The earliest occupation of Europe: a short chronology.
Roebroeks, Wil ; Kolfschoten, Thijs van
A reappraisal of the artefactual and chronological evidence for the
earliest occupation of Europe -- with proper attention to its limitation
and its reliability -- makes for a short chronology. The first solid
traces of hominid activities in this part of the world are around
500,000 years old.
1 Introduction
When did the first humans leave Africa, and at what time did they
move into Europe, the Americas or Australia? There are many answers to
such questions, but hardly any agreement. Establishing the earliest
documented evidence for human occupation has always involved
controversy, usually centred around the artefactual character of
assemblages and/or their chronological position. The situation is not
different for the earliest traces of occupation of Europe. Despite the
large number of meetings devoted to this topic the dates given to the
first 'Europeans' vary enormously, depending on the book or
journal one opens. On the 'very old' side, Bonifay &
Vandermeersch (1991) present a number of sites allegedly dating from
earlier parts of the Early Pleistocene, around two million years ago
(cf. Ackerman 1989; Delson 1989). An age of about one million years is
considered a good estimate for the first occupation of Europe by most
workers (cf. Rolland 1992), placing the earliest traces in the end of
the Lower Pleistocene, as at Le Vallonet in France (De Lumley et al.
1988) and Karlich A in Germany (Wurges 1986; 1990). In contrast to these
'long chronologies' we suggest in this paper that
Europe's earliest human traces are in fact considerably younger,
dating from well into the Middle Pleistocene.
Our paper begins with a short review of the artefactual character of
assemblages and the chronological framework of the Quaternary, focusing
on how sites are put in a chronological succession (section 2). In
section 3 we survey the biostratigraphical position of important
mammalian assemblages (from both archaeological and non-archaeological
sites), while section 4 reviews early sites in central and northwestern
Europe. We then turn to evidence from other parts of Europe, and close
with brief discussion of the implications.
2 The earliest occupation of Europe: artefacts and chronology
2.1 Evaluating the artefactual character of assemblages
One century ago, Palaeolithic archaeologists were involved in a
fierce debate over the alleged existence of Tertiary humans in Europe.
Eolithophiles, both on the continent and in Britain, presented thousands
of flints from Tertiary deposits, that in their opinion were humanly
worked implements. The long lasting debate over the character of
'eoliths' produced a vast literature on the subject,
summarized in popular handbooks from those days, like Sollas'
Ancient hunters and their modern representatives (1911),
Obermaier's Der Mensch der Vorzeit (1912) and Boule's Les
Hommes Fossiles (1921). Very detailed field observations and experiments
created a vast body of knowledge concerning the variety of artefact-like
forms produced by various natural processes.
The crux of the matter is elegantly summarized by Warren (1920: 250):
What is important . . . is the fact that such phenomena as the
flaking of flints and occasional bulbs and also edge-knapping are
produced by causes entirely apart from direct human effort. The likeness
between the flaking produced by Nature and that produced by human
agencies is sufficient to shift any burden of proof upon those who
maintain the human origin of the stones; and this must not be done by a
careful selection of picked specimens, but by a survey of the whole
group.
The artefactual nature of 'primitive' assemblages has been
an omnipresent issue ever since. In 1958 for instance, J. Desmond
Clark's study of natural fractures of pebbles showed very
convincingly (in the African context of 'Kafuan' industries in
river valleys) that nature can make 'pebble tools': they are
produced by a sharp 'follow through' blow, very unlikely under
water, but possibly the result of a rock falling from above on to a
wedged pebble (Clark 1958). These fractures can simulate artificial
fracture to such a remarkable degree that these specimens would not be
out of place in any 'Pebble Culture' context. His studies once
again stressed that one cannot build a strong argument for early
occupation on the basis of pieces with only a few negatives, selected
out of river-laid deposits. In fact, any analysis of early sites must
take into account the whole range of natural conditions at the site that
could produce artefact-like forms, as well as the geological setting of
the find spot.
It is for these reasons that for instance Tuffreau (1987) does not
accept the Ferme de Grace (Somme) terrace material as evidence for Early
Pleistocene occupation of northern France (contra Bourdier et al. 1974)
or that Santonja & Villa (1990) consider isolated pieces collected
from Iberian river terraces as too rare and undiagnostic to prove human
settlement in the Early Pleistocene.
In section 3 we evaluate some important early sites by the issues in
the eolith debate. It is of course necessary to have a good knowledge of
the assemblages and their context, either by a detailed site-publication
or by first-hand knowledge. Unfortunately, only a small number of
'early' sites have been published in such a detail that
evaluation of interpretations concerning the artefactual character of
'primitive' assemblages is possible. We start our review,
therefore, with the evidence from central and northwestern Europe, where
we have a first-hand knowledge of the relevant assemblages. The findings
from that area are confronted with those from other areas in section 5.
2.2 The chronological framework
The classical subdivision of the Pleistocene is by the
glacial-interglacial scheme, based on the extensions of glaciers in the
Alpine area and northern Europe. Four different extensions were recorded
in the Alpine area (Gunz, Mindel, Riss and Wurm) and in northern Europe
only three (Elster, Saale and Weichsel). Glacigenic deposits were linked
with cold intervals in which ice-sheets formed, separated from each
other by warm-temperate intervals. Detailed investigations of
pollen-bearing deposits in northwestern Europe yielded a rather complete
record of the complex history of the vegetation there. Palaeobotanical
data was transformed into palaeoclimatic information, making a
terrestrial chronostratigraphical subdivision of the Pleistocene (cf.
Zagwijn 1985; see FIGURE 1), a scheme that has been the standard for
northwestern Europe. The presence of well dated biostratigraphical
marker species in the type area of the standard division offers the
possibility to correlate sites from other areas to this subdivision.
Preliminary results of recent investigations in an open lignite mine
at Schoningen near Helmstedt (Germany) and in the Don Basin (Russia)
indicate, however, that the FIGURE 1 subdivision is incomplete. The
Pleistocene sediments exposed in the Schoningen quarry date from the
Elsterian to the Holocene and are rich in palaeobotanical, malacological
and palaeontological information (cf. Urban et al. 1991; Thieme et al.
1993). Studies of the Middle Pleistocene sequence indicate that --
instead of two as in FIGURE 1 -- there were at least three phases with a
distinct, well developed interglacial vegetation between the Elsterian
and the Saalian till.
Long sequences in the Don basin show at least five
glacial-interglacial cycles in the timespan between the Brunhes/Matuyama
boundary and the Oka (=Elsterian) glaciation (Kasansteva 1987).
Correlation between the Don Basin and northwestern Europe, mainly on the
base of mammal fauna associations, indicates that the northwestern
standard subdivision is incomplete for the lower part of the Middle
Pleistocene, i.e. in the first half of the 'Cromerian
Complex'. The incompleteness of this continental subdivision is
also apparent when comparing it with the oxygen isotope record, which
counts 9 interglacial and 9 glacial phases within the Brunhes Epoch.
The oxygen isotope record, the most detailed subdivision of the
Quaternary, is regarded as the timescale one should try to refer to. It
is a global record, reflecting changes in the total amount of ice on
land the world over, as there is little variation among cores taken from
different areas. It is also a rather continuous record, providing a
complete survey of the entire Quaternary. And it is a kind of
'Esperanto' record, easy to 'understand' for workers
from various parts of the world, not bothered by the details and
intricacies of the various regional subdivisions such as the
northwestern one mentioned above. This 'user-friendliness' is
certainly a very important factor in the increased usage of the deep-sea
record for correlation-purposes. We must, however, not forget that
correlation to the isotope stages is often mainly based on very simple
'counting' procedures, on the results of 'absolute'
dating methods and on (often implicit) assumptions, for example that the
maximum inland-ice extension corresponds to the highest [O.sup.18]
values. Unfortunately, terrestrial sections are dominated by gaps.
Absolute dates, in many cases contradictory and inaccurate, should not
be the only basis for a chronological correlation. Using the maximum ice
extension for land-sea correlations poses problems as soon as one
exchanges the narrow 'national' perspective for a broader
'European' one: the southernmost extension in Great Britain was the Anglian (= Elsterian), in the Netherlands it was the Saalian
ice-cap and in the Don Basin it was the Don glaciation! These problems
can lead to different correlations between the continental subdivision
and the oxygen isotope record.
Although not denying the enormous advantages of the deep-sea record
over the continental divisions, we prefer the continental subdivision of
the Quaternary as the basic framework for terrestrial correlation over
the oxygen isotope record, as long as there are no reliable correlation
methods (in other words: as long as the absolute dating methods are
contradictory and inaccurate). Uncritical use of the deep sea stages
creates a pseudo-certainty that hides the basic stratigraphical problems
inherent in all kinds of terrestrial correlations.
3 The chronology of Quaternary mammalian fossil assemblages
The use of palaeobotanical evidence for long-distance correlation to
the terrestrial subdivisions is hampered by the absence of evolutionary
trends in plants and by the inter-regional variations in characters of
vegetation. Mammalian fossils are alternative important biostratigraphic
indicators. Their use in dating and correlating deposits is based on the
fact that most of the mammals have an extensive distribution area and
that a number show a rapid evolution and/or migratory shifts within the
Quaternary (cf. Lister 1992). The composition of the mammalian fauna has
changed relatively fast during the Quaternary due to processes of
evolution, extinction and migration of species; a number of mammal
biozonations has been established by different authors. Some of these
are based on the smaller mammal fauna, others on the larger or on both.
Many palaeontologists work with the generally accepted
biostratigraphical subdivision of the Quaternary based on the
Arvicolidae succession, as proposed by Fejfar & Heinrich (1981, in
fact a modification of the Hungarian smaller mammal zonation established
by Kretzoi (see e.g. Kretzoi 1965; Kretzoi & Pecsi 1979; Van der
Meulen 1973)). Fejfar & Heinrich (1981) established three well
defined biozones (stages in their terminology) for the Pleistocene:
Villanyian, Biharian and Toringian. A biozonation on the basis of
changes in the larger mammal fauna was constructed by Italian
palaeontologists (Azzaroli et al. 1988). Their subdivision of
Villafranchian and Galerian faunas is used in large parts of Europe and
Asia despite the fact that the boundary between both biozones is poorly
defined.
3.1 The smaller mammals: Biharian-Toringian
Biharian faunas differ from the preceding Villanyian ones by the
occurrence of Microtus. The Villanyian faunas are recognized by the
dominance of Mimomys, the Biharian faunas by the co-occurrence of
Microtus and Mimomys and the Toringian 'Stage' by
Arvicola-Microtus assemblages. The Biharian Stage is divided into two
substages: the Early Biharian with Microtus (Allophaiomys) and the Late
Biharian with Microtus (Microtus).
The transition from the Villanyian to the Biharian in the Early
Pleistocene corresponds more or less with the Tiglian/Eburonian
transition. Faunas such as Tegelen (the Netherlands) belong to the
Villanyian, while the Early Biharian comprises faunas such as Le
Vallonet (France), Monte Peglia (Italy) and Betfia 2 (Romania).
The transition of Microtus (Allophaiomys) to Microtus (Microtus),
marking the transition from the Early to the Late Biharian, dates to the
early part of the Bavelian complex, roughly correlated to the Jaramillo.
Faunas such as West Runton, Stranska Skala, Prezletice (Czechia),
Tarko (Layer 16) (Hungary), Ilynka I-II and Ilynka IV (Russia) belong to
the Late Biharian. The genus Mimomys is represented by only one species,
the large Mimomys savini, in most of the late Biharian faunas. A second
Mimomys, a smaller form often referred to Mimomys (Cseria) pusillus,
occurs in some faunas. The Late Biharian covers the later part of the
Bavelian complex and most of the Cromerian complex, a time-span with at
least five glacial/interglacial cycles as we know from the Don Basin
sequence (Kasantseva 1987). The faunas with two Mimomys species date
from the earlier part of that time-span, the faunas with only Mimomys
savini from the later part.
A very important stratigraphical marker is the transition of Mimomys
savini to Arvicola terrestris, which corresponds to the
Biharian-Toringian boundary, in the second half of the Cromerian complex
(van Kolfschoten 1990; Von Koenigswald & van Kolfschoten in press).
Since the most primitive representative of the genus Arvicola, Arvicola
terrestris cantiana (often cited as e.g. Arvicola cantiana or Arvicola
mosbachensis), is known in northwestern Europe from Cromerian
Interglacial IV deposits (van Kolfschoten 1990), the transition took
place before Interglacial IV of the Cromerian Complex. Arvicola appears
for the first time in the Karlich section in the fauna from Karlich G.
The heavy-mineral association of the Karlich G deposits and the mammal
fauna indicate a Cromerian Interglacial III or a (beginning of)
Interglacial IV age (van Kolfschoten & Turner in press; Von
Koenigswald & van Kolfschoten in press). The Mimomys-Arvicola
transition has been documented in western (Chaline 1986), central
(Fejfar & Heinrich 1981) and eastern Europe (Terzea in press). In
northwestern Europe the transition took place in the second half of the
Cromerian Complex. This seems to have been the case in other areas too,
as for instance shown by the occurrence of Arvicola terrestris before
the Elsterian in Central Europe (Terzea in press) and the occurrence of
very advanced Mimomys savini in faunas from the Don Basin, dated to the
second interglacial before the Oka-Elsterian glaciation (Kasansteva
1987; van Kolfschoten in prep.). It is to be expected that there was an
asynchronicity within the regional transition from Mimomys to Arvicola,
but such transgressions fall outside the chronological resolution of our
present dating methods for this time-range.
A problem in this respect is the age of the Arvicola fauna from
Isernia (Italy), supposed to be late Early Pleistocene on the basis of
radiometric dates for crystals from the site matrix and some
palaeomagnetic data (Coltorti et al. 1982; McPherron & Schmidt
1983). Isernia has yielded fossil remains of Arvicola terrestris
cantiana (assigned to the junior synonym Arvicola mosbachensis by Sala
1983; Coltorti et al. 1982). A study of the material, including that
sampled in the period after 1982, allowed the second author to
characterize the finds of Isernia as a primitive population of the genus
Arvicola. Only 80% of the molars (only a few of them are juvenile) are
rootless, whereas 20% show indications for root formation but are still
rootless. The fauna with Arvicola, Elephas (P.) antiquus, Stephanorhinus
hundsheimensis and without Mimomys savini, Mimomys pusillus and Microtus
(Allophaiomys) sp. suggests a Middle Pleistocene age, as it is
comparable to central European faunas as Mosbach and Mauer (cf. Sala
& Fortelius 1993). One could accept a late Early Pleistocene age for
Isernia only by suggesting an earlier occurrence of Arvicola in Italy,
in a more or less isolated area of Europe. This is not a plausible
argument, however, as there are no indications of a barrier isolating
the mammalian faunas in Italy from those of central and western Europe during the Pleistocene. On the contrary, the abundant similarities in
Early, Middle and Late Pleistocene faunas of Italy and eastern, central
and western Europe show a general and almost continuous faunal exchange
between these areas during the Quaternary (Von Koenigswald & van
Kolfschoten in press). Therefore we seriously question the
palaeomagnetic and radiometric dates for the Isernia site, and do not
believe that Isernia is as old as 700,000 years BP.
Toringian faunas can be divided into two groups: an older one with
Arvicola terrestris cantiana co-occurs with so-called relict species
(such as Talpa minor, Trogontherium cuvieri) and a younger group with
Arvicola terrestris ssp. A and B, co-occurs with a modern smaller mammal
fauna (see van Kolfschoten 1990). The first group comprises faunas such
as Miesenheim I, Karlich G, Mauer (Germany), Boxgrove,
Westbury-sub-Mendip (Great Britain), Sprimont (Belle Roche) (Belgium),
Tarko (Hungary) with Arvicola terrestris cantiana together with Sorex
(Drepanosorex) sp. and Pliomys episcopalis and a number of faunas e.g.
Swanscombe (Great Britain), Bilzingsleben (Germany) younger in age and
without Sorex (Drepanosorex) and Pliomys episcopalis.
Since the early Saalian, thinning of the convex sides of the dentine triangles has resulted in changes in the relative thickness of the
enamel band of the Arvicola molars. This development can be used for
stratigraphical correlations of younger, i.e.
post-'Holsteinian' faunas, such as those from Caune de
l'Arago at Tautavel (Desclaux 1992a; 1992b), Maastricht-Belvedere
and Weimar-Ehringsdorf (cf. van Kolfschoten 1990).
3.2 The larger mammals: Villafranchian-Galerian
The widely used Italian biochronology, with a subdivision in
Villafranchian and Galerian faunas, is mainly based on changes in the
larger mammal fauna. The Villafranchian, starting about 3 million years
ago, covers part of the Pliocene and the Early Pleistocene. It has been
sub-divided into an early, a middle and a late phase, a subdivision
refined by Azzaroli (1977), who divided the Villafranchian faunas into
six more or less well-defined faunal units. The beginning of the
Villafranchian itself, of some of its units and its end are
characterized by pronounced dispersal events (Azzaroli et al. 1988; Sala
et al. 1992). Azzaroli et al. (1988) state that the
Villafranchian-Galerian transition (the end-Villafranchian event,
1.0-0.9 million years ago) saw a complete faunal turnover, with massive
extinctions and new, previously unknown adaptations. Late Villafranchian
taxa such as Eucladoceros, Dama nestii, Leptobos etruscus, Sus strozzii
and Archidiskodon meridionalis became extinct, whereas many taxa
(Megaceros, Soergelia sp., Praeovibos priscus, Bison schoetensacki,
Equus sussen-bornensis, Ursus deningeri) appear during the Early
Galerian.
The transition of the late Villafranchian to the Galerian did not
take place at once; according to Azzaroli et al. (1988), the
transitional phase was of (geologically) short duration because only a
few sites have 'naturally mixed' assemblages -- an assumption
partially based on the inferred Early Pleistocene age of Isernia. They
assign a late Matuyama age to the Isernia fauna, and hence infer that
faunas from normally magnetized deposits (such as the faunas from West
Runton and Voigtstedt) have to be correlated with the Jaramillo event.
In such a scenario the Villafranchian/Galerian faunal shift indeed seems
both very pronounced and relatively abrupt. In our opinion the faunas
from Isernia, West Runton and Voigtstedt are of Middle Pleistocene age,
which means that the faunal turn-over could have taken place more
gradually. For us the 'faunal watershed' is simply the result
of a giant temporal collapse, caused by an accumulation of correlation
errors.
This interpretation is confirmed by the fauna from Venta Micena,
dated at around 1.2 million years ago yet already containing several
Galerian immigrants (Megaloceros, Praeovibos, Soergelia and Bison)
(Agusti et al. 1987). The end-Villafranchian 'event' in the
sense of e.g. Azzaroli et al. (1988) therefore probably has a long
stratigraphical range, which necessitates a re-definition of the late
Villafranchian-Galerian boundary. At the current state of knowledge the
terms late Villafranchian or Galerian are of little biostratigraphical
value.
4 The earliest occupation of central and northwestern Europe
4.1 The Early Pleistocene
The pseudo-artefact problem is especially apparent in central
European sites where (amateur) archaeologists sampled huge amounts of
gravels and came up with primitive looking 'choppers' and
'chopping-tools'. A good example is the Beroun site, near
Prague (Fridrich 1991), where about 80 artefacts were collected from the
top of Early Pleistocene river gravels, exposed over an area of about
2000 sq. m. Two overlying levels yielded 10 more 'items of
industry'. The 80 rolled 'artefacts', mostly
'side-choppers' with only a few negatives, were collected from
the gravel surface 'after rain'. According to Fridrich (1991:
111), the assemblage 'includes choppers, bifaces, proto-bifaces,
picks, cleavers, polyhedrons, subspheroids, representing Acheulean s.I.,
comparable to the African finds'. The finds, both those published
and those displayed in the Prague National Museum, are clearly in the
range of what can be collected from natural gravel deposits; they are
not acceptable evidence of Early Pleistocene occupation (see Kozlowski
1991 for a comparable interpretation).
The same applies to the Musov and Ivan assemblages, described by
Valoch (1991). Both sites, approximately 40 km south of Brno, were
visited by an amateur archaeologist, who collected hundreds of
'choppers' and 'chopping-tools' from re-worked
Miocene deposits, present on top of Early or early Middle Pleistocene
deposits. As in Beroun, we are dealing with a selection from thousands
and thousands of non-modified pebbles. The 'artefacts' have in
general only a few irregular negatives, and almost all
'chopping-tools' display completely blunted 'working
edges'.
Comparable arguments apply to other Early Pleistocene sites in
Moravia (Brno-Cernovice, with one good flake though, not recovered in
situ, and Brno-Cernovice Kopec). A polyhedron from Mladec cave, found in
a calcite layer covering the Early Pleistocene sediments there, has no
chronological context.
Early Pleistocene artefacts from the river deposits exposed in the
Karlich section (Karlich A) were found and published by Wurges (1986).
Three 'pebble tools' were flaked on one surface only. The
'best' piece is a pebble, broken along a quartz vein, with two
negatives. The pieces fall in the range of naturally produced
'artefacts' (cf. Clark 1958) and they were not recovered in a
controlled situation; at best they are to be treated as typical
incertofacts, a category of pieces of which the artificial character can
neither be established with certainty nor excluded. The same applies to
the trachytic tuff core from Karlich Ba, recovered outside
stratigraphical context (Vollbrecht 1992).
4.2 The Middle Pleistocene
Most archaeology textbooks mention the Czech site of Prezletice as
one of the earliest sites in Europe. Palaeomagnetic and faunal studies
(a fauna with Mimomys) have placed it in the beginning of the Middle
Pleistocene. The find of what was once thought to be a human molar (now
an Ursus sp. molar, see Fridrich 1989: 29) initiated archaeological
excavations (1969-1985) that focussed on sediments deposited near an
ancient lake at the foot of a lydite massif. It yielded 4 horizons
bearing 'artefacts' produced out of locally occurring lydite
debris. Fridrich (1989: passim) himself stressed that it was very
difficult to differentiate between 'flaking and natural fracturing
of raw material in lydite debris. . . . There is complete lack of flakes
or, on the contrary, of primitive cores . . . treatment of raw material,
manufacturing of half-products and their waste fracturing occurred along
hidden cleavages in raw material. There are not typical traces after
working, namely bulbs, therefore the possibility to recognize and
differentiate between artificial working and natural fracturing is
extremely low' (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the drawings in
Fridrich (1989) display many negatives of flaking and retouch on the
'proto-bifaces', 'picks' and other artefacts
recognized among the lydite debris, but there is a big discrepancy
between the drawings and the photos of the objects. Likewise, the pieces
on display in the Prague National Museum in our opinion do not show any
convincing traces of human interference.
The site of Stranska skala, near Brno, yielded a Late Biharian fauna
comparable to Prezletice. In 1968 Valoch described some 'flakes of
hornstone suggestive of human workmanship' recovered from early
Middle Pleistocene scree-deposits in the 1910-1945 excavations. He
thought the site was problematic because 'Weathered nodules, often
naturally cracked and broken, occur in the debris in considerable
quantity, making it difficult to identify those chips that could have
been flaked and utilized by man' (Musil & Valoch 1968: 538;
also Valoch 1972). Since then new palaeontological fieldwork has yielded
more finds, which led Valoch to give up his doubts about the artificial
character of the stone assemblage selected from the slope deposits and
from within two small caves in the Stranska skala exposure (Valoch
1987). Three dozen artefacts have been identified by him. These
hornstone fragments display no clear traces of human workmanship: there
are virtually no bulbs (only three observed), no clear negatives or
ripples. While visiting the site with Dr Valoch the first author could
pick up hornstone fragments from the scree-section, which is full of
hornstone debris; one wonders what the ratio between
'discarded' and 'accepted' pieces within this
deposit actually was.
On these grounds, arguments concerning context and attributes of the
finds, the site cannot be considered as proof for an early Middle
Pleistocene occupation of Moravia. We support Valoch's earlier
doubts concerning the artefactual character of the assemblage.
The first good evidence from this part of central Europe comes from
Sedlesovice near Znojmo, where a quartz artefact was discovered in a
loess profile, in the fossil soil PK VI ('Holstein'; see
Valoch 1984). The first finds from Poland (Trzebnica) are from around
this time horizon too (Burdukiewicz & Winnicki 1988; 1989; also
Kozlowski 1992).
For the western part of central Europe, Wurges (1986) claims earlier
finds from the top of the Karlich Mosel gravels (Karlich Bb). Over an
area of 40 x 40 m Wurges collected a set of 8 quartzite pieces, some
from the top of the gravel deposits, some from the base of the gravels,
having slid downslope. Some of the pieces are heavily rounded, others
less so. It took Wurges more than one year to assemble this set, very
clearly a selection of pieces, whose number is infinitesimally small
compared to the whole. The 'primitive' morphology of the
pieces and their context lead us to doubt the artefactual character of
these, and to interpret them in the same way as Tuffreau (1987) did with
Ferme de Grace material.
In our opinion western central Europe has its earliest solid evidence
for human occupation around the Cromer IV interglacial (Oxygen Isotope
Stage 11 to 13? (respectively 362,000-423,000 and 478,000-524,000 years
BP)), in the form of the finds from Karlich G, the primary-context
Miesenheim I site and the Mauer mandible, all associated with Arvicola
terrestris cantiana faunas. From that time-period onwards there are more
primary context sites in central Europe, both from temperate and from
colder, dryer settings (Roebroeks et al. 1992; Gamble 1993).
In the northwest region, the earliest solid traces of occupation are
more or less contemporaneous with the Miesenheim I site, for example the
well-preserved find scatters at Boxgrove in southern England (Roberts
1986; 1990) and the earliest sites in the Somme valley of northern
France (Tuffreau 1987). The Boxgrove site is tentatively correlated to
Oxygen Isotope Stage 13.
Independent of their correlations to the deep-sea record, the
earliest sites from both central and northwest Europe fall in the
Arvicola terrestris cantiana range. From that period onwards, there is a
large number of well-documented primary context sites in the
northwest-central region, with conjoining knapping debris preserved in
fine-grained fluvial and aeolian deposits (cf. Roebroeks et al. 1992).
5 Other regions, comparable results?
Like those in the northern regions, Iberian river terraces have
yielded isolated pieces, whose human manufacture or precise age have
been doubted by various researchers (Raposo 1985; Santonja & Villa
1990), who place the oldest sites from Iberia at the beginning of the
Middle Pleistocene, though such traces are very rare. Some of the best
sites are in the Guadix-Baza depression (Granada), famous for its rich
Early Pleistocene mammalian faunas. The oldest site, Cullar de Baza, has
yielded only a few pieces (six flakes and two choppers), in association
with a Middle Pleistocene fauna. The faunal list varies from author to
author (cf. Santonja 1992: 57); on biostratigraphical grounds the site
is very probably contemporaneous with the earliest sites from the
northwest-central region. If the five artefacts recently reported from
Atapuerca TD4 (Carbonell & Rodriguez 1994) indeed are man-made
objects, they would be older than the other archaeological sites
reviewed so far, as they are associated with a Mimomys fauna (Gil &
Sese 1991). The handaxes reported from Atapuerca TD6 are from a later
period, when Pliomys episcopalis disappears (Aguirre 1991), possibly
Stage 13, according to the excavators (Carbonell & Rodriguez 1994).
Italy's settlement history (cf. Mussi 1992) shows no unambiguous
indications for an Early Pleistocene occupation. A number of the
'old' Italian sites are surface sites, where a
'primitive' morphology of artefacts has led some
archaeologists to infer a high age. In view of those correlation
problems, the site of Monte Poggiolo does not provide very firm evidence
for Early Pleistocene occupation, though the preliminary results of the
palaeomagnetic studies indicate that it deserves our attention as a
possible candidate (Gagnepain et al. 1992). All unquestionable
archaeological sites with solid dating evidence date from well into the
Middle Pleistocene, and those with abundant faunal remains are more or
less comparable in age to the Boxgrove and Miesenheim I sites in the
north: Fontana Ranuccio (with hominid remains), Visogliano (human
fossils too) and probably also Venosa-Loreto. As already explained, in
our opinion, Isernia falls into this time range too.
In Croatia, the bone breccia of the Sandalja I cave yielded an
incisor, once considered to be a hominid fossil (Malez 1976 vs. Cook et
al. 1982) and one small and primitive 'chopper', a single find
too undiagnostic to provide a firm ground for Early Pleistocene
occupation of former Yugoslavia.
So while the regions discussed as yet have not yielded solid proof of
human occupation prior to the Middle Pleistocene, there are some sites
in southern France that seem to be older: a group of sites in the Massif
Central, and the famous cave-site of Le Vallonet.
The Massif Central has a large number of sites with rich Early
Pleistocene faunas, recovered in a good stratigraphical context. The
stone assemblages collected from some of these sites (cf. Bonifay 1991)
consist in general of small series, selected out of natural pieces
occurring in often coarse-grained deposits. The short communications on
these assemblages do not deal with the problems of differentiating
between natural and humanly modified pieces. In many ways an exception
is the Chilhac III site, excavated by Chavaillon (1991; also Guth &
Chavaillon 1985) in order to test Guth's earlier assessments of the
site. Among the split pebbles and rocks in the Chilhac III deposits,
Chavaillon could identify 46 indisputable artefacts. The age of these
artefacts is uncertain for the time being, for reasons elaborated by
Chavaillon (1991). In his words 'Tout est possible pour Chilhac
III' (1991: 87).
Another well-known Massif Central site is Soleilhac. Unfortunately
its lithic assemblage has not been published in detail. According to
Bonifay, we are dealing with a small assemblage of primitive technology.
The quartz pebbles have been more 'shattered'
('brises') than flaked, whereas the majority of the
'objets de grande taille en basalte' have been made out of
natural fragments (Bonifay 1987: 13). From the description, it is clear
that the excavators selected basalt objects (with
'rostrocarinate' forms) out of other non-modified basalt
fragments. More important is that the Soleilhac fauna (with Arvicola,
Elephas (P.) antiquus and Hippopotamus: Bonifay 1991) could fit very
well into the late Cromerian faunas mentioned above. Awaiting the
results of further study of the chronology of the site and detailed
publication of the stone finds, we see no good reason to think Soleilhac
provides an Early or early Middle Pleistocene hominid occupation.
Le Vallonet has been well published, in a way that allows a detailed
evaluation of the artefacts. The cave has yielded a rich fauna (with
Microtus [Allophaiomys] pliocaenicus) and a small lithic assemblage,
recovered from TABULAR DATA OMITTED sediments of 'Jaramillo'
age (age assessments by means of biostratigraphy, absolute dating (ESR)
and palaeomagnetic studies (see various contributions in
L'Anthropologie 92 (1988); but also Bonifay 1991: 74-5). The lithic
assemblage comes from stratigraphic Unit III (layers B1, B2, C), loamy
sands with many angular rocks and pebbles. These sediments are to a
large extent re-worked from the Roquebrune Miocene conglomerate deposits
present above the cave. The sand and rock/pebble fraction flowed into
the Vallonet cave through chimneys and fissures. After Unit III was
formed, the sediments were subjected to intensive geochemical
weathering, leading to all kinds of 'deformation' of the rocks
and pebbles in the matrix: 'Les cailloux et les galets de ces
niveaux sont souvent craqueles avec deplacements de fragments' (De
Lumley 1988: 416). Excavations in the stony deposits yielded in total 70
pieces from a 'fairly underdeveloped stone tool industry'.
Fifty-nine of these are interpreted as intentionally modified. Virtually
all artefacts were made from limestone pebbles from the Roquebrune
Miocene conglomerate. The artefacts consist primarily of flaked pebbles,
among which 'percussion tools', 'pebbles with a single
convex chip' are the most common (13 examples). Well represented
are pebbles 'with a single concave chip' (primary choppers, 8
examples), but these are badly fragmented. Pebble tools (choppers,
chopping-tools and atypical chopping-tools) are present (10 examples),
though not standardized and mostly of mediocre quality. The dorsal
surface of half of the 26 flakes consists of 100% cortex, only 5 flakes
have no cortex at all. The majority of the flakes have no butt or a
'reduced' one.
The Le Vallonet limestone pieces, partially decarbonated, are
occasionally extremely fragile. Some of the rocks and pebbles were
fractured, 'craqueles' by chemical weathering. The
non-modified as well as the flaked pebbles and rocks in the Unit III
matrix display several kinds of surface modifications, with ridges and
protruding parts smoothed, or displaying a glossy surface polish. This
applies to about 60% of the natural stones in the matrix. Comparable
phenomena are present on the 'flaked' pieces: 'Les pieces
de l'industrie lithique decouvertes dans le remplissage du
Pleistocene inferieur de l'ensemble III n'echappent pas a
cette regle generale: un important emousse adoucit parfois les aretes et
oblitere le modele des enlevements. La surface de ces pieces presente
souvent un lustrage caracteristique' (De Lumley et al. 1988: 505).
It is clear that the lithic assemblage from Le Vallonet is a
selection of 'primitive' pieces picked out from a matrix rich
in rocks and pebbles derived from Miocene deposits (see the photos of
the Unit III sediments in De Lumley et al. 1988: figures 1-7). Their
characteristics suggest that we are dealing with an assemblage that was
not modified by human agents, and instead displays all the
characteristics of a selection out of a natural deposit.
6 Implications
By our reading of the evidence, there is a difference between the
European 'archaeological' record from before the Arvicola
terrestris cantiana time-range (for convenience' sake here: from
about 500,000 years ago) and the later one (cf. TABLE 1; also Dennell
1983 for a comparable interpretation). Before 500,000, virtually all
finds come from a disturbed, coarse matrix, afterwards we have primary
context sites in fine-grained deposits. The assemblages dating from
before 500,000 are virtually all the result of selection of isolated
pieces from natural deposits, younger ones are often excavated from
knapping floors.
There are two basic ways to interpret these differences. The
pre-500,000 finds could reflect the sparse traces of intermittent
occupation of Europe, substantial colonization of Europe taking place
from about 500,000 onwards (cf. Turner 1992). Nevertheless, the
differences in geological context and recovery procedures between pre-
and post-500,000 sites are problems to be explained by those adhering to
this long chronology.
In view of the attributes of the 'artefacts' and contexts
of the pre-500,000 sites, we instead interpret these differences as no
undisputable proof for human occupation of Europe prior to about 500,000
years ago. The first primary context sites with good archaeological
evidence date from a later period within the Middle Pleistocene,
possibly from about Stage 13 onwards.
Our scenario has several advantages. A first one is that it is very
easy to falsify. The find of only one Early Pleistocene site of primary
context in Europe would disprove it, and one would have to conclude that
before about 500,000 occupation existed (but was largely intermittent).
New studies of some of the sites mentioned in our short survey could
lead to such a result.
A further advantage is that our short chronology is supported by a
body of data independent of arguments concerning stone tools: the
chronological distribution of human remains. The discrepancy between the
inferred high age of the earliest European artefacts and the relatively
recent date for the earliest European hominid fossils, the Mauer lower
jaw and the human remains from Fontana Ranuccio and (possibly)
Visogliano has been a conspicious problem in the search for the earliest
Europeans. From the 'Mauer' time period onwards we have Middle
Pleistocene human remains all over Europe: Arago, Atapuerca,
Biache-Saint-Vaast, Bilzingsleben, Cava Pompi, Castel di Guido, La
Chaise, Ehringsdorf, Fontana Ranuccio, Fontechevade, Grotte du Prince,
Lazaret, Mauer, Montmaurin, Orgnac III, Petralona, Pontnewydd,
Steinheim, Swanscombe, Venose, Vergranne, Vertesszollos and Visogliano,
to mention them in alphabetical order (cf. Cook et al. 1982). The
recently discovered tibia from Boxgrove, a site with one of the earliest
Arvicola terrestris cantiana faunas, of course fits very well in our
scenario too (Roberts et al. 1994; see also Gamble 1994).
From the long period before the Arvicola terrestris cantiana range we
do not have a single (uncontested!) tooth yet, despite huge amounts of
other mammalian fossils. Absence of evidence is of course no evidence of
absence, and negative evidence has rarely proved durable in archaeology.
But absence of exposures of older deposits is not a good
counter-argument here. At a large number of palaeontological sites,
early Middle and/or Early Pleistocene faunas are recovered from
fine-grained deposits. Some of these have been under observation for
many decades or even centuries, yielding huge amounts of faunal remains:
for instance the Tegelen pits in the Netherlands, Untermassfeld,
Voigtstedt and Sussenborn in Germany, West Runton (England), Seneze
(France), Deutsch Altenburg in Austria and the Val d'Arno exposures
in Italy. Europe is without any doubt the most heavily researched part
of the Old World, with a high-quality record to which many hundreds of
workers have contributed over a period of one-and-a-half centuries.
In our scenario Europe is extremely 'marginal', late in
time as compared to for instance the Asian evidence as that stands now.
The human spread out of Africa went eastwards first, via Ubeidiya
(Israel) and Dmanisi (Georgia; see Dzaparidze et al. 1989), and hominids
were present in the eastern parts of Asia at the end of the Early
Pleistocene, at around 1,000,000 to 800,000 (Schick & Zhuan 1993;
even earlier, if one accepts the Swisher et al. (1994) dates). Europe
was occupied later. Soon after we see the first undisputable traces,
humans are virtually 'everywhere' in Europe (with as notable
and interesting exceptions the Russian plains and Scandinavia).
At issue is not only whether the first Europeans arrived much earlier
than 500,000. What, if any, ecological, climatical or social factors
were triggering the occupation at about 500,000, or, formulated in
another way, what kept hominids out of Europe before 500,000? Some
avenues worth exploring may be developments in the social domain, such
as the emergence of dispersed mating networks, neural developments
associated with brain expansion and differences in the character of the
Lower as opposed to the Middle Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycles
(cf. Zagwijn 1992; see also Gamble 1993).
In our scenario, the 500,000 'wave' represents the first
occupation, virtually synchronous throughout Europe south of the ice
sheets. In this view Europe does not seem to have presented big problems
for the first occupants, be it perhaps in the northern- and easternmost
parts. This image of a swift occupation can very well be the result of
the low chronological resolution of our dating methods for the Middle
Pleistocene (as compared to 14C, whose resolution allows our American
colleagues to infer that Palaeoindians colonized the entire New World in
just a few centuries: Meltzer 1993). These analogues yield fascinating
thought-experiments that have the additional advantage of moving our
field into the domain of other disciplines studying the migration of
mammal species (cf. Gamble 1993).
While those adhering to (various forms off a long chronology can make
the case for a very gradual adaptation by 'Out of Africans' to
the wide range of European habitats, our short chronology supports
another view, a rather fast (within the time resolution limits)
adaptation, once they are in this cul de sac of the Eurasian continent
that we call Europe. It is for such reasons that we need to discuss the
empirical values and implications of the various long and shorter
chronologies. We hope that our paper can contribute to such an
'updating' of the discussion on the first
'Europeans'.
Acknowledgements. A first version of this paper was written for a
European Science Foundation (ESF) Workshop on The Earliest Occupation of
Europe, held at Tautavel (France), November 1993, and hosted by H. De
Lumley. That meeting was organized by the ESF Network on The
Palaeolithic Occupation of Europe: G. Bosinski (chairman -- Neuwied,
Germany), W. Roebroeks (scientific secretary -- Leiden, The
Netherlands), C. Farizy (Paris, France), C. Gamble (Southampton, United
Kingdom), L. Larsson (Lund, Sweden), M. Mussi (Rome, Italy), N. Praslov
(St. Peterburg, Russia), L. Raposo (Lisbon, Portugal), M. Santonja
(Salamanca, Spain) and A. Tuffreau (Lille, France). The members of the
Network committee made valuable remarks on the content of our paper. We
are further very grateful to F.C. Howell (Berkeley), A. Turner
(Liverpool) and R. Dennell (Sheffield) for their detailed comments on an
earlier draft of the paper, while the first author wishes to acknowledge
his gratitude towards K. Valoch, for his hospitality during his visit to
Brno. The proceedings of the Tautavel meeting are being edited by the
present authors, in cooperation with G. Bosinski, and are scheduled to
appear in the course of 1994.
The research was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for
Scientific Research and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and
Sciences.
References
ACKERMAN, S. 1989. European prehistory gets even older, Science 246:
28-30.
AGUIRRE, E. 1991. Les premiers peuplements humains de la Peninsule
Iberique, in Bonifay & Vandermeersch (1991): 143-50.
AGUSTI, S. MOYA-SOLA & J. PONS-MOYA. 1987. La sucesion de
Mamiferos en el Pleistoceno inferior de Europa: proposicion de una nueva
escala bioestratigrafica, Paleontologia; Evolucio, Memoria Especial 1:
287-95.
AZZAROLI, A. 1977. The Villafranchian stage in Italy and the
Plio-Pleistocene boundary, Giornale di Geologia 41: 61-79.
AZZAROLI, A., C. DE GIULI, G. FICCARELLI & D. TORRE. 1988. Late
Pliocene to Mid-Pleistocene mammals in Eurasia: faunal succession and
dispersal events, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology. Palaeoecology 66:
77-100.
BONIFAY, E. 1987. Soleilhac 1987. Rapport de foullies. Marseille:
Laboratoire de Geologie du Quaternaire. 1991. Les premiers industries du
Sud-Est de la France et du Massif-Central, in Bonifay &
Vandermeersch (1991): 63-80.
BONIFAY, E. & B. VANDERMEERSCH (ed.). 1991. Les Premiers
Europeens. Paris: Editions du C.T.H.S.
BOULE, M. 1921. Les Hommes Fossiles. Elements de paleontologie
humaine. Paris: Masson.
BOURDIER, F., J. CHALINE, A.V. MUNAUT & J.J. PUISSEGUR. 1974. La
tres haute nappe alluviale de la Somme, Bulletin de l'Association
Francaise pour l'Etude du Quaternaire 11: 137-43.
BURDUKIEWICZ, J.M. & J. WINNICKI. 1988. Trzebnica -- Najstarsze
Slady Obecnosci Czlowieka na Ziemiach Polskich. Towarzystwo Milosnikow
Ziemi Trzebnickiej. 1989. Nowe Materialy Paleolitu Dolnego Z Trzebnicy,
Woj. Wroclaw, Silesia Antiqua 31: 9-17.
CARBONELL, E. & X.P. RODRIGUEZ. 1994. Early Middle Pleistocene
deposits and artefacts in the Gran Dolina site (TD4) of the 'Sierra
de Atapuerca' (Burgos, Spain), Journal of Human Evolution 26:
291-311.
CHALINE, J. 1986. Continental faunal units of the Plio-Pleistocene of
France, Memorie delia Societa Geologic Italiana 31: 175-83.
CHAMAGNE, B. 1988. Environnement geologique de la grotte du Vallonet
(Roquebrune-Cap-Martin), L'Anthropologie 92: 399-406.
CHAVAILLON, J. 1991. Les ensembles lithiques de Chilhac III (Haute
Loire): typologie, situation stratigraphique et analyse critique et
comparative, in Bonifay & Vandermeersch (1991): 81-91.
CLARK, J.D. 1958. The natural fracture of pebbles from the Batoka
Gorge. Northern Rhodesia, and its bearing on the Kafuan industries of
Africa, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 24: 64-77.
COLTORTI, M., M. CREMASCHI, M.C. DELITALA et al. 1981. Reversed
magnetic polarity at an early Lower Palaeolithic site in Central Italy,
Nature 300: 173-6.
COOK, J., C.B. STRINGER, A.P. CURRANT, H.P. SCHWARCZ & A .G.
WINTLE. 1982, A review of the chronology of the European Middle
Pleistocene hominid record, Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 25: 19-65.
DELSON, E. 1989. Oldest Eurasian stone tools, Nature 340: 96.
DENNELL, R. 1983. European economic prehistory. A new approach.
London: Academic Press.
DESCLAUX, E. 1992a. Les petits vertebres a la Canna de l'Arago
(Tautavel, Pyrenees Orientales). Paleontologic, paleoecologie,
taphonomie. These de Doctorat, Paris: M.N.H.N. 1992b. Los petits
vertebres de la Caune de l'Arago a Tautavel, Bulletin du Music
d'Anthropologie prehistorique de Monaco 35: 35-64.
DZAPARIDZE, V., G. BOSINSKI, T. BUGIANISVILI et al. 1989. Der
altpalaolithische Fundplatz Dmanisi in Georgien (Kaukasus), Jahrbuch des
Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz: 67-116.
FEJFAR, O. & W.D. HEINRICH. 1981. Zur biostratigraphischen
Abgrenzung und Gliederung des kontinentalen Quartars in Europa an Hand
von Arvicoliden (Rodentia, Mammalia), Ecolagae Geologicae Helveticae 74
(3): 997-1006.
FRIDRICH J. 1989. Prezletice: A lower Palaeolithic site in Central
Bohemia (Excavations 1969-1985). Prague: Museum Nationale Pragae. 1991.
The oldest Palaeolithic stone industry from the Beroun highway complex,
Antropozoikum 20: 111-28.
GAGNEPAIN, J., I. HEDLEY, J.-J. BAHAIN & J.-J. WAGNER. 1992.
Etude magnetostratigraphique du site de Ca'Belvedere di Monte
Poggiolo (Forli, Italie), et de son contexte stratigraphique. Premiers
resultats, in Peretto (1992): 319-35.
GAMBLE, C.S. 1993. Timewalkers. The Prehistory of Global
Colonization. Stroud (Gloucestershire): Alan Sutton. 1994. TIME FOR
BOXGROVE MAN, NATURE 369: 275-6.
GIL, E. & C. SESE. 1991. Middle Pleistocene small mammals from
Atapuerca (Burgas, Spain), in Durations et Characterizations des Milieux
Pleistocenes. Actes du Symposium 11 et 17 de la 11eme R.S.T. Clermond
Ferrand 1986. Cohiers du Quaternaire 16: 337-47.
GUTH, C. & J. CHAVAILLON, 1985, Decouverte, en 1984, de nouveaux
outils paleolithiques a Chilhac III, (Haute Loire), Bulletin de la
Societe Prehistorique Francaise 82: 56-64.
KASANSTEVA, N.E. 1987. Paleogeograficeskie uslovija obitanija
nizneplejstocenovyx faun melkix mlekopitajuscix bassejna srednego Dona.
Dissertation, University of Moscow, Moscow.
KOZLOWSKI, J.K. 1992. Lee premiers habitants de l'Europe
centrale et orientale, in Peretto (1992): 69-91.
KRETZOI, M. 1965. Die Nager und Lagomorphen von Voigtstedt in
Thuringen und ihre chronologische Aussage, Palaontologische Abhandlungen
2(3): 587-660.
KRETZOI, M. & M. PECSI. 1979. Pliocene and Pleistocene
development and chronology of the Pannonian Basin, Acta Geologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 22: 1-4, 3-33.
LISTER, A. 1992. Mammalian fossils and quaternary biostratigraphy,
Quaternary Science Reviews 11: 329-44.
LUMLEY, H. DE 1988. La stratigraphie du remplissage de la grotto du
Vallonet, L'Anthropologie 92: 407-28.
LUMLEY, H. DE, A. FOURNIER, J. KRZEPKOWSKA & A. ECHASSOUX. 1988.
L'industrie du Pleistocene inferieur de la grotto du Vallonet,
Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, Alpes-Maritimes, L'Anthropologie 92:
501-614.
LUMLEY, H. DE, A. FOURNIER, Y.C. PARK, Y. YOKOYAMA & A. DEMOUY.
1984. Stratigraphie du remplissage pleistocene moyen de la Caune de
l'Arago a Tautavel -- Etude de huit carottages effectues de 1081 a
1983. L'Anthropologie 88: 5-18.
MALEZ, M. 1976. Excavation of the Villafranchian site Sandalja I near
Pula (Yugoslavia), in: K. Valoch (ed.), Lee premieres industries do
l'Europe. IXe Congres UISPP. Collogue VIII: 104-23. Nice: UISPP.
MCPHERRON, A. & V. SCHMIDT. 1983. Paleomagnetic dating at Isernia
la Pineta, in C. Peretto, C. Terzani & M. Cremaschi (ed.), Isernia
la Pineta, un accampamento piu antico di 700,000 anni: 67-9. Bologna:
Calderini.
MELTZER, D.J. 1993. Pleistocene peopling of the Americas,
Evolutionary Anthropology 1: 157-69.
MUSIL, R. & K. VALOCH. 1968. Stranska skala. Its meaning for
Pleistocene Studies, Current Anthropology 9: 534-9.
MUSSI, M. 1992. Il Paleolitico e il Mesolitico in Italia. Bologna:
Stilus.
OBERMAIER, H. 1912. Der Mensch der Vorzeit. Berlin: Allgemeine
Verlags-Gesellschaft.
PERETTO, C. (ed.). 1992. I Primi Abitanti delia Valle Padana: Monte
Poggiolo Nel Quadro delle Conoscenze Europee. Milano: Jaca Book.
RAPOSO, L. 1985. Le Paleolithique inferieur archaique au Portugal.
Bilan des connaissances. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise
82(6): 173-80.
ROBERTS, M.B. 1986. Excavation of the Lower Palaeolithic site at
Amey's Eartham Pit, Boxgrove, West Sussex: A preliminary report,
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52: 215-45.
1990. 'Amey's Eartham Pit, Boxgrove', in C. Turner
(ed.), The Cromer Symposium Norwich 1990, SEQS: field excursion guide
book: 62-77. Cambridge: Quaternary Research Association.
ROBERTS, M.B., C.B. STRINGER & S.A. PARFITT. 1994. A hominid
tibia from Middle Pleistocene sediments at Boxgrove, UK. Nature 369:
311-13.
ROEBROEKS, W., N.J. CONARD & T. VAN KOLFSCHOTEN. 1992. Dense
forests, cold steppes and the Palaeolithic settlement of northern
Europe, Current Anthropology 33: 551-86.
ROLLAND, N. 1992. The Palaeolithic colonization of Europe: an
archaeological and biogeographic perspective, Trabajos de Prehistoria
49: 69-111.
SALA, B., F. MASINI. G. FICCARELLI, L. ROOK & D. TORRE. 1992.
Mammal dispersal events in the Middle and Late Pleistocene of Italy and
Western Europe, Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 153: 59-68.
SALA, B. & M. FORTELIUS. 1993. The rhinoceroses of Isernia La
Pineta (early Middle Pleistocene, Southern Italy), Palaeontographia
Italica 80: 157-74.
SANTONJA, M. 1992. La adaptacion al medio en el Paleolitico inferior
de la Peninsula iberica. Elementos para una reflexion, in A. Moure
Romanillo (ed.), Elefantes, ciervos y ovicaprinos: 37-75. Santander:
Universidad de Cantabria.
SANTONJA, M. & P. VILLA. 1990. The Lower Palaeolithic of Spain
and Portugal. Journal of World Prehistory 4: 45-94.
SCHICK, K.D. & D. ZHUAN. 1993. Early Paleolithic of China and
Eastern Asia, Evolutionary Anthropology 2: 22-35.
SOLLAS, W.J. 1911 (1924). Ancient Hunters and their Modern
Representatives. London: Macmillan. 2nd edn 1924.
SWISHER, C.C., G.H. CURTIS, T. JACOB, A.G. GETTY, A. SUPRIJO &
WIDIASMORO. 1994. Age of the earliest known hominids in Java, Indonesia,
Science 263: 1118-21.
TERZEA, E. In press. Mammalian events in the Quaternary of Romania
and correlations with climatic chronology of Western Europe, Acta
zoologica cracoviensia.
THIEME, H., D. MANIA, B. URBAN & T, VAN KOLFSCHOTEN. 1993.
Schoningen (Nordharzvorland). Eine altpalaolithische Fundstelle aus dem
mittleren Eiszeitalter, Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 23: 147-63.
THOUVENY, N. & E. BONIFAY. 1984. New chronological data on
European Plio-Pleistocene faunas and hominid occupation sites, Nature
308: 355-8.
TUFFREAU, A. 1987. Le Paleolithique inferieur et moyen du Nard de la
Prance (Nard Pas-de-Calais, Picardie) dans son cadre stratigraphique.
These Doctorat d'Etat Universite de Lille, Lille.
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.
VALOCH, K. 1972. Gab es eine altpalaolithische Besiedlung der
Stranska skala? in R. Musil (ed.), Stranska skala I 1910-1945: 199-204.
Brno: Moravske Museum. Anthropos 20 (N.S. 12). 1984. Early Palaeolithic
in Moravia, Czechoslovakia, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50:
63-9. 1987. The Early Palaeolithic Site Stranska Skala I near Brno
(Czechoslovakia), Anthropologie 25(2): 125-42. 1991. Les premiers
peuplements humains en Moravie (Tchecoslovaquie), in Bonifay &
Vandermeersch (1991): 189-94.
VAN DER MEULEN, A.J. 1973. Middle Pleistocene smaller mammals from
the Monte (Orvieto, Italy) with special reference to the phylogeny of
Microtus (Arvicolidae, Rodentia), Quaternaria 4(17): 1-444.
VAN KOLFSCHOTEN, T. 1990. The evolution of the mammal fauna in the
Netherlands and the middle Rhine Area (Western Germany) during the late
Middle Pleistocene, Mededelingen Rijks Geologische Dienst 43(3): 1-69.
1993. On the origin of the Middle Pleistocene larger voles, Quaternary
International 19: 47-50.
VAN KOLFSCHOTEN, T. & E. TURNER. In press. Early Middle
Pleistocene mammalian faunas from Karlich and Miesenheim I and their
biostratigraphical implications, Proceedings of the SEQS Cromer
Symposium 1990.
VOLBRECHT, J. 1992. Das Altpalaolithikum aus den unteren Schichten in
Karlich. Magisterarbeit, Universitat Koln, Koln.
VON KOENIGSWALD, W. & T. VAN KOLFSCHOTEN. In press. The
Mimomys-Arvicola boundary and the enamel thickness quotient (SDQ) of
Arvicola as stratigraphic markers in the Middle Pleistocene, Proceedings
of the SEQS Cromer symposium 1990.
WARREN, S.H. 1920. A Natural 'Eolith' Factory beneath the
Thanet Sand, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 76: 238-53.
WURGES, K. 1986. Artefakte aus den altesten Quartar-sedimenten
(Schichten A-C) der Tongrube Karlich, Kreis Mayen-Koblenz/Neuwieder
Becken, Archaologisches KorrespondenzbIatt 16: 1-6. 1991. Neue
altpalaolithische Funde aus der Tongrube Karlich, Kreis
Mayen-Koblenz/Neuwieder Becken, Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 21:
449-55.
ZAGWIJN, W.H. 1985. An outline of the Quaternary stratigraphy of the
Netherlands, Geologie en Mijnbouw 64: 17-24. 1992. The beginning of the
Ice Age in Europe and its major subdivisions, Quaternary Science Reviews
11: 583-91.