First Neanderthal settlements in northern Iberia: The Acheulean and the emergence of Mousterian technology in the Cantabrian region

Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

First Neanderthal settlements in northern Iberia: The Acheulean and the emergence of Mousterian technology in the Cantabrian region David Álvarez-Alonso Dep. Prehistoria y Arqueología, UNED/Centro Asociado de Asturias, Avda. Jardín Botánico 1345 (Calle interior), 33203 Gijón, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 26 December 2012

This paper presents the results of the analysis carried out on different assemblages and stratigraphic contexts dated before MIS 4 in Cantabrian Region (in the northern of the Iberian Peninsula). Despite the reduced corpus available, it was possible to establish the existence of Mousterian settlements throughout the Cantabrian region at the end of the Middle Pleistocene, particularly during interstadial MIS 5e and MIS 6. Whereas the evidence for the Lower Palaeolithic is limited to a few sites such as Louselas, Cabo Busto or Irikaitz, which contain characteristic Acheulean tools, the Cantabrian coast was densely populated by Neanderthal settlements during the MIS 5e Climatic Optimum. This settlement pattern seems to include open air sites, together with uninterrupted habitat in caves from MIS 6 to the end of the Mousterian period in the region. This paper shows the results and conclusions of techno-typological, geoarchaeological and spatial analysis of the Final Middle Pleistocene and Upper Pleistocene assemblages and settlements in the Cantabrian Region. The results of this analysis established some differences between two kinds of settlements in the area: Acheulean assemblages and sites; and the first Middle Palaeolithic evidence in the final Middle Pleistocene and in MIS 5e. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This paper analyses the chronocultural context of the Acheulean and Early Middle Palaeolithic in the northern area of the Iberian Peninsula (Cantabrian region), from the exposition of the main sites, their geological and chronostratigraphic contexts, and the lithic industries which characterized the first known human occupations for the area. This settlement is relatively recent, at least from available data and compared to nearby areas (Duero Basin or Aquitania). Furthermore, documented and excavated sites are scarce, diverse, with small lithic assemblages, and with considerably different geomorphologic conditions. This situation hinders a synthetic analysis, as well as the extrapolation of definite features which could define the period. Occupations both prior to and contemporary to MIS 5 constitute a group of lithic series and assemblages commonly included under the term ‘Cantabrian Ancient Palaeolithic’. This term, in the Cantabrian area, is utilized to designate the settlements prior to MIS 4, to distinguish between limited open air Acheulean assemblages and the abundant Early Middle Palaeolithic assemblages (both open air and karst sites) (Rodríguez-Asensio, 1996, 2000; Álvarez-

E-mail address: [email protected]. 1040-6182/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.12.023

Alonso, 2010a,b, 2011, 2012; Rodríguez-Asensio and Arrizabalaga, 2004). The continuity between the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic industries in Europe is a serious problem in the Cantabrian Palaeolithic research, because there are very few stratigraphical contexts and lithic assemblages to analyze the phases before MIS 4. Under this situation, the term “Ancient Palaeolithic” has been a solution utilized to refer to some period of time where it is not possible to clarify the cultural classification of very poor and small lithic assemblages. However, this paper presents the possibility that differences can be used to distinguish between Acheulean and Early Middle Palaeolithic in the Cantabrian region (Fig. 1). The aim is to detail the different phases of this initial settlement (under the generic consideration of “Ancient Palaeolithic”), presenting the evidence to distinguish Acheulean occupations at the end of the Middle Pleistocene, although limited, and reporting several taphonomic problems in appropriate characterization of this horizon in the Cantabrian region. On the other hand, this paper describes the representative record of a horizon different from both the Acheulean at the end of the Middle Pleistocene, and the classical Mousterian which is recorded in the area during the later MIS 4 and MIS 3. This new horizon (not defined previously in this area) will be designated Early Middle Palaeolithic (or Early Mousterian with macro tools), and represents the evidence for the first technological and cultural changes noted in the area from a previous and rather

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

289

Fig. 1. Location of the main Cantabrian sites mentioned in the text.

vague Acheulean substrate, from which would eventually originate the subsequent local classical Mousterian. At present, it is placed in the transition between the Middle and Upper Pleistocene. This does not, however, imply a break with Acheulean techno-complexes, as it also has several macro tools, i.e. bifaces and cleavers typical of the peninsular Acheulean, which are also found in the Cantabrian Mousterian to the end of this period (Álvarez-Alonso, 2011, 2012). It is necessary to raise this question by updating the whole corpus of available information in order to discuss the end of the Acheulean industries and the first evidence of Neanderthal populations in the Iberian Peninsula and France. The Cantabrian region shows, in this sense, affinities with some of the cases postulated for southwestern France (Djema, 2008; Turq et al., 2010). In both areas, the numerous open air quartzite tool series are badly chronostratigraphically contextualized, and the absence of paleontological remains prevents the correct structuring of local information. Thus, following the guidelines for the definition of the Southern Acheulean (Bordes, 1971; Turq et al., 2010), the existence of a “Late Acheulean” horizon was therefore postulated for the Cantabrian region (Rodríguez-

Asensio, 1983). This term implies the presence of bifacial macro tools and, locally, series with a relative representation of Levallois technique together with a discrete presence of macro tools in several open air sites. This was the main reason for the difficulty in discriminating between the end of the Acheulean and the beginning of the Middle Palaeolithic in the Cantabrian region, and the consequent proposal to use the generic term ‘Ancient Palaeolithic’ to refer to these assemblages, including both the Lower Palaeolithic and the first moments of the Middle Palaeolithic (Rodríguez-Asensio, 2000; Rodríguez-Asensio and Arrizabalaga, 2004; Álvarez-Alonso, 2010b, 2012). Traditionally, this panorama has been solved in the Cantabrian area by dividing the materials into two techno-complexes (Acheulean and Mousterian) distinctly separated by the interstadial period which divides the Middle from the Upper Pleistocene, though considering them as a technocultural continuum, and thus using the generic term of ‘Cantabrian Ancient Palaeolithic’ to refer to the complete case load (Rodríguez-Asensio, 2000, 2001). Recently, Djema (2008) has demonstrated the similarities between the assemblages of the so-called ‘Cantabrian Ancient

290

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

Palaeolithic’ and those from Perigord, placing the former in a horizon between MIS 6 and MIS 5e, and considering as Mousterian some of the assemblages previously ascribed to the final phases of the Acheulean. After revisiting this question (ÁlvarezAlonso, 2010a, 2012), it is possible to throw more light upon the debate, analysing the situation from a geoarchaeological point of view which allows the recognision of an intermediate horizon between the Acheulean occupations in the area and the classical Mousterian. This horizon, denominated as Early Middle Palaeolithic, would correspond to some of the sites previously classified as Cantabrian Late Acheulean, and is the exponent of the first evidence pointing to the technological change which gave rise to the Mousterian techno-complexes in the area.

macro tools and complemented with small size flake tools. With no variation in the industrial types, both formats and techno-economic and technological strategies would gradually be modified towards more effective forms throughout the Middle Palaeolithic. This was a long and slow technological evolution, resulting from strong biological, cultural and socieconomic changes. So, it is fundamental to be aware of the difficulty in distinguishing between technological contexts during the long evolutionary process of the industries, particularly in the Cantabrian region where the records are limited in number, biased and composed of few elements.

2. End of the Acheulean and beginning of the Middle Palaeolithic in the Iberian Peninsula and France

The first lithic industries ascribed to the Middle Palaeolithic have been identified (and characterised) in the Iberian Peninsula and France in archaeological contexts around 300 ka (MIS 9). Some of the most representative sites in France include Orgnac, Vauffrey, Payre, La Cotte, and Biache-Saint-Vaast. In Orgnac 3, biostratigraphic data, ESR and U/Th dating as well as the archaeological sequence (levels 6 to 2) restrict its chronology between MIS 9 and the beginning of MIS 8. The Levallois technique appeared for the first time in level 4b. Together with an industry similar to the Mousterian (with bifacial macro tools) and the finding of Neanderthal human remains in levels 5a, 5b and 6 (MIS 9), these results indicate Orgnac 3 as one of the first examples of the Middle Palaeolithic in France (Moncel and Combier, 1992; Moncel et al., 2005). Between MIS 7 and MIS 6 are the Middle Palaeolithic sites of Grotte Vauffrey, uranium-series dated to 246  76 ka (level X), 208  8 ka (level IX) and 158  10 ka (level VII) (Blackwell and Schwarcz, 1988; Rigaud, 1988), and La Cotte, dated 238  35 ka (levels CeD) (Callow and Cornford, 1986). Payre rock shelter (Ardèche) yielded a Mousterian sequence between MIS 7 and MIS 5e (Moncel et al., 2007), whereas Biache-Saint-Vast (Pas-de Calais, France) shows an Early Middle Palaeolithic occupation corresponding to MIS 6 (Sommé, 1978; Auguste, 1995). Level IV of Grotte Vauffrey, with Mousterian industry, belongs to MIS 5e, TL dated to 120  10 ka (Huxtable and Aitken, 1988; Rigaud, 1988). These cases indicate the first presence of both Neanderthal populations and Middle Palaeolithic industries from MIS 9 in some areas of Western Europe, a presence which would be progressively more frequent until it was generalised in the transition between the Middle and Upper Pleistocene. In the French Pyrenees, there are many references to the industries of the so-called (Southern) Late Acheulean and Early Middle Palaeolithic. Both Grotte du Coupe-Gorge and La Terrasse (Montmaurin, Haute-Garone), whose assemblages contain abundant bifaces, were dated to the end of the Middle Pleistocene. Jaubert and Bismuth (1996) indicate that the beginning of the Middle Palaeolithic is confused with the Late Acheulean in the Pyrenees from the end of MIS 7 to the beginning of MIS 5e, when only Mousterian contexts are found. Some examples of this confusion are the sites of Barbas, Abri Suad, Bohueben, and Grand Rois (Martín and Djema, 2005). After analysing some Perigord sites, Djema (2008) considered them either MIS 6 (in the case of level VIII of Vauffrey, typical Mousterian assemblage, rich in denticulates), MIS 7 (Petit Bost 1, Mousterian with bifaces, rich in scrapers) or MIS 9 (Petit Bost 0 and 2, Mousterian with bifaces). This situation is similar to the one in the Cantabrian region, where available data point to the presence of the Mousterian from MIS 5e. However, during MIS 7e6, it is not possible to discriminate between the Middle Palaeolithic and the Acheulean due to the lack of stratigraphic sequences (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a, 2011, 2012), preventing any correlation between Cantabria and Aquitania.

2.1. Acheulean The Acheulean is continually present in Iberian Peninsula and France from at least 500/600 ka, from MIS 13 until the end of MIS 9 (Santonja and Villa, 2006; Jaubert, 2011), although in the Iberian Peninsula its existence seems not to extend prior to the beginning of MIS 6 (Santonja and Pérez-González, 2002, 2006). In southwestern France, several assemblages without clear Acheulean industrial elements but chronologically placed before MIS 12 were documented, such as La Plane Mare, Le Tuc de Bardet, and Billon. However, between MIS 12 and MIS 9, the number of Acheulean assemblages increases, both in open air and cave sites, particularly in the Garonne and Adour basins, northern Aquitania, the Central Massif and the Pyrenees, including Le Champs des Débats, La Micoque, Rodes, Manestrugeas, Vaufrey XI and XII, Bichou, Le Prône, and La Romanguière (Turq et al., 2010). In the Iberian Peninsula, Acheulean sites tend to be located in the intermediate terraces of the main river basins (Duero, Tajo, Miño and Guadiana), with a relative altitude between þ20 and þ40 m asl, a constant feature for these occupations (Santonja and Pérez-González, 2002, 2010a; Méndez Quintas et al., 2008). In the plateau (Meseta Central), the data from the Henares sequence (Benito et al., 1998) indicate a chronology of 243  18 ka and 202  58 ka for the þ22 m asl terrace, and 444  70 ka for the þ30 m asl terrace, providing a chronological framework for the Acheulean in the area. Thus, Áridos I would be placed in MIS 11, as well as the lower stratigraphic units of Ambrona (AS1eAS5), older than 350 ka and likely belonging to the end of MIS 11 (Santonja and Pérez-González, 2006, 2010a). Furthermore, the Valdocarros site (Madrid), in the complex terrace of the Jarama river (T þ 23e24 m asl), is located in one of the interstadials of MIS 8, not beyond the beginning of MIS 7, according to amino acid racemisation dating and biochronological information (Panera et al., 2011). In the case of Tafesa (complex terrace of the Manzanares river, Madrid) biochronological data, as well as the absence of Levallois technique and the presence of abundant bifaces, place its chronology in the end of the Middle Pleistocene, with a minimal date of 350e300 ka (Baena et al., 2010). In Galería (Atapuerca), the GII and GIII units, with Acheulean industry, were dated between 250 and 450 ka (MIS 8e11) (Carbonell et al., 2001; Berger et al., 2008). At the end of the Middle Pleistocene some sites show features different from the classical Acheulean (Santonja and Pérez-González, 2010a) which are useful to characterise the end of this techno-complex: El Basalito, La Maya I and the upper levels of Ambrona (Méndez Quintas et al., 2008). These industries, where present, share a common link: the higher weight of bifacial chain operatoires focused on the production of

2.2. Middle Palaeolithic in Iberian Peninsula and France

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

At the end of the Middle Pleistocene, the technologies ascribed to the Acheulean in the Iberian Peninsula seem to coexist with the first technological evidence characteristic of a Middle Palaeolithic which would be present at least from MIS 9, although Ambrona, Bolomor, Atapuerca TD 11-TD 10 (MIS 11-9) and Cuesta de la Bajada have Early Middle Palaeolithic industries to an age near MIS 11 (Santonja and Pérez-González, 2006). In other Iberian sites, the Acheulean seems to continue until MIS 7e6 (Santonja and Pérez-González, 2006, 2010a), as the transition between the Middle and Upper Pleistocene characterized by typical industries of the Early Middle Palaeolithic with bifacial macro tools. Thus, Ambrona presents the first techno-typological evidence common of the Middle Palaeolithic, its middle member dated by both uranium and ESR to 314 þ48/41 ka and 366 þ55/51 ka (Falguères et al., 2006). This chronology is similar to that for Atapuerca TD 11 and TD 10 (Carbonell et al., 2001; Falguères et al., 2001), calculated by the average of several ESR dates as 337  29 ka and 372  32 ka respectively, with an industry ascribed to the beginning of the Middle Palaeolithic. In the northern Meseta Central, several changes also took place, showing the emergence of technological innovations related to the beginning of the Middle Palaeolithic from a previous Acheulean tradition in the last part of the Middle Pleistocene (Terradillos and Díez, 2011). Moreover, Bolomor cave (Valencia) records a long Mousterian sequence: 17 levels between MIS 5 and MIS 9, dated by TL and Th/U (FernándezPeris, 2007). In the case of MIS 5e, the Middle Palaeolithic is well represented in the Iberian Peninsula, with a number of Neanderthal human remains. The Early Mousterian site of Valdecampaña 4 (Duero valley) was TL dated at 143.464  10.872 ka (Díez-Martín et al., 2008). To the south, in the Sistema Central, Pinilla del Valle yielded Neanderthal human remains, TL-dated 90.961  7.881 ka (Márquez et al., 2008). Estragales (Madrid), a lithic assemblage of the Middle Palaeolithic with macro tools, was TL dated to 107 þ39/22 BP, whereas OSL dating indicated 122.1  11.1 ka (Pérez-González et al., 2008). Level IX of Del Angel cave (Córdoba), dated 121  10 ka (Botella et al., 2006); the base of La Carigüela (Granada), with a chronology between 146 and 117 ka (Vega et al., 1997); and El Aculadero, dated by OSL to 110.507  7.481 ka (Santonja and Pérez-González, 2010b), are some examples in the peninsula of sequences (some with bifacial macro tools) corresponding to the Middle Palaeolithic, characterising MIS 5e as a cultural period with a spread of Middle Palaeolithic sites. 3. Cantabrian Acheulean sites 3.1. Industrial characterization of the Cantabrian Acheulean The bias found in the Cantabrian Acheulean archaeological record is mainly due to a lack of stratigraphic sequences, which forces research to rely basically on a large collection of surface and decontextualised material usually classified as Acheulean because of its techno-typological (or merely morphological) features. In this sense, assemblages with truly Acheulean features in stratigraphic location are quite limited. Only the westernmost sites are reliable, Louselas and Cabo Busto II, and only part of the original assemblage of the latter is of use. Irikaitz may also belong to this period, but due to its particular characteristics which indicate specific site functionality (workshop area) and to the raw material present, it is a context hardly comparable in techno-typological terms to the rest of the sites in the region. One of the main features which define Acheulean sites seems to be the exploitation of the local and abundant raw material in the contexts where the assemblages are found: quartzite pebbles

291

collected in fluvial alluvium or littoral contexts. Flint is virtually absent, not only due to its natural shortage in these landscapes (although in some Cantabrian rivers, low percentages of flint can be found) but also by the reduced size of its nodules, unsuitable for the technological and manufacturing requirements of the typical toolkit of the period. The most representative feature is the dominance of macro tools, bifaces outnumbering the rest. Bifaces are mostly reduced from large-size flakes, and to a lesser extent, from pebbles. Different types are present, frequently thick. Cleavers have a lower representation and tend to be Type 0 or 1 (Tixier Typology), with a rather long life in the area, reaching the final phases of the Mousterian (MIS 3). This tool is one of the typical macro tools of the Cantabrian Middle Palaeolithic. Pebble tools are unequally represented throughout the area, both in Acheulean and in Middle Palaeolithic assemblages, so they may not be considered characteristic of the former. Regarding documented knapping techniques, bifacial tools (mostly discoidal) are abundant, with a high representation of multifacial and orthogonal methods which made use of large flakes, pebbles or quartzite clasts of irregular morphology. Not much more information is available for the characterization of a period which is currently rather unknown in the area. Aside from the vicinity of sources, the conditioning of the predominant raw material (quartzite), the production of large flakes (some of them modified as bifaces) and the scarcity of retouched flake tools, the view is still biased, incomplete and conditioned by the lack of thoroughly recorded stratigraphically-investigated assemblages. 3.2. Sites 3.2.1. Louselas (Ribadeo, Galicia) Located some 300 m from the sea and 500 m from the Eo ria, Louselas is a typical site of an edaphic environment, with numerous surface decontextualised materials (Rodríguez-Asensio, 1983). In 2000, E. Ramil-Rego excavated the site (Ramil-Rego and RamilSoneira, 2008), recovering 242 items. Rodríguez-Asensio’s (1983, 1997) first evaluation of the site reported a low number of flake tools and knapping remains, the complete absence of Levallois technique, a substantial representation of trihedral picks (fricons) and a large number of bifaces (thick types, with a low exploitation index). Several cleavers of Types 0, 1 and 7 were recovered (Rodríguez-Asensio, 1983) (Fig. 2). According to Ramil-Rego and Ramil-Soneira (2008), this industry seems to fit in the Middle rather than the Upper Acheulean, as proposed in the first evaluation of the site by Rodríguez-Asensio (1983, 1997), because of the lack of knapping techniques typical of the Middle Palaeolithic. Although the site is in an edaphic landscape (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a, 2011, 2012) decontextualised from its original stratigraphic location, it seems to be the best example of an Acheulean assemblage recovered in the Cantabrian region to date. 3.2.2. Cabo Busto II (Luarca, Asturias) Situated in the border of the abrasion platform, Cabo Busto II was excavated by Rodríguez-Asensio (2001) between 1992 and 1997, yielding two levels with lithic industry (II and V). Level II (edaphic horizon B) resulted from the accumulation of Lower Palaeolithic and Early Middle Palaeolithic materials during an unknown period of time (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a). This assemblage was also detached from its original stratigraphic context (by soil erosion) and thus was found in a secondary position in the modern edaphic context. Rodríguez-Asensio (1996, 2001) stated that this level would have originated from a thicker, intensively washed level, and specified that not all the tools correspond to the same instant, due to the variety in patina observed. He proposed that the assemblage was produced by different occupations, probably

292

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

Fig. 3. Biface of Cabo Busto II (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a).

hand, a second assemblage of “fresher” aspect, with fewer alterations, shows the techno-typological features of the lithic assemblages typical of the Early Middle Palaeolithic, with a low presence of bifacial macro tools and a good representation of Levallois technique and flake tools (scrapers and denticulates). Cabo Busto seems to be a “palimpsest” of several Palaeolithic occupations on the abrasion platform (probable continuous settlements during a chronological period hard to define but long enough to produce technological evidence of different stages). Its chronological ceiling would be MIS 5, when the definitive seal of the edaphic landscape was produced (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a). Summing up, it is not possible to consider this lithic assemblage as a homogeneous unit, because of the important taphonomic differences identified in the materials. If the materials were homogeneous, produced by the same occupation and belonging to identical chronocultural period, no considerable techno-typological differences would be identified when separating the assemblage according to the alteration/erosion degree of the specimens, as actually happens (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a). Fig. 2. Lithic industry of Louselas (Rodríguez-Asensio, 1983).

synchronic. Consequently, this level resulted from an accumulation of materials, in a context both postdepositionally and taphonomically altered, where Acheulean and possibly Early Middle Palaeolithic industries were mixed. The lithic industry (n ¼ 907) was ascribed to the Late Acheulean (Rodríguez-Asensio, 2001) due to the inclusion of bifaces, a high percentage of scrapers and evidence of Levallois technique (Figs. 3 and 4). Subsequent research further classified these elements as characteristic of the period in the Cantabrian region (Montes, 2003). Based on taphonomic analysis (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a), there could have been a mixture of (older) Acheulean materials and typical assemblages of the (more recent) Early Middle Palaeolithic. When separating the materials according to their alteration degree (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a), two different and particular technological tendencies became clear. On the one hand, a more altered assemblage, with patina and stronger erosion, may correspond to the Acheulean (similar to Louselas). Bifacial macro tools are dominant here. There is evidence of the production of large flakes to be shaped into tools and evidence of Levallois technique. On the other

3.2.3. Irikaitz (Zestoa, Gipuzkoa) Discovered in 1996, Irikaitz is currently under excavation by A. Arrizabalaga and M.J. Iriarte. It is located in the internal slope of an incised meander of the Urola River, over a palaeoflood deposit (level VI), 14 m over the river level, some 7 km from the coast and 55 m asl. The site is divided into two working areas: “Geltoki”, excavated between 1998 and 2003, and “Luebaki”, some 75 m distant, whose excavation started in 2002 (Arrizabalaga and Iriarte, 2008). The stratigraphic sequence of Irikaitz “Geltoki” shows 6 levels. The lower cycle (level VI) constitutes a hydromorphic base developed over the bedrock. The remaining stratigraphic units rest on this base, influenced by the processes associated with the sedimentation in the slope and the low energy fluvial flow (Arrizabalaga and Iriarte, 2005). The site was formed by a conjunction of factors, where low energy sedimentation generated by the contribution of the Urola River was dominant. It seems to have originated in a condition similar to an estuarine environment, suggesting the sea level was higher than today. Moreover, taking into account the palynological data which indicate a river bank forest in the landscape, the formation of the deposit may be ascribed to an interstadial moment (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a).

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

293

Fig. 4. Some Bifaces of Cabo Busto II (Rodríguez-Asensio, 2001).

Although numerical dates are not available, some chronostratigraphic estimations were made from the geological information of the area (both in the site and in the nearby fluviale marine deposits of the Urola River), which indicate that the deposit may have originated during MIS 9, the last eustatic period that could have caused such significant flooding in the area, as the sea level during MIS 5e is documented to be too low to generate this kind of deposit (level VI). This assertion is also supported by the coastal deposit of Goizut (fluvialemarine, 44 m asl) which was included in the Holsteinian (MIS 9e11) (Edeso, 1992), and is probably related to some hydromorphic deposits 14 m upstream from Irikaitz. It certainly suggests a contemporary age for the site. Another argument supporting this hypothesis is the composition of the lithic assemblage, technologically similar to Acheulean specimens, although atypical for the Cantabrian palaeolithic industries due to the absence of definite Acheulean or Early Middle Palaeolithic features but for the complete lack of Levallois technique and some chaine operatoires mainly focused on the production of large-size blanks (Fig. 5). Irikaitz-Geltoki was the area of the site where excavations have concluded. Based on a small sample of 373 elements, a first technotypological approach was conducted (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a) resulting in a reduced number of tools and a large representation of knapping remains which identify the site as a lithic workshop. Considering typical elements, the tool assemblage can be divided into two groups: macro tools (cutting, cleaver-like and pebble tools, as well as percussion or grinding objects such as grinding stones, hammerstones and flakers) and flake or small size tools. The few small size retouched elements (mainly denticulates) are atypical, because they were reduced from small or fragmented pebbles and

cannot be related to the chaine operatoire of flake extraction for retouched tool production (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a). 3.3. Discussion In the area to the south of the Bidasoa River, between Saint-Jeande-Luz and Bayonne (Nive and Levelle-Adour valleys) a number of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic assemblages are recorded. Some of the most important sites in this Cantabrian domain are Lestaulan, Saint-Jean-de-Luz, Biarritz, and Bidart (Thibault, 1976a,b; Arambourou, 1989, 1990; Chauchat, 1994; Sáenz de Buruaga, 2000; Arrizabalaga, 2006). The materials recovered in these sites are ascribed to the recent phases of the Acheulean and to the Mousterian, with some deposits such as Lestaulan or Bouheben dated between MIS 6 and MIS 5e. The rest of the Cantabrian region presents abundant evidence of Acheulean lithic assemblages, although only Louselas, Cabo Busto II and Irikaitz are stratigraphically contextualized (RodríguezAsensio, 1983, 2001; Arrizabalaga, 2006; Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a). Irikaitz seems to correspond to a peculiar industrial assemblage, associated with procurement processes and primary access to raw material. It probably belongs to a recent phase of the Acheulean, based not only on the industry present but also in biostratigraphic markers which place the deposit in a moment before MIS 5e but not earlier than MIS 9. Its lithic industry, however, is neither exclusive of the Acheulean nor of the Middle Palaeolithic, comparing to the reference framework for the Peninsula. According to Santonja and Pérez-González (2006: 18), there is an apparent coexistence of typical Acheulean and Middle Palaeolithic techno-complexes in the Iberian Peninsula during a period of 200 ky, a symptomatic aspect when evaluating what has traditionally been

294

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

(and bifacial macro tools in general) representing a considerable part of the toolkit. Thus, the technocultural panoply does not disappear when certain changes in the technological production and adaptive strategies of the Neanderthal groups start to be detected. The larger presence or absence of one or other element (or technique) in the later stages of the Middle Pleistocene, would probably be related more to functional issues than to cultural features with a defining chronological value. 4. Early Middle Palaeolithic: MIS 6-5 4.1. Industrial characterization

Fig. 5. Lithic industry of Irikaitz (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a).

considered type fossils for the Acheulean (bifaces) and the Mousterian (Levallois technique) which would not be valid, at least for the end of the Middle Pleistocene. This situation seems to indicate (according to the usual interpretation) the existence of lithic assemblages ascribed to the Mousterian with older chronologies, found in the final phase of the Middle Pleistocene. On the other hand, Acheulean assemblages existed in the same chronological horizon until later moments of the Middle Pleistocene. This circumstance is much more complex and vague in the Cantabrian region, where the limited number of well documented and chronostratigraphically contextualized lithic sequences prevents an appropriate industrial characterization for MIS 6 and MIS 7. With the available data, the only conclusion to be drawn is the Mousterian nature of MIS 5. Considering this framework, the lower sequence of Lezetxiki seems to be more similar to the Mousterian techno-complex, so it is safer to avoid its ascription to the Lower Palaeolithic, at least to level VII (ÁlvarezAlonso and Arrizabalaga, 2012). This situation does not imply a cultural and chronological disparity, but rather the peculiar evolutionary pattern of lithic techno-complexes at the end of the Middle Pleistocene, bifaces

The more numerous and better represented and characterised sites of this period yielded a larger number of flake tools than bifacial macro tools. Considering macro tools, cleavers seem to be the significant element, widely present throughout the period in this area, although with a varying percentage in the different sites. This type of tool continues to appear until the end of the Cantabrian Middle Palaeolithic, indicating large homogeneity to the period in the region. So, it is not longer possible to uphold the arguments that led F. Bordes to describe a regional facies called Vasconian, although it is also true that the importance of cleavers in these technocomplexes increases at the end of the Middle Pleistocene and during the first part of the Upper Pleistocene. From the beginning of his research on these stages, Rodríguez-Asensio (1983:159) noted this factor as the main feature of the period in the Cantabrian region. Bifaces do not completely disappear in this phase, but are thick and on flakes, with a summary bifacial configuration. A new type of biface is present, the so-called biface-tool: small thick bifaces with a steep scraper retouch which suggested the alternative name of bifacial thick scrapers (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a). Pebble tools are still important in this period, as exemplified by Bañugues, where pebbles were abundant in the landscape and intensively used (both as cores and tools). Other typical elements are the variety of lithic reduction techniques compared to the previous stage: discoidal, Levallois, NUPC and Quina industries are frequent (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a, 2011, 2012). The progressively more frequent use of raw material other than quartzite is also typical of the period, although this rock is dominant in the western area, where flint is noted both in open air sites and in caves (e.g. Bañugues, El Barandiallu and El Castillo). Considering the most common tools, small size elements easily outnumber macro tools, with denticulates and scrapers over the rest. H. Djema’s PhD thesis (2008, still unpublished) verified the presence of Levallois and Quina debitage in the Perigord from MIS 8 (in level 2 of Petit Bost) as well as frequent Levallois centripetal method from MIS 7 (in level X of Vauffrey). This scholar also highlighted the presence of cordiform and Micoquian bifaces throughout this period in Mousterian contexts. Her study (Djema, 2008) is of utmost interest, as she not only analysed the sites in northern Aquitania but also related them to the Cantabrian region, drawing numerous parallels between both areas, even when she considered that the chronologies in Cantabria were younger than in the Perigord (MIS 6 and MIS 5e). 4.2. Sites 4.2.1. Karst sites 4.2.1.1. El Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria). This cave was discovered in 1903 by H. Alcalde del Río and excavated by H. Obermaier and H. Breuil between 1910 and 1914 (Cabrera, 1984; Cabrera et al., 2006). El Castillo yields a cultural sequence covering the complete Upper Pleistocene, unquestionably the most important record and an obligatory reference in the Cantabrian region. The lower levels (24e26) are placed in the Lower and Early Middle Palaeolithic; level

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

24 (with 319 items; Cabrera, 1984 recorded only 146 items) being initially ascribed to the Acheulean and later reinterpreted as Micoquian (1914). The characterization specifically refers to H. Obermaier’s notes and considerations; this level was eventually considered Lower Palaeolithic (Acheulean) (Cabrera, 1984). Available dates for the crust in level 23c (the base of the Mousterian sequence) estimate an age of 90e89  11 ka (Bischoff et al. 1992), which confirms Grün’s results of 92.8 ka (Cabrera et al., 2000). Both dates are rather coherent and provide a minimal chronology for the classical Mousterian sequence. Consequently, the units located below this level formed at least before the end of MIS 5. Level 25 was considered Mousterian, suggesting the potential existence of interstratification (Cabrera and Neira, 1994). In this sense, Cabrera (1984), following Obermaier’s identification, ascribed levels 24e26 to the Acheulean, whereas Montes (2003) considered levels 24 and 25 Mousterian, specifically Mousterian with presence of macro tools (bifaces and cleavers) (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a,b). The classification of level 26 (the oldest level documented) is quite confusing, as the lithic assemblage is rather limited. The presence of Rangifer tarandus is one of the markers cited by Altuna (1992) to assign this level to the Riss (MIS 6) although this taxon is not of much use as a chronological marker in the Cantabrian region due to its limited distribution and continuous presence until the Upper Palaeolithic (Castaños, 2005). The sequence of levels 24e26 of El Castillo perfectly fits in the Early Middle Palaeolithic, with a minimum age of MIS 5c, possibly contemporaneous with the human occupations in La Garma A and the lower sequence of Lezetxiki (Álvarez-Alonso, 2011, 2012; Álvarez-Alonso and Arrizabalaga, 2012). Level 24. This level is marked by a reduced presence of macro tools with a dominance of cleavers (n ¼ 9) over bifaces (n ¼ 3), discoidal-centripetal, prismatic and Levallois cores, as well as a significant percentage of faceted and Levallois techniques, and the production of blanks for the manufacture of a large variety of flake tools, which were the most abundant, scrapers being dominant (Montes, 2003). Levallois production was quite significant, with several products of this type (Cabrera, 1984). The sample is notable for its Mousterian techno-typological features, the importance of flake tools and the reduced presence of macro tools (Montes, 2003) (Fig. 6). Level 25. This series, 228 items according to Cabrera (1984) and 323 following Montes (2003), shows a tendency for the summary reduction of cores, with numerous cortex removal flakes, scarcity of predetermined products, and a low representation of Levallois, facetted and laminar elements. Retouched flake tools dominate over a few macro tools. According to Montes (2003), both level 24 and 25 should be considered “Archaic Mousterian”, coinciding with the view of the existence of a regional Middle Palaeolithic (ÁlvarezAlonso, 2010a, 2012) (Figs. 7 and 8). Level 26. The sample is biased and comprises less than 100 items, with aan bsence of cleavers and pebble tools, the macro industry being limited to one biface and one trihedral pick on a flake. Montes (2003) considered that the characteristics of the assemblage were more similar to open air contexts than to levels 24 and 25 of the same cave due to its reduced techno-typological definition. Due to the low number of elements, there is not enough data to be definitive, so it seems quite risky to include this level in the Acheulean. Its inclusion in an earlier timet of the Mousterian may be more probable considering the general situation in the Cantabrian region. Djema (2008) suggested that the complete lower sequence (levels 24e26) presents technological features which relate it to the Mousterian. 4.2.1.2. Lezetxiki (Arrasate, Gipuzkoa, Basque Country). This cave was excavated between 1956 and 1968 by J.M. de Barandiarán (Barandiarán and Altuna, 1970; Baldeón, 1993) and since 1996 by A.

295

Arrizabalaga and M.J. Iriarte (Arrizabalaga et al., 2004; Arrizabalaga, 2006). The lower levels of Lezetxiki (VI, VII and VIII) are ascribed to the Early Middle Palaeolithic, discarding the existence of evidence corresponding to the Lower Palaeolithic (Álvarez-Alonso and Arrizabalaga, 2012) in the sequence. On the other hand, it is currently the cave site which has yielded the most complete palaeoenvironmental and geochronological data due to the good preservation of its deposits and the excavations in process in the lower unit. Numerical dating (Falguères et al., 2005) assign level VI to the beginning of MIS 5, in the transition between the Middle and Upper Pleistocene, whereas the lower levels may be included in the end of the MIS 6 (level VIII), MIS 6 proper, or the beginning of MIS 5e (level VII) (Álvarez-Alonso and Arrizabalaga, 2012). This summary refers to the data from Barandiarán’s excavation. Level VI. This lithic assemblage is made up of a total of 112 elements (flint 44.7%, ferruginous materials 33.3%, ophiolite 6.14%, quartzite 5.26%, sandstone 5.26% and others 5.26%). Only a small and atypical example of a macro tool was found, which may be defined as a cleaver. The largest group in this level are the retouched flake elements, composed by 47 pieces, or 41.6% of the sample: 22 scrapers, 10 denticulates, 5 notches, 4 retouched flakes, 2 shoulders, 1 Mousterian point and 1 atypical Mousterian point. Furthermore, 14 Levallois flakes were identified (including retouched blanks), representing a rather important percentage in the assemblage (Álvarez-Alonso and Arrizabalaga, 2012). Level VII. This level is hardly representative because it contained only 13 lithic remains. The refitting of a Levallois core is notable, as well as some retouched pieces that, even althoughthey are not much representative, show techno-typological similarity with level VI. Due to this reason, the level was considered Early Middle Palaeolithic, a conclusion supported by geoarchaeological data and the excavation record in process (Álvarez-Alonso and Arrizabalaga, 2012). It is currently believed that the sequence for the Early Middle Palaeolithic in Lezetxiki (levels VII and VI) belongs to MIS 5e and represents a different cultural phase from the Acheulean typical of this period in the Cantabrian region (Álvarez-Alonso and Arrizabalaga, 2012) (Fig. 9). 4.2.1.3. La Garma A exterior (Santander, Cantabria). La Garma A is part of a karst complex located near Santander bay. Excavations started in 1998 and continued until 2007 over an area of some 40 m2 (Tapia, 2010). This deposit, still unpublished, could be dated around MIS 6 and MIS 5e from the information presented in the manuscript report of Tapia (2010). This sequence is of utmost interest, as it has recently been excavated and abundant fauna and lithic industry reported, from the end of the Middle and beginning of the Upper Pleistocene. Although the information about its technotypological characterization is still unknown, available evidence (J. Tapia, personal communication) suggests the presence of a Middle Palaeolithic context. 4.2.1.4. Morín (Santander, Cantabria). Morín is a small cavity near the coast, in the Solía river basin. Discovered in 1912 by H. Obermaier and P. Wernet, it was successively excavated by J. Carballo and L. Sierra (1917e19), Vega del Sella (1918e19), Vega del Sella and Obermaier (1920), and Freeman and González-Echegaray (1955, 1962). The most recent fieldwork in the site dates to 2009, but the results are still unpublished. From the many archaeological interventions, several levels of the Upper Palaeolithic and two of the Middle Palaeolithic were identified (González-Echegaray and Freeman, 1978). From this site, the Mousterian levels are of interest, particularly level 22, with of macro tools (MAT), abundant faunal remains and

296

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

Fig. 6. Industry of El Castillo-level 24 (Cabrera, 1984).

typical features which may place this occupation sometime near MIS 5, in an early phase of the Cantabrian Mousterian complex. The lithic assemblage of level 22 also has some techno-typological features which are clearly Mousterian, together with the presence of numerous macro tools, almost all cleavers. These Early Middle Palaeolithic occupations would have their counterparts in the rest of the sites recorded in the area for this chronological framework. 4.2.1.5. Others. Other cave sites in the Cantabrian region with similar chronology include: Covalejos, Artazu II, Arlanpe, Astigarraga and Arnaileta. These sites have not yielded enough information regarding techno-typological and chronocultural characterization because excavations are still in process or the results have not been published yet (Arrizabalaga, 2004, 2005; Rodríguez-Asensio and Arrizabalaga, 2004; Martín et al., 2006; Arruabarrena et al., 2007; Ríos et al., 2007, 2011; Ríos, 2008).

4.2.2. Fluvial sites 4.2.2.1. El Hondal (Requejada de Polanco, Cantabria). Discovered in 1983, it is located in the T-3 of the Saja-Besaya\River. In 1994, R. Montes and J. Sanguino carried out a systematic surface collection and a 3 m2 test pit, recovering an important lithic assemblage (Montes, 1999, 2000, 2001; Baena et al., 2001). The palaeochannel structure where the site rests is located some 20 m asl, whereas the modern river bed is only 2 m asl. Most of the archaeological material originated from the knapping of only one core which could be refitted (Baena et al., 2001), indicating the in situ location of the assemblage. Due to the amount of knapping debitage and the refitting example mentioned, this site is interpreted as a workshop area (the only example of the type identified in the Cantabrian region, except for Irikaitz). The toolkit includes 8 cleavers (all Type 0), 9 pebble tools, 6 notches, 4 backed knives and 3 scrapers, with no evidence

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

297

Fig. 7. Industry of El Castillo-level 25 (Cabrera, 1984).

of bifacial macro tools. Although this assemblage was ascribed to the Upper Acheulean (Montes, 2003), it is more appropriate to include it in the Early Middle Palaeolithic due to its chronostratigraphic position and an industry more similar to this technocomplex than to the Acheulean, in general terms. For other authors (Martín and Djema, 2005; Djema, 2008), the technological evidence identified in the site could also frame it in an early or initial phase of the Cantabrian Mousterian. 4.2.3. Edaphic contexts 4.2.3.1. El Barandiallu (Villardebeyo, Asturias). Located in the Aboño river valley, on a glacis-terrace þ26/27 m above river level, it was discovered in 1988 (Estrada and Jordá, 2004). This archaeological site stands on an edaphic horizon originating from the hydromorphic clay deposit which constitutes the higher terrace of the fluvial valley. The lithic material (more than 1000 items) was collected in a rather limited area, ca. 3000 m2 (Estrada and Jordá, 2004), and supplemented by a 12 m2 excavation carried out in July 2012. Due to the large number of items recovered, it is an outstanding site in the Cantabrian context.

The lithic assemblage of El Barandiallu is characterized by the abundance of flake tools (groups of scrapers and denticulates) and a limited presence of macro tools (mainly biface-tools). Levallois elements dominate the assemblage and other techniques, such as discoidal, are also well represented. The presence of cleavers is important as well, a common feature in the Cantabrian Mousterian contexts from MIS 5 onwards, represented in more recent times, as at El Castillo (Cabrera, 1984; Cabrera and Neira, 1994) or even at the end of the period, as in La Viña XIII, basal level (Fortea, 1999). These reasons lead to consideration of this assemblage as typical Mousterian with presence of macro tools. Pending the results of ongoing research, the position of the assemblage on a terrace formed at the end of the Middle Pleistocene suggests that it is closer to the MiddleeUpper Pleistocene transition than to the end of the Mousterian, probably corresponding to a range between MIS 5 and MIS 4. 4.2.3.2. La Verde (Herrera de Camargo, Cantabria). Situated w7 km from Santander and at 7 m asl, it was discovered in 1979 and excavated between 1992 and 1994 (Montes and Muñoz,1994,1995, 2000). The site is located on a soil originated from a limy substrate which also

298

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

Fig. 8. Industry of El Castillo-level 25 (Cabrera, 1984).

received low energy inputs from hillside erosion. According to Montes et al. (1994), it corresponds to an ancient intact soil with an important presence of modern bioturbation, some 0e2 m deep. This geological deposit is ascribed to MIS 5, and thus is included in the Final Acheulean or Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (Montes, 2003). The lithic assemblage seems to have been altered by diverse agents, particularly by subaerial exposure, although there are neither bearing marks nor evidence of transport or displacement. The excavation was focused in three zones, from which La Verde III (110 m2) was the most representative, providing the largest amount of stratigraphic material (n ¼ 618). The small quantity of bifaces is characteristic, as well as the high number of cleavers. There is also significant representation of flake tools in the assemblage, dominated by scrapers, followed by shoulders and denticulates. Regarding the cultural ascription of the materials, Montes (2003) noted te similarity between this assemblage and the materials from El Castillo levels 24 and 25. After revising the

material, Álvarez-Alonso (2010a) noted that La Verde evokes level 25 and, even more, level 24 of El Castillo. Thus, these materials would more comfortably be framed within a Middle Palaeolithic context rather than within the Lower Palaeolithic. In the assemblage, cleavers are important, whereas bifacial macro tools are not as significant. Several flake tools (scrapers) and evidence of typical technologies of the Middle Palaeolithic were identified, invalidating the ascription of this assemblage to the Acheulean. The chronostratigraphic position suggested for the site (MIS 5) reinforces the theory that during this period a techno-complex typical of the Middle Palaeolithic and not of the Acheulean was developing in the Cantabrian region. Carrión and Baena (1999, 2005) also supported the inclusion of La Verde in the Middle Palaeolithic, together with a number of nearby coastal assemblages (Fig. 10). 4.2.3.3. Others. Other contexts with materials ascribed to the Middle Palaeolithic in edaphic contexts are Mendieta and Kurtzia. Cabo Busto II could be also included as its materials seem to match

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

Fig. 9. Lithic refit of two flakes of Lezetxiki-Level VII (Álvarez-Alonso and Arrizabalaga, 2012).

Fig. 10. Lithic industry of La Verde (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a).

299

300

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

Fig. 11. Cleaver of Early Middle Palaeolithic of Bañugues (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a).

this chronocultural context (Ríos, 2008; Ríos et al., 2010; ÁlvarezAlonso, 2010a, 2011, 2012). 4.2.4. Littoral contexts 4.2.4.1. Bañugues (Gozón, Asturias). Bañugues is situated to the east of Peñas cape, in an inlet formed by an open valley near the coast. Discovered in 1961 and excavated in 1977 and 1979 by RodríguezAsensio (1978a,b, 1980), new samples for pollen analysis, sedimentology and an attempt at OSL dating were collected in 2011. It is

a colluvial-alluvial deposit located in a littoral platform on Devonian material (limestone and slate) forming the marine terrace of þ2.5 m where the lithic material was found. This deposit was ascribed to the last interglacial period or the beginning of MIS 5 Würm I) considering its base level chronology (Rodríguez-Asensio, 1983) as well as its topographic position, which relates its formation to a phase of rising sea level (Hoyos, 1987). The site yielded a stratigraphic sequence divided into 6 levels, of which level V belongs to the Early Middle Palaeolithic (the same dating can be postulated for some points of the inlet sublevel VII which also reported material contemporaneous of and equivalent to level V). The high percentage of flake tools is the most notable feature of the assemblage, together with a significant representation of Levallois technique and the scarce presence of cleavers and bifaces. This assemblage is techno-typologically different from the Acheulean, so it is considered to correspond to the Early Middle Palaeolithic (Álvarez-Alonso, 2004, 2010a), a proposal also suggested by Rodríguez-Asensio (1983). This case can be easily compared with a context of similar relative chronology in the Mousterian, such as level VI of Lezetxiki. Whereas in Bañugues the Levallois blanks represent 13.94% of the complete sample, in Lezetxiki VI this percentage is 12.5% (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a; Álvarez-Alonso and Arrizabalaga, 2012) (Figs. 11 and 12). On the other hand, the lithic assemblage has a FI (faceted index) of 22.84% and a FIs of 15.08%. If cortical products are deducted from the sample, these indexes increase to 26.51% and 18.23%

Fig. 12. Levallois flakes of Bañugues.

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

respectively, similar to values at other sites of the Mousterian of the Acheulean Tradition in southwestern France (Turq, 2000). Pending ongoing analyses which may refine the chronostratigraphic context of the site, the position of the deposit in a horizon ascribed to MIS 5e and the existence of a Mousterian industry (with presence of bifaces and cleavers) suggest correlation of this sequence to others of an equivalent relative chronology. These sequences seem to provide a rather solid corpus for the initial phases of the Cantabrian Mousterian, found at the end of the Middle and the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene. 4.3. Discussion In the Cantabrian region, there are few biostratigraphic and chronological data to characterize human settlement during the last phases of the Middle and the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a, 2011, 2012). A series of dates (El Castillo, Covalejos and Lezetxiki) and industrial assemblages generically assigned to MIS 5 (Bañugues, El Hondal, La Verde and Lezetxiki) depict the same situation found in the rest of the Peninsula and France: an homogeneous presence of industries belonging to the Middle Palaeolithic from the end of the Middle Pleistocene, and particularly from the end of MIS 6 and throughout MIS 5e. The Mousterian industries of El Castillo (level 23 dated 92.8 ka and 89 þ11/10 ka) and Covalejos (101 ka) (Bischoff et al., 1992; Cabrera and Bernaldo de Quirós, 2000; Montes, 2003) provide a minimal chronology for this process in the Cantabrian region. Below these levels, industries with bifacial macro tools characterise the first stages of the Middle Palaeolithic in the karst environment of the area and can be correlated to other sequences in open air sites such as Bañugues. The sequence of La Garma A exterior (Tapia, 2010) and levels C and D of Arlanpe (Rios et al., 2011) are two good examples of the presence of Middle Palaeolithic technology (with macro tool elements) during MIS 5 and even MIS 6. In this context, the lower levels of Lezetxiki are one of the most relevant examples of the MiddleeUpper Pleistocene transition in the Peninsula. Together with El Castillo, Bañugues and La Garma A, they constitute the best cases available to contextualize the beginning of the Cantabrian Middle Palaeolithic. On the other hand, the latest excavations carried out in Cueva Corazón (Palencia), to the south of the Cantabrian mountain range, and in the corridor leading to the Duero basin revealed settlement contexts corresponding to an earlier phase of the Mousterian, with two TL dates for level 2 on thermo-altered quartzite of 96.567  7.806 ka and 95.763  7.456 ka (Díez-Martín et al., 2011; Sánchez-Yustos et al., 2011). These examples would confirm the truly Mousterian nature of MIS 5 in the Cantabrian region, as both to the south and north (Aquitania) of this corridor the presence of Neanderthal populations in previous and contemporary phases is verified. Consequently, most of the first evidence of Palaeolithic presence in the Cantabrian area is concentrated between the end of MIS 6 and MIS 5e, characterized by Neanderthal settlements with Mousterian technology. Lastly, the approaches which analyse this question from a Lower Palaeolithic open air settlement perspective, as opposed to a later Mousterian occupation of caves, have traditionally used the term “Final Acheulean” (Rodríguez-Asensio, 1983; Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a). Considering that the local Acheulean is still poorly identified and defined, preference here is to classify the bulk of the first Cantabrian Palaeolithic settlements (before MIS 4) as Early Middle Palaeolithic (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a, 2011, 2012; Álvarez-Alonso and Arrizabalaga, 2012). Furthermore, these first settlements represent clear techno-typological continuity with the later Mousterian, as discussed (Fig. 13).

301

5. Discussion: the end of the Acheulean and the debate on the Early Middle Palaeolithic in the Cantabrian region A situation similar to the one in the Cantabrian region is also documented in southwestern France, in the territory between the Pyrenees and Dordogne. In this region, several karst sites were located, as well as a much higher representation of open air sites in fluvial terraces and littoral areas, all with quartzite as the dominant raw material. The techno-typological composition of these assemblages indicates a moderate presence of bifaces, abundance of flake tools, some cleavers and many different knapping techniques (discoidal, Levallois, kombewa and Quina) which start to show a different pattern from the classical Acheulean found in MIS 8. This was the situation F. Bordes referred to as “Southern Acheulean” (Bordes, 1971) when talking about the industries previous to Würm I that did not match the classical sequence of the Somme terraces. Nowadays, this regional “facies” perspective cannot be upheld. Nor can the tripartite division of the Acheulean (Santonja, 1992), and it is necessary to search for an alternative explanation for these differences in issues such as site conservation, the variety of raw materials used or the same evolutionary dynamics of the assemblages at the end of the Middle Pleistocene (Martos, 1996). This “Southern Acheulean” is currently better defined as Early Middle Palaeolithic (Turq et al., 2010) and would also match the Cantabrian situation where, for a similar context, the “Upper or Late Cantabrian Acheulean” was defined (Rodríguez-Asensio and Arrizabalaga, 2004), being recently revisited and refined (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a, 2011). The techno-typological characterisation of these sites, as well as the fact that they do not usually abound in lithic assemblages when they are in open air contexts, is similar to the Cantabrian situation. Furthermore, as Turq et al. (2010) suggest, this “Southern Acheulean” refers to the contexts traditionally ascribed to the Acheulean: older than MIS 5, covering MIS 6 and MIS 7, which cannot be considered part of this techno-complex. This requires abandoning the definitions of Southern Acheulean or Cantabrian Upper Acheulean when referring to this issue, aiming at throwing light upon the origin of the changes which would culminate in the classical Mousterian evident in Cantabria from MIS 4. On the other hand, the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MAT) carries a much more rigid cultural connotation, together with a specific chronology, but it is not the intention to enlarge on the problems implied in the so-called “Mousterian facies”. This term has been used in the Cantabrian area to describe some of the contexts with a vague techno-typological adscription dated between the Acheulean and the Middle Palaeolithic. The dominance of flake tools, the presence of Levallois technique and a moderate representation of bifacial macro tools were the arguments formulated in order to ascribe some of these assemblages to the MAT. Perhaps in these cases, the matter is nominally the same, and the objective would not change at all the direction and course of chronocultural interpretations. MAT is a term implying a too rigid taxonomic and chronological connotation, and is best abandoned. No doubt, in the minds of the scholars who have applied this terminology to the debate, what is underlying is the same technotypological composition of the assemblages, and probably the same meaning as currently assigned to the Early Middle Palaeolithic with presence of bifacial macro tools typical of the Cantabrian region. One of the greatest problems traditionally faced is the exaggerated burden many of the cultural definitions and their respective implied historiographic connotations, which are either accepted or rejected in due course, with subsequent implications for the evaluation or classification of sites. One of the sites located in this area, according to the technotypological analysis carried out, perfectly matches the definition

302

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

Fig. 13. Most important Lower and Early Middle Palaeolithic sites in Cantabrian Region.

for the MAT: El Barandiallu, in Asturias (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a). Bañugues also evokes other assemblages which have been defined by this term. How can this situation be explained? Is the MAT actually present in the Cantabrian region? Or is it simply that this terminology and its techno-typological definition are easily equated with the assemblages at the root of the classical Mousterian, fully framed in the evolutionary process of some industries of a previous Acheulean origin which would later develop into the industrial complexes generically designated as Middle Palaeolithic? Consequently, some terms such as Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, Vasconian, Southern Acheulean or Cantabrian Upper Acheulean have been used to refer to a series of assemblages which, grosso modo, were classified in the Cantabrian region under the label of “Cantabrian Ancient Palaeolithic” (Rodríguez-Asensio, 2000; Rodríguez-Asensio and Arrizabalaga, 2004; Álvarez-Alonso, 2011). These nominations used for the typically Mousterian assemblages which are difficult to place between the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic and where cleavers (El Castillo 20 or Morín 22) or bifaces (levels 24 and 25 of El Castillo) are present, or for open air contexts with evidence of macro tools, flake tools and Levallois elements (Bañugues or El Barandiallu), show the continuity between Acheulean and Mousterian industries in the Cantabrian coast. Although impaired by its particular preservation conditions, limited lithic series, absence of dating and the different geological landscapes documented (caves, fluvial terraces, edaphic landscapes, littoral contexts), this continuity has been the focus of many researchers who considered it from an excessive division of the different and limited sites. The lithic assemblages and stratigraphic

levels corresponding to the end of the Middle and the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene in the Cantabrian region have always fallen into one or another category, depending on the emphasis placed on their most relevant features, usually forgetting that lithic industries are not static categories which define a specific chronological period or cultural phase in an exclusive way. Thus, the lithic assemblages that make up the Cantabrian Early Middle Palaeolithic are much more dynamic than originally thought. Technotypological variability of the classical Mousterian in the area (Carrión et al., 2008) should not be seen as a novelty which is only detected once the Upper Pleistocene starts. The Neanderthal groups inhabiting the Cantabrian region at the end of the Middle Pleistocene manufactured their tools according to the function of the specific needs they had to face, apart from the cultural knowledge implicit in every anthropic process. The resulting lithic industries were varied, most probably due to the different functionalities they fulfilled and fundamentally adapting to the raw material available in the different geographical areas. Despite this fact, a relative homogeneity is revealed in many of the assemblages which, tentatively, are encompassed in the term Early Middle Palaeolithic (Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a, 2011). In spite of their heterogeneity, the assemblages of this period exhibit more similarities than differentiating features, within the same chronostratigraphic horizon between MIS 6 and MIS 5. Older assemblages seem to be documented which do not imply a rupture with the later horizon, and would more comfortably fit in an Acheulean phase. This previous phase, as mentioned by Santonja (1995), presents an important homogeneity during the complete second half of the Middle

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

303

Fig. 14. Chronostratigraphic table of Early Middle Palaeolithic in Cantabrian Region, and comparison with other areas.

Pleistocene, without any evident internal division or compartmentalisation of an evolutionary nature or technocultural progression. At a later stage, the Acheulean would show an evolutionary process of internal modification towards a model of greater technological optimization which would lead to the industries defined as Early Middle Palaeolithic. These new complexes indicate the culmination of certain techno-economic modifications which would be truly effective in the Cantabrian region during the first half of the Upper Pleistocene, with the development of the classical Mousterian. The end of the Acheulean and the beginning of the Middle Palaeolithic took place without any rupture or fissure. Thus, any approach referring to a “transition” which contradicts the continuity presented by the lithic industries at the end of the Middle and beginning of the Upper Pleistocene may be considered to be misleading (Fig. 14). It is also telling, in spite of the limited evidence available, to note a generalised absence of archaeological sites and sequences before MIS 6 (when some indications in caves can be found) or MIS 5e (where the bulk of the ancient Cantabrian settlements is evident, both in open air and cave sites). The relative increase in the number of sites corresponding to MIS 5e, coinciding with the Climatic Optimum, seems to imply a greater intensification of settlement (i.e. larger number of sites and the search for non-fluvial raw materials) and adaptation strategies (technological changes) leading to a better optimization of available resources. The techno-complexes identified with MIS 5e present several morphotypological similarities to the Acheulean, although they are better related to the later classic Mousterian. It is not inconsequential, thus, to think about a better adaptation to some specific and long-lasting conditions, such as the ones in MIS 5e, which would trigger in the Cantabrian domain the increase of some technological changes which had been present long before in other European regions and later were more widely diffused. It seems evident that during MIS 5e, several changes took place in the Cantabrian region which were directly related to the development of the Mousterian, leaving aside any identification of these technocomplexes with the Acheulean. These changes would develop from MIS 8 and during MIS 7-6, as in neighbouring regions such as Aquitania (Djema, 2008), from MIS 5e. These innovations and many of the technological processes they involve would be born from the same ancient Neanderthal societies, and develop a new model which would extend across Europe during the Upper Pleistocene. MIS 5e may have facilitated the expansion of a pre-existing model or merely its intensification. On the other hand, the end of this event and the beginning of the last stadial period could have implied another turning point in the existing models of habitat and techno-economic strategies, facilitating the development of the classical Mousterian. It is clear that in these considerations, the lack of extensive research and archaeological records for the different areas must have exerted

their influence. Furthermore, the combination of an open air occupation settlement model and one restricted to a cave habitat would have conditioned research due to the differences in raw material procurement, techno-typological varieties, and the management and result of the lithic assemblages which are further related to tool and habitat functionality, both at intra-site and regional scales. The recent studies of Neanderthal fossil DNA (Lalueza-Fox, 2011) indicate the low genetic variety of these populations and imply their considerable displacement, as well as the existence of differing population dynamics, bottlenecks and demographic crisis, together with the possible migrations or long-distance movements of the different human groups (Dalen et al., 2012). All these factors have clear cultural implications which may have been somewhat fossilised in the technological level, even if it is almost impossible nowadays to work out these aspects in the lithic record. It seems clear that Neanderthal populations were highly dynamic and developed a wide environmental adaptation with high versatility in their economic decisions. In view of this evidence, the first manifestations of the Mousterian techno-complex in the Cantabrian region must be analyzed not from a lineal and localist perspective but rather in the larger geographic and cultural context where the territory was inhabited (and may also have been vacant) by virtue of ecological but also economic and cultural conditionings. 6. Conclusions This paper has tried to picture the situation at the end of the Middle Pleistocene in northern Iberia regarding the first human occupations recorded. The known settlement (basically located in open air sites, but with increasing information from karst habitats) is relatively more recent than in the neighbouring areas, and limited to a first event which would correspond to the later phases of the Acheulean, a period still badly chronostratigraphically defined. A second stage, which can be identified in most of the available evidence, could be framed in a context defined here as Early Middle Palaeolithic, and constituting the threshold of the subsequent Mousterian, largely documented in the karst settings of the area. Current information in the Cantabrian region broadly refers to a reduced number of lithic assemblages in stratigraphy which do not belong to the same chronological horizon, supplemented by a wide spectrum of lithic series and isolated decontextualised findings. Between both kinds of assemblages, only some analogies can be postulated because their sedimentological and geomorphological contexts differ, and their industries are not completely comparable (due to both technological and typological reasons as well as the conditioning imposed by the quality of the different raw materials), in a situation lacking numerical dating or any kind of proxies which may contribute to their contextualization.

304

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

Palaeoecological information is reduced, preventing its use as a chronostratigraphic marker. The stratigraphic sequences of the Cantabrian Early Middle Palaeolithic and their associated lithic assemblages may correspond to completely different times, all dating from prior to the end of MIS 5. Recent decades have witnessed a constant renewal of information about the Lower Palaeolithic in Europe, especially in the Iberian Peninsula. It particularly invoked, on the one hand, the reality of the Acheulean and, on the other, a new definition of the chronological framework for the Middle Palaeolithic. The result was a progressive readjustment in the cultural sequence for the period, which takes its beginning or, better, the first evidence of some of its technocultural complexes, back to earlier dates than traditionally accepted. In the same way, it is also proposed to redefine several questions about the Acheulean settlement in Europe, its structure and techno-typological evolution. The second topic or situation which needs new consideration is the change in paradigm regarding the Mousterian complex, and thus the definition of a new chronological framework starting in the last stage of the Middle Pleistocene. In a Europe with a remarkably older chronology and an earlier human settlement than was thought some decades ago, it is necessary to make a revision of many of the relative chronologies and cultural periods immersed in the debate about the final Lower Palaeolithic and the Early Middle Palaeolithic. Some 30 years ago, this period was unavoidably associated with Neanderthals, ascribing them to a chronology that did not exceed ca. 80-90 ka. Some evidence slowly started to appear (first in France and later in the Iberian Peninsula) showing Mousterian lithic assemblages and levels older than this date, first MIS 5e and subsequently Middle Pleistocene. Today, an approximate chronology for the emergence of the Middle Palaeolithic technology in France or in Iberian Peninsula, is accepted as MIS 9. It is evident that the typical technology of the Middle Palaeolithic did not appear later than MIS 5 and that the Acheulean did not last until the end of this period in the Cantabrian region. On both sides of the Pyrenees, many sites indicate the emergence of typical technologies of the Middle Palaeolithic around that date. In the Cantabrian region, definite data is still scarce to postulate new situations even when the model in use does not match the reality, reflecting the circumstances and paradigms of the time it was formulated. Acheulean settlement in Cantabria must be much older than originally thought, as the first evidence of technological change towards the emergence of the classical Mousterian in the region is identified at the end of the Middle Pleistocene (Martín and Djema, 2005; Djema, 2008; Álvarez-Alonso, 2010a, 2011). The presence of scarcely representative assemblages with evidence of bifacial macro tools is not a sine qua non condition to encompass such materials in the Acheulean. Bifaces and cleavers are not valid and exclusive type fossils to refer to this period, as they temporally extend beyond it. The rest of bifacial macro tools, particularly all knapped or pebble tools, are not a valid argument to ascribe an Acheulean chronology to a lithic assemblage. On the other hand, the open air stratigraphic contexts in the Cantabrian region represent records with poor systematised references for the period. In many cases they constitute neither complete nor confident sources, and others are plagued with too many interpretive gaps to uphold a system valid for all Cantabrian sites (ÁlvarezAlonso, 2010a, 2011, 2012). Thus, after the aforementioned assessment, the Cantabrian Lower Palaeolithic does not correspond to the traditional image. It is thus necessary to reconsider the relative chronologies proposed for this period, as well as the chronocultural classification of the different assemblages. The application of the new framework described here may not imply a significant change in the organization of available

information, as this information has already been limited in the past and is still inadequate today. In the Cantabrian region, the particular circumstances derived from the problems and gaps existent in the record force an explanation as to why researchers cannot simply apply the current model used for other regions. In the same way, it is of no value to merely force the sequences of the area into the new chronological framework. References Álvarez-Alonso, D., 2004. Individualización de los métodos de reducción lítica en el Paleolítico antiguo de Bañugues (Gozón, Asturias). Homenaje a Victoria Cabrera Valdés. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma I 16e17, 49e62. Álvarez-Alonso, D., 2010a. Las primeras ocupaciones cantábricas. La evolución del hábitat en el medio cantábrico durante el Paleolítico antiguo. Ph.D. thesis. Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología. UNED. 660 pp. Álvarez-Alonso, D., 2010b. La investigación de las primeras ocupaciones humanas en la Región Cantábrica. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma I, Nueva época. Prehistoria y Arqueología 3, 9e20. Álvarez-Alonso, D., 2011. El Paleolítico antiguo en la Región Cantábrica: un estado de la cuestión. Férvedes 7, 29e37. Álvarez-Alonso, D., 2012. El primer poblamiento humano en la Región Cantábrica. Reflexiones y síntesis en torno al Paleolítico antiguo. Kobie 31. Álvarez-Alonso, D., Arrizabalaga, A., 2012. La secuencia estratigráfica inferior de la cueva de Lezetxiki (Arrasate, País Vasco). Una reflexión necesaria. Zephyrus 69, 15e39. Altuna, J., 1992. El medio ambiente durante el Pleistoceno superior en la región Cantábrica con referencia especial a sus faunas de mamíferos. Munibe 43, 13e29. Arambourou, R., 1989. Préhistoire autour de Saint-Jean-de-Luz (France). Munibe 41, 29e44. Arambourou, R., 1990. Préhistoire en Pays Basque Nord et Sud des Landes. Munibe 42, 91e96. Arrizabalaga, A., 2004. Cueva de Artazu II (Arrasate, Gipuzkoa). Arkeoikuska 2003, 371e373. Arrizabalaga, A., 2005. Las primeras ocupaciones humanas en el Pirineo Occidental y Montes Vascos. Un estado de la cuestión”. Munibe 57 (2), 53e70. Arrizabalaga, A., 2006. Lezetxiki (Arrasate, País Vasco). Nuevas preguntas acerca de un antiguo yacimiento. In: Cabrera, V., Bernaldo de Quirós, F., Maillo, J.M. (Eds.), En el centenario de la cueva de El Castillo: El ocaso de los Neandertales, pp. 291e309. Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J., Areso, P., Falgueres, Ch, Iriarte, M.J., Mariezkurrena, K., Pemán, E., Ruiz-Alonso, M., Tarriño, A., Uriz, A., Vallverdú, J., 2004. Retorno a Lezetxiki (Arrasate, País Vasco): Nuevas perspectivas de la investigación. In: Santonja, M., Pérez González, A., Machado, M.J. (Eds.), Geomorfología y conservación del Patrimonio, pp. 20e26. Arrizabalaga, A., Iriarte, Ma.J., 2005. Irikaitz (Zestoa, País Vasco). Estudio preliminar del Paleolítico inferior en el sondeo “Geltoki”. In: Bicho, N., Corchón, Ma. S. (Eds.), O Paleolítico: actas do IV Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular (Faro, 14 a 19 de Setembro de 2004), pp. 267e276. Arrizabalaga, A., Iriarte, Ma. J., 2008. Irikaitz (Zestoa, Gipuzkoa). Tafonomía de un depósito pleistocénico ao aire libre. In: Méndez Quintas, E. (Ed.), Estudos sobre Paleolítico. Homenaxe a X. M. Álvarez Blázquez, pp. 139e162. Arruabarrena, J., Mújika, J.A., Sasieta, M., 2007. Cueva de Astigarraga, Arkeoikuska 2007: 336e339. Auguste, P., 1995. Chasse et charognage au Paléolitique moyen: l’apport du gisement de Biache-Saint-Vaas (Pais-de-Calais). Bulletin de la Societé préhistorique française 92 (2), 155e168. Baena, J., Montes, R., Sanguino, J., Carrión, E., Conde, C., 2001. Propuesta de reconstrucción de talla a partir de remontajes: el yacimiento de El Hondal (Requejada de Polanco, Cantabria). In: Bourguignon, L., Ortega, I., Frère-Sautot, M.Ch (Eds.), Préhistoire et approche expérimentale. Préhistoires 5, 17e33. Baena, J., Baquedano, I., Benéitez, P., Cañaveras, J.C., Carrión, E., Lario, J., MartínEscorza, C., Mazo, A.V., Millán, A., Sánchez, S., Sanz, E., Sesé, C., Silva, P.G., Yravedra, J., 2010. Síntesis: Interpretación general del yacimiento de Tafesa (Madrid). In: Baena, J.Y., Baquedano, I. (Eds.), Las huellas de nuestro pasado. Estudio del yacimiento del Pleistoceno madrileño de Tafesa (antigua Transfesa). Zona Arqueológica, vol. 14, pp. 191e202. Baldeón, A., 1993. El yacimiento de Lezetxiki (Gipuzkoa, País Vasco). Los niveles musterienses. Munibe 45, 3e97. Barandiarán, J.M., Altuna, J., 1970. Excavación de la cueva de Lezetxiki (campaña de 1968). Munibe 22, 51e59. Benito, A., Pérez-González, A., Santonja, M., 1998. Terrazas rocosas, aluviales y travertínicas del valle alto del río Henares (Guadalajara, España). Geogaceta 24, 55e58. Berger, G.W., Pérez-González, A., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Ku, T.L., 2008. Luminiscence chronology of cave sediments at the Atapuerca paleoanthropological site, Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 300e311. Bischoff, J.L., García, J.F., Strauss, L.G., 1992. Uranium-series Isochron Dating at El Castillo Cave (Cantabria, Spain): the Acheulean/Mousterian question. Journal of Archaeological Science 19 (1), 49e62.

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306 Blackwell, B., Schwarcz, H.P., 1988. Datation des speleothemes de la grotte Vaufrey par la famille de l’Uranium. In: Rigaud, J. (Ed.), La grotte Vauffray à Cenac et Saint - Julien (Dordogne): paléoenvironnements, chronologie et activités humaines. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française XIX, pp. 365e379. Bordes, F., 1971. Observations sur l’Acheuléen des grottes en Dordogne. Munibe 1, 5e24. Botella, D., Barroso, C., Riquelme, J., Abdessadock, S., Verdú, L., Monge, G., García, J., 2006. La cueva del Ángel (Lucena, Córdoba), un yacimiento del Pleistoceno medio y superior del sur de la Península Ibérica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 63 (2), 153e165. Cabrera, V., 1984. La cueva de El Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Santander). In: Bibliotheca Praehistorica Hispana, vol. XXII. CSIC, Madrid. Cabrera, V., Bernaldo de Quirós, F., 2000. Excavaciones arqueológicas en la cueva de El Castillo (Puente Viesgo). Actuaciones Arqueológicas en Cantabria 1984e1999, 23e32. Cabrera, V., Bernaldo de Quirós, F., Maíllo, J.M., 2006. La cueva de El Castillo: las nuevas excavaciones. In: Cabrera, V., Bernaldo de Quirós, F., Maillo, J.M. (Eds.), En el centenario de la cueva de El Castillo: El ocaso de los Neandertales, pp. 349e365. Cabrera, V., Neira, A., 1994. Los conjuntos líticos del Paleolítico medio cantábrico según el análisis de componentes principales. In: Lasheras, J.A. (Ed.), Homenaje al Dr. Joaquín González-Echegaray, vol. 17. Museo y Centro de Investigación de Altamira, pp. 55e60. Callow, P., Cornford, J.M., 1986. La Cotte de St. Brelade 1961e1978. Excavations by C.B.M. McBurney. Geo Books, Norwich. Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., Ollé, A., Rodríguez, X.P., Sahnouni, M., Sala, R., Vergés, J.M., 2001. Structure morphotechnique de l’industrie lithique de Pléistocène inférieur et moyen d’Atapuerca (Burgos, Espagne). L’Anthropologie 105, 259e280. Carrión, E., Baena, J., 1999. El Habario, un yacimiento musteriense al aire libre en los Picos de Europa cántabros. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie I, Prehistoria y Arqueología 12, 81e101. Carrión, E., Baena, J., 2005. El Habario. Una ocupación musteriense al aire libre en los Picos de Europa. In: Lasheras, J.A., Montes, R. (Eds.), Neandertales Cantábricos. Monografías del Museo de Altamira, vol. 20, pp. 443e460. Carrión, E., Baena, J., Conde, C., Cuartero, F., Roca, M., 2008. Variabilidad tecnológica en el Musteriense de Cantabria. Treballs d’Arqueologia 14, 279e318. Castaños, P., 2005. Revisión actualizada de las faunas de mamíferos del Würm antiguo en la región cantábrica. In: Lasheras, J.A., Montes, R. (Eds.), Neandertales Cantábricos. Monografías del Museo de Altamira, vol. 20, pp. 201e207. Chauchat, C., 1994. La station préhistorique de plein air de Lestaulan, quartier de Maignon, à Bayonne (Pyrénées Atlantiques). Munibe 46, 3e22. Dalen, L., Orlando, L., Shapiro, B., Durling, M., Quam, R., Gilbert, M., Diez FernandezLomana, J., Willerslev, E., Arsuaga, J., Gotherstrom, A., 2012. Partial genetic turnover in neandertals: continuity in the east and population replacement in the west. Molecular Biology and Evolution. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss074. Díez-Martín, F., Sánchez, P., Gómez González, J.A., Gómez De La Rúa, D., 2008. La ocupación paleolítica en los páramos del Duero: nuevos datos procedentes de Valdecampaña (Olivares de Duero, Valladolid). Zephyrus 62, 19e39. Díez-Martín, F., Sánchez-Yustos, P., Gómez-González, J.A., Gómez de La Rúa, D., Yravedra, J., Díaz-Muñoz, I., 2011. La ocupación neandertal en el Cañón de la Horadada (Mave, Palencia, España): Nuevas perspectivas arqueológicas en Cueva Corazón. Munibe 62, 65e85. Djema, H., 2008. Le Paléolithique moyen ancien de la corniche Cantabrique et du bassin Aquitain ou le phénomène culturel des premiers néandertaliens. Analyses techno-économiques comparatives de gisements cantabriques et périgourdins. Ph.D. thesis (unpublished) Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, París. Edeso, J., 1992. El depósito pleistoceno de Goizut (Fuenterrabía). Eusko Ikaskuntza, Cuadernos de sección Historia 20, 83e97. Estrada, R., Jordá, J.F., 2004. Arqueología y gas natural: el Paleolítico medio de El Barandiallu (Villabona, Llanera, Asturias central). In: XI Reunión nacional de Cuaternario, Oviedo 2, 3 y 4 de Julio 2003, pp. 253e260. Falguères, Ch., Bahain, J.J., Yokoyama, Y., Bischoff, J.L., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., Dolo, J.M., 2001. Datation par RPE et UeTh des sites pléistocenes d’Atapuerca: Sima de los Huesos, Trinchera Dolina et Trinchera Galería. Bilan géochronologique. L’Anthropologie 105, 71e81. Falguères, Ch., Yokoyama, Y., Arrizabalaga, A., 2005. La geocronolgía del yacimiento pleistocénico de Lezetxiki (Arrasate, País Vasco). Crítica de las dataciones existentes y algunas nuevas aportaciones. Munibe 57, 93e106. Falguères, Ch., 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 combined ESR/U-series model. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 149e157. Fernández-Peris, J., 2007. La cova del Bolomor (Tavernes de la Valldigna, Valencia). Las industrias líticas del Pleistoceno medio en el ámbito del Mediterráneo peninsular. Servicio de Investigación Prehistórica, Diputación Provincial de Valencia. Serie de Trabajos Varios, no 108. Fortea, J., 1999. Abrigo de La Viña. Informe y primera valoración de las campañas de 1995 a 1998. In: Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias 1995e98. Principado de Asturias, pp. 31e41. González-Echegaray, J., Freeman, L.G., 1978. Vida y muerte en Cueva Morín. Institución Cultural de Cantabria. Hoyos, M., 1987. Upper Pleistocene and Holocene marine levels on the Cornisa Cantábrica (Asturias, Cantabria and Basque Country) Spain. In: Zazo, C. (Ed.), Late Quaternary Sea-level Changes in Spain. Trabajos sobre Neogeno-Cuaternario, vol. 10, pp. 251e258.

305

Huxtable, J., Aitken, M.S., 1988. Datation par la thermoluminiscence de la grotte Vaufrey. In: Rigaud, J. (Ed.), La grotte Vauffray à Cenac et Saint e Julien (Dordogne): paléoenvironnements, chronologie et activités humaines. Société Préhistorique Française, pp. 359e363. Jaubert, J., 2011. Préhistoires de France. Éditions Confluences, París. Jaubert, J., Bismuth, T., 1996. Le Paléolitique moyen des Pyrénées centrales: esquise d’un schéma chronologique et économique dans la perspective d’une étude comparative avec les documents ibériques. In: Pyrénées Préhistoriques. Arts et societés. Actes du 118o congrés national des societés historiques et scientifiques sous la direction de Henri Delporte et Jean Clottes. Cths, París, pp. 9e26. Lalueza-Fox, C., 2011. Desvelando el más íntimo código: los estudios paleogenéticos. In: Rasilla, M., Rosas, A., Cañaveras, J.C., Lalueza, C. (Eds.), La cueva de El Sidrón (Borines, Piloña, Asturias). Investigación interdisciplinar de un grupo neandertal. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias, Monografías I. Gobierno del Principado de Asturias, pp. 117e135. Martín, P., Djema, H., 2005. Los sistemas operativos del complejo Musteriense. El problema de la variabilidad y sus implicaciones. In: Lasheras, J.A., Montes, R. (Eds.), Neandertales Cantábricos. Monografías del Museo de Altamira, vol. 20, pp. 315e332. Martín, P., Montes, R., Sanguino, J., 2006. La tecnología lítica del Musteriense final en la región cantábrica: los datos de Covalejos (Velo de Piélagos, Cantabria, España). In: Cabrera, V., Bernaldo de Quirós, F., Maíllo, J.M. (Eds.), En el centenario de la cueva de El Castillo: El ocaso de los Neandertales, pp. 231e248. Martos, J.A., 1996. Cronologías altas, cronologías cortas: implicaciones en el debate del Paleolítico inferior europeo. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma 9, 15e31. Márquez, B., Mosquera, M., Panera, J., Bárez, S., Rus, I., Gómez, J., Arsuaga, J.L., PérezGonzález, A., Baquedano, E., 2008. El poblamiento humano antiguo en el valle alto del Lozoya (Madrid). Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie 1, Nueva época. Prehistoria y Arqueología 1, 25e32. Méndez Quintas, E., Santonja, M., Pérez-González, A., 2008. O Paleolítico antigo na Península Ibérica. In: Méndez Quintas, E. (Ed.), Estudos sobre Paleolítico. Homenaxe a X. M. Álvarez Blázquez: Pontevedra, pp. 21e74. Moncel, M.-H., Combier, J., 1992. L’industrie lithique du site pléistocène moyen d’Orgnac 3 (Ardèche). Gallia Préhistoire 34, 1e55. Moncel, M.-H., Chacón, M.G., Bouteaux, A., Julien, M.-A., Patou-Mathis, M., 2007. Ocupación en abrigo durante el estadio isotópico 5: el nivel D del yacimiento de Payre (Ardèche, Francia). Gestión del territorio y actividades dentro del yacimiento. Trabajos de Prehistoria 64 (1), 65e86. Moncel, M.-H., Moigne, A.-M., Combier, J., 2005. Pre-Neandertal behaviour 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): ocupation types. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1283e1301. Montes, R., 1999. El yacimiento al aire libre de “El Hondal” (Requejada dde Polanco): Actuaciones arqueológicas y resultados geoarqueológicos. Sautuola 6, 133e144. Montes, R., 2000. Actuaciones arqueológicas en el yacimiento de El Hondal (Requejada de Polanco). Actuaciones Arqueológicas en Cantabria 1984e1999, 267e270. Montes, R., 2001. El yacimiento al aire libre de El Hondal (Requejada de Polanco). Actuaciones arqueológicas y resultados gloarqueológicos. Homenaje al Dr. M. A. García Guinea, Sautuola IV, 135e144 Montes, R., 2003. El primer poblamiento de la Región cantábrica. El Paleolítico inferior cantábrico. Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira 18. Montes, R., Muñoz, E., 1994. El yacimiento de La Verde (Herrera de Camargo): informe preliminar. Trabajos de Arqueología de Cantabria 1993. Monografías de la A.C.D.P.S., no5. Santander. Montes, R., Muñoz, E., 1995. Peña Caranceja: un ejemplo de yacimiento en posición primaria del Achelense cantábrico. In: Actas XXI Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, 1991 Teruel, pp. 523e532. Montes, R., Muñoz, E., 2000. Excavaciones en el yacimiento de La Verde (Herrera de Camargo). Actuaciones arqueológicas en Cantabria 1984e1999, 203e208. Montes, R., Muñoz, E., Sanguino, J., 1994. El yacimiento paleolítico de la Verde (Herrera de Camargo, Cantabria): problemática de la excavación arqueológica en un suelo edafológico. In: Actas de la 2a Reunión Nacional de Geoarqueología. I.T.G.E. e AEQUA, Madrid. Panera, J., Torres, T., Pérez-González, A., Ortiz, J.E., Rubio-Jara, S., Uribelarrea, D., 2011. Geocronología de la Terraza Compleja de Arganda en el valle del río Jarama (Madrid, España). Estudios Geológicos 67 (2), 495e504. Pérez-González, A., Rubio, S., Panera, J., Uribelarrea, D., 2008. Geocronología de la sucesión arqueoestratigráfica de Los Estragales en la Terraza Compleja de Butarque (Valle del Río Manzanares, Madrid). Geogaceta 45, 39e42. Ramil-Rego, E., Ramil-Soneira, J., 2008. Louselas (Ribadeo, Lugo). Un xacemento do Paleolítico inferior no occidente cantábrico. In: Rego, E. (Ed.), Ier Congreso Internacional de Arqueoloxía de Villalba. Férvedes, vol. 5, pp. 105e112. Rigaud, J.P., 1988. La grotte Vauffray à Cenac et Saint e Julien (Dordogne): paléoenvironnements, chronologie et activités humaines. Société Préhistorique fFrançaise, Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, París, 616 p. Ríos, J., 2008. Cueva de Arlanpe. Arkeoikuska 2008, 289e292. Ríos, J., Iriarte, E., Gómez-Olivenza, A., Gárate, D., Marcos-Gómez, Z., Regalado, E., Sanpedro, Z., 2007. Cueva Arlanpe. Arkeoikuska 2007, 270e272. Rios, J., Garate, D., Gomez Olivencia, A., Iriarte Aviles, E., Aramburu, A., Arcedillo, D., Garcia, A., Iriarte Chiapusso, M.J., Moreno, J., Murelaga, X., Ortiz, J.E., Torres, T., San Pedro, Z., Zapata, L., 2011. The Lower to Middle Palaeolithic transition in Northern Iberia: new data from Arlanpe cave. Antiquity 85.

306

D. Álvarez-Alonso / Quaternary International 326-327 (2014) 288e306

Ríos, J., Gárate, D., Iriarte, E., Cearreta, A., Iriarte, M.J., 2010. Los yacimientos de Mendieta I y II (Sopelana, Bizkaia): Dos ocupaciones al aire libre del Paleolítico inferior y medio. Kobie 29, 7e18. Rodríguez-Asensio, J.A., 1978a. Nota preliminar sobre las excavaciones del yacimiento de Bañugues (Gozón. Asturias). BIDEA 93e94, 357e368. Rodríguez-Asensio, J.A., 1978b. The Early Paleolithic site of Bañugues (Gozón. Asturias. Spain). Current Anthropology 19 (3), 615e616. Rodríguez-Asensio, J.A., 1980. Bañugues (Gozón. Asturias). Yacimiento del Paleolítico Inferior. Noticiario Arqueológico Hispánico 9, 11e31. Rodríguez-Asensio, J.A., 1983. La presencia humana más antigua en Asturias. Estudios de Arqueología Asturiana no2. Oviedo. Rodríguez-Asensio, J.A., 1996. El yacimiento de Cabo Busto (Valdés. Asturias). Una secuencia del Pleistoceno medio en el norte peninsular. SPAL: Revista de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla 5, 19e43. Rodríguez-Asensio, J.A., 1997. Yacimiento de Louselas (Ribadeo. Lugo). Un conjunto lítico del Paleolítico Antiguo. Fervedes 4, 9e23. Rodríguez-Asensio, J.A., 2000. El Paleolítico antiguo en Asturias. SPAL: Revista de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla 9, 109e123. Rodríguez-Asensio, J.A., 2001. Yacimiento de Cabo Busto. Los orígenes prehistóricos de Asturias. GEA. Rodríguez-Asensio, J.A., Arrizabalaga, A., 2004. El poblamiento más antiguo de la región: las ocupaciones previas al IS4. Desde el inicio del poblamiento a circa 80.000 BP. In: Fano, M. (Ed.), Las sociedades del Paleolítico en la región cantábrica. Kobie (Serie Anejos). Bilbao Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia-Diputación Foral de Bizkaia, vol. 8, pp. 51e90. Sánchez-Yustos, P., Díez-Martín, F., Díaz-Muñoz, M.I., Gómez de La Rúa, D., GómezGonzález, J.A., 2011. Estrategias de talla en Cueva Corazón (Mave, Palencia). Un yacimiento del Musteriense antiguo en las estribaciones meridionales de la Cordillera Cantábrica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 68 (1), 51e63. Sáenz de Buruaga, A., 2000. El Paleolítico inferior y medio en el País Vasco: síntesis de datos y algunas reflexiones. SPAL: Revista de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla 9, 49e68. Santonja, M., 1992. La adaptación al medio en el Paleolítico inferior de la Península Ibérica. Elementos para una reflexión. In: Moure, J.A. (Ed.), Elefantes, Ciervos y Ovicaprinos. Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, pp. 37e76. Santonja, M., 1995. Los últimos diez años en la investigación del Paleolítico inferior de la Cuenca del Duero. Veleia 8-9, 7e42.

Santonja, M., Pérez-González, A., 2002. El Paleolítico inferior en el interior de la Península Ibérica. Un punto de vista desde la Geoarqueología. Zephyrus 53e54, 27e77. Santonja, M., Pérez-González, A., 2006. La industria lítica del miembro estratigráfico medio de Ambrona (Soria, España) en el contexto del Paleolítico antiguo de la Península Ibérica. Zephyrus 59, 7e20. Santonja, M., Pérez-González, A., 2010a. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean industrial complex in the Iberian Peninsula. Quaternary International 223e224, 154e161. Santonja, M., Pérez-González, A., 2010b. Precisiones en torno a la edad y la industria lítica de El Aculadero (El Puerto de Santa María, Cadiz), Cuaternario y Arqueología. In: Homenaje a Francisco Giles Pacheco, pp. 19e26. Santonja, M., Villa, P., 2006. The Acheulian of western Europe. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age. Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp. 429e478. Sommé, J., 1978. Le gisement paléolithique de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais). Bulletin de l’Association Française pour l’étude du Quaternaire 15 (1e3), 27e34. Tapia, J., 2010. El depósito paleolítico de La Garma A: estratigrafía y aproximación tafonómica. Trabajo de Investigación de 3er ciclo. Departamento de Ciencias Históricas, Universidad de Cantabria (unpublished). Terradillos, M.Y., Díez Fernández-Lomana, J.C., 2011. Las tradiciones culturales y la variabilidad en el Paleolítico antiguo. El ejemplo de los yacimientos de la Meseta norte (Península Ibérica). Munibe 62, 31e47. Thibault, C., 1976a. Les civilisations du Paléolithique inférieur dans le Sud-Ouest (Pays Basque, Landes, Gironde). In: Lumley, H. (Ed.), La Préhistoire Française I.2. C.N.R.S., Paris, pp. 905e908. Thibault, C., 1976b. Les civilisations du Paléolithique moyen du Sud-Ouest (Pays Basque et Béarn, Landes, Gironde). In: Lumley, H. (Ed.), La Préhistoire Française I.2, 1048. C.N.R.S., Paris, pp. 10e52. Turq, A., 2000. Le Moustérien de tradition acheuléenne. Paléo Supplément, 244e273. Turq, A., Brenet, M., Cologne, D., Jarry, M., Lelouvier, L.-A., O’Farrel, M., Jaubert, J., 2010. The first occupations in Southwestern France: a revised summary twenty years alter the Abbeville/Saint Riquier colloquium. Quaternary International 223e224, 383e398. Vega, L.G., Cosano, P., Villar, A., Escarpa, O., Rojas, T., 1997. Las industrias de la interfase Pleistoceno Medio e Superior en la cueva de la Carihuela (Piñar, Granada). In: II Congreso de Arqueología Peninsular. Paleolítico y Epipaleolítico. Zamora, vol. I, pp. 105e119.