Late Middle Pleistocene genesis of Neanderthal technology inWestern Europe: The case of Payre site...

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e27

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

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

Late Middle Pleistocene genesis of Neanderthal technology in WesternEurope: The case of Payre site (south-east France)

Javier Baena a, Marie-H�el�ene Moncel b, *, Felipe Cuartero a, M. Gema Chac�on Navarro b, c, d,Daniel Rubio c

a Dep. de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Universidad Aut�onoma de Madrid, Campus Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spainb UMR7194 e D�epartement de Pr�ehistoire, Mus�eum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 1, rue Ren�e Panhard, 75013 Paris, Francec IPHES (Institut Catal�a de Paleoecologia Humana i Evoluci�o Social), C. Marcel.lí Domingo s/n, Campus Sescelades URV (Edifici W3), 43007 Tarragona, Spaind �Area de Prehist�oria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Campus Catalunya, Avinguda de Catalunya 35, 43002 Tarragona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:NeanderthalsMiddle PalaeolithicPayreLithicsTechnological behavior“Quina”

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (M.-H. Moncel).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.0311040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

Please cite this article in press as: Baena, J.,Payre site (south-east France), Quaternary I

a b s t r a c t

Technological changes during the second part of the Middle Pleistocene in Europe are crucial sources ofinformation as they are considered to be evidence of the transition between two distinct periods; theLower Palaeolithic and the Middle Palaeolithic. The application of experimental technical (mode ofpercussion) and technological (core technology) analyses contributes to a more accurate appraisal ofthese technological changes and renews traditional approaches to the study of Early Middle Palaeolithiclithic assemblages.

In this paper, the analysis of the level Ga assemblage from Payre, dated to the end of isotopic stage 8 e

beginning of stage 7, based on the technological analysis of the archaeological assemblage and experi-mental methodologies, indicates that Pre-Neanderthals adopted a variety of technological solutionsduring the earliest occupations of this site. At Orgnac 3, the reduction process in level 1 was mainly basedon Levallois core technology (even if different methods were applied) and a ramified process (with manycore-flakes), whereas the d�ebitage in level Ga at Payre was generally unifacial on flakes and orthogonal,but primarily reveals technical and technological strategies related to both Quina, discoid and Levalloisd�ebitage concepts.

Early Middle Palaeolithic assemblages, as represented by level Ga at Payre, could attest to the presenceof a technical and technological “pool of knowledge” for some hominin groups as early as MIS 8e7, withsequential applications of different methods on the same core. This technological behavior would thusrepresent a phase of transition observed in some assemblages between the Lower Palaeolithic and theLate Middle Palaeolithic strategies.

This behavior differs from standardized technology during the Late Middle Palaeolithic, as docu-mented in Western Europe, before the outbreak of technological variability which occurred at roughlythe same time as the arrival of the first modern humans during MIS 3. Hypotheses for explaining thistransitional phase are discussed in relation to other examples of assemblages.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Understanding the origin of Neanderthal technical behavior andhow this behavior contributes to Late Middle Palaeolithic strategieshas been one of the most topical issues in prehistoric scientificdebates over the past decade. New subsistence strategies, rooted inLower Palaeolithic traditions, have been identified in final Middle

reserved.

et al., Late Middle Pleistocennternational (2014), http://dx

Pleistocene archaeological contexts and appear to be related to theappearance of Neanderthal populations in Europe.

The Early Middle Palaeolithic started in Western Europe withthe onset of technological changes during the second part of theMiddle Pleistocene in Europe. This period may have lasted fromMarine Isotopic Stage (MIS) 9 to 7, and probably later (Richter,2011), during which the first Neanderthal features progressivelyappeared (Krings et al., 1997; Hublin and P€a€abo, 2005; Orlandoet al., 2006; Bischoff et al., 2007; Rightmire, 2008; Hublin, 2009;Mounier et al., 2009). Long and complex knapping “concepts”,predetermined flake shape (such as Levallois core technology) and

e genesis of Neanderthal technology in Western Europe: The case of.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.031

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.031



J. Baena et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e272

tool standardization may have emerged as early as MIS 12e10 or700 ka, alongside the decrease in the role of rawmaterial shape andtype in core management (Moncel et al., 2013). These aspects oflithic technology characterize the European Early Middle Palae-olithic (Callow and Cornford, 1986; Ashton et al., 1992; Roebroekset al., 1992; Carbonell et al., 2001; Tuffreau et al., 2001; Antoineet al., 2003; Hallos, 2005; Premo and Hublin, 2009; Goval, 2012).Depending on the area under study, the emergence of the EarlyMiddle Palaeolithic is considered either as a rupture with previous(Lower Palaeolithic-type) behavior or as a progressive and gener-alized transition encompassing a mosaic of changes (Rigaud et al.,1988; Turq, 1992; Tuffreau et al., 1997; Roebroeks and Tuffreau,1999; Lhomme et al., 2000; Lamotte and Tuffreau, 2001a, 2001b;Monnier, 2006; Fern�andez-Peris, 2007; Bourguignon et al., 2008;Brenet et al., 2008; Men�endez, 2009; Brenet, 2011; Richter, 2011;Moncel et al., 2012a,b).

This chronological period in Europe presents widespread di-versity in technological behavior where “older” and “newer”knapping and shaping processes coexist, in a general process thatvaries greatly from one context to another. The Payre site providesa pertinent example for tracking the early Middle Pleistocenegenesis of Neanderthal technology and describing the pool oftechnological knowledge available at the beginning of this periodbefore evolving into the standardized technology which charac-terizes the following periods. Our goal was to examine throughone archaeological example and experimental comparison thetechnical (mode of percussion) and the technological (core tech-nology) strategies used in the lithic assemblage at the base of asequence, dated from the end of MIS 8 and the beginning of MIS 7(Ga layer) and attributed to an Early Middle Palaeolithic. Thequantity of artifacts, the depositional and post-depositionalcontext and the presence of pieces issued from the wholeflaking reduction sequence seem to be relevant for this type ofanalysis, even if the composition of an assemblage is affected bythe mobility of artifacts, needs and land-use patterns (Turq et al.,2013).

2. State of knowledge on the site and questions

2.1. Payre site and specificity of layer Ga

The site of Payre is located in the Rhone Valley in France. Thesite was first a cave, then a shelter before the collapse of thelimestone ceiling. In spite of the changing nature of the site,Neanderthals repeatedly returned at several different periods,perhaps because of its location on a promontory above the Rhoneand Payre valleys providing access to diverse environments andresources, especially stone raw materials. Excavations took placebetween 1990 and 2002 and yielded a 5 m thick sequence ofdeposits and eight human occupation levels. According to ESR,UeTh series, TL and TIMS methods, the sequence is dated to theend of MIS 8 and the beginning of MIS 7 (levels Gb to Fa) and theend of MIS 6 and the beginning of MIS 5 (levels E and D)(Valladas et al., 2008). Neanderthal remains were discoveredthroughout the sequence, but most of them came from levels Gband Ga (Fig. 1). The lithic and faunal assemblages are related tothe Early Middle Palaeolithic, with long and short-term seasonaloccupations and exploitation of the surrounding resources(Moncel et al., 2008). A small ash lens was discovered at the topof layer Ga. Burnt flint and bones indicate the use of firethroughout the sequence.

The Ga sub-layer is thick (60 cm) and was excavated over asurface of more than 45 m2. Excavations revealed a higher densityof artifacts here than in other levels (98/m2) and yielded 3922 ar-tifacts. The deposit is a cave deposit with many blocks of various

Please cite this article in press as: Baena, J., et al., Late Middle PleistocenPayre site (south-east France), Quaternary International (2014), http://dx

sizes mixed with clay and silt sediments. Post-depositional phe-nomena include water circulation (breccia) in temperate climaticcontexts. The artifact cutting edges are fresh and do not indicatepost-depositional disturbance. This layer is a palimpsest of seasonaloccupations, as suggested by the faunal remains. Layer Ga, like layerD, has recorded longer occupations than layer F with evidence ofshorter-term occupations (Rivals et al., 2009). No significant lithicinconsistencies indicative of horizontal and vertical spatial distri-bution have been observed within the layer. We thus decided tostudy the corpus as a whole, as the evidence suggests that thesecontemporaneous occupations belong to the same technologicalcomplex with related behavioral strategies. Layer Ga has beenconsidered as a phase of occupation of the site composed of mul-tiple occupations and a high density of pieces especially in theupper part of the layer. For instance, the rare Quina scrapers arelocated at different depths in the deposit and this cannot beattributed to post-depositional phenomena as post-depositionaldisturbances of the material appear to be negligible (refitting ofbones and some stones from the same level, preservation of an ashylens, fresh lithic cutting edges).

Level Ga is one of the richest levels of the site, both interms of the quantity of material and the technological ques-tions raised (Moncel et al., 2008). Flint artifacts dominate theseries in this level. The flint comes from local outcrops and wascollected as whole or broken nodules and flakes on the plateaubordering the Rhone Valley, in a 5e15 km perimeter from thesite. The quality of the raw material was not always the maincriterion governing flint procurement since some poor-qualitynodules were brought to the site, where they were generallyabandoned without being worked. Some flakes came fromfurther south, up to 60 km from the site (Fernandes et al.,2008). Flint pebbles were also collected along the nearbyRhone River. Flint is associated with local raw materials (basalt,limestone, quartz, quartzite), some of which were workedelsewhere and brought to the site as large tools or large flakes(quartz, quartzite, limestone). Moreover, large quantities ofbasalt pebbles were found in this level. Cores (flint and quartz)were mainly related to discoid reduction sequences associatedwith some orthogonal cores (Moncel et al., 2008).

Several aspects of the lithic corpus raise questions which have,as of yet, remained unresolved:

1) Large quantities of whole and broken basalt pebbles were foundin this level: Were they hammerstones or were they used forother activities? It is noteworthy that some flakes display aplatform and flat bulb pointing to the use of direct percussionwith a soft hammer.

2) The cores bear a variety of different scar removal patterns. Werethese produced by successive series of removals graduallyleading to discoid-type cores, or are they due to genuine discoidtechnology?

3) What is the relationship between these discoid-like cores andother core types, such as polyhedral cores?

4) Are the rare Quina scrapers, made on large flakes which couldnot be produced on the site, related to some of the methodsused for core reduction?

5) How can the presence of such a variety of core morphologiesand final products be explained from a technologicalperspective?

The basic aim of this study consists in conducting new analysesof the Payre level Ga lithic assemblage using a technical (modes ofpercussion used for flaking) and technological (reconstruction ofthe reduction sequences) approach. This re-analysis of thearchaeological assemblage is followed by a comparison with an


Fig. 1. Geographic localization, stratigraphy and dates of Payre site (Moncel et al., 2008).

J. Baena et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e27 3

Please cite this article in press as: Baena, J., et al., Late Middle Pleistocene genesis of Neanderthal technology in Western Europe: The case ofPayre site (south-east France), Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.031

Fig. 1. (continued)




experimental corpus containing all the replicated techniques andtechnologies documented in the archaeological material. As statedabove, due to the nature and the chronology of the site, this level isa representative example of early Middle Pleistocene human ac-tivity in terms of lithic production. This paper focuses on two mainaspects of the assemblage; the role of the archaeological basaltpebbles recovered in large quantities at the site in retouch andd�ebitage techniques (percussion mode of these hammerstones),and secondly, the technological organization of removals and theclassification of these sequences within currently known techno-logical methods, particularly in relation to Quina d�ebitage systems(Bourguignon, 1997). The comparison of the Payre results withearlier and later assemblages should thus contribute to a bettercomprehension of the circumstances and changes during theemergence of Mode 3 (cf. Clark, 1968).

2.2. Previous descriptive morpho-technological analysis of the levelGa lithic assemblage

The lithic assemblage from level Gawas previously studied froma techno-typological viewpoint (Moncel, 2003; Moncel et al., 2008,2011). The main results are summarized below. The assemblagefrom level Ga is essentially composed of knapping products(Table 1) and the most widely used raw material is flint from out-crops south of the site (Fernandes et al., 2008).

Table1Lithic assemblage from level Ga by raw material and technological categories (Values in brackets are percentages (*) n ¼ 44 are micro-fragments).

Nodules Whole pebbles Broken pebbles Pebble- tools Cores Flakes & chunks Total

Basalt 50 (16.78) 37(12.42) 38(12.75) 173(58.05) 298(7.6)Quartz 2(1.09) 6(3.26) 176(*)(95.65) 184(4.69)Limestone 1(6.67) 3(20) 11(73.33) 15(0.38)Quartzite 1(2.08) 3(6.25) 44(91.67) 48(1.22)Sandstone 1(100) 1(0.03)Flint 1(0.03) 90(2.67) 3285(97.3) 3376(86.08)Total 1(0.03) 53(1.35) 41(1.05) 41(1.05) 96(2.45) 3690(94.08) 3922

Altogether, there are 298 pieces in basalt (Table 1), many ofwhich are whole pebbles (n ¼ 50) collected from the river or ter-races located at the foot of the site. Most of the pebbles measurebetween 30 and 90 mm, but some of them are 150e300 mm long.The weight of these pebbles is generally less than 0.5 kg, except forthe largest specimens which weigh in at 5e11 kg. Pebbles are oftenround or oval-shapedwith oval or quadrangular sections. In spite ofsuperficial alteration, some 70 mm long pebbles and broken peb-bles bear impact marks located on their tips or lateral edges. Theseimpact marks follow the main axis of the piece or are aligned alongpebble edges. Basalt pebble-tools (12%) are made on long and flatpebbles and half of them display pitting/crushing marks on theircutting edges. There are also some unifacial and bifacial tools onlarge flakes which were worked prior to being brought to the site.Cortical flakes and cortical backed flakes suggest phases of reju-venation and in situ shaping and resharpening of the cutting edges.

Among the quartz assemblage (n¼ 184),whole quartz pebbles arerare in comparison to the number of basalt pebbles (30 and 110 mmlong). Inspiteofahighrateofquartzbreakage, it ispossible todescribepartial flaking techniques for this stone at the site. Some cores havetwo secant flaking surfaces with crossed (two series of unipolar re-movals)orcentripetal removals andat times, preservedcortical zoneswere used as striking platforms. They seem to have been undergoneintensive reduction. Some thick non-cortical and backed flakes maybe issued from quartz cores knapped at the site whereas others werebrought to the site as finished products.


Limestone is rare (n ¼ 15) but represented by several types. Thesingle whole pebble and the broken pebbles do not bear any per-cussion marks. There are no limestone cores indicating that flakesin this raw material were knapped outside the site.

Quartzite (n ¼ 48) is mainly represented by large unifacial orbifacial pebble-tools with clear crushing marks and above all byunretouched small flakes and large flake-tools. The absence of coressuggests a partial chaîne op�eratoire, especially for the largest flake-tools (100e150 mm) which were prepared in the Rhone Valleywhere large quartzite pebbles are abundant.

Flint is the main raw material (n ¼ 3376) used for flaking buttwo small bifacial tools on nodules also indicate some shaping ofthis stone (Fig. 2). Flint was mainly collected in the high qualityBarremian-Bedoulian flint outcrops on the southern plateau. Sec-ondary formations with diverse types of flint were also exploitedto the south of the area, attesting that Neanderthals collectedevery type of flint available in their environment along the plateaubordering the Rhone Valley (along a northesouth axis). Flintpebbles issued from the Alps were rarely collected from theneighboring Rhone River although they are of better quality. Thepresence of some poor quality abandoned flint nodules in the caveshows that Neanderthals did not always test stones beforebringing them back to the site, implying that they were not onlypreoccupied by flaking properties, but by some other undefinedquality.

Most of the flint from layer G comes from a perimeter of30 km around the site and some long distance flakes werebrought to the site as flakes. These pieces were no moreretouched or flaked than other flint types and do not divergefrom the main core technology of the site. The presence of flakesfrom all phases of the reduction sequence does not provide ev-idence that they were all produced at the site. It is impossible todetermine among the local and semi-local pieces if flakes displaythe same mobility as that observed in the south-west of France,i.e., fragmented lithic assemblages with mobility of artifacts inlocal raw materials and high mobility of individuals (Turq et al.,2013). This scenario could explain the scarcity of refitting foundin layer Ga due to repetitive transport behavior in an environ-ment rich in flint.

Cores(n ¼ 90) with two secant flaking surfaces are the mostcommon core types in the series (40e55 mm). These cores havebeen identified as discoid-type cores due to their final aspect.However some of them bear a third orthogonal surface created atthe end of the flaking sequence (“trifacial cores”). Removals areunipolar, bipolar, crossed, or centripetal, produced by successiveunipolar series on different striking platforms. Flake productionis guided by the use of core edges. Removal scar organization ischaracteristic of unifacial-unipolar cores, cores with two or threeorthogonal surfaces, multidirectional cores, and one semi-tourn-ant (semi-rotating) core with elongated removals (Table 2,Fig. 2).


Table 2Types of whole cores (*) excluding broken cores and fragments.

Types Number(n ¼ 67*)

Organization of removals Characteristics

Core with two secant surfaces withresidual cortex on one face

6 Unipolar or convergent Use of core edgesTriangular, elongated or short products

3 Unipolar or bipolar by successive series Opposite removals to manage the core surface11 Crossed removals Use of core edges

Invasive removalsElongated products

Core with two secant surfaces anda large cortical face

1 Poor quality nodulesCentripetal removals

Flaking or testing prior to flaking?

9 UnipolarInvasive removals

Use of core edgesElongated or short productsSome short removals on the lateral edges of the core

5 Unipolar or bipolar by successive series Use of core edgesOpposite removals to manage the core surfaceSome invasive removals

11 Crossed removals Use of core edgesVolume managementOne core with a final orthogonalsurface by abrupt removals

Core with two secant surfaces with no cortex 14 Crossed, centripetal, unipolar or bipolar Use of core edgesSome invasive removalsOne core with a final third orthogonal surface

Core with two parallel d�ebitage surfaces 1 Unipolar Elongated productsCortical platform

Core with multiple d�ebitage surfaces 3 MultidirectionalCores with orthogonal surfaces 2 Unipolar convergent One main surface

Non-invasive removals“Semi-tournant” (semi-rotating) core 1 Unipolar (in volume) Elongated and short flakes

Alternate flaking/platform


Over 40% of the cores are on cortical flakes, especially thosewithtwo secant flaking surfaces. Large flakes were prepared outside thecave, probably at flint outcrops. Pebbles and nodules seem to havebeen preferentially used for other types of cores.

Flakes (n ¼ 3285): Micro-flakes (<10 mm) and flakes less than20mm longmake up half of the total number of pieces in the series.Some of themwere identified as retouch flakes, while others comefrom flaking and the last d�ebitage phases (Table 1).

The presence of cortical flakes shows that the first flaking phasestook place at the site on broken nodules collected from the plateau(as confirmed by Fernandes et al., 2008). Most of them are30e35 mm to 40e45 mm long. More than 50% of the flakes displayan elongated tendency (L > W) and 23% have a L/W ratio greaterthan 2 (Table 3). Unipolar removals are common but some cen-tripetal and crossed removals indicate that several platforms wereused to initiate flaking. The presence of backed flakes shows thatcortex was not eliminated from cores at the beginning of thesequence. Orange segment-shaped pieces are also present. Flakeshapes are varied and include some typical “pseudo-Levallois”flakes with a triangular morphology. Platforms are cortical, flat andpunctiform, rarely dihedral or facetted. There are some very largeflakes (80e115 mm) which were introduced to the cave to beflaked, retouched or used as they were.

Table 3Length/width ratio of flakes from level Ga.

L/W ratio L < 2W veryshort flakes

L < Wshort flakes

L > Wlong flakes

L > 2Welongatedflakes

L > 4W veryelongated flakes

% 8.6 35.9 32.8 20.3 2.3

The non-cortical flakes are related to the main d�ebitage phasesof nodules or core-flake surfaces. Different group sizes of non-cortical products have been distinguished: 15e20 mm,30e35 mm, 40e45 mm and very large flakes (75 to more than


100 mm). Non-cortical flakes represent both the smallest and thelargest products of the series. Final flaking surfaces attest to theproduction of small-sized flakes. The largest flakes were conse-quently brought to the site as cortical products and some of themwere used as cores as part of a ramification process. Removals areunipolar or orthogonal, as for cortical flakes, suggesting thecontinuation of flaking or the start of flaking on core-flakesfollowing the same scheme. On some Kombewa flakes (flakesused as cores), we can observe partial flaking on the underside orthe flake before flake detachment.

Flake shapes are varied and triangular flakes are the mostelongated products with unipolar or crossed removals orga-nized around one or two main axes. Platforms are often flat,wide and thick. Facetted platforms (“chapeau de gendarme”) aremore frequent on short or triangular flakes or elongated flakeswhereas dihedral butts tend to be related to elongatedproducts.

As regards the flaking schemes, the following observations arenoteworthy (regardless of the final core morphology). Cores ofvarious types were abandoned at the site and discoid-type corespredominate. The analysis of d�ebitage products enables us todeduce core technology rules. Flaking clearly began with series ofunidirectional removals, using the natural faces of nodules. Prod-ucts are thick, with a large base, a cortical backed-platform or“orange segment” morphology. Flaking was then continued usingthe lateral cortical core edges or centered on the flaking surface.Various, often elongated shapes by successive unipolar (crossed orbipolar removals on the surface) or centripetal removals wereidentified. Invasive removals sometimes cover the entire flakingsurface.

When there is no more cortex on the flaking surface, flakingcontinues following the same rules (successive more or less inva-sive unipolar removals from one or several platforms) using lateralcore edges. One or twomain axes guide the removals andwhen thisaxis is not centered, products are asymmetric. A third surface issometimes created taking over the previous core edge on cores


Fig. 2. Examples of retouched artifacts and cores from Levels Ga and Gb. Drawings: (1) J.G- Marcillaud, (2) P. Giunti.


with two secant surfaces. The products issued from this phase areoften thick. Final hinged flakes are common (due to changes in thesurface relation angles and the wrong choice of platform angles)and bulbs are prominent.

On core-flakes, the rules are similar to the main d�ebitageprocesses applied to nodules. Successive unipolar or cen-tripetal removals are common and cores were abandonedwith a flat surface due to the use of flakes for flaking butalso because of removal organization and d�ebitage along coreedges. Due to these core features (flat flaking surfaces andshared rules) it is not always possible to identify the blankfor each removal.

Flake-tools are composed of 546 pieces (16.1%) and are mainlyon flint (and secondary quartz) flakes over 20 mm long. Sometimescores and chunks are also used as tool blanks (Table 1). Scrapers andpoints are the main flake-tools. Half of them are on flakes withoutcortex. Cortical, cortical-backed and Kombewa flakes are howeverproportionally the most frequently retouched blanks. Moreover,the largest and thickest products are the most retouched. Whilepoints are often on elongated and triangular flakes (d�ejet�e or not),scrapers are generally on shorter products. Simple scrapers areslightly more frequent on flakes with L > W (47.8%) (15e100 mmlong) and are located on the longest edge. Ordinary and marginalretouch are most common while invasive retouch is rare. Thepresence of some Quina scrapers, which differ from the rest of theseries, is noteworthy. Resharpening is rare (5% of tools) and fewtools display invasive edge reduction.

The location and direction of retouch are largely dependent onthe morphological potential of the products. Double or multipleretouched zones also seem to be related to the type of blank and theavailable cutting edges. No link exists between the type of retouchand retouch location on the product. Retouch angles vary from 40to 80� and Quina and scaled retouch bear the steepest angles(Fig. 3). Two categories of points have been identified: 1) pointswith a pointed tip angle of 80e90�, and 2) points with a tip angle ofless than 75e80�. Both of these categories are visible on symmet-rical or on offset (d�ejet�e) pieces. As for scrapers, marginal and


ordinary retouch predominate, followed by scaled retouch andQuina retouch on a single edge. 25% of the points are partial and11% may be considered as unilateral points on triangular products.Point tips do not display specific management (Moncel et al., 2008).

3. Materials and methodology

The entire archaeological corpus from level Ga at Payre was firststudied using typological and technological types (i.e. Bordes, 1961;Bo€eda, 1993; Odell, 1996). Once this information was processed,technological interpretation based on our experimental analyseswas carried out. Methods have improved greatly over the past fewdecades due to the comparison of experimental collections withthe archaeological materials. The application of such methodsprovides a more realistic and objective way of producing a diacriticanalysis, circumventing uncertainties and subjective procedures(Bar Yosef and Van Peer, 2009). Even if the criteria employed entailsome degree of uncertainty, which is greater for non-flint rawmaterials, in the absence of refitted material the results providemore satisfactory results than mere typological descriptions.

Our aim is to study the Payre Ga debitage and retouch collectionfrom a new perspective whereby technical and technological as-pects can be read and corroborated based on experimental resultsand latter comparative analysis. In our reading and comparativeanalysis we differentiate between two main concepts (Tixier et al.,1980):

1) “Technique”, which is construed as a combination of the me-chanical and instrumental choices implemented during thereduction process. Aspects such as trajectories, hammerstoneselection, and the angle impact are observed.

2) “Technology” is considered to be the application and combina-tion of technical options into a logical sequence throughout thereduction process (thereby introducing the notion of time).Technology includes traditional aspects such as the concept ofthe knapping method employed and the modality applied. The


Fig. 3. Examples of resharpening flakes issued from retouched pieces.


organization of removals and their direction constitute signifi-cant aspects of technology.

Both concepts are integrated into the reduction sequenceframework. Technique can be perceived as a basic unit of technol-ogy and technology as a combination of technical decisions ac-cording to a concept (final objective) or reduction process.

In order to select a significant sample of the archaeologicalmaterial to compare with experiments using the concept of“technotypes” (Turq, 2003), we discarded some cores, fragmentedpieces, tested cores and a few flaking items. The final selectionrepresents 20% of the cores (20 pieces), which comprises the ma-jority of the cores with significant numbers of removals. For othercategories, we used 2% of the flake products which represents 30flakes and retouched pieces for checking the core technologyobservation.

We have selected samples located all over the layer anddispersed on the excavated area, on 15 squares. The spatial


distribution of the artefacts made on each lane did not show aspecific location of the pieces but a general dispersal. We arenot able consequently to observe sub-levels or beds of arte-facts and relate our samples only to the general phase ifoccupation.

The evaluation of this selected corpus was carried out byapplying qualitative experimental criteria (Baena and Cuartero,2006), based essentially on the following attributes:

1) Morphology and symmetry of scars. The most symmetricand complete morphology recorded is the most recent(Fig. 4).

2) Scar topography is observed on a macro and micro scale. On amacro scale, recent removals usually present deeper contours.One clear example is produced in cascades (Cotterell andKamminga, 1987) (Fig. 5). On a micro scale, new scars presenta slightly concave ridge on the edge contiguous to other scars(Fig. 6).


Fig. 5. Theoretical sections of removals determine direction and chronology of scars during the reduction process. A. Recognition of complete or incomplete topography of sectionsin passing a finger permits the recognition of scar chronology. B. Experimental example of topographical cascade within removal sequence.

Fig. 4. Theoretical morphology of a flake. A. the rupture of the theoretical scar's contour indicates chronology in reduction sequence. B. the rupture of symmetry in scar's contourrefers to hierarchy of removals.


3) Presence or absence of technical stigmata on removal surfaces.One of the best criteria is the presence-absence of striations onthe edge of contiguous scars (Fig. 7).

Based on previous works about mechanical properties of sili-ceous materials (Cottrell and Kamminga, 1987; Bertouille, 1989;Odell, 1996; Rabinovitch et al., 2006), the reduction sequencesobserved on the archaeological corpus and the retouch morphol-ogies have been experimentally replicated using the same types offlint nodules and different types of hammerstones (both soft andhard) collected in the vicinity of the site on the southern Barremian-Bedoulian plateau formations (Fernandes et al., 2008), from the


Payre River terraces at the foot of the site for basalt and quartzpebbles and from the Rhone Valley terraces for quartzite pebbles.

The first experimental collectionwas prepared by two of us (J. B.and F. C.) during the course of 50 d�ebitage experiments (Table 4),using several different percussion techniques on the same rawmaterials as those from the Payre assemblage (where flint makesup 86.8% of the whole assemblage). The inter-variability of knap-pers has not been taken in account (Williams and Andrefsky, 2011).A variety of direct percussion (Fig. 8) techniques were used withdifferent lithic (soft and hard basalt, limestone, quartzite, granite)and organic (boxwood Buxus sempervirens and oak Quercus ilex)hammers. In this way, the mode of percussion could be identified



by examining the impact point, percussion cone, bulb, presence oflip and cracking on the platform, and d�ebitage and retouch technicalattributes. The use of several trajectories, varying force intensityand impact angles, was monitored by both knappers (c.f.Bour-guignon, 2001). Replications of the core technology were con-ducted according to Levallois, discoid and Quina methods (Figs. 9and 10).

Table 4Quantitative and qualitative data relating to the experiments.

Knappers Javer BaenaFelipe Cuartero

Flint nodules 50 nodulesCollected on the Barremian-Bedouliansouthern plateau (main flint usedin the site)

Basalt pebbles 50 pebbles 5e15 cm long (small,medium, large) various basalttypes (structure, density, coarseand thin-grained) as observed in the siteCollected at the foot of the site

Quartz and quartzite pebbles 20 pebbles (various sizes)Collected at the foot of the siteand in the nearby Rhone Valley

Organic hammers Buxus sempervirens and oakQuercus ilex

Mode of percussion Compressive actionDirect by direct-internalpercussion (the “Quina”gesture) and direct-tangentialpercussion (the “discoid” and“Chatelperronian” gestures) (Fig. 8)

Debitage on Split nodules Compressive actionDirect by direct-internal percussion(the “Quina” gesture) and direct-tangentialpercussion (the “discoid” gesture),

Debitage of Large flakes Compressive actionDirect by direct-internal percussion(the “Quina” gesture) and direct-tangentialpercussion (the “discoid” and“Chatelperronian” gestures),discoid and Quina flaking

Core technology 50 replicas of discoid and Quina flaking(see references) on nodules and flakes

Retouch process Replicas of Quina and ordinary retouchwith organic, soft and hard hammerstones

As the archaeological material points also to the use of softhammers such as basalt for retouch (the main soft stone present inthe site as pebbles), another 300 experiments were developed tocompare organic and mineral (sandstone and basalt) hammer-stones and retouchers results, using different sizes and densities(Fig. 11) (see Roussel et al., 2009 for limestone hammerstones).

Technological replicas were based on features of the archaeo-logical corpus and were also compared to the different attributes ofthe main well-known Middle Palaeolithic reduction sequences inorder to identify which technologies were employed at Payre Ga.

For that, we will refer to:

- Levallois technology, for highlighting the differences withdiscoid cores and the flexibility of this technology (Bordes,1961;Bo€eda, 1988, 1991, 1993, 1994; Brantingham and Kuhn, 2001;Peresani, 2001; Guette, 2002; Slimak, 2004).

- Discoid technology is described on cores with two flaking sur-faces and non-hierarchical surfaces and discoid cores related tothe Levallois concept (Bo€eda, 1994), but also by polyhedral coremorphologies resulting from alternating discoid reduction se-quences (Vaquero, 1999), taking account of similarities betweenproducts issued from discoid and Levallois technology


(d�ebordant products) (Bo€eda, 1993, 1994; Jaubert, 1993, 1994;Jaubert and Farizy, 1995; Lenoir and Turq, 1995; Jaubert andMourre, 1996; Moncel, 1998, 2003; Slimak, 1999; Pasty, 2000;Turq, 2000; Peresani, 2003; Vaquero and Carbonell, 2003;Bargall�o, 2008; Chac�on, 2009).

- Quina technology is defined as the production of standardized,asymmetric and thick blanks (“tranches de sauccisson” or slices)from globular, polyhedral or discoid cores (Turq, 1989, 1992,2000; Bourguignon, 1996a, 1996b, 1997; Geneste and Plisson,1996; Stahl and Detrey, 1999; Moncel, 2001, 1998;Bourguignon et al., 2004; Faivre, 2008). Bourguignon et al.(2004) and Faivre (2008) consider it as a planned flaking sys-tem devoted to the production of quite standardized blanks andtools by two flaking surfaces with secant series of removalsexploited either continuously or discontinuously. This sequenceproduces typical types of platforms referred to as pans, orasymmetric dihedrals. Quina production is a clear example oframification and the use of “matrices” (Turq et al., 2013).

- Blade technology, which may be direct, Levallois or volumetric(Combier, 1967; Tuffreau, 1990; Meignen, 1994, 1995, 1996;Moncel, 1994, 1997, 1998; R�evillion and Tuffreau, 1994; Stahland Detrey, 1999; Locht et al., 2010; Goval 2012; Bo€eda (1988,1994).

- Other knapping systems: Clactonian, SSDA or Kombewan (Tixieret al., 1980; Geneste, 1991; Ashton, 1992; Forestier, 1993;Delagnes, 1995; Bourguignon, 1996a, 1996b, 1997 ; Genesteet al., 1997; Moncel, 1998; Tixier and Turq, 1999; Vaquero,1999; Pasty, 2000 Carri�on Santaf�e, 2002).

4. Results

4.1. Split nodules

Whole or naturally broken flint nodules were broken on site intomanageable blocks for flaking or for direct use (Fig. 11). Few tech-nical traces exist to describe this first phase. On some pieces, thetype of percussion observed is related to wedging fractures(Fig. 12.1) due to pressure percussion in order to split large blocks.The use of large, heavy, and coarse basalt pebbles in experimentsmakes it easy to reproduce this type of flaked surface whereas theuse of hard mineral hammerstones (quartzite) did not allow for theproduction of large flint flakes. However most of the time, thestructure of the stones, fractures, and natural flaws ultimatelydetermine the dimensions and morphologies of blanks, which ex-plains the rarity of the stigmata observed in our archaeologicalcorpus (Fig. 12.2). These natural flaws and features facilitate theinitial division of blocks. Experimentation indicates that it was easyto split some of the flawed flint blocks, but with no control overdimensions (Fig. 12).

4.2. Mode of percussion

The preferential use of basalt (considered as soft mineral ham-merstones) rather than quartzite pebbles (considered as hardmineral hammerstones) for breaking nodules or knapping flakesincreases the effectiveness of the fracture. This pattern is clearlyobserved on the archaeological material by the existence of somesoft organic platform morphologies (for instance typical lips on thebutts and reduced bulbs). The mode of percussion with basaltpebbles requires the use of tangential percussion in order to beefficient, as for organic hammers (bone, wood).

The quantification of this action is however difficult due to thedensity and structure of basalt and it is only possible to estimatetendencies. According to our experiments and observation of the


Fig. 6. Relative topography between adjacent removals. The presence at a “micro scale” of a slightly concave ridge indicates differences in the chronology of scars. A. The absence ofa ridge on the side of scar 1 indicates that scar 2 is younger than scar 1. This character could be appreciated passing a finger on both sides. B. Detail that confirms this chronology bythe presence of lateral striations on scar 2. C. Micro photos of ridges at the zenith (above) and oblique (below).


archaeological material, basalt pebbles may be considered as bothsoft andmedium-soft hammers due to their density (coarse to thin-grained) and a combination of criteria observed on the flaked sur-face or the platform: lip, absence of platform or/and flat bulb,although the attribution of this type of material to soft or hardpercussion is questionable (see (e.g.) limestone hammerstones inRoussel et al., 2009).

4.3. Technological aspects of core technology

The initial phases are not well represented in the archaeologicalmaterial since later reduction erases the technical attributes of thefirst reduction sequence phases. In spite of this obstacle, the largesize of the studied implements indicates that unidirectional andorthogonal methods are employed for the initial d�ebitage phases(Fig. 13), which is similar to the Quina model proposed by Turq(1989). No significant occurrence of “talons �a pans” or dihedralasymmetric platforms appears (Bourgignon, 1997). The occurrenceof some “random” production and the generation of natural sur-faces due to the existence of internal alterations and flaws intro-duce an “extra” interpretative limit in the analysis of the lithic

Table 5Types of flakes on experimental and archaeological assemblage.

Type Type 0 Type A

Size Small-medium Small-mediumThickness Thin-medium Thin-mediumPercussion (see Fig. 8) Variable unipolar/bipolar Secant (discoid) percussionOriginal blank Polyhedral and flake blanks Polyhedral and flake blanks


material. The aim of the initial phases also includes the evaluationof the quality and condition of the flint for later d�ebitage or retouch.

Advanced reduction sequences are easier to appraise than theinitial phases through the qualitative and quantitative study ofdifferent materials (the whole assemblage was studied and theproportion of sampled material is 20% of cores and 2% of knappingproducts (Table 1). The application of a diacritic analysis in relationto previously published descriptive studies (Moncel, 2003; Moncelet al., 2008, 2011) clarifies the results.

The underlying phases of the reduction processes identified oncores, flakes and retouched pieces indicate a complex reductionsequence. Apart from the initial phases (see above), there are somedifferences in the methods applied depending on the initial volumeof the exploited core. Two different models exist depending on thetype of blank selected (volumetric conditions): polyhedral blocksand fragments or flakes.

4.3.1. Polyhedral-shaped blanksPolyhedral blanks (Fig. 14) are exploited to produce four

different types of flakes (Table 5) using different technical andtechnological strategies:

Type B Type C

Large-medium Large-mediumMedium-thick ThinPerpendicular (Quina) percussion Parallel/subparallel (Levallois) percussionMainly polyhedral blanks Polyhedral and flake blanks


Fig. 7. A. Cone removals on two different flaked or retouched surfaces define chronology in a bifacial reduction sequence. Numbers indicate chronological order for removals fromfirst to the end. B Experimental Levallois core showing last preferential removal and cone scar. C. Models of bifacial theoretical sequences.


Subtype 1.0 cortical and semi-cortical.Subtype 1.A with parallel scars.Subtype 1.B with orthogonal scars.Subtype 1.C with bipolar scars (in all cases angles are acute andbutts are generally wide).

1) Production of medium to small flakes using the unidirectionalbasic unit, an initial series of unipolar removals with angular

Fig. 8. Principal knapping trajectories using hard hammerstone. A. Quina trajectory. B.hammerstone trajectory.


percussion on natural platforms (Fig. 14.3). This type couldcorrespond to an initial discoid production model (Type 0,Table 5).

2) Production of medium to small flakes using an orthogonal basicunit which is the result of orthogonal removals in two directions(one perpendicular to the other), with secant striking percus-sion from natural and briefly prepared platforms (surfaces de

Normal “discoid” trajectory. C. Tangencial “chatelperronian” trajectory. D. Blade soft


Fig. 9. Example of the experimental d�ebitage replication.



Fig. 10. Example of the experimental d�ebitage replication.


d�ebitage). Generally, the flakes produced bear a main ridge onthe dorsal face, which is the result of previous perpendicularscars, some of which are offset (d�ej�et�e) (Fig. 14.1 and 14.2).Obviously, cortical and semi-cortical flakes were also produced(Fig. 15.1 (scars 10, 11, and 12) and 15.2 (scars 1e9). Again, thistype could correspond to a discoid productive model (Type A,Table 5).

3) Production of large to medium-sized flakes cutting into theorthogonal volume using perpendicular percussion with non-prepared platforms (d�ebitage du volume). In this case, large tomedium-sized thicker plunging flakes are produced (probablygenerated in order to produce sidescrapers) (Fig. 15.1 (scar 4)and 15.2 (scars 13 and 7). This type could be compared to flakesissued from the Quina production model (Type B, Table 5).

4) Production of thin flakes by applying series of parallel/semi-parallel percussion to natural and prepared platforms. Thisproduction could be related to the final phases of the reductionprocess (and undoubtedly to final products) (Type C, Table 5,Fig. 15.1 (scars 5, 6 and 7) and Fig. 15.2 (scars 10, 11 and 12).


4.3.2. Flakes as blanksThere are some variations in the process of the basic units of

orthogonal flaking for flakes selected as blanks since in this case thed�ebitage mainly starts on a blank with only two surfaces (Figs. 17and 18). The results of the analysis are:

1) The preferential use of ventral flake surfaces has been observedon the archaeological material. The application of the orthog-onal basic unit (Fig. 17.1 and 17.2) in order to produce mainlytype A flakes is dominant. In this case, the flakes correspond tothe general definition of “Kombewa” flakes, but are producedusing the same method as those produced from polyhedralcores.

2) Occasionally, bidirectional convergent reduction sequences areobserved using the dorsal surface of the original flake blank,partly due to the original volumetric morphology of the flake(Fig. 17.3).

3) Some secant percussion flakes have been obtained. They can bebroadly interpreted as “percussion preparation flakes” but with


Fig. 11. Hammerstones in basalt used for the experimental replications.


no chronological relation to the previous categories (Fig. 17.4).From a conceptual point of view, these flakes could be similar totype B flakes, but are smaller than flakes produced fromorthogonal cores.

4) At the end of reduction sequences, but sometimes before, somelarge (taking into account the small size of these blanks) andthick flakes are produced, similar to those produced frompolyhedral cores (type C).

4.4. Retouched pieces

The selection of different flake sizes for retouch influenced themanagement of the retouch process. The preferential use of me-dium and small-sized basalt hammerstones (thin-grained basalt)for retouch is again consistent with the archaeological record. Thisargument must be considered in the light of the large variety ofquality basalts in the nearby river, which provided raw materials ofvarying densities. Another aspect to be considered is the possibleuse of soft organic hammerstones for retouch. Our experimentalapproaches indicate that some types of retouch (flat and deepmorphologies) may be produced generally using organic and oc-casionally very soft basalt retouchers. As for the debitage, the use ofbasalt hammerstones with tangential percussion results in flat re-movals and retouch whereas the use of a hard hammerstone pro-duces deep removals (Fig. 19.1 and 19.2). This strategy is alsodocumented in other Quina sites (Roussel et al., 2009). The absenceof correlations between angles and the morphology of the retouchindicate that variation in percussion force could produce elongatedretouch scars using several raw material retouchers. However,organic and very soft mineral retouchers (basalt), tend to generateblade scars when used for retouch (Fig. 19.3).

Quina retouch is clearly present in the Payre assemblage butremains relatively rare. It is present on some Quina sidescrapersand Quina resharpening flakes (Fig. 3). This type of retouch wasstudied using a technical and technological approach byBourguignon (1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998). All the technical and


technological arguments advanced by this author match our corpusof retouched pieces (technical gestures, blank module and volume,retouch size and delineation, tool ramification/recycling,Bourguignon et al., 2004). In our case, the Quina component of levelGa reflects limited evidence of these knapping technical andtechnological strategies. The coexistence of other processes mustalso be considered.

“Laminar” retouch is visible on some pieces, particularly onlarge, quite thin flakes, producing acute angles on the retouchededge (similar to examples shown in Fig. 19). As mentioned above,this retouch is probably related to the use of organic or very softbasalt retouchers.

The number of bifacial tools is very limited and therefore theinterpretation of retouch processes concerning this category ofpieces is incomplete. Large flakes from the first phases of the chaîneop�eratoirewere used as blanks, and the tools display initial shapingbased on several series of 2e3 removals. Once again, this schema isnot very different from the initial d�ebitage model (Fig. 2.1).

5. Discussion: pool of knowledge in the Payre Ga lithicassemblage?

1) The Payre Ga assemblage indicates the existence of differenttechnological fragmented choices. Different phases of blockbreakage and d�ebitage indicate that tool and blank size resultedfrom planning (block splitting, bifacial pieces, large flakes forflaking, sidescrapers, tools on small flakes...). The setting up ofdistinct production levels (Bourguignon et al., 2004; Faivre,2008; Turq et al., 2013) is one of the most characteristic as-pects of Middle Palaeolithic behavior and appears as early asMIS9 (Moncel et al., 2011, 2012b). Adaptation to different blankconditions (size, quality, natural shapes) was required in orderto exploit raw materials efficiently and contribute to thegeneralization of a connection between blank fragments andflake production (Geneste and Plisson, 1996; Faivre, 2008)(Table 6).


Table 6Specificity of core technology at Ga Payre compared to the main Middle Palaeolithic methods.

Levallois Discoid Quina Blade “Payre”

Direction of contact forpercussion gestures

Parallel (subparallel)/perpendicular Secant/secant perpendicular/secant Parallel/subparallel Secant/parallel/perpendicular

Trajectory (see Fig. 8) B þ C B A C þ D A þ B þ CPlatform preparation Yes No No No/yes No/opportunisticVolumetric control Yes No No Yes YesPresence of unifacial

sequences of exploitationNo No Yes Yes Yes

Presence of bifacial (alternating)sequences of exploitation

Yes Yes No No Yes

Degree of predeterminationof products

High Medium Low High Medium


2) From a technical point of view (mode of percussion), the PayreGa series attests to a specific strategy of hammerstone selection.Different basalt sizes and textures (qualities) are employeddepending on the flaking phase. The procurement of this rocktype is not solely related to the large quantity of available basaltpebbles near the site. The selection of coarse textures for blockbreakage contrasts with the use of soft mineral (thin-grainedbasalt) or organic retouchers for small flat tools. A wide range ofdifferentially selected hammerstones were thus used for thedifferent production phases.

Fig. 12. Examples of sidescrapers


3) From a technological point of view (core technology), the PayreGa assemblage displays the application of a number of differentstrategies, sometimes within the same reduction process. Twomain strategies have been identified: d�ebitage of polyhedral-shaped blocks using an orthogonal strategy, which exploitsthe original volumetric structure of the blanks and fragments.The maintenance of a general volumetric convexity is obtainedby the production of lateral medium to large-sized flakes(Figs. 14 and 17; Table 5), which is quite comparable to someQuina strategies. Then, percussion platform angles are correctedby flaking small series of removals similar to platform

produced on wedgedblanks.


Fig. 13. Quina sidescraper on a unipolar flake.


preparation. After that, the production of elongated pre-determined flakes takes advantage of the lateral edge of theblank and sometimes the distal convexity is similar to thatobserved in Levallois strategies. On the other hand, the d�ebitageon large to medium-sized flakes follows the same structuralpattern with a clear adaptation to a different volumetric sup-port. In this case, surface angles are completely different fromthose of polyhedral-shaped blocks. Recurrent orthogonalcrossing series of removals on both surfaces generate a final coremorphology which clearly looks like discoid/Levallois surfaces.From a morpho-technical point of view, this pattern could makeit difficult to distinguish these concepts and points to theabsence of clear limits between discoid and Levallois d�ebitage.This unusual concurrence of technological markers explains thecontroversy surrounding previous studies in the attribution ofmethods.

4) An orthogonal strategy (d�ebitage on orthogonal surfaces) isgenerally applied on flakes resulting in discoid core morphol-ogies. This final aspect is the logical result of the “standard”volume andmorphology of the initial blank (in this case a flake).When the blank has two surfaces, the orthogonal methodapplied is adapted to this volume, and a final bifacial exploita-tion phase occurs after the application of the orthogonal methodto both faces (Figs. 14 and 16; Table 5). The creation and use offacetted platforms, sometimes in the aim of correcting the angleor maybe as retouch, does not occur before the percussion ofthese platforms. This phase predates the production of the finalremovals. If small series of removals (Figs.14 and 16; Table 5) areproduced as a result of the conversion of the core into a tool, the“core-tool” Quina concept is recorded on these pieces (use ofcores as tools and tools as cores like those proposed by Turq,1989; Carri�on Santaf�e and Baena Preysler, 2003; Faivre, 2008,2009e2010).

There are thus several variables to be taken into consideration inthe Payre assemblage:

(1) the adaptation of technical and technological strategiesdepending on the morphology of the blank

(2) the adaptation of technological methods/modalitiesdepending on the blank and the d�ebitage phase (reductionsequence steps).

Initial phases indicate a wide variety of solutions, whereas finalexploitation exhibits greater stability. This adaptation is coherentwith recent data provided by chaîne operatoire fragmentation and


group mobility studies (Turq et al., 2013). In the Payre assemblage,the basic flaking unit applied throughout the sequence is a unidi-rectional series of two to three removals. The second unit consistsof the orthogonal crossing of a series of removals. The superpositionof these two basic units generates final core morphologies whichcan be considered to be a result of different methods.

We do not consider these strategies to represent a ramificationor a recycling process as in the Quina system (Bourguignon, 1997),but a general principle consisting in the coexistence of “severallevels of structures or strategies” within the general productionsequence. Each strategy adopted is composed of a combination ofseveral phases (selection, initialization, main exploitation…) inwhich variations occur depending on the final objective (produc-tion of flakes or fragments for façonnage, production of fragmentsfor cores, production of flakes for flaking, production of flakes fortools, etc). These circumstances may be easily documented by theapplication of different methods observed in workshop-sites(Baena et al., 2011). For instance at Payre, unidirectional compres-sive methods are applied in order to produce large flakes orpolyhedral-shaped fragments. Each blank is subsequently sub-jected to reduction schemas which owe little to morphologicaladaptation.

The technical and technological solutions recorded in level Ga ofthe Payre assemblage indicate that a wide variety of technical andtechnological solutions were applied to the d�ebitage. They arerelated to each other and indirectly confirm the coherence of thelithic assemblage from Ga Payre, attributed to human groups fromthe same tradition andusing the same range of strategies on the site.

Some of these solutions are issued from the technologicalframework of the “Quina World”, and others enter into the discoidand Levallois domains. The existence of a mixture of technical andtechnological solutions or strategies in the level Ga assemblage atPayre implies that a “pool of technological knowledge” existedduring this period and the Early Middle Palaeolithic in south-eastFrance. This notion is similar to the resource exploitation modelproposed by Fernandes et al. (2008), which presents an unusualmosaic of a wide variety of raw material types collected fromoutcrops in the southeastern Massif Central and the neighboringRhone Valley, in a local and semi-local perimeter for most of theflint gathering. This is also comparable to the observations of otherauthors (Hardy and Moncel, 2011), who demonstrate the wide-spread use of environmental and animal resources around the site.The technological background of the human groups inhabitingPayre cave at this time clearly differs from that observed duringMIS4-3, when technological behavior displays greater uniformitythan the variability observed in Middle Palaeolithic series.


Fig. 14. Diacritic schemas of three orthogonal flakes.


This core technology is associated with some large scrapers onflint, basalt, and large quartzite flakes, generally brought to the siteas flakes or tools. The flint tools were retouched by Quina retouchwhile the basalt and quartzite tools were unifacially (plano-convexcross-section) or bifacially (symmetric section of bifaces)retouched. These large tools do not belong to the Quina knappingreduction sequence. They complete the flake-tool kit of reduced


size. The micro/macro-wear analyses show that the cutting edgestransformed by Quina retouch were used for the same action as theothers (Moncel et al., 2009: Hardy and Moncel, 2011).

The Quina techno-complex seems to appear as early as MIS 9and is very well developed in France, in Italy and Spain around MIS4e5 under temperate or cold conditions. These dates indicate thatthis system existed alongside Levallois and discoid core


Fig. 15. Diacritic schemas of two orthogonal cores.


technologies. Variations within the Quinaworld are confirmed overtime throughout Western Europe. If we compare Qesem cave inIsrael, 400e200 ka (Barkaï et al., 2005; Mercier et al., 2013) or LaMicoque in France (Risco, 2011) around MIS 9-8 with more recentFrench and Spanish sites around MIS 4e3 (Carri�on Santaf�e andBaena Preysler, 2003; Gonz�alez Urquijo et al., 2006; Baena andCarri�on, 2010; Rios-Garaizar, 2010), the assemblages with Quinafeatures point to the existence of a long techno-cultural or func-tional tradition over time and to a complex intra-evolution.

Although some features of core management at Ga Payremay berelated to Quina strategies, they do not belong to the “classical”Quina world as expressed in MIS 4 sites in France under cold con-ditions and described by Bourguignon (1996). At Payre, Quinafeatures seem to be mixed with other strategies.

Payre cannot be compared with the strategy employed at thesite of Les Tares (MIS 9) in south-west France (Geneste and Plisson,1996; Texier, 2003; Faivre, 2008). Although several processing se-quences took place at Les Tares on flakes (“matrices”), they are notsimilar to the Payre processes where more varied sequences are


present on a same core (“ramification” of core reduction). Payre isalso very different from the base of the sequence at la Baume Bonne(southeastern France, MIS 10-8) or the site of Petit-Bost (MIS 9),where some Quina cores seem to exist (Hong, 1993; Bourguigonet al., 2008; Vieillevigne et al., 2008). Our corpus is more similarto some of the orthogonal cores from the different levels of theCaune de l'Arago sequence (southwestern France, MIS 14e12)(Barsky, 2013).

Although MIS 6e5 Quina sites are not well represented, severalexamples point in the same direction (Turq, 1992; Bourguignon,1997, 1998; Turq et al., 1999). The Quina debitage/retouch seriesin Western Europe have a non-random geographic distribution(Aquitaine, south and east of France, north-east and east of theIberian Peninsula with some isolated examples in Central Iberia),with a clear absence in northeastern Europe (Rolland, 1998).

Examples of Quina techno-complex reduction sequences (Turq,1985, 1989; Bourguignon, 1997; Turq et al., 1999; Jaubert et al.,2001; Moncel, 2003; Slimak, 2004; Delagnes et al., 2007; Hiscocket al., 2009; Moncel et al., 2012a; Claud et al., 2012) indicate that


Fig. 16. Theoretical schemas of flake production.


cultural or local adaptations to blank or flake morphologies changefrom one site to another. If we take into account the rare sitesconsidered to be Quina (Le Figuier, Ioton), located in the same areaas Payre, then a certain diversity emerges. Le Figuier cave isconsidered to be an original Quina site related to traditions in thesouth-east of France (Bordes,1961; Moncel, 2001; Bourguignon andMeignen, 2010; Moncel et al., 2012a). New excavations and inter-pretation of the assemblages from Le Figuier show that only 25% ofthe flakes are retouched and reveal the presence of elongatedflakes, a core technology on small flakes brought to the site(“matrices”), a low ratio of Quina retouch in the first chamber andthe absence of Quina retouch in assemblages located in thechambers located further from the entrance.

While in level 1 (MIS 8) at Orgnac 3, the reduction process wasmainly based on Levallois core technology (even if differentmethods were applied) and a ramified process (with many core-flakes), the Payre Ga assemblage, and particularly the knappingreduction process, indicates that several flake morphologies


coexisted within the same core reduction sequence (see flakemorphologies in Figs. 9 and 11) (Moncel et al., 2010, 2012b; Fontanaet al., 2013). The absence of characteristic Quina platforms (“a pan”and asymmetric dihedral platform, Bourguignon, 1997) indicatesthat several Quina debitage modalities are still understudied. Theproduction of several flake morphologies in Payre Ga (amongothers, types B and C) is part of the same core exploitation processand could be interpreted as an intentional combination as a resultof a broad technological background (see Figs. 14 and 17). At thesame time, changes in technical conditions in flake production(angles, trajectories, platform width, removal organization, etc.)throughout the whole reduction process, guarantee variable flakeproduction.

The characteristics of the Ga assemblage (succession of debitagephases on the same core and adaptation to the blank) are observedin the same region as early asMIS 9 in Orgnac 3. However, at Orgnac3, the same Levallois core technology was applied to cores in level 1.A mixture of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic strategies coexisted in


Fig. 17. Diacritic schemas of four orthogonal cores on flakes.


the middle part of the sequence with a low ratio of standardizedLevallois cores (mosaic of changes over time; Moncel et al.,2012a,b). And in this case, the same technology was applied toeach core. The lower levels of this site indicate a relationship be-tween slab morphology and flaking technology (centripetal andorthogonal cores) while the upper levels reveal dominant Levallois


core technology, mostly on flakes with a succession of severalmethods on the same Levallois core depending on the availableconvexities (Moncel et al., 2010, 2011).

At Payre, layers F (MIS 8/7) and D (MIS 6/5), on the middle andupper parts of the sequence, are characterized by a classical uni-facial discoid strategy, which seems to be clearly developed from


Fig. 18. Theoretical schemas of flake production.


those used in level Ga (Moncel et al., 2008). Some large andmedium-sized Levallois flakes are also present in the layer Fassemblage and appear to have been brought to the site alreadyknapped. Most of the discoid cores are on small or medium-sizedflakes and were brought to the site from a 10e30 km radius. Out-crops are more diversified in this level than in layer G (Fernandeset al., 2008; Daujeard and Moncel, 2010; Moncel et al., 2010;Moncel and Daujeard, 2012). However, the presence of a small corewith small elongated flakes and bladelets in each level also atteststo the diversity of technologies employed at the site.

From MIS 4 onwards, changing levels of technological diversityappear when we study assemblages from a dynamic perspective.One main chaîne op�eratoire is observed in the assemblages of thesame area. Reduction sequences are more standardized, more in-dependent of blank morphology and associated with secondary


strategies, which can be carried out on site or elsewhere, except forlaminar flaking which is associated with Levallois core technology(Moncel, 2003; Moncel and Daujeard, 2012).

How can we envisage the transition between the sequentialapplication of features of Levallois, discoid and Quina strategies, orblade production and distinct series of independent chaînesop�eratoires?

The succession of sequential phases on the same core seems tocharacterize some Early Middle Palaeolithic records and attest tothe variability of this time period, not only in southeastern France,but also elsewhere. Relationships between the Early MiddlePalaeolithic and the Lower Palaeolithic are well studied in manysites (see references Moncel et al., 2010, 2012b). The Early MiddlePalaeolithic could thus be construed as an intermediary phasebefore the stability of the Late Middle Palaeolithic.


Fig. 19. Experimental retouches. (1) Deep and flat experimental retouch produced by organic (deer bone) (2) retouch produced with hard mineral (basalt) with the same technicalgesture.(3) Box and whisker plot of the length index (length/width) obtained using different raw material quality retouchers: hard sandstone, deer antler, very soft basalt, deer bone(sample 300 experiments).


The succession of several technological phases on a core isobserved during the Lower Palaeolithic with a large adaptation offlaking processes to the shape of the blank. The Early MiddlePalaeolithic demonstrates that both controlled methods and someadaptation to shape (external contingencies) coexisted.

This Early Middle Palaeolithic succession of technological pha-ses on cores is the basic result of the adaptation of particular blankmorphologies to a clear production objective, i.e., to obtain flakeswith different predetermined morphologies (for Quina side-scrapers, for cutting tools or for points…). The use of polyhedralshapes or flakes as blanks requires an adaptation of the reductionsequence but the results are similar. This Quina technology does notconform exactly to the Quina debitage technology defined byBourguignon (1996, 1997) because all the end-products were thesame (in terms of morphology) for Quina sidescrapers. In Payre,different end-product morphologies were produced using thissequential model, dominated by the orthogonal method. At thesame time, the adaptation to blank types generates discoid/Leval-lois/Quina morphologies in final core morphologies.

6. Conclusion

The study of the level Ga assemblage from Payre from a tech-nological and experimental point of view indicates that Pre-Neanderthals, the first inhabitants of this site, applied a large va-riety of technological solutions anticipating the most recent MiddlePalaeolithic facies. Human mobility (Turq et al., 2013), group divi-sion, and regional traditions are coupled with the existence ofspecific technological evolution throughout this period (Richter,2011). During the first stages (around 300e250 ka), both Acheu-lean and Early Middle Palaeolithic features create a complex set oftechnologies in which Levallois, discoid and Quina methods aredominant and sometimes mixed together on the same core.


Features of Early Middle Palaeolithic assemblages, as demon-strated in Payre level Ga, confirm the presence of a technical andtechnological “pool of knowledge” as early as MIS 8e7 in south-eastern France and an intermediary phase between the LowerPalaeolithic and the Late Middle Palaeolithic. This pool of knowl-edge may subsequently have evolved into more specific and iso-lated distinct groups during the Late Middle Palaeolithic (Dal�enet al., 2012), as documented in Western Europe in sites predatingthe diversification of behavior which occurred during MIS 3,thereby explaining the standardization of core technologies, eithercontemporaneously or not with the arrival of the first modernhumans (Baena et al., 2011; Thi�ebaut et al., 2012).

Explaining the transition between the sequential application offeatures of Levallois, discoid, Quina or blade-production anddistinct series of independent chaînes op�eratoires is a key challengefor future research. The data point to intra-group technologicaldiversity in flaking concepts/methods during the early phases oftheMiddle Palaeolithic inWestern Europe, whichwould have givenrise to the techno-cultural diversity of MIS 3. This would haveevolved into standardized technology implemented by more spe-cific and isolated groups during the Late Middle Palaeolithic.Fragmented populations appear to have adopted narrower rangesof technological strategies, as documented in Western Europebefore the outbreak of technological variability which occurred atroughly the same time as the arrival of the first modern humansduring MIS 3. Similar processes have been proposed from geneticfor the human species (Richard et al., 2010).

This Middle Palaeolithic rupture cannot be solely linked to cli-matic conditions, subsistence factors or land-use models (types ofmobility), even if some models or hypotheses have been advanced(Rendu, 2007; Daujeard and Moncel, 2010; Delagnes and Rendu,2011).

Subsistence strategies and butchery traditions during the sec-ond part of the EuropeanMiddle Pleistocene also display significant



diversity from the very beginning of this period onwards (Blascoet al., 2013). Hominids present high flexibility, both in methodsand techniques for obtaining animal resources, and in the exploi-tation of a wide and varied prey spectrum. This phenomenon isobserved through both the scavenging of dead animals in fluvialcourses or in karstic traps (Santonja et al., 1980; Anzidei et al., 1989;Auguste, 1995; Gaudzinski et al., 1996; Anzidei and Cerilli, 2001;Huguet et al., 2001; Villa et al., 2005; Brugal et al., 2006;Yravedra et al., 2012) and through selective hunting strategies(Monchot, 1999; Lumley et al., 2004; Rivals et al., 2004; Moncelet al., 2005; Moigne et al., 2006; Moncel et al., 2008; Blasco et al.,2010). These elements are combined with the exploitation andconsumption of small animals, which seem to be present very earlyon (Guennouni, 2001; Cochard, 2004; Costamagno andLaroulandie, 2004; Roger, 2004; Valensi and Guennouni, 2004;Blasco, 2008; Sanchis and Fern�andez, 2008; Blasco andFern�andez, 2009; Sanchis, 2010; Hardy and Moncel, 2011; Blascoand Fern�andez Peris, 2012; Daujeard et al., 2012).

Acknowledgements

Excavations at Payre site were supported by the French Ministryof Culture and the regional district (Rhone-Alps area). M.G. Chac�onwas financed by a postdoctoral grant from the Juan de la CiervaSubprogram (JCI-2010-07863) and the research project HAR 2010-19957/HIST, both with the financial sponsorship of the SpanishMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO). This work wasalso conducted as part of the research project: “Something morethan hand axes: towards the technical and technological definitionof the Pleistocene lithic assemblages from the Madrid region”(HAR2010-20151), financed by the General Direction for Research.

The authors wish to thank the editor and anonymous reviewersfor their valuable comments and suggestions and also thank LouiseByrne for the grammatical revision of the English manuscript.Finally, we would like to thank Concepci�on Torres Navas for all thephotos of the experimental lithic material.

References

Antoine, P., Limondin-Lozouet, N., Auguste, P., Lamotte, A., Bahain, J.J., Falgu�eres, C.,Laurent, M., Coudret, P., Locht, J.L., Depaepe, P., Fagnart, J.P., Fontugne, M.,Hatt�e, Ch, Mercier, N., Frechen, M., Moigne, A.M., Munaut, A.V., Ponel, Ph,Rousseau, D.D., 2003. Pal�eoenvironnements pl�eistoc�enes et peuplementspal�eolithiques dans le bassin de la Somme (nord de la France). Bulletin Soci�et�ePr�ehistorique Française 100 (1), 5e29.

Anzidei, A.P., Cerilli, E., 2001. The fauna of La Polledrara di Cecanibbio and Rebibbia-Casal de' Pazzi (Rome, Italy) as an indicator for site formation processes in afluvial environment. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. (Eds.),The World of Elephants. Proceedings of the First International Congress. Con-siglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 167e171.

Anzidei, A.P., Angelelli, R., Arnoldus-Huyzendveld, Caloi, A.L., Palombo, M.R.,Segre, A.G., 1989. Le gisement pleistocene de 'La Polledrara' di Cecanibbio(Rome). L'Anthropologie 93, 749e782.

Ashton, N.M., 1992. The high lodge flint industries. In: Ashton, N.M., Cook, J.,Lewis, S.G., Rose, J. (Eds.), Excavations at High Lodge, G de G. Sieveking1962e1988. British Museum Press, London, pp. 124e163.

Ashton, N.M., Cook, J., Lewis, S.G., Rose, J., 1992. High Lodge: excavations by G. de G.Sieveking, 1962e8, and J. Cook, 1988. British Museum, London.

Auguste, P., 1995. Chasse et charognage au Pal�eolithique moyen : l'apport dugisement de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais). Bulletin Soci�et�e Pr�ehistoriqueFrançaise 92, 155e167.

Baena, J., Cuartero, F., 2006. M�as all�a de la tipología lítica: lectura diacríticayexperimentaci�on como claves para la reconstrucci�ondel proceso tecnol�ogico. In:Maillo, Jos�e Manuel, Baquedano, Enrique (Eds.), Miscel�anea en homenaje aVictoria Cabrera. Zona Arqueol�ogica, vol. 7(I), pp. 144e161.

Baena, J., Carri�on, E., Cuartero, F., Fluck, H., 2011a. A chronicle of crisis: the LateMousterian in north Iberia (Cueva del Esquilleu, Cantabria, Spain). QuaternaryInternational, 1e13.

Baena, J., Barez, S., P�erez-Gonzalez, A., Roca, M., L�azaro, A., M�arquez, R., Rus, I.,Manzano, C., Cuartero, F., Ortiz, I., Rodríguez, P., Perez, T., Gonz�alez, I., Polo, J.,Rubio, D., Alcaraz, M., Escobar, A., 2011b. Searchers and miners: first signs offlint exploitation in Madrid's region. In: Capote, M., Consuegra, S., Díaz-del-Río, P., Terradas, X. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of


the UISPP Commission on Flint Miningin Pre- and Protohistoric Times (Madrid,14e17 October 2009), British Archaeological Reports International Series 2260,pp. 203e220.

Baena Preysler, J., Carri�on Santaf�e, E., 2010. Experimental approach to the functionand technology of quina side-scrapers. In: Nami, Hugo G. (Ed.), Experimentsand Interpretation of Traditional Technologies: Essays in Honor of Errett Call-ahan, Buenos Aires, pp. 171e202.

Bar-Yosef, O., Van Peer, P., 2009. The chaîne op�eratoire approach in Middle Paleo-lithic archaeology. Current Anthropology 50, 103e131.

Bargall�o, A., 2008. Variability of the levallois and discoid methods at the middlePaleolithic of north-east Catalonia: Puig Marí (Maçanet de la Selva) and CanPlaniol (Santa Coloma de Farners). Annali dell'Universit�a degli Studi di Ferrara.In: Museologia Scientifica e Naturalistica volume speciale 2008, pp. 17e20.

Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Shimelmitz, R., 2005. Middle Pleistocene blade production inthe levant: an Amudian assemblage from Qesem Cave, Israel. Eurasian Prehis-tory 3 (2), 39e74.

Barsky, D., 2013. The Caune de la Caune de l'Arago stone industries in theirstratigraphical context. Comptes Rendus Palevol 12 (5), 305e325.

Bertouille, H., 1989. Th�eories physiques et math�ematiques de la taille des outilspr�ehistoriques. Editions du CNRS, Paris. Cahiers du Quaternaire 15.

Bischoff, J.L., Williams, R.W., Rosenbauer, R.J., Aramburu, A., Arsuaga, J.L., García, N.,Cuenca-Bescos, G., 2007. High-resolution U-series dates from the Sima de losHuesos hominids yields 600 ±∞66kyrs: implications for the evolution of theearly Neanderthal lineage. Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (5), 763e770.

Blasco, R., 2008. Human consumption of tortoises at level IV of Bolomor Cave(Valencia, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (10), 2839e2848.

Blasco, R., Fern�andez, Peris, J., 2009. Middle Pleistocene bird consumption at levelXI of Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (10),2213e2223.

Blasco, R., Fern�andez Peris, J., 2012. A uniquely broad spectrum diet during theMiddle Pleistocene at Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). Quaternary International252 (0), 16e31.

Blasco, R., Fern�andez-Peris, J., Rosell, J., 2010. Several different strategies forobtaining animal resources in the late Middle Pleistocene: the case of level XIIat Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). Comptes Rendus Palevol 9, 171e184.

Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Cuartero, F., Fernandez Peris, J., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2013.Using bones to shape Stones: MIS 9 bone retouchers at both edges of theMediterranean Sea. PlosOne 10, e76780.

Bo€eda, �E., 1988. Le concept laminaire: rupture et filiation avec le concept Levallois.In: Otte, M. (Ed.), L'Homme de Neandertal. La mutation, Li�ege, pp. 41e59.

Bo€eda, E., 1991. La conception trifaciale d'un nouveau mode de taille pal�eolithique.In: Bonifay, E., Vandermeersch, B. (Eds.), Les premiers Europ�eens. Actes du 114eCongr�es national des Soci�et�es savantes (Paris, 3e9 avril 1989). C.T.H.S, Paris,pp. 251e263.

Bo€eda, �E., 1993. Le d�ebitage Discoïde et le d�ebitage Levallois r�ecurrent centrip�ete.Bulletin de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Française 90 (6), 392e404.

Bo€eda, �E., 1994. Le concept Levallois: variabilit�e des m�ethodes. CNRS �Editions, Paris,p. 280.

Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Pal�eolithique ancien et moyen. Publications del'Institut de Pr�ehistoire de l'Universit�e de Bordeaux, Delmas. M�emoire n� 1,r�e�edition CNRS 1988.

Bourguignon, L., 1996a. La Conception de D�ebitage Quina. Quaternaria Nova IV,149e169.

Bourguignon, L., 1996b. La conception de d�ebitage Quina. In: Bietti, A., Grimaldi, S.(Eds.), Proceedings of the International Round Table: Reduction Processes(“chaînes op�eratoires”) for the European Mousterian. Quaternaria Nova, vol. VI,pp. 149e166.

Bourguignon, L., 1997. Le moust�erien de Type Quina: Nouvelle d�efinition d'uneentit�e technique (Unpublished Phd). University of París X, Nanterre, p. 672.

Bourguignon, L., 1998. Le d�ebitage Quina de la couche 5 de Sclayn: elementsd0interpretation. In: Otte, M., Patou-Mathis, M., Bonjean, D. (Eds.), Recherchesaux grottes de Sclayn, L'Arch�eologie, vol. 2. E.R.A.U.L, Li�ege, pp. 249e276.

Bourguignon, L., 2001. Apports de l'exp�erimentation et de l'analyse techno-fonctionnelle �a la reconnaissance du processus d'am�enagement de la retou-che Quina. In: Bourguignon, L., Ortega, I., Fr�ere-Sautot, M.-C. (Eds.), Pr�ehistoireet approche exp�erimentale. Edition Monique Mergoil, Montagnac, pp. 35e66.

Bourguignon, L., Meignen, L., 2010. Ioton (Gard) 30 ans apr�es : nouvelles con-sid�erations technologiques et techno-�economiques sur l'industrie moust�eri-enne. Bulletin de la Soci�et�e pr�ehistorique française 107 (3), 433e453.

Bourguignon, L., Faivre, J.-P., Turq, A., 2004. Ramification des chaînes op�eratoires:une sp�ecificit�e du moust�erien. Paleo 16, 37e48.

Bourguignon, L., Djema, H., Bertran, P., Lahaye, C., Guibert, P., 2008. Le gisementSalien de Petit-Bost (Neuvic, Dordogne) �a l'origine du Moust�erien d'Aquitaine?.In: Jaubert, J., Bordes, J.G., Ortega, I. (Eds.), Les soci�et�es du Pal�eolithique dans unGrand Sud-Ouest de la France : nouveaux gisements, nouveaux r�esultats,nouvelles m�ethodes. M�emoire de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Française, vol. XLVII,pp. 41e55.

Brantingham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., 2001. Constraints on levallois core technology: amathematical model. Journal of Archaeological Science 28 (7), 747e761.

Brenet, M., 2011. Variabilit�e et signification des productions lithiques auPal�eolithique moyen ancien. L'exemple de trois gisements de plein-air duBergeracois (Dordogne, France) (Unpublished Phd). University of Bordeaux 1,p. 480.

Brenet, M., Folgado, M., Lenoble, A., Bertran, P., Viellevigne, E., Guibert, P., 2008.Interpr�etation de la variabilit�e de deux industries du Pal�eolithiquemoyen ancien


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(14)00587-4/sref1





































































































































































































































































du Bergeracois: Cantalouette I et Combe Brune 3 (Creysse, Dordogne). In:Jaubert, J., Bordes, J.-G., Ortega, I. (Eds.), Les soci�et�es du Pal�eolithique dans unGrand Sud-Ouest de la France: nouveaux gisements, nouveaux r�esultats, nou-velles methods, M�emoires Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Francaise, vol. 47, pp. 57e83.

Brugal, J.-P., Díez-Lomana, C., Huguet, R., Michel, P., Rosell, J., 2006. Karstic cavities,natural bone accumulations and discrete human activities in the EuropeanPalaeolithic: some case studies. In: Haws, J.A., Hockett, B.S., Brugal, J.-P. (Eds.),Paleolithic Zooarchaeology in Practice, British Archaeological Reports Interna-tional Series 1564, pp. 1e12.

Callow, P., Cornford, J.M., 1986. La Cotte de St. Brelade 1961e1978. Excavations byC.B.M. McBurney. Geo Books, Cambridge, p. 421.

Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., Oll�e, A., Rodríguez, X.P., Sahnouni, M., Sala, R.,Verg�es, J.M., 2001. Structure morphotechnique de l'industrie lithique duPl�eistoc�ene inf�erieur et moyen d'Atapuerca (Burgos, Espagne). L'Anthropologie105, 259e280.

Carri�on Santaf�e, E., 2002. Variabilidad t�ecnica en el Musteriense de Cantabria(Unpublished Phd). Universidad Aut�onoma de Madrid. Facultad de Filosofía yLetras, Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Madrid, Spain.

Carri�on Santaf�e, E., Baena Preysler, J., 2003. La producci�on Quina del nivel XI de laCueva del Esquilleu: una gesti�on especializada de la producci�on. Trabajos dePrehistoria 60 (1), 1e21.

Chac�on, M.G., 2009. El Paleolítico medio en el suroeste europeo: Abric Romaní(Capellades, Barcelona, Espa~na) Payre (Romp�on, Ard�eche, Francia) y Tournal(Bize, Aude, Francia). An�alisis comparativo de los conjuntos líticos y los com-portamientos humanos (Unpublished PhD). Departament d'Historia i Historiade l'Art (Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain) and D�epartement dePr�ehistoire (Mus�eum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France), p. 607.

Clark, J.G.D., 1968. World Prehistory: a New Outline, second ed. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge.

Claud, E., Soressi, M., Jaubert, J., Hublin, J.-J., 2012. A traceological study of QuinaMousterian stone tools of the bonebed at Chez-Pinaud (Jonzac, Charente-Maritime, France).New elements in favour of butchering activities and hideprocessing. Gallia Pr�ehistoire 54, 3e32.

Cochard, D., 2004. Les L�eporid�es dans la subsistance Pal�eolithique du sud de laFrance (Unpublished Phd). University of Bordeaux I, France.

Combier, J., 1967. Le Pal�eolithique de l'Ard�eche dans son cadre bioclimatique, p. 462.Bordeaux.

Costamagno, S., Laroulandie, V., 2004. L'exploitation des petits vert�ebr�es dans lesPyr�en�ees françaises du Pal�eolithique au M�esolithique : un inventaire tapho-nomique et arch�eozoologique. In: Brugal, J.-P., Desse, J. (Eds.), Petits Animaux etSoci�et�es Humaines Du Complement Alimentaire aux Ressources Utilitaires.XXIV Rencontres Internationales d'Arch�eologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes Antibes.Editions APDCA, pp. 403e416.

Cotterell, B., Kamminga, J., 1987. The formation of flakes. American Antiquity 52,675e708.

Dal�en, L., Orlando, L., Shapiro, B., Brandstr€om-Durling, M., Quam, R., Gilbert, M.T.P.,Díez Fern�andez-Lomana, J.C., Willerslev, E., Arsuaga, J.L., G€otherstr€om, A., 2012.Partial genetic turnover in Neandertals: continuity in the east and populationreplacement in the west. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29 (8), 1893e1897.

Daujeard, C., Moncel, M.-H., 2010. On Neanderthal subsistence strategies and land-use: a regional focus on the Rhone Valley area in southeastern France. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 29, 368e391.

Daujeard, C., Fernandes, P., Guadelli, J.-L., Moncel, M.-H., Santagata, C., Raynal, J.-P.,2012. Neanderthal subsistence strategies in Southeastern France between theplains of the Rhone Valley and the mid-mountains of the Massif Central (MIS 7to MIS 3). Quaternary International 252, 32e47.

Delagnes, A., 1995. Variability within uniformity: three levels of variability withinLevallois system. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Inter-pretation of Levallois Echnology, Monographs in World Archaeology. PrehistoryPress, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 201e211.

Delagnes, A., Rendu, W., 2011. Shifts in Neandertal mobility, technology and sub-sistence strategies in western France. Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (8),1771e1783.

Delagnes, A., Jaubert, J., Meignen, L., 2007. Les technocomplexes du Pal�eolithiquemoyen en Europe occidentale dans leur cadre diachronique et g�eographique. In:Les N�eandertaliens Biologie et Cultures. CTHS, Documents pr�ehistoriques, Paris,pp. 213e219.

Faivre, J.-P., 2008. R�eflexions sur les rythmes techniques et �economiques dans leMoust�erien r�ecent du Nord-Est aquitain (Unpublished Phd IPGQ). University ofBordeaux 1.

Faivre, J.-P., Geneste, J.M., Turq, A., 2009e2010. La fracturation en split, une tech-nique de production dans l’industrie lithique des Tares (Sourzac, Dordogne). In:Mourre, V., Jarry, M. (Eds.), Entre le marteau et l'enclume. La percussion directeau percuteur dur et la diversit�e de ses modalit�es d'application. Actes de la tableronde de Toulouse, Paleo, pp. 133e142.

Fernandes, P., Raynal, J.-P., Moncel, M.-H., 2008. Middle Palaeolithic raw materialgathering territories and human mobility in the southern Massif Central,France: first results from a petro-archaeological study on flint. Journal ofArchaeological Science 35 (8), 2357e2370.

Fern�andez-Peris, J., 2007. La Cova del Bolomor (Tavernes de la Valldigna, Valencia.Las industrias líticas del Pleistocenos Medio en el �ambito del Mediterr�aneoPenínsular. In: Serie de Trabajos Varios 108. Servicio de Investigaci�on Pre-hist�orica, p. 463.

Fontana, F., Moncel, M.-H., Nenzioni, G., Onorevoli, G., Peretto, C., Combier, J., 2013.Widespread diffusion of technical innovations around 300,000 years ago in


Europe as a reflection of anthropological and social transformations? Newcomparative data from the western Mediterranean sites of Orgnac (France) andCave dall'Olio (Italy), 2013. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32,478e498.

Forestier, H., 1993. Le Clactonien: mise en application d'une nouvelle m�ethode ded�ebitage s'inscrivant dans la variabilit�e des syst�emes de production lithique duPal�eolithique ancien. Paleo 5, 53e82.

Geneste, J.-M., 1991. Syst�emes techniques de production lithique: variation techno-�economiques dans les processus de r�ealisation des outillages pal�eolithiques.Techniques et culture 17e18, 1e35.

Geneste, J.-M., Plisson, H., 1996. Production et utilisation de l'outillage lithique dansle Moust�erien du sud-ouest de la France : les Tares �a Sourzac, vall�ee de l’Isle,Dordogne. In: Bietti, A., Grimaldi, S. (Eds.), Actes de la table ronde internationaleReduction Processes (« chaînes op�eratoires ») for the European Mousterian,Quaternaria Nova, vol. 6. Istituto italiano di Paleontologia Umana, Rome,pp. 343e368.

Geneste, J.-M., Jaubert, J., Lenoir, M., Meignen, L., Turq, A., 1997. Approche tech-nologique des Moust�eriens charentiens du sud-ouest de la France et du Lan-guedoc oriental. Paleo 9, 101e142.

Gonz�alez Urquijo, J.E., Ib�a~nez Est�evez, J.J., Ríos Garaizar, J., Bourguignon, L., 2006.Aportes de las nuevas excavaciones en Axlor sobre el final del Paleolítico Medio.In: Cabrera Vald�es, V., Bernaldo de Quir�os Guidotti, F., Maíllo Fern�andez, J.M.(Eds.), El centenario de la cueva de El Castillo: el ocaso de los neandertales,pp. 269e290.

Goval, �E., 2012. Peuplements n�eandertaliens dans le nord de la France. Territoires,industries lithiques et occupations humaines durant la phase r�ecente duPal�eolithique moyen. In: Recherches Arch�eologiques 4. INRAP CNRS Editions,Paris, p. 312.

Guennouni, K., 2001. Les lapins du Pl�eistoc�ene moyen et sup�erieur de quelques sitespr�ehistoriques de l'Europe m�editerran�eenne: Terra-Amata, Orgnac 3, BaumeBonne, la Grotte du Lazaret, la Grotte du Boquete de Zafarraya, Arma delleManie. Etude pal�eontologique, arch�eozoologique et taphonomique (Unpub-lished PhD). Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

Guette, C., 2002. R�evision critique du concept de d�ebitage Levallois �a travers l'�etudedu gisement moust�erien de Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue/le Fort (chantiers IeIII et II,niveaux inf�erieurs) (Manche, France). Bulletin Societ�e Pr�ehistorique Francaise99 (2), 237e248.

Hallos, J., 2005. “15 minutes of fame”: exploring the temporal dimension of MiddlePleistocene lithic technology. Journal of Human Evolution 49, 155e179.

Hardy, B.L., Moncel, M.-H., 2011. Neanderthal use of fish, mammals, birds, starchyplants and wood 125e250,000 year ago. PlosOne 6 (8), e23768.

Hiscock, P., Turq, A., Faivre, J.-P., Bourguignon, L., 2009. Quina procurement and toolproduction. In: Adams, B., et al. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies.Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 232e246.

Hong, M.-Y., 1993. Le Pal�eolithique inf�erieur de l'abri de la Baume Bonne (Quinson,Alpes-de-Haute-Provence). Etude technologique et typologique de l'industrielithique (Unpublished Phd). Mus�eum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, p. 310.

Hublin, J.-J., 2009. The origin of Neanderthals. Proceedings, National Academy ofSciences 106, 16022e16027.

Hublin, J.-J., P€a€abo, S., 2005. Neandertals. Current Biology 16 (4), R113eR114.Huguet, R., Díez, J.C., Rosell, J., C�aceres, I., Moreno, V., Ib�a~nez, N., Saladi�e, P., 2001. Le

gisement de Galería (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Espagne): un mod�ele arch-�eozoologique de gestion du territoire durant le Pl�eistoc�ene. L'Anthropologie 105(2), 237e257.

Jaubert, J., 1993. Le gisement pal�eolithique moyen de Mauran (Haute Garonne).Techno-Economie des industries lithiques. Bulletin de la Societ�e Pr�ehistoriqueFrancaise 90 (5), 328e335.

Jaubert, J., 1994. L'industrie lithique. In: Farizy, C., David, F., Jaubert, J. (Eds.),Hommes and Bisons du Pal�eolithique Moyen �a Mauran (Haute-Garone), XXXeSuppl�ement �a Gallia Pr�ehistoire. CNRS �Edition, Paris, pp. 73e167.

Jaubert, J., Farizy, C., 1995. Levallois debitage: exclusivity, absence or coexistencewith other operative schemes (Garonne Basin, SW France). In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology,Monographs in World Archaeology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin,pp. 227e248.

Jaubert, J., Mourre, V., 1996. Coudoulous, Le rescoundudou, Mauran : diversit�e desmati�eres premi�eres et variabilit�e des sch�emas de production d’�eclats. In:Bietti, A., Grimaldi, S. (Eds.), Actes de la table ronde internationale ReductionProcesses (« chaînes op�eratoires ») for the European Mousterian (Rome, 26e28mai 1995), Quaternaria nova, vol. 6, pp. 313e341. Roma.

Jaubert, J., Brugal, J.-P., Chalard, P., Diot, M.-F., Falgueres, C., Jarry, M., Kervazo, B.,Konik, S., Mourre, V., 2001. Un gisement moust�erien de type Quina dans lavall�ee du C�el�e: Pailh�es �a Espagnac-Sainte-Eulalie. Gallia Pr�ehistoire, 1e99.

Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R.W., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M., P€a€abo, S., 1997.Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell 90, 19e30.

Lamotte, A., Tuffreau, A., 2001a. Les industries lithiques de Cagny-la-Garenne II(Somme, France). In: Tuffreau, A. (Ed.), L'Acheul�een dans la vall�ee de la Sommeet Pal�eolithique moyen dans le nord de la France: donn�ees r�ecentes. Centred'�Etudes et Recherches Pr�ehistoriques, Lille, pp. 59e91.

Lamotte, A., Tuffreau, A., 2001b. Les industries lithiques de la s�equence fluviatilesfine de Cagny-l'Epinette (Somme). In: Tuffreau, A. (Ed.), L'Acheul�een dans lavall�ee de la Somme et Pal�eolithique moyen dans le nord de la France: donn�eesr�ecentes. Centre d'�Etudes et Recherches Pr�ehistoriques, Lille, pp. 113e135.

Lenoir, M., Turq, A., 1995. Recurrent centripetal debitage (Levallois and Discoidal):continuity or discontinuity? In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition


















































































































































































































































































































































































and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, Monographs in World Archaeology.Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 249e256.

Lhomme, V., Connet, N., Bemilli, C., Chausse, C., 2000. Essai d'interpr�etation du sitePal�eolithique inf�erieur de Soucy 1 (Yonne). Gallia Pr�ehistoire 42, 1e44.

Locht, J.-L., Goval, E., Antoine, P., 2010. Reconstructing Middle Palaeolithic hominidbehaviour during IOS 5 in northern France. In: Conard, N.J., Delagnes, A. (Eds.),Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, vol. III.Kerns Verslag, Tübingen, pp. 329e355.

Lumley, H. , d., Gr�egoire, S., Barsky, D., Batalla, G., Bail�on, S., Belda, V., Briki, D.,Byrne, L., Desclaux, E., El Guenouni, K., Fournier, A., Kacimi, S., Lacombat, F.,Lumley, M.-A. d., Moigne, A.-M., Moutoussamy, J., Paunescu, C., Perrenoud, C.,Pois, V., Quiles, J., Rivals, F., Roger, T., Testu, A., 2004. Habitat et mode de vie deschasseurs pal�eolithiques de la Caune de l’Arago (600 000e400 000 ans).L'Anthropologie 108, 159e184.

Meignen, L., 1994. L'analyse de l'organisation spatial dans les sites du Pal�eolitiquemoyen: structures �evidentes, structures latentes. Pr�ehistoire AnthropologieM�editerran�eennes 3, 7e23.

Meignen, L., 1995. Levallois lithic production systems in the Middle Paleolithic ofthe Near East: the case of the unidirectional method. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology,Monographs in World Archaeology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin,pp. 361e379.

Meignen, L., 1996. Persistance des traditions techniques dans l'abri des Canalettes(Nant e Aveyron). In: Bietti, A., Grimaldi, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Interna-tional Round Table: Reduction Processes (“chaînes Op�eratoires”) for the Euro-pean Mousterian, Quaternaria Nova, vol. VI, pp. 449e464.

Men�endez, D.L., 2009. La transici�on del Modo 2 al Modo 3 vista a trav�es de laindustria lítica de Gran Dolina TD10 (Atapuerca, Burgos) y Orgnac 3 (Ard�eche,Francia). Desarrollo Tecnol�ogico y posibles implicaciones ocupacionales de losconjuntos (PhD). Departament d'Hist�oria i Geografia. Universitat Rovira i Virgili,Tarragona, p. 565.

Mercier, N., Valladas, H., Falgu�eres, C., Shao, Qingfeng, Gopher, A., Barkai, R.,Bahain, J.-J., Vialettes, Laurence, Joron, Jean-Louis, Reyss, Jean-Louis, 2013. Newdatings of Amudian layers at Qesem Cave (Israel): results of TL applied to burntflints and ESR/U-series to teeth. Journal of Archaeological Science 40,3011e3020.

Moigne, A.M., Palombo, M.R., Belda, V., Heriech-Briki, D., Kacimi, S., Lacombat, F.,Lumley, M.-A. d., Moutoussamy, J., Rivals, F., Quil�es, J., Testu, A., 2006. Les faunesde grands mammif�eres de la Caune de l'Arago (Tautavel) dans le cadre bio-chronologique des faunes du Pl�eistoc�ene moyen italien. L'Anthropologie 110,788e831.

Moncel, M.-H., 1994. L'industrie lithique des trois niveaux sup�erieurs de l'abri duMaras (Ard�eche). Actes de la table ronde “Les industries laminaires auPal�eolithique moyen”. In: Dossier de Documentation Arch�eologique, vol. 18.CNRS �Editions, pp. 117e125.

Moncel, M.-H., 1997. De la diversit�e du Pal�eolithique moyen en Ard�eche (moyennevall�ee du Rhone, France) et de son originalit�e. L'Anthropologie 101 (3), 482e511.

Moncel, M.-H., 1998. Les niveaux moust�eriens de la grotte de Saint-Marcel (Ard�e-che). Fouilles Ren�e Gilles. Reconnaissance de niveaux �a d�ebitage discoïde dansla vall�ee du Rhone. Bulletin Societ�e Pr�ehistorique Francaise 95 (2), 141e170.

Moncel, M.-H., 1998. L'industrie lithique de la grotte Scladina (Sclayn). La couchemoust�erienne �eemienne 5. Les comportements techniques et les objectifs de laproduction dans un Moust�erien de type Quina, Eraul 79, Universit�e de Li�ege. In:Otte, M., Patou-Mathis, M., Bonjean, D. (Eds.), Recherches aux grottes de Sclayn,L'Arch�eologie, vol. 2, pp. 181e249.

Moncel, M.-H., 2001. Le Moust�erien de type Quina de la grotte du Figuier (Ard�eche)Fouilles P. et A. Huchard et R. Gilles- Des occupations en grotte de courte dur�eespour une exploitation locale de l'environnement? Bulletin Soci�et�e Pr�ehistoriqueFrançaise tome 98 (4), 593e614.

Moncel, M.-H., 2003. L'exploitation de l'espace et la mobilit�e des groupes humainsau travers des assemblages lithiques �a la fin du Pl�eistoc�ene moyen et au d�ebutdu Pl�eistoc�ene sup�erieur. La moyenne vall�ee du Rhone entre Drome et Ard�eche.In: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1184, p. 179.

Moncel, M.-H., Daujeard, C., 2012. The variability of the Middle Palaeolithic on theright bank of the Middle Rhone Valley (South-East of France): technical tradi-tions or functional choices ?. In: Carbonnel, E. (Ed.), Special Issue Abric Romani(1909e2009) e the Neanderthal Home: Spatial and Social Behaviour, Tarragona(6e9 octobre 2009), Quaternary International, vol. 247, pp. 103e124.

Moncel, M.-H., Moigne, A.-M., Combier, J., 2005. Pre-Neandertal behaviour duringisotopic stage 9 and the beginning of stage 8. New data concerning fauna andlithics in the different occupation levels of Orgnac 3 (Ard�eche, South-EastFrance): occupation types. Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (9), 1283e1301.

Moncel, M.-H., Auguste, P., Ayliffe, L., Bahain, J.-J., Bocherens, H., Bouteaux, A.,Chac�on, M.G., Condemi, S., Cr�egut-Bonnoure, �E., Cr�epin, L., Debard, E.,Desclaux, E., Dubois, J.-M., Dashek, E., Dubar, M., El Hazzazi, N., Falgu�eres, C.,Fernandes, P., Froget, L., Julien, M.-A., Joron, J.-L., Lacombat, F., Lamarque, F.,Liouville, M., Mallye, J.-B., Masaoudi, H., Mercier, N., Patou-Mathis, M., Pautret-Homerville, C., P�ean, S., Reys, J.-L., Rousseau, L., Valladas, H., Villette, P., 2008. Lesite de Payre. Occupations humaines dans la vall�ee du Rhone �a la fin duPl�eistoc�ene moyen et au d�ebut du Pl�eistoc�ene sup�erieur. M�emoire de la Societ�ePr�ehistorique Française XLVI, 336.

Moncel, M.-H., Daujeard, C., Cr�egut-Bonnoure, �E., Boulbes, N., Puaud, S., Debard, �E.,Bailon, S., Desclaux, E., Escud�e, �E., Roger, T., Dubar, M., 2010. Nouvelles donn�eessur les occupations humaines du d�ebut du Pl�eistoc�ene sup�erieur de la moyennevall�ee du Rhone (France). Les sites de l’Abri des Pecheurs, de la Baume Flandin,


de l'Abri du Maras et de la Grotte du Figuier (Ard�eche), colloque Q6, Montpellier2008. Quaternaire 21 (4), 385e413.

Moncel, M.-H., Moigne, A.-M., Sam, Y., Combier, J., 2011. The emergence of Nean-derthal technical behavior: new evidence from orgnac 3 (Level 1, MIS 8),Southeastern France. Current Anthropology 52 (1), 37e75.

Moncel, M.-H., Puaud, S., Daujeard, C., Lartigot-Campin, A.-S., Millet, J.-J.,Theodoropoulou, A., Cr�egut-Bonnoure, �E., G�ely, B., Vercout�ere, C., Desclaux, E.,Roger, T., Bourges, F., 2012a. La Grotte du Figuier (Saint-Martin-d’Ard�eche) :Bilan des travaux r�ecents sur un site du Pal�eolithique moyen et sup�erieur de lamoyenne vall�ee du Rhone (Sud-Est de la France). Bulletin de la Soci�et�ePr�ehistorique Française 109 (1), 35e67.

Moncel, M.-H., Moigne, A.-M., Combier, J., 2012b. Towards the Middle Paleolithic inwestern europe: the case of orgnac 3 (South-Eastern France). Journal of HumanEvolution 63, 653e666.

Moncel, M.-H., Despri�ee, J., Voinchet, P., Tissoux, H., Moreno, D., Bahain, J.-J.,Courcimault, G., Falgu�eres, C., 2013. Early evidence of Acheulean settlement innorth-western Europe e la Noira site, a 700 000 year-old occupation in theCenter of France. Plos One 8, e75529.

Monchot, H., 1999. Mixture analysis and mammalian sex ratio among MiddlePleistocene mouflon of Arago Cave, France. Quaternary Research 52, 259e268.

Monnier, G., 2006. An evaluation of the Lower/Middle Palaeolithic periodization inwestern europe. Current Anthropology 47 (5), 709e745.

Mounier, A., Marchal, F., Condemi, S., 2009. Is Homo heidelbergensis a distinctspecies? New insight on the Mauer mandible. Journal of Human Evolution 56,219e246.

Odell, George H., 1996. In: Odell, G.H. (Ed.), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights intoHumanPrehistory. Plenum Books, New York.

Orlando, L., Darlu, P., Toussaint, M., Bonjean, D., Otte, M., H€anni, C., 2006. RevisitingNeandertal diversity with a 100,000 year old mtDNA sequence. Current Biology16 (11), R400eR402.

Pasty, J.-F., 2000. Le gisement Pal�eolithique moyen de Meillers (Allier): un exemplede la varibilit�e du d�ebitage Discoïde. Bulletin de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Fran-çaise tome 97 (2), 165e190.

Peresani, M., 2001. M�ethodes, objectifs et flexibilit�e d'un syst�eme de productionLevallois dans le Nord de l'Italie. L'Anthropologie 105, 351e368.

Peresani, M., 2003. Discoid Lithic Technology. Advances and Implications. In: BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 1120, p. 276. Oxford.

Premo, L.S., Hublin, J.-J., 2009. Culture, population structure, and low genetic di-versity in Pleistocene hominins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences of the USA 106 (1), 33e37.

Rabinovitch, A., Frid, V., Bahat, D., 2006. Wallner lines revisited. Journal of AppliedPhysics 99, 076102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2181692.

Rendu, W., 2007 (Phd). Planification des activit�es de subsistance au sein du territoiredesderniersMoust�eriens. C�ementochronologie et approchearch�eozoologiquedegisements du Pal�eolithique moyen (Pech-de-l'Az�e I, La Quina, Mauran) etPal�eolithique sup�erieur ancien (Isturitz), vol. 1. University of Bordeaux.

R�evillion, S., Tuffreau, A., 1994. Les industries laminaires au Pal�eolithique moyen.DAF, CNRS, París.

Richard, E.G., Krause, J., Briggs, A.W., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U., Kircher, M., Patterson, N.,Li, H., Zhai, W., Hsi-Yang Fritz, M., Hansen, N.F., Durand, E.Y., Malaspinas, A.-S.,Jensen, J.D., Marques-Bonet, T., Alkan, C., Prüfer, K., Meyer, M., Burbano, H.A.,Good, J.M., Schultz, R., Aximu-Petri, A., Butthof, A., H€ober, B., H€offner, B.,Siegemund, M., Weihmann, A., Nusbaum, C., Lander, E.S., Russ, C., Novod, N.,Affourtit, J., Egholm, M., Verna, C., Rudan, P., Brajkovic, D., Kucan, Z., Gu�sic, I.,Doronichev, V.B., Golovanova, L.V., Lalueza-Fox, C., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J.,Rosas, A., Schmitz, R.W., Johnson, Ph.L.F., Eichler, E.E., Falush, D., Birney, E.,Mullikin, J.C., Slatkin, M., Nielsen, R., Kelso, J., Lachmann, M., Reich, D., P€a€abo, S.,2010. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328, 710e722.

Richter, J., 2011. When did the middle Paleolithic begin? In: Conard, N.J., Richter, J.(Eds.), Neanderthal Lifeways, Subsistence and Technology. One Hundred FiftyYears of Neanderthal Study. Springer, New York, pp. 7e14.

Rigaud, J.-P., 1988. La grotte Vaufrey: pal�eoenvironnement, chronologie, activit�eshumaines. M�emoire de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Française 19.

Rightmire, G.P., 2008. Homo in the middle Pleistocene: hypodigms, variation, andspecies recognition. Evolutionary Anthropology 17 (1), 8e21.

Rios-Garaizar, J., 2010. Organizaci�on econ�omica de las sociedades neandertales: elcaso del nivel VII de Amalda. Zephyrus LXV, 15e37.

Risco, A., 2011. Analyse techno-�economique la couche E de la Micoque. Histoired'une transformation (Unpublished paper). PACEA, Bordeaux I, p. 67.

Rivals, F., Kacimi, S., Moutoussamy, J., 2004. Artiodactyls, favorite game of prehis-toric hunters at the Caune de l'Arago Cave (Tautavel, France). Opportunist orselective hunting strategies? European Journal of Wildlife Research 50, 25e32.

Rivals, F., Moncel, M.-H., Patou-Mathis, M., 2009. Seasonality and intra-site variationof Neanderthal occupations in the Middle Palaeolithic locality of Payre (Ard�e-che, France) using dental wear analyses. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(4), 1070e1078.

Roebroeks, W., Tuffreau, A., 1999. Paleoenvironment and settlement patterns of thenorthwest European Middle Paleolithic. In: Roebroeks, W., Gamble, C. (Eds.),The Middle Paleolithic Occupation of Europe. Leiden University Press,pp. 121e138.

Roebroeks, W., Conard, N.J., van Kolfschoten, T., 1992. Dense forests, cold steppes,and the Paleolithic settlement of northern Europe. Current Anthropology 33 (5),551e586.

Roger, T., 2004. L'avifaune du Pl�eistoc�ene moyen et sup�erieur du bord de laM�editerran�ee europ�eenne: Orgnac 3, Lazaret (France), Caverne delle Fate, Arma





























































































































































































































































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2181692



















































































delle Manie (Italie), Kalamakia (Gr�ece), Karain E (Turquie). Pal�eontologie,Taphonomie et Pal�eo�ecologie. PhD Institut de Pal�eontologie Humaine. Mus�eumNational d'Histoire Naturel, Paris.

Rolland, N., 1998. Middle palaeolithic settlement systems and Mousterian complexassemblage type variability. In: XIII International Congress of Prehistoric andProtohistoric Sciences, Forlí. Italia. 8/14 September 1996. Proceedings. Forlí,pp. 293e298.

Roussel, M., Bourguignon, L., Soressi, M., 2009. Identification de la percussion aupercuteur de calcaire au Pal�eolithique moyen : le cas du façonnage des racloirsbifaciaux de chez Pinaud (Jonzac, Charentes-Maritimes). Bulletin de la Soci�et�ePr�ehistorique Française 106 (2), 219e238.

Sanchis, A., 2010. Los lagomorfos del Paleolítico medio de la regi�on central ysudoriental del Mediterr�aneo Ib�erico. Caracterizaci�on tafon�omica y taxon�omica(Ph. dissertation). Universitat de Val�encia, Val�encia.

Sanchis, A., Fern�andez Peris, J., 2008. Procesado y consumo antr�opico de conejo enla Cova del Bolomor (Tavernes de la Valldigna, Valencia). El nivel XVIIc (ca 350ka). Complutum 18 (1), 25e46.

Santonja, M., Querol, A., 1980. Características de la ocupaci�on humana en los suelosachelenses de la terraza de �Aridos (Arganda, Madrid). In: Santonja, M.,L�opez, N., P�erez Gonz�alez, A. (Eds.), Ocupaciones achelenses en el valle delJarama. Publicaciones de la Diputaci�on Provincial de Madrid, Madrid,pp. 321e336.

Slimak, L., 1999. Mise en �evidence d'une composante laminaire et lamellaire dansun complexe moust�erien du sud de la France. PALEO 11, 89e109.

Slimak, L., 2004. Les derni�eres expressions du Moust�erien entre Loire et Rhone(Th�ese de doctorat). In: Pr�ehistoire, Arch�eologie, Histoire et Civilisations del'antiquit�e et du Moyen-age. Universit�e de Provence-Centre d'Aix, Aix en Pro-vence, p. 650.

Stahl, G.L., Detrey, J., 1999. Le site moust�erien d’Alle, Pr�e Monsieur. Cahierd’Arch�eologie Jurassienne 9.

Texier, J.-P., 2003. Le contexte g�eologique des sites pal�eolithiques de plein air duNeuvicois. Bulletin de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Ari�ege-Pyr�en�ees LVIII, 133e142.

Thi�ebaut, C., Mourre, V., Chalard, P., Colonge, D., Coudenneau, A., Deschamps, M.,Sacco-Sonador, A., 2012. Lithic technology of the final Mousterian on both sidesof the Pyrenees. Quaternary International 247, 182e198.

Tixier, J., Inizan, M.L., Roche, H., 1980. Prehistoire de la Pierre Taill�e. Terminologie etTechnologie, París.

Tixier, J., Turq, A., 1999. Kombewa et alii. PALEO 11, 135e143.Tuffreau, A., 1990. Le Pal�eolithique Moyen R�ecent dans le Nord de la France. In:

Farizy, C. (Ed.), Pal�eolithique Moyen Recent et Pal�eolithique Superieur Ancienen Europe. Actes du Colloque International de Nemours. 9-10-11 Mai 1988,pp. 159e165.

Tuffreau, A., Lamotte, A., Antoine, P., Marcy, J.-L., 1997. Le gisement acheul�een de laFerme de l'Epinette �a Cagny (Somme, France). Archaologisches Korres-pondenzblatt 27, 513e530.

Tuffreau, A., Antoine, P., Marcy, J.-L., Segard, N., 2001. Les industries Pal�eolithiques �anombreux bifaces du Mont de l’Evangile �a Gentelles (Somme). In: Cliquet, D.(Ed.), Les industries �a outils bifaciaux du Pal�eolithique moyen d'Europe occi-dentale, Etudes et Recherches Arch�eologiques de l'Universit�e de Li�ege no. 98.Universit�e de Li�ege, Li�ege, pp. 29e41.


Turq, A., 1985. Le Moust�erien de type Quina du roc de Marsal (Dordogne). Bulletinde la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Française 82 (2), 46e52.

Turq, A., 1989. Approche technologique et �economie du faci�es Moust�erien de typeQuina: �etude pr�eliminaire. Bulletin de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Française tome86 (8), 244e255.

Turq, A., 1992. Le Pal�eolithique inf�erieur et moyen entre les vall�ees de la Dordogneet du Lot (Th�ese de doctorat). Universit�e Bordeaux-I, Bordeaux.

Turq, A., 2000. Pal�eolithique inf�erieur et moyen entre Dordogne et Lot. PALEOSuppl. 2, 456.

Turq, A., 2003. De la mati�ere premi�ere lithique brute �a la mise au jour de l'objetarch�eologique: Propositions pour une meilleure exploitation du potentielinformatif du mat�eriel lithique illustr�ees par quelques exemples dupal�eolithique aquitain. Universit�e de Perpignan: Habilitation �a Diriger desrecherches.

Turq, A., Guadelli, J.-L., Quintard, A., 1999. A propos de deux sites d'habitatmoust�erien de type Quina �a exploitation du bison: l'exemple du Mas-Viel et deSous-les-Vignes. In: Brugal, J.-P., David, F., Enloe, J.G., Jaubert, J. (Eds.), Le Bison:gibier et moyen de subsistance des hommes du Pal�eolithique aux Pal�eoindiensdes grandes plaines, Actes du colloque international de Toulouse, 1995. APDCA,Sophia Antipolis, pp. 143e159.

Turq, A., Roebroeks, W., Bourguignon, L., Faivre, J.-P., 2013. The fragmented char-acter of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool technology. Journal of Human Evolution.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.07.014.

Valensi, P., El Guennouni, K., 2004. Comportements de subsistance et structuresd'habitat sur le site de plein air de Terra Amata (Pal�eolitique inf�erieur, France).In: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1272, pp. 75e85.

Valladas, H., Mercier, N., Ayliffe, L.K., Falgu�eres, C., Bahain, J.-J., Dolo, J.-M., Froget, L.,Joron, J.-L., Masaoudi, H., Reyss, J.-L., Moncel, M.-H., 2008. Radiometric dates forthe Middle Palaeolithic sequence of payre (Ard�eche, France). QuaternaryGeochronology 3 (4), 377e389.

Vaquero, M., 1999. Variabilidad de las Estrategias de Talla y Cambio Tecnol�ogico enel Paleolítico Medio del Abric Romaní (Capellades, Barcelona). Trabajos dePrehistoria 56 (2), 37e58.

Vaquero, M., Carbonell, E., 2003. A Temporal Perspective on the Variability of thediscoid Method in the Iberian Peninsula. In: Peresani, M. (Ed.), Discoid LithicTechnology. Advances and Implications, British Archaeological Reports Inter-national Series 1120, pp. 67e82.

Vieillevigne, E., Bourguignon, L., Ortega, I., Guibert, P., 2008. Analyse crois�ee desdonn�ees chronologiques et des industries lithiques dans le grand sud-ouest dela France (OIS 10 �a 3). Pal�eo 20. Sp�ecial table ronde (2e partie). Le Gravettien:entit�es r�egionales d’une pal�eo culture europ�eenne, Les Eyzies, juillet 2004.

Villa, P., Soto, E., Santonja, M., P�erez-Gonz�alez, A., Mora, R., Parcerisas, J., Ses�e, C.,2005. New data from Ambrona: closing the hunting versus scavenging debate.Quaternary International 126e128, 223e250.

Williams, J.P., Andrefsky Jr., W., 2011. Debitage variability among multiple flintknappers. Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (4), 865e872.

Yravedra, J., Rubio-Jara, S., Panera, J., Uribelarrea, D., P�erez-Gonz�alez, A., 2012. El-ephants and subsistence. Evidence of the human exploitation of extremelylarge mammal bones from the Middle Palaeolithic site of PRERESA (Madrid,Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (4), 1063e1071.























































































































































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.07.014























































Late Middle Pleistocene genesis of Neanderthal technology inWestern Europe: The case of Payre site...

Documents

Transcript of Late Middle Pleistocene genesis of Neanderthal technology inWestern Europe: The case of Payre site...