Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions || Lower Palaeolithic Transitions in the Northern Latitudes of Eurasia

Lower Palaeolithic Transitions in the Northern Latitudesof Eurasia

Jan Michal Burdukiewicz

Abstract The northern latitudes of Eurasia were

inhabited temporarily, during favorable, warmer per-

iods since 1 Ma ago with a considerable transition

from Mode 1 (Oldowan) or Mode 2 (Acheulean) to

microlithic technology and introducing new andmore

effective composite tools. Until recent years, archae-

ologists believed that such technology occurred

almost exclusively during the Mesolithic and Late

Palaeolithic (Mode 5), in the form of small stone

inserts held by wooden or bone hafts, producing com-

posite tools. A significant spatial, chronological and

ecological variability ofLower Palaeolithicmicrolithic

assemblages suggests that they developed as a result of

the adaptation to local environment, possibly tempe-

rate and wooded, in different areas from North-East-

ern China to Northern Europe, parallel to Mode 1

and Mode 2 in southern and western part of Eurasia.

Keywords Acheulean � Lower Palaeolithic �

Microlithic technocomplex � Oldowan � Composite

tools

Introduction

The Lower Palaeolithic Period covers the longest time

span in human history, rich in numerous changes in

the widening of inhabited areas as well as in techno-

logical development. Archaeologists usually distin-

guish two main technologies of the Lower Palaeo-

lithic: Pebble Tool Technocomplex (called usually

Oldowan or Mode 1) and Technocomplex (called

Acheulean or Mode 2). Both these technocomplexes

originated inAfrica and dispersed to southern parts of

Asia and Europe. The climate of Africa was warm

enough for early hominins to survive. Southern Asia

and Europe offered more or less similar environmen-

tal conditions. This way technological equipment in

these areas was sufficient to exist and important tran-

sitions are not visible in the archaeological data.

Northern latitudes of Eurasia had very changeable

climatic conditions during the Pleistocene period.

According to recent research, the first inhabitants

in Northern Eurasia appeared c. 1 Ma ago. The

earliest colonization of northern latitudes (around

the 60th parallel) is connected with a considerable

transition fromMode 1 or 2 tomicrolithic technology.

Such sites are known in Eurasia, Central Europe,

and China, and span from c. 1 Ma to 300 ka BP, far

to the north from the Movius Line indicating the

northern border of the presence of Mode 2.

It is supposed that forested areas, especially the

northern zone of Eurasia, were settled because early

hominin groups carried out transitions to microlithic

technology, which meant introducing new and more

effective composite tools.Northern latitudes of Eurasia

were inhabited temporarily, during favorable, warmer

periods. These inventories are characterized by the

domination of microlithic technology in lithic produc-

tion (average length of artifacts c. 15–30 mm), which

were most probably hafted. Such invention in human

history is usually seen as very sophisticated and char-

acteristic forMode 5.Until recent years, archaeologists

believed that such technology occurred almost exclu-

sively during the Mesolithic and Late Palaeolithic

(Mode 5), in the form of small stone inserts held by

J.M. Burdukiewicz (*)Institute of Archaeology, University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw,Poland

M. Camps, P. Chauhan (eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-76487-0_11,� Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC 2009

195

wooden or bone hafts, producing what is known as

composite tools. Finally they came to realize, however,

that small lithic tools, often no larger than a fingernail

and hard to hold using only fingers, started to be

produced much earlier, by hominin groups inhabiting

northern latitudes of Eurasia in the Lower Palaeolithic.

The Earliest Settling of Eurasia—Modes1 and 2

The earliest colonization of northern Eurasia is now

connected with the oldest archaeological site of

Dmanisi in Georgia, dated to c. 1.8 Ma (Vekua

et al. 2002). The artifacts of Dmanisi as well as

other older sites in Eurasia are connected with the

Pebble Tool Technocomplex. It should be men-

tioned further that sites with pebble tool technology

have similar tool-making techniques regardless of

raw material differences. The Oldowan appeared c.

2.6 Ma ago (Semaw et al. 2003; Stout et al. 2005). The

most important feature of Oldowan artifacts is the low

degree of standardization (Wynn and Tierson 1990).

The most diagnostic forms for such assemblages are

core tools and flakes with one or more sharp edges or

points. In other words, Mode 1 (Oldowan) can be

characterized by simple lithic processing techniques

with one, two, or more flaking directions (Plummer

et al. 2001; De la Torre and Mora 2005). Sometimes

centripetal flaking can also be seen. These flakes were

modified by the application of simple retouch, and

were frequently notched or denticulated. At archaeo-

logical sites from this period simple unmodified manu-

ports and hammerstones are common.

Further expansion to the north is connected with

the Acheulean technology, Mode 2, or more neutral

handaxe technology, which appeared c. 1.6Ma ago in

Africa (Dominguez-Rodrigo et al. 2001). Such tech-

nology was more sophisticated and standardized

(Mc Pherron 2000; Mc Nabb et al. 2004) compared

to the Oldowan. Handaxes, cleavers, and picks are

frequently seen as ‘‘preferred products’’ (Bordes 1968,

64; Debenath and Dibble 1994, 130, etc.), ‘‘cores for

flake extraction’’ (Davidson and Noble 1993), or

‘‘individualized memic constructs’’ (McNabb et al.

2004). Anyway, the handaxes are alike all through

their spatial and temporal allocation, although they

show a variety of shapes as well. Bifaces from Europe

and Asia are almost the same as African ones. How-

ever, cleavers in Europe are much rarer than in Africa

or South Asia.

From an archaeological point of view bifaces are

interpreted as a wide taxonomic unit, with recurring

‘‘mental templates’’ held by the knappers sharing simi-

lar cultural principles (Wynn and Tierson 1990). In

another explanation, technological and morphologi-

cal similarity did not reflect a taxonomic unit, in

opposition to the idea that it was the convergent result

of knapping techniques and the use of the artifacts

(Wynn 2004, 674). This way bifacial technology was

convergently invented in different local traditions, and

handaxes were made in various ways by individual

manufacturers, depending mostly on raw material.

Majority of archaeologists prefer to see the Acheu-

lean as a general taxonomic unit with several spatial

and temporal variations. The northern border of early

handaxe distribution is indicated by the Movius Line,

with some recent modifications like Bose Basin in

China (Hou et al. 2000). The oldest sites with handaxes

in Western Asia appeared c. 1.4 Ma ago in Ubeidiya

(Bar-Yosef 1987; 1998) and Gesher Benot Ya’aqov in

Israel aged 0.8 Ma (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti 1996).

In South Asia, the early Acheulean site of Isampur

(India) is tentatively dated to 1.2Ma (Paddayya et al.

2002; Chauhan 2004). In Eastern Asia the oldest han-

daxes are lastly known from Bose Basin in Southern

China, and are dated to 0.8 Ma (Hou et al. 2000).

In EuropeMode 2 appeared later, probably 600 ka

ago, as indicated by the oldest sites with handaxes, like

Venosa Notarchirco in Southern Italy, Carriere Car-

pentier inNorthernFrance, andBoxgrove in southern

England. Much more numerous are slightly younger

lithic concentrations from La Galeria in Atapuerca

(Carbonell et al. 2001, 267–271).

Lower Palaeolithic Microlithic Sitesin the Levant

In the northern latitudes of Eurasia there are lithic

assemblages which are quite unlike the two men-

tioned above. They are characterized by core/flake

technology and by the very small size of the arti-

facts. These artifacts are frequently calledmicroliths

because of their small dimensions, like typicalMode

5 tools (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).

196 J.M. Burdukiewicz

Fig. 1 Mean length ofartifacts from the mainLower Palaeolithicmicrolithic sites in Eurasia

Fig. 2 Lower Palaeolithicmicrolithic sites in CentralEurope: Scatter plot of corelength and width

Lower Palaeolithic Transitions in the Northern Latitudes of Eurasia 197

Nevertheless, they do not have frequent regular

geometric shapes like Mesolithic ones. Sometimes

they are associated with larger tools, like choppers,

which make them somewhat similar to the Pebble

Tool complex.

The oldest Lower Palaeolithic microlithic

assemblages known at present appeared around

1 Ma BP in the Levant. A unique microlithic site

is Ruhama near Ashqelon, in the border zone

between the coastal plain and the Negev Desert

(Ronen et al. 1998; Burdukiewicz and Ronen

2000; Zaidner et al. 2003). At Ruhama, flint arti-

facts are numerous and homogenous in size. Mean

lengths of cores, flakes, and tools are smaller than

3 cm (Fig. 1). The most numerous are single plat-

form cores, but double platform cores and items

Fig. 4 Lower Palaeolithicmicrolithic sites in CentralEurope: Frequency of maingroups of artifacts

Fig. 3 Lower Palaeolithicmicrolithic sites in CentralEurope: Mean length offlakes and tools


with changed orientation are also present. The

retouch techniques are usually scalar, denticulated,

or notched. Bifacial retouch is also present but rare,

and some points are reminiscent of very small han-

daxes, which are also microlithic. It should be an

indication of a transition from Mode 2 technology.

The presence of warm-region fauna (bovids,

horses, and hippopotamuses) broadly indicates

the climatic conditions.

Another site, Evron-Quarry, is located in the wes-

tern Galilee coastal plain c. 2.5 km from the Medi-

terranean shore and 20 m above sea level, slightly

east of the major sandstone ridge along this coast.

The inventory includes three components: (1) 20

handaxes, (2) cores, flakes, and tools of ‘‘ordinary’’

size, and (3) small size cores and debitage (Ronen

2003). The presence of such small artifacts is excep-

tional for the Lower Palaeolithic assemblages in the

Levant. At Ruhama, only small artifacts are present,

but at Evron-Quarry, there are two separate

components: a large one with handaxes and a small

one showing a complete technological process, from

small core processing to small retouched tools

(Ronen 2003). In the Evron-Quarry case, it is not

clear if the ‘‘small-tool component’’ was fashioned by

the same hominin group or another one, which used

the same place in different periods.

Lower Palaeolithic Microlithic Sitesin Central and Eastern Asia

Other sites with microlithic artifacts, dated roughly

to 1 Ma ago, are recorded at Donggutuo and

Xiaochangliang in northeast China (Keates 2003,

149). At the present stage of research it is thought

that deposits with microlithic artifacts date from a

period somewhat before the Jarmillo event, i.e.,

Fig. 5 Bilzingsleben in Thuringia (Germany): Microlithiccores Fig. 6 Bilzingsleben in Thuringia (Germany): Noncortical

flakes


their dating is somewhat before 990 ka BP.

Xiaochangliang in the Nihewan Basin is rich in

microlithic artifacts with warm-region fauna (forest

elephants, hippopotamuses, horses, red deer,

gazelles, and small mammals) and plant remains of

birch and elm (Zhou et al. 2000; Keates 2003).

Similar artifacts were found in Donggutuo, located

on loess upland 1.5 km fromXiaochangliang. There

were several archaeological horizons with over 10

thousand artifacts and numerous bone fragments of

warm-region fauna. Lithic artifacts, like cores,

flakes, and retouched tools, at both sites are very

small (Fig. 1). Keates (2003, 149) suggests that these

dimensions resulted from the poor quality of local

raw material like chert, vein quartz, quartzite,

basalt, or sandstone.

The best known site with microlithic artifacts in

China is Zhoukoudian locality 1—a large cave 140

m long and up to 40 m broad. There were 17 layers

connected with 5 climatic cycles (Zhou et al. 2000).

Cycle 1 (layers 14–13) was cold and should be

linked with OIS 18–19. Cycle 2 (layers 12–9) was

rather warm; and layer 10, with a lower archaeolo-

gical horizon, dense ash, and remains of animals

from forest and steppe environments, was recently

dated c. 670 ka BP (Zhou et al. 2000, 105). Cycle 3

(layers 8–6) originated in a warm climate and was

closed by the collapse of the cave roof; it is corre-

lated with OIS 13–12. The warmest was cycle 4

(layers 5–3), when the travertine originated. From

a layer dated by the TMS method to c. 400 ka BP,

come traces of fireplaces and the youngest hominin

remains (Zhou et al. 2000, 108). The top layers 2

and 1 come from cycle 5, which originated during

the cold climate of OIS 11–10. In the cave were

found over 100,000 lithic artifacts, numerous ani-

mal remains, as well as bone fragments of 45 indi-

viduals of Homo erectus pekinensis. Forty-four var-

ious types of rocks had been transported from a

distance of up to 5 km (Zhou et al. 2000; Keates

2003, 151). The main raw material (over 88%) was

Fig. 8 Trzebnica 2LH in Silesia (Poland). Side scrapersFig. 7 Bilzingsleben in Thuringia (Germany): Bifacialpoints: 1–6, elongated points: 7, burins: 7–8


vein quartz represented by cores, flakes, and tools

in the range of 1.9–7.3 cm, but over 75% of the

tools were smaller than 4 cm. There were numerous

pebble tools as well.

In China these sites are included in the ‘‘small

tool tradition,’’ also called the ‘‘Donggutuo-

Zhoukoudian-Xujiayao-Salawusu’’ tradition (in

chronological sequence), with slightly larger tools

(mean length c. 27–30 mm) made of a variety of

lithic raw material, such as chert, quartz, basalt,

and others. They are juxtaposed with the macro-

tool tradition ‘‘Kehe-Lantian-Sanmenxia-Dingcun,’’

with choppers, picks, and spheroids (Keates 2003).

However, the most complicated aspect of such a

division is the inseparability of several collections.

Several researchers believe that the usage of wood

and bamboo was very important (Keates 2003, 156).

A similar number of artifacts is characteristic of

Kuldara in Tajikistan, Central Asia. This site is

considered at present as the oldest in the region. Its

age, based on soil stratigraphy, is correlated with

OIS 23 or 25, i.e., c. 900 kaBP (Ranov andDodonov

2003). In Central Asia, microlithic assemblages are

known from recent research in Kazakhstan, at sites

like Koshguran and Shoktas, which are dated to

c. 500 ka BP (Derevianko et al. 2000).

Lower Palaeolithic Microlithic Sitesin Europe

In Europe microlithic sites are known from Italy,

Hungary, Germany, and Poland. The oldest are

Italian sites, which are dated from 0.7 to 0.3 Ma

BP. Isernia La Pineta in Central Italy was excavated

in 1978. Three archaeological layers were recog-

nized (Peretto 1994). The richest was horizon 3a,

which yielded over 10,000 artifacts and rich faunal

and floral collections. This horizon showed a K/Ar

date of c. 730 ka and a similar age estimation by

paleomagnetic method (Cremaschi and Peretto

1988). However, age estimation according to Arvi-

cola chronology by T. van Kolfschoten is 200 ka

younger (Roebroeks and van Kolfschoten 1995).

Organogenic data enable reconstruction of the eco-

logical setting as an open landscape with relatively

warm climatic conditions.

The small lithic artifacts were made of local flint

with small crystalline intrusions, and much less

numerous macro-tools were made of dolomite

chalk. For example, in sector II of the site 4589

artifacts were collected: 2.2% cores, 70% flakes,

and almost 28% retouched tools. The mean length

of the flakes was 23 mm and the tools were slightly

longer—31 mm (Crovetto 1991). The main goal of

flint processing in Isernia La Pineta was the produc-

tion of flakes with sharp edges, which were used as

functional tools; the retouch seems to have been

accidental damage rather than intentional reshap-

ing (Peretto 1994, 460).

Similar small artifacts like those at Isernia La

Pineta were also found at other Italian sites:

Venosa-Loreto (Basilicata), Quarto delle Cinfonare

(Latina), and Visogliano near Trieste. In Venosa-

Loreto the most important is horizon A, dated to

Late Cromer Complex and previously interpreted as

Tayacian (Crovetto 1991); however, it is much older

Fig. 9 Rusko 42 in Silesia (Poland). Side scrapers: 1–10,point fragments: 11–12


than traditional Tayacian in France. Nearby in

Venosa the important Acheulean site Notarchirico

has several archaeological horizons, and is dated to

the Middle Pleistocene (Piperno 1999). Quarto delle

Cinfonare yielded only microlithic artifacts. The

team which excavated the site believes that it should

be compared with Fontana Ranuccio nearby, which

is also characterized by the presence of small artifacts

associated with bone handaxes (Peretto et al. 1997,

613). In the Visogliano cave, a small collection of

microlithic artifacts was found to be associated with

a few pebble tools and forest/steppe fauna dated to

OIS 13 or 11 (Cattani et al. 1991).

The next region which has produced early micro-

lithic assemblages is Central Europe. The oldest are

Mauer in Southern Germany and Vertesszolos in

northern Hungary, which originated probably

0.6 Ma BP. Vertesszolos was inhabited several

times, probably up to 0.3 Ma BP. Additional sites,

Bilzingsleben and Schoningen in Central Germany,

were inhabited several times in the period

0.45–0.3 Ma . These sites yielded unique organo-

genic finds made of wood, bone, and antler. Trzeb-

nica and Rusko in southwestern Poland are the

most northern, and, like Schoningen in Germany,

they were covered by Scandinavian inland ice at one

time.

The lower deposits at Mauer in Baden-Wurttem-

berg include redeposited microlithic artifacts and a

jaw ofHomo heidelbergensis. These small lithic arti-

facts and remains of temperate fauna were for a

long time overlooked because of their post-deposi-

tional replacement (Beinhauer et al. 1992, 46). Pol-

len analysis indicates that Homo heidelbergensis

here lived in a forested environment (Urban 1992).

Occupation at Vertesszolos is documented in

nine layers with lithic artifacts, a skull fragment,

and two teeth of Homo erectus seu sapiens palaeo-

hungaricus, spanning from around 600 to 300 ka BP

in changeable climatic conditions, from Mediterra-

nean to cold forests of Pinus montana (Kretzoi and

Dobosi 1990). Over this long duration its archaeol-

ogy witnessed little transformation, despite evident

changes in the natural environment. At

Vertesszolos, almost 8,900 lithic artifacts in several

horizons were documented, and are characterized

by the presence of numerous small pebble and flake

tools made of flint (66%), quartzite (31%), and

limestone (3%).

Other microlithic sites are recorded in Lower

Silesia in Poland. Several years ago the brickyard

at Winna Gora in Trzebnica and the open cast

kaolinite mine at Rusko near Strzegom produced

four microlithic assemblages, relatively dated on

geological grounds to OIS 13 and 11. The most

interesting is the lower horizon from Trzebnica

(OIS 13), which included almost 1,500 lithic arti-

facts (Fig. 8) and several remains of forest and

steppe fauna. Other assemblages: Trzebnica upper

horizon, Rusko 33, and Rusko 42 from OIS 11

contained almost exclusively small lithic artifacts

(Fig. 9). The richest inventory was from Rusko 42,

with almost 3,800 lithic artifacts (Burdukiewicz

2003).

Another very rich site is Bilzingsleben, excavated

over 30 years by D. Mania (Mania and Mania

2003), which delivered 140,000 artifacts (Figs. 5, 6,

and 7). Seventy-five per cent of these artifacts were

made from Nordic flint. Among these 120,000 flint

artifacts there are about 30,000 retouched tools.

Several pebble tools were present, made of large

pieces of crystalline rocks, and rare bifacial tools

made from flint similar to miniature Acheulean

handaxes (Fig. 7; Bruhl 2003, 51). Exceptional are

the rare bone handaxes of normal size (Bruhl 2003,

52). These artifacts were associated with 3 or 4

individuals of Homo erectus bilzingslebenensis and

a very rich warm ecological context represented by

thousands of floral and faunal remains (Mania and

Mania 2003).

An extremely interesting discovery was made at

Schoningen in Lower Saxony, where H. Thieme

identified seven assemblages, of which only three

were published in detail. Schoningen produced a

number of truly exceptional wooden objects in asso-

ciation with lithic artifacts: namely, several spears, a

throwing stick, and small handles—hafts for micro-

lithic stone tools (Thieme 2003). The findings from

Schoningen have shed new light on the more poorly

preserved wooden artifacts discovered at

Bilzingsleben.

The microlithic assemblages recently recorded in

Central Europe cited above apparently jointly

represent a distinct taxonomic complex, sharing a

number of common attributes, which are analyzed

in the coming section. Most probably, the complex

in question developed as a result of adaptation to

the conditions of the moderate climate in a


woodland zone, with some elements of aMediterra-

nean climate in the southern region. In the north,

certain boreal elements are observed, as evidenced

by finds of spruce and fir wood objects recorded at

Schoningen (Fig. 10).

Lithic Artifacts

Analysis of lithic artifacts is usually limited to gen-

eral descriptions of cores and flakes and more

detailed classification of retouched tools. Therefore,

the size of the artifacts and the peculiarities of the

microlithic assemblages were not perceptible. The

author prefers a morphometric approach, showing

a technological and three-dimensional analysis.

Experience was gained from the study of other

Palaeolithic assemblages (Schild 1980) and formu-

lated as a dynamic technological analysis. A list of

all artifact categories and attributes was designed in

the form of a hierarchical sequence of production of

all artifacts (including waste and broken pieces)

classified with several levels from each category

into main groups, keeping with the technological

sequences and statistics: I—raw material procure-

ment, II—preparation and early core exploitation,

III—advanced core exploitation, IV—final core

exploitation, and V—tool production (Table 1).

Intentional selection of raw stone material is the

first important factor, which indicates the users’

familiarity with the properties of the rocks. For

example, at Bilzingsleben lithic tools were made

mainly from flint nodules and chunks. Chert and

hornstone were used less often. Only in areas with

limited flint deposits, such as Vertesszolos, were the

dominant materials quartz and quartzite. Flint

accounted for more than 90% of the inventories.

The early stage of core exploitation is represented

by initially struck cores and by cortical or cortical-

natural flakes. A comparison of average flake

length in Lower Palaeolithic microlithic inventories

shows them to have an astounding similarity of

between 16 and 23 mm (Fig. 1).

The more advanced stage of working is repre-

sented by cores with more than three removals and

Fig. 10 Possiblereconstruction of the LowerPalaeolithic composite tool(c. 20 cm-long fir stick withdiagonal groove and insertedpointed flint) according tofinds more than 400 ka oldfrom Schoningen 12(Germany)

Table 1 Lower Palaeolithic microlithic sites in Central Europe: Dynamic technological sequences of lithic artifacts

Rusko 33 Rusko 42 Trzebnica 2LH Trzebnica 2UH BilzingslebenTechnological sequences N % N % N % N % N %

I. Raw material procurement 0 0.00 0 0.00 376 25.67 57 26.76 1388 22.21

II. Preparation and early coreexploitation

31 8.93 133 3.58 132 9.01 10 4.69 306 4.90

III. Advanced core exploitation 88 25.36 411 11.05 158 10.78 15 7.04 1174 18.78

IV. Final core exploitation 193 55.62 2822 75.86 601 41.02 102 47.89 1808 28.93

V. Tool production 35 10.09 354 9.52 198 13.52 29 13.62 1574 25.18

Total 347 100.00 3720 100.00 1465 100.00 213 100.00 6250 100.00


flakes partially covered by cortex on the dorsal face

or noncortical flakes (Fig. 5; 6). Altogether they

account for 7–25% of all products (Fig. 4). Some

difficulty for classification is posed by flake frag-

ments, which form one of the largest categories of

flints in all assemblages. The set of cores analyzed

with the DTAmethod shows interesting tendencies.

Slightly over half of the pieces were produced dur-

ing the sequence of core exploitation. Preparation

of core platforms played an important role inmicro-

lithic assemblages of the Lower Palaeolithic. Other

procedures, including preparation of distal end and

side edges, are less frequent. The techniques of core

exploitation show an evident and recurrent ten-

dency. In Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assem-

blages, early exploitation started generally from

single- or double-platform cores (Fig. 5). Change

of flaking direction was the main technique of

adjusting the angle of core exploitation—used fre-

quently, as indicated by the 65% of cores showing

changed orientation in the group of advanced cores,

and their equally high percentage in the group of

residual cores.

Another indication that the process of core

exploitation involved core platform preparation or

change of direction are flake butts. There are no

evident differences in the percentage proportion of

flake butts from sequences II and III in all the

analyzed inventories. In Sequence III there was a

slightly decreased ratio of corticated to natural

butts and a decrease in the percentage share of

punctiform butts. At the same time, paradoxically,

sequence II showed a higher share of facetted and

dihedral butts than in sequence III (Fig. 6).

Microlithic assemblages from the Lower Palaeo-

lithic show a greater similarity in the percentage parti-

cipation of butts. Next to percussion cones, scars and

wavy rings are considered a diagnostic feature of core

exploitation technique. Other features taken into

account in determining flake shape include transverse

and longitudinal cross-section. Once the flake shape is

defined, the next step is to assess the degree of mod-

ification during tool production (Fig. 3).

The main attribute used in defining flakes is their

shape; along with flake proportions, it is an impor-

tant feature helping distinguish blades among the

flakes. The basic categories are represented by irre-

gular flakes, considered as the most characteristic

for early lithic industries, followed by parallel,

diverging, converging, oval, and segmented flakes.

Contrary to recurring views, the flaking technique

during the Lower Palaeolithic was not random.

Final core exploitation is documented by a group of

residual cores, core fragments, and fragments of

rejected flakes, partly cortical or entirely without cor-

tex.Cores in this sequence are typically small in size and

show a marked degree of exploitation. The high per-

centage of fragmented cores and diverse residual forms

is most probably the effect of using the direct technique

of percussion with a hard hammer, and the bipolar

technique, which do not allow for proper control,

resulting in a substantial quantity of waste (Table 1).

All tools and production wastes are taken into

consideration in this sequence. We defined as tools

all specimens showing evidence of retouch, i.e.,

flakes, cores, and chunks. Many tools were only

partly retouched, repaired, and damaged. In keep-

ing with the principles of DTA, the degree of mod-

ification of the debitage was determined together

with the statistical extent of this modification.

In comparison to the preceding stages, sequence

V is represented by only a small number of artifacts.

In the study of Palaeolithic assemblages, it is com-

mon to calculate the ratios between tools, cores, and

flakes (Fig. 4). In the examined Lower Palaeolithic

microlithic assemblages, tools made up no less than

15% all lithic artifacts at Bilzingsleben, nearly 13%

at Trzebnica 2LH, 10% at Rusko 33, 8% at Trzeb-

nica 2 UH and Quarto delle Cinfonare, and a mere

4% at Rusko 42 (Burdukiewicz 2003a, 2003b,

2006).

The criteria of flake selection for tool production

are less easily understood. Analysis was made of the

relationship between core, flake, and tool size and

of the change in the frequency of flakes and tools in

terms of their form and their transverse and long-

itudinal cross-sections. Statistical analysis deter-

mined important differences in the size of cores,

flakes, and tools. In all of the analyzed microlithic

assemblages, length, width, and thickness medians

were higher for tools than for flakes. A particularly

great difference between tools and flakes could be

noted with regard to the thickness median.

Next to the criterion of size, which was evidently

taken into consideration when selecting flakes for

tool production, there may have been a preference

for flakes of a specific form. Certain differences were

observed in the frequency of specimen forms. Flake


form modification by means of retouch, or even the

very selection of flakes of a preferred form, testifies

to the deliberate selection of preforms (Fig. 3).

On the basis of the percentage of tool forms, inven-

tories could be divided into two broad groups. One

includes material from Bilzingsleben and Rusko 33,

dominated by tools with converging edges. Rusko 42,

and Trzebnica 2LH and 2UH, on the other hand,

registered an obvious domination of forms with diver-

ging edges. Participation of tools having parallel or

oval shape is quite different than in the case of flakes.

As follows from the above discussion, differences in

the amounts of flakes and tool forms in each assem-

blage are clearly visible. Therefore, retouch led to the

modification of shapes, and consequently the distribu-

tion of flakes and tool form participation is comple-

tely different. This shows that the view proposed byC.

Peretto and his team, that retouched tools generally

represent waste, is hardly justifiable (Peretto 1994).

The demonstrated intentionality of rawmaterial selec-

tion and methods of retouch is evidently inconsistent

with the supposedly ‘‘opportunistic’’ approach of early

hominins to stone working.

The study of microlithic assemblages using the

DTA and statistical methods has made it possible to

detect the earliest indication of standardization in

stone working during the Lower Palaeolithic.

Obviously it was less developed than in the Levallois

or blade production techniques, but all the same,

observable in larger statistical samples. Also evident

is the considerable similarity of technological

sequences from Bilzingsleben and both levels at

Trzebnica (Table 1). Inventories from Rusko 33 and

Rusko 42 are slightly different, but this may be due to

the influence of postdepositional processes which led

to the redeposition of artifacts and are responsible for

removing heavier forms from sequence I and for the

low representation of sequence II. In viewof the above

discussion, the Lower Palaeolithic microlithic assem-

blages described here may best be defined as techno-

complexes in the sense proposed by D. Clarke (1968).

Organic Artifacts

Organic artifacts during the Palaeolithic are rarely pre-

served anywhere in the world, chiefly because organic

material tends to perish shortly after having been dis-

carded by its users or later, as a result of the destructive

action of postdepositional processes. At Vertesszolos

almost all bone artifacts were discovered in level 1 of

Vertesszolos site I. Most were fashioned from the long

bones of large mammals like Bovidae, Cervidae, Equi-

dae, and Proboscidae. The hunters from Vertesszolos

apparently preferred herbivores, which accounted for

as much as 92.5% of animal remains, whereas in a

natural faunal spectrum nearly 1/3 were predators.

At Bilzingsleben themain source of rawmaterial for

bone tool production was definitely Palaeoloxodon

antiquus,which represented only 12%of general faunal

inventory. It is noteworthy that juvenile individuals

with milk teeth (60%) outnumbered mature and aged

individuals (40%). Substantial variability of forms,

numerous incomplete or damaged individuals, coupled

with the as yet incomplete publication of the site, all

make a more detailed classification quite difficult. D.

Mania uses functional terms, applied to stone artifacts,

such as side scrapers, points, cleavers, chisels, hammers,

etc. (Mania and Mania 2003). Another group of

organic objects featured in large number at Bilzingsle-

ben is comprised of deer antler. Based on careful ana-

lysis, Mania was able to identify the process of antler

working, distinguishing many antler tools.

Unusually favorable post-depositional conditions at

Schoningen and Bilzingsleben assisted the survival of a

great number of worked wooden objects. The oldest of

these are four wooden pieces discovered at Schoningen

12 on the fossil lake shore, in association with numer-

ous flint artifacts. All were fashioned from silver fir and

had lengths of 12, 17, 19.1, and 32.2 cm. The shortest of

these pieces had diagonal grooves at both ends, the

other three only a single such groove (Thieme 2003).

Most probably, its purpose was to hold flint inserts,

forming a tool combining two types of raw material

(Burdukiewicz and Ronen 2003).

In 1995 excavation of level 4 at Schoningen 13 II–

4 uncovered finely preserved wooden spears. The

objects rested within a level of organic mud, covered

by a layer of peat—the dried out littoral zone of a flat

channel lake. The same area furnished 30,000 faunal

remains, including 17 well preserved skulls of young

horses (Equus mosbachensis), some of them with cut

marks. Numerous plant remains and abundant mol-

lusk fauna indicate a boreal climate, continental in

character, with coniferous forests (Thieme 2003).

The spears were recovered on the whole from a 25

by 10m zone of the largest concentration of finds. The

first three were discovered by H. Thieme; by 2003 five


more had been recorded (Thieme 2003). The spears

weighed around 500–600 g. Their average length and

weight—about 230 cm and 600 g, respectively—are

similar to those of modern women’s Olympic equip-

ment. Experiments have shown that the maximum

distance achieved with this type of spear is as much

as 75 m, but an experienced spear thrower is able to

achieve an accurate throw over a distance of up to 35

m. A large number of diverse pieces of worked wood

were discovered at Schoningen 13 II–4, but they still

await publication. Although Bilzingsleben produced a

greater variety of wooden tools, their function is not

easy to establish because of substantial damage as a

result of pos-tdepositional processes.

Pioneer Settlers of Northern Latitudes ofEurasia—Technological Transitions andAdaptations to Wooded Environment

From the time of the first investigations made at

Vertesszolos by Vertes (1965), microlithic assem-

blages have continued to pose a problem for archae-

ologists concerned with the Lower Palaeolithic,

because they did not fit easily into the traditional

culture scheme adopted at the time. Eventually, a

considerable number of similar assemblages were

recorded in Eurasia, ranging from Central Europe

to China, spanning the period from c. 1 Ma to c.

120 kaBP.According to the current state of research,

sites with microlithic artifacts appeared in Eurasia in

the following chronological order: the Levant, the

Middle and Far East, the Apennine Peninsul, and

Central Europe (cf. Derevianko et al. 2000; Burdu-

kiewicz andRonen 2003). A new site with small lithic

flakes was lastly found in Parkfield (Suffolk, United

Kingdom) in Cromerian layer dated 0.7 Ma ago

(Parfitt et al. 2005; Roebroeks 2005).

Given their substantial spatial, temporal, and eco-

logical variability, the most reasonable explanation is

that microlithic assemblages emerged from Pebble

Tool or Handaxe Technocomplexes, more or less

autonomous of each other, as a result of adaptation

to specific environmental conditions. In several sites

with microlithic artifacts, larger tools like choppers or

rare handaxes are more or less frequently present, in

particular in the southern zone, like Evron-Quarry, in

the vicinity of Quarto delle Cinfonare or Bilzingsleben

in the north. In Northern China, these associations

are still less clear.

The principal motivation for their increase was

possibly the abundance of organic material, wood

in particular, which came to be used as the main raw

material. Wooden and bone tools are easier to pro-

duce, but they are rather less effective. Innovation of

composite tools, made of wood or bone with lithic

inserts (Fig. 10), seems to be themost effective way of

tool production during the Stone Age. However,

until recently, wooden, bone, or resin hafts are

known in very limited numbers. New evidence from

Schoningen and Bilzingsleben offers sufficient proof

that composite tools were used during the Lower and

Middle Palaeolithic in Northern Eurasia around 608north latitude. The presence of several microlithic

assemblages in this zone supports such a concept. A

similar conceptwas developed entirely independently

in the Far East, where the functioning of microlithic

assemblages was probably associated with the wide-

spread use of bamboo (Keates 2003). It seems correct

to assume therefore that the Euroasiatic Microlithic

Technocomplexes developed in other environmental

conditions continuing a relationship—unspecified as

yet—with communities of Pebble Tool or Acheulean

Technocomplexes. Whatever may have been the

case, the assemblages in the two regions are partly

parallel to each other chronologically.

The situation of microlithic assemblages is remark-

able, in that their decline was multistage in character.

They are recorded during warmer and wetter periods

with prevailing woodland vegetation, and apparently

disappear during cooler periods, the time of the devel-

opment of steppe or tundra landscape. The first per-

iod of microlithic assemblage decline is noted at the

close of the Holsteinian interglacial (OIS 11), around

300 ka BP, a time of expansion in Europe of Acheu-

lean handaxes and flake tools of larger dimensions.

The second period of development dates to OIS 7, 5,

and 4, i.e., stages of the Middle Palaeolithic. Finally,

microlithic industries developed fully towards the end

of the Pleistocene and during the early Holocene.

Final Remarks

The study of the Lower Palaeolithic, the earliest

stage of human history, has made important pro-

gress during the latter half of the 20th century. The


discovery of numerous hominin fossil remains and

new archaeological sites has furthered our knowl-

edge of palaeoecological conditions and climatostra-

tigraphic changes. Evidence newly recovered in Eur-

ope and northeastern China has made it necessary to

distinguish two or three taxonomic units, defined as

the Lower PalaeolithicMicrolithic Technocomplexes

in the Levant, Eastern Asia, and Europe. Their

assemblages are characterized by the domination of

microlithic technology in lithic production and the

use of microliths as inserts in composite tools. Such

invention in human history is usually seen as very

sophisticated and characteristic for Mode 5.

An important role was apparently played also by

tools from organic materials: wood, bone, and

antler in particular. Substantial spatial, chronologi-

cal, and ecological variability of microlithic assem-

blages suggests that they developed as a result of

adaptation to the conditions of the local environ-

ment, the adaptation processes presumably follow-

ing their individual courses in different areas.

Further research is needed on the mobility of homi-

nin groups who as early as around 1.8Ma appear to

have been able to travel over substantial distances in

a relatively short time, as indicated by new discov-

eries at Dmanisi (Georgia), several thousand kilo-

meters from southern and eastern Africa.

The Microlithic technocomplexes could have

developed in relative isolation from each other as

well as from other technocomplexes like Pebble

Tools (Mode 1) or Acheulean (Mode 2) in the south-

ern zone of Eurasia. In any case, these assemblages

are partly parallel to each other chronologically. In

Europe,microlithic assemblages occur in an environ-

ment with a climate ranging from theMediterranean

to the boreal, but always in association with wood-

land or woodland-steppe vegetation. No assem-

blages of similar type are recorded for colder periods.

Another interesting group of issues relates to the

beginnings of a cultural organization of the microen-

vironment, the domestication of fire, and the emer-

gence of hunting. Spears discovered at Schoningen

and surviving evidence of selective hunting now

make it possible to discard the hypothesis of the

long-lived persistence of scavenging. Exceptionally

favorable conditions for subsistence, offered by

springs in travertine areas (Bilzingsleben, Isernia),

enabled some hominin groups to occupy a single site

over a long period or to return frequently to the same

area (Vertesszolos; Schoningen 13–4). Travertine and

bog settlements, due to their exceptional properties

favoring preservation of organic materials, have con-

served traces of such occupation to this day.

The production of small artifacts, that were not

easy to hold and use with the fingers, is not easy to

explain. It is worth stressing the presence of some

bifacial tools bearing various links with Mode 2 tech-

nology. Recent excavations of worked wooden

objects in Schoningen (Lower Saxony, Germany)

and wooden sticks with diagonal grooves at the ends

suggest that they were handles to hold stone inserts,

forming tools combining two types of raw material.

As opposed to the early assemblages from Africa

and SouthernEurasia in northern latitudes, the usage

of microliths as inserts in composite tools seems to be

the most important feature. It is difficult to explain

why early forager groups changed their lithic tech-

nology. The most possible transition process can be

explained as an adaptation to new conditions of the

local environments, where technological innovations

provided survival and demographic success.

The primary motivation for the transition to a

new lithic technology seems to be the abundance of

organic material, wood in particular, which came to

be used as the main raw material for the production

of composite tools. Until recently, our record

included only a very limited number of wooden

finds, but evidence offers proof that microlithic

assemblages indeed functioned during the Lower

and Middle Palaeolithic in Northern Europe. A

similar concept was developed independently in

northeastern China and Central Asia, where the

functioning of microlithic assemblages was prob-

ably associated with the widespread use of bamboo

and wood.

References

Bar-Yosef, O., 1987, Pleistocene connections between Africaand Southwest Asia: An archaeological perspective. TheAfrican Archaeological Review 5:29–38.

Bar-Yosef,O., 1998,Early colonizations and cultural continuitiesin the Lower Palaeolithic of western Asia. In Early HumanBehaviour in Global Context, edited byM.D. Petraglia andR.Korisettar, pp. 221–279. Routledge, London.

Beinhauer, K.W., Fiedler, L., and Wegner D., 1992,Hornstein-Artefakte von der Fundstelle desHomo erectusheidelbergensis aus Mauer. In Schichten von Mauer – 85


Jahre Homo erectus heidelbergensis, edited K.W. Bein-hauer and G.A. Wagner, pp. 46–73. Edition Braus,Meinheim.

Bordes, F., 1968, The Old Stone Age. Weidenfeld andNicolson, London.

Bruhl, E., 2003,The small flint tool industry fromBilzingsleben– Steinrinne. In Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europeand the Levant, edited by J.M.Burdukiewicz andA. Ronen,pp. 65–92. BAR International Series 1115, Oxford.

Burdukiewicz, J.M., 2003a, Lower Palaeolithic sites withsmall artefacts in Poland. In Lower Palaeolithic SmallTools in Europe and the Levant, edited by J.M. Burdukie-wicz and A. Ronen, pp. 65–92. BAR International Series1115, Oxford.

Burdukiewicz, J.M., 2003b, Technokompleks mikrolityczny wpaleolicie dolnym srodkowej Europy. Instytut ArcheologiiUniwersytet Wrocawski, Wroclaw (in Polish).

Burdukiewicz, J.M., 2006, Lithic artifacts – Typology, tech-nology and morphometrics. In The Stone: Technique andTechnology, edited by A. Wisniewski, T. Plonka and J.M.Burdukiewicz, pp. 11–19. UniwersytetWroclawski, Insty-tut Archeologii, Wroclaw.

Burdukiewicz, J.M. and Ronen A., 2000, Ruhama in theNorthern Negev Desert. A new microlithic site of LowerPalaeolithic in Israel. Praehistoria Thuringica 5:32–46.

Burdukiewicz, J.M. and Ronen A., 2003, Research problemsof the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic small tool assem-blages. In Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe andthe Levant, edited by J.M. Burdukiewicz and A. Ronen,pp. 235–239. BAR International Series 1115, Oxford.

Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., Olle, A., Rodriguez, X.P.,Sahnouni, M., Sala, R., and Verg es J.M., 2001, Structuremorphotechnique de l ’industrie lithique du Pl eistoc eneinf erieur et moyen d ’Atapuerca (Burgos, Espagne).L ’Anthropologie (Paris) 105:259–280.

Cattani, L., Cremaschi, M., Ferraris, M.R., Mallegni, F.,Masini, F., Scola, V., and Tozzi C., 1991, Le gisementdu Pleistocene moyen de Visogliano (Trieste): resteshumains, industries, environnement. L’Anthropologie(Paris) 91:9–36.

Chauhan, P.R., 2004, A review of the early Acheulian evi-dence from South Asia. Assemblage – The Sheffield Grad-uate Journal of Archaeology December 2004.

Clarke, D.L., 1968, Analytical Archaeology. Methuen & CoLtd., London.

Cremaschi,M. and Perreto C., 1988, Les sols d’habitat du sitepaleolithique d’Isernia La Pineta (Molise, Italie centrale).L’Anthropologie (Paris) 93:1017–1040.

Crovetto, C., 1991, Resultats preliminaires de la comparai-son des industries d’Isernia La Pineta et de Venosa-Loreto. In Isernia La Pineta. Nuovi contributi scientifici,edited by C. Peretto, pp. 79–95. Instituto Regionale per gliStudi Storici del Molise, V. Cuoco, Isernia.

Davidson, I. and Noble W., 1993, Tools and Language inHuman Evolution. In Tools, Language and Cognition,edited by K. Gibson and T. Ingold, pp. 363–388. Cam-bridge University Press, New York.

De la Torre, I. andMora R., 2005, Technological strategies inthe Lower Pleistocene at Olduvai Beds I & II. Etudes etRecherches Archeologiques de l’Universite de Liege 112,Liege.

Debenath, A. and Dibble H.L., 1994, Handbook of Paleo-lithic Typology: Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe.University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

Derevianko, A.P., Petrin V.T., and Taimagambetov J.K.,2000, The phenomenon of microindustrial complexes inEurasia. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eur-asia 4:2–18.

Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Serrallonga, J., Juan-Tresserras,J., Alcala, L., and Luque L., 2001, Woodworking activ-ities by early humans: a plant residue analysis on Acheu-lian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania). Journal of HumanEvolution 40:289–299.

Goren-Inbar, N. and Saragusti I., 1996, An Acheulian bifaceassemblage from the site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel:indications of African affinities. Journal of Field Archae-ology 23:15–30.

Hou, Y.M., Potts, R., Yuan B.Y., Guo, Z.T., Deino, A.,Wang, W., Clark, J., Xie, G.M., and Huang W.W.,2000, Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like stone technologyof the Bose Basin, South China. Science 287:1622–1626.

Keates, S.G., 2003, The role of raw material in explainingtool assemblage variability in Palaeolithic China. InLower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and the Levant,edited by J.M. Burdukiewicz and A. Ronen, pp. 149–168.BAR International Series 1115, Oxford.

Kretzoi, M. and Dobosi, V.T., (eds.) 1990, Vertesszo´ lo ´ s,Site, Man and Culture. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.

Mania, D. and Mania U., 2003, Bilzingsleben – Homo erec-tus, his culture and his environment. The most importantresults of research. In Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools inEurope and the Levant, edited by J.M. Burdukiewicz andA. Ronen, pp. 65–92. BAR International Series 1115,Oxford.

McNabb, J., Binyon, F., and Hazelwood L., 2004, The largecutting tools from the South African Acheulean and thequestion of social traditions. Current Anthropology45:653–677.

McPherron, S., 2000, Handaxes as a measure of the mentalcapabilities of early hominids. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 27:655–663.

Paddayya, K., Blackwell, B.A.B., Jhaldiyal, R., Petraglia,M.D., Fevrier, S., Chaderton, II D.A., Blickstein, J.I.B.,and Skinner A.R., 2002, Recent findings on the Acheulianof the Hunsgi and Baichabl valleys, Karnataka, withspecial reference to the Isampur excavation and its dating.Current Science (Bangalore), 83/5:641–647.

Parfitt, S.A., et al. 2005, The earliest record of human activityin northern Europe. Nature 438:1008–1012.

Peretto, C., (ed.), 1994, Le industrie litiche del giacimentopaleolitico di Isernia La Pineta: LA tipologia, le tracce diutilizzazione, la seprimentazione.Cosmo Iannone Editore,Isernia.

Peretto, C., La Rossa,M., Liboni, A., Milliken, S., Sozzi,M.,and Zaratini A., 1997, Le gisement de Quarto delle Cin-fonare dans le cadre du Paleolithique inferieur de l’ItalieOuest-Centrale. L’Anthropologie (Paris) 101:597–615.

Piperno, M., (ed.), 1999, Notarchirico, un sito del Pleistocenemedio antico nel bacino di Venosa. Osanna, Venosa.

Plummer, T., Ferraro, J., Ditchfield, P., Bishop, L., and PottsR., 2001. Late Pliocene Oldowan excavations at KanjeraSouth, Kenya. Antiquity 75:809–810.


Ranov, V.A. and Dodonov A.E., 2003, Small instruments ofthe Lower Palaeolithic site Kuldara and their geoarchaeo-logical meaning. In Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools inEurope and the Levant, edited by J.M. Burdukiewicz andA. Ronen, pp. 133–147. BAR International Series 1115,Oxford.

Roche, H., Delagnes, A., Burgal, J.P., Feibel, C., Kibunjia,M., Mourre, V., and Texler P.J., 1999, Early hominidstone tool production and technical skill 2.34 Myr agoin West Turkana, Kenya. Science 399:57–60.

Roebroeks, W., 2005, Archaeology: Life on the Costa delCromer. Nature 428:921–922.

Roebroeks, W. and van Kolfschoten T., 1995, The earliestoccupation of Europe: A reappraisal of artefactual andchronological evidence. In The Earliest Occupation ofEurope. Proceedings of the European Science Foundation.Workshop at Tautavel (France), 1993, edited byW.Roeb-roeks and T. van Kolfshoten, pp. 297–315. University ofLeiden, Leiden.

Ronen, A., 2003, The small tools of Evron-Quarry, WesternGalilee, Israel. In Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools inEurope and the Levant, edited by J.M. Burdukiewicz andA. Ronen, pp. 113–120. BAR International Series 1115,Oxford.

Ronen, A., Burdukiewicz, J.M., Laukhin, S.A., Winter, Y.,Tsatskin, A., Dayan, T., Kulikov, O.A., Vlasov, V.K.,and Semenov V.V., 1998, The Lower Palaeolithic siteBizat Ruhama in the Northern Negev, Israel. Archaolo-gisches Korrespondenzblatt 28:163–173.

Schild, R., 1980, Introduction to dynamic technological ana-lysis of chipped stone assemblages. In UnconventionalArchaeology. New Approaches and Goals in Polish Archae-ology, edited by R. Schild, pp. 57–85. Ossolineum,Wroclaw.

Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Quade, J., Renne, P.R., Butler, R.F., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Stout, D., Hart, W.S.,Pickering, T., and Simpson S.W., 2003, 2.6-Million-year-old stone tools and associated bones from OGS-6

and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of HumanEvolution 45:169–77.

Stout,D.,Quade, J., Semaw, S.,Rogers,M.J. andLevinN.E.,2005, Raw material selectivity of the earliest stonetoolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of HumanEvolution 48:365–380.

Thieme, H., 2003, Lower Palaeolithic sites at Schoningen,Lower Saxony, Germany. In Lower Palaeolithic SmallTools in Europe and the Levant, edited by J.M. Burdukie-wicz and A. Ronen, pp. 101–111. BAR InternationalSeries 1115, Oxford.

Urban, B., 1992, Die Rolle der Quartarbotanik und ihreBedeutung fur die Fundstelle desHomo erectus heidelber-gensis von Mauer. In Schichten von Mauer – 85 JahreHomo erectus heidelbergensis, edited by K.W. Beinhauerand G.A. Wagner, pp. 111–120. Edition Braus,Meinheim.

Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Rightmire, G.P., ReidFerring, J.A., Maisuradze, G., Mouskhelishvili, A.,Nioradze, M., de Leon, M.P., Tappen, M., Tvalchrelidze,M., and Zollikofer C., 2002, A new skull of early Homofrom Dmanisi, Georgia. Science 297:85–89.

Vertes, L., 1965, Typology of the Buda Industry, a pebble-tool industry from Hungarian Lower Palaeolithic. Qua-ternaria 7:185–195

Wynn, T., 2004, Comment on ‘‘The large cutting tools fromthe South African Acheulean and the question of socialtraditions.’’ Current Anthropology 45:672–673.

Wynn, T. and Tierson F., 1990, Regional comparison of theshapes of later Acheulean handaxes.American Anthropol-ogist 92:73–84.

Zaidner, Y., Ronen, A., and Burdukiewicz J.M., 2003, Lamicroindustrie du Paleolithique ancien de Bizat Ruhama,Israel. L’Anthropologie (Paris) 105:203–222.

Zhou, C., Liu, Z., and Wang Y., 2000, Climatic cycles inves-tigated by sediment analysis in PekingMan’s Cave, Zhou-koudian, China. Journal of Archaeological Science27:101–109.


Documents

Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions || Lower Palaeolithic Transitions in the Northern Latitudes of Eurasia