The nature of technological changes: The Middle Pleistocene stone tool assemblages from Galería and Gran Dolina-subunit TD10.1 (Atapuerca, Spain)

Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

The nature of technological changes: The Middle Pleistocene stone tool assemblages from Galería and Gran Dolina-subunit TD10.1 (Atapuerca, Spain)
a, c, Marina Mosquera c, a, Isabel Ca
ceres c, a, Paula García-Medrano a, b, *, Andreu Olle a, c, d Eudald Carbonell  de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolucio
Social (IPHES), Zona educacional 4, Campus Sescelades URV (EdificiW3), 43007, Tarragona, Spain Institut Catala ~ uelos s/n, 09001, Burgos, Spain Laboratorio de Prehistoria, IþDþI, Universidad de Burgos, Pl. Misael Ban  ria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), av. Catalunya, 35, 43002, Tarragona, Spain Area de Prehisto d Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing (IVPP), China a

b c

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 29 March 2015

This article focuses on the origins for technological variation during the Middle Pleistocene through the analysis of the lithic assemblages from Galería and Gran Dolina-subunit TD10.1 (Atapuerca, Spain). The technological study was organized into three main levels of analysis. The first stage consisted of the technological characterization of the whole assemblage (e.g. the general composition of each sample, the exploitation and shaping methods used, and the characteristics of each item). The second stage involved the morphometric analysis of the large tools, mainly handaxes and cleavers, given the significance of these instruments in Middle Pleistocene assemblages. In this case, we combined traditional technical and metrical analyses with current morphometric methods. Lastly, taking into account the general characteristics of these sites, the third stage consisted of assessing how the different occupational strategies affected the lithic representation. These analyses allowed us to define three technological groups. The first includes unit Galería-GIIa, which corresponds to the appearance of the Acheulean in the Atapuerca caves. The second is represented by the rest of the sequence of the Galería site, mainly the upper part of the sequence (unit GIII). And the third technological corresponds to Gran Dolina-subunit TD10.1. Thus, the Galería sequence shows the technological evolution of the Acheulean over a period of 250 ka. Furthermore, subunit TD10.1 represents a new occupational strategy combining traditional Acheulean tools with more evolved technical strategies. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Acheulean Large Cutting Tools Technological evolution Raw material Occupation type

1. Introduction This article compares the lithic technology of two sites, Galería and Gran Dolina-TD10.1 (Atapuerca, Spain), in order to define their technological variations during the Middle Pleistocene. Comparing lithic assemblages involves considering conditions such as: the type of occupation, the raw materials used, and the chronological framework. Firstly, the type of occupation refers to the activities carried out at each site. Functional variables would have affected the compositional characteristics of the assemblages. Secondly, the

 de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolucio
Social * Corresponding author. Institut Catala (IPHES), Zona educacional 4, Campus Sescelades URV (EdificiW3), 43007, Tarragona, Spain. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. García-Medrano). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.03.006 1040-6182/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

types of raw materials available and their physical limitations could have lead hominins to develop local technical solutions, notably the use of specific knapping strategies. Finally, the chronological range is a crucial variable in evaluating the characteristics of the tools which make up an assemblage, including the presence of specific tool types or specific manufacturing features, such as the type of retouch used. The Gran Dolina-TD10.1 and Galería sites have been interpreted to reflect different occupational patterns. The archaeological record of subunit TD10.1 has been documented as the result of intense occupations, exhibiting clear base-camp features (Carbonell et al.,
rquez et al., 2001; Rosell, 2001; Rodríguez, 2004). How2001; Ma ever, recent works have also identified repeated shorter-term occupations (Blasco et al., 2013a, 2013b). In all cases, hunting practices, the transport of prey into the cave and domestic activities

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

related to carcass processing have been observed. The lithic assemblages from most of the archaeological levels forming TD10.1 exhibit complete knapping sequences and spatial correlation with faunal remains. Comparatively, the Galería sequence reflects short, sporadic and successive occupations, in which analogous activities were carried out over the course of 250 ka: exploiting the animals that fell into the cave through a vertical duct (Díez and Moreno,
ceres, 2002; Olle
et al., 2005; 1994; Huguet et al., 2001; Ca C
aceres et al., 2010). The main feature of the lithic assemblages deriving from this use of the cave is a clear fragmentation of the reduction sequences. Apparently, most of the knapping activities occurred outside of the cave, with finished tools being generally introduced into the site. This site specificity resulted in considerable technological uniformity. Because the sites are situated only about 50 m apart (Fig. 1), we may assume that the hominin groups shared the same environment and that they would have had access to the same raw ma
et al., 2013). In spite of constraints relating to the terials (Olle different dating methods used, the chronological range of the two sequences is roughly complementary. The Galería site presents a continuous sequence from 503 ± 95 ka (Berger et al., 2008) to res et al., 2013). More recently, (Falgue res et al., 221e269 ka (Falgue 2013), the age of Gran Dolina's subunit TD10.1 has been evaluated to around 300 ka (Fig. 2). Three different technological groups have emerged through the comparison of the lithic assemblages of Galería and Gran Dolina-

93

TD10.1. The first includes the GIIa subunit of Galería, and corresponds to the appearance of the Acheulean in Atapuerca. The second is represented by the remainder of the Galería sequence, mainly the upper part (unit GIII) and the third to Gran Dolinasubunit TD10.1. This article presents results from a two-fold lithic analysis and discusses the origins of technological changes highlighted by our data. The first stage of our work includes the technological analysis of the assemblages (e.g. the composition of each sample, the exploitation and shaping techniques used and the characteristics of the resulting products). The second stage focuses on the morphometric analysis of the large tools; mainly handaxes and cleavers, given their significance in Middle Pleistocene assemblages. Finally, we discuss the technological data, placing it within the framework of each site's specificities in order to assess how different occupational strategies might have affected the lithic record. 2. Site context: Galería and Gran Dolina The Sierra de Atapuerca is located on the northern part of the Iberian Meseta, 15 km east of Burgos (Fig. 1). It is a small Cenozoic
rez-Gonz
limestone elevation containing several caves (Pe alez et al., 2001). Excavations at the numerous sites in Atapuerca have yielded a rich archaeological record spanning the last million years, providing key information about Early and Middle Pleistocene populations (Carbonell et al., 1995a,b; 2008; Arsuaga et al., 1997a,

Fig. 1. Location of the Atapuerca sites, showing the proximity of the Galería and Gran Dolina sites. On the right, a map of the karst (adapted from Ortega, 2009). (For an interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

94

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

Fig. 2. Chronostratigraphic correlation between the Gran Dolina-subunit TD10.1 and the Galería sequence, according to Arnold et al. (2014), Berger et al. (2008), Demuro et al. res et al. (2001, 2013), Grün and Aguirre (1987), and Pe
rez-Gonz
alez et al. (1999). (2014), Falgue


1997b; Bermúdez de Castro et al., 1999; Rodríguez et al., 2011; Olle et al., 2013). 2.1. The Galería complex The Galería complex is located on the western side of the Sierra. The cavity, developing inwards for over 12 m, is around 14 m high and 18 m wide. The name ‘Galería’ refers to the complete cave system, which comprises three distinct areas: a central area (TG), joined to the north by small chamber (TZ) and containing a vertical shaft that rises to the surface to the south (TN). Five main infilling phases (GI to GV) and one paleosol (GVI) have been distinguished
and Huguet, 1999; Pe
rez-Gonz
(Olle alez et al., 1999, 2001; Vallverdú, 2002) (Fig. 2). Only units GII and GIII are archeopaleontological deposits. Unit GI is formed by archeologically

sterile endokarstic detrital sediment, dated to >350 ka (U/Th) and 317 ± 60 ka (ESR) (Grün and Aguirre, 1987). The MatuyamaBrunhes boundary has been identified less than half a meter below the chronometric samples (Fig. 2). Unit GII is divided into two subunits, separated by a continuous organic layer. The earliest of these, GIIa, contains evidence of the cave's first exposure to the outside and is correlated with OIS11 (Aguirre, 2001). However, TL dates provide older chronologies (503 ± 95 ka and 422 ± 55 ka for TG9, Berger et al., 2008). Further res et al., 2013). data from ESR-US give an age of 350e363 ka (Falgue The more recent dates were obtained using TT-OSL and pIR-IR225, (330 ka and 230 ka, Demuro et al., 2014). The youngest subunit, res GIIb, has recently been dated by ESR-US to 237e269 ka (Falgue et al., 2013). Unit GIII is also divided into two subunits which have been dated using different methods (TL, ESR, ESR-US, TT-OSL,

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

pIR-IR225 and pIR-IR290). The age of unit GIIIa, has been evaluated to res et al., between 460 ka and 220 ka (Berger et al., 2008; Falgue 2013; Demuro et al., 2014). and that of Unit GIIIb to between 300 ka and 250 ka (Berger et al., 2008; Demuro et al., 2014; res et al., 2001, 2013; Arnold et al., in press). The final infillFalgue ing event corresponds to the edaphic relict formation that sealed the cave (Units GIV to GVI). A stalagmite from the top of GIV has been dated to between 250 ka to 87 ka (ESR, U/Th, TT-OSL and pIRIR225) (Fig. 2). Two human fossils were recovered at Galería (TZ area). The first (from unit GII) is an adult mandible fragment with two molars (Bermúdez de Castro and Rosas, 1992) and the second, from the base of GIII, is a neurocranial fragment of an adult individual (Arsuaga et al., 1999). Both remains display features in common with the fossils from the Sima de los Huesos site (Arsuaga et al., 1997a), located less than 2 km from Galería, and have been ascribed to the same clade. The Galería assemblage lacks the characteristic features of a home-base (e.g. a high degree of hominin impact on the faunal remains, abundant and complete lithic reduction sequences, and a certain degree of spatial organization). In addition, the taphonomic data suggests conditions of waterlogged ground and semi-darkness that may, to some extent, explain the relatively limited domestic activities documented. The occupational model inferred is one of sporadic and repeated low intensity visits for the purpose of obtaining animals that had fallen into the natural trap created by the TN shaft, in successful competition with carnivores (Díez and
et al., Moreno, 1994; Huguet et al., 2001; C
aceres, 2002; Olle
ceres et al., 2010). A gradual reduction in the meat sup2005; Ca ply could have led to a loss of interest in this cave to both humans and carnivores. According to this model, the Galería site would have been a ‘complementary settlement area’ in the complex karst network of Sierra de Atapuerca to which hominins made occasional
et al., 2013). This planned visits (Carbonell et al., 1995a,b; Olle suggests that the hominins were familiar with the environment around the site and that they were capable of planning and organization. 2.2. Gran Dolina site The Gran Dolina site (TD), located ca. 50 m north of Galería, is a cave infilled by interior and exterior deposits. Its stratigraphic succession (up to 18 m thick) was initially divided into 11 units (TD1 to TD11 Fig. 2) (Gil et al., 1987). This schema was later slightly revised
s and Pe
rez-Gonz

rez-Gonza
lez et al., 2001; (Pare alez, 1999; Pe Rodríguez et al., 2011). Palaeomagnetic data place the MatuyamaBrunhes boundary at the top of level TD7, thus dividing the stratigraphic sequence into an Early Pleistocene section (TD1-2 to TD7) and a Middle Pleistocene section (TD8 to TD11). No radiometrical dates have been obtained from TD3-TD4 but biostratigraphic data
s et al., 2011). indicates an age of ca. 1 Ma (Made, 1999; Cuenca-Besco Unit TD6 is a formed by several groups of beds, the penultimate of which is TD6.2 (the “Aurora stratum”) (Vallverdú et al., 2001). This unit has yielded a significant collection of human remains attributed to Homo antecessor, associated with abundant stone tools and faunal remains (Bermúdez de Castro et al., 1997, 2008; Carbonell et al., 1995a,b, 1999; 2005). According to palaeomagnetic data, the age
s and Pe
rez-Gonza
lez, 1999), an age that is of TD6 is ca. 0.8 Ma (Pare res et al., 1999, consistent with the ESR and U-series dates (Falgue 2001). Sublevel TD6.3 has recently been dated by TT-OSL, to 856 ± 75 ka and 831 ± 90 ka (Arnold et al., in press, Arnold and Demuro, in press). A slightly older TL date of 960 ± 120 ka (Berger et al. 2008) for the overlying level TD7 is corroborated by recent paleomagnetic data from the top of TD7 indicating an age of 900 ka
s et al., 2013). Following archaeologically sterile units for TD6 (Pare

95

TD8 and TD8-9, the first unit with evidence of a hominin presence at Gran Dolina is TD9 (with only four stone tools) dated by TL to 480 ± 130 ka (Berger et al. 2008). Most of the site's archaeological record is concentrated in the overlying unit (TD10) that has been divided into four lithostratigraphic subunits (TD10.4 to TD10.1, from bottom to top). Geochronological studies have provided a TL date of 430 ± 59 ka for subunit TD10.3 and a series of ESR/UTh dates. However, a slightly discordant TL mean date of 244 ± 26 ka for the bottom of unit TD10.2 has also been reported. The stratigraphic succession finishes with the archaeologically sterile unit TD11, dated to between res et al., 1999, 2013; Berger et al., 240 ± 44 and 55 ± 14 ka (Falgue 2008; Rodríguez et al., 2011). Together with TD10.2 (number of faunal remains and lithic artifacts ¼ 77.743), TD10.1 is one of the richest subunits of the Atapuerca sites, and has yielded 48,000 faunal remains and more
et al., 2013). The archeological than 20,000 lithic artifacts (Olle assemblage has been interpreted as a base-camp, resulting from the combination of high intensity occupations and a succession of
pez-Ortega et al., short-term occupations (Carbonell et al., 2001; Lo
ndez, 2009; Rodríguez, 2004; 2011; M
arquez et al., 2001; Mene Rosell, 2001; Terradillos-Bernal, 2010; Blasco et al., 2013a, 2013b). The high intensity of the occupations is reflected by the abundant evidence of faunal processing and domestic activities (Rosell, 2001; Blasco, 2013a, 2013b), as well as in the complete lithic knapping
rquez et al., 2001; Rodríguez, sequences (Carbonell et al., 2001; Ma 2004). The features of faunal assemblages (such as skeletal elements with high nutritional values) suggest that hominins has primary access to animals, and that they transported the richest anatomical segments into the cave. 3. Methods The Atapuerca lithic assemblage has been analyzed using the Logical Analytical System (Carbonell et al., 1983, 1992, 1999; Rodríguez, 2004). Additional methodological approaches have also been applied. Knapping methods are defined in terms of core surface exploitation (faciality), the direction of removals, and the arrangement of the striking platforms. We have identified Longitudinal, Centripetal, Discoidal, Levallois, and Orthogonal methods. - The Longitudinal knapping strategy was performed on a single core surface, with flake scars oriented unidirectionally along the thickest part of the blank. This flaking method was commonly used at Atapuerca to reduce pebbles and cobbles, leading to products with a significant amount of cortex on their lateral edges. - The Centripetal method was practiced by means of recurrent knapping around the edge of a support. (a) Discoidal cores present core surfaces were knapped using a similar extraction angle and worked alternately, (b) In the case of hierarchical centripetal cores, one core surface (usually the flattest) was preferentially worked during production, while the other (the more abrupt) was reserved to prepare the striking platforms. This hierarchical organization of core surfaces ensured a certain degree of predetermination in the shape of the flakes. Levallois reduction methods would, in fact, be the extreme expression of this hierarchical process. - Orthogonal strategies are based on the continuous creation of flake extraction surfaces that were used as striking platforms.
The angles between these surfaces tend to be close to 90 (Olle et al., 2013). To analyze the morphometric variability of the flakes, we considered several indices (Stout et al., 2014) such as: elongation

96

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

(length/width), refinement (width/thickness), relative thickness (thickness/(length*width)), relative platform area ((platform length*platform width)/(flake length*flake width)) and platform shape (platform length/platform width). This analysis was restricted to whole flakes with a maximum dimension of >20 mm. We also undertook a more detailed study of some of the characteristic groups of tools in Middle Pleistocene assemblages, paying special attention to the Large Cutting Tools. We follow here the definition of “Large Cutting Tool” proposed by Sharon (2007: 20) as, “A single headline for unifacially and bifacially knapped Acheulian tools of all types (i.e. handaxes, cleavers, knives, picks, core axes, thriedrals and more), which emphasizes the important of the cutting edge as the tools' main raison d'^ etre”. In this case, due the characteristics of our record, we have considered the LCT made on large flakes (more than 10 cm, Sharon, 2008) as well as those made on smaller blanks. In addition to conventional LAS characterization, focusing on faciality, percentage of perimeter modified by shaping, extent of the removals, and direction and delineation of the retouched edge (Rodríguez, 2004), we further described shaping strategies to include aspects such as the percentage of residual cortex and the number of scars per face on each tool. We also adapted the shaping sequencing of large tools, based on the British research tradition, which considers the different phases of the configuration process: test, rough-out, shaping and finishing (Newcomer, 1971; WenbanSmith, 1989; Wenban-Smith and Ashton, 1998). The tools were assigned to a specific stage of this process, in accordance to their technological characteristics, such as: the amount of cortex, the distribution, size and shape of the removals, the use of different percussion modalities, the type of retouch, the angle separating the two faces of the tool, etc. 3.1. Classic morphometric methods for LCT Focusing on LCTs, our basic analytical description was completed by various measurements (Fig. 3), traditionally used in the study of the variability of large tools (Bordes, 1961; Roe, 1968, 1981; Crompton and Gowlett, 1993; McPherron, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2003), and which complement the information about morphologies and size and shape variations (García-Medrano, 2011). These measurements were combined into three main indices and were used to evaluate each tool's shape: elongation (ratio of total length to maximum width), refinement (ratio of maximum width to maximum thickness), and Bordes' Edge Shape (the relative location of the maximum width with a ratio of the width at the midpoint

Fig. 4. Procrustes superimposition process removes size, translation, and rotation (i.e., orientation) from the original shape data. Original outline data (left) vs. Procrustes aligned data (right). These images correspond with the outlines of the handaxes and cleavers of Galería and TD10.1.

of length to the maximum width; which is summarized with the formula [(Length/Base Length) e 4.575]  [Mid width (n) / Maxim. Width (m)]), (Bordes, 1961). 3.2. Morphometric methods for the study of LCTs We applied a geometric morphometric methodology to extract 2dimensional coordinate data using digital photographs taken of each handaxe at a 90 zenithal angle. Coordinate extraction was performed manually with a digitizing program (tpsDig2, Rohlf, 2009), and resampled with 60 equally spaced points, preserving the original, manually digitized starting point. Then, the XY outline data file was opened in PAST (Paleontological Statistics), a program that can be used to analyze morphometric data (Hammer et al., 2001). A 2D Procrustes superimposition of the XY outline coordinate data was performed, which scales, rotates, and translates the XY coordinate data, bringing all biface outlines to a standardized size, orientation, and position before subsequent analysis. Essentially, the shape coordinates are fitted around the centroid or group mean, which centers the specimen outlines. Subtracting the sample mean from the dataset ensures that principal component axes are centered at (0, 0) for subsequent PCA (Hammer and Harper, 2006). The multivariate outline data obtained using PAST was projected into two dimensions so that the underlying shape variables could be qualitatively examined and compared (Hammer and Harper, 2006) (Fig. 4). In order to interpret the meaning of the PCA results from a morphological perspective, Procrustes superimposed shape data was examined with the thin-plate splines, grids used to facilitate visualization of shape changes from the group mean along relative

Fig. 3. Set of measurements taken from handaxes and cleavers, expressed as name and initials. Modified from García-Medrano (2011).

Table 1 Contingency table between the raw materials and type of instruments, by subunits. Undetermined elements (due to their poor state of conservation and the loss of technological characteristics) are not included. LCT (Large
et al., 2013: 159 (Table 15). Bold Cutting Tools) includes handaxes ad cleavers. Products include simple flakes, retouched flakes, broken flakes, flake fragments and simple fragments. The TD10.1 data has been extracted from Olle signifies for the total number of tool category and italics for the % of this total with respect to the global total of the assemblage. Cores

LCT

Retouched tools

Products

5 e 45 1 e e 51 18.41

9.80 e 88.24 1.96 e e

e e 1 e 3 3 7 2.53

e e 14.29 e 42.86 42.86

3 e 7 e e 3 13 6.14

23.08 e 53.85 e e 23.08

e 1 3 e e e 4 6.14

6 12 29 1 e e e e 48 11.54

12.50 25.00 60.42 2.08 e e e e

1 1 4 e e e 2 3 11 2.64

9.09 9.09 36.36 e e e 18.18 27.27

5 1 4 e e 1 1 5 17 4.09

29.41 5.88 23.53 e e 5.88 5.88 29.41

e 25.00 75.00 e e e

3 e 14 1 6 27 51 18.41

5.88 e 27.45 1.96 11.76 52.94

12 2 23 e 9 105 151 54.51

7.95 1.32 15.23 e 5.96 69.54

23 3 93 2 18 138 277

8.30 1.08 33.57 0.72 6.50 49.82

2 e e e e e e e 2 0.48

100.00 e e e e e

5 5 16 3 e e 11 61 101 24.28

4.95 4.95 15.84 2.97 e e 10.89 60.40

21 11 24 11 2 e 21 147 237 56.97

8.86 4.64 10.13 4.64 0.84 e 8.86 62.03

40 30 77 15 2 1 35 216 416

9.62 7.21 18.51 3.61 0.48 0.24 8.41 51.92

12 7 62 1 e e e 82 26.62

14.63 8.54 75.61 1.22 e e e

1 2 e e e 2 10 15 4.87

6.67 13.33 e e e 13,33 66.67

7 e 4 1 e e 3 15 4.87

46.67 e 26.67 6.67 e e 20.00

2 e e 1 e e e 3 0.97

66.67 e e 33.33 e e e

6 e 8 1 2 6 48 71 23.05

8.45 e 11.27 1.41 2.82 8.45 67.61

13 5 15 2 e 4 83 122 39.61

10.66 4.10 12.30 1.64 e 3.28 68.03

41 14 89 6 2 12 144 308

13.31 4.55 28.90 1.95 0.65 3,90 46.75

13 5 50 1 e e e e 69 26.14

18.84 7.25 72.46 1.45 e e e e

1 2 4 e 1 1 e 6 15 5.68

6.67 13.33 26.67 e 6.67 6.67 e 40.00

2 e 3 e 1 e e 2 8 3.03

25.00 e 37.50 e 12.50 e e 25.00

e e 4 e e e e e 4 1.52

9 2 18 2 1 1 5 20 58 21.97

15.52 3.45 31.03 3.45 1.72 1.72 8.62 34.48

20 2 5 3 1 1 7 71 110 41.67

18.18 1.82 4.55 2.73 0.91 0.91 6.36 64.55

45 11 84 6 4 3 12 99 264

17.05 4.17 31.82 2.27 1.52 1.14 4.55 37.50

35 5 82 19 2 3 e 1 147 0.94

23.81 3.40 55.78 12.93 1.36 2.04 e 0.68

29 e 38 3 e e 23 95 188 1.20

15.43 e 20.21 1.60 e e 12.23 50.53

11 e 7 e e 1 e 14 33 0.21

33.33 e 21.21 e e 3.03 e 42.42

3 1 8 e e e e e 12 0.08

73 1 197 23 e 2 105 233 634 4.05

11.51 0.16 31.07 3.63 e 0.32 16.56 36.75

2750 36 3233 658 13 162 1245 6535 14,632 93.52

18.79 0.25 22.10 4.50 0.09 1.11 8.51 44.66

2901 43 3565 703 15 168 1373 6878 15,646

18.54 0.27 22.79 4.49 0.08 1.07 8.78 43.96

e

e e 100.00 e e e e e

25.00 8.33 66.67 e e e e e

Total

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

GIIa Sandstone Limestone Quartzite Quartz Cret.Ch. Neog.Ch. Total % GIIb Sandstone Limestone Quartzite Quartz Schist Indet Ch. Cretac.Ch. Neog.Ch. Total % GIIIa Sandstone Limestone Quartzite Quartz Schist Cretac.Ch. Neog.Ch. Total % GIIIb Sandstone Limestone Quartzite Quartz Schist Indet Ch. Cretac.Ch. Neog.Ch. Total % TD10.1 Sandstone Limestone Quartzite Quartz Other R. Indet Ch. Cretac.Ch. Neog.Ch. Total %

Chopper & Chopping-T.

Natural bases

97

98

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

warp axes (Hammer and Harper, 2006; see Fig.18). This process allows estimated shape to be displayed at any point within a plot of any two principal components. This facilitates the translation of shape variation represented by the principal component axes into causative factors that may have affected artifact morphology (Costa, 2010). By examining the morphological deformations (i.e., principal components axes) and XY plots of specimens from the PCA scatters (Fig. 13), it was possible to interpret the shape variation which each principal component encompassed. 4. Results 4.1. Raw materials and artifact type frequencies Seven main types of raw materials were identified in the archeological records of Galería and Gran Dolina, all of which were available within a 2e5 km radius around the sites, sites (García
n et al., 2002; García-Anto
n and Mosquera, 2007) (Table 1). Anto The Acheulean assemblage of Galería'sesubunit GIIa is characterized by six raw materials, of which Neogene chert (around 50%) and quartzite (33.57%) were the most frequently used. Products including simple flakes, retouched flakes, broken flakes, flake fragments and angular fragments make up the main category (54.51%), followed by retouched tools (24%) and non-modified cobbles (18%), brought into the cave by hominins. Retouched tools were generally made from Neogene chert and quartzite. Large tools, which include handaxes and cleavers as well as choppers and chopping-tools, were made of quartzite (59%). There are few cores (2.53%), basically made of chert (Neogene or Cretaceous) (Table 2). However, GIIa displays a unique characteristic which is not found in the rest of the Galería levels or in other Atapuerca sites: the use cobbles for shaping large tools (over 50% of the large tools) (GarcíaMedrano, 2011: 218; García-Medrano et al., 2014) (Table 1). Table 2 The R2 and b correlation coefficients between the maximum dimension and shape indices of products (elongation, refinement, relative thickness, flake volume, platform area and platform shape). GIIa Elongation Refinement Relative thickness

2

R 0.0059 R2 0.0035 R2 0.6024 b 0.6097 Flake volume R2 0.8900 b 0.7872 Relative platform area R2 0.0107 Platform shape R2 0.0524

GIIb

GIIIa

GIIIb

TD10.1

0.0124 0.0052 0.5851 0.6340 0.8708 0.5898 0.0012 0.0106

0.0008 0.0398 0.5949 0.6230 0.8064 0.7782 0.0013 0.0045

0.0001 0.0019 0.5371 0.6059 0.8313 0.8116 0.0129 0.0082

0.0107 0.0103 0.4140 0.1914 0.8001 0.5080 0.0070 0.0000

The lithic assemblage from Galería-GIIb is different in several aspects. Firstly, the raw materials are more divers: quartzite is less common, dropping to 18.5%, and sandstone, Cretaceous chert and limestone were more extensively used, increasing to 9.6%, 8.4% and 7.2%, respectively. Secondly, the use of quartzite is substituted by a combination of six raw materials, of which sandstone was the most common (36.8%). Concerning the retouched toolkit, a wider variety of raw materials was used, with sandstone representing 24% of the assemblage. And thirdly, the knapping was mainly performed on large flakes, which required considerable planning to produce and which represent a different level of resource management (GarcíaMedrano et al., 2014). Subunits GIIIa and GIIIb confirm trends observed in GIIb: Neogene chert and quartzite continue to be the primary raw materials, but the progressive introduction of sandstone is significant, reaching 17% in GIIIa and 18.5% in GIIIb. There is also progressive diversification in the representation of the raw materials, with less common types taking on increased significance. The tool type representation also changes, with a higher number of cores (4.9% in GIIIa; 5.7% in GIIIb), and a lower number of Large Cutting Tools (4.9% in GIIIa, 3.0% in GIIIb). The Gran Dolina-TD10.1 lithic assemblage reflects the same tendencies as the upper levels of Galería (unit GIII) in terms of raw material representation, such as the intensive use of Neogene chert, quartzite and sandstone for both exploitation and shaping. Nevertheless, the TD10.1 assemblage presents specific technological aspects, such the scarcity of cobbles, complete chaînes op
eratoires, a decrease in the presence of LCTs, and an over-representation of products derived from these sequences (flakes and flake fragments ¼ >93% of the TD10.1 assemblage) (Table 1). This could mask the significance of other the technological items and could also be derived from the function of the site.

4.2. Exploitation sequences and products Although cores represent less than 6% of the assemblages, we remark the preferential use of cobbles in the oldest levels (GIIa), (>50% of the cores, Fig. 5A), whereas flakes were preferred for cores in the more recent levels (unit GIII). This transition seems to have occurred in subunit GIIb, where both cobbles and flakes have equal representation among the core supports. Bifacial exploitation predominates throughout sequences at both Galería and Gran DolinaTD10.1. However, unifacial exploitation is also significant (>40% of the cores from subunit GIIIb). We identified significant changes in the knapping methods, along the Galería sequence. In the oldest levels (Galería-GIIa), the

Fig. 5. A) Type of blank cores, by subunit. B) Type of exploitation method, by subunit.

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

99

Fig. 6. A) Percentage of products (simple flakes, flake fragments and broken flakes) in each assemblage. B) Raw materials of products between the different assemblages.

longitudinal and orthogonal methods are most common. The longitudinal method, a constant in the archeological record of Atapuerca, is represented throughout the sequence in different proportions. It was used to reduce quartzite cobbles, whose morphology favors this kind of technical approach. Flake extraction was opportunistically carried out from natural platforms. The orthogonal core reduction methods were used on the smallest supports or at the end of the knapping sequences, when their small size limited the viability of other knapping strategies.

Orthogonal strategies lose their significance through the sequence, representing only 10e15% in the upper part (mainly Galería-GIIIb and Gran Dolina-TD10.1), where they are replaced by centripetal and discoid methods. In addition, Levallois methods also appear, mainly in subunit TD10.1. (Fig. 5B). The presence of knapping products is massive in all the assemblages (Fig. 6A). In TD10.1, we have documented an overrepresentation of flakes (>93% of the assemblage). The majority are simple flakes and flake fragments of Neogene chert.

Fig. 7. Relationship between flake size (maximum dimension) and shape indices.

100

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

Fig. 8. A) Blank types of large tools, by subunits. B) Types of large tools, by subunits, detailing the number of pieces.

Fig. 9. Cleavers from GIIa (A to C), GIIb (D to H) and GIIIa (I to J) of Galería (A, Ata'94 TN2B F27, 2; B, Ata'94 TN2B F22, 3; C, Ata'94 TG07 F20, 2; D, Ata'92 TG10C G18, 1; E, Ata'93 TN05 F25, 32; F, Ata'96 TG GIIc H13, 17; G, Ata'08 TZ GIIc N02, 14; H, Ata'91 TG10B F20, 53; I, Ata'88 TG10A G17, 83; J, Ata'85 TG11 GSU11 G21, 48).

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

101

Fig. 10. Handaxes from GIIa (A to D) and GIIb (E to H) of Galería (A, Ata'94 TG07 F20, 4; B, Ata'94 TN2B G22, 5; C, Ata'95 TN2B H23, 1; D, Ata'96 TG GIId H12, 10; E, Ata'95 TN05 G25, 30; F, Ata'92 TG10B H20, 25; G, Ata'88 TG10B E18, 1; H, Ata'08 TZ GIIc N02, 152).

However, the presence of this raw material gradually decreases along the sequence, in favor of quartzite and sandstone. The scarcity of Cretaceous chert and quartz is constant throughout the sequence. The other raw materials (limestone, schist and slate) were marginally used and their frequency is variable (Fig. 6B).

When flake shape indices were correlated with flake size (maximum dimension) in the Galería sequence (Fig. 7), results show a fairly strong inverse relationship between their size and thickness. In fact, larger flakes tend to be thinner than smaller ones (Table 2). This relationship is poorly represented in the upper levels of Galería (GIIIb) and becomes particularly limited in TD10.1

Fig. 11. (A), Presence of cortex on handaxes by subunit (CO, cortical; CO(NCO), mainly cortical; NCO(CO), mainly non-cortical; NCO, non-cortical). (B), Percentage of the handaxes' surface affected by the shaping process by subunits.

102

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

Fig. 12. (A) Presence of primary and secondary retouch on handaxes, by subunits. (B) Number of scars on handaxes, by subunits.

(R2 ¼ 0.4140; b ¼ 0.1914). Flake volume is the second index most closely correlated with flake size. In the five assemblages the longest flakes present the highest volumes. The effects on other variables, though significant, were quite small.

Interestingly, when analyzing the relationship between flake size (maximum dimension) and platform shape (Fig. 7F), the flakes from Gran Dolina-TD10.1 appear to be split into two groups: those shorter and thicker platforms and those with longer

Fig. 13. Handaxes from subunits GIIIa (A to B) and GIIIb (C to F) of Galería (A, Ata'90 TG10A G21, 90; B, Ata'90 TN07 E29, 1; C, Ata'93 TZ GIII Q05, 11; D, Ata'92 TZ GIII M04, 21; E, Ata'92 TZ GIII M05, 21; F, Ata'95 TZ GIII K05, 20).

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

103

Fig. 14. Roe's morphological LCT variation in three main groups (cleaver type, oval type and pointed type), and according to the distribution of the instruments by subunits. (B1/B2 means Distal width/Proximal Width; B/L means Maximum Width/Total Length).

and thinner platforms. In addition, all the flakes from Galería belong to the first group. This leads us to suggest that these two groups may have a different origin. This fact could be derived from the use of different knapping methods. Galería exhibits the intensive use of centripetal and longitudinal methods, which in most cases produce flakes with thick platforms. Although TD10.1 shares these characteristics, it also exhibits significant use of Levallois method, which generates more controlled flake characters (Eren and Lycett, 2012; Lycett and von Cramon-Tubadel, 2013). Therefore, on one hand, the Galería sequence represents stability in terms of the metrical characteristics of the flakes, while the TD10.1 sequence represents heterogeneity in terms of

the use of different exploitation systems, which is reflected in the dimensional characteristics of the flakes. 4.3. Shaping sequences The large tools clearly illustrate the technological evolution documented in the Middle Pleistocene sequence of Atapuerca. One of the most important changes in the technological characteristics of the large tools is the transition from the preferential use of cobbles for shaping (>70% of tools in the oldest levels of GaleríaGIIa) (Fig. 8A) to the use of flakes as supports for shaping (reaching 70% at TD10.1). The intensive use of quartzite was replaced by an

104

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

Fig. 15. Handaxes (A to F) and cleavers (G to H) from subunit TD10.1 of Gran Dolina (A, Ata'88 TD10 J15, 10; B, Ata'00 TD10 N19, 120; C, Ata'00 Td10 J21, 13; D, Ata'00 TD10 L13, 6; E, Ata'03 TD10 J10, 29; F, Ata'05 TD10 J19, 20; G, Ata'03 TD10 J10, 34; H, Ata'01 TD10 N14, 320).

Fig. 16. Correspondence analysis between tool type frequencies (natural pebbles, cores, large tools, small tools and products) and the subunits considered. The Dimension 1 refers to the Subunits (GIIa, GIIb, GIIIa, GIIIb) and the Dimension 2, to the type of instruments.

increase in the use of sandstone and Neogene chert flakes (GarcíaMedrano et al., 2014). Generally, there is a complete set of Middle Pleistocene tool types: choppers, chopping-tools, cleavers, and handaxes, in different stages of configuration (Fig. 8B). The presence of chopper and chopping-tools is constant through the sequence. Cleavers are more frequent at the base of the sequence (subunits GIIa and GIIb). Tixier (1956: 916) defined cleavers as tools made on flakes that have an unworked distal cutting edge which corresponds to the distal edge of the flake. But at Atapuerca and other sites, some tools go beyond this definition. We use the term “cleaver” for all tools in which a distal transverse edge clearly prevails, regardless of the type of support (Figs. 9 and 15 G and H). Although in Atapuerca the distal edges of the cleavers are mainly without retouch, some of them appear slightly shaped. The Atapuerca cleavers are typologically variable (types 1, 2 and 5 being the most common) and were manufactured on a wide variety of raw materials (quartzite, quartz, sandstone and Neogene chert). No cleavers have been recovered from Galería subunit GIIIb. Handaxes are most frequent among the large tools. Representing 50% of the LCTs in GIIa, they account for over 70% of the LCTs in subunit GIIIb (Fig. 8B). All the handaxes from Galería correspond to the last stages of the shaping process. These tools were made outside the cave. The little refit information that has been documented suggests that minor shaping activities were carried out inside the cave for the purpose of solving specific problems related to the use of the instruments, such as improving the prehensile

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

areas. In most cases, the handaxes are in the shaping stage, and retain part of the cortical surface and the characteristics of the original supports. Handaxes in the finishing stage of configuration are less common and their frequency decreases along the sequence. These artifacts exhibit more careful techniques along their edges, the presence of secondary retouch (Figs. 8B and 12A), and the use of simple angles for shaping. The rough-out phase has only been documented in TD10.1, which means that the most complete shaping sequences are concentrated in this level. The presence of the rough-out phase implies that the initial management of the support, which would result in the creation of large tool, took place at the occupation. In general, the presence of residual cortical surfaces disappears over time (Fig. 11A): the handaxes from the oldest levels (GaleríaGIIa, Fig. 10) are characterized by entirely or largely cortical surfaces. Conversely, those from the upper part of the Galería sequence and from Gran Dolina-TD10.1 (Figs. 13 and 15) are mainly noncortical tools. This seems to be closely related to both the massive use of flakes as supports for shaping in the more recent levels and to more extensive shaping strategies. In fact, in more than 60% of cases, shaping affects between the 60 and 100% of the surface of the tool (Fig. 11B). Regarding the different retouch phases, despite retaining a good part of the original surface, more secondary retouch is observed in the basal levels (Fig. 12). It is mainly concentrated in the mid-distal part of the tools, along with a higher number of scars per face. Meanwhile, the more recent levels show a reduction in the use of secondary retouch, and a lower number of scars per face. Thus, in the older levels, the original characteristics of the supports were used and the shaping strategies focused on specific sectors of the pieces, with more care taken along the edges. A transition then occurs towards increased modification of the supports with the use of fewer removals. Roe (1968, 1981) identifies three handaxe types based on their: pointed, ovate and cleaver traditions, defined by the location of the maximum width in relation to the total length. The dichotomy between the oval and pointed “traditions” has been the main goal of the most traditional British discussion. According to Roe's morphological descriptions (and excluding choppers, chopping tools and rough-outs), the large tools from Galería and Gran Dolina-TD10.1 are mostly included in the oval type. This means that the common characteristic within these sites is the location of the maximum width, which is situated in the mid-length of the tools. But there are differences between the various levels. While the Galería's instruments present narrow silhouettes (Fig. 14) with convex and broad proximal parts, those from TD10.1 exhibit more rhomboidal shapes, with a clear tendency to pointed distal and proximal ends. Other large tools fall into the cleaver type, characterized by the location of the maximum width in the distal part of the tool. In Galería, these tools have a narrow medium-sized proximal part and a straight transverse edge, while in TD10.1 these have a wider proximal part and more convex transverse edges. The third group, the pointed type, exhibits wide variability in terms of shape (i.e. little standardization). Through a more detailed analysis of the linear measurements and indices of the handaxes and cleavers (Table 3), it became clear that Galería's large tools are longer, wider and thicker. The largest ones are from subunit GIIb, and their dimensions decrease over time in the sequence. The shortest handaxes are from Gran DolinaTD10.1 except for GIIIb, where wider forms dominate. The refinement index classifies Galería as a very homogeneous assemblage, with a predominance of thick large tools (Table 3). This technological aspect is derived from the massive use of large flakes rather than cobbles as supports.

105

Table 3 Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation, SD) and coefficients of variation (CV) for the linear variables and indices related to size of the handaxes and cleavers.

(N)

GIIa

GIIb

GIIIa

GIIIb

TD10.1

13

17

13

9

29

Length

Mean 105.9200 129.8800 108.4600 108.0000 96.1000 SD 27.5232 26.1320 27.0590 23.8635 22.4745 CV 0.2598 0.2012 0.2495 0.2210 0.2339 Width Mean 67.9200 79.1200 67.7700 75.1100 62.8900 SD 15.4836 13.6409 12.4646 12.3489 13.3152 CV 0.2280 0.1724 0.1839 0.1644 0.2117 Thickness Mean 32.4600 39.4100 34.9200 35.1100 34.5100 SD 10.8036 10.1120 12.3294 8.8244 9.5382 CV 0.3328 0.2566 0.3531 0.2513 0.2764 Distal length Mean 57.6900 75.7500 62.6500 55.7500 58.1700 SD 18.8710 20.8069 26.4798 19.4818 17.1738 CV 0.3271 0.2747 0.4227 0.3494 0.2952 Distal width Mean 46.8500 63.6800 54.3200 50.6400 46.2300 SD 14.0895 13.3070 13.9602 12.2315 11.7947 CV 0.3007 0.2090 0.2570 0.2415 0.2551 Distal thickness Mean 21.1500 28.7400 21.6000 22.5300 19.8400 SD 9.0323 8.8770 5.9081 9.6448 7.4430 CV 0.4271 0.3089 0.2735 0.4281 0.3752 Base length Mean 48.2300 57.3100 49.6300 52.2400 37.8900 SD 16.9334 18.6070 23.1802 19.3244 14.1426 CV 0.3511 0.3247 0.4671 0.3699 0.3733 Base width Mean 57.8500 69.5100 64.8000 62.5000 57.2200 SD 11.1700 9.9949 7.3620 11.3494 15.8176 CV 0.1931 0.1438 0.1136 0.1816 0.2764 Elongation Mean 1.5700 1.6300 1.5800 1.4700 1.5500 SD 0.1888 0.2225 0.2193 0.2850 0.2148 CV 0.1203 0.1365 0.1388 0.1939 0.1386 Refinement Mean 2.2000 2.0700 2.0900 2.1900 1.8700 SD 0.4340 0.4319 0.5419 0.4509 0.4048 CV 0.1973 0.2086 0.2593 0.2059 0.2165 Bordes' Edge Shape Mean 2.0500 1.9900 2.0700 1.9900 1.6700 SD 0.6200 0.7711 0.7900 0.9400 1.2200 CV 0.3024 0.3875 0.3816 0.4724 0.7305

The data from Bordes' Edge Shape Index confirms Roe's measurements, revealing that the tools exhibit oval shapes (mean values > 1). Nevertheless, the TD10.1 subunit represents the more pointed distal and proximal ends. Looking at size standardization (expressed in Table 3 by CV), most of the variability occurs in the width measurements (maximum width, distal width and base width), the distal length, and Bordes' Edge Shape. There is a clear relationship between length and elongation in all of the assemblages (Table 4). However, when the same relationships are assessed using the tip length (Table 5), we observe that these variations affect the morphology of the Edge Shape (reflecting the general morphology of tools) more than elongation or refinement. This is due to the relative lack of shape standardization caused by the marginality of the secondary retouching phases on the distal parts of the instruments. Bordes' Edge Shape is also affected by both the total length and the tip length.

Table 4 Regression of shape indices on length.

Elongation Refinement Bordes' Edge Shape

GIIa

GIIb

GIIIa

GIIIb

TD10.1

(N)

13

17

13

9

29

R R2 R R2 R R2

0.5475 0.2997 0.1746 0.0305 0.1544 0.0238

0.6608 0.4367 0.1042 0.0108 0.2310 0.0533

0.7892 0.6229 0.2275 0.0510 0.4009 0.1607

0.6338 0.4017 0.0761 0.0057 0.3521 0.1240

0.4739 0.2246 0.2759 0.0761 0.1447 0.0210

106

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

Table 5 Regression of shape indices on distal length.

Elongation Refinement Bordes' Edge Shape

GIIa

GIIb

GIIIa

GIIIb

TD10.1

(N)

13

17

13

9

29

R R2 R R2 R R2

0.2098 0.0728 0.0981 0.0096 0.4700 0.2215

0.3627 0.1316 0.0504 0.0025 0.4891 0.2392

0.2694 0.0725 0.2165 0.0468 0.4863 0.2365

0.4780 0.2285 0.4803 0.2307 0.5291 0.2799

0.2725 0.0743 0.1433 0.0205 0.6908 0.3671

5. Discussion Acheulean assemblages are present in Europe at the late Early Middle Pleistocene, as indicated by sites such as La Boella in Spain (ca. 1 Ma, Vallverdú et al., 2014), Notarchirico in Italy, (640 ka, Piperno, 1999), and La Noira (700 ka, Moncel et al., 2013) and Levels “P” of Caune de L'Arago in France (570 ka, Barsky and de Lumley, 2010). There are more sites of 500 ka and younger, such as Boxgrove in England (Roberts and Parfitt, 1999), Galería, Atapuerca in res et al., 2013), and Cagny-laSpain (Berger et al., 2008; Falgue Garenne in France (Bahain et al., 2001), among many others (see Santonja and Villa, 2006). A basic set of characters technologically define the Acheulean: the structural presence of LCTs, the gradual standardization of shapes, the development and increasing use of bifacial centripetal exploitation strategies, and an increasing number and variety of small retouched tools (Mosquera et al., 2013). Atapuerca's long archeological sequence shows a considerable gap in hominin presence between levels TD6 and TD9 of Gran Dolina, that is, between c. 850 and c. 500 ka (Mosquera et al.,
et al., 2013). After this more than 300 ky hiatus, a 2013; Olle new cultural phase has been documented between 500 ka and 300e250 ka in three sites: Sima de los Huesos, Galería and Gran

Dolina-TD10.1. In these sites Galería-GIIa represents the first appearance of Acheulean technology (García-Medrano et al., 2014), characterized by the intensive use of quartzite cobbles for knapping and shaping and by simple knapping strategies, mostly taking advantage of the natural characteristics of the cobbles. Nevertheless, the unit above GIIa, subunit GIIb, exhibits a significant technological change that implies diversification in the use of raw materials (including sandstone and Neogene chert) and the use of flakes for knapping in more than 50% of cases. This involves the development of longer knapping sequences, with more planning and morphological predetermination of the products. We hypothesize that Galería-GIIa could correspond to the occupation of the Sierra de Atapuerca by new Middle Pleistocene populations, and Galería-GIIb to the successful adaptation of these populations to the local environment. The Galería sequence would then bear witnessed to how the Acheulean became established and gradually developed into new technologies. From the massive use of longitudinal and orthogonal core reduction strategies, the centripetal technique becomes the preferred exploitation method. Shaped tools continued to be an important element at this site, where the significance of large tools decreases in favor of small retouched tools over time (i.e. denticulates, scrapers, and points). Fig. 16 reflects the specific weight of shaping in the lower levels of Galería (subunits GIIa and GIIb). The upper part of the sequence (unit GIII) represents a new association, more conditioned by the presence of natural bases and cores. Gran Dolina-TD10.1 reflects an important change: shaping loses its presence in favor of exploitation: cores and flakes become the most abundant items. The technology shows a clear technical evolution of where simple centripetal methods are combined with discoid and with Levallois strategies. Also, the small retouched tools become more numerically significant than the large ones. However, the overrepresentation of flakes documented in TD10.1 could be related to a more intense occupation pattern, reflected also by the complete chaînes op
eratoires. In

Fig. 17. Correspondence analysis between the blank type of large tools (A) and raw material (B) and the subunits considered.

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

107

Fig. 18. Principal components scatter plots, convex hulls and thin-plate splines of the Large Cutting Tools (LCT) from Galería and TD10.1 of Gran Dolina. Upper graphics: A) PC1 vs. PC2 and B) PC2 vs. PC3 of Galería (green points) and TD10.1 (blank points). Lower graphics: C) PC1 vs. PC2 and D) PC2 vs. PC3 of the different subunits of Galería: GIIa (red points), GIIb (pink points), GIIIa (green points) and GIIIb (blue points). (For an interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

addition, the metrical characteristics of the flakes are different: Galería yielded a more homogeneous set of flakes, in which the longer ones tend to be thinner, while TD10.1 presents a more heterogeneous set of flakes, with two clear metrical groups: flakes with shorter and wider platforms and flakes with longer and thinner platforms. The Galería assemblage fits within the first group, with the introduction of more controlled exploitation methods (discoid and Levallois) in TD10.1, generating more metrically standardized flakes. The significance of large tools in Middle Pleistocene contexts has resulted in a detailed morphological and metrical study, mainly focused on handaxes and cleavers. In general, the massive use of quartzite cobbles is exclusive to Galería-GIIa, which according to the correspondence analysis makes this subunit different from the rest of the assemblages (Fig. 17). The transitional phase (GaleríaGIIb) is characterized by the introduction of sandstone and

Neogene chert flakes for shaping LCTs. The upper levels of the Galería sequence and Gran Dolina-TD10.1 are the maximum expression of that occurrence. At Atapuerca, there are two different ways of shaping handaxes. The first involves taking advantage of the original characteristics of the supports, retaining cortical surfaces and using a high number of removals, but focusing on specific sectors of the tools. In these cases, up to 45% of the tools present secondary retouch. This technique is documented mainly in Galería unit GII. The second appears in Galería unit GIII and in unit TD10.1, and is characterized by the transformation of flake supports using fewer blows, which affect a higher percentage of the surface but result in more irregular shapes and edges. A detailed metrical analysis of the large tools recovered from these sites allowed us to observe a progressive reduction in their size throughout the sequence. In addition, the handaxes and

108

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

cleavers from Galería were found to be the most elongated and thickest, except in the upper part of the sequence (Galería-GIIIb) and in TD10.1, where there is a predominance of shorter, wider shapes. Furthermore, shape is most affected by the changes in tip length, clearly related to the scarcity of standardization and to the limited secondary retouch, mainly in the most recent levels (GIIIb and TD10.1). According to Bordes' (1961) and Roe's (1968, 1981) morphological analyses, the LCTs of Galería and TD10.1 present ovate morphologies. Nevertheless, there are significant morphological changes. The Galería tools feature narrow profiles, with convex and broad proximal parts, while those from TD10.1 exhibit rhomboidal shapes with more pointed distal and proximal ends. Geometric morphometric analyses allowed us to obtain a more detailed and statistically significant view of this feature. The PC analysis shows that most of the variance is accounted for by the ten main components (87.5%) (Table 6). Scatter plots of the first three principal components with convex hulls show that the highest variability is represented by the Galería assemblage (Fig. 18A), while the TD10.1 sample represents a more homogeneous group. PC1 represents the elongation, or “pointedness” vs. “ovateness” of the bifaces. This component accounts for 27.3% of the variability. PC2 (18.3%) represents the position of the maximum width of the bifaces. PC3 seems to show the significance of the base characteristics in relation to the total length of the tools. Table 6 Percentage shape variance of the combined Galería and TD10.1. LCT explained by each principal component from the analysis. PC

Eigenvalue

% Variance

Cumulative % variance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

0.00198111 0.00133011 0.00087901 0.00078722 0.00037858 0.00034608 0.00021228 0.00016345 0.00014474 0.00011994 0.00010352 0.00009589 0.00007963 0.00007674 0.00006020 0.00005295 0.00004980 0.00003678 0.00003448 0.00003004

27.33800 18.35500 12.13000 10.86300 5.22410 4.77570 2.92930 2.25550 1.99730 1.65510 1.42850 1.32320 1.09880 1.05900 0.83078 0.73072 0.68718 0.50758 0.47574 0.41447

27.33800 45.69300 57.82300 68.68600 73.91010 78.68580 81.61510 83.87060 85.86790 87.52300 88.95150 90.27470 91.37350 92.43250 93.26328 93.99400 94.68118 95.18876 95.66450 96.07897

Regarding the comparison between the Galería and TD10.1 large tool samples, PC1 vs. PC2 shows that the bifaces from TD10.1 are less elongated and that they tend towards shapes with wider bases in relation to more pointed distal ends (Fig. 18A). As pointed out earlier, shaping in TD10.1 is characterized by short sequences, mainly focused on providing LCTs with their general morphologies. Most of the tools were made on flakes, indicating previous selection of suitable supports. In contrast, Galería represents a higher degree of variability; there is less standardization in shapes, with tools ranging from pointed and elongated to shorter and wider. In relation to PC2, the position of the maximum width overlaps in both groups again. In this respect, the TD10.1 sample is highly influenced by PC2 with most of the bifaces being widest on their proximal end (Fig. 18A). Meanwhile, the medial-distal parts of the

tools are widest in the Galería set, creating more quadrangular morphologies. This is related to the high quantity of cleavers in this assemblage. Finally, PC3 represents the minor influence and shows that the majority of supports are wider and more convex (Fig. 18B). Due to the high degree of variability documented in Galería, we performed another PCA within this LCT set, taking into consideration the different sublevels (Fig. 18C, D). In this case, the ten principal components represent 89.9% of the characterization of this LCT set (Table 7). PC1 (26.7%) and PC2 (21.7%) represent the highest variability. In general, this is a Middle Pleistocene technology characterized by intermediate shapes, the majority of which are ovate. Significant diachronical, differences were however detected. Galería-GIIa tools feature less elongated and wider shapes, with the maximum width located in the middle of the tools (Fig. 18C). The distal ends vary from pointed edges to more convex ones. As we have detected by analyzing other technological characteristics, Galería-GIIb represents a morphological change, mainly due to the increase in tools with the maximum width located at the medial-distal part of the tools. Subunit GIIIa has yielded elongated pieces to very narrow ones with a high degree of morphological variability between them. Subunit GIIIb represents a more homogeneous sample, with the scatter mainly centered in the middlelower part of the graphic. This means that the instruments have changed to globular shapes but with wider bases and more pointed distal ends. The tools in this subunit are therefore similar to those documented in subunit TD10.1.

Table 7 Percentage shape variance of the Galería large tools explained by each principal component from the analysis. PC

Eigenvalue

% Variance

Cumulative % variance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

0.00191316 0.00154894 0.00092350 0.00063813 0.00042157 0.00035301 0.00023146 0.00015601 0.00013474 0.00010679 0.00008908 0.00008567 0.00007083 0.00006741 0.00005508 0.00004390 0.00003669 0.00003266 0.00002743 0.00002417

26.75600 21.66200 12.91500 8.92440 5.89580 4.93700 3.23700 2.18190 1.88430 1.49350 1.24570 1.19810 0.99060 0.94268 0.77033 0.61393 0.51316 0.45675 0.38367 0.33806

26.75600 48.41800 61.33300 70.25740 76.15320 81.09020 84.32720 86.50910 88.39340 89.88690 91.13260 92.33070 93.32130 94.26398 95.03431 95.64824 96.16140 96.61815 97.00182 97.33988

6. Conclusions During the Middle Pleistocene at Atapuerca multiple occupational patterns and subsistence strategies developed, leading to a diverse archeological record. In this paper we focused our attention on Galería and on the upper levels of Gran Dolina, two very close caves which were used more or less simultaneously. Therefore, the hominins shared the same environment and had access to the same resources. Nevertheless, the documented occupational patterns turned out to be quite different in each site, perhaps reflecting complementary strategies which had a direct effect on the composition of the lithic assemblages. Galería retains a constant occupational pattern throughout its entire sequence. This site was likely never used as a base camp but

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111

rather for sporadic and repeated low intensity visits for the purpose of obtaining the herbivores that had fallen into the natural trap created by the shaft. The homogeneity and the repetition of the activities documented in Galería contribute to the “general image” of technological stability along the sequence. The chaînes op
eratoires always appear fragmented, with an over-representation of functional objects, and with knapping activities mainly undertaken outside the cave. Only short knapping processes aimed to solve immediate problems took place inside. The Gran Dolina upper sequence represents a quite different model in terms of occupation patterns. In fact, TD10.1 has been interpreted as the result of a combination of high intensity occupations with long sequences of short occupations. Despite the differences among the various archaeological levels that make up TD10.1, at the time it was in use, the entrance of Gran Dolina cave acted as a point of reference, where hominins lived and carried out a multiplicity of domestic activities. The documented complete knapping sequences (and the overrepresentation, in this case, of knapping products of all sizes) emerge as clear evidence of this. To what extent are we able to identify evolutionary technological trends beyond questions which depend on occupational patterns? During this study, we defined three technological groups along the Galería sequence and in Gran Dolina-TD10.1. The first one corresponds to the base of Galería (GIIa). Transitional features have been documented in GIIb, corresponding to the second technological group, which is consolidated in the uppermost part of the Galería sequence (unit GIII). The third one is documented in Gran Dolina-TD10.1, which, although quite different in many compositional aspects, seems to share many technological features with the top levels of Galería. In general, Galería fits within the classical Acheulean tradition, although there is a clear technological evolution along the sequence, such as, a progressive adaptive pattern towards the use of local raw materials. Initially, quartzite cobbles were widely used for knapping, there was a dominance of longitudinal and orthogonal knapping strategies, and intensive rather than extensive shaping of large tools (especially focused on the distal parts). The transition identified in GIIb may be summarized by the marked diversification in raw material use, and, more significantly, in the replacement of cobbles by flakes for knapping. This trend is fully consolidated in the upper levels of Galería as well as in Gran Dolina-TD10.1. LCTs underwent several changes: their relative representation declined, their size slightly decreased, comparatively less effort was invested in the finishing stage, and pointed shapes increased their relative presence. Despite the similarities between GIII and TD10.1 in terms of LCT shaping, the latter shows clear innovations in other technological features, such as the evolution from the predominantly centripetal core reduction techniques towards more standardized discoid and Levallois strategies, and the increase in both the frequency and the typological diversity of small retouched tools. Acknowledgements This research is part of the Spanish MINECO projects CGL201238434-C03-03 and HAR2012-32548, and the Catalan AGAUR project 2014SGR-899. The fieldwork is sponsored by the Junta de Cas
n. We are deeply grateful to Fundacio
n Atapuerca and to tilla y Leo all the members of the Atapuerca team involved in the recovery and study of the archaeological and paleontological record from the Galería and Gran Dolina sites. Also, we want to thank Andrea Picin and Carlos Lorenzo for helping us with the geometric morpho
and metric analysis and interpretation. Thanks to Palmira Saladie Antonio Rodríguez-Hidalgo for their support with the faunal record of TD10.1. Thanks to Arturo de Lombera-Hermida for his help with

109

the lithics from TD10.1. P. García-Medrano benefited from a pre
n Siglo para las Artes en doctoral research grant from the Fundacio
n. Castilla y Leo References
po ^ts fossilife res du karst de Atapuerca, premiers 20 anys. Aguirre, E., 2001. De L'Anthropologie 105 (1), 13e26. Arnold, L.J., Demuro, M., 2015. Insights into TT-OSL signal stability from single-grain analyses of known-age deposits at Atapuerca, Spain. Quaternary Geochronology (in press). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2015.02.005.
s, J.M., Pe
rez-Gonza
lez, A., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Arnold, L.J., Demuro, M., Pare Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., 2014. Evaluating the suitability of extended-range luminescence dating techniques over early and Middle Pleistocene timescales: published datasets and case studies from Atapuerca, Spain. Quaternary International (in press). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.010. Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E.E., 1997a. The Sima de los Huesos Hominid Site. Journal of Human Evolution 33 (2/3 Special Issue), 105e421. Arsuaga, J.L., Carretero, J.M., Lorenzo, C., Gracia, A., Martínez, I., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., 1997b. Size variation in Middle Pleistocene humans. Science 277, 1086e1088.
rez, P., 1999. Resto craneal Arsuaga, J.L., Gracia, A., Lorenzo, C., Martínez, I., Julia Pe humano de Galería/Cueva de los Zarpazos (Sierra de Atapuerca). In:
ndez-Lomana, J.C. (Eds.), Atapuerca: OcupaCarbonell, E., Rosas, A., Díez Ferna ciones humanas y paleoecología del yacimiento de Galería. Junta de Castilla y
n. Conserjería de Educacio
n y Cultura, pp. 233e236. Leo res, C., Laurent, M., 2001. Datation par re
sonance paraBahain, J.-J., Falgue
tique e
lectronique (RPE) de se
diments et par combination des me
thodes magne
ontologiques (provenant des sites pale
olithiques de RPE/U-Th de restes pale
des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, Cagny). Publications du CERP 6. Universite Lille. Barsky, D., de Lumley, H., 2010. Early European mode 2 and the stone industry from the Caune de l'Arago's archeostratigraphical levels “P”. Quaternary International 223e224, 71e86.
rez-Gonza
lez, A., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Berger, G.W., Pe Castro, J.M., Ku, T.-L., 2008. Luminescence chronology of cave sediments at the Atapuerca paleoanthropological site, Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 300e311. Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Rosas, A., 1992. A human mandibular fragment from the Atapuerca Trench (Burgos, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 22, 41e46. Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.-L., Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Martínez, I., Mosquera, M., 1997. A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans. Science 276, 1392e1395.
n y posicio
n evolutiva de la Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Rosas, A., 1999. Descripcio mandíbula AT76eT1H del yacimiento de Galería (Sierra de Atapuerca). In:
ndez-Lomana, J.C. (Eds.), Atapuerca: ocupaCarbonell, E., Rosas, A., Díez Ferna ciones humanas y paleoecología del yacimiento de Galería. Junta de Castilla y
n, Valladolid, pp. 237e243. Leo
rez-Gonza
lez, A., Martino
n-Torres, M., Go
mezBermúdez de Castro, J.M., Pe Robles, A., Rosell, J., Prado, L., Sarmiento, S., Carbonell, E., 2008. A new early Pleistocene hominin mandible from Atapuerca-TD6, Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 55 (4), 729e735.
, I., Riba, D., Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Lozano, S., Pasto Vaquero, M., Fern
andez Peris, J., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., 2013a. Learning by heart: cultural patterns in the faunal processing sequence during the Middle Pleistocene. PLoS ONE 8 (2), e55863. http:// dx.doi.org/10.51371/journal.pone.0055863. Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Fern
andez Peris, J., Luis Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, C., 2013b. Environmental availability, behavioural diversity and diet: a zooarchaeological approach from the TD10-1 sublevel of Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain) and Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). Quaternary Science Reviews 70, 124e144.
olithique Acient et Moyen. Centre National de la Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Pale Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
ceres, I., 2002. Tafonomía de yacimientos antro
picos en karst. Complejo Galería Ca (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos), Vanguard Cave (Gibraltar) y Abric Romaní (Capellades) (Doctoral thesis). Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Departament de ria i Geografía. Histo
ceres, I., Huguet, R., Rosell, J., Esteban Nadal, M., Saladie
, P., Díez, J.C., Olle
, A., Ca Vallverdú, J., García, P., Carbonell, E., 2010. El yacimiento de Galería (Sierra de ~ a): un enclave para la obtencio
n de recursos c
Atapuerca, Burgos, Espan arnicos
n de científicos sobre cubiles de hiena (y en el Pleistoceno Medio. In: 1ª Reunio
gicos de la Península otros grandes carnívoros) en los yacimientos arqueolo
rica. Zona Arqueolo
gica, Alcala
de Henares, pp. 157e165. Ibe
n de la lo
gica analítica para el Carbonell, E., Guibaud, M., Mora, R., 1983. Utilizacio estudio de los tecnocomplejos de cantos tallados. Cahier Noir 1, 3e79.
rquez, B., Martín, A., Mosquera, M., Olle
, A., Rodríguez Carbonell, E., Giralt, S., Ma s, J.M., Zaragoza, J., 1992. El conjunto Alvarez, X.P., Sala, R., Vaquero, M., Verge
cnico de la Sierra de Atapuerca en el marco del Pleistoceno Medio lito-te europeo (The litho-technical assemblage of the Sierra de Atapuerca in the frame of the European Middle Pleistocene). In: Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L.,
n Humana en Europa y los yacimientos de la Sierra Carbonell, E. (Eds.), Evolucio

110

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111


n. Conserjería de Cultura y Turismo, Castillo de Atapuerca. Junta de Castilla y Leo de la Mota, Medina del Campo. Valladolid, pp. 387e402. Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Díez, J.C., Rosas, A., Cuenca
s, G., Sala, R., Mosquera, M., Rodríguez, X.P., 1995a. Lower Pleistocene Besco hominids and artefacts from Atapuerca-TD6 (Spain). Science 269, 826e830.
, A., Rodríguez, X.P., Sala, R., Carbonell, E., M
arquez, B., Mosquera, M., Olle s, J.M., 1995b. Atapuerca Trinchera Galería (Spain): strategies Vaquero, M., Verge and operational models of lithic industry. Cahier Noir 7, 41e83.

, A., Rodríguez Alvarez, Carbonell, E., M
arquez, B., Mosquera, M., Olle X.P., Sala, R., s, J.M., 1999. El Modo 2 en Galería. Ana
lisis de la industria lítica y sus Verge
cnicos. In: Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Díez Ferna
ndez-Lomana, J.C. procesos te (Eds.), Atapuerca: ocupaciones humanas y paleoecología del yacimiento de
n. Consejería de Educacio
n y Cultura, Galería. Junta de Castilla y Leo pp. 299e352.

, A., Rodríguez Alvarez, Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., Olle X.P., Sahnouni, M., Sala, R., s, J.M., 2001. Structure morphotechnique de l'industrie lithique du Verge
istoce ne Infe
rieur et Moyen d'Atapuerca (Burgos, Espagne). L'Anthropologie Ple 105, 259e280.
, E., Bastir, M., Benito, A., Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Allue
ceres, I., Canals, A., Díez, J.C., Made, J. v. d, Mosquera, M., Olle
, A., Pe
rezCa
lez, A., Rodríguez, J., Rodríguez, X.P., Rosas, A., Rosell, J., Sala, R., Vallverdú, J., Gonza s, J.M., 2005. An Early Pleistocene hominin mandible from Atapuerca-TD6, Verge Spain. Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences 102, 5674e5678.
s, J.M., Pe
rez-Gonza
lez, A., CuencaCarbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Pare
s, G., Olle
, A., Mosquera, M., Huguet, R., van der Made, J., Rosas, A., Sala, R., Besco
n-Torres, M., Rodríguez, X.P., Vallverdú, J., García, N., Granger, D.E., Martino s, J.M., Allue
, E., Burjachs, F., Ca
ceres, I., Canals, A., Benito, A., Stock, G.M., Verge Díez, C., Lozano, M., Mateos, A., Navazo, M., Rodríguez, J., Rosell, J., Arsuaga, J.L., 2008. The first hominin of Europe. Nature 452, 465e469. Costa, A.G., 2010. A Geometric Morphometric assessment of Plan shape in bone and stone Acheulean bifaces from the Middle Pleistocene site of Castel di Guido, Latium, Italy. In: Lycett, S.L., Chauhan, P.R.E. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies. Springer Science þ Business Media, pp. 23e41. Crompton, R.H., Gowlett, J.A.J., 1993. Allometry and multidimensional form in Acheulean bifaces from Kilombe, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 25, 175e199.
s, G., Melero-Rubio, M., Rofes, J., Martínez, I., Arsuaga, J.L., Blain, H.-A., Cuenca-Besco
pez-García, J.M., Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., 2011. The EarlyLo Middle Pleistocene environmental and climatic change and the human expansion in Western Europe: a case study with small vertebrates (Gran Dolina, Atapuerca, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 60, 481e491.
s, J.M., Pe
rez-Gonz
Demuro, M., Arnold, L.J., Pare alez, A., Ortega, A.I., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., 2014. New luminescence ages for the Galería Complex Archaeological site: resolving chronological uncertainties on the Acheulean Record of the Sierra de Atapuerca, Nothern Spain. PLoS ONE 9 (10), e110169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110169.
n de Díez, C., Moreno, V., 1994. El yacimiento Galería (Atapuerca, Burgos): evolucio un espacio en el Pleistoceno Medio. Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología 60, 9e24. Eren, M.I., Lycett, S.J., 2012. Why Levallois? a morphometric comparison of experimental “Preferential” Levallois flake versus Debitage flakes. PLoS ONE 7 (1), e29273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029273. res, C., Bahain, J.-J., Yokoyama, Y., Arsuaga, J.-L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Falgue Carbonell, E., Bischoff, J., Dolo, J.M., 1999. Earliest humans in Europe: the age of TD6 Gran Dolina. Atapuerca, Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 37, 343e352. res, C., Bahain, J.-J., Yokoyama, Y., Bischoff, J., Arsuaga, J.-L., Bermúdez de Falgue Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., Dolo, J.M., 2001. Datation par RPE et U-Th des sites
istoce nes d'Atapuerca: Sima de los Huesos, Trinchera Dolina et Trinchera ple
ochronologique L'Anthropologie 105 (1), 71e81. Galería. Bilan ge res, C., Bahain, J.-J., Bischoff, J.L., Pe
rez-Gonza
lez, A., Ortega, A.I., Olle
, A., Falgue Quiles, A., Ghaleb, B., Moreno, D., Dolo, J.-M., Shao, Q., Vallverdú, J., Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., 2013. Combined ESR/U-series chronology of Acheulian hominid-bearing layers at Trinchera Galería site, Atapuerca, Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 65, 168e184.
n, D., Morant, N., Mallol, C., 2002. L'approvisionnement en matie res García-Anto res lithiques au Ple
istoce ne Infe
rieur et moyen dans la Sierra de Atapremie puerca, Burgos (Espagne). L'Anthropologie 106, 41e55.
n, M.D., Mosquera, M., 2007. Done
es pre
liminaires sur des aires García-Anto res premie res lithiques dans les d'approvisionement et de selection des matie
istocene Moyen du niveu TD10-1. In: Moncel, M.-H., occupations du Ple Moigne, A.-M., Arzarello, M., Peretto, C. (Eds.), Aires d'approvisionement en res premie res et aires d'approvisionement en resources alimentaires. matie
gre
e des comportements, BAR International Series. Archaeopress, Approche inte Oxford, pp. 171e185.
cnicos del Pleistoceno Medio en el Oeste de García-Medrano, P., 2011. Los sistemas te
n en los conjuntos líticos Europa. Cadenas operativas y procesos de configuracio ~ a) y Boxde Galería y Gran Dolina-TD10-1 (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Espan grove (Sussex, Inglaterra) (Doctoral thesis). Universidad de Burgos. Departa

ricas y Geografía. Area de Prehistoria, p. 496. mento de Ciencias Histo
, A., Mosquera, M., C
García-Medrano, P., Olle aceres, I., Díez, C., Carbonell, E., 2014. The earliest Acheulean technology at Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain): oldest levels of the Galería site (GII unit). Quaternary International 353, 170e194.


fico. In: Aguirre, E., Gil, E., Aguirre, E., Hoyos, M., 1987. Contexto estratigra
sil de Ibeas y el Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M. (Eds.), El Hombre fo
n, Soria, pp. 47e54. Pleistoceno de la Sierra de Atapuerca. Junta de Castilla y Leo
n por ESR y por la serie del U, en los depo
sitos Grün, R., Aguirre, E., 1987. Datacio
rsticos de Atapuerca. In: Aguirre, E., Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M. ca
sil de Ibeas y el Pleistoceno de la Sierra de Atapuerca. Junta (Eds.), El hombre fo
n, Valladolid, pp. 201e204. de Castilla y Leo Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T., 2006. Paleontological Data Analysis. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T., Ryan, P.D., 2001. PAST: paleontological statistics package for education and data analysis. Paleontologia Electronica 4 (1), 9.
ndez-Lomana, J.C., Rossell, J., C
Huguet, R., Díez Ferna aceres, I., Moreno Lara, V., ~ ez, N., Saladie
, P., 2001. Le gisement de Galería (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Ib
an le arche
ozoologique de gestion du territoire durant le Espagne): un mode
istocene. L'Anthropologie 105 (1), 237e258. Ple
pez-Ortega, E., Rodríguez, X.P., Vaquero, M., 2011. Lithic refitting and movement Lo connections: the NW area of level TD10-1 at the Gran Dolina site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 3112e3121. Lycett, S.J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., 2013. A 3D morphometric analysis of surface geometry in Levallois cores: patterns of stability and variability across regions and their implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 1508e1517.
ctyla del yacimiento mesopleistoceno de Galería (Sierra Made, J. v. d, 1999. Artioda
ndez-Lomana, J.C. (Eds.), de Atapuerca). In: Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Díez Ferna Atapuerca: Ocupaciones humanas y paleoecología del yacimiento de Galería.
n, Valladolid, pp. 143e167. Junta de Castilla y Leo
rquez, B., Olle
, A., Sala i Ramos, R., Verge s, J.M., 2001. Perspectives Ma
thodologiques de l'analyse functionnelle des ensembles lithiques du me

istoce ne Infe
rieur et Moyen dAtapuerca Ple (Burgos, Espagne). L'Anthropologie 105, 281e299. McPherron, S.P., 1995. A reexamination of the british biface data. Lithics 16, 47e63. McPherron, S.P., 1999. Ovate and pointed handaxe assemblages: two points make a
histoire Europe
enne 14, 9e32. line. Pre McPherron, S.P., 2000. Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 655e663. McPherron, S.P., 2003. Technological and typological variability in the bifaces from tabun Cave, Israel. In: Soressi, M., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, pp. 55e76.
ndez, L., 2009. La transicio
n del Modo 2 al Modo 3 vista a trave
s de la Industria Mene
che, Francia). lítica de Gran Dolina TD10 (Atapuerca, Burgos) y Orgnac 3 (Arde
gico y posibles implicaciones ocupacionales de los conjuntos Desarrollo tecnolo ria i Geografia, (Doctoral thesis). Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Departament d'Histo Facultat de Lletres.
e, J., Voinchet, P., Tissoux, H., Moreno, D., Bahain, J.-J., Moncel, M.-H., Desprie res, C., 2013. Early evidence of Acheulean settlement in Courcimault, G., Falgue Northwestern Europe e La Noira site, a 700 000 Year-old occupation in the center of France. PLoS ONE 8 (11), e75529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0075529.
, A., Rodríguez, X.P., 2013. From Atapuerca to Europe: tracing the Mosquera, M., Olle earliest peopling of Europe. Quaternary International 295, 130e137. Newcomer, M.H., 1971. Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World Archaeology 3, 85e94.
, A., Huguet, R., 1999. Secuencia arqueoestratigr
Olle afica del yacimiento de Galería, Atapuerca. In: Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Díez, C. (Eds.), Atapuerca: Ocupaciones
n, humanas y paleoecología del yacimiento de Galería. Junta de Castilla y Leo pp. 55e62.
, A., C
s, J.M., 2005. Human occupations at Galería Site (Sierra de Olle aceres, I., Verge Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain) after the technological and taphonimical data. In: Molines, M., Moncel, M.-H., Monnier, J.-L. (Eds.), Les premiers peuplements en
es re
cents sur les modalite
s de peupleEurope. Colloque international: Donne
ologique et pale
oge
ographique ment et sur le cadre chronostratigraphique, ge
olithique ancient et moyen en Europe, British Archaeodes industries du Pale logical Reports International Series, S 1364. Oxford, pp. 269e280.
, A., Mosquera, M., Rodríguez, X.P., de Lombera-Hermida, A., García-Anto
n, M.D., Olle ~ a, L., Mene
ndez, L., Navazo, M., Terradillos, M., García-Medrano, P., Pen
, A., M
Bargallo arquez, B., Sala, R., Carbonell, E., 2013. The Early and Middle Pleistocene technological record from Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). Quaternary International 295, 138e167.
n geomorfolo
gica del karst de la Sierra de Atapuerca Ortega, A.I., 2009. La evolucio
n con los yacimientos pleistocenos que contiene (Doctoral (Burgos) y su relacio
ricas y thesis). Universidad de Burgos. Departamento de Ciencias Histo Geografía.
s, J.M., Pe
rez-Gonz
Pare alez, A., 1999. Magnetochronology and stratigraphy at Gran Dolina section, Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 37, 325e342.
s, J.M., Arnold, L., Duval, M., Demuro, M., Pe
rez-Gonz
Pare alez, A., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J.L., 2013. Reassessing the age of AtapuercaTD6 (Spain): new paleomagnetic results. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 4586e4595.
rez-Gonza
lez, A., Pare
s, J.M., Gallardo, J., Aleixandre, T., Ortega, A.I., Pinilla, A., Pe 1999. Geología y estratigrafía del relleno de Galería de la Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos). In: Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Díez Fern
andez-Lomana, J.C. (Eds.), Atapuerca: Ocupaciones humanas y paleoecología del yacimiento de Galería. Junta
n, Zamora, pp. 31e42. de Castilla y Leo

P. García-Medrano et al. / Quaternary International 368 (2015) 92e111
rez-Gonz

s, J.M., Carbonell, E., Aleixandre, T., Ortega, A.I., Benito Pe alez, A., Pare
ologie de la Sierra de Atapuerca et Calvo, A., Martín Merino, M.A., 2001. Ge stratigraphie des remplissages karstiques de Galería et Dolina (Burgos, Espagne). L'Anthropologie 105 (1), 24e43. Piperno, M. (Ed.), 1999. Notarchirico. Un sito del Pleistocene medio iniziale nel bacino di Venosa. Edizioni Osanna, Venosa. Roberts, M., Parfitt, S., 1999. Boxgrove. A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. English Heritage. Archaeological Report, London. Rodríguez, X.P., 2004. Technical systems of lithic production in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene of the Iberian Peninsula. Technological variability between north-eastern sites and the Sierra de Atapuerca sites. BAR International Series (British Archaeological Reports), Oxford, England.
s, G., García, N., Van der Made, J., Pe
rez Rodríguez, J., Burjachs, F., Cuenca-Besco
lez, A., Blain, H.A., Expo
sito, I., Lo
pez-García, J.M., García Anto
n, M., Gonza
, E., Ca
ceres, I., Huguet, R., Mosquera, M., Olle
, A., Rosell, J., Pare
s, J.M., Allue
, P., Vallverdú, J., Bennasar, M.L., Rodríguez, X.P., Díez, C., Rofes, J., Sala, R., Saladie Blasco, R., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., 2011. One million years of cultural evolution in a stable environment at Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). Quaternary Science Reviews 30 (11e12), 1396e1412. Roe, D., 1968. British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, 1e82. Roe, D., 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Britain. RKP, London. Rohlf, F.J., 2009. tpsdig2. http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/morphmet/tpsdig2w32. exe.  Rosell, J., 2001. Patrons d'aprofitament de les biomasses animals durant el Pleistoce Inferior i Mig (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos) i Superior (Abric Romaní, Barcelona)  ria i Geografia, (Doctoral thesis). Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Departament d'Histo Facultat de Lletres. Santonja, M., Villa, P., 2006. The Acheulian of western Europe. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age. Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp. 429e478. Sharon, G., 2007. Acheulian Large Flake Industries: Technology, Chronology, and Significance. In: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1701 (Oxford).

111

Sharon, G., 2008. The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1329e1344. Stout, D., Apel, J., Commander, J., Roberts, M., 2014. Late Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK. Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 576e590. Terradillos-Bernal, M., 2010. El Paleolítico inferior en la Meseta Norte: Sierra de
gico y Atapuerca, La Maya, El Basalito, San Quirce y Ambrona. Estudio tecnolo
ricas experimental (Doctoral thesis). Universidad de Burgos. Dpto. Ciencias Histo y Geografía.
en Nord-Africain. Notes typologiques. Tixier, J., 1956. Le hachereau dans l'Acheule s pre
historique de France, pp. 914e923. Congre Vallverdú, J., Courty, M.A., Carbonell, E., Canals, A., Burjachs, F., 2001. Les
diments d'Homo Antecessor de Gran Dolina, (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, se
tation micromorphologique des processus de formation et Espagne). Interpre
oenvironnemental des se
diments. L'Anthropologie 105, enregistrement pale 45e69. Vallverdú, J., 2002. Micromorfología de las facies sedimentarias de la Sierra de Atapuerca y del nivel J del Abric Romaní. Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Departaria i Geografia (Doctoral thesis). ment d'Histo
, P., Rosas, A., Huguet, R., C
Vallverdú, J., Saladie aceres, I., Mosquera, M., García
ndez, I., Pineda-Alcal
Tabernero, A., Estalrrich, A., Lozano-Ferna a, A., s, D., Braucher, R., Lebatard, A., Vilalta, J., Carrancho, C., Villalaín, J.J., Bourle sar, M.L., Bastir, M., Lo
pez-Polín, L., Olle
, A., Esteban-Nadal, M., Benna
s, J.M., Ros-Montoya, S., Martínez-Navarro, B., García, A., Martinell, J., Verge
sito, I., Burjachs, F., Agustí, J., Carbonell, E., 2014. Age and date for early Expo arrival of the Acheulian in Europe (Barranc de la Boella, La Canonja, Spain). PLoS ONE 9 (7), e103634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103634. Wenban-Smith, F.F., 1989. The use of canonical variates for determination of biface manufacturing technology at Boxgrove Lower Paleolithic site and the behavioural implications of this technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 17e26. Wenban-Smith, F.F., Ashton, N., 1998. Raw material and lithic technology. In: Ashton, N.,S.,L., Parfitt, S.A. (Eds.), Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic Site at East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk 1989e94. British Museum Occasional Paper, London, pp. 237e244.