Acheulean Large Flake Technology in Campo De Calatrava (Ciudad Real, Spain)

ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 41/4 (2013) 2–10 E-mail: [email protected]

2

PALEOENVIRONMENT. THE STONE AGE A. Arroyo and I. de la Torre Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London, WC1H 0PY, United Kingdom Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

ACHEULEAN LARGE FLAKE TECHNOLOGY IN CAMPO DE CALATRAVA (CIUDAD REAL, SPAIN)

Acheulean assemblages with a preferential use of large Àakes for biface blanks are common in Africa as well as in other areas such as the Levant and India. At Campo de Calatrava (central Spain), Middle Pleistocene sites from river terrace contexts also contain bifaces made on large Àakes. To gain a detailed technological knowledge of these large tools, two open-air sites (Albalá and El Sotillo) are described and compared: Albalá represents an example of a cobble-based technology; at El Sotillo, the focus is on the production of large Àakes, similar to those documented in Africa, the Levant, and India. Keywords: Acheulean, large cutting tools, Middle Pleistocene, Campo de Calatrava, ɫentral Spain.

Introduction The production and use of large Àakes are documented from the earliest stage of the Acheulean complex such as West Turkana (Lepre et al., 2011), Konso (Beyene et al., 2013), Peninj (Isaac, 1969), Olduvai Bed II (Leakey, 1971) or Olorgesailie (Isaac, 1977), and non-African assemblages such as Gesher Benot Ya’aqov (Goren-Inbar, Saragusti, 1996), Atbarapur, and Morgaon (Gaillard et al., 2010). Large cutting tools (LCTs) on Àakes are not common among European Acheulean sites. In the particular case of Iberia, cobbles and blocks were usually used to produce bifaces. Examples for the use of such a technical option are found in the central area of Spain, at sites such as Pinedo (Querol, Santonja, 1979), Puente Pino (Rodriguez de Tembleque, 2004), and sites from the Jarama and Manzanares terraces. The same pattern is present in other regions of the Iberian Peninsula, for example, at

Torralba and Ambrona (Howell, Butzer, Aguirre, 1962; Freeman, Butzer, 1966; Santonja et al., 2005), GaleriaAtapuerca (Carbonell et al., 2001), and Gándaras de Budiño (Méndez, 2007). Bifaces on Àakes have also been noted in the Iberian Peninsula. For example, La Maya II assemblage is dominated by Acheulean flake technology (Santonja, Villa, 2006). Another important site is El Sartalejo, where large cores used for the production of large Àakes were documented (Santonja, Villa, 1990, 2006) together with numerous LCTs. This site has been used recently to suggest potential connections between the Acheulean technology of North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, based on the presence of the “entame core method” and large Àakes on both sides of the Strait of Gibraltar (Sharon, 2011). At Campo de Calatrava (central Spain), two assemblages can be considered part of that group of

© 2013, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2014.07.002

A. Arroyo and I. de la Torre / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 41/4 (2013) 2–10

sites in which intensive use of large Àakes is documented: El Sotillo (Ciudad Serrano et al., 1983) and Porzuna (Vallespí, Ciudad Serrano, Garcia Serrano, 1979). This paper presents a technological analysis of one of these assemblages, El Sotillo, and compares it to Albalá, a nearby Acheulean location also in Campo de Calatrava. The study aims to directly compare an assemblage dominated by large Àakes, El Sotillo, with the cobblebased bifaces from Albalá, and in doing so gain a better understanding of the production of LCTs during the Middle Pleistocene in Central Spain. Chronostratigraphic context Campo de Calatrava is in the centre of the Ciudad Real Province, in central Spain (Fig. 1). It borders the Montes de Toledo mountain system in the north, the Sierra Morena in the south, and the plain of La Mancha in the east. Geologically, the area is de¿ned by Paleozoic and volcanic relief and a system of Pleistocene Àuvial terraces along the principal rivers. Terrace formation is common along the Guadiana River and its tributaries (the Jabalón, Cigüela, Bullaque, and Záncara) that Àow through the Campo de Calatrava, especially the Guadiana and Jabalón. Terrace composition is primarily of quartzite, with lesser proportions of quartz, limestone, and slate (Portero et al., 1988). This hydrographic system includes various seasonal/permanent small lakes and wetlands. Plio-Pleistocene volcanic deposits, which form an important geological feature of Campo de Calatrava, include basalt and other volcanic rocks such as nephelinite present in marginal areas (Poblete Piedrabuena, 1997). The distribution of these rocks is associated with archaeological material; basalt was exploited for stone tool manufacture, as evidenced at El Chiquero, for example. However, quartzite was the most common raw material used in Campo de Calatrava during the Pleistocene. Fig. 1. Location and general view of Albalá and El Sotillo in Campo de Middle Pleistocene archaeological Calatrava (central Spain). evidence is found mainly along the Guadiana and Jabalón rivers, primarily in Àuvial terrace contexts. Surveys during the 1970s and the 1980s revealed Querol, 1983), and Porzuna (Vallespí, Ciudad Serrano, the existence of abundant Acheulean surface assemblages Garcia Serrano, 1979, 1985). such as El Sotillo (Ciudad Serrano et al., 1983), Albalá The present study focuses on the sites of Albalá and (Santonja, Querol, Peña, 1977), El Martinete (Santonja, El Sotillo, which are located in the centre of Campo de

3

4

A. Arroyo and I. de la Torre / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 41/4 (2013) 2–10

Calatrava and separated by a distance of 26 km (Fig. 1). Albalá is located in a Middle Pleistocene +6 m terrace on the left bank of the Guadiana River (Santonja, Querol, Peña, 1977). El Sotillo is in a Pleistocene alluvial fan deposit located in a valley incised by the Bullaque paleoriver (Portero et al., 1988). Some authors have used the correlation of the Guadiana and Jabalón river terraces to estimate a relative chronology for the numerous Acheulean localities (Santonja, 1996; Santonja, Pérez González, 2002, 2010), which are normally documented in the Middle Pleistocene +10/13 m and +8 m Guadiana and Jabalón terraces. López and his colleagues dated a number of terrace levels at Molino del Emperador, a locality with surface stone tools by the Guadiana River, not far from Albalá. The +13/16 m upper terrace has been dated by OSL to 153,867 ± 12,448 BP (López et al., 2005). However, we cannot extend this chronology to the Albalá site, as it is in the +6 m terrace. Further dates are necessary to re¿ne the chronology for the Acheulean in Campo de Calatrava, and at present, the sites can only be dated to an indeterminate part of the Middle Pleistocene. Materials and methods The Albalá and El Sotillo assemblages are currently housed at the Provincial Museum of Ciudad Real, where technological analysis of the assemblage was undertaken. In total, we had access to around 700 stone tools, from which the LCTs were selected for this paper. Following de¿nitions of LCTs by Kleindienst (1962) and Isaac (1977), the selected material was classi¿ed into different typological categories that include bifaces, cleavers, picks, and knives (Table 1). The term ‘indeterminate LCT’ is used in this study to identify tools with features that prevent their adscription to any other typological group. In the case of El Sotillo, most of LCTs are large flakes with slight secondary modification, while at Albalá they are pointed tools without consistent bifacial work. The technological analysis of the assemblages was based on concepts developed by Boëda and his collegues Table 1. Categories of large cutting tools Category

Albalá

El Sotillo

Number

%

Number

%

Bifaces

18

62.1

71

61.7

Cleavers

3

10.3

9

7.8

Knives

–

–

3

2.6

Picks

2

6.9

–

–

Indeterminate

6

20.7

32

27.8

Total

29

100

115

100

(Boëda, Geneste, Meigen, 1990), and terminology and classi¿cation used by de la Torre and Mora (2005). Both Albalá and El Sotillo assemblages are entirely on quartzite. Use of quartzite is quite common at Middle Pleistocene sites at Campo de Calatrava, and indeed use of non-Àint raw materials is common on Acheulean sites from La Mancha (Moloney, 1994; Moloney et al., 1996) such as El Martinete (Santonja, Querol, 1983), Porzuna (Vallespí, Ciudad Serrano, Garcia Serrano, 1979, 1985), Pinedo (Querol, Santonja, 1979), and Puente Pino (Rodríguez de Tembleque, 2004). Preferential use of quartzite in Campo de Calatrava is directly related to availability of, and easy access to quartzite, which normally appears as cobbles of different sizes that have been transported and deposited by river streams. Technological analysis El Sotillo assemblage. A group of 115 quartzite tools were classi¿ed as LCTs at El Sotillo. Bifaces predominate, followed by indeterminate LCTs, cleavers, and knives (Table 1) that share a common feature, i.e. the use of large Àakes as blanks. Morphometric analysis of LCTs (Table 2) indicates differences in size according to technological categories with the biface group having smaller dimensions. On the basis of length, two main groups of bifaces can be discerned: those with a maximum length less than 80 mm and those longer than 80 mm (Fig. 2). Among those > 80 mm (40 specimens), 47.5 % are on Àake blanks, with a preference for déjeté Àakes, followed by elongated Àakes. Façonnage is similar on both ventral and dorsal faces, with ranges of 9–16 extractions on the dorsal side and 9–13 scars on the ventral face. Some bifaces show more intense façonnage working, with > 21 scars (Table 3). In general, bifaces larger than 80 mm at El Sotillo indicate no attention to symmetry or volumetric management, and façonnage is focused only on obtaining a pointed shape by retouching the edges. In the case of bifaces that are smaller than 80 mm (31 specimens), 32.3 % are on Àake blanks, generally short, thick Àakes on which a pointed shape is achieved through retouch of the edges. Again, there is no volumetric management of the blank, although some examples (5 specimens) are flat and show intensive working of both ventral and dorsal faces. While it has been argued that these artifacts could be classified as scrapers with bifacial retouch (Ciudad Serrano et al., 1983), the present study supports that they can be considered as small bifaces. Indeterminate LCTs, knives, and cleavers show differences with respect to bifaces, as ventral faces usually lack any shaping. As with bifaces, LCTs, knives, and cleavers show a preferential use of large, thick side-struck Àakes as blanks and a number of déjeté Àakes.

A. Arroyo and I. de la Torre / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 41/4 (2013) 2–10

5

5 cm

0

Fig. 2. An example of size variability of bifaces from El Sotillo.

Table 2. Size (mm) and weight (g) of the main categories of large cutting tools Length Category

Number

Width

Standard deviation

Mean

Mean

Thickness

Standard deviation

Weight

Mean

Standard deviation

Mean

Standard deviation

8.66

50.72

9.54

565.556

213.110

Albalá Bifaces

18

141.11

24.26

77.89

Cleavers Picks

3

112.00

15.13

86.67

8.96

46.33

10.21

503.133

227.588

2

132.00

19.80

71.00

25.46

56.00

1.41

459.600

168.999

Indeterminate

6

141.17

19.41

82.50

12.14

51.50

9.44

574.333

121.924

El Sotillo Bifaces

71

90.69

25.07

57.75

11.19

30.06

7.23

173.380

124.002

Cleavers

9

147.11

24.65

93.33

14.27

44.11

8.87

668.267

290.918

Knives

3

141.33

8.33

85.67

9.24

41.67

9.61

485.500

174.763

Indeterminate

32

138.00

30.60

88.77

17.86

39.60

8.24

559.723

357.753

Table 3. Blank type and reduction intensity in the categories of large cutting tools Tools on cobble Tools on Àake Category

Number

Number

%

Number

%

Extractions on dorsal face 1–8

Extractions on ventral face

9–16

> 17

No extractions

1–8

9–16

> 17

No extractions

Albalá Bifaces

18

7

38.8

1

5.5

72.2

22.2

0

0

83.3

11.1

0

0

Cleavers

3

0

0

3

66.6

100

0

0

0

33.3

0

0

66.6

Picks

2

1

50.0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

Indeterminate

6

5

83.3

0

0

50.0

50.0

0

0

33.3

16.6

0

33.3

Bifaces (> 80 mm)

40

0

0

19

47.5

15.0

57.5

7.5

0

12.5

70.0

5.0

0

Bifaces (< 80 mm)

31

0

0

10

32.3

9.6

45.1

0

0

25.8

29.0

0

0

Cleavers

9

0

0

7

77.8

55.5

33.3

0

0

66.6

0

0

22.2

Knives

3

0

0

3

100

100

0

0

0

66.6

0

0

33.3

Indeterminate

32

0

0

27

90.0

56.6

13.3

3.3

3.3

30.0

0

0

50.0

El Sotillo

Butt types on Àakes used to produce cleavers, knives, and indeterminate LCTs at El Sotillo, are predominantly unifaceted (15 specimens), followed by cortical (6 specimens), multifaceted (5 specimens), and bifaceted

(4 specimens), suggesting some preparation of the knapping platform of large cores used to obtain large Àake blanks. T h e f o l l o w i n g t y p e s o f l a rg e f l a k e s w e r e distinguished:

6

A. Arroyo and I. de la Torre / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 41/4 (2013) 2–10

a) cortical Àakes: Àakes with cortical dorsal faces and a little retouch on one or both edges (Fig. 3, a); b) Àakes from structured cores: large Àake blanks with dorsal scars that show radial or pseudo-radial core preparation (Fig. 3, b); c) Kombewa Àakes: at least two examples of Kombewa Àakes identi¿ed at El Sotillo (Fig. 4) attest the use of Àakes as cores to produce further LCT Àake blanks. Albalá assemblage. Of 29 LCTs selected, 62.1 % were classi¿ed as bifaces, 10.3 % were cleavers, 6.9 % were picks, and 20.7 % were indeterminate LCTs (Table 1). Uniformity is evident in the selection of blanks

for the production of LTCs, with preferential use of cobbles (44.8 %) followed by tools on unrecognizable blanks (44 %), and only four tools (10.3 %) on Àakes. Blank type determines tool morphology and no attention was paid to volumetric working of the blank. There are no metric differences between LCT groups (Table 2), which is also related to predominance of quartzite cobbles as blanks to produce bifaces with a minimum of façonnage (Table 3). The following four methods to shape LCTs were distinguished in our study. 1) Bifaces made on plano-convex cobbles. These LCTs show differential Àaking of cobble sides according to their

ɚ 0

10 cm

b

Fig. 3. Types of large Àake blanks from El Sotillo (dorsal and ventral sides). a – cortical Àakes; b – Àakes from structured cores.

0

10 cm

Fig. 4. Kombewa Àakes from El Sotillo.

A. Arroyo and I. de la Torre / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 41/4 (2013) 2–10

natural shape (Fig. 5, a). Forty percent of the tools show from none to four scars on the naturally convex face, while 33 % have from ¿ve to eight extractions. Conversely, naturally Àat faces of cobbles show more intense Àaking; 37 % have between ¿ve and eight extractions, while 33 % of Àat sides of bifaces from one to four scars. 2) Bifaces on Àat cobbles. A number of tools were shaped on cobbles with two naturally Àat faces (Fig. 5, b). In this case, one side of the cobble is preferentially knapped to obtain a pointed shape, and the proximal area of the cobble normally remains intact. 3) Tools on Àake blanks. Four LCTs were made on Àake blanks; three cleavers of similar manufacture were made on short, thick flakes which bear no façonnage working, much the same as the pattern present at El Sotillo (Fig. 6); one biface was also made on a large Àake.

4) Other methods. Two tools (6.8 %) show a type of rhomboidal reduction strategy (Fig. 5, c) (de la Torre, Mora, 2005), which involves the selection of a Àat block on which the upper horizontal plane is used as a knapping platform to detach Àakes on one edge, while the lower horizontal plane is used as knapping platform to work the opposite edge. Discussion The results of our analysis show the coexistence of different choices of LCT manufacture in the same area of Campo de Calatrava. At Albalá, bifaces are predominantly on cobbles, with preferential use of plano-convex blanks that are worked to obtain a pointed

ɚ

b

0

5 cm

c

Fig. 5. Large cutting tools from Albalá. a, b – biface made on plano-convex cobble; c – handaxe Àaked following a rhomboidal reduction method.

0

5 cm

Fig. 6. Large cutting tools made on Àakes from Albalá.

7

8

A. Arroyo and I. de la Torre / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 41/4 (2013) 2–10

shape opposite to a thick, usually cortical base. In this assemblage, typical characteristics of bifaces based on the existence of two convex, symmetrical and hierarchical surfaces, are rare, whereas at El Sotillo, such typical bifaces features are clearly recognizable (Fig. 7). Interassemblage comparison of LCT size (Fig. 8) shows that, despite differences in blank type used to produce LCTs between El Sotillo and Albalá, there is an overlap in tool dimensions that suggests an intention to obtain speci¿c formats in shape and size at both sites. Albalá has technological features that are typical for other Acheulean sites in the southern Meseta, such as Puente Pino (Rodríguez de Tembleque, 2004) and Pinedo (Querol y Santonja, 1979) in the Tagus basin, where bifaces are often made on cobbles worked with few, often less than 11 removals (Moloney, 1994). Not far from el Sotillo at Porzuna, more than 1000 bifaces and 800 cleavers where collected (Vallespí et al., 1985). The lithic technology at this site was focused on the production of large Àakes; 65 % of bifaces are on flake blanks and normally show a high degree of shaping (Moloney, 1994), and therefore share with El

0

Sotillo a preference for large, standardized flakes as blanks for bifaces and cleavers. Another site with similar technological features is El Sartalejo, where tools included bifaces, cleavers, picks, and cores for the production of large Àakes (Santonja, 1985; Santonja, Villa, 2006). At El Sartalejo, 77 % of bifaces are on large Àake blanks, while 16 % are made on cobbles, and are normally thick and asymmetrical (Moloney, 1994). Nevertheless, extensive documentation of Acheulean bifaces based on large flakes is not common in the Iberian Peninsula; in fact, there are signi¿cant differences between sites located in each area. While classic sites such as Torralba and Ambrona have bifaces made on Àint (Freeman, 1994), the common exploitation of nonÀint raw materials is evident at other sites in the northern Meseta. At the site of Galería (Atapuerca), the assemblage is dominated by centripetal cores and handaxes (Carbonell et al., 2001). Here, too, flint is the most commonly exploited raw material followed by quartzite and other local raw materials such as sandstone, and the use of large Àakes as blanks for biface production is documented (Terradillos, 2010).

5 cm

b

ɚ

Fig. 7. Bifaces from El Sotillo (a) and from Albalá (b).

Fig. 8. Size comparison of assemblages from Albalá and El Sotillo.

A. Arroyo and I. de la Torre / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 41/4 (2013) 2–10

One hypothesis is that this type of large flake technology represents an African inÀuence in the Spanish Acheulean (Alimen 1975; Freeman, 1975; Sharon, 2011). On the other hand, the so-called Large Flake Acheulean (Sharon, 2010) is present in many different places outside Africa, such as the Levant, India, Asia, China and, as we have just discussed, the Iberian Peninsula. Apart from the geographical expansion of large Àake technology, it is remarkable that it persisted for more than one million years. Sharon (Ibid.) suggests that the large Àake technology disappeared 0.5 Ma ago in the Levant and probably in North Africa, when it was replaced by a technology that used Àint and ¿ne-grained raw materials to produce bifaces and cleavers. However, sites such as El Sotillo and Porzuna in Campo de Calatrava, which probably correspond to later periods of the Acheulean, suggest that the large Àake technology persisted in areas such as central Spain during later parts of the Middle Pleistocene. Conclusions The aim of this paper has been to contribute to the technological analyses of two Acheulean assemblages, Albalá and El Sotillo, in Campo de Calatrava (central Spain). Although several localities are known in this area since the 1970s, only a few systematic analyses of the stone tools have been undertaken thus far. The area of Campo de Calatrava offers considerable potential for the study of the Spanish Acheulean. Assemblages such El Sotillo and Porzuna prove systematic manufacture of LCTs based on the use of large Àakes as blanks, which coexists with other sites where a cobble technology is predominant. Assemblages based on large Àakes, common during the Acheulean in other areas such as Africa, India, and the Near East, could also have played an important role in the development of the Acheulean complex of the Iberian Peninsula. Similarities with African Acheulean assemblages have been explained in terms of the existence of connections between both areas (e.g., (Freeman, 1975; Sharon, 2011)), but might also be understood as a case of technological convergence. Only future research on this topic will offer new data that may help to shed light on such possible scenarios. Acknowledgments We thank Manuel Osuna and Esther Arias from the Museum of Ciudad Real for their support during the study of the assemblages, Norah Moloney for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments that improved this paper.

9

References Alimen H.M. 1975 Les ‘isthmes’ hispano-marocain et siculo-tunisien aux temps acheuléens. L´Anthropologie, vol. 79: 399–436. Beyene Y., Katoh S., WoldeGabriel G., Hart W.K., Uto K., Sudo M., Kondo M., Hyodo M., Renne P.R., Suwa G., Asfaw B. 2013 The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 110, No. 5: 1584–1591. Boëda E., Geneste J. M., Meigen L. 1990 Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancient et moyen. Paléo, vol. 2: 43–80. Carbonell E., Mosquera M., Ollé A., Rodríguez X.P., Sahnouni M., Sala R., Vergès J.M. 2001 Structure morphotechnique de l´industrie lithique du Pléistocène inférieur et moyen d´Atapuerca (Burgos, Espagne). L´Anthropologie, vol. 105: 259–280. Ciudad Serrano A., García Serrano R., Caballero Klink A., Francia Villajos A. 1983 Materiales paleolíticos de “El Sotillo”. Ciudad Real: Museo de Ciudad Real. (Estudios y Monografías; No. 8). de la Torre I., Mora R. 2005 Technological strategies in the Lower Pleistocene at Olduvai Beds I and II. Liège: Univ. de Liège. (ERAUL; No. 112). Freeman L.G. 1975 Acheulean sites and stratigraphy in Iberia and the Maghreb. In After the Australopithecines: Stratigraphy, Ecology, and Culture Change in the Middle Pleistocene, K.W. Butzer, G.L. Isaac (eds.). The Hague, Paris: Mouton Publishers, pp. 661–743 Freeman L.G. 1994 Torralba and Ambrona. A review of discoveries. In Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F.C. Howell, R. Corruccini, R. Ciochon (eds.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 597–637. Freeman L.G., Butzer K.W. 1966 The Acheulean station of Torralba (Spain). A Progress Report. Quaternaria, vol. VIII: 9–21. Gaillard C., Mishra S., Singh M., Deo S., Abbas R. 2010 Lower and Early Middle Pleistocene Acheulean in the Indian sub-continent. Quaternary International, vol. 223/224: 234–241. Goren-Inbar N., Saragusti I. 1996 An Acheulean biface assemblage from Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel: Indications of African af¿nities. Journal of Field Archaeology, vol. 23, No. 1: 15–30. Howell F.C., Butzer K.W., Aguirre E. 1962 Noticia preliminar sobre el emplazamiento achelense de Torralba. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. (Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España; vol 10). Isaac G.L. 1969 Studies of early culture in East Africa. World Archaeology, vol. 1, No. 1: 1–28. Isaac G.L. 1977 Olorgesailie: Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake Basin in Kenya. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

10

A. Arroyo and I. de la Torre / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 41/4 (2013) 2–10

Kleindienst M.R. 1962 Components of the East African Acheulean assemblage: An analytic approach. In Actes du IVeme Congrès Panafricain de Préhistoire et de l’Etude du Quaternaire, vol. 40, G. Mortelmans (ed.). Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, pp. 81– 105. Leakey M.D. 1971 Olduvai Gorge. Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960–1963. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Lepre C.J., Roche H., Kent D.V., Harmand S., Quinn R.L., Brugal J.-P., Texier P.-J., Lenoble A., Geibel C.S. 2011 An earlier origin for the Acheulean. Nature, vol. 477: 82–85. López M., Morín J., Escalante S., González J.A., Baena J., Carrión E., Conde, C., Cuartero F., Arteaga C., Escolá M., Fernández C., Lázaro A., Pérez-Juez A., Regidor D., Requejo V., Sánchez F., Velázquez R. 2005 La ocupación paleolítica en Ciudad Real. Nuevos datos geomorfológicos y cronoestratigráficos de las terrazas cuaternarias del río Guadiana. In O paleolítico: Actas do IV Congresso Nacional de Arqueología Peninsular (Faro, 14 a 19 de Setembro de 2004), N. Ferreira Bicho (ed.). Algarve: Univ. do Algarve, pp. 303–309. Méndez E. 2007 El yacimiento achelense de As Gándaras de Budiño. La industria en facies Àuviales. Complutum, vol. 18: 27–45. Moloney N. 1994 Lithic assemblages from the Middle Pleistocene of Iberia. The typology and technology of quartzite artefacts in the Spanish Meseta and Portugal. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University College London, London. Moloney N., Raposo L., Santonja M. (eds.) 1996 Non-Àint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of the Iberian Peninsula. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. (BAR Internat. Ser.; No. 649). Poblete Piedrabuena M.A. 1997 Evolución y características geomorfológicas del sector central del Campo de Calatrava. In Elementos del medio natural en la provincia de Ciudad Real: Libro guía de las excursiones de las XII Jornadas de campo de Geografía Física, E. González Cárdenas, J.L. García Rayego (coord.). Ciudad Real: pp. 131– 160. Portero J.M., Ancochea E., Gallardo J., Pérez-González A. 1988 Mapa Geológico de España 1:50.000. Hoja 784 (Ciudad Real). Madrid: Ynstituto Geologico y Minero de España. Querol M.A., Santonja M. 1979 El yacimiento achelense de Pinedo (Toledo). Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. (Excavaciones arqueológicas en España; vol. 106). Rodríguez de Tembleque J.M. 2004 Yacimiento de Puente Pino: nuevas perspectivas de Estudio de Paleolítico Inferior de la Península Ibérica. Zona Arqueológica, vol. 4, No. IV: 440–451. Santonja M. 1985 El yacimiento achelense de El Sartalejo (valle del Alagón, Cáceres): Estudio preliminar. Cáceres: Univ. de Extremadura, pp. 1–109. (Ser. de Arqueología Extremeña; No. 2).

Santonja M. 1996 The Lower Palaeolithic in Spain: Sites, raw material and occupation of the land. In Non-Àint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of the Iberian Peninsula, N. Moloney, L. Raposo, M. Santonja (eds.). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, pp. 1–20. (BAR Internat. Ser.; No. 649). Santonja M., Panera J., Rubio S., Pérez-González A. 2005 La industria lítica de Ambrona. Características generales y contexto estratigrá¿co. Zona Arqueológica, vol. 5: 306–333. Santonja M., Pérez-González A. 2002 El Paleolítico inferior en el interior de la Península Ibérica. Un punto de vista desde la Geoarqueología. Zephyrus, vol. 53/54: 27–77. Santonja M., Pérez-González A. 2010 Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean industrial complex in the Iberian Peninsula. Quaternary International, vol. 223/224: 154–161. Santonja M., Querol M.A. 1983 La industria Achelense de El Martinete (Ciudad Real). In Homenaje al Profesor Martín Almagro Basch, vol. I. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, pp. 83–93. Santonja M., Querol M.A., Peña J.L. 1977 Aplicación de la tipología de industrias paleolíticas a la datación del Pleistoceno Superior en el Campo de Calatrava (Ciudad Real). In Actas IIª Reunión Nacional Grupo Español Trabajo Cuaternario. Trabajos sobre Neógeno-Cuaternario, Sección de Paleontología de Vertebrados y Humana, CSIC, Madrid, vol. 6: 251–261. Santonja M., Villa P. 1990 The Lower Paleolithic of Spain and Portugal. Journal of World Prehistory, vol. 4, No. 1: 45–94. Santonja M., Villa P. 2006 The Acheulean in Southwestern Europe. In Axe Age: Acheulean Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard, N. Goren-Inbar, G. Sharon (eds.). London: Equinox, pp. 429–475. Sharon G. 2010 Large flake Acheulean. Quaternary International, vol. 223/224: 226–233. Sharon G. 2011 Flakes crossing the straits? Entame Àakes and Northern Africa–Iberia contact during the Acheulean. African Archaeological Review, vol. 28, No. 2: 125–140. Terradillos M. 2010 El Paleolítico Inferior en la Meseta Norte: Sierra de Atapuerca, La Maya, El Basalito, San Quirce y Ambrona. Estudio tecnológico y experimental. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Univ. de Burgos, Burgos. Vallespí E., Ciudad Serrano A., García Serrano R. 1979 Achelense y musteriense de Porzuna (Ciudad Real). Materiales de Super¿cie I: Colección E. Oliver. Ciudad Real: Museo de Ciudad Real. (Estudios y Monografías; No. 1). Vallespí E., Ciudad Serrano A., García Serrano R. 1985 Achelense y musteriense de Porzuna (Ciudad Real). Materiales de Superficie II: Colecciones A. Retamosa y M. Expósito. Ciudad Real: Univ. de Castilla-La Mancha. Received May 8, 2013. Received in revised form May 29, 2013.