Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour: British bout coupé handaxes as a case study

Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal
handaxes as a case study behaviour: British bout coupe Karen Ruebens a, *, Rebecca M. Wragg Sykes b a b

MONREPOS Archaeological Research Centre and Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution, Schloss Monrepos, D-56567 Neuwied, Germany ^timent B18, Avenue des Facult
PACEA, UMR 5199, Universit
e Bordeaux 1, Ba es, Talence Cedex 33405, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online xxx

Recent broad-scale comparative studies of Neanderthal lithic assemblages have contrasted previous views of the Middle Palaeolithic as a period of stasis. Throughout the Middle Palaeolithic, ca. 300,000 e35,000 years ago, typo-technological changes can be observed in the Neanderthal behavioural repertoire, including trends that are restricted in time and/or space. Such spatio-temporal diversity seems especially apparent in the late Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 5ee3; ca. 125e35 ka BP) and is widely, though not exclusively, expressed through differing bifacial tool types. An often-quoted example is the restricted
or flat-butted cordate handaxes in MIS-3 Britain. This paper provides a distribution of bout coupe
phenomenon; first, in relation to the general reoccurrence broader contextualisation of this bout coupe of handaxes in late Middle Palaeolithic Western Europe, including comparisons with the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA); and second, as a case study to explore behavioural implications of such spatio-temporal variation. Different explanatory factors for the observed patterns are investigated
s together with potential links to Neanderthal population dynamics. It is concluded that bout coupe represent a genuinely distinct biface form, which was sometimes maintained through the stages of use, and is most parsimoniously explained by regionalised socio-cultural behaviour, implying specific lines of cultural transmission among late Neanderthal groups. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian Bifacial technology
handaxe Bout coupe Neanderthal behaviour Cultural transmission

1. Introduction Identifying, classifying and interpreting typo-technological, geographic and chronological patterning in past material culture remains an ongoing challenge within archaeological and anthropological research. Reconstructing the mechanisms behind, and behavioural meaning of, artefact variability is especially challenging for the Palaeolithic record (Davidson and Noble, 1993; Davidson, 2002; Clark, 2005; Dibble et al., 2006; Soressi and Geneste, 2011; Tostevin, 2012; Kuhn, 2013a; Faivre et al., 2014; Monnier and Missal, 2014; Shea, 2014), for which stone tools are the most abundant and durable source of information. However, detailed studies of large-scale patterning in lithic artefacts can contribute to central questions in anthropology and archaeology, such as tracing past population dynamics (migrations and interactions), mechanisms of cultural transmission and social

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Ruebens), [email protected] (R.M. Wragg Sykes).

learning, and their potential reflection in the archaeological record. This paper provides an in-depth assessment of a late Middle Palaeolithic case study by examining the spatio-temporal occurrence of a particular artefact type and its wider implications for late Neanderthal behaviour. The Middle Palaeolithic in Western Europe covers an extensive period of time, from ca. 300,000 to 35,000 years ago (Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) 9e3), and can be divided into an early, MIS 9e6, and late, MIS 5ee3, phase (Kuhn, 2013b). This later Middle Palaeolithic, ca. 125 ka to 35 ka, includes the appearance of anatomically ‘classic’ Neanderthals (Hublin, 1998; Tattersall and Schwartz, 2008) with an extensive behavioural repertoire, including a resurgence in the diversity of bifacial tools (artefacts shaped by removals from its two main faces), such as handaxes, leaf points and backed bifacial knives (the so-called Keilmesser) (Bordes, 1961; Bosinski, 1967; Mellars, 1969, 1996; Cliquet, 2001; Soressi, € ris, 2004; Ruebens and Di 2002; White and Jacobi, 2002; Jo Modica, 2011; Ruebens, 2013, 2014). In contrast to previous views, where the Middle Palaeolithic was seen as a period of stasis with few technological changes (Mithen, 1996; Kuhn and Stiner,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 1040-6182/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

2

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

lithic trait that is potentially region-specific. This is achieved by integrating primary typo-technological data from all British late
s) with a Middle Palaeolithic handaxes (including non-bout coupe sample of over 1000 Western European late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools from Belgium, the Netherlands, northern, western and
hansouthwest France. This permits us to both place bout coupe daxes in their wider European setting and attempt to unravel their potential behavioural implications.

1998; Gamble, 1999; Klein, 1999; Kuhn, 2006), recent research increasingly indicates lithic diversity and the presence of distinct typo-technological units within the late Middle Palaeolithic that € ris, are restricted in time and space (Table 1; Soressi, 2002, 2004; Jo 2004; Delagnes and Meignen, 2006; Depaepe, 2007; Goval, 2008; Guibert et al., 2008; Meignen et al., 2009; Deschamps, 2010; Jaubert, 2010; Jaubert et al., 2011; Locht et al., 2010; Koehler,
baut et al., 2011; Ruebens, 2012, 2013, 2014; Kuhn, 2013b; Thie 2014). For example, differing types of bifacial tools (in terms of techniques of manufacture and maintenance as well as overall form) characterise the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) in southwest France (Soressi, 2002, 2004), the Vasconian in the western Pyrenees and Cantabria (Deschamps, 2010; Deschamps and Mourre, 2012) and the Keilmessergruppen in Central and €ris, 2004, 2006). Eastern Europe (Jo The late Middle Palaeolithic occupation of Britain is related to a re-colonisation during MIS-3, ca. 60,000 to 35,000 BP, following an occupational hiatus across most of MIS-5 and 4 (Ashton and Lewis, 2002; White and Jacobi, 2002; Wragg Sykes, 2009, in press; Lewis et al., 2010; White and Pettitt, 2011). In comparison to its continental counterparts, the British late Middle Palaeolithic record is numerically small, with fewer than 5000 artefacts from just over 20 sites (more than half of which come from the recently excavated site of Lynford; Boismier et al., 2012). Small assemblage size and sparse contextual data is in part due to the excavation of many sites in the 19th or early 20th century, and to the recurrence of isolated find spots, primarily handaxes (bifacially worked tools with two converging lateral cutting edges and a variable symmetric outline shape). However, it is clear that, when taken as a whole and with taphonomic caveats in mind, the British late Middle Palaeolithic has a rather coherent character, even if occupation was probably genuinely marginal (Wragg Sykes, 2009, in press; see below for further details). One aspect of this is the apparent presence of a
. Given this distinctive specific handaxe variant, the bout coupe typo-technological character, its peripheral palaeogeographic position and colonization context, the British late Middle Palaeolithic provides a useful case study for examining and contextualising spatio-temporal variation within Neanderthal material culture.

2. Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools in Western Europe Bifacial technologies, especially handaxes, are the defining characteristic of the Lower Palaeolithic Acheulean industry, occurring from ca. 1.7 Ma to 200 ka (Clark, 1994; Gamble, 1999; Santonja and Villa, 2006; Beyene et al., 2013; Bates et al., 2014). In Western Europe, their presence begins to decline with the appearance and spread of Levallois prepared core techniques (Monnier, 2006; Scott, 2011). Throughout the early Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 9e6) bifacial technologies become a more marginal phenomenon, though their use does not cease completely (Monnier, 2006; Villa, 2009; Emery, 2010; Bates et al., 2014; Frouin et al., 2014; Monnier and Missal, 2014). In some early Middle Palaeolithic assemblages in Western Europe a low number of bifacial tools are found alongside Levallois technologies (Bourguignon et al., 2008; Brenet et al., 2008; Moncel et al., 2012), but assemblages where bifacial tools play an important role in the toolkit are rare. This suggests that while early Middle Palaeolithic hominins in Western Europe were not incapable of making handaxes, their manufacture was not a significant part of the technological practice at that time, for reasons which are still unclear. Conversely, from MIS-5d (ca. 115 ka) onwards assemblages with larger quantities of bifacial tools, now including various handaxe types, leaf points, bifacial scrapers and/or Keilmesser, occur regularly across Western, Central and Eastern Europe. In Western Europe late Middle Palaeolithic assemblages can contain a range of bifacial tools, although handaxes are most common and have been found in a variety of contexts (Cliquet, 2001; Soressi, 2002; Jaubert et al., 2008; Cliquet et al., 2009; Deschodt et al., 2009; Niekus et al., 2011; Ruebens, 2013, 2014). These handaxe-rich assemblages also

Table 1 Overview of the main spatio-temporal entities currently distinguished in the late Middle Palaeolithic archaeological record in Western Europe, including their geographic, chronological and typo-technological characteristics. Entity

Region

Chronology Main characteristics

Northwest technocomplex Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition Mousterian with Bifacial Tools Keilmessergruppen Vasconian Quina Mousterian Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition

Northern France Northern France Western France to the Netherlands Central and Eastern Europe Pyrenees and Cantabria Southwestern France Southwestern France Britain

MIS MIS MIS MIS MIS MIS MIS MIS

5 5 and 5 and 5 and 5 and 4/3 3 3


handaxes, also called flat-butted Past studies of bout coupe cordates (type N, Wymer, 1968) or Paxton type handaxes (Collins and Collins, 1970), have predominantly focussed on their definition (Coulson, 1986; Tyldesley, 1987), while more recent research explored their technological features (Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010; Emery, 2010). White and Jacobi (2002) re-examined their stratigraphic integrity and spatio-temporal incidence, concluding they are predominantly an MIS-3 ‘phenomenon’. However, the nature of
manifestation, including its diversity and behavthe bout coupe ioural implications, is still not comprehensively understood. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to contextualise and
handaxe phenomenon as an example of a interpret the bout coupe

3 3 3 3

Key references

Blade technology Depaepe, 2007; Goval, 2008 Large triangular handaxes Soressi, 2002 variety of bifacial tools Bourdin, 2006; Ruebens, 2014 €ris, 2004, 2006 Backed and leafshaped bifacial tools Bosinski, 1967; Jo Cleavers Bordes, 1953; Deschamps and Mourre, 2012 Quina scrapers, reindeer Bordes, 1953; Delagnes and Rendu, 2011 Cordiform handaxes Soressi, 2002
handaxes Bout coupe White and Jacobi, 2002; Wragg Sykes, 2010

occur alongside assemblages with few or no traces of bifacial technologies (Bordes, 1961; Bosinski, 1967; Conard and Fischer, 2000; Richter, 2000, 2014; Monnier and Missal, 2014). Towards the very end of the Middle Palaeolithic (ca. 40,000e35,000 BP) bifacially worked tools are still found in some “transitional” technocomplexes (for example leaf points in the Szeletian and LincombianeRanisianeJerzmaniwichian; Flas, 2008, 2011), but then cease to appear with the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic. Overall, this florescence of bifacial tools, repeatedly occurring in large quantities and with distinct typo-technological variability, is a specific phenomenon associated with classic Neanderthals predominantly between 115 and 35 ka.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

Alongside this chronological delimitation, several geographic trends have also been recognised within late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools. At a macro-regional scale a distinct East-West divide in terms of technology and typology exists, with handaxes commonly occurring west of the Rhine river, but becoming much rarer further east (Bosinski, 1967; Cliquet, 2001; Soressi, 2002; Ruebens, 2007a, 2007b, 2012, 2013, 2014). Instead, assemblages east of the Rhine are dominated by backed bifacial tools (Keil€ ris, 2004, messer) and leaf-shaped bifacial tools (Bosinski, 1967; Jo 2006), which are conversely much rarer in western Europe (Ruebens, 2007a,b). Though they are an important facet of the general late Middle Palaeolithic renewed focus on bifacial tools, these central European assemblages (collectively referred to as Keilmessergruppen (KMG)), mostly lack handaxes, preventing direct
handaxe record, and are therefore comparison with the bout coupe not further considered here. Handaxe-dominated assemblages occur frequently in the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, northern, western and southwestern France (Cliquet, 2001; Soressi, 2002; White and Jacobi, 2002; Deeben et al., 2005; Launay and Molines, 2005; Ruebens and Di Modica, 2010; Ruebens, 2013, 2014). During various phases of Palaeolithic research, a range of taxonomic entities have been created to stress region-specific characteristics among these bifacial tools (Table 1). Although the validity of some of these entities can be questioned (Launay and Molines, 2005; Ruebens, 2014), it is clear that genuine regional differences do exist among late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes. The best documented examples relate to the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA), originally defined to group Mousterian assemblages from southwest France with handaxes, mostly of a cordiform/cordate shape (Fig. 1A, Peyrony, 1930; Bordes, 1961; Soressi, 2002). Subsequently, assemblages in

3

northern France with large, triangular handaxes have been described as a regional MTA variant (Fig. 1C and E; Bordes, 1954;
and Tuffreau, 1971; Soressi, 2002). The diverse bifacial Somme tool forms in Brittany have been classified similarly (Fig. 1B, Monnier, 1986, 1987; Molines et al., 2001), although they have more recently been labelled as a ‘Mousterian with bifacial tools’ (Bourdin,
han2006; Ruebens, 2013, 2014). Finally, the British bout coupe daxes have also been interpreted as linked with the MTA (see below, Collins and Collins, 1970; Shackley, 1977; Soressi, 2002; White and Jacobi, 2002; Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010, in press b; White and Pettitt, 2011). Exploring these other region-specific handaxe entities is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is clear
s are only one aspect of a wider recurrence of that bout coupe bifacial technologies across the late Middle Palaeolithic and fit into a wider pattern of increasingly regionalised behaviour. Therefore,
handaxes provide an interesting case study to these bout coupe assess, contextualise and interpret large-scale spatial variation in late Neanderthal behaviour. 3. Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools in Britain Research into the British Palaeolithic began early (Frere, 1800), and handaxes have always played, and continue to play, a central role in discussions of this period (Roe, 1968, 1981; Wymer, 1968; McPherron, 1995; White, 1998; Wenban-Smith, 2004; Emery, 2010; Bates et al., 2014; Bridgland and White, 2014). These artefacts were quite widely collected from the 19th century onwards and include many isolated or unprovenanced surface finds, as well as larger assemblages from riverine contexts (Wymer, 1999). Researchers initially conflated early with late Middle Palaeolithic (and even some Lower Palaeolithic) assemblages due to a lack of direct

Fig. 1. Late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes from continental northwest Europe; A: cordiform handaxe, Abri Peyrony (SW France); B: thick cordiform handaxe, Bois-du-Rocher
e (N France); D: ovate handaxe, Saint-Julien-de-la-Lie gue (N France); E: triangular handaxe, Les Andelys (N France); F (Brittany); C: triangular handaxe, Saint-Just en Chausse and G: small handaxes from Oosthoven (Belgium); H and I: small handaxes from Champlost (N France).

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

4

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

dating methods and a compressed Quaternary sequence. The British late Middle Palaeolithic (expected to be Mousterian) was regarded at this time as unidentifiable, and handaxes were generally assigned to a later Acheulean (Wymer, 1968). Variability within Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe form was described in two main classification schemes by Roe (1968) and Wymer (1968), both recognising the occurrence of a distinct D-shape form, termed
, or ‘flat butted cordate’ (Figs. 2 and 3). Even respectively bout coupe though the latter is more descriptive and therefore more accurate,
has become widely used (e.g. Soressi, 2002, 2004: 344; bout coupe Gowlett, 2009: 67; White and Pettitt, 2011; Ruebens, 2013; Roebroeks, 2014), and hence is given primacy here.
originally comes from Lacaille The French term bout coupe (1960) and refers to cleavers or hachereaux, implements with a horizontally truncated tip. However, in British contexts it was interpreted as ‘cut-butt’ (Tyldesley, 1987). The term was then adopted and more formally defined by Roe (1968, Fig. 2) who used
as a type-fossil to define a British MTA with Levallois the bout coupe (Roe, 1981). However, this was partly based on an ‘assemblage’ from Bramford Road, which was collected from tens of metres of submerged gravels brought to the surface by a pump (Wymer, 1985), and is highly likely to contain a mix of early (Levallois) and late Middle Palaeolithic (handaxes). Roe proposed that other assemblages with MTA-like handaxes were probably MIS-5 or MIS-4/3, but in general he was not impressed with the British late Middle Palaeolithic, noting that compared with the continental record, Britain seemed “sparse and impoverished in the extreme” (Roe, 1981), pointing to the lack of any “elegant” Ferrassie, Quina or Denticulate Mousterian facies. He did specifically suggest that the British material might be compared with early assemblages from northern France and Belgium, even speculating that the southwestern French MTA may have developed from these northern assemblages (Roe, 1981). Coulson (1986, 1990) later attempted a comprehensive analysis of the entire British Middle Palaeolithic applying Bordes' classification (Bordes, 1961). However, her work suffered from the same compressed time frame problems as Roe, and was also limited by a typologically-centred research frame
as a distinctive form, work. She explicitly rejected the bout coupe stating that it could be subsumed within Bordes' typology (Coulson,
s 1986). Tyldesley's (1987) subsequent investigation into bout coupe was a response to Coulson's work, and endeavoured to create a more strict metrical definition (encompassing most of the known
s in the British record, examples). She claimed 75 “true” bout coupe most from late Middle Palaeolithic sites, and additionally concluded that many could be attributed to the Early or Middle Devensian (MIS 4/3). It is also notable that within the large British Lower Palaeolithic handaxe record as analysed by Roe (1968: over


form does not appear, despite 38,000 specimens) the bout coupe his recognition of it as a ‘type’ within the Middle Palaeolithic (Roe, 1981). White and Jacobi's extensive re-assessment in the early 2000s suggested a clear division in Britain between the early Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 9e7) with Levallois reduction and few bifacial tools, and the late Middle Palaeolithic (MIS-3), characterised by the common occurrence of handaxes (White and Jacobi, 2002; White et al., 2006). They concluded that where contextual information is
s to the MIS-3 re-colonisation of Britain available, it links bout coupe by Neanderthals. However, they also stress that many examples lack detailed chronostratigraphic information and urge caution in
s as an MIS-3 marker. A subsequent uncritically using bout coupe broader overview of Neanderthal settlement patterns in Britain and their environmental contexts concluded that the British record reflects brief pulses of occupation between 50 and 37 ka (White and
s Pettitt, 2011). Additionally, more detailed studies of bout coupe have focussed on their resharpening trajectories (Emery, 2010) and the potential presence of further regional differentiation within this handaxe type (Cutler, 2013). Finally, a comprehensive study of the best-dated British late Middle Palaeolithic assemblages, including detailed techno-economic analyses, confirmed a virtual absence of Levallois (Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010). Core reduction is primarily informal (following nodule shape, resulting in migrating striking platforms) and centripetally-based, fitting into a mobile technological system that also includes transport of bifaces and scrapers (Wragg Sykes, 2009, in press). This study also demonstrated that the most frequent handaxe shape is cordate, commonly without a flat butt, and highlighted the dynamic nature of many handaxes in terms of an extended chaîne op
eratoire, including resharpening, recycling and use as supports for secondary retouching (e.g. notching or scraper zones, Wragg Sykes, 2010). So, overall, the British late Middle Palaeolithic has been extensively studied and as a result is rather well characterised. However, until now, broader
form contextualisations of the handaxe record, and the bout coupe in particular, have been sparse, both in relation to its wider European context and potential implications for Neanderthal behaviour.
s in their European context 4. Bout coupe Data are drawn here from a recent study of the British late Middle Palaeolithic that focused on the 23 best-contextualised locales (Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010, in press). Twenty one of these either contain handaxes or have indirect evidence for their presence via maintenance flakes (e.g. Ash Tree Cave and Picken's Hole (Wragg Sykes, in press a)). Nine locales have multiple handaxes (Table 2, Fig. 4) which, when combined with a series of lone finds,


handaxe form, example from Castle Lane (Bournemouth). Fig. 2. Illustration and description of the defining characteristics of the bout coupe

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

5


handaxes from Britain; A and H: Snodland (Kent); B and D: Coygan Cave (Wales); C: Oldbury (Kent); E: Kent's Cavern (Devon); F: Lynford (Norfolk); G: Saham Fig. 3. Bout coupe Toney (Norfolk); I: Little Paxton (Cambridgeshire); J: Sipson (London).

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

6

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

Fig. 4. Locations of the main late Middle Palaeolithic sites with handaxes in northwest Europe, including their environmental context and site location characteristics (white squares represent open-air sites, black squares cave and rock shelter sites). Green contour line indicates the coast at
50 m; Black lines the mean summer temperature, 15  C (dashed) and 20  C (solid); Vertical lined area: shrub tundra; Oblique lined area: open conifer woodland (based on data from van Andel and Tzedakis, 1996 and van Andel, 2003). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

provide a total of 124 British late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes. While some of the assemblages are undoubtedly compromised in terms of biases stemming from their early research history (e.g. under-representation of small debitage; Table 2), this does not affect their coherent chronological association to MIS-3 (see further on; Table 5), nor the study of the bifacial tools themselves since these are the least susceptible to collection bias. Additionally, the inclusion of Lynford as a very recently excavated assemblage provides balance as a better contextualised ‘grab’ sample of handaxes. Additionally, 1006 bifacial tools from thirteen sites in southwest, western and northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands were assessed by Ruebens (2012, 2013; Table 3, Fig. 4), resulting in a total sample here of 1130 late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools. This large dataset permits a detailed assessment and comparison of the general characteristics of the sites and the assemblages, the typotechnological and metric aspects of the bifacial tools and the associated chronological and geographic data, providing an up-to
s. date contextualisation of bout coupe 4.1. Site characteristics Handaxes attributed to the late Middle Palaeolithic have been recovered from across northwest Europe in a variety of localities, site settings and environmental contexts (Tables 2 and 3, Fig. 4). The British late Middle Palaeolithic, even though numerically small, is

distributed across a relatively broad geographic area (Fig. 4), including various geological contexts (Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010).
sites are a mixture of cave assemblages, excavated many Bout coupe decades ago, open air locales, including riverine/gravel contexts, as well as isolated finds and material excavated from shallow surface deposits (Table 2). Even though the recording of many assemblages excavated in the 19th/early 20th century was not ideal, with loss of
contextual data and clear collector bias, it is clear that bout coupe handaxes occur widely geographically in Britain, in all site types and across diverse raw materials (including flint, Greensand chert and igneous rock). A similar diversity can be recognised in continental European handaxe locales, though there is a discrepancy between sites with very large numbers of handaxes in southwest and western France, and a dominance of isolated handaxe finds or smaller assemblages in Belgium and the Netherlands (Table 3). Interestingly, in Britain and the Netherlands, very rich late Middle Palaeolithic handaxe assemblages are generally sparse, with predominantly Lynford in Britain (Boismier et al., 2012), and Assen in the Netherlands (Niekus et al., 2011), contrasting with the quite common finds of isolated handaxes (White and Jacobi, 2002; Deeben et al., 2005). Currently, it is difficult to assess whether this dichotomy in handaxe richness relates to geological and taphonomic phenomena (e.g. palimpsests), differences in research intensity/focus or reflects genuine patterns of differential Neanderthal occupation or behaviour.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

Site

Lynford

Location

Context/history

Core reduction techniques

Dominant flake tools

Flint

Informal

Scrapers, notches, denticulates

Flint

Discoidal, informal

Quartzite, flint

Discoidal, informal

Fragments Number of Handaxes bifacial Bout Triangular Cordiform Discoidal Ovate Other tools
coupe 57

8

4

23

7

8

Scrapers, denticulates

7

1

4

1

1

Scrapers, denticulates, notches

2

Quartzite, Discoidal, clay-ironstone, flint informal

Scrapers, notches, denticulates

7

Flint, Discoidal, Carboniferous chert informal

Scrapers, notches, denticulates

4

Flint

n/a

n/a

1

1

Flint, Greensand chert

Discoidal, ?Levallois

Scrapers, notch

7

4

Flint, Discoidal Carboniferous chert

Scrapers, denticulates, notches

3

Igneuos

n/a

n/a

3

2

1

Flint

Discoidal, informal

Scrapers, denticulates, notches

14

5

2

Flint

n/a

n/a

3

2

1

Flint

n/a

n/a

2

2

Flint

n/a

n/a

6

6

116

32

9

2

1

4

1

3

1

1

3

1

4

42

2

1

2

3

1

1

2

13

15

11

7

Open-air Excavated 2002e2003; organic palaeochannel deposits, including bank collapse sediments; original extent of site unknown. Little Paxton Open-air Recovered early 20th century from fluvial gravels in commercial pits, associated with MIS-3 fauna. Pin Hole Cave Located at Cresswell Crags, excavated by Dawkins and Mello late 19th century and by Armstrong early 20th century. Robin Hood Cave Cave Largest cave at Cresswell Crags, excavated in 19th century by Mello, Dawkins, Heath and Laing, in late 20th century work by Campbell and Jenkinson. Hyaena Den Cave Discovered in 1852, likely a very rich locale, but partially destroyed and subject to many early excavations. More recent works in 1970s (Tratman) and 1990s. Rhinoceros Hole Cave Excavated early 1900s and 1970e76. Useries dating suggess <50 kyr BP. Pin Hole MAZ fauna also present alongside three biface trimming flakes Kent's Cavern Cave Major excavations by Pengelly late 19th c. Second phase from 1926 to 1941 by Beynon and Ogilvie. Most recent work (1990s2000s) on geology and dating. Uphill Quarry Cave Discovered in 1898 by Wilson and Reynolds; lithics associated with a MIS-3 fauna; deposits may have entered through roof fissure. Coygan Cave Cave Four excavations before mid-20th century.
s from 1970 excavations by Bout coupe Clegg. Recent reanalysis by Aldhouse-Green suggest mid MIS-3 use of cave between hyaena denning episodes. Oldbury Open-air Late 19th century excavation and surface collection from talus slopes, followed by targetted excavation in 1965 by Collins. Later re-analysis of collections by Cook and Jacobi Snodland Open-air Found within gravels from Clubb's Ballast Pit (Roe, 1981) on the Medway, river terrace regarded as early MIS- 3 alongside Pin Hole MAZ fauna. One other biface not available for study. Marlow Open-air Collected between 1928 and 1930 from a brickpit (Treacher 1934) on a low terrace of the Middle Thames, correlated to MIS-4-32. Sipson, Fisherton, Open-air Isolated finds predominantly from floodplain and gravel deposits (for a Saham Toney, detailed overview of contexts see Wragg Berrymead, Sykes, 2009) Castle Lane, Southbourne

Dominant raw materials

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

Table 2 Characteristics of the British sites studied with late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes, including location, site context, history of research, dominant raw materials, core reduction techniques and flake tools, alongside the number of studied handaxes and their types (based on Wragg Sykes, 2009 and references therein). Some handaxe fragments could be assigned to a shape group while others were undiagnostic.

8

Site

Region

Oosthoven

N Belgium

Location Context/history

Open-air Excavated in 1994 by Van Peer, in 2014 by Ruebens, artefacts found in an erosional horizon Grotte du Docteur S Belgium Cave Excavated 1886e1888 by Fraipont and Tihon, in 1998 by R. Miller, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic material Sint-Geertruid Netherlands Open-air Over 2000 Palaeolithic artefacts collected from different surface concentrations since 1930's Champlost NE France Open-air Surface finds contextualised by excavations by Farizy from 1982 to 1992, single archaeological layer
e N France Saint-Just-en-Chausse Open-air Disused brickyard, excavations in 1950s, testpits in 1976 by Tuffreau and Dupont, 3 Palaeolithic layers gue Normandy Open-air Over 10,000 artefacts collected Saint-Julien de la Lie since late 19th c from different surface concentrations, test pits in 1980s Bois-du-Rocher Brittany Open-air Known since the 1870s, lithics collected on several occassions and spread over several museum (sample here from
e de l'Homme, Paris) Muse Le Moustier SW France Rock Excavated by Peyrony early shelter 20th c, strong collector's bias, deep Mousterian sequence, further work by Bordes and Bonifay (1969) and Laville and Rigaud (1973) Abri Peyrony SW France Rock Excavated by Peyrony in 1925, shelter biased collection, recent work by Lenoir and Dibble (1995), and Lenoir, McPherron and Dogandzic (2009e2012), several Mousterian layers
I Pech de l'Aze SW France Rock Excavated early (Peyrony) and shelter mid 20th century (Bordes) and in 2000s by Soressi, several MTA layers

Dominant Core reduction techniques raw material

Dominant flake tools

Other Fragments Number Handaxes bif. of bifacial Bout Triangular Cordiform Discoidal Ovate Other Tools tools
coupe

Flint

Levallois, discoidal, Scrapers, point, laminar denticulate

21

Flint

Levallois, discoidal

Scrapers, points, notches, denticulates

44

Flint

Levallois, discoidal

Quina and end scrapers

11

Flint

Levallois

Scrapers, points

32

Flint

Levallois

Scrapers

27

Flint

Levallois, discoidal

Scrapers, notches

s Gre

Rare Levallois, discoidal, laminar

Scrapers, point, denticulate

Flint

Levallois, discoidal, Scrapers, backed laminar knives, notches, denticulates

313

Flint

Levallois, discoidal

Scrapers, backed knives

Flint

Levallois, laminar

Scrapers, backed knives

3

1

1

5

17

3

4

1

5

6

8

2

2

2

17

3

1

6

2

3

28

3

10

215

7

103

19

36

13

9

58

1

25

6

13

9

4

25

142

26

14

11

28

66

184

4

114

10

8

6

29

13

101

10

48

3

6

18

16

51

455

68

84

148

137

1006

2

3

25

1

3

51

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

Table 3 Characteristics of the studied late Middle Palaeolithic handaxe assemblages from continental northwest Europe, including location, site context, history of research, dominant raw materials, core reduction techniques and flake tools, alongside the number of studied bifacial tools and their types (based on Ruebens, 2012 and references therein).

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

4.2. Assemblage characteristics In continental northwest Europe late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes are found in association with a range of flaking techniques, including formal Levallois and discoidal techniques, alongside more informal reduction sequences (Table 3). For example, the MTA of southwest France is associated with Levallois technologies, discoidal flaking and laminar reduction for obtaining elongated blanks (Table 3; Bordes, 1954; Soressi, 1999, 2002, 2005; Turq, 2000; Jaubert et al., 2008; Turq et al., 2011; Jelinek, 2013). Conversely, the British late Middle Palaeolithic appears to lack great diversity in core technology, both within and between sites. The only formal core reduction strategy employed is discoidal technology, which appears to cross-cut raw material type and region in a manner similar to handaxes (Wragg Sykes, 2009; in press b). In terms of flake tools, continental handaxe sites are characterised by a common presence of generic Middle Palaeolithic types, such as scrapers, notches and denticulates (Table 3). Retouched backed knives appear to feature predominantly in the southwestern French MTA (Peyrony, 1930; Bordes and Borgon, 1951; Bordes, 1953, 1954, 1961; Mellars, 1969, 1996; Soressi, 2002, 2004), though these tools are not universally present (Claud, 2008; Jaubert et al., 2008; Ruebens, 2012). The British late Middle Palaeolithic handaxe assemblages often feature a high percentage of scrapers, with fewer denticulates and notches, and lack backed knives (Wragg Sykes, 2009; in press b). Illustrative of this pattern is Lynford, with a low number of retouched tools, including 17 scrapers, alongside a higher than average number of handaxes (Table 2). Flakes (aside from those resulting from handaxe manufacture) seem to have been obtained at Lynford through quite informal reduction of large cores, with no unambiguous evidence for Levallois (Wragg Sykes, 2009; Boismier et al., 2012; Ruebens, 2012). In general, the British late Middle Palaeolithic appears distinct in several typo-technological aspects compared to the more diverse continental record (Wragg Sykes, in press b). As the production of handaxes, however, seems to be the common thread linking the two regional records, a detailed comparison of their technology, metrics and typology follows. 4.3. Bifacial tools: technology Handaxes from the dataset are predominantly produced using fine-grained raw materials, with a dominance of flint both in Britain and elsewhere (Tables 2 and 3). Detailed studies of the British handaxes (Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010) indicate that in geological situations without local high quality stone, flint handaxes were often imported. Local coarser rock types were also utilised, sometimes resulting in quite crude bifacial tools; for example some quartzite handaxes from Creswell Crags (Jacobi, 2004; Wragg Sykes, 2009). However, this was not always the case, as other quartzite examples are quite finely, if lightly, worked (Fig. 5G), while very hard igneous stone (diorite and rhyolite) was utilised
s (e.g. elsewhere to produce some of most ‘classic’ bout coupe Coygan Cave, Figs. 3 B and D). Across continental Europe handaxes were also repeatedly made on non-flint raw materials, including quartzite (Turq, 1978; Janot, 1981) and sandstone (e.g. Bois-duRocher, Fig. 1B). In general, throughout the late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial shaping was applied to various blank types, including both nodules and flake blanks, however because of the often intense reduction of the handaxes, the original blank can be difficult to identify (Wragg Sykes, 2009; Ruebens, 2012). Overall, it appears that the quality of the stone was not necessarily a barrier to
s. producing handaxes, including bout coupe Furthermore, the production sequences of these handaxes can be highly fragmented, even in areas where flint was abundant, e.g.

9

southeast Britain (Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010) and southwest France (Soressi and Hays, 2003; Faivre, 2006). For example, at Lynford, while some bifaces were made in situ using cobbles (Fig. 5A), others appear to have been imported to the locale having already been partially manufactured elsewhere; in addition other handaxes arrived in a highly reduced state, clearly having been curated, used, and repaired (Fig. 5C). Similar patterns of handaxes moving in and out of sites are also noted in continental Europe (e.g. Abri Brouil
I, Soressi, 2002; Grotte XVI, laud, Geneste, 1985; Pech-de-l'Aze Soressi and Hays, 2003; Les Fieux Ks, Faivre, 2006), and this fragmentation and transport is a more general characteristic of the Middle Palaeolithic (Turq et al., 2013). Evidence for resharpening is quite frequent among late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes, and is also evidenced by the presence of biface-maintenance flakes at many sites (Soressi, 2002, 2004; Faivre, 2006; Jaubert et al., 2008; Claud, 2015). Sometimes these occur in the absence of handaxes in the same raw material, further demonstrating the mobility of these elements (Soressi, 2002; Faivre, 2006; Wragg Sykes, 2010). Habitual resharpening and repair, alongside other secondary modifications (including percussion marks), suggest that handaxes formed a similarly dynamic part of the late Middle Palaeolithic toolkit (Soressi, 2002; Launay and Molines, 2005; Claud, 2008; Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010;
baut et al., 2010; Iovita, 2014). For example, some bifaces Thie were recycled and reused as cores, e.g. at Hyaena Den (Fig. 5D) and ^nes (Cliquet et al., 2009), whilst others had Saint-Brice sous Ra different forms of retouch applied to their edges, including scraperlike retouch or struck and retouched notches (Fig. 5C; the notch spalls themselves may also have been useable products; Soressi, 2002; Park, 2007; Wragg Sykes, 2010). The British data also shows that handaxes that were transported long distances have greater levels of maintenance (Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010). This pattern of curation and maintenance seems to be a consistent feature of late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes, and while many had long use-lives, were transported away from their original production locations and repeatedly resharpened and sometimes recycled (Geneste, 1985; Soressi, 2002; Soressi and Hayes, 2003; Wragg
baut et al., 2010), other bifacially-worked obSykes, 2009; Thie jects seem to have been produced and used more expediently, for example the cobble bifaces from Lynford (Fig. 5A). 4.4. Bifacial tools: metrics and typology Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools are diverse both in terms of size and shape (Table 4; Ruebens, 2013). The sample studied here illustrates a wide range of values for maximum length, from 36 to 133 mm. British handaxes appear, in general, slightly larger, clustering around an average length value of 95.08 ± 28.69 mm, compared to 71.62 ± 16.99 mm for the continental sample. In terms of metric proportions, the elongation values (length divided by width) between the two samples are similar, but the British handaxes appear more refined (as expressed by dividing thickness by width; Table 4). However, it is important to note that at all sites a variety of sizes occur (for example Lynford has both very large and small handaxes) and different handaxe forms also occur in varying
form ranges between 69 sizes (Table 4). Specifically, the bout coupe and 195 mm, good examples being the contrasting sizes of the two
handaxes (Figs. 3 B and D); here the Coygan Cave bout coupe smaller example has been heavily resharpened (shown by greater thickness and convexity, and slight asymmtery to one edge of the tip), but the bout coupe form overall has been preserved. A combination of raw material characteristics (including nodule quality and size) and resharpening trajectories are likely to underlie the differences in metrics seen between the British and continental samples.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

10

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

Fig. 5. Different forms of late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools from Britain; AeC: Lynford (Norfolk); D and I: Hyaena Den (Somerset); E: Oldbury (Kent); F: Robin Hood Cave (Derbyshire); G: Pin Hole (Derbyshire); H: Little Paxton (Cambridgeshire).


s have Past assignments of individual handaxes as bout coupe varied by author (Tyldesley, 1987; White and Jacobi, 2002; Wragg Sykes, 2010). It is important to note here that the “holotype” bout
form (most frequently figured in publications) seen in Castle coupe Lane (Fig. 2) and Coygan Cave (Fig. 3B and D), with a fully-'D'shaped outline, including very straight sides, a very flat base and
s. rounded tip, is not replicated exactly across other bout coupe However, the following recurring characteristics as definitive of
s are found in other pieces: a very low position of bout coupe maximum width, a flat to slightly convex worked base, convex edges and a rounded tip (Fig. 2; Tyldesley, 1987; White and Jacobi, 2002). This definition incorporates hybrid classifications in the Wymer system, where for example handaxes with slightly more
-like butts, were included as flat pointed tips, but flat bout coupe butted cordates. While there are minor differences between bifaces
s in this study (see examples on Fig. 3), they identified as bout coupe do appear to be a genuine subgroup of the more common cordate form. This is supported by metric data: their characteristic low

position of maximum width, measured by length ratio (tip length to maximum length, Table 4) shows a significant difference in comparison to the other British bifaces (ManneWhitney U ¼ 463, z ¼
4.772, p < 0.001). This is not a result of differences in size, as the same test for maximum length does not show a significant difference (U ¼ 1182.5, z ¼
0.038, p ¼ 0.970). This supports their
s are a distinct separate classification, and indicates that bout coupe shape group, rather than one point on a continuum of outline form variation. The bifacial tool data (Tables 2 and 3) illustrates clearly that the assemblages are generally not dominated merely by one handaxe
, triangular or cordiform; rather different form, such as bout coupe types always occur alongside each other. In general, there is a dominance of cordiform shapes, both in Britain and in continental Northwest Europe. For the latter, of 712 complete handaxes, 64% are cordiform in shape and 12% ovate (Table 3). Discoidal and triangular
handaxes represent just 10% and 7% of the sample. The bout coupe shape is only represented by 3 specimens, equalling 0.4%. Among

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

the 105 complete British handaxes studied cordiforms are again most common, representing over 40% of the sample (Table 2).
s, when hybrid exNearly one third can be classified as bout coupe amples, such as those with slightly more pointed tips, are included.
s come from the 9 main handaxe locales 24 of these bout coupe (Table 2). Ovate handaxes occur as well (14%), while discoidal (2%) and triangular types (4%) are rare. The ‘true’ frequency of bout
s may be affected by the high number from isolated findspots; coupe when only those found within larger assemblages are included, the percentage drops to one quarter. If only the strictest definition of
shape is applied, this falls to less than 10%, however, this bout coupe is still significantly higher than the continental sample. Lynford Quarry is the largest British late Middle Palaeolithic handaxe assemblage, and even though the faunal taphonomy suggests repeated accumulation events (Boismier et al., 2012;

11

Smith, 2012), it represents a ‘grab sample’ of British late Middle Palaeolithic handaxe diversity (Wragg Sykes, 2009; Boismier et al., 2012; Ruebens, 2012). The variety in form and size at this site is high, though this is partly due to an especially frequent degree of resharpening, breaks, recycling and secondary modifications. Taking this into account, the principal form is generally cordate and,
s are present in reasonably large numbers, they though bout coupe are not dominant. When examined at a larger scale, however, more distinct spatio-temporal patterning can be identified for certain
s. handaxe shapes, including triangular and bout coupe 4.5. Chronology Fifteen continental (Table 5) and nine British (Table 6) Middle Palaeolithic handaxe localities have been radiometrically dated, all

Table 4 Detailed metric data (expressed in millimetres) for the studied late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools, both for the continental and British sample, including maximum length (L), maximum width (W), maximum thickness (T), Tip length (TL, length between maximum width and tip) and calculated ratios: Length ratio (tip length to length) elongation (length to width), flatness (width to thickness) and refinement (thickness to width). Measurements (mm.)

Sample size

Oosthoven

16

Grotte du Docteur

36

Sint-Geertruid

18

Champlost

28


e St Just en Chausse

23

gue St Julien de la Lie Bois du Rocher

180 58

Le Moustier

250

Abri Peyrony

173


I Pech de l'Aze Total continental Lynford

82 864 48

Little Paxton

7

Pin Hole

2

Robin Hood Cave

7

Hyaena Den

4

Rhinoceros Hole

1

Kent's Cavern

7

Uphill Quarry

2

Coygan Cave

3

Oldbury

13

Snodland

3

Marlow

2

6 Sipson, Fisherton, Saham Toney, Berrymead, Castle Lane, Southbourne Total British 105

Length (L) Width (W) Thickness (T) Tip length (TL) Length Elongation (L/W) Flatness (W/T) Refinement (T/W) ratio (TL/L) Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.

42.13 6.35 71.00 20.55 98.64 25.11 67.21 22.55 108.74 24.26 58.82 13.28 69.71 12.51 66.08 12.95 74.35 15.70 59.55 16.59 71.62 16.99 101.42 26.53 92.52 11.80 90.04 47.21 74.11 12.55 53.73 11.21 69.83 e 98.05 13.11 64.51 8.22 98.20 48.78 68.46 17.80 132.99 24.12 105.66 26.76 112.84 17.03

Mean 89.41 St. Dev. 22.09

33.50 4.49 46.14 10.30 61.91 20.56 48.00 13.95 74.22 17.57 45.36 9.22 54.33 9.18 51.85 9.38 58.09 11.54 45.71 11.48 51.91 11.77 73.12 15.44 69.30 8.75 56.68 32.34 53.41 10.91 40.81 10.30 52.30 e 73.47 8.71 45.80 9.05 65.82 25.08 52.35 8.39 89.22 16.24 74.78 10.69 81.28 10.05

14.44 3.20 20.42 6.45 27.33 11.46 15.36 4.85 24.61 7.00 16.64 4.00 21.69 4.75 21.36 5.73 23.39 6.34 17.23 5.23 20.25 5.90 23.70 6.61 24.24 4.63 27.09 8.75 24.79 6.58 12.92 2.23 15.65 e 26.43 2.79 20.68 0.91 21.47 6.86 19.78 4.17 27.47 4.74 21.53 5.99 24.14 2.41

e e 45.77 16.64 e e 43.48 17.96 79.30 19.10 41.03 10.65 50.77 10.80 50.26 10.92 50.33 11.71 45.45 12.81 50.80 13.82 79.21 23.02 62.36 10.06 66.77 37.99 47.83 10.50 36.63 11.31 53.49 e 70.27 11.32 45.30 3.67 79.93 49.64 48.06 12.17 97.70 23.93 82.33 15.96 91.32 16.69

e e 0.65 0.14 e e 0.67 0.11 0.73 0.09 0.69 0.10 0.73 0.09 0.76 0.08 0.75 0.09 0.76 0.07 0.72 0.10 0.77 0.10 0.68 0.05 0.73 0.04 0.66 0.09 0.67 0.13 0.77 e 0.72 0.06 0.70 0.03 0.79 0.12 0.71 0.07 0.73 0.07 0.79 0.05 0.81 0.06

1.26 0.14 1.54 0.31 1.75 0.48 1.40 0.31 1.49 0.23 1.30 0.15 1.29 0.13 1.28 0.14 1.29 0.16 1.31 0.18 1.39 0.22 1.38 0.15 1.34 0.11 1.61 0.09 1.40 0.11 1.33 0.09 1.34 e 1.33 0.05 1.42 0.16 1.45 0.16 1.29 0.17 1.49 0.00 1.40 0.16 1.38 0.08

2.40 0.44 2.36 0.50 2.36 0.80 3.27 0.92 3.15 0.82 2.79 0.52 2.55 0.36 2.52 0.50 2.60 0.64 2.76 0.68 2.68 0.62 3.21 0.72 2.93 0.53 2.00 0.55 2.20 0.40 3.13 0.36 3.34 e 2.79 0.31 2.21 0.34 3.03 0.26 2.70 0.38 3.27 0.52 3.54 0.49 3.37 0.32

0.43 0.09 0.44 0.09 0.47 0.14 0.33 0.08 0.34 0.10 0.37 0.07 0.40 0.06 0.41 0.08 0.40 0.09 0.38 0.09 0.40 0.09 0.33 0.08 0.35 0.07 0.52 0.14 0.47 0.08 0.32 0.04 0.30 e 0.36 0.04 0.46 0.07 0.33 0.03 0.38 0.05 0.31 0.05 0.29 0.04 0.30 0.03

63.72 13.83

22.30 4.72

66.25 18.85

0.73 0.07

1.40 0.11

2.90 0.43

0.36 0.06

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

12

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

of which fall into MIS-3. These dates were obtained by various techniques, by various laboratories and at different points in time, but the general MIS-3 trend is clear. Chronostratigraphic data is quite sparse for the Belgium/Netherlands area, with currently only one dated late Middle Palaeolithic handaxe site (Table 5). In southwest France MTA handaxe-rich assemblages are currently securely, and exclusively, attributed to MIS-3 (Table 5). Conversely, in northern France and Belgium, while similar radiometric attributions to MIS-3 exist (Table 5), extensive stratigraphic sequences show that several assemblages containing handaxes can also be
and Tuffreau, 1971; Depaepe, 2007). attributed to MIS-5 (Somme The apparent occupational hiatus of ‘deserted Britain’ during MIS

6e4 (Ashton and Lewis, 2002) has been tested recently by intensive research and fieldwork (Lewis et al., 2010.). The only evidence of ephemeral Neanderthal presence before early MIS-3 comes from Dartford, southeast England, where two flakes were attributed to a late MIS-5 context (Wenban-Smith et al., 2010). British sites have been assigned securely to MIS-3, based either on stratigraphic bracketing of deposits, the presence of a typical MIS-3 fauna, the so-called Pin Hole Mammalian Assemblage Zone (Currant and Jacobi, 2001), or direct dating within, above, or below archaeological layers (for detailed overviews see Wragg Sykes, 2009; White and Pettitt, 2011). For example, Lynford has been placed in time securely (early MIS-3) based on AMS and OSL dates

Table 5 Chronostratigraphic data available for the main late Middle Palaeolithic assemblages with handaxes in continental northwest Europe. Dates calibrated with OxCal 4.2 using the IntCal09 curve. Site

Layer

Cat. No.

Technique

C14 age BP

CalBP

Reference

Sclayn (B)

Ia

Lv-1377b Lv-1377 OxTL230a1

38,560 ± 1,500 >36,200

C 2

Jonzac (F)

Grotte XVI (sw F)

UoS 6 UoS 6 UoS 6 UoS 7 UoS 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 4 3B 3B 3B H1 H2-H9 H2a-7c H2a-7c H H H H G1 G1-4 G1-4 G4 G 6a 6a 6d 8 8 C

42,959 ± 1,085 n/a 44,000 ± 5,500 49,200 ± 3,340 41,060 ± 3,580 48,100 ± 4,400 (EU)/56,700 ± 4,200 (LU) 47,300 + 7,500 e 6,200 52,100 + 8,800 e 7,100 40,331 ± 1,960 39,000 ± 3,000 58,700 ± 15,100 66,500 ± 5,200 40,872 ± 1,422 42,000 ± 8,000 (EU) / 49,000 ± 7,000 (LU) 51,000 + 7,000 e 9,000 39,000 ± 2,000 (EU)/47,000 ± 4,000 (LU) 40,913 ± 4,673 42,577 ± 5,690 43,000 + 8,000 e 6,000 49,000 ± 6,000 (EU)/51,000 ± 7,000 (LU) 45,976 ± 1,554 51,000 ± 5,000 50,150 ± 4,450 47,147 ± 1,544 46,300 ± 3,000 42,500 ± 2,000 39,700 ± 2,400 41,000 ± 2,600 Out of range

Gilot, 1992

St-Amand-les-Eaux (F) St-Brice sous Ranes (F) Champlost (F) Pont-des-Planches (F)

La Rochette (sw F)

7

C14 C14 TL OSL TL ESR OSL OSL AMS C14 TL TL TL AMS C14 ESR ESR/U-series ESR AMS AMS ESR/U-series ESR C14 ESR TL AMS C14 TL TL ESR: EU ESR: LU AMS C14 AMS C14 AMS C14 AMS C14 TL ESR: EU ESR: LU TL AMS C14 TL AMS C14 AMS C14 TL AMS C14 TL TL TL TL AMS C14 AMS C14 C14 C14 AMS C14 AMS C14 AMS C14 TL AMS C14 AMS C14

Pech I (sw F)

Pech IV (sw F)

Le Moustier (sw F)

La Quina (sw F)

Abri Peyrony (F)

L-3A

Fonseigner (sw F) Barbas III (sw F)

D sup C4

average age

KIA-29227 CPN-15 simple mean weighted mean KIA-29227

GrA 25633 GrA 25632

GrN 6784 average age average age GifGif-

Oxa-21750 Oxa-21751 Oxa-21752 Oxa-21791 Gif-

Gif-TL-570 Oxa-21790 OxA-21806 OxA-21808 OxA-21807 TL-CRIAA TL-CRIAA TL-CRIAA TL-CRIAA GifA-101267 GifA-101268 GrN-4362 GrN-4345 MAMS-14592 MAMS-14588 MAMS-14590 average age Gif/LSM-9591 GifA-93050

36,120 + 1,980 e 1,590

36,490 + 1,360 e 1,170

37,060 + 4,900 e 4,200 38,430 + 5,600 e 4,700

42,230 ± 1,340

44,872 ± 560

50,000 44,100 45,200 45,000

± ± ± ±

3,900 1,900 2,200 2,100

43,300 ± 1,800 36,850 ± 800 44,200 ± 1,900 45,200 ± 2,200

52,500 42,600 36,000 30,700 41,510 37,500 40,440

± ± ± ± ± ± ±

3,400 1,600 500 400 279 181 251

38,300 ± 500 43,500 ± 2,200

55,800 ± 5,000 43,000 ± 2,300 47,000 ± 2,500 50,300 ± 5,500 Out of range 40,400 ± 3,600 45,500 ± 4,600 39,834 ± 1,293 out of range 44,500 ± 4,200 53,00 ± 5,000 out of range 57,500 ± 3,600 59,500 ± 3,400 60,600 ± 3,100 62,400 ± 3,200 Out of range 46,415 ± 1,840 41,018 ± 679 34,909 ± 436 45,035 ± 275 42,210 ± 190 44,365 ± 235 50,500 ± 5,300 42,796 ± 589 47,331 ± 2462

Feray et al., 2010; Claud, 2015 Cliquet et al., 2009 Farizy, 1995 Lamotte et al., 2012 Jaubert et al., 2008 Richter et al., 2013b Jaubert et al., 2008 Soressi et al., 2007

Turq et al., 2011 Richter et al., 2013a McPherron et al., 2012 Valladas et al., 1987 ; Mellars and Grun, 1991

Higham et al., 2014

Valladas et al., 1987 ; Mellars and Grun, 1991

Higham et al., 2014 Mercier and Valladas, 1998 Higham et al., 2014 Jelinek, 2013 Mercier and Valladas, 1998 Higham et al., 2014 Guibert et al., 1999

Soressi, 2002 Vogel and Waterbolk, 1967 Soressi et al., 2013

Valladas et al., 1987 €da et al., 1996 Boe

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

across the sequence, as well as compatible biostratigraphic, palynological and coleopteran data (Table 6, Boismier et al., 2012).
finds lack strong chroWhile many of the isolated bout coupe nostratigraphic information, 15 have been assigned to MIS-3 based either on bio- or lithostratigraphy (White and Jacobi, 2002). The
handaxes from northern France (e.g. La Mare-auxbout coupe
e) have poorer contexClercs, Le Tillet and Saint-Just en Chausse tual information and can only be assigned to the MIS 5-3 bracket, not adding more chronological resolution to the MIS-3 trend seen in Britain. In general, the regional chronostratigraphic data of the late Middle Palaeolithic handaxe industries in Western Europe can be summarised as being restricted to MIS-3 in Britain and southwest France; generally absent during MIS-4; and potentially present during both MIS-5 and 3 in Belgium and northern France. Even
handaxes form part of a wider reoccurrence of though bout coupe handaxes throughout late Middle Palaeolithic Europe, the bout
shape itself seems to be restricted primarily to MIS-3 Britain, coupe while cordiform, triangular and ovate shapes have wider chronological ranges, covering both MIS 5 and 3.

13

4.6. Geography The vast majority of Western Europe shows traces of Neanderthal occupation during the late Middle Palaeolithic. However, regional differences exist in the lithic record, especially in the presence and quantity of late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes. They only occur sporadically in Greece, Spain, Italy and southeast France ^ne basin; Szmidt, 2003). Conversely, in western, northern (e.g. Rho and southwest France, assemblages with larger quantities of these artefacts are found (Tuffreau, 1971; Soressi, 2002; Cliquet et al., 2009; Deschodt et al., 2009; Lamotte et al., 2012). Further northeastwards, in Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands, handaxes are quite common, but fewer large assemblages exist (Deeben et al., 2005; Niekus et al., 2011; Ruebens and Di Modica, 2011; Ruebens and Van Peer, 2011). Finally, in Germany, despite the common occurrence of bifacial tools (e.g. backed bifacial knives in the KMG entity), handaxes become rare east of the Rhine river (Fig. 4; Bosinski, 1967; Ruebens, 2007a,b).
shape, even in its widest definition, seems The bout coupe further restricted in space than other handaxe types. Over 190 bout

Table 6 Chronostratigraphic data available for the main late Middle Palaeolithic assemblages with handaxes in Britain. Dates calibrated with OxCal 4.2 using the IntCal09 curve. Site

Cat. no.

Technique

C14 age BP

CalBP

Reference

Lynford

OxA-11571 OxA-11572 LYN03-12 LYN03-15 LYN03-06 LYN03-04 LYN03-05 LYN03-07 LYN03-02 LYN03-03 LYN03-09 LYN03-11 e Oxa-4431 Oxa-1470 Oxa-11980 Oxa-13592 Oxa-14197 Oxa-14211 Oxa-14212 Oxa-12736 Oxa-13800 Oxa-13801 Oxa-13802 Oxa-15003 OxA-4782 OxA-3277 OxA-4111 OxA-4112 OxA-4113 OxA-13914 OxA-13915 OxA-13916 OxA-13917

AMS C14 AMS C14 OSL, facies D OSL, facies D OSL, facies Biii OSL, facies Bii-05 OSL, facies Bii-05 OSL, facies Bii-05 OSL, facies Bii-03 OSL, facies Bii-03 OSL, facies Bii-02 OSL, facies Bii-01 U-series C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 AMS C14 AMS C14 AMS C14 AMS C14 AMS C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 U-series

53,700 ± 3100 >49,700

Out of range n/a 34,700 ± 2900 32,400 ± 2200 48,000 ± 3200 55,900 ± 3900 53,400 ± 3300 60,700 ± 4300 64,800 ± 5500 58,300 ± 5600 69,900 ± 6100 57,400 ± 4200 63,700 ± 400 Out of range 41, 406 ± 4142 (terminus ante quem) 40,434 ± 538 44,876 ± 1522 Out of range Out of range Out of range n/a n/a n/a Out of range n/a 44,249 ± 1315 38,785 ± 1551 32,580 ± 482 32,460 ± 438 39,404 ± 1698 Out of range 48,441 ± 1834 50,759 ± 2775 52,722 ± 2207 ca. 51,000 39,694 ± 1052 (terminus ante quem) 48,120 ± 3878 48,805 ± 2759 42,563 ± 816 43,770 ± 726 55,485 ± 4582 (terminus post quem) 74,000 (terminus post quem) 42,602 ± 2445 34,584 ± 848 Out of range 64,000 ± 2000 (terminus post quem) n/a 42,446 ± 858

Schreve and Stuart, 2012

Pin Hole

Robin Hood Ash Tree Cave

Hyaena Den

Rhinoceros Hole Kent's Cavern

OxA-3450 OxA-14285 OxA-14761 OxA-13589 OxA-13888 OxA-14714

Coygan Cave

BM-499 Oxa-14400 Oxa-14401

Picken's Hole

OxA-10804 OxA-10805

AMS ultrafiltr. AMS ultrafiltr. AMS ultrafiltr. AMS ultrafiltr. AMS ultrafiltr. U-series/ESR C14 Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14 U-series Ultrafilt. C14 Ultrafilt. C14

42,700 ± 38,000 ± 37,760 ± 43,350 ± 55,900 ± 53,400 ± 50,200 ± >52,800 >54,100 >56,500 52,800 ± >57,700 40,400 ± 33,660 ± 28,000 ± 27,850 ± 34,900 ± 52,700 ± 45,100 ± 47,000 ± 48,600 ±

1600 680 500 460 1450 2000 1000 1700 1000

± ± ± ± ± ±

820 3600 2200 1000 700 2200

34,620 43,600 45,000 37,900 40,000 49,600

2100 2000 340 650 4000 1700 (terminus post quem) 1400 (terminus post quem)

3100

38,684 þ 2713/-2024 32,140 ± 250 43,000 ± 2100 40,550 ± 500 >44,000

Schwenninger and Rhodes, 2012

Jacobi et al., 1998 Hedges et al., 1989 Higham et al., 2006

Higham et al., 2006 Higham et al., 2006

Tratman et al., 1971

Jacobi et al., 2006

Proctor et al., 1996 Jacobi et al., 2006

Aldhouse-Green et al., 1995 Higham et al., 2006 Aldhouse-Green et al., 1995 Jacobi et al., 2009

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

14

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22


handaxes have been claimed in Britain, mainly from isolated coupe find spots in the south and east of the country (Tyldesley, 1987; White and Jacobi, 2002; Cutler, 2013). Conversely, they are absent from collections in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany (Table 3). This geographical patterning was noted previously
(Tyldesly, 1987) and is confirmed here by the lack of bout coupe handaxes in the studied assemblages (Fig. 3). One possible example from Rheindahlen (Bosinski, 1967; Thissen, 2006) for example was not accepted by Tyldesley (1987) and is now generally seen as not
definition. A handful of other exconforming to the bout coupe amples exist from northern France, with La Mare-aux-Clercs and Le Tillet noted by Tyldesley (1987) and a possible example at Vinneuf
do, 1993, (though it is described within a KMG context by Goue
handaxes are extremely rare else1999). However, bout coupe where, which explains their absence from the major bifacial tool classification schemes, such as Bordes (1961) and Bosinski (1967). Among the 1006 late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools from continental northwest Europe studied here, only three can be classified
in terms of possessing the typo-technological charas bout coupe acteristics seen in Britain (Fig. 2); one from the extremely rich MTA site of Le Moustier (Fig. 6A) and two from the northern French site
e (Fig. 6B). of Saint-Just en Chause
s are definitive of Even though it cannot be said that bout coupe British late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes, in the sense of being
form is numerically dominant, it is clear that the bout coupe characteristic of the British late Middle Palaeolithic spatiotemporal entity as a whole. They occur in almost all assemblages in Britain, yet are nearly absent elsewhere in Europe, despite the very large and diverse sample of handaxes known. A similarly geographically-restricted pattern has been mentioned for large, flat
and triangular handaxes with worked butts (Bordes, 1954; Somme Tuffreau, 1971; Tuffreau, 1976, 1977, 1990; Soressi, 2002; Depaepe, 2007; Feray et al., 2010). While these triangular handaxes are common in northern France and sporadically present in southwest France (e.g. at Le Moustier, Table 3), this type is extremely rare in Britain (Table 2). It is these contrasting patterns of regionally dominant handaxe forms that are worth examining further for their potential to reveal diversity in Neanderthal behaviour. 5. Discussion
phenomenon within a broader Placing the bout coupe perspective highlights the distinctness of this tool type within the wider occurrence of bifacial technologies during the late Middle
handaxes are quite Palaeolithic. The observation that bout coupe common in MIS-3 Britain, yet largely absent elsewhere, raises the question of how to interpret the restricted incidence of this spatiotemporal unit in terms of Neanderthal behaviour. Handaxe shape variability is a widely discussed topic, and especially for Lower Palaeolithic handaxes a wide range of views and interpretations have been brought forward (Ashton and McNabb, 1994; Gowlett, 1995; McPherron, 1995; White, 1998; Kohn and Mithen, 1999; Wenban-Smith, 2004; Machin, 2009; Emery, 2010). However, broader studies of Middle Palaeolithic handaxe variability are currently still less common (Cliquet, 2001; Soressi, 2002; Depaepe, 2007; Wragg Sykes, 2010; Ruebens, 2012, 2013). Here the possible influences of five main causal factors which are often quoted in relation to lithic variability are explored and related to late Middle
phenomenon. Palaeolithic handaxe variability and the bout coupe 5.1. Lithic raw material In general, handaxes in Western Europe are predominantly made on fine-grained raw materials, mainly flint and chert, but also on different types of sandstone, jasper, quartzite, phtanite and

quartz (Tables 2 and 3; (Montrot, 1937; Michel and Haesaerts, 1975; Molines et al., 2001; Soressi, 2002; Cliquet, 2013). This study found no clear link between handaxe shape and raw material type, or between region and raw material type, with high quality flint nodules available in at least some parts of all regions. In Britain, handaxes are made on a spectrum of raw materials and the bout
types are not just made on flint, but also on cherts, quartzite, coupe clay-ironstone and igneous rocks (e.g. Coygan Cave, Fig. 3B, Table 2). Individual nodule characteristics, such as form and size, can restrict the knapping process to some degree (see e.g. Dibble, 1991; Eren et al., 2014), but overall raw material differences do not explain
shapes in Britain. the greater frequency of bout coupe 5.2. Site type Late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes have been recovered across Western Europe in various topographic and environmental settings, in differing quantities and in combination with different types of flake tools, core technologies and faunal assemblages (Tables 2 and 3; Soressi, 2002, 2004; Delagnes and Rendu, 2011; Ruebens, 2013, 2014; Discamps, 2014; Morin et al., 2014). Based on the varying absence/presence of bifacial tools and/or bifacial tool manufacture debris, three general site types, manufacture,/residential, processing and transition, have been proposed (Turq, 2007; Claud, 2008), although their functional interpretation is still preliminary. In research contexts such as the British late Middle Palaeolithic where many sites are old excavations, a great deal of caution is required when discussing assemblage composition. However, some broad observations are possible. 5.2.1. Manufacture and/or residential sites The majority of handaxe-rich assemblages contain both bifacial tools and manufacturing/maintenance debitage. These assemblages often contain handaxes at various stages of reduction, including roughouts, resharpened and recycled pieces. This site type is most likely to be problematic in terms of palimpsest occupations, artefact transport and recycling (Turq et al., 2013). In Britain the most secure example is Lynford, containing 57 handaxes, several with extensive secondary scraper retouch and notches. Here the core and flake element is quite limited, while the production of bifaces on immediately available cobbles, as well as the import of handaxes (for which there is insufficient primarystage debitage) is much more important. This indicates that Lynford was primarily a focus for activities involving the production, use and maintenance of handaxes, probably related to butchery (Boismier et al., 2012). 5.2.2. Processing sites This category has been described as comprising localities where bifacial tools were discarded, but with no traces of their manufac
hanture (Turq, 2007; Claud, 2008). The majority of bout coupe daxes come from this type of isolated find spots, an example being
from Castle Lane (Bournemouth, Fig. 2). the classic bout coupe However, many of these stray finds lack secure contexts and some may have originally been associated with other cultural material. This means their inclusion within this category, and their classification as processing sites, may not always be appropriate. For example at Kent's Cavern, although Greensand chert handaxes are present together with medium-large flakes and retouched pieces, there are no handaxe-production flakes. Since it is an early 20th and 19th century excavation, it is hard to be sure if this represents a true signature of a processing site, or reflects collector's bias. Overall, it is difficult to securely assign assemblages to this site type.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

15

processing sites (transition sites, by definition do not contain handaxes, and identifying the form of handaxe based on discarded maintenance flakes has not been attempted). Therefore, even though differential site functions are certainly factors structuring Middle Palaeolithic assemblage variability, especially the representation of various stages of handaxe chaîne op
eratoires, it is difficult to relate to the restricted regional occurrence of specific handaxe form.

5.3. Tool function The exact function(s) for which an individual handaxe has been used are often difficult to reconstruct. In general, tool use can be (partially) reconstructed though microscopic use wear analyses, as well as by assessing the overall ergonomic concept of the tool, including its edge angles, active and non-active zones and potential prehensile areas. Currently, 85 examples of use wear traces on late Middle Palaeolithic have been published (Table 7). Often, despite analysis being undertaken, traces are not preserved, as demonstrated by extensive studies of the Lynford handaxes (Donahue and Evans, 2012). The available use wear studies have been interpreted as suggesting that late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes were versatile objects, used in a variety of tasks including butchery, wood and hide working (Table 7), but with no clear link between handaxe shape and performed activity (Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990; Soressi and Hays, 2003; Claud, 2008, 2012; Donahue and Evans, 2012). The polyvalence of late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes is probably also expressed through the diversity of their overall morphological and technological characteristics. First, regardless of their overall shape, there appears to be a dominant edge angle between 35 and 65 , interpreted as facilitating both penetrating and superficial cutting motions (Soressi and Hays, 2003; Wragg Sykes, 2009; Ruebens, 2012; Iovita, 2014). Second, handaxes seem to display, to varying extents, ergonomic patterning, with non-active zones frequently present (blunt or actually backed), which differ in location between handaxes. For example, the morphology of what is usually termed the basal part can vary from being blunt or even unworked, to being finely flaked, and presumably therefore representing an extra cutting zone. This third worked edge is a feature which is especially common on triangular (Claud, 2008: 33) as well
handaxes, and could imply that they were produced as bout coupe in a context of intense utilisation. As worked basal edges are pre
s, as well as those without sent on both large and small bout coupe heavy resharpening, their presence could be related to the imposition of a particular form, also explaining why this worked base is not common across other handaxe forms in Britain. Conclusive information about the mode of prehension of handaxes is still rather sparse. It is generally assumed that many pieces


handaxes from France; A: Le Moustier (SW France); B: Saint-Just en Fig. 6. Bout coupe
e (N France). Chausse

5.2.3. Transition sites These sites are ‘mirrors’ of the previous category, containing debitage from bifacial tool working, but no bifacial tools themselves, a good example being Les Fieux (southwest France, Faivre, 2006). They are indicative of the highly mobile chaîne op
eratoire for handaxes, with the partition of manufacture, use, maintenance and discard through the landscape (see also Turq et al., 2013). In Britain, Ash Tree Cave and Picken's Hole are the main locales where handaxe working flakes were recovered from contexts in which extensive excavation did not reveal any handaxes (which would reasonably be expected to have been retained if discovered). These different assemblage types, despite being relatively coarse in providing a reflection of the diversity of Neanderthal activities within the landscape, probably do relate to a degree to different site functions, and point to wider systems of technological organisation of activities across the landscape. It is therefore interesting to note that across western Europe all different forms of handaxes have been found at maintenance/residential and

Table 7 Overview of the use-wear data currently available for late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes from Western Europe, including the number of studied handaxes and the proposed interpretation of the performed tasks. Site

Location

Date

Sample

Butchery

Woodworking

Hideworking

Percussion

Hafting

Reference

Corbiac (F)
I (F) Pech de l'Aze
IV (F) Pech de l'Aze Grotte XVI (F) La Graulet (F) La Conne de Bergerac (F) Combe Brune 2 (F) Fonseigner (F) Jonzac (F) ^nes (F) St Brice sous Ra Lynford (UK)

Open-air Rock shelter Rock shelter Cave Open-air Open-air Open-air Rock shelter Rock shelter Open-air Open-air

MIS-3 MIS-3 MIS-3 MIS-4/3 Unknown Unknown Unknown MIS-3 MIS-3 MIS-3 MIS-4/3

3 e e 19 5 5 5 3 29 15 1 85

e e e √ e √ √ √ √ e e

√ √ √ √ √ e e e √ √ e

√ √ √ √ e e e e e e √

e e e e e e √ e √ e e

e √ √ e e e e e e e e

Anderson-Gerfaud 1990 Anderson-Gerfaud 1990 Anderson-Gerfaud 1990 Soressi and Hays 2003 Claud 2008, 2012 Claud 2008, 2012 Claud 2008, 2012 Claud 2008, 2012 Claud 2008, 2012 Claud 2008, 2012 Donahue and Evans 2012

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

16

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

were hand-held, which would not necessarily leave behind any visible traces (Claud, 2008, 2012; Rots, 2009). However, while hafting traces have been suggested for several MTA handaxes, e.g.
I (Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990), hafting indications are at Pech de l'Aze absent elsewhere, despite intensive research and the presence of other use wear traces, e.g. Grotte XVI (Soressi and Hays, 2003). Overall, working with the restricted available evidence, late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes appear to have been used in various ways, for various functions, and in the absence of more detailed functional analyses, it does not appear that differential use explains the largerscale regional trends in handaxe shape.

for imposition of shape both at the start and within trajectories of maintenance, with at least some broken bifaces rotated and repaired around a new axis of symmetry (Boismier et al., 2012; Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010). In sum, the repeated reuse and resharpening of handaxes is an important influential factor in explaining particular morphological variability among bifacial tool forms (Iovita, 2014). However, resharpening alone does not explain why there is such large-scale region-specific divergence in bifacial tools.

5.4. Reduction/resharpening

In addition to the four adaptive factors described above, patterns of learned behaviour in tool production, i.e. culture, have also been invoked to explain handaxe shape variation across Palaeolithic contexts (Wymer, 1985; Mellars, 1996; White, 1998; Byers, 1999; Kohn and Mithen, 1999; Richter, 2000; Wenban-Smith, 2004; Carbonell and Mosquera, 2006). For the late Middle Palaeolithic, and hence in relation to classic Neanderthals, the notion of different cultural traditions and lineages of social transmission has been given increasing attention as a mechanism for the lithic diversity observed (both typologically and technologically) (Mellars, 1996; Richter, 2000; Soressi, 2002; Depaepe, 2007; Premo and Hublin, 2009; O'Brien, 2010; Moncel and Daujeard, 2012; Wragg Sykes, 2010, 2012; Koehler, 2011; Ruebens, 2012, 2013; Kuhn, 2013a;
baut et al., 2014). The term ‘culture’, as used here (for a wider Thie discussion see Ruebens, 2012), relates to different traditions of socially transmitted information, in this case the technological practices that led to the repeated occurrence of a specific biface form across a region. This would reflect technological practices that were learned in a group context, which were potentially passed on vertically (inter-generationally) and horizontally, between members of groups within a regional social network (Noble and Davidson, 1996; Soressi, 2004; Lycett and Gowlett, 2008; Wragg Sykes, 2012; Ruebens, 2013).
shape can be understood as an intentionally The bout coupe made form, with the shape imposed on blanks of different sizes and types, and maintained to greater or lesser degrees throughout the reduction sequence. They are often, but not exclusively, made on the highest quality raw materials, and, in common with other handaxes of the period, seem to be frequently maintained and curated for long distance transport between sites (Wragg Sykes, 2010), in addition to sometimes being left in good condition (White and Jacobi, 2002). Given that these highly distinctive forms are region- and time-specific (MIS-3 Britain), and cannot be explained merely through differences in raw material, site type, tool function or resharpening (see above), they may represent different traditions or lineages of social learning among late
Neanderthal populations in Western Europe. The bout coupe tradition was potentially maintained over thousands of years, although the coarseness of current dating needs to be considered, and the exact mechanisms behind such long term cultural transmission, potentially related to demographic factors, are rather problematic and still poorly understood (Premo and Kuhn, 2010; Kuhn, 2012, 2013).
phenomenon could provide a lithic However, the bout coupe element to a growing body of evidence suggesting a collective cultural capacity among late Neanderthals. As defined by Haidle and Conard (2011) this relates to the awareness of a group identity, potentially expressed in the archaeological record by communication objects (such as ornaments). However, claimed examples of Neanderthal symbolic behaviour (Langley et al., 2008; ~, Peresani et al., 2011, 2013; Morin and Laroulandie, 2012; Zilha 2012; Rodríguez-Vidal et al., 2014; Romandini et al., 2014) are not without critiques (Chase and Dibble, 1987; Mellars, 2010; Mithen,

Studies of reduction trajectories (Emery, 2010; Iovita and McPherron, 2011), use-wear (Claud, 2008) and secondary retouch patterns (Wragg Sykes, 2009; Emery, 2010) demonstrate that late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes were frequently subject to several cycles of use and maintenance. While some handaxes were regularly reduced in terms of edge-sharpening, others were further retouched with the addition of scraper-like zones or notches (Fig. 5C), while others were exploited as cores or used as hammers
baut et al., 2010). Although large biface maintenance flakes (Thie were sometimes used and retouched (Soressi, 2002; Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010; Claud, 2015), recycling as cores involved the destruction of the cutting edge profile and removal of substantial amounts of material via quite thick flakes. These different forms of reduction obviously had an important effect on the final form of the discarded handaxes. Both in Britain and elsewhere, handaxes in several stages of reduction have been recovered. This is partly represented by the variability in metric characteristics (Table 4) and by clearly asymmetric examples with preferential resharpening or maintenance of one face or one edge only (e.g. Coygan Cave, Fig. 3B). Detailed studies of handaxe morphometrics have indicated that MTA handaxes form a rather homogenous group, and show an isometric pattern, with shape maintenance throughout the reduction process (Iovita, 2008, 2009, 2010; Iovita and McPherron, 2011). Principal component analysis of all British bifaces demonstrated that their shape, measured by the location of their widest point in relation to their length (Roe's L1 metric; Roe, 1964, 1968), was independent of size, including thickness, a proxy for raw material constraints (Wragg Sykes, 2009, 2010). This suggests that regardless of variation in raw materials and nodule, shape was being imposed on British late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes. The effect of resharpening on final tool shape should also be considered. Emery (2010) suggested that the specific outline shape
handaxes results from a particular method of of bout coupe resharpening and it is certainly true that maintenance is a fundamental feature of British late Middle Palaeolithic bifaces. Methods include bifacial edge resharpening, unifacial working and tranchet techniques can lead to some tip shape changes (Wragg Sykes, 2010). However, most often this resharpening results in asymmetry, as is the case in the MTA in southwest France (Soressi, 2002,
shape 2004). Furthermore, if it was the main factor in bout coupe one would expect them to be smaller than average, both overall, and in comparison to their respective handaxe assemblages, which is not the case. One of the longest bifaces is the classic Coygan
has its form example and at the same site, the smaller bout coupe retained despite being obviously resharpened. Resharpening methods underlying shape could, however, be an explanation for some of the small ovoid-disc bifaces seen in Britain, for example at Oldbury (Fig.5E), as suggested for similar examples ^nes (Cliquet et al., 2001). In terms of form at Saint-Brice-Sous-Ra following resharpening/repair, Lynford has the strongest evidence

5.5. Social learning and culture

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

2014; Pons-Branchu et al., 2014) and debates are ongoing regarding their frequency and behavioural implications. In this context, it remains difficult to assess the role regional handaxe shapes played among late Neanderthal groups. Were they possible means for communicating social and/or cultural information? Were they selfconsciously, or less explicitly, used to communicate a sense of group identity or cultural affiliation at an intra- or inter-group scale? Are they the result of especially skilled individuals consciously pushing the boundaries of material cultural norms to produce ‘hypershapes’ (Wragg Sykes, 2010)? Were these shapes simply learned behaviour without further socio-cultural implications? Many questions remain, including the reasons behind this increase in bifacial tool diversity across Western and Central Europe after the appearance of Levallois, and none of these options can be discarded easily. Further inter-regional studies of lithic traits are needed, for example to assess how other aspects of Middle Palaeolithic assemblage variability, especially core reduction strategies, mesh with the regionality pattern suggested by handaxes. Additionally, the question of dating is a key area for further research, in clarifying whether there may be further chronological patterning present. In summary, it remains difficult to reconstruct the role and behavioural meaning of specific Palaeolithic artefact types, but bout
handaxes do seem to represent a socially transmitted techcoupe nical ‘tradition’, forming one of the earliest examples of regional cultural variation, and raising further questions of Neanderthal population dynamics, including migrations and interactions. 5.6. Bout coup
es and Neanderthal group dynamics The highly fragmented character of the Middle Palaeolithic stone tool record demonstrates Neanderthal movements at a landscape-scale (Turq et al., 2013) and additional lines of evidence have also suggested migratory movements and group variation among late Neanderthal populations. Raw material transport distances, while mostly demonstrating sourcing of stone within 10 km (e.g. Fernandez-Laso et al., 2011), also regularly included greater transfer distances up to, and over, 100 km in different areas of
blot-Augustins, 1993, 2009; Slimak and Giraud, 2007; Europe (Fe Wragg Sykes, 2009; Pearce and Moutsiou, 2014). It is usually assumed that such long-distance transfers resulted from group movements, but it is possible that in some cases they represent individuals moving between groups or even cultural exchange, though these mechanisms are rarely discussed for the Mousterian (Davies, 2012; Wragg Sykes, 2012). Several non-lithic objects from Middle Palaeolithic contexts have also demonstrated higher than average mobility, including the inland transportation of marine resources, such as shells (Lhomme and Freneix, 1993; Zilhao, 2012; Peresani et al., 2013). Despite the current small number of stable isotope analyses, the available strontium signatures from Neanderthal fossils confirm at least a local to regional level of mobility (Richards et al., 2008; Benson et al., 2013). While population size estimates based on the archaeological record should be interpreted carefully (Dogandzic and McPherron, 2013; Kuhn, 2013a), for Neanderthals a small population size is general envisaged (Aiello and Dunbar, 1993; Richter, 2006; Mellars and French, 2011; Roebroeks et al., 2011; Bocquet-Appel and Degioanni, 2013). This is further supported by genetic evidence, where low genetic variation seems indicative of a small effective census population size (Hawks, 2008; Briggs et al., 2009; Castellano et al., 2014). Both genetic and skeletal evidence further points towards geographic diversity among this small Neanderthal population. Anatomical differences have been noted between early and late specimens, as well as between eastern and western Neanderthals (Rosas et al., 2006). Genetic data, although from relatively few individuals, alongside agent based models, also contradict ideas of a

17

uniform, fully inter-connected Neanderthal population, with various explanatory mechanisms evoked (Caramelli et al., 2006; Fabre et al., 2009; Premo and Hublin, 2009; Premo and Kuhn, 2010; Dalen et al., 2012). The low autosomal genetic variation of Neanderthals compared to recent humans suggest a rapid process of regional dispersal and partial population replacement (Hawks, 2012; Castellano et al., 2014). Overall, current data indicates that Neanderthals lived dynamic lives at local scales, with some longerdistance connections, either from movements, or links with other groups, and at some points in time relatively rapid and long distance migrations occurred, as also suggested by the archaeological record of abandonment and subsequent re-colonisation of certain regions throughout the Neanderthal time range (Hublin and Roebroeks, 2009; Wragg Sykes, forthcoming).
phenomenon, restricted in space and time and The bout coupe reflecting a particular socio-cultural practice may be understood as an archaeological manifestation of late Neanderthal population dynamics. Given its occurrence predominantly in MIS-3 Britain, this is within a re-colonisation context (Wragg Sykes, in press b). The archaeological record is currently too coarse-grained to
shape, but its occurrence at the pinpoint an origin of the bout coupe margins of the Western European Middle Palaeolithic in geographic terms may be significant. Even if the British late Middle Palaeolithic was a pulsed rather than continuous occupation, it nevertheless seems to have maintained a distinct and homogeneous archaeological signature, both in terms of the handaxes and the accompanying assemblages (Wragg Sykes, 2009, in press b). This suggests that while there may have been some interaction with groups present on and across the Doggerland plains during MIS-3, a persistent idiosyncratic character in Britain was preserved. Although there may be varied factors at play, one potential mechanism for this is restricted cultural transmission operating via a social barrier (Premo and Hublin, 2009; Roebroeks et al., 2011), perhaps itself maintained by material culture differences. This illustrates the potential of the Palaeolithic stone tool record for unravelling the deep roots of regional cultural variation, and for adding to ongoing archaeological and anthropological debates on recognising and interpreting spatio-temporal and typotechnological patterning of material culture. 6. Conclusion This study provides an up-to-date contextualisation of British late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes within a broader European framework, incorporating both typo-technological and spatiotemporal data. As part of the wider study by Ruebens (2012, 2013), late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools in Western Europe are confirmed as presenting a macro-regional east-west divide in
the record, indicating large-scale cultural variation. The bout coupe phenomenon adds further evidence to these observations. These objects, found in various quantities and in different site settings, occur primarily within the British MIS-3 late Middle Palaeolithic record, which lacks the diversity in core reduction techniques seen in the French MTA, and is found at the edges of the contemporary Neanderthal world. Across Western Europe, including in Britain, late Middle Palaeolithic handaxes are most often of cordiform/
form, even in its cordate shape, but the flat-butted or bout coupe widest definition, is largely absent from the Netherlands, Belgium, northern, western and southern France. Detailed exploration of various potential factors such as raw material, site type, tool function or resharpening does not explain the presence of this specific
s seem to relate to a tradition of time-space unit. Rather, bout coupe socially-transmitted information in handaxe manufacture, and reflect an intentionally made and maintained shape, representing a distinct late Middle Palaeolithic sub-cultural phenomenon.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

18

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

Studies focusing on spatio-temporal technological diversity among Neanderthal groups are increasingly revealing high levels of behavioural variability and flexibility, and the Middle Palaeolithic can no longer reasonably be regarded as monolithic or static. Further refinement of data, especially in relation to chronostratigraphy and assemblage taphonomy, is in many areas ongoing and improving, but currently often still sparse. Establishing the extent, reality and behavioural meaning of archaeological entities requires further large-scale typo-technological studies to overcome past historical, academic and linguistic boundaries in artefact classification. The traditional focus on typology of handaxes must be expanded to include detailed study of handaxe technology, including the whole life-cycle of these tools to further examine their distinctiveness as well as unravel possible relationships. Additionally, exploring the relationships between bifacial tool diversity and variability in core reduction, mobility and subsistence strategies within and between Middle Palaeolithic assemblages is a major area still to be pursued. Hence, even though there is still much scope for further research, this paper adds a wellcontextualised case study towards gaining a better understanding of spatio-temporal variation in the archaeological record and in late Neanderthal behaviour.

Acknowledgements This paper combines the results from two PhD theses, KR funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) at the University of Southampton and RWS by a University Research Studentship at the University of Sheffield. It was written while RWS
de Bordeaux, funded by a was at PACEA UMR-5199, Universite Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship (TRACETERRE 301693), under Framework 7 of the European Commission. We owe thanks to all institutes and museums, in Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, for giving us access to their collections. We would also like to thank John McNabb, Geoff Smith and Kate Emery for fruitful discussions on this topic and Kevin Di Modica for the opportunity to publish in this special issue.

References Aiello, L.C., Dunbar, R.I.M., 1993. Neocortex size, group size, and the evolution of language. Current Anthropology 34 (2), 184e193. Aldhouse Green, S., Scott, K., Schwarcz, H., Grün, R., Housley, R., Rae, A., Bevins, R., Rednap, M., 1995. Coygan Cave Laugharne, south Wales. A Mousterian site and hyaena den: a report on the University of Cambridge excavations. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 37e79. Anderson-Gerfaud, P., 1990. Aspects of behaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic: functional analysis of stone tools from Southwest France. In: Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans, an Archaeological Perspective. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 389e418. Ashton, N., McNabb, J., 1994. Bifaces in perspective. In: Ashton, N., David, A. (Eds.), Stories in Stone. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 4, London, pp. 182e191. Ashton, N., Lewis, S., 2002. Deserted Britain: declining populations in the British Late Middle Pleistocene. Antiquity 76, 388e396. Bates, M.R., Wenban-Smith, F.F., Bello, S.M., Bridgland, D.R., Buck, L.T., Collins, M.J., Keen, D.H., Leary, J., Parfitt, S.A., Penkman, K., Rhodes, E., Ryssaert, C., Whittaker, J.E., 2014. Late persistence of the Acheulian in southern Britain in an MIS 8 interstadial: evidence from Harnham, Wiltshire. Quaterneray Science Reviews 101, 159e176. Benson, A., Kinsley, L., Willmes, M., Defleur, A., Kokkonen, H., Mussie, M., Grün, R., 2013. Laser ablation depth profiling of U-series and Sr isotopes in human fossils. Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (7), 2991e3000. Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., WoldeGabriel, G., Hart, W.K., Uto, K., Sudo, M., Kondo, M., Hyodo, M., Renne, P.R., Suwa, G., Asfaw, B., 2013. The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1221285110v1-201221285. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., Degioanni, A., 2013. Neanderthal demographic estimates. Current Anthropology 54 (8), 202e213. €da, E., Fontugne, M., Valladas, H., Ortega, I., 1996. Barbas III. Industries du Boe
olithique moyen re
cent et du Pale
olithique supe
rieur ancient. In: Pale Carbonell, E., Vaquero, M. (Eds.), The Last Neanderthals the First Anatomically

Modern Humans: a Tale about Human Diversity, Cultural Change and Human Evolution: the Crisis at 40 ka BP, pp. 147e156. Boismier, W.A., Gamble, C., Coward, F., 2012. Neanderthals Among Mammoths. Excavations at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk. English Heritage, London.
riennes”. Bulletin de la Bordes, F., 1953. Essai de classification des industries “mouste
te
pre
historique française 50, 457e466. Socie Bordes, F., 1954. Les limons quaternaires du Bassin de la Seine: Stratigraphie et
ologie pale
olithique. Archives de l'Institut de Paleontologie humaine 26. Arche Masson, Paris.
olithique Ancien et Moyen. Vol. Me
moire 1. Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Pale Delmas, Bordeaux.
rien: Mouste
rien, Levalloisian et Bordes, F., Bourgon, M., 1951. Le complexe mouste Tayacian. L'Anthropologie 55, 1e23. €olithischen Funde im Westlichen Mitteleuropa. Bosinski, G., 1967. Die Mittelpala € hlau-Verlag, Ko €ln and Graz. Fundamenta A/4. Bo
rien a  outils bifaciaux du Massif armoricain au Bourdin, S., 2006. Le Mouste
istoce ne re
cent dans son contexte europe
en: vers la de
finition d'un facie s Ple
gional (Ph.D. dissertation). Universite
de Rennes. re Bourguignon, L., Djema, H., Bertran, P., Lahaye, C., Guibert, P., 2008. Le gisement
rien d'Aquitaine? Saalien de Petit Bost (Neuvic, Dordogne)  a l'origine du Mouste
te
s du Pale
olithique dans In: Jaubert, J., Bordes, J.-G., Ortega, I. (Eds.), Les socie
sultats, un grand Sud-Ouest de la France: nouveaux gisements, nouveaux re
thodes, Me
moire de la Socie
te
pre
historique française 47, nouvelles me pp. 41e55. Brenet, M., Folgado, M., Lenoble, A., Bertran, P., Vieillevigne, E., Guibert, P., 2008.
tation de la variabilite
technologique de deux industries du Interpre
olithique moyen ancien du Bergeracois: Cantalouette 1 et Combe Brune 3 Pale
te
s du (Creysse, Dordogne). In: Jaubert, J., Bordes, J.-G., Ortega, I. (Eds.), Les socie
olithique dans un Grand Sud-Ouest de la France: nouveaux gisements, Pale
sultats, nouvelles me
thodes, Me
moire de la Socie
te
pre
historique nouveaux re française 47, pp. 57e81. Briggs, A.W., Good, J.M., Green, R.E., Krause, J., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U., Lalueza-Fox, C., Rudan, P., Brajkovi
c, D., Ku
can, Z., Gusi
c, I., Schmitz, R., Doronichev, L.V., de la €bo, S., 2009. Targeted retrieval and analysis of Rasilla, M., Fortea, J., Rosas, A., P€ aa five neandertal mtDNA genomes. Science 325, 318e321. Bridgland, D.R., White, M.J., 2014. Fluvial archives as a framework for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: patterns of British artefact distribution and potential chronological implications. Boreas 43 (2), 543e555. Byers, A.M., 1999. Communication and material culture: Pleistocene tools as action cues. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9, 23e41. Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., 2006. The emergence of a symbolic behaviour: the sepulchral pit of Sima de los Huesos, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain. Comptes Rendus Palevol 5, 155e160.
nchez-Quinto, F.A., Racimo, F., Kuhlwilm, M., Kircher, M., Castellano, S., Parra, G., Sa Sawyer, S., Fu, Q., Heinze, A., Nickel, B., Dabney, J., Siebauer, M., White, L., Burbano, H.A., Renaud, G., Stenzel, U., Lalueza-Fox, C., de la Rasilla, M., Rosas, A.,  Gusic, I., Shunkov, M.V., Derevianko, A.P., Rudan, P., Brajkovi
c, D., Kucan, Z.,
s, A.M., Pa €€ Viola, B., Meyer, M., Kelso, J., Andre abo, S., 2014. Patterns of coding variation in the complete exomes of three Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 6666e6671. Chase, P.G., Dibble, H.L., 1987. Middle paleolithic symbolism: a review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6, 263e296. Clark, J.D., 1994. The Acheulian industrial complex in Africa and elsewhere. In: Corruccini, R.S., Ciochon, R.L. (Eds.), Integrative Paths to the Past, pp. 451e469. Clark, G.A., 2005. Modern approaches to Paleolithic archaeology in Europe A sampler of research traditions. American Antiquity 70 (2), 376e399.
olithique moyen re
cent Claud, E., 2008. Le statut fonctionnel des bifaces au Pale

ologique inte
gre
e des outillages des dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. Etude trace sites de La Graulet, La Conne de Bergerac, Combe Brune 2, Fonseigner et ChezPinaud/Jonzac (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Bordeaux I.

ologique Claud, E., 2012. Les bifaces: des outils polyfonctionnels? Etude trace
gre
e de bifaces du Pale
olithique moyen re
cent du Sud-Ouest de la France. inte
te
pre
historique française 109 (3), 413e439. Bulletin de la Socie Claud, E., 2015. The use of biface manufacturing flakes: functional analysis of three Middle Palaeolithic assemblages from southwestern and northern France. Quaternary International 361, 131e141.  outils bifaciaux du Pale
olithique moyen Cliquet, D. (Ed.), 2001. Les industries a
de Lie ge. d'Europe Occidentale. ERAUL 98. Universite Cliquet, D., 2013. Les occupations paleolithiques en Normandie dans leur context chronostratigraphique: . Quaternaire 24 (3), 315e358. Cliquet, D., Mercier, N., Lautridou, J.-P., Alix, P., Beugnier, V., Bianchini, R., Caspar, J.P., Coutard, S., Lasseur, E., Lorren, P., Gosselin, R., Rivard, J.-J., Valladas, H., 2009. Un atelier de production et de consommation d'outils bifaciaux de la fin du
olithique moyen  Pale a Saint-Brice-sous-R^ anes (Orne, France) dans son contexte environnemental. Quaternaire 20 (3), 361e379. Collins, D.M., Collins, A., 1970. Excavations at Oldbury in Kent: cultural evidence for Last Glacial occupation in Britain. Bulletin, Institute of Archaeology (University of London) 8e9, 151e176. Conard, N.J., Fischer, B., 2000. Are there recognisable cultural entities in the German Middle Palaeolithic? In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M. (Eds.), Towards Modern Humans: Yabrudian and Micoquian: 400e50 kyears Ago, British Archaeological Reports International 850, Oxford, pp. 7e24.
as a typological mistake. In: Collcutt, S. (Ed.), Coulson, S.D., 1986. The bout coupe The Palaeolithic of Britain and its Nearest Neighbours, pp. 53e54.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22 Coulson, S., 1990. Middle Palaeolithic Industries of Great Britain. Holos, Bonn. Currant, A., Jacobi, R., 2001. A formal mammalian biostratigraphy for the Late Pleistocene of Britain. Quaternary Science Reviews 20, 1707e1716. Cutler, H., 2013. Understanding Late Middle Palaeolithic Neandertal Landscape-use During Short-term Occupations in Britain (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Cambridge. €m Durling, M., Quam, R., Thomas, P., Dalen, L., Orlando, L., Shaprio, B., Brandstro
ndez-Lomana, J., Willerslev, E., Luis Arsuaga, J., Gilbert, M., Carlos Díez Ferna €therstro €m, A., 2012. Partial genetic turnover in Neandertals: continuity in the Go east and population replacement in the west. Molecular Biology and Evolution 1e5. Davidson, I., 2002. The finished artefact fallacy: Acheulian hand-axes and language origins. In: Wray, A. (Ed.), Transitions to Language, pp. 180e203. Davidson, I., Noble, W., 1993. Tools and language in human evolution. In: Gibson, K., Ingold, T. (Eds.), Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution, pp. 363e388. Davies, W., 2012. Climate, creativity and competition: evaluating the Neanderthal ‘glass ceiling’. In: Elias, S. (Ed.), Origins of Human Innovation and Creativity, Developments in Quaternary Science 16. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 103e128. Deeben, J., Drenth, E., van Oorsouw, M.-F., Verhart, L., 2005. De Steentijd van Nederland. Archeologie 11/12. In: Stichting Archeologie. Krips Repro, Meppel. Delagnes, A., Meignen, L., 2006. Diversity of lithic production systems during the Middle Paleolithic in France: are there any chronological trends? In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, pp. 85e107. Delagnes, A., Rendu, W., 2011. Shifts in Neandertal mobility, technology and subsistence strategies in western France. Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (8), 1771e1783.
olithique moyen de la valle
e de la Vanne (Yonne, France): Depaepe, P., 2007. Le Pale res premie res, industries lithiques et occupations humaines. Me
moire de matie
te
pre
historique française 41. Les Eyzies. la Socie
vision de sa signification  Deschamps, M., 2010. Le Vasconien: Re a partir des in
o 21, 103e126. dustries lithiques d'Olha I et II, d'Isturitz et de Gatzaria. Pale cle apre s sa de
finition Deschamps, M., Mourre, V., 2012. Le Vasconien, un demi-sie par François Bordes. In: Delpech, F., Jaubert, J. (Eds.), François Bordes et la
histoire, Documents Pre
historiques 29, Bordeaux, pp. 269e279. pre res e Deschodt, L., Feray, P., Vallin, L., 2009. Saint-Amand- les-Eaux, Mont des Bruye res, Bilan Scientifique Regional 2007. DRAC NordSud et Bas du Mont des Bruye Pas-de-Calais, SRA, pp. 128e130. Dibble, H.L., 1991. Local raw material exploitation and its effects on Lower and Middle Palaeolithic assemblage variability. In: Montet-White, A., Holen, S. (Eds.), Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric HuntereGatherers, University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19, pp. 33e47.
nath, A., 2006. Dibble, H.L., McPherron, S.J.P., Chase, P.G., Farrand, W.R., Debe Taphonomy and the concept of Paleolithic cultures: the case of the Tayacian
chevade. PaleoAnthropology 1e21. from Fonte Discamps, E., 2014. Ungulate biomass fluctuations endured by Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic societies (SW France, MIS 5-3): the contributions of modern analogs and cave hyena paleodemography. Quaternary International 337, 64e79. Dogand zi
c, T., McPherron, S.P., 2013. Demography and the demise of Neandertals: a comment on ‘Tenfold population increase in Western Europe at the Neandertal-to-modern human transition’. Journal of Human Evolution 64 (4), 311e313. Donahue, R.E., Evans, A.A., 2012. Microwear analysis of the flint artefacts: tool use. In: Boismier, W.A., Gamble, C., Coward, F. (Eds.), Neanderthals Among Mammoths. Excavations at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk. English Heritage, London, pp. 261e273. Emery, K., 2010. A Re-examination of Variability in the Handaxe Form in the British Palaeolithic (Ph.D. dissertation). University College London. Eren, M.I., Roos, C.I., Story, B.A., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Lycett, S.J., 2014. The role of raw material differences in stone tool shape variation: an experimental assessment. Journal of Archaeological Science 49, 472e487. Fabre, V., Condemi, S., Degioanni, A., 2009. Genetic evidence of geographical groups among Neanderthals. PLoS ONE 4 (4), e5151.
rienne du niveau Ks (locus 1) des Fieux (Miers, Faivre, J.-P., 2006. L'industrie mouste
humaine et diversite
des compe
tences techniques. Bulletin de la Lot): mobilite
te
pre
historique française 103, 17e32. Socie Faivre, J.-P., Discamps, E., Gravina, B., Turq, A., Guadelli, J.-L., Lenoir, M., 2014. The contribution of lithic production systems to the interpretation of Mousterian industrial variability in south-western France: the example of Comb-Grenal (Dordogne, France). Quaternary International 350, 227e240. Farizy, C., 1995. Industries charentiennes  a influences Micoquiennes, l'exemple de  Pointes Foliace
es d’Europe Centrale. Pale
o l'Est de la France. In: Les Industries a
ment 1, pp. 173e178. Supple
blot-Augustins, J.J., 1993. Mobility strategies in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of Fe central Europe and Western Europe: elements of stability and variability. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12, 211e265.
blot-Augustins, J.J., 2009. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic raw material Fe transfers: the demise of the cultural Ecological Paradigm? In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Wiley-Blackwell Ltd, Chichester, pp. 25e46.
olithique Feray, P.H., Deschodt, L., Lantoine, J., Schwenninger, J.-L., 2010. Le site pale
sultats pre
liminaires. In: MTA de Saint-Amand-les-eaux (nord de la France). Re

19


osyste mes continentaux quaternaires: variabilite
climatique Colloque Q7, Bio-ge
vrier 2010. et anthropisation, Besançon 17e19 fe
ndez-Laso, M.C., Navarro, M.G.C., García-Anto
n, M.D., Rivals, F., 2011. TerritoFerna rial mobility of Neanderthal groups: a case study from Level M of Abric Romaní (Capellades, Barcelona, Spain). In: Conard, N.J., Richter, J. (Eds.), Neanderthal Lifeways, Subsistence and Technology: One Hundred Fifty Years of Neanderthal Study. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 187e202.
olithique moyen au supe
rieur dans la plaine Flas, D., 2008. Le transition du Pale septentrionale de l' Europe. Anthropologica et Praehistorica 119. Brussels.
es et les changements techniques autour de la Flas, D., 2011. Les pointes foliace
olithique moyen au supe
rieur dans le Nord-Ouest de l'Europe. transition du Pale
olithique moyen en In: Toussaint, M., Di Modica, K., Pirson, S. (Eds.), Le Pale
langes Marguerite Ulrix-Closset, ERAUL 128, Bulletin des CherBelgique. Me
rie 4, pp. 261e276. Lie ge. cheurs de la Wallonie Hors-se Frere, J., 1800. Account of flint weapons discovered at Hoxne in Suffolk. Archaeologia (The Society of Antiquaries of London) 13, 204e205. Frouin, M., Lahaye, C., Hernandez, M., Mercier, N., Guibert, P., Brenet, M., FolgadoLopez, M., Bertran, P., 2014. Chronology of the Middle Palaeolithic open-air site of Combe Brune 2 (Dordogne, France): a multi luminescence dating approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 52, 524e534. Gamble, C., 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
riennes du Pe
rigord: une approche Geneste, J.-M., 1985. Analyse d'industries Mouste
olithique moyen technologique du comportement des groupes humains au Pale
de Bordeaux. (Ph.D. dissertation). Universite 14
rien final. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Gilot, E., 1992. Sclayn: datation par C du mouste Recherches aux grottes de Sclayn volume 1: Le Contexte, ERAUL 27, p. 173.
do, J.-M., 1993. L'industie Micoquienne de Vinneuf (Yonne). Bulletin de la Goue
te
pre
historique française 90 (4), 295e299. Socie
do, J.-M., 1999. Le Technocomplexe Micoquien en Europe de l’Ouest et CenGoue trale; Exemples de Trois Gisements du sud-est du Bassin Parisien, Vinneuf et Champlost (Yonne), Verrieres-le-Buisson (Essonne) (Ph.D. dissertation). Uni
de Lille. versite
finitions, analyses et caracte
risations des territoires des Goval, E., 2008. De
andertaliens au Weichselien ancien en France septentrionale (Ph.D. disserNe
de Lille. tation). Universite Gowlett, J.A.J., 1995. A matter of form: instruction sets and the shaping of early technology. Journal of the Lithics Studies Society 16, 2e16. Gowlett, J.A.J., 2009. The longest transition or multiple revolutions? Curves and steps in the record of human origins. In: Camps, M., Chauchan, P. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Palaeolithic Transitions. Springer, Ne Yord, pp. 65e78. Guibert, P., Bechtel, F., Schvoerer, M., Rigaud, J.-P., Simek, J.F., 1999. Datations par
diments chauffe
s provenant d'une aire de combusThermoluminescence de se
rienne (Grotte XVI, Ce
nac et St-Julien, Dordogne, France). Revue tion Mouste
ome
trie 23, 163e175. d'Arche Guibert, P., Bechtel, F., Bourguignon, L., Brenet, M., Couchoud, I., Delagnes, A., Delpech, F., Detrain, L., Duttine, M., Folgado, M., Jaubert, J., Lahaye, C., Lenoir, M., Maureille, B., Texier, J.-P., Turq, A., Vieillevigne, E., Villeneuve, G., 2008. Une base
es pour la chronologie du Pale
olothique moyen dans le Sud-Ouest de de donne
te
s du la France. In: Jaubert, J., Bordes, J.-G., Ortega, I. (Eds.), Les socie
olithique dans un Grand Sud-Ouest de la France: nouveaux gisements, Pale
sultats, nouvelles me
thodes, pp. 19e40. nouveaux re Haidle, M.N., Conard, N.J., 2011. The Nature of Culture. Synthesis of an interdisciplinary symposium held in Tübingen, Germany, 15e18 June 2011. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 20, 65e78. Hawks, J., 2008. From genes to numbers: effective population sizes in human evolution. In: Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. (Ed.), Recent Advances in Palaeodemography Data, Techniques, Patterns. Springer, New York, pp. 9e30. Hawks, J., 2012. Dynamics of genetic and morphological variability within Neandertals. Journal of Anthropological Science 90, 81e87. Hedges, R.M., Housley, R.A., Law, J.A., Bronk Ramsey, C., 1989. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 9. Archaeometry 31 (2), 207e234. Higham, T., Jacobi, R.M., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient bone using ultrafiltration. Radiocarbon 48 (2), 179e195. Hublin, J.-J., 1998. Climatic changes, paleogeography, and the evolution of the Neandertals. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. Springer, New York, pp. 295e310. Hublin, J.-J., Roebroeks, W., 2009. Ebb and flow or regional extinctions? On the character of Neanderthal occupation of Northern environments. Comptes Rendus Paleovol 8, 503e509. Iovita, R., 2008. Ontogenetic Scaling in Stone Tools and its Application to European Middle Palaeolithic Systematics (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Pennsylvania. Iovita, R., 2009. Ontogenetic scaling and lithic systematics: method and application. Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (7), 1447e1457. Iovita, R., 2010. Quantifying and comparing stone tool resharpening trajectories with the aid of Elliptical Fourier Analysis. In: Lycett, S., Chauhan, P. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 235e253. Iovita, R., 2014. The role of edge angle maintenance in explaining technological variation in the production of Late Middle Paleolithic bifacial and unifacial tools. Quaternary International 350, 105e115. Iovita, R., McPherron, S.P., 2011. The Handaxe reloaded: a morphometric assessment of Acheulean and Middle Palaeolithic handaxes. Journal of Human Evolution 61 (1), 61e74.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

20

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

Jacobi, R.M., 2004. Some observations on the non-flint lithics from Creswell Crags. Journal of the Lithics Studies Society 25, 39e64. Jacobi, R.M., Rowe, P.J., Gilmour, M.A., Rainer, G., Atkinson, T.C., 1998. Radiometric dating of the Middle Palaeolithic tool industry and associated fauna of Pin Hole Cave, Creswell Crags, England. Journal of Quaternary Science 13, 29e42. Jacobi, R.M., Higham, T., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic bone in the British Isles: improved reliability using ultrafiltration. Journal of Quaternary Science 21, 557e573. Jacobi, R.M., Rose, J., MacLeod, A., Higham, T.F.G., 2009. Revised radiocarbon ages on woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis) from western central Scotland: significance for timing the extinction of woolly rhinoceros in Britain and the onset of the LGM in central Scotland. Quaternary Science Reviews 28, 2551e2556.
olithiques a  quartzites de la Janot, A., 1981. Essai de chronologie des industries pale
gion sud de Nancy (Meurthe-et-Moselle). Bulletin de la Socie
te
pre
historique re française 78, 306e316. Jaubert, J., 2010. Les archeosequences du Paleolithique moyen en Poitou-Charentes. In: Buisson-Catil, J., Primault, J. (Eds.), Prehistoire entre Vienne et Charente. Hommes et societes au Paleolithique. Association des publications chauvinoises, Chauvigny, pp. 51e55. Jaubert, J., Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S., Soressi, M., Bordes, J.-G., Claud, E., Cochard, D., Delagnes, A., Mallye, J.-B., Michel, A., Niclot, M., Niven, L., Park, S.-J., Rendu, W.,
baut, C., 2008. Pale
olithique Richter, D., Roussel, M., Steele, T., Texier, J.-P., Thie
cent et Pale
olithique Supe
rieur Ancien  Moyen Re a Jonzac (Charente-Maritime):
sultats des Campagnes 2004e2006. In: Jaubert, J., Bordes, J.-G., Premiers Re
te
s Pale
olithiques d'un grand Sud-Ouest: Nouveaux Ortega, I. (Eds.), Les socie
thodes, Nouveaux Re
sultats, Me
m. Soc. Pre
hist. Fr. 47, Gisements, Nouvelles Me pp. 203e243. Jaubert, J., Bordes, J.G., Discamps, E., Gravina, B., 2011. A new look at the end of the Middle Palaeolithic sequence in Southwestern France. In: Derevianko, A.P., Shunkov, M.V. (Eds.), Characteristic Features of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Eurasia, Novosibirsk, pp. 102e115. Jelinek, A.J., 2013. Neandertal Lithic Industries at La Quina. University of Arizona Press. €ris, O., 2004. Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der sp€ €olithischen Jo atmittelpala Keilmessergruppen. Der Versuch einer kulturgeographischen Abgrenzung einer €olithischen Formengruppe in ihrem europ€ mittelpala aischer Kontext. Bericht €misch-Germanischen Kommission 84, 49e153. der Ro €ris, O., 2006. Bifacially Backed Knives (Keilmesser) in the Central European Middle Jo Palaeolithic. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp. 287e310. Klein, R.G., 1999. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Koehler, H., 2011. Behavior and technological identity during the Middle Paleolithic: an issue of the scale of analysis? Examples from the Paris Basin (France) during the Early Weichselian. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 20, 13e31. Kohn, M., Mithen, S., 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73, 518e526. Kuhn, S.L., 2006. Trajectories of change in the Middle Paleolithic of Italy. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Springer, New York, pp. 109e120. Kuhn, S.L., 2012. Emergent patterns of creativity and innovation in early technologies. In: Elias, S. (Ed.), Origins of Human Innovation and Creativity, Developments in Quaternary Science, vol. 16. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 69e88. Kuhn, S.L., 2013a. Cultural transmission, institutional continuity and the persistence of the Mousterian. In: Akazawa, T., Nishiaki, Y., Aoki, K. (Eds.), Dynamics of Learning in Neanderthals and Modern Humans Volume 1: Cultural PerspectivesSpringer, Japan, pp. 105e113. Kuhn, S.L., 2013b. Roots of the Middle Paleolithic in Eurasia. Current Anthropology 54 (S8), 255e268. Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M., 1998. The Earliest Aurignacian of Riparo Mochi (Liguria, Italy). Current Anthropology 39, S175eS189. Lacaille, A.D., 1960. On Palaeolithic Choppers and Cleavers (Notes suggested by some Buckinghamshire examples). Records of Buckinghamshire 16, 330e341.
, F., Galtier, F., 2012. Le Lamotte, A., Aubry, D., Debenham, N., Magniez, P., Le Mene
olithique de Pont-de-Planches (Haute-Sao ^ne, France): cadre gisement pale
oenvironnemental et datations des occupations du Pale
olithique moyen et pale
olithique supe
rieur. Quaternaire 23 (4), 291e308. Pale Langley, M.C., Clarkson, C., Ulm, S., 2008. Behavioural Complexity in Eurasian Neanderthal Populations: a chronological examination of the archaeological evidence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18 (3), 289e307.
rien a  outils bifaciaux dans le Massif Launay, S., Molines, N., 2005. Le Mouste re lecture technologique. Bulletin de la Socie
te
Armoricain: premie
historique française 102 (4), 837e853. pre Lewis, S.G., Ashton, N., Jacobi, R., 2010. Testing human presence during the Last Interglacial (MIS5e): a review of the British Evidence. In: Ashton, N., Lewis, S.G., Stringer, C. (Eds.), The Ancient Human Occupation of Britain. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 125e164.
oce ne Lhomme, V., Freneix, S., 1993. Un coquillage de bivalve du Maastrichtien pale
rieure du gisement Glyptoacis (Baluchicardia) sp. dans la couche infe
rien de Chez Pourre
-Chez Comte. Bulletin de la Socie
te
pre
historique mouste française 90, 303e306.

Locht, J.-L., Goval, E., Antoine, P., 2010. Reconstructing Middle Palaeolithic hominid behaviour during OIS 5 in northern France. In: Conard, N., Delagnes, A. (Eds.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age Volume IIIKerns Verlag Tübingen, Tübingen, pp. 329e356. Lycett, S.J., Gowlett, J.A.J., 2008. On questions surrounding the Acheulian ‘tradition’. World Archaeology 40, 295e315. Machin, A., 2009. The role of the individual agent in Acheulean biface variability. A multi-factorial model. Journal of Social Archaeology 9, 35e58. McPherron, S.P., 1995. A re-examination of the British biface data. Journal of the Lithics Studies Society 16, 47e63. McPherron, S.P., Talamo, S., Goldberg, P., Niven, L., Sandgathe, D., Richards, M.P., Richter, D., Turq, A., Dibble, H.L., 2012. Radiocarbon Dates for the Late Middle
IV, France. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, Paleolithic at Pech de l'Aze 3436e3442. Meignen, L., Delagnes, A., Bourgignon, L., 2009. Patterns of lithic material procurement and transformation during the Middle Palaeolithic in Western Europe. In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Palaeolithic Societies. Blackwell, London, pp. 15e24. Mellars, P., 1969. The chronology of Mousterian industries in the Perigord region of South-West France. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35, 134e171. Mellars, P.A., 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy: an Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Mellars, P.A., 2010. Neanderthal symbolism and ornament manufacture: the bursting of a bubble? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 20147e20148. Mellars, P.A., Grün, R., 1991. A comparison of the electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence dating methods: the results of ESR dating at Le Moustier, France. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1, 269e276. Mellars, P.A., French, J., 2011. Tenfold population increase in western Europe at the Neandertal-to-modern human transition. Science 333, 623e627. Mercier, N., Valladas, H., 1998. Datations. In: Debenath, A., Jelinek, A.J. (Eds.), Nouvelles Fouilles a La Quina: Resultats Preliminaries, Gallia Prehistoire 40, pp. 70e71.
olithique de Franquenies. Helinium XV (3), Michel, J., Haesaerts, P., 1975. Le site Pale 209e236. Mithen, S., 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind. Thames and Hudson, London. Mithen, S., 2014. The cognition of Homo neanderthalensis and H. sapiens: does the use of pigment necessarily imply symbolic thought?. In: Akazawa, T., Nishiaki, Y., Aoki, K. (Eds.), Dynamics of Learning in Neanderthals and Modern Humans Volume 1: Cultural Perspectives, Springer, Japan, pp. 7e16.
olithique moyen a  outils Molines, N., Hinguant, S., Monnier, J.-L., 2001. Le Pale se des donne
es anciennes et re centes. bifaciaux dans l'ouest de la France: Synthe
olithique moyen In: Cliquet, D. (Ed.), Les Industries  a Outils Bifaciaux du Pale
de Lie ge, pp. 109e115. d’Europe occidentale, ERAUL 98. Universite Moncel, M.-H., Daujeard, C., 2012. The Variability of the Middle Palaeolithic on the right bank of the Middle Rhone Valley (Southeast France): technical traditions or functional choices? Quaternary International 247, 103e124. Moncel, M.-H., Moigne, A.-M., Combier, J., 2012. Towards the Middle Palaeolithic in Western Europe: the case of Orgnac 3 (southeastern France). Journal of Human Evolution 63, 653e666. s culturels du Pale
olithique Monnier, J.-L., 1986. Chronostratigraphies et facie
rieur et moyen en Bretagne. Comparaison avec les re
gions loessiques. In: infe
, J. (Eds.), Chronostratigraphie et facie s culturels du Tuffreau, A., Somme
olithique infe
rieur et moyen dans l'Europe du Nord-Ouest, Supple
ment Pale au Bulletin de l'Association Française pour l'Etude du Quaternaire 26, pp. 113e127.
riens de Bretagne. L'Anthropologie 91/1, Monnier, J.-L., 1987. Les sites mouste 197e210. Monnier, G.F., 2006. The Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization in Western Europe, an evaluation. Current Anthropology 47, 709e744. Monnier, G.F., Missal, K., 2014. Another Mousterian Debate? Bordian facies, chaîne op
eratoire technocomplexes, and patterns of lithic variability in the western European Middle and Upper Pleistocene. Quaternary International 350, 59e83.
olithique de Fontmore (Vienne). Bulletin de la Socie
te
Montrot, E., 1937. Station pale
historique française 34 (4), 193e213. pre Morin, E., Laroulandie, V., 2012. Presumed symbolic use of diurnal raptors by Neanderthals. PLoS ONE 7 (3), e32856. Morin, E., Delagnes, A., Armand, D., Castel, J.-C., Hodgkins, J., 2014. Millennial-scale change in archaeofaunas and their implications for Mousterian lithic variability in southwest France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36, 158e180. Niekus, M.J.L.T., Stapert, D., Beuker, J., Johansen, L., 2011. A new site of the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition in the northern Netherlands. Quart€ ar 58, 67e92. Noble, W., Davidson, I., 1996. Human Evolution, Language and the Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. O'Brien, M.J., 2010. The future of Paleolithic studies: a view from the New World. In: Lycett, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies. Springer, New York, pp. 311e334. mes de production lithique et circulation des matie res prePark, S.-J., 2007. Syste res au Pale
olitique moyen re
cent et final. Une approche techno-e
conomique mie  partir de l'e
tude des industries lithiques de la Quina (Charente) (PhD. a
Paris X-Nanterre. dissertation). Universite Pearce, E., Moutsiou, T., 2014. Using obsidian transfer distances to explore social network maintenance in late Pleistocene hunteregatherers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36, 12e20.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22 Peresani, M., Fiore, I., Gala, M., Romandini, M., Tagliacozzo, A., 2011. Late Neandertals and the intentional removal of feathers as evidenced from bird bone taphonomy at Fumane Cave 44 ky B.P., Italy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 3888e3893. Peresani, M., Vanhaeren, M., Quaggiotto, E., Queffelec, A., d’Errico, F., 2013. An Ochered Fossil Marine Shell From the Mousterian of Fumane Cave, Italy. PLoS ONE 8 (7), e68572. Peyrony, D., 1930. Le Moustier, ses gisements, ses industries, ses couches
ologiques. Revue anthropologique 40 (3e76), 155e176. ge
rate, D., Pons-Branchu, E., Bourrillon, R., Conkey, M.W., Fontugne, M., Fritz, C., Ga Quiles, A., Rivero, O., Sauvet, G., Tosello, G., Valladas, H., White, R., 2014. Uranium-series dating of carbonate formations overlying Paleolithic art: interest
te
pre
historique française 111 (2), 211e224. and limitations. Bulletin de la Socie Premo, L.S., Hublin, J.-J., 2009. Culture, population structure, and low genetic diversity in Pleistocene hominins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (1), 33e37. Premo, L.S., Kuhn, S.L., 2010. Modelling effect of local extinctions on cultural change and diversity in the Palaeolithic. PLoS ONE 5 (12), e15582. Proctor, C.J., Collcutt, S.N., Currant, A.P., Hawkes, C.J., Roe, D.A., Smart, P.L., 1996. A report on the excavations at Rhinoceros Hole, Wookey. Proceedings, University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 20 (3), 237e262. Richards, M., Harvati, K., Grimes, V., Smith, C., Smith, T., Hublin, J.-J., Karkanas, P., Panagopoulou, E., 2008. Strontium isotope evidence of Neanderthal mobility at the site of Lakonis, Greece using laser-ablation PIMMS. Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (5), 1251e1256. Richter, J., 2000. Social memory among late Neanderthals. In: Orschiedt, J., Weniger, G.-C. (Eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans e Discussing the Transition. Central and Eastern Europe from 50,000e30,000 BP. Neanderthal Museum, Mettmann, pp. 30e41. Richter, J., 2006. Neanderthals in their landscape. In: Demarsin, B., Otte, M. (Eds.), Neanderthals in Europe. Proceedings of the International Conference, Held in the Gallo-Roman Museum in Tongeren (September 17e19th 2004), ERAUL 117/ ge e Tongeren 2006, pp. 51e66. ATVATVCA 2, Lie Richter, J., 2014. L'impact environmental sur la formation des assemblages lithiques unifaciaux et bifaciaux ou d'Europe centrale. In:
Jaubert, J., Fourment, N., Depaepe, P. (Eds.), Transitions, ruptures et continuite
histoire, Pale
olithique et Me
solithique. Actes du XXVIIe Congre s en Pre
historique de France (Bordeaux e Les Eyzies, 31 maie5 juin 2010), vol. 2. pre
te
pre
historique française, Paris, pp. 195e205. Socie Richter, D., Dibble, H., Goldberg, P., McPherron, S., Niven, L., Sandgathe, D., Talamo, S., Turq, A., 2013a. The late Middle Palaeolithic in Southwest France:
IV. Quaternary International 294, new TL dates for the sequence of Pech de l'Aze 160e167. Richter, D., Hublin, J.-J., Jaubert, J., McPherron, S.P., Soressi, M., Texier, J.-P., 2013b. Thermoluminescence dates for the Middle Palaeolithic site of Chez-Pinaud Jonzac (France). Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2), 1176e1185. Rodríguez-Vidal, J., d’Errico, F., Pacheco, F.G., Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Jennings, R.P.,
rrez Lo
pez, J.M., Carrio
n, J.S., Negro, J.J., Queffelec, A., Finlayson, G., Fa, D.A., Gutie
ceres, L.M., Bernal, M.A., Fern

nez, S., Finlayson, C., Finlayson, S., Ca andez Jime 2014. A rock engraving made by Neanderthals in Gibraltar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 13301e13306. Roe, D.A., 1964. The British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. Some problems, methods of study and preliminary results. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30, 245e267. Roe, D.A., 1968. British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, 1e82. Roe, D.A., 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods on Britain. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Roebroeks, W., Hublin, J.-J., MacDonald, K., 2011. Continuities and discontinuities in Neandertal presence: a closer look at Northwestern Europe. In: Ashton, N.M., Lewis, S.G., Stringer, C.B. (Eds.), The Ancient Human Occupation of Britain, Developments in Quaternary Science 14. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 113e123. Roebroeks, W., 2014. Terra incognita: the Palaeolithic record of northwest Europe and the information potential of the southern North Sea. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 93, 43e53. Romandini, M., Peresani, M., Laroulandie, V., Metz, L., Pastoors, A., Vaquero, M., Slimak, L., 2014. Convergent evidence of Eagle Talons used by Late Neanderthals in Europe: a further assessment on symbolism. PLoS ONE 9 (7), e101278. Rosas, A., Martínez-Maza, C., Bastir, M., García-Tabernero, A., Lalueza-Fox, C., ~ averas, J.C., Huguet, R., Ortiz, J.E., Juli a, R., Soler, V., de Torres, T., Martínez, E., Can S
anchez-Moral, S., Cuezva, S., Lario, J., Santamaría, D., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J., 2006. Paleobiology and comparative morphology of a late Neandertal sample from El Sidron, Asturias, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 19266e19271. Rots, V., 2009. The functional analysis of the Mousterian and Micoquian assemblages of Sesselfelsgrotte, Germany: aspects of tool use and hafting in the European Late Middle Palaeolithic. Quart€ ar 56, 37e66. Ruebens, K., 2007a. Bifacial elements in Continental Northwestern Europe during the Last Glacial Cycle (MIS5d-3): the relationship between Mousterian, Micoquian and ‘Mixed’ assemblages. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 18, 84e100.

21

Ruebens, K., 2007b. A typological Dilemma: Micoquian elements in Continental Northwestern Europe during the Last Glacial Cycle (MIS5d-3). Journal of the Lithics Studies Society 27, 58e73.
handaxes: Macro-regional variRuebens, K., 2012. From Keilmesser to bout coupe ability in Western European Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Southampton. Ruebens, K., 2013. Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western Europe. A comparative assessment of Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability. Journal of Human Evolution 65, 341e362. Ruebens, K., 2014. Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial technologies across northwest Europe: typo-technological variability and trends. Quaternary International 350, 130e146. Ruebens, K., Van Peer, P., 2011. A Middle Palaeolithic site with small bifaces at Oosthoven e Heiende (Northern Belgiun). In: Toussaint, M., Di Modica, K.,
olithique moyen en Belgique. Me
langes Marguerite Pirson, S. (Eds.), Le Pale
rie No Ulrix-Closset, ERAUL 128, Bulletin des Chercheurs de la Wallonie Hors-se ge, pp. 353e359. 4, Lie
olithique moyen Ruebens, K., Di Modica, K., 2011. Les productions bifaciales du Pale
sentation d'industries entre deux mondes. In: sur le territoire belge: pre
olithique moyen en BelToussaint, M., Di Modica, K., Pirson, S. (Eds.), Le Pale
langes Marguerite Ulrix-Closset, ERAUL 128, Bulletin des Chercheurs gique. Me
rie No 4, Lie ge, pp. 239e260. de la Wallonie Hors-se Santonja, M., Villa, P., 2006. The Acheulian of Western Europe. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Gonen, S. (Eds.), Axe Age Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard. Equinox Publishing, London, pp. 429e478. Schreve, D.C., Brothwell, D.R., Stuart, A.J., 2012. The vertebrate assemblage from Lynford: taphonomy, biostratigraphy and implications for Middle Palaeolithic subsistence strategies. In: Boismier, W.A., Gamble, C., Coward, F. (Eds.), Neanderthals Among Mammoths. Excavations at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk, English Heritage, London, pp. 157e204. Schwenninger, J.L., Rhodes, E., 2012. Optically stimulated luminescence. In: Boismier, W.A., Gamble, C., Coward, F. (Eds.), Neanderthals Among Mammoths. Excavations at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk. English Heritage, London, pp. 67e70. Scott, B., 2011. Becoming Neanderthals. The Earlier British Middle Palaeolithic. Oxbow, Oxford.
handaxe as a typological marker for the British Shackley, M.L., 1977. The bout coupe Mousterian industries. In: Wright, R.S.V. (Ed.), Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, pp. 332e339. Canberra. Shea, J.J., 2014. Sink the Mousterian? Named stone tool industries (NASTIES) as obstacles to investigating hominin evolutionary relationships in the Later Middle Paleolithic Levant. Quaternary International 350, 169e179. Slimak, L., Giraud, Y., 2007. Circulations sur pleusieurs de kilometres durant le
olithique moyen. Contribution a  la connaissance des socie
te
s Pale
andertaliennes. Comptes Rendus Palevol 6, 359e368. ne Smith, G.M., 2012. Middle Palaeolithic subsistence: the role of hominins at Lynford, Norfolk, UK. Quaternary International 252, 68e81.
, J., Tuffreau, A., 1971. Stratigraphie du Ple
istoce ne re
cent et mouste
rien de Somme
enne a  Marcoing (Cambre
sis e Nord de la France). Bulletin de tradition acheule
tude du quaternaire 8 (2), 57e74. l'Association française pour l'e
technologique au Mouste
rien. Analyse compare
e du Soressi, M., 1999. Variabilite
bitage levallois MTA A du Moustier (Dordogne, France). Pale
o 11, 111e134. de
rien de tradition acheule
enne du sud-ouest de la Soressi, M., 2002. Le Mouste s a  partir de l'e
tude compare
e de France. Discussion sur la signification du facie
I, Le Moustier, La Rochette et la Grotte XVI (Ph.D. quatre sites: Pech-de-l'Aze dissertation). University of Bordeaux. Soressi, M., 2004. From the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition type A to type B: a change in technical tradition, raw material, task or settlement dynamics?. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age, vol. II. Kerns Verlag Tübingen, Tübingen, pp. 343e366. Soressi, M., 2005. Late Mousterian lithic technology: its implications for the pace of the emergence of behavioural modernity and the relationship between behavioural modernity and biological modernity. In: Backwell, L., d'Errico, F. (Eds.), From Tools to Symbols. University of Witwatersrand Press, Johannesburg, pp. 389e417. Soressi, M., Hays, M.A., 2003. Manufacture, transport and use of Mousterian bifaces. A case study from the Perigord (France). In: Soressi, M., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 125e147.
I Soressi, M., Jones, H., Rink, J., Maureille, B., Tillier, A.-M., 2007. The Pech-de-l'Aze Neandertal child: ESR, Uranium Series and AMS C14 dating of MTA type B context. Journal of Human Evolution 52, 455e466.
ratoire, and other Soressi, M., Geneste, J.-M., 2011. Reduction sequence, chaîne ope methods: the Epistemologies of different approaches to lithic analysis. The
ratoire approach to lithic analysis: history and Efficacy of the chaîne ope studying techniques to reveal past societies in an Evolutionary perspective. PaleoAnthropology 2011, 334e350. Soressi, M., McPherron, S.P., Lemoir, M., Dogandzic, T., Goldberg, P., Jacobs, Z., Maigrot, Y., Martisius, N.L., Miller, C.E., Rendu, W., Richards, M., Skinner, M.M., Steele, T.E., Talamo, S., Texier, J.-P., 2013. Neandertals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences 110 (35), 14186e14190. Szmidt, C., 2003. The Mousterian in Mediterranean France. In: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1147. Oxford.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe

22

K. Ruebens, R.M. Wragg Sykes / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e22

Tattersall, I., Schwartz, J.H., 2008. The distinctiveness and systematic context of Homo neanderthalensis. In: Harvati, K., Harrison, T. (Eds.), Neanderthals Revisited: New Approaches and Perspectives. Springer, New York, pp. 9e22.
Mourre, V., Chacon, M.G., Asselin, G., Brenet, M., Paravel, B.,
baut, C., Claud, E., Thie 2010. The Recycling and Reuse of Cores and Bifaces during the Middle Paleolithic in Western Europe: Functional and Cultural Interpretations. P@ lethnologie, Varia, p. 41.
baut, C., Claud, E., Deschamps, M., Discamps, E., Soulier, M.-C., Mussini, C., Thie Costamagno, S., Rendu, W., Brenet, M., Colonge, D., Coudenneau, A., Gerbe, M., Guibert, P., Jaubert, J., Laroulandie, V., Maureille, B., Mourre, V., Santos, F., 2014.
des productions lithiques du Pale
olithique moyen re
cent (OIS4-OIS3): Diversite ^te sur le ro ^le des facteurs environmentaux, fonctionnels et culturels. In: enque
Jaubert, J., Fourment, N., Depaepe, P. (Eds.), Transitions, ruptures et continuite
histoire Vol. 2: Pale
olithique et Me
solithique, Actes du XXVIIe Congre s en Pre
historique de France (Bordeaux e Les Eyzies, 31 maie5 juin 2010). Socie
te
pre
historique française, Paris, pp. 281e298. pre Thissen, J., 2006. Die pal€ aolithischen Freilandstationen von Rheindahlen im Loss zwischen Maas und Niederrhein. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 58. Mainz. Tostevin, G., 2012. Seeing Lithics: a Middle-range Theory for Testing Cultural Transmission in the Pleistocene. In: American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Tratman, E.K., Donovan, D.T., Campbell, J.B., 1971. The Hyaena Den (Wookey Hole), Mendip Hills, Somerset. Proceedings, University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 12 (3), 245e279.
olithique dans le Nord de la France. Tuffreau, A., 1971. Quelques aspects du Pale
te
de Pre
histoire du Nord 8. Lille. Bulletin de la Socie
rien de Tradition Acheule
enne de Catigny (Oise). Tuffreau, A., 1976. Le Mouste
te
pre
historique française 73, 305e320. Bulletin de la Socie
olithique Infe
rieur et Moyen de Saint-Just-enTuffreau, A., 1977. Le Gisement Pale
e (Oise). Cahiers Arche
ologique de Picardie 4, 9e29. Chausse
olithique Moyen Re
cent dans le Nord de la France. In: Tuffreau, A., 1990. Le Pale
olithique Moyen Re
cent et Pale
olithique Supe
rieur Ancien Farizy, C. (Ed.), Pale en Europe, pp. 159e166.
liminaire sur l'outillage en quartzite entre Dordogne et Lot. Turq, A., 1978. Note pre
te
pre
historique française 75 (5), 136e140. Bulletin de la Socie
rien de tradition acheule
enne. Pale
o 2, 244e273. Turq, A., 2000. Le Mouste
n del Musteriense del nordeste aquitano. In: Turq, A., 2007. Hacia una nueva visio Baquedano, E. (Ed.), El universo Neanderthal I. Resultado del curso organizado por la Fundacion Duques de Soria, Rascafria (Madrid) 5e8 septiembre de 2005. Ibersaf Industrial, pp. 145e167. Turq, A., Dibble, H.L., Goldberg, P., McPherron, S.P., Sandgathe, D., Jones, H., Maddison, K., Maureille, B., Mentzer, S., Rink, J., Steenhuyse, A., 2011. Les
centes du Pech de l'Aze
IV (Dordogne). Gallia Pre
histoire 53, 1e58. Fouilles Re Turq, A., Roebroeks, W., Bourguignon, L., Faivre, J.-P., 2013. The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology. Journal of Human Evolution 65, 641e655.
Handaxe: a Typological Problem. In: British Tyldesley, J.A., 1987. The bout coupe Archaeological Reports 170. Oxford. Valladas, H., Chadelle, J.-P., Geneste, J.-M., Joron, J.-L., Meignen, L., Texier, P.-J., 1987.
riens du Sud de la Datations par la thermoluminescence de gisements mouste France. L'Anthropologie 91/1, 211e226.

Villa, P., 2009. Discussion 3: the Lower to Middle Paleolithic Transition. In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions. Springer, New York, pp. 265e270. Vogel, J.C., Waterbolk, H.T., 1967. Groningen radiocarbon dates VII. Radiocarbon 9, 107e155. Wenban-Smith, F.F., 2004. Handaxe typology and Lower Palaeolithic cultural development: ficrons, cleavers and two giant handaxes from Cuxton. Journal of the Lithics Studies Society 25, 11e21. Wenban-Smith, F.F., Bates, M., Schwenninger, J.-L., 2010. Early Devensian (MIS 5d5b) occupation at Dartford, southeast England. Journal of Quaternary Science 25, 1193e1199. White, M.J., 1998. On the significance of Acheulian biface variability in southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64, 15e44.
handaxes revisWhite, M.J., Jacobi, R., 2002. Two sides to every story. Bout coupe ited. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21, 109e133. White, M.J., Scott, B., Ashton, N., 2006. The Early Middle Palaeolithic in Britain: archaeology, human settlement history and technological organisation. Journal of Quaternary Science 21, 525e542. White, M.J., Pettitt, P.B., 2011. The British Late Middle Palaeolithic: an interpretative synthesis of Neanderthal occupation at the Northwestern edge of the Pleistocene world. Journal of World Prehistory 24, 25e97. Wragg Sykes, R.M., 2009. The British Mousterian: Late Neanderthal Archaeology in Landscape Context (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Sheffield. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/273904/Neanderthals_in_Britain_Late_Mousterian_ archaeology_in_landscape_context_Volume_I (last accessed 09.05.15.).
s: the dynamic role of bifaces in the Wragg Sykes, R.M., 2010. Beyond bout coupe British Mousterian. Journal of the Lithics Studies Society 31, 20e32. Wragg Sykes, R.M., 2012. Neanderthals 2.0. Evidence for expanded social networks, ethnic diversity and encultured landscapes in the Late Middle Palaeolithic. In: Ruebens, K., Romanowska, I., Bynoe, R. (Eds.), Unravelling the Palaeolithic e 10 Years of Research at the Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins (CAHO, University of Southampton), University of Southampton Series in Archaeology 8, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2400, pp. 73e84. Wragg Sykes, R.M., 2015a. The Mousterian lithic assemblage from Picken's Hole, Compton Bishop, Somerset. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society (in press). Wragg Sykes, R.M., 2015b. Isolation, exploration or seasonal migration? Investigating technological organisation in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of Britain during Marine Isotope Stage 3. In: Robinson, E., Sellett, F. (Eds.), Lithic Technological Organization and Paleoenvironmental Change: Global and Diachronic Perspectives. Springer, New York (forthcoming). Wymer, J.J., 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain. John Baker Ltd, London. Wymer, J.J., 1985. Palaeolithic Sites of East Anglia. Geo Books, Norwich. Wymer, J.J., 1999. The Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain. Wessex Archaeology and English Heritage, London. ~o, J., 2012. Personal ornaments and symbolism among Neanderthals. In: Zilha Elias, S. (Ed.), Origins of Human Innovation and Creativity, Developments in Quaternary Science 16. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 35e50.

Please cite this article in press as: Ruebens, K., Wragg Sykes, R.M., Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour:
handaxes as a case study, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.037 British bout coupe