not applicable. Nor is the issue of raw materials relevant here because the same
materials, flint and limestone, were used in every level. Moreover, the archaeological levels
show variability in other elements besides the presence or absence of handaxes, such as
the presence of micro-tools (Santagata 2016).

A similar patter can be seen at Caune de l’Arago (southern France, dating to ca. 550 – 400
ka). Here the lowest Unit I yielded 32 well-made handaxes, but handaxes were absent
from Unit II. In the top-most Unit III the handaxes exhibited poor symmetry and
workmanship, but with a rich faunal assemblage and human remains attributed to H.
heidelbergensis (Barsky & de Lumley 2010; Barsky 2013; Falguères et al. 2015). These two sites
suggest that tools varied according to many factors including demographics/population
size, the local ecosystem, flora/fauna, and the flexible strategies chosen by the hominins.
They also suggest that two traditionally held ideas may no longer valid: firstly, at least for
southern Europe, the view that handaxe and non-handaxe assemblages represent distinct
populations or species of hominins; secondly, the concept of the “Acheulean” as a single,
homogeneous industry defined by the presence of bifaces (Nicoud 2013; Rocca et al. 2016;
Santagata 2016).

11
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

Figure 6. Stratigraphy of Notarchirico site (modified from Pereira et al. 2015). Handaxes have
only been found in levels F, D, B, A and A1 (from bottom to top), and are absent from levels
E1, E, C, and Alpha which also contained a fragmentary femur, possibly belonging to H.
heidelbergensis.

It is possible that several species of hominins were living in Europe during the Middle
Pleistocene, but it is difficult to assign particular hominin species to particular lithic
industries, or even to attribute fossil specimens to particular species with any certainty.
Human fossils normally attributed to H. heidelbergensis but with some affinities to H. erectus
have been found in association with non-handaxe tools at Bilzingsleben, Germany, ca. 400

12
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

– 350 ka. However, this does not necessarily imply more primitive behaviour. The
exceptionally preserved assemblage at Schöningen, Germany (ca. 300 ka), has revealed
that these hominins were successful hunters and top carnivores, and were capable of a
high level of cooperation, communication, and planning depth (Conard et al. 2015). It is
difficult, therefore, to attribute the lack of handaxes in such circumstances to small
population size/“serial founder effect”, or to a different more primitive species.

Although H. heidelbergensis has traditionally been associated with Acheulean industries, at

Notarchirico the fragmentary femur attributed to this species comes from a non-handaxe-
bearing layer; while at Arago the H. heidelbergensis skull comes from a layer with crudely
made handaxes. On the other hand, two incisors and a fragmentary tibia from Boxgrove
have also been assigned to H. heidelbergensis suggesting that this species was responsible for
the handaxe assemblage here. At Swanscombe, Sima de los Huesos, and Pontnewydd
Cave, handaxes are associated with Neanderthals or pre-Neanderthals (Ashton et al. 2016;
Moncel et al. 2016). The relationship between early Neanderthals and H. heidelbergensis is
unclear and not all palaeoanthropologists accept that they are distinct species.

The coexistence of handaxe and non-handaxe industries is not a phenomenon confined

to Europe as it also occurs in Early Pleistocene East Africa where core and flake Middle
Awash sites appear to be contemporaneous with sites containing bifaces. Similarly, at
Ubeidiya (Israel, ca. 1.3 – 1.2 Ma) 7 out of 20 assemblages are without bifaces (Santonja
& Villa 2006; Schick & Toth 2012, 277). John Shea (2010) has suggested that this
variability in assemblages could reflect toolmaking strategies adopted by colonizing
populations during different phases of the colonization process. During the initial
“frontier” stage when population density is low, colonizing groups used core and flake
technology because it provided flexibility in dealing with unfamiliar landscapes, raw
material and food resources. It also required less investment in social learning. Thereafter,
as the population became established, large cutting tools such as handaxes emerged in
response to increasing population density, resource intensification and competition (figure
7). Such a model could explain the British and North European archaeological record
since glacial cycles would mean that this region was repeatedly a frontier zone with

13
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

colonizing populations moving in from refugia further south. On the other hand, at a site
such as Notarchirico, which was continuously occupied during glacial MIS 16 and
therefore functioned as a refugium, we would have expect to see more stable production
of handaxes according to this model.

Figure 7. The possible relationship between hominin population density, dispersal, and tool-
making strategies. Once population density rises above a certain threshold (represented by the
horizontal broken line) intraspecific competition and subsistence intensification lead to the
manufacture of large cutting tools (reproduced from Shea 2010).

Conclusion
The patchiness of the archaeological record together with dating uncertainties prevents
any definitive conclusions regarding the European handaxe industries. Nevertheless, on
current evidence it seems that handaxes first appear in Europe after 700 ka at sites such as
la Noira, Notarchirico, and Arago. These handaxe industries are very varied and cannot be
attributed with any certainty to hominin dispersals from Africa, nor can they easily be
grouped together under the blanket term “Acheulean”. It is more likely that these handaxe
industries and contemporary non-handaxe industries represent independent local
developments in response to local contingencies and demographic factors.

14
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

References
Alperson-Afil, N. (2008). Continual fire-making by hominins at Gesher Benot Ya ‘aqov, Israel.
Quaternary Science Reviews, 27 (17), p.1733–1739.

Arribas, A. and Palmqvist, P. (1999). On the ecological connection between sabre-tooths and
hominids: faunal dispersal events in the lower Pleistocene and a review of the evidence for the
first human arrival in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26 (5), p.571–585.

Ashton, N., Lewis, S. G., De Groote, I., Duffy, S. M., Bates, M., Bates, R., Hoare, P., Lewis, M.,
Parfitt, S. A. and Peglar, S. (2014). Hominin footprints from early Pleistocene deposits at
Happisburgh, UK. PloS one, 9 (2), p.e88329.

Ashton, N., Lewis, S. G., Parfitt, S. A., Davis, R. J. and Stringer, C. (2016). Handaxe and non‐
handaxe assemblages during Marine Isotope Stage 11 in northern Europe: recent investigations at
Barnham, Suffolk, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science, 31 (8), p.837–843.

Attwell, L., Kovarovic, K. and Kendal, J. R. (2015). Fire in the Plio-Pleistocene: the functions of
hominin fire use, and the mechanistic, developmental and evolutionary consequences. J.
Anthropol. Sci, 93, p.1–20.

Barsky, D. (2013). The Caune de l’Arago stone industries in their stratigraphical context. Comptes
Rendus Palevol, 12 (5), p.305–325.

Barsky, D. and de Lumley, H. (2010). Early European Mode 2 and the stone industry from the
Caune de l’Arago’s archeostratigraphical levels ‘P’. Quaternary International, 223, p.71–86.

Bermúdez de Castro, J. M. B., TorresMartinón-Torres, M. M., Rosell, J., Blasco, R., Arsuaga, J. L.
and Carbonell, E. (2016). Continuity versus discontinuity of the human settlement of Europe
between the late Early Pleistocene and the early Middle Pleistocene. The mandibular evidence.
Quaternary Science Reviews, 153, p.51–62.

Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., WoldeGabriel, G., Hart, W. K., Uto, K., Sudo, M., Kondo, M., Hyodo, M.,
Renne, P. R., Suwa, G. and others. (2013). The characteristics and chronology of the earliest
Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (5), p.1584–1591.

Candy, I., Schreve, D. and White, T. S. (2015). MIS 13–12 in Britain and the North Atlantic:
understanding the palaeoclimatic context of the earliest Acheulean. Journal of Quaternary Science,
30 (7), p.593–609.

Carbonell, E., Garcı, M., Mallol, C., Mosquera, M., Ollé, A., Sahnouni, M., Sala, R. and Vergs, J.
M. (1999). The TD6 level lithic industry from Gran Dolina, Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain):
production and use. Journal of Human Evolution, 37 (3), p.653–693.

Conard, N. J., Serangeli, J., Böhner, U., Starkovich, B. M., Miller, C. E., Urban, B. and Van
Kolfschoten, T. (2015). Excavations at Schöningen and paradigm shifts in human evolution.
Journal of human evolution, 89, p.1–17.

Doronichev, V. (2015). The Pre-Mousterian industrial complex in Europe between 400 and 300

15
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

ka: Interpreting its origin and spatiotemporal variability. Quaternary International, 409, p. 222-240.

Falguères, C., Shao, Q., Han, F., Bahain, J., Richard, M., Perrenoud, C. and Moigne, A. (2015).
New ESR and U-series dating at Caune de l’Arago, France: a key-site for European Middle
Pleistocene. Quaternary Geochronology, 30, p.547–553.

García-Medrano, P., Ollé, A., Mosquera, M., Cáceres, I., Díez, C. and Carbonell, E. (2014). The
earliest Acheulean technology at Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain): oldest levels of the Galería site (GII
Unit). Quaternary International, 353, p.170–194.

Geraads, D., Raynal, J.-P. and Sbihi-Alaoui, F.-Z. (2010). Mammalian faunas from the Pliocene
and Pleistocene of Casablanca (Morocco). Historical Biology, 22 (1–3), p.275–285.

Gibert, L., Scott, G. R., Scholz, D., Budsky, A., Ferràndez, C., Ribot, F., Martin, R. A. and Lería,
M. (2016). Chronology for the Cueva Victoria fossil site (SE Spain): Evidence for Early
Pleistocene Afro-Iberian dispersals. Journal of Human Evolution, 90, p.183–197.

Gowlett, J. A. and Wrangham, R. W. (2013). Earliest fire in Africa: towards the convergence of
archaeological evidence and the cooking hypothesis. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 48 (1),
p.5–30.

Hublin, J.-J. (2009). The origin of Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106
(38), p.16022–16027.

Huguet, R., Vallverdú, J., Rodríguez-Álvarez, X., Terradillos-Bernal, M., Bargalló, A., Lombera-
Hermida, A., Menéndez, L., Modesto-Mata, M., Van der Made, J. and Soto, M. (2015). Level
TE9c of Sima del Elefante (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain): A comprehensive approach. Quaternary
International, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.030.

Jiménez-Arenas, J. M., Santonja, M., Botella, M. and Palmqvist, P. (2011). The oldest handaxes in
Europe: fact or artefact? Journal of Archaeological Science, 38 (12), p.3340–3349.

Lepre, C. J., Roche, H., Kent, D. V., Harmand, S., Quinn, R. L., Brugal, J.-P., Texier, P.-J., Lenoble,
A. and Feibel, C. S. (2011). An earlier origin for the Acheulian. Nature, 477 (7362), p.82–85.

Lycett, S. J., & von Cramon-Taubadel, N. (2008). Acheulean variability and hominin dispersals: a
model-bound approach. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(3), 553-562.

Martínez, K., Garcia, J., Carbonell, E., Agustí, J., Bahain, J.-J., Blain, H.-A., Burjachs, F., Cáceres,
I., Duval, M. and Falguères, C. (2010). A new lower Pleistocene archeological site in Europe
(Vallparadís, Barcelona, Spain). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (13), p.5762–
5767.

Martínez, K. and Garriga, J. G. (2016). On the origin of the European Acheulian. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology, 44, p.87–104.

Martínez-Navarro, B., Belmaker, M. and Bar-Yosef, O. (2012). The Bovid assemblage (Bovidae,
Mammalia) from the Early Pleistocene site of ’Ubeidiya, Israel: Biochronological and
paleoecological implications for the fossil and lithic bearing strata. Quaternary International, 267,
p.78–97.

Martinón-Torres, M., De Castro, J. B., Gómez-Robles, A., Arsuaga, J. L., Carbonell, E.,

16
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

Lordkipanidze, D., Manzi, G. and Margvelashvili, A. (2007). Dental evidence on the hominin
dispersals during the Pleistocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (33), p.13279–
13282.

Moncel, M.-H., Despriée, J., Voinchet, P., Courcimault, G., Hardy, B., Bahain, J.-J., Puaud, S.,
Gallet, X. and Falguères, C. (2016). The Acheulean workshop of la Noira (France, 700 ka) in the
European technological context. Quaternary International, 393, p.112–136.

Mosquera, M., Ollé, A. and Rodríguez, X. P. (2013). From Atapuerca to Europe: Tracing the
earliest peopling of Europe. Quaternary International, 295, p.130–137.

Mosquera, M., Ollé, A., Saladié, P., Cáceres, I., Huguet, R., Rosas, A., Villalaín, J., Carrancho, A.,
Bourlès, D., Braucher, R. and others. (2016). The Early Acheulean technology of Barranc de la
Boella (Catalonia, Spain). Quaternary International, 393, p.95–111.

Nicoud, E. (2013). What does the Acheulean consist of ? The example of Western Europe (MIS
16-9). Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte, 22 (4).

Ollé, A., Mosquera, M., Rodríguez-Álvarez, X. P., García-Medrano, P., Barsky, D., de Lombera-
Hermida, A. and Carbonell, E. (2016). The Acheulean from Atapuerca: Three steps forward, one
step back. Quaternary International, 411, p. 316-328. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618216000744.

Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Akhilesh, K., Braucher, R., Taieb, M., Demory, F. and Thouveny, N.
(2011). Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian hominins in south India. Science, 331 (6024),
p.1596–1599.

Parés, J., Sahnouni, M., Van der Made, J., Pérez-González, A., Harichane, Z., Derradji, A. and
Medig, M. (2014). Early human settlements in Northern Africa: paleomagnetic evidence from the
Ain Hanech Formation (northeastern Algeria). Quaternary Science Reviews, 99, p.203–209.

Pereira, A., Nomade, S., Voinchet, P., Bahain, J. J., Falguères, C., Garon, H., Lefèvre, D., Raynal, J.
P., Scao, V. and Piperno, M. (2015). The earliest securely dated hominin fossil in Italy and
evidence of Acheulian occupation during glacial MIS 16 at Notarchirico (Venosa, Basilicata,
Italy). Journal of Quaternary Science, 30 (7), p.639–650.

Pope, M., Blundell, L., Scott, B. and Cutler, H. (2016). Behaviour and process in the formation of
the North European Acheulean record: Towards a Unified Palaeolithic Landscape Approach.
Quaternary International, 411, p. 85-94. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618216001208.

Rocca, R., Abruzzese, C. and Aureli, D. (2016). European Acheuleans: Critical perspectives from
the East. Quaternary International, 411, p. 402-411. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618216000434.

Roebroeks, W. and Van Kolfschoten, T. (1994). The earliest occupation of Europe: a short
chronology. Antiquity, 68 (260), p.489–503.

Rubini, M., Cerroni, V., Festa, G., Sardella, R. and Zaio, P. (2014). A revision of hominin fossil
teeth from Fontana Ranuccio (Middle Pleistocene, Anagni, Frosinone, Italy). Journal of human
evolution, 77, p.204–216.

17
Course Code: ARCLG 271 Candidate Number: RKTG7

Santagata, C. (2016). Operating systems in units B and E of the Notarchirico (Basilicata, Italy)
ancient Acheulean open-air site and the role of raw materials. Quaternary International., 411, p. 284-
300.

Santonja, M. and Pérez-González, A. (2010). Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean industrial complex in

the Iberian Peninsula. Quaternary International, 223, p.154–161.

Santonja, M., Pérez-González, A., Panera, J., Rubio-Jara, S. and Méndez-Quintas, E. (2016). The
coexistence of Acheulean and Ancient Middle Palaeolithic techno-complexes in the Middle
Pleistocene of the Iberian Peninsula. Quaternary International, 411, p. 367-377. [Online]. Available
at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618215004784.

Santonja, M. and Villa, P. (2006). The Acheulian of Western Europe. Axe age: Acheulian tool-
making from quarry to discard. London: Equinox, p.429–478.

Schick, K., & Toth, N. (2013). The Origins and Evolution of Technology. In: Begun, D.
R. (Ed.). A Companion to Paleoanthropology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 265-
289.

Scott, G. R. and Gibert, L. (2009). The oldest hand-axes in Europe. Nature, 461 (7260), p.82–85.
Sharon, G. (2011). Flakes crossing the straits? Entame flakes and northern Africa–Iberia contact
during the Acheulean. African Archaeological Review, 28 (2), p.125–140.

Sharon, G. and Barsky, D. (2015). The emergence of the Acheulian in Europe–A look from the
east. Quaternary International, 411, p. 25-33. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618215013567.

Shea, J. J. (2010). Stone Age visiting cards revisited: A strategic perspective on the lithic
technology of early hominin dispersal. In: Fleagle, J. G., Shea, J. J., Grine, F. E., Baden, A. L., &
Leakey, R. E. (Eds.). Out of Africa I: The First Hominin Colonization of Eurasia. Springer Science &
Business Media, (pp. 47-64).

Vallverdú, J., Saladié, P., Rosas, A., Huguet, R., Cáceres, I., Mosquera, M., Garcia-Tabernero, A.,
Estalrrich, A., Lozano-Fernández, I., Pineda-Alcalá, A. and others. (2014). Age and date for early
arrival of the Acheulian in Europe (Barranc de la Boella, la Canonja, Spain). PloS one, 9 (7),
p.e103634.

Villa, V., Pereira, A., Chaussé, C., Nomade, S., Giaccio, B., Limondin-Lozouet, N., Fusco, F.,
Regattieri, E., Degeai, J.-P. and Robert, V. (2016). A MIS 15-MIS 12 record of environmental
changes and Lower Palaeolithic occupation from Valle Giumentina, central Italy. Quaternary
Science Reviews, 151, p.160–184.

Voinchet, P., Moreno, D., Bahain, J., Tissoux, H., Tombret, O., Falguères, C., Moncel, M., Schreve,
D., Candy, I. and Antoine, P. (2015). New chronological data (ESR and ESR/U‐series) for the
earliest Acheulian sites of north‐western Europe. Journal of Quaternary Science, 30 (7), p.610–622.

White, M. J. (2000). The Clactonian question: on the interpretation of core-and-flake assemblages

in the British Lower Paleolithic. Journal of World Prehistory, 14 (1), p.1–63.

18