The Earliest Occupation of Europe: Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Workshop at Tautavel (France), 1993.
Ashton, Nick
Consensus is a rarity in archaeology, and in the past none more so
than in the Palaeolithic. Debates have fuelled research and vice versa in a way that at times has appeared somewhat circular. Did the subject
progress, or was it merely creating its own agenda? One debate where the
question is clear, but the debate is not, is the problem of
'earliest'. This is surely what many see the subject as about
- the origins of humans. This has led to controversy from the
'Antiquity of Man' debate in the early 1860s, to the eolith
problem at the turn of the century, and even today about the earliest
occupation of Europe, the subject of the present book.
The book is the result of a workshop held at Tautavel (France) in
November 1993, to discuss this issue. Battle-lines had long been drawn,
with one camp (the long chronologists represented by the 'old
guard') arguing that the earliest industries could be dated to
within the Early Pleistocene (anything from two million to 900,000 years
ago), with the opposing camp (short chronologists) pushing for a much
later arrival at around 500,000 years ago.
The book, I am sure, is a sanitized version of the workshop, caused
in part I suspect by the reluctance of some members of the 'old
guard' to contribute. The editors (Roebroeks & van Kolfschoten)
are both avowed short chronologists, and although this is supported by
the majority of the contributors, notable exceptions (Valoch, chapter 5,
and Bosinski, chapters 7 & 14) provide an opposing view.
The issues at stake are clearly laid down by Roebroeks & van
Kolfschoten (chapter 17). First, what type of evidence provides the
clearest chronological framework, applicable on a European-wide scale?
They argue that regional lithostratigraphic schemes have proved
difficult to correlate across the continent, absolute dating methods
currently lack the desired resolution (despite Aitken's optimism
for the future, chapter 15), while evolutionary change is absent in the
palynological record. Mammals, on the other hand, in terms of extinction
and morphological change provide the best scheme, measured particularly
by the now famous 'vole-clock'. This is not without its
detractors or its problems. Synchronic variations certainly exist;
endemic populations probably survived in Iberia (Raposo & Santonja,
chapter 1) and in the Caucasus (Ljubin & Bosinski, chapter 12).
Despite these problems, Roebroeks & van Kolfschoten are probably
right to take this as their chosen yardstick, against which the
competing claims can be compared.
The second issue is what constitutes an incontrovertible stone tool
assemblage. Small collections of pebbles with occasional flake scars and
cortical flakes, extracted from large gravel beds, do not. Acceptable
assemblages are argued to be those from well-dated, fine-grained
contexts with clear knapping scatters, preferably with refitting. This
is supported by Raynal et al. (chapter 8) in a lithological and
technological study of both natural and archaeological assemblages from
the Massif Central. The natural 'tephrofacts' are dominated by
granites and gneiss, as are the more controversial assemblages, whereas
the artefacts from undisputed assemblages are mainly made from quartz,
basalt and flint. Such a strict approach to dating and human evidence
may appear harsh, but as Roebroeks & van Kolfschoten point out, if
early evidence does exist it should be 'easy to falsify'.
The results are presented as a series of chapters covering the
geographical extent of Europe. The assemblages clearly divide into two
types - those where controversy surrounds the human nature of the
artefacts, the context or the dating, and those where large assemblages
come from well-dated contexts in association with rich mammalian faunas.
Lying on the sick-bed are the allegedly early sites such as Beroun and
Prezletice in the Czech Republic (Valoch, chapter 5), Karlich A, Ba and
Bb in Germany (Bosinski, chapter 7), Atapuerca TD4 in Spain (Raposo
& Santonja, chapter 1), together with Monte Poggiolo and Monte
Peglia in Italy (Mussi, chapter 2) and Le Vallonet and Chilhac III in
France (Roebroeks & van Kolfschoten, chapter 17; Raynal et al.,
chapter 8 respectively).
Sites with a clean bill of health and all dating to around 500,000
years ago include Karlich G and Misenheim I in Germany (Bosinski,
chapter 7), St Acheul in France (Antoine & Tuffreau, chapter 9),
Boxgrove in England (Roberts et al., chapter 10) and Veneso-Loreto in
Italy (Mussi, chapter 2). Of more difficulty are the claimed early sites
around Orce and level TD6 at Atapuerca (Spain), where more fieldwork and
dating is required (Raposo & Santonja, chapter 1; Roebroeks &
van Kolfschoten, chapter 17) and Isernia in Italy, which despite early
absolute dates is still associated with a fauna normally attributed to
500,000 (Mussi, chapter 2). Petralona too has problems, lacking a
context for the human skull, and a dearth of published details about the
lithic industry (Darlas, chapter 3).
This book, however, is more than just a list of early sites. It is a
well-documented catalogue, presenting both the controversial and less
controversial assemblages earlier than 300,000 years ago. As such it is
the most up-to-date and accessible review of its kind. The peripheries
of Europe are also examined. The absence of a Palaeolithic in
Scandinavia, often blamed on destructive ice-sheets, is optimistically
dismissed by Holm & Larson (chapter 11), while the lack of sites on
the Eurasian mammoth-steppe (Praslov, chapter 4) is attributed by Gamble
to, among other things, extreme seasonality (chapter 16). This may also
explain the later dates for sites in eastern Germany (Mania, chapter 6).
More of this below. At the other end of the scale, the early sites in
Morocco are reviewed by Raynal et al. (chapter 13), Casablanca dating
back to 800,000, while Dmanisi in the Caucasus appears to date to at
least one million years ago (Ljubin & Bosinski, chapter 12).
This immediately leads to a further question - if humans were clearly
entering southern Asia from Africa, certainly over a million years ago,
why was Europe not colonized for over half a million years? The
ecological requirements for colonization in western and central Europe
are discussed in detail by Gamble (chapter 16) in the most
thought-provoking of the chapters. The oceanic effect in the west, and
continentality in the east, caused animal migrations from the Russian
mammoth-steppes during cold periods and migrations from Mediterranean
refugias during warm periods. The blend of plains and uplands across the
area also produced close-knit, resilient, mosaic environments. These,
combined with the extinction of the large flesh-eaters (Turner 1992) and
diversification of the herbivores (Cordy 1992) around 500,000 years ago,
created the conditions that were suitable for human colonization. Were
these the result of the intermittent migration of ever-maturing
mammoth-steppe faunas, together with the increased length and amplitude
of the interglacial-glacial cycle? Perhaps.
Through ecological approaches of this type, the book clearly shows
that the original question - what are the earliest sites in Europe? - is
a subject worthy of serious debate beyond the mere establishment of a
starting point. It also highlights the different agendas of the short
and long chronologists. The 'old guard' are still concerned by
the question of earliest because it acts as a beginning for studying the
progressive evolution of cultural groups. It is noted with interest that
all the early, controversial assemblages consist of choppers and flakes.
Is this merely a mirage of the Oldowan? In contrast, the short
chronologists seek the reasons for, and behavioural responses to,
colonization. Or, as put succinctly by Gamble, '. . . we can begin
to examine the relationship between colonizing populations, habitat
choice and population dynamics . . . Such a debate should now be based
on the premise that the colonizing capabilities of these hominids was
not limited solely by environmental conditions but rather by their own
organizational responses to the structures of such environments.'
The editors should be congratulated for producing a book that not
only draws together the available evidence, but begins to provide a
consensus about the way we should study this problem. Of further
relevance, it also puts into clear perspective one of the most important
research agendas for the next decade.
NICK ASHTON Department of Prehistoric & Romano-British
Antiquities British Museum, London
References
CORDY, J.M. 1992. Apport de la paleomammologie a la
paleoanthropologie en Europe, in M. Toussaint (ed.), Cinq millions
d'annees, l'aventure humaine: 77-94. Liege: ERAUL.
TURNER, A. 1992. Large carnivores and earliest European hominids:
changing determinants of resource availability during the Lower and
Middle Pleistocene, Journal of Human Evolution 22: 109-26.