Recycling Bones in the Middle Pleistocene: Some Reflections from Gran Dolina TD10-1 (Spain),...

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e16

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

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

Recycling bones in the Middle Pleistocene: Some reflections fromGran Dolina TD10-1 (Spain), Bolomor Cave (Spain) and Qesem Cave(Israel)

Jordi Rosell a, b, *, Ruth Blasco c, Josep Fern�andez Peris d, Eudald Carbonell a, b, e,Ran Barkai f, Avi Gopher f

a Area de Prehistoria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Avinguda de Catalunya 35, 43002 Tarragona, Spainb IPHES, Institut Catal�a de Paleoecologia Humana i Evoluci�o Social, C/ Marcel.lí Domingo s/n e Campus Sescelades URV (Edifici W3), 43007 Tarragona, Spainc The Gibraltar Museum, 18-20 Bomb House Lane, Gibraltard SIP (Servei d'Investigaci�o Prehist�orica), Museo de Prehistoria, Diputaci�on de Valencia, C/Corona, 36, 46003 Valencia, Spaine Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of Beijing (IVPP), Chinaf Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:Middle PleistoceneRecyclingBone toolsBone retouchersIberian PeninsulaNear East

* Corresponding author. Universitat Rovira i Virgili (35, 43002 Tarragona, Spain

E-mail addresses: [email protected], J

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.0091040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

Please cite this article in press as: Rosell, J., eBolomor Cave (Spain) and Qesem Cave (Isra

a b s t r a c t

Archaeologists can use different kinds of data to identify recycling. However, most approaches to recy-cling are based on lithic artefact attributes, especially on surface alterations, suggesting a period ofdiscard between different events. Recycling can also be approached by means of faunal remains based onbone damage characteristics. Bone breakage processes, aimed at maximizing the nutritional value ofconsumed animals, generate a high number of small- and large-sized fragments, which are eventuallydiscarded. Some of these are morphologically suitable for human use. It is necessary to distinguish be-tween the use of bone as raw material from pre-existing very large-sized carcasses such as elephants (incases where it is not certain if these had a nutritional purpose) and the recycling of fragments resultingfrom bone marrow extraction of smaller mammals that were obtained and consumed by human groups.In the first case, when the bones of a pre-existing elephant (including natural deaths) are exploited fortool making, the bones can be considered raw material, very similar to collecting stones as raw materialfor the lithic industry. In the second case, the bones of smaller mammals are selected to be used in asubsequent life cycle, after being broken for nutritional purposes and discarded. Here, we present someearly cases of recycled bones from the Middle Pleistocene sites of Gran Dolina TD10-1 and Bolomor Cavein Spain and Qesem Cave in Israel. The studied elements appear to have been part of a previous faunalprocessing sequence (nutritional in nature), which were later discarded, and then used or modified forpurposes other than the original ones. These fragments are dated to MIS 9 and show damage producedby use (retouched and unmodified soft retouchers) or shaped forms (bone artefacts). This study is anattempt to provide new data on recycling activities of faunal remains in the Middle Pleistocene anddiscuss the origin of this behaviour.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Bone has been used for many purposes since the beginning ofthe Pleistocene. The clearest evidence has been found among South

URV), Avinguda de Catalunya

[email protected] (J. Rosell).

reserved.

t al., Recycling bones in the Mel), Quaternary International

African Paranthropus, who used diaphyseal bone fragments andhorn cores to collect termites for food (d'Errico and Backwell,2009). In this case, the bones showed no modification, but theydid show functional alteration in the form of smooth distal ends asa result of being used for digging out termitemounds. In the earliestarchaeological sites related to the Oldowan (or Mode 1), anthro-pogenic damage to bones is frequent; however, it seems to onlyhave been associated with nutritional purposes, such as breakingopen bones to access the marrow. Carnivores also access carcasseswith the same objective, and they can cause bone damage that is

iddle Pleistocene: Some reflections from Gran Dolina TD10-1 (Spain),(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.009

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.009



J. Rosell et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e162

easily confused with that of humans, generating notches or corticalextractions similar to those produced by anthropogenic activities.Perhaps the best example of this interpretative complexity is thedebate between Binford (1983) and Freeman (1983) on the faunalremains from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Cueva Morin in Spain.Similarly, Villa and d'Errico (2001) re-visited some European Lowerand Middle Palaeolithic assemblages where points made of animalmaterials were described, such as in Torralba, Ambrona, La GrotteVaufrey, Combe Grenal, Pech de l'Az�e, Camiac and Bois Roche (Villaand d'Errico, 2001, and references therein). These authors observedcarnivore traces on most of the specimens (tooth-marks and di-gestions), concluding that non-human predators were the mainagents responsible for the resulting morphologies.

In addition to carnivores, post-depositional processes can pro-duce similar bone damage on fractured edges. For example, tram-pling action can generate small notches associated with surfacestriae (Blasco et al., 2008) in a similar manner to the notchesdocumented on lithic remains involved in the same taphonomicphenomena or in activities that cause use-wear (Gifford-Gonzalezet al., 1985). From this perspective, bones can be part of multipletaphonomic histories occurring in Pleistocene sites, among whichthe intentional use of bone for purposes other than nutrition shouldbe considered.

Beginning in the Acheulean cultural complex of the LowerPalaeolithic period, bone was introduced into tool manufacturingprocesses, either as an element to be configured (raw material) oras an element used for making tools (bone hammers or retouchers).Some of the most significant examples of large format toolsconfigured from bone material were from the Middle Pleistoceneand recovered at Castel di Guido (Radmilli and Boschian, 1996;Sacc�a, 2012; Boschian and Sacc�a, 2014), Fontana Ranuccio(Biddittu and Celletti, 2001) and Polledrara (Villa et al., 1999;Anzidei, 2001) in Italy, Bilzingsleben in Germany (Mania andMania, 2005), V�ertessz€oll€os in Hungary (Dobosi, 2001), and Reva-dim Quarry in Israel (Rabinovich et al., 2012). The technology of thelithic artefacts most characteristic of this period, the hand axes,sometimes involved the use of soft hammers that were usuallymade of wood, horn, antler or bone (Tixier, 1982; Wenban-Smith,1989; Moncel et al., 2012). In England, at the site of Boxgrovedated some half a million years ago, an interesting collection of softhammers, usually made of deer antler and, to a lesser extent, bone,was found (Wenban-Smith, 1989; Stout et al., 2014). Additionally,the distal epiphysis of a red deer humerus seems to have been usedfor percussion, as can be deduced from the pits in the articularsurface and some small fragments of embedded flint (Smith, 2010,2013). These soft hammers were used during the shaping of specifictypes of large artefacts, and the context itself suggests the possi-bility that they were involved in the sharpening of hand axes orcleavers.

The most common elements in subsequent chronologies relateto mid-shaft fragments that were recycled after the bone breakagefor marrow consumption. Nevertheless, phalanges, astragali,maxillary or mandibular fragments, scapulae, antlers and eventeeth were also employed (e.g., Patou-Mathis, 2002). The animalspecies were often herbivores (e.g., Armand and Delagnes, 1998;Patou-Mathis, 2002; J�equier et al., 2012; Mallye et al., 2012;Daujeard et al., 2014) and rarely carnivores (Auguste, 2002; J�equieret al., 2012; Abrams et al., 2014) or hominins (Ahern et al., 2004;Mussini, 2011; Verna and d'Errico, 2011). These bone retouchersusually show striations clustered in small areas on the corticalsurface or active zones, which were generated by percussion onthe sharp edges of stone flakes. These marks were usually shortand deep with a V-shaped bottom composed of a right angleadjacent to another more acute angle, similar to chop marks. Someexamples related to the beginning of the second half of the Middle

Please cite this article in press as: Rosell, J., et al., Recycling bones in the MBolomor Cave (Spain) and Qesem Cave (Israel), Quaternary International

Pleistocene include Gran Dolina TD10 (MIS 9-10) (Rosell et al.,2011; Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al., 2013) and Bolomor Cave XVII(MIS 9) (Blasco et al., 2013a) in Spain; Caune de l'Arago (MIS 12)(Moigne, 1996), La Micoque (MIS 9) (Langlois, 2004), Cagny-l'Epinette (MIS 9) (Lamotte and Tuffreau, 2001) and Orgnac 3 (MIS9) (Moncel et al., 2012; Daujeard et al., 2014) in France;Sch€oningen 13II-4 (MIS 9) (Hutson et al., 2013) in Germany; andQesem Cave in Israel (MIS 9) (Blasco et al., 2013a).

This paper presents cases of bones used as retouchers or as rawmaterial for themanufacturing of tools from theMiddle Pleistocenesites of Gran Dolina (TD10-1, MIS 9) and Bolomor Cave (XVII-XII,MIS 9-6) in Spain and Qesem Cave (Lower sequence, MIS 9 andpossibly older) in Israel. All studied elements have been part of aprevious faunal processing sequence (nutritional in nature), whichwere later modified or used as retouchers. This assessment allowsus to raise some questions; for example, can the recycling conceptbe applied to faunal remains? Is the selection of bone fragmentsdeliberate or opportunistic? And when did this behaviour begin?Our attempt here, beyond the detailed analysis of the bone re-touchers (their degree of variability, state of freshness and/or useintensity), is to answer these questions and approach the recyclingor the use of previously discarded elements by means of faunalremains.

2. Geological, chronological and archaeological settings

2.1. Gran Dolina, TD10-1

The Gran Dolina site is one of themany caves located in the karstcomplex of the Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain) (Fig. 1). It is acavity of about 18 m high, filled with the Lower and Middle Pleis-tocene sediments. These deposits have been divided into 11 strat-igraphic levels, which are numbered from the bottom to the top(TD1 to TD11). Palaeomagnetic data has placed the Matuyama-Brunhes boundary at the top of level TD7, which divides thesequence into an Early Pleistocene section (TD1-2 to TD7) and aMiddle Pleistocene section (TD8 to TD11). TD10 is located at the topof the sequence and shows the highest accumulation of archaeo-logical and palaeontological remains at Gran Dolina. This level hasbeen additionally divided into four lithostratigraphic units (TD10-4to TD10-1, from the bottom to the top). An ESR/UeTh date of379 ± 57 ka for the bottom of TD10-1 has been obtained, togetherwith a mean date of 337 ± 29 ka for its top (Falgu�eres et al., 1999;Berger et al., 2008; Rodríguez et al., 2010).

Lithic artefacts recovered at TD10-1 are assigned to the begin-ning of the Middle Palaeolithic, and they have been classified as atransitional Mode 2/3 assemblage (Oll�e et al., 2013). Consisting of21,884 items, this assemblage is dominated by small items(<20 mm). The TD10-1 industry is developed primarily with localmaterials, while Neogene chert was themost common rawmaterial(51.2%). Other materials used were sandstone (17.8%), quartzite(17.2%) and, to a lesser extent, Cretaceous chert (6.6%), quartz(3.2%), limestone (0.3%) and other unidentifiedmaterials (includingunidentified chert) (3.6%) (Oll�e et al., 2013). Technology is charac-terised both by diversity and by standardisation in reduction se-quences and tool shaping; however, the assemblage is notconsidered a classical Levallois, “but rather as a phase of localevolution devoted to the development of predetermined knappingmethods” (Oll�e et al., 2013, p. 159). The incidence of small flaketools, characterized by high morphological diversity, prevails onaccount of large shaped tools. Denticulates (30.8%), side-scrapers(24.4%) and isolated notches (17.5%) are predominant (Table 1).Lithic refitting carried out in the northwest sector suggests shortand incomplete knapping activities at the cave (L�opez-Ortega et al.,2011).


Table 1Comparative contextual data for the archaeological sites of Gran Dolina (TD10-1), Bolomor Cave (XVIIa, XIII and XII) and Qesem Cave (lower sequence-Hearth unit).

Gran Dolina Bolomor Cave Qesem Cave

Stratigraphic levels TD10-1 XVIIa XIIIa XII Lower Sequence-Hearth unitSedimentology Lutites, clay loam; gravels and

bouldersClay matrix with highpercentage oflimestone blocks andslight yellowishlaminations

Rosaceous sandyeclaysediment/terra rossawith limestone blocks

Clay sediment withlimestone blocks

Clay-dominated sediment andlimestone blocks

Chronology 240 ± 44 kya IRSL337 ± 29 kya ESR & U-Series379 ± 57 kya (bottom) ESR/UTh

>350 kya U-SeriesMIS 9 MS (MagneticSusceptibility)

228 ± 53 kya AAR(XIIIc)233 ± 35 Kya TL (XIII-XIV contact)

z180 kya AAR >300 kya U-series and ESR

Hearths No ? Yes Yes YesLithic industryCultural complex Incipient Middle Palaeolithic Early Middle

PalaeolithicEarly MiddlePalaeolithic

Early MiddlePalaeolithic withlimestone large formats

Acheulo-Yabrudian CulturalComplex (AYCC), Amudian

Main raw materials Neogene chert (51%), sandstone(17.8%), quartzite (17.2%)

Flint (65%), quartzite(18%) limestone (15%)

Flint (64%) followed bylimestone (31%) andquartzite (5%)

Limestone (65%), flint(30%), quartzite (5%)

Flint

Main tools (from highto low)

Flakes, denticulates, scrapers,isolated notches

Flakes, denticulates,scrapers

Flakes, scrapers,denticulates

Large flakes,denticulates, scrapers

Naturally backed blades andflakes. Retouched flakes andblades, side and end scrapers,single burins and a handaxe

Operative chain Generally complete, althoughshort and incomplete knappingactivities were also detected inthe northwest area of the cave

Complete Complete Complete Complete

Macro-FaunaSample (NSP) 11,081 1732 2382 14,124 37,304Main taxa (NISP) Cervus elaphus (762), Equus

ferus (260), Bison sp. (144)Cervus elaphus (177),Equus ferus (77)

Cervus elaphus (293),Dama sp. (161), Bosprimigenius (101)

Cervus elaphus (1836),Equus ferus (1138)

Dama cf. mesopotamica (2370)

Minority ungulate taxa Sus scrofa, Megalocerosgiganteus, Dama damaclactoniana

P. antiquus S. hemitoechus P. antiquus, Sus scrofa Capra aegagrus

Carnivore taxa Ursus arctos, Canis lupus, Vulpesvulpes, Panthera leo fossilis, Lynxsp.

Canis cf. lupus Canis cf. lupus, unident.Carnivora

Panthera leo spelaea,lynx sp., Felis sylvestris

Unident. Carnivora

Macro-mammaldiversity

17 taxa 9 taxa 11 taxa 15 taxa 11 taxa

Main age at death Prime-adults Prime-adults Prime-adults Prime-adults Prime-adults, with significantpresence of juveniles

Skeletal profile Mandibles, stylopodials,zeugopodials and metapodials

Mandibles, maxillaries,stylopodials andzeugopodials



Mandibles, stylopodials,zeugopodials and metapodials

Limb long bones vs flatbones (NSP)

5728 vs 4066 677 vs 317 1249 vs 811 8361 vs 4083 31,299 vs 3448

Anthropogenic bonedamage

5% cut-marked bones 6.7% cut-marked bones 2.4% cut-marked bones 4.1% cut-marked bones 2% cut-marked bones

12% bone breakageb 6.8% bone breakageb 1.6% bone breakageb 1.5% bone breakageb 2% bone breakageb

e e 0.2% burnt specimens 0.2% burnt specimens 33.9% burnt specimensCarnivore damage 4% 5% 0.5% 0.9% 0.2%References Falgu�eres et al., 1999; Berger

et al., 2008; L�opez-Ortega et al.,2011; Oll�e et al., 2013; Blascoet al., 2013c

Fern�andez Peris, 2007;Blasco et al., 2013c

Fern�andez Peris, 2007;Fern�andez Peris et al.,2012; This study

Fern�andez Peris, 2007;This study

Barkai et al., 2003; Gopher et al.,2010; Shahack-Gross et al.,2014; Mercier et al., 2013;Blasco et al., 2014

NISP (Number of Identified Specimens); NSP (Number of Specimens).a Level XIII faunal sample presented here comes from the excavation currently ongoing in the northern sector of the site.b Specimens showing diagnostic elements of bone breakage (percussion notches, impact flake, percussion pits, etc.) ebones showing exclusively breakage in fresh were not

included here.

J. Rosell et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e16 3

The faunal record from TD10-1 is mainly characterized by me-dium- and large-sized ungulates such as Cervus elaphus and Equusferus, followed by Bison sp. and also by small mammals such asOryctolagus sp. The elements with the greatest marrow value in thecase of ungulates are those with the greatest representation: sty-lopodials (femur and humerus), zeugopodials (radius and tibia),metapodials and mandibles; a circumstance that could be inter-preted as the product of an anthropogenic selective transport.Diagnostic elements of intentional anthropogenic breakage and cutmarks are recognised on bones belonging to large and small prey


(Blasco et al., 2013b, 2013c). The features of the faunal assemblagesuggest that anthropogenic access to animals was mainly primaryand immediate, and evidence has even been found of big cathunting (Blasco et al., 2010a). Several carnivore remains, such asUrsus arctos, Canis lupus, Vulpes vulpes, Panthera leo fossilis and Lynxsp, were also recovered. The overall record of tooth marks on thebones supports the view that predatory animals frequented thecave to scavenge the remains abandoned by human groups andprobably sought refuge or made dens between intervals of humanoccupation (Rosell, 2001; Blasco et al., 2013b, 2013c). These



features, together with slow sedimentation rates at the bottom ofthis unit (Mallol and Carbonell, 2008), suggest the existence ofseveral occupational periods forming a palimpsest.

2.2. Bolomor Cave

Bolomor Cave is located on the central Mediterranean coast ofSpain in the town of Tavernes de la Valldigna near Valencia (Fig. 1).The site is a karst cavity opened to the exterior as a consequence ofthe erosion of the ravine where it is located. The currentmorphology of the site is an elevated rock shelter on the rock wall,and 17 archaeological levels have been documented with amaximum thickness of 14 m (Fumanal, 1995). The levels arenumbered from the top of the deposit. The cave's karst deposit hasbeen dated by amino acid racemization (AAR) and thermolumi-nescence (TL), together with the study of the magnetic suscepti-bility of the sediment (MS) between MIS 9 and MIS 5e (Fern�andezPeris, 2007).

The biostratigraphic sequence is mainly characterized by thepresence of Cervus elaphus and Equus ferus, as well as more specificrecords of other species at certain times, such as Hemitraguscedrensis, Hemitragus bonali, Dama sp., Megaloceros giganteus, Susscrofa, Macaca sylvana, Equus hydruntinus, Bos primigenius, Stepha-norhinus hemitoechus, Palaeoloxodon antiquus, Hippopotamusamphibius and Castor fiber. The presence of carnivores in the cave issporadic, but fossil remains of Ursus arctos, Ursus thibetanus, Canislupus, Panthera leo, Lynx pardina, Vulpes vulpes andMeles meles havebeen recovered (Martínez Valle, 2001; Sarri�on and Fern�andez Peris,2006; Rivals and Blasco, 2008; Blasco et al., 2013b).

Fig. 1. Geographical location of Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgo


The stratigraphic sequence of the Bolomor Cave has beendivided into four palaeoclimatic phases:

- Bolomor Phase I (levels XVIIeXV, MIS 9-8): a cold period withseasonal humidity characterized by the accumulation of exog-enous material and a sedimentary transformation into breccia.The faunal assemblage is dominated by Cervus elaphus, Equusferus and Hemitragus bonali. The presence of Megalocerosgiganteus could be associated with the relative humidity.

- Bolomor Phase II (levels XIV and XIII, MIS 7): a warm periodwith a humid interstadial character. The predominant speciesare Dama sp. and Hemitragus bonali.

- Bolomor Phase III (levels XII, XI, X, IX, VIII and VII, MIS 6): a coldclimatic period, humid in the lower levels (XII) to cold and aridin the upper levels (VIII). The faunal remains record a significantincrease of E. ferus.

- Bolomor Phase IV (levels VIeI, MIS 5e): a period with atemperate and humid climate characteristic of the last Eemianinterglacial period with some cooler phases (levels VIIeIII). Thefauna identified is characterized by the predominance of C.elaphus, E. ferus, Dama sp. and Sus scrofa. In addition, phalangesand dental remains of Hippopotamus amphibius and Palae-oloxodon antiquus were recorded.

The human groups that occupied Bolomor Cave processed awide range of animals, from large mammals to medium and smallungulates (Blasco and Fern�andez Peris, 2012; Blasco et al., 2013b),as well as lagomorphs (Sanchis Serra and Fern�andez Peris, 2008;Blasco and Fern�andez Peris, 2012; Blasco et al., 2013b), tortoises

s, Spain), Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain) and Qesem Cave (Israel).



(Blasco, 2008) and birds (Blasco and Fern�andez Peris, 2009). Manyremains show cut marks, anthropogenic breakage (as a result ofmarrow removal) and burning patterns on specific areas of skeletalelements (Blasco et al., 2013b, 2013c).

The lithic industry is mainly made of flint, although some ex-ceptions can be noted depending on the level (e.g., level XII), and itis characterized by the production of flakes. The majority of theretouched artefacts are scrapers and lateral denticulates. The lithicsfound in Bolomor are characterized by intensive reuse and therecycling of lithics, especially at level IV (Cuartero, 2008; Fern�andezPeris et al., 2008). The cases of bone retouchers presented herecome from levels XVII (sublevel XVIIa, MIS 9), XIII (MIS 7) and XII(MIS 6). The lithic assemblage from level XVII shows a predomi-nance of flakes, a scarce presence of the Levallois technique and apredominance of denticulates and scrapers. The cores display acertain hierarchy linked to sub-parallel scars to the intersectionplan; however, their morphology is not well structured on eithersurface and seems to respond only to a dual combination of a firstsecant series followed by other sub-parallel series in adiscontinuous-alternating range. Retouched artefacts are denticu-lates in 53.5% of the cases (Fern�andez Peris, 2007). On the contrary,the lithic record from level XIII displays a predominance of scrapersand a low proportion of denticulates that have a scarce or nullLevallois index. The raw materials are mainly flint (64%), followedby limestone (31%) and quartzite (5%). Retouched tools display asquamous morphology on flint (55%) and denticulate forms onlimestone. Level XIII involves tools showing a continuous retouchconverging on the back; this back can be natural (cortical) or a flatedge of the core that is usually divergent from the technical axis(Fern�andez Peris, 2007). Finally, the lithic assemblage from level XIIshows some differences regarding other levels in the Bolomorsequence, with raw materials dominated by limestone (z65%) andflint (z30%). Knapping strategies on limestone are linked todiscoid-like cores but sometimes have a clear asymmetry of sur-faces. Flakes showing a back and pseudo-Levallois technique arecommonly represented at level XII, together with a retouchemphasizing the lateral pointed edges. By contrast, the scarce flintflakes and by-products display different knapping schemesincluding Levallois and characteristic marginal, simple retouch.Retouched artefacts on limestone show denticulate forms in almost100% of cases, while the squamous artefacts predominate on flint(63%) (Fern�andez Peris, 2007) (Table 1). In general, the Bolomortechno-complex seems to precede the regional Classic Mousterianthat began sometime between the late Middle and the early LatePleistocene. It is Ancient Middle Palaeolithic, although it is notrelated to the Acheulean (Fern�andez Peris, 2007).

The stratigraphic series presents clear evidence of the controlledand repetitive use of fire. The analytical techniques used confirmedthe presence of hearths at levels II, IV, XI and XIII of the site(Fern�andez Peris et al., 2012). Specifically, the combustion struc-tures located at level XIII, chronologically located in MIS 7c with anAAR date of 228 ± 53 ka, are the most ancient found to date, notonly in Spain but in the whole of Southern Europe.

2.3. Qesem Cave

Qesem Cave is located 12 km east of Tel Aviv, Israel, and 90 mabove sea level (Fig. 1). The cave was formed on Cretaceous lime-stone known as the Bi'na Formation adjacent to the present-dayeastern Mediterranean coast. The archaeological site shows astratigraphic sequence composed of detritic sediments dated by theUeTh series as well as TL and ESR to between 420 ky at the bottomand approximately 200 ky at the top (Barkai et al., 2003; Gopheret al., 2010; Mercier et al., 2013). The sediment column is dividedinto lower and upper sequences.


The current macromammal record at Qesem Cave shows an as-sociation composed mainly of fallow deer (cf. Dama mesopotamica),red deer, roe deer, aurochs, horses and wild boar (Stiner et al., 2009;Blasco et al., 2014). These taxa contrast with those of other archae-ological sites from the region of the Early and Late Pleistocene, wheremore African influences, such as gazelles, are documented. The studyof faunal remains has suggested the use of cooperative huntingstrategies aimed mainly at fallow deer and the transport of selecteddeer body parts to the cave, where they were processed and sharedbefore consumption (Stiner et al., 2011; Blasco et al., 2014). This sitehas produced a major well-preserved microvertebrate assemblageconsisting of thousands of specimens. Unusually, it also contains alarge proportion of reptile remains. The microvertebrate accumula-tions are found in two parts of the cave and appear to be quasi-contemporaneous with hominid occupation. The first analyses ofthe ecological preferences of these taxa and their close relativesindicate a palaeoenvironment with a mosaic of open and woodlandhabitats (Maul et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2013).

The lithic industry at Qesem was assigned to the Acheulo-Yabrudian Cultural Complex (AYCC) of the late Lower Palaeolithic(Gopher et al., 2005; Barkai et al., 2009; Barkai andGopher, 2013). TheAYCC is a local cultural entity differing from the preceding Acheuleanand the proceeding Mousterian. It shows a pool of innovative char-acteristics, including sophisticated raw material acquisition (deepflint quarrying), intensive and systematic blade production, intensiveflint recycling activities and the presence of an ‘ahead of its time’assemblageofQuina scrapers. TheAYCCconsists of three industries ofwhich two are present at Qesem Cave: the blade-dominated Amu-dian industry and the Quina scrapers-dominated Yabrudian. WhiletheAmudiandominates the cave stratigraphy, theYabrudian industryappears atQesemCave in three stratigraphically and spatially distinctareas (Barkai et al., 2009). The Amudian assemblages studied aredominated by blades thatmay consist of over half of the debitage andtools. Apart from a large number of naturally backed (unretouched)blades andflakes, theAmudian tools aredominatedby retouched andbacked blades, retouched flakes, burins, end scrapers and a smallcomponent of Quina and Demi-Quina scrapers (Gopher et al., 2005;Barkai et al., 2009; Shimelmitz et al., 2011). The Yabrudian industryis dominated byflakes, although it has a clear component of blades aswell. The tool assemblage is dominated by Quina and Demi-Quinascrapers (sometimes constituting over a third of the tools) (Table 1).The bone retouchers presented here come from the lower sequence(MIS 9). The controlled use of fire is common throughout the strati-graphic sequence of Qesem in the form of wood ash remnants,burned bones and intact hearths (Karkanas et al., 2007; Shahack-Gross et al., 2014).

Qesem Cave shows the first identifiable hominin remainsassociated with the AYCC. According to Hershkovitz et al. (2011),human dental remains from this site show features resemblinganatomically modern humans, although Neanderthal traits seem tobe present as well. These fossils mostly resemble the Skhul/Qafzehsamples of the Middle Palaeolithic Levant. Following the evolu-tionary model related to the Pleistocene human populations ofEurope, the Near East appears to be a central region of humandispersal (Bermúdez de Castro and Martin�on-Torres, 2012).

3. Material and methods

The cases of bone specimens presented in this study come fromsublevel TD10-1 of Gran Dolina; levels XVII (sublevel XVIIa), XIIIand XII of Bolomor Cave; and from the lower sequence of QesemCave. These bone fragments are chronologically located betweenMIS 9 andMIS 6 and show damage produced by use (retouched andunmodified soft retouchers) or, as in the case of Gran Dolina TD10-1, present configured forms (bone tools).



The Gran Dolina TD10-1 artefacts come from a sample obtainedduring the 2000e2001 excavation seasons and included a total of11,081 faunal remains (1811 identified at the genus/species level)(Table 1). This faunal assemblage shows a high diversity with a totalof 22 taxa. In spite of this, Cervus elaphus (Number of IdentifiedSpecimens [NISP]¼ 762 of 1,811, or 42.1%) is the dominant ungulatespecies, followed by Equus ferus (NISP¼ 260, or 14.4%) and Bison sp.(NISP ¼ 144, or 7.9%). Small mammals are also present at TD10-1,with Oryctolagus sp. being the most abundant animal (NISP ¼ 329or 18.2%). The anatomical profile in the case of ungulates indicates abiased skeletal representation characterised by stylopodials (femurand humerus), zeugopodials (radius and tibia), metapodials andmandibles. The proportion of long bone fragments (Number ofSpecimens [NSP] ¼ 5728 of 11,081 specimens) is slightly higherthan flat bones (NSP ¼ 4066 of 11,081). Among the long bones, theassemblage consisted mainly of shaft fragments (NSP ¼ 3950 of5728 long bone fragments), which are not always taxonomicallyidentifiable (Blasco et al., 2013b, 2013c).

Bone retouchers from Bolomor Cave were recovered at levelsXVII (sublevel XVIIa), XIII and XII. Level XVIIa yielded 1732 faunalremains, of which 1016 were identified at a taxonomical level. Thisassemblage includes a minimum of 15 species with a predomi-nance of Cervus elaphus (NISP ¼ 177 of 1,016, or 17.4%), Equus ferus(NISP ¼ 77, or 7.6%), Oryctolagus cuniculus (NISP ¼ 620, or 61%) andfour remains belonging to Canis cf. lupus (Blasco et al., 2013c). Theexcavation of level XIII is currently ongoing and therefore, datapresented here must be considered as provisional because thenumber of archaeological items, as well as the excavated surface,will increase considerably during the next seasons. So far, 2382faunal fragments (784 identified at the species level) from level XIIIhave been recovered in the northern sector of the site. A total of 13taxa were registered, with a predominance of C. elaphus(NISP ¼ 293 of 784, or 37.4%) and Dama sp. (NISP ¼ 161, or 20.5%),followed by Bos primigenius (NISP ¼ 101, or 12.9%) and Oryctolaguscuniculus (NISP ¼ 90, or 11.5%). Level XII was excavated in threephases. Faunal records from the first and second phases include allfossil remains from excavation seasons 2000e2004 and from thesoundings made in 1989 and 1996. This assemblage was previouslypublished by Blasco et al. (2010b) and Blasco and Fern�andez Peris(2012), and no bone retouchers were registered. The third excava-tion phase (seasons 2007e2012) corresponds to the extensiveexcavation of level XII, which yielded a total of 13,168 faunal frag-ments. Bone retouchers registered here come from this area andbelong to the last excavation phase. In total, a sample including14,124 specimens from level XII was analyzed, and 3904 wereattributed at the genus/species level. C. elaphus (NSP ¼ 1836 of3,904, or 47%) and E. ferus (NSP ¼ 1,138, or 29.1%) are the mostabundant taxa among the 22 recorded species. Generally, theBolomor faunal assemblages are mainly composed of proximalappendicular bones (stylopodials and zeugopodials) and cranialelements (mandibles and maxillaries) in the case of ungulates. Likein TD10-1, flat bones (NSP XVIIa ¼ 317 of 1732; XIII ¼ 811 of 2382;XII ¼ 4083 of 14,124) are identified in a lower proportion than longbones (NSP XVIIa ¼ 677 of 1732; XIII ¼ 1249 of 2382; XII ¼ 8361 of14,124), which consist mainly of shaft fragments (NSP XVIIc ¼ 369of 550 long bone fragments; XIII ¼ 992 of 1249; XII¼ 6518 of 8361)(Table 1).

The Qesem faunal data presented in this study are from thelower sequence, especially from the central hearth context (300kya), which includes not only the hearth area (approximately 4 m2)but also surrounding areas (approximately 11 m2). This sampleyielded 37,304 specimens, of which 2995 were identified as beingfrom the species level. The faunal assemblage includes 15 taxa.Fallow deer (Dama cf.mesopotamica) is the main taxa (NISP ¼ 2370of 2,995, or 79.1%), supplemented by red deer (Cervus cf. elaphus;


NISP ¼ 231, or 7.7%), which is followed by auroch (Bos primigenius;NISP ¼ 123, or 4.1%) and horse (Equus ferus; NISP ¼ 103, or 3.4%).The skeletal representation is biased in all taxa and characterisedby a predominance of mandibles, stylopodials, zeugopodials andmetapodials, and a low representation of the axial bones (vertebraeand ribs) and phalanges. There is a higher proportion of long bonefragments (NSP ¼ 31,299 of 37,304 specimens) than flat bones(NSP ¼ 3448 of 37,304). As in the cases described above, the shaftfragments predominate among long bone specimens (NSP¼ 28,424of 31,299 long bone fragments) (Table 1).

We have analyzed bone breakage of all specimens reported herein terms of fracture outline, angle and edge following the termi-nology developed by Villa and Mahieu (1991). This system providesinformation about the state of the bones at the time of fracture(fresh, intermediary freshness or dry). Blank dimensions weretaken in millimetres (length, width and thickness); although onlythe length and thickness of the blanks broken in a fresh state wereconsidered because dry fractures could have been generated bypost-depositional processes.

To describe and analyse the damage observed on bone re-touchers, the surface alterations were treated at both the macro-scopic and microscopic levels using an Olympus Europe SZ11(magnification up to 110) and ESEM (Environmental ScanningElectron Microscope, FEI QUANTA 600). The damage was identifiedaccording to criteria described by Armand and Delagnes (1998),Malerba and Giacobini (1998), Patou-Mathis (2002), Mozota(2009) and Mallye et al. (2012). The terminology related to theorientation, type, distribution and morphology of the bone damagewas developed from the conventions proposed by Mallye et al.(2012). The location is noted in relation to width axis (apical, cen-tral, covering and lateral) and distribution in terms of isolated,dispersed, concentrated and superposed areas. Pits correspond todepressionswith triangular or ovoid forms on the bone surface, andstriations are defined as more or less deep incisions with differentdelineations (rectilinear, sinuous, concave or convex) and texturesurfaces (smooth or rough).

According to several experimental studies, the number and typeof generatedmarks are related to the state of the bone and the timeof usage (Mozota, 2009; Verna and d’Errico, 2011; Rosell et al.,2011; Mallye et al., 2012; Daujeard et al., 2014). Bones used in afresh or an intermediary freshness state generate shallow marksand deep incisions usually clustered in well-defined areas (activeareas). The number of marks and overlapped marks increase withthe duration of usage but not the extension of these areas. Theintensive use of bones as retouchers can result in the superpositionof traces generating hatched (superposition of striations), pitted(superposition of pits) and scaled (superficial detachment of smallbone plaques) areas. The bones used in the dry state usually showchips and a significant loss of cortical tissue; nevertheless, severalauthors agree that most marks characterizing the bone retouchersare usually generated when the bone is in a fresh or intermediatestate (e.g., Mozota, 2009; Verna and d'Errico, 2011; Rosell et al.,2011; Mallye et al., 2012; Daujeard et al., 2014).

4. Data presentation

4.1. Gran Dolina, TD10-1

The three bone fragments presented here come from TD10-1and were previously reported by Rosell et al. (2011); they includeone bone retoucher (ATA'01 TD10-1 M12/70) and two modifiedbones (ATA'01 TD10-1 N13/14 and ATA'00 TD10-1 J19/19) (Table 2;Fig. 2). New research has allowed the identification of new boneretouchers from TD10-1 and TD10-2, as described in Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al. (2013).


Table 2Inventory and interpretative results for the retouchers at sublevel TD10-1 of Gran Dolina, levels XVII, XIII and XII of Bolomor Cave and Qesem Cave.

Site/Level ID_Item Type Skeletalelement

Taxa Length Thickness Active area Damage Modifieda References

(mm) (mm) No. Location Distribution Pits Striations/Scores Areas Freshness Useintensity

TD10-1 ATA01 TD10-1 M12/70 Retoucher Long boneshaft

Medium size 47 9 1 Cent Conc Tr, Ov Rect, Sin/Sm e F L e Rosellet al., 2011

TD10-1 ATA01 TD10-1 N13/14 Artefact Metatarsal Bison sp. 53 25 e e e e e e e e Yes Rosellet al., 2011

TD10-1 ATA00 TD10-1 J19/19 Artefact Long boneshaft

Large size 98 12 e e e e e e e e Yes Rosellet al., 2011

Bolomor XVII CB94 XVIIa C4’/126 Retoucher Femur Cervus elaphus 86 4 1 Cent (Apic) Conc Tr Rect/Sm Hat F-Interm L yes Blascoet al., 2013a

Bolomor XIII CB13 XIII I8/25 Retoucher Femur Cervus elaphus 85 7 2 Cent/Lat Conc/Conc Tr, Ov Rect, Sin/Sm Scal Interm M-Int e This studyBolomor XIII CB13 XIII K9/46 Retoucher Long bone

shaftMedium size 32 5 1 Cent Disp Ov Rect, Sin/Sm, Ro e F-Interm Sl e This study

Bolomor XIII CB13 XIII I9/159 Retoucher Metatarsal Cervus elaphus 60 6 2 Cent/Lat Disp/Conc Tr, Ov Rect/Sm Scal Interm L e This studyBolomor XIII CB13 XIII K9/1 Retoucher Humerus Cervus elaphus 34 4 1 Cent Conc Ov Rect, Sin/Sm Scal Interm M e This studyBolomor XII CB11 XII I12 Z ¼ 490e505 Retoucher Long bone

shaftMedium size 23 5 1 Lat Conc Ov Rect/Sm e F Sl e This study

Bolomor XII CB12 XII LL9/48 Retoucher Humerus Cervus elaphus 67 6 1 Lat Disp Tr Rect, Cvx/Sm e Interm Sl-L e This studyBolomor XII CB09 XII E10/45 Retoucher Femur Large size 70 7 1 Cent Iso e Rect/Sm e e Sl e This studyBolomor XII CB09 XII K12/117 Retoucher Long bone

shaftLarge size 64 7 1 Cent Conc Tr, Ov Rect, Sin/Sm e F L e This study

Bolomor XII CB09 XII LL10/6 Retoucher Long boneshaft

Medium size 42 5 1 Cent Conc Tr, Ov Rect, Cvx/Sm, Ro e e Sl-L e This study

Bolomor XII CB09 XII LL10/55 Retoucher Humerus Cervus elaphus 51 6 1 Lat Conc Ov Rect, Ccv/Sm, Ro Scal Interm M e This studyBolomor XII CB09 XII LL11/21 Retoucher Femur Cervus elaphus 45 6 1 Lat Conc Ov Rect/Sm, Ro Scal, Pit Interm Int e This studyBolomor XII CB09 XII LL11/24 Retoucher Metapodial Cervus elaphus 30 6 1 Cent Disp Ov Rect/Sm e F Sl e This studyBolomor XII CB09 XII LL11/37 Retoucher Humerus Cervus elaphus 35 7 1 Lat Conc Tr, Ov Rect/Sm, Ro Scal Interm Int e This studyBolomor XII CB09 XII LL9/15 Retoucher Metapodial Cervus elaphus 110 5 1 Cent Conc Tr, Ov Rect, Ccv/Sm e F Sl e This studyBolomor XII CB09 XII N12/35 Retoucher Tibia Cervus elaphus 30 4 1 Lat Disp Tr, Ov Rect, Sin/Sm, Ro e F- Interm Sl e This studyQesem QC01 K19 Z ¼ 590 Retoucher Long bone

shaftMedium size 43 6 1 Cent Conc Ov Rect, Sin/Sm Scal, Hat Interm M-Int e Blasco et al.,

2013aQesem QC06 I13d/376 Z ¼ 590e595 Retoucher Long bone

shaftMedium size 31 6 1 Cent þ Apic Disp Ov Rect, Sin/Sm, Ro e F- Interm L e Blasco et al.,

2014Qesem QC08 J12a/1 Z ¼ 560e565 Retoucher Long bone

shaftLarge size 58 8 1 Cent Conc e Rect/Sm e F- Interm Sl e Blasco et al.,

2014Qesem QC08 J12a/5 Z ¼ 555e560 Retoucher Long bone

shaftLarge size 26 8 1 Cent þ Apic Disp Ov Rect/Sm, Ro e F- Interm Sl e Blasco et al.,

2014Qesem QC12 K15c/87 Z ¼ 580e585 Retoucher Humerus Cervus cf.

elaphus52 7 2 Lat/Cent Conc/Conc Tr Rect, Sin/Sm Scal Interm M-Int e This study

Qesem QC12 J15b/113 Z ¼ 585e590 Retoucher Tibia Medium size 32 6 1 Cent Disp Ov Rect/Sm e F-Interm Sl-L e This studyQesem QC12 K15a/196 Z ¼ 555e560 Retoucher Long bone

shaftSmall size 26 4 1 Lat Disp Tr Rect/Sm, Ro e Interm Sl e This study

Qesem QC12 K15b/208 Z ¼ 555e560 Retoucher Long boneshaft

Medium size 33 6 1 Lat Conc Tr Rect/Sm Hat F L-M e This study

Qesem QC12 K15b/31 Z ¼ 570e575 Retoucher Metatarsus Dama cf.mesopotamica

48 5 1 Cent Disp Ov Rect/Sm Pit Interm L e This study

Cent ¼ Central; Apical ¼ Apic; Lat ¼ Lat; Conc ¼ Concentrated; Disp ¼ Dispersal; Iso ¼ Isolated; Tr ¼ Triangular; Ov ¼ Ovoid; Rect ¼ Rectilinear; Sin ¼ Sinous; Ccv ¼ Concave; Cvx ¼ Convexa; Sm¼Smooth; Ro ¼ Rough;Hat ¼ Hatched area; Scal ¼ Scaled area; Pit ¼ Pitted area; F¼Fresh; Interm ¼ Intermediary freshness; L ¼ Low-used; M ¼ Medium-used; Sl ¼ Slightly used; Int ¼ Intensively used.

a Items modified intentionally.

J.Rosellet

al./Quaternary

Internationalxxx(2014)

1e16

7

Pleasecite

thisarticle

inpress

as:Rosell,J.,etal.,Recyclingbones

inthe

Middle

Pleistocene:Somereflections

fromGran

Dolina

TD10-1

(Spain),Bolom

orCave

(Spain)and

Qesem

Cave(Israel),Q

uaternaryInternational(2014),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.009


ATA'01 TD10-1 N13/14 is a mid-shaft fragment belonging to alarge bovid metatarsal, and it has an important exostosis on itspalmar face (53 � 46 � 25 mm). A series of overlapping planes andcontinuous retouches can be observed on its palmar side, leading toa more or less straight dihedral side. This shape seems to beconfigured by an overlapping, invasive retouch similar to a lateralside-scraper. ATA'00 TD10-1 J19/19 is the mid-shaft of a long bonebelonging to a large-sized animal (98 � 39 � 12 mm). This boneshows a triangular morphology with a series of unifacial, planar orsemi-planar and continuous retouches along the left edge. ATA'01TD10-1 M12/70 is the mid-shaft of a long bone of a medium-sizedanimal (47 � 14 � 9 mm) that was broken while fresh (sensu VillaandMahieu,1991). This fragment shows a concentration of oblique,short and deep incisions on the cortical surface that can be relatedto retouching activities described both archaeologically andexperimentally by several researchers (e.g., Malerba and Giacobini,1998; Patou-Mathis, 2002; Mozota, 2009; Mallye et al., 2012). Onlyone use area in a central position is observed, and the distributionof the traces is concentrated, although striations display a certainseparation between them. Rectilinear and sinuous striations arepresent on the bone surface; however, convex and concave formswere not described. The striations tend to show an open V-shapeand surfaces have both smooth and rough textures. Pits with atriangular and ovoid morphology were also identified. The com-parison made by Rosell et al. (2011, p.129) between the marksidentified on experimental bone retouchers and those observed onthe ATA'01 M12/70 bone fragment indicates that this object wasused when fresh. The lack of a well-defined active zone and scaledareas, together with the lightness of the traces, indicate that it wasused for a short period of time. The damage to ATA'01 M12/70 re-sembles that documented in experiments on quartzite of the LowerCretaceous detritic facies near the Sierra de Atapuerca in Spain.

4.2. Bolomor Cave

Currently, 16 bone retouchers have been recognized among thebone remains recovered at sublevel XVIIa (n ¼ 1), level XIII (n ¼ 4)and level XII (n ¼ 11) of Bolomor Cave (Fig. 3). Regardless of thearchaeological layer, all of the remains belong to diaphysis frag-ments of long bones with no preference for any particular element(Table 2). Most of these bones come from red deer (Cervus elaphus)

Fig. 2. Bone tools (left) and bone retoucher from TD10-1 of the Gran Dolina site (right) undemodified from Rosell et al. (2011).


(n ¼ 11), along with some others attributed to medium-sized ani-mals (n ¼ 3). Although mid-shaft fragments of horses and bovinesare also abundant at levels XVII, XIII and XII, these taxa seem tohave been avoided. Their breakage planes show curved V-shapedoutlines, oblique angles and smooth edges, all of which indicate thegreen state of the bone when it was fractured (sensu Villa andMahieu, 1991). Most of the bone fractures have the same colourand patina as the cortical bone surfaces, indicating that thebreakages were produced at or near the time of deposition.Nevertheless, some bones present mixed angles and jagged surfaceedges, suggesting a possible dry break as a consequence of post-depositional processes. In addition, some bones display a lightercolour, suggesting the possibility of new breaks produced duringexcavation. We must take into account that level XII sediment ishighly carbonated (breccia) and the extraction tasks of some itemsoften present difficulties leading to unintentional fractures. Anaverage length of 74.1 mmwas observed among the bones showinggreen fractures.

The specimens show no evidence of significant mechanical orchemical post-depositional alterations, and their well-preservedstate allows for the identification of a discrete concentration ofshort, oblique and deep striations on the diaphyses (active zones).As in the case of TD10-1, the damage is similar to that generatedduring retouching activities that was described by several re-searchers (e.g., Malerba and Giacobini, 1998; Patou-Mathis, 2002;Mozota, 2009; Mallye et al., 2012), and in most cases, a unique usearea was observed. Only two elements from level XIII show twoactive areas (CB13 XIII I9 159; CB13 XIII I8 25), and one of thesepieces (CB13 XIII I8 25) is among the four longest blanks (greaterthan 70 mm long). Ten of the 18 use areas observed are in a centralposition, and 8 are in a lateral one. Only one central area shows atendency toward an apical zone. Among distribution types,concentrated traces are highly represented (n ¼ 12 of 18 use areas),followed by dispersed (n ¼ 5) and isolated traces (n ¼ 1). Severaltypes of damage were identified and are summarized in Table 2.The pits show a triangular or ovoid form with a similar represen-tation; however, striations with a rectilinear (n ¼ 16) delineationhave a higher representation than those that are sinuous (n ¼ 5),concave (n ¼ 2) and convex (n ¼ 2). The bottom of the striations isoften open V-shaped (81%), and its open angle side shows micro-striations in 56% of cases. The texture of the surfaces displays a

r a stereoscopic (top) and environmental scanning electron microscope (bottom). Image


Fig. 3. Examples of bone retouchers from different levels of Bolomor Cave: A) sublevel XVIIa (modified from Blasco et al., 2013a); B, E) level XIII; and C, D) level XII.


predominance of smooth sides against rough ones, and in all cases,these striae are oriented perpendicular or oblique to the long axis ofthe fragment.

The state of freshness of the bone blanks at the time of useseems to correspondmainly to the fresh and intermediary states. Atleast four bone blanks appeared to have been used in a fresh statedue to the lightness of the traces present and the absence of scaledareas. The intensive use of a retoucher would result in the super-position of traces, producing different types of use areas, such ashatched, pitted and scaled (Mallye et al., 2012, p. 1133). Only twouse areas seem to have been used in an intensive manner. Thisintensity should, nonetheless, be put into perspective because theelaboration of one artefact (e.g., a scraper) results in the super-position of signs in the use area. In addition to this, none of theretouchers interpreted as being intensively used have a significantdepression or exfoliation in the modified zone. Thus, these boneswere probably used to re-sharpen tool edges, or at most, for therealization of partially retouched tools, rather than for carrying outlong shaping sequences.

Five of the bone retouchers (XVIIa ¼ 1; XIII ¼ 1; XII ¼ 3) showlong and continuous parallel striae, semi-parallel to the major axisof the fragment. This kind of striation seems to have been accom-plished by performing tangential abrasion of the edge (scratching)during the knapping activities. The micro-irregularities of the lithiccutting-edge scratch the surface of the bone, generating theseparallel and elongated slicing micro-incisions (see a detaileddescription in Blasco et al. (2013a) and Daujeard et al. (2014). Noincisions have been identified that could be associated with theremoval of the periosteum. This fact does not imply, however, thatthe membrane remained adhered to the bones while they wereused as retouchers, as it might have been removed by means ofpulling in the previous processes of bone breakage. Only CB94 XVIIaC4'/126 presents a series of overlapping planes and continuous


retouches along the distal edge, opposite the active area (Fig. 3A).The angles of the cortical removals are planar or semi-planar,continuous and deep on the distal segment, which is most likelydue to re-sharpening. Abrams et al. (2014) also observed severalremoval scars on the basal edge of one femur and one tibiabelonging to Ursus spelaeus from Scladina Cave (Belgium, MIS 3).For these authors, the damage seems to have been intentional andpossibly due to an attempt to reduce the length or thickness of thefragment to make the tool more ergonomic (Abrams et al., 2014,p.278).

4.3. Qesem Cave

Of the nine bone retouchers from the lower sequence of QesemCave presented here (Fig. 4), four were described previously inBlasco et al. (2013a, 2014). The bone blanks correspond to the longbone shafts of small- (n ¼ 2), medium- (n ¼ 5) and large- (n ¼ 2)sized animals (Table 2). Using Africanist methodologies, the small-sized ungulates were determined to be mainly represented byfallow deer (Dama cf.mesopotamica), the medium ones by red deer(Cervus cf. elaphus) and the large ones by aurochs (Bos primigenius)and horses (Equus ferus) (Bunn et al., 1988; Sahnouni et al., 2013;Blasco et al., 2014). Following the criteria established by Villa andMahieu (1991), the bone breakage planes show transverse, longi-tudinal and curved outlines together with right and mixed angles,and smooth and jagged surface edges. Although some planes offractures can be related to the green state of the bone at themoment of breaking, most of the fractures seem to indicate drybreakages as a consequence of thermal and/or post-depositionalprocesses. This fact could explain their short length (38.8 mm onaverage).

As in the cases of Bolomor and TD10-1, the fragments displaydamage typically generated by the use of bones as soft retouchers.


Fig. 4. Examples of bone retouchers from the lower sequence of Qesem Cave: A) long bone shaft of a medium-sized ungulate (modified from Blasco et al., 2013a); B) red deerhumerus; C) fallow deer metatarsus; and D) long bone shaft of a large-sized ungulate.


The marks are located at the centre of the cortical surface with atendency toward the apical zone. Only three cases show percussionmarks on the lateral side, with one displaying two active areascombining one centred area with a lateral one. The damage isconfigured in short, deep, closely clustered pits associated withthin, elongated striations on QC01 Square K19, Z ¼ 590 and QC12Square K15c/Item number 87, Z ¼ 580e585. Short, light and clus-tered striae are documented on QC08 J12a/1 Z ¼ 560e565 andQC12 K15b/208 Z ¼ 555e560, while in the latter case, the super-position of traces generates a discrete but well-defined hatchedarea. QC12 K15a/196 Z ¼ 555e560 displays short and deep pitsassociated with elongated and deep striations with smooth andrough surfaces dispersedly distributed. QC06 I13d/376Z ¼ 590e595, QC08 J12a/5 Z ¼ 555e560, QC12 K15b/31Z ¼ 570e575 and QC12 J15b/113 Z ¼ 585e590 show ovoid pits and


rectilinear striations with dispersed distribution. Sinuous striationsare also observed on QC01 K19 Z ¼ 590, QC06 I13d/376Z¼ 590e595 and QC12 K15c/87 Z¼ 580e585. In all cases, the striaeare oriented perpendicular or oblique to the long axis of the frag-ment. Microscopic analysis discloses that these V-shaped striationsare generally asymmetrical in the cross-section (open angle side)and mostly smooth in surface texture.

Four of the nine bone retouchers (QC01 K19 Z ¼ 590, QC08 J12a/1 Z ¼ 560e565, QC08 J12a/5 Z ¼ 555e560, QC06 I13d/376Z ¼ 590e595) show burning damage at degrees 2 and 3 (withdegree 0 being unburned and degree 5 being calcined). The burningalterations identified on these faunal remains may suggest severalprocesses, such as thermal treatment of the meat, the developmentof cleaning activities or the preparation of bones to facilitate theirbreakage. Exposing the bones to high temperatures accelerates the



drying process such that the outermost bone tissue loses its freshstate. These defatted bones could have been used as retouchers;however, the presence of scraping marks related to the removal ofthe periosteum on three out of four fragments registered withthermo-alteration raises other questions. If the bones were heat-treated before breakage, the extraction of the periosteum wouldnot have been necessary (because fire exposure implies thedisappearance of the membrane). Thus, the extraction of the peri-osteum should have been carried out before thermal treatment andwould be related to the nutritional processing of the carcass or thepreparation of the bone for use as a retoucher (preparatory scrapingbefore stone working). However, the fact that some bones wereused as retouchers in a semi-fresh state, that is, with an interme-diary state of freshness, might dissociate the scraping marks fromthe lithic operational sequence. At least two bone fragments (QC01K19 Z ¼ 590 and QC12 K15c/87 Z ¼ 580e585) display a slight in-crease of pits, scores and exfoliation in the well-defined active area,which forms a scaled area. This type of modification seems to beconsistent with the employment of semi-fresh bone. In the case ofQC12 K15c/87 Z ¼ 580e585, this scaled area in the centre of thecortical surface is combined with a discrete area on the lateralsurface that has short and clustered pits with the associated lightand rectilinear striae. The rest of the pieces could have been usedanywhere between the fresh and intermediary states because theyshow both light and deep traces and a significant absence of scaledand pitted use areas.

5. Discussion

In Western societies, recycling is understood as the process ofturning rejectedmaterials into newand potentially useful products.This definition implies sophisticated transformation processes thatturn the discarded objects back into usable raw material. It isdifficult to apply this modern concept of recycling to pre-industrialsocieties because it relates in many cases to man-made materialsand technologies that pre-industrial societies did not possess.However, the use and re-use of previously discarded materialsappear to have been practiced since ancient times (Holdaway et al.,1996). The origin of this type of behaviour could be related to thedevelopment of increasingly specialized technologies as a result ofan increasing spectrum of daily activities. To explain this phe-nomenon, researchers have used concepts such as use, re-use,recycling, re-sizing and even scavenging (Amick, 2014).

Archaeological evidence used to date for understanding suchprocesses has been primarily from lithics. On rare occasions, otherelements have been mentioned and studied from this perspective.Among them, preserved material of animal origin (usually bones,teeth, horns, antlers and shells) can significantly contribute to there-definition of this concept. Such elements were common amongthe waste generated by Pleistocene human groups and, therefore,were likely to be reused by them or by later groups. Consequently,there is a substantial change in the perception of these materialsdfrom having only a nutritional meaning to being considered rawmaterials. This change in function may also occur in other mate-rials, such as lithics, plant materials or shells (see an example inRomagnoli et al., 2014).

Here, wewould like to offer some reflections on the significanceof the bone recycling concept, using empirical evidence from thethree sites studied. We are aware of the fact that the line between“re-use” and “recycling” can waver; thus, we consider it appro-priate to refine and nuance the issue by defining these terms beforetackling the discussion. For us, the term “re-use” refers to the use ofdiscarded objects, which are used again with the same or similarpurpose than the original, independent of the rejection time. Thisdefinition seems toworkwell with the lithic record. Conversely, the


term “re-use” applied to faunal resources is more slippery, becausebones, in a first stage, are not considered beyond their condition asmarrow containers, being systematically rejected during butcheryprocesses. In our view, when discarded bones are later used astools, this is not a mode of re-use but rather of recycling. Thus, weunderstand recycling here as the process of turning materials thatwere discarded during the nutritional phase of the carcasses intonew and usable products for a purpose other than the original.With this definition, we assume that no sophisticated trans-formation similar to industrial societies occurs. On this basis, theitems we present seem to fit this definition perfectly, and from ourperspective, the term recycling can also be applied to faunalremains.

5.1. When and why did bones start to be recycled?

We assume that bones could be recycled in one of the followingtwo preferred ways: 1) as unmodified elements directly usable inspecific activities (e.g., flakes resulting from bone breakage) orslightly modified elements to be used as soft hammers or re-touchers, and 2) as raw material to be shaped into tools. With theexception of soft hammers and bone retouchers, the use of un-modified bones is difficult to prove empirically because these typesof elements can easily go unnoticed without a systematic micro-scopic study to document use-wear traits. Nevertheless, the natureof this evidence has been constantly called into question; it hasbeen argued that natural processes occur during the life of an an-imal (e.g., osteophagia, or red deer maleemale competition) orafter its death which generate pseudo-tools that can easily beconfounded with intentionally modified or used bones (e.g.,d’Errico and Backwell, 2003; Jin and Shipman, 2010). However,there are exceptions to this. For example, a microscopic analysis ofthe wear patterns, combined with studies of pseudo-bone toolsproduced naturally by taphonomic processes, has succeeded inshowing the use of shaft fragments and horn cores by para-nthropines in the South African cave of Swartkrans (Backwell andd'Errico, 2001; d'Errico and Backwell, 2009). Thus, the use of pre-viously discarded, unmodified bones seems to have begun in veryancient times and was not exclusive to the genus Homo.

It is fromAcheulean times that the second type of bone recyclingseems to have become more common. During the Lower Palae-olithic, the bones of elephants came to be regarded as raw materialfor the manufacture of implements at some sites (Radmilli andBoschian, 1996; Gaudzinski, 1999; Anzidei, 2001; Dobosi, 2001;Gaudzinski et al., 2005). The most recognizable case is the pro-duction of hand axes from elephants' bones that are similar to thelithic ones; however, the array of implements made out of thismaterial is diverse and includes many other types in addition tobifaces (e.g., Sacc�a, 2012). Since the Lower Palaeolithic Acheulean,other elements, such as the bones of smaller mammals or deerantlers, also began to be included in the lithic operational sequenceas soft hammers, as demonstrated by finds at Boxgrove (Wenban-Smith, 1989; Roberts and Parfitt, 1999; Bello et al., 2013; Smith,2013). In the case of shed antlers, however, it is difficult to makean argument in favour of recycling, as antlers could have beencollected from ungulates that were not initially hunted andconsumed by hominins (e.g., casting deer antler)dthat is, it may besimilar to the collection of rawmaterial in the case of lithics. Similardifficulties arise in the cases of the probable manufacture and use ofbone flakes removed from elephants' limb bones (Stanford et al.,1981; Haynes and Krasinski, 2010). To argue that elephants'bones were recycled as rawmaterial for making usable flakes (withthe exception of the Acheulean site of Revadim as described inRabinovich et al., [2012]), one would need to demonstrate that theelephants were consumed by humans for dietary purposes, and



only after the bones were discarded were they re-exploited as rawmaterial for flake production. The cases of Boxgrove in the UK, laCaune de l'Arago in France, and Sch€oningen 13II-4 in Germany doseem to fit in with this recycling concept because bones used asretouchers belong to smaller ungulates (from deer to horses andlarge bovids), which were presumably part of the hominin refuseresulting from the anthropogenic nutritional activities at these sites(Moigne, 1996; Smith, 2010, 2013; Hutson et al., 2013).

Post-Acheulean, the increasing diversity of lithic tools is alsomatched by a diversity in the bones used (Miller-Antonio et al.,2000; Rosell et al., 2011). The clearest case is the simultaneousappearance of bone retouchers at widely dispersed post-Acheuleansites, which seem to have been manufactured and used morewidely in the Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian, and subsequently, inthe Upper Palaeolithic (e.g., Schwab, 2002; Mallye et al., 2012;Blasco et al., 2013a; Daujeard et al., 2014). These objects wererecovered in significant numbers at Bolomor Cave (MIS 9-5e) and,to date, in somewhat lower quantities at different levels from thelower sequence of Qesem Cave (MIS 9) and at Gran Dolina TD10-1/TD10-2 (MIS 9/MIS 10) (Rosell et al., 2011; Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al.,2013; Blasco et al., 2013a). Similar objects can also be recognized atother sites with the same chronology, such as Sch€oningen 13II-4(Hutson et al., 2013) in Germany and Orgnac 3 (Moncel et al., 2012),La Micoque (Langlois, 2004) and Cagny-l'Epinette (Lamotte andTuffreau, 2001) in France.

Several experimental studies seem to confirm the relationshipbetween bone retouchers and the production of denticulated toolsand flat or semi-flat retouching on flake edges (Rosell et al., 2011;Daujeard et al., 2014). The mass and weight of these objects pre-vent their use in the roughing-out stage and inhibit the productionof medium or large flakes (Rigaud, 2007). From this point of view,bone retouchers are consistent with the typological characteristicsof post-Acheulean techno-complexes and later chronologies(Fern�andez Peris, 2007; Cuartero, 2008; Barkai and Gopher, 2013;Oll�e et al., 2013), which distinguishes them from the soft ham-mers (antlers and complete bones) used during the Acheulean toshape large objects (mostly bifaces). This does not mean that softhammers were not used in subsequent periods but rather that thespectrum of recycled bone uses was expanded to include boneretouchers aimed at rather delicate flint (or other lithic raw mate-rials). However, technological evolution and the expanding range ofactivities developed in subsequent periods may have intervened toextend the selection criteria to other types of bone (flat bones), toother taxa and even other materials (teeth) (Mallye et al., 2012;Daujeard et al., 2014). Therefore, bone retouchers may be consid-ered an element that was assimilated during post-Acheulean timesand was widely adopted in subsequent periods and cultural com-plexes. Although sporadic evidence of bone retouchers can bedetected in the preceding Acheulian, such as the cases of Boxgrove(MIS 13) (Smith, 2010, 2013) or Caune de l’Arago (MIS 12) (Moigne,1996), this technological behaviour seems to have become wide-spread after MIS 9.

5.2. Is there any criterion for selecting the recycled bones?

Since the early Acheulean, bone technology (bone tools) mostlytended to reproduce (or imitate) the schemes of the lithic industry,producing similar morphotypes by direct percussion (Radmilli andBoschian, 1996; Villa et al., 1999; Anzidei, 2001; Biddittu andCelletti, 2001; Dobosi, 2001; Mania and Mania, 2005; Rabinovichet al., 2012; Sacc�a, 2012; Boschian and Sacc�a, 2014). Bone recy-cling seems always to seek the correct supports in line with size,weight and morphological criteria. In the Acheulean, where largeformats are of significance, attention seemed to focus on the car-casses of elephants (and perhaps other mega mammals), whose


bones provided suitable material for making large bone imple-ments similar to the stone ones, especially hand axes (e.g., Radmilliand Boschian, 1996). However, we should not rule out a probablescenario in which elephants were exploited using stone hand axesand, subsequently, elephant bones were used to manufacture bonehand axes similar to the stone ones (Zutovski and Barkai, 2014). Theselection of elephant bones for biface production might not onlyrest on practical but also on cultural grounds (Barkai and Gopher,2013). Similarly, soft hammers (antlers and bones) must meet theconditions of mass and weight for the production of such objects.

Beyond the discussion about whether the lithic artefacts reflectthe finished tool shape or aremerely continually re-sharpened (e.g.,Dibble, 1988a, 1988b, 1995; Hiscock et al., 2009), empirical workindicates that post-Acheulean bone artefacts tended to reproducethe same morphotypes of the lithic industry characterizing eachtechno-complex (e.g., denticulates, side-scrapers), regardless oftheir possible re-sharpening (e.g., Miller-Antonio et al., 2000; Burkeand d’Errico, 2008; Rosell et al., 2011). This body of evidence es-tablishes a certain degree of continuity within the Acheulean in theconception of bone as a potential resource to be shaped into a tool.The selection of suitable blanks occurs based on morphologicalcriteria and seems to be aimed at those bone fragments suitable forshaping the required artefacts. The best examples are, perhaps, thetwo lateral bone side-scrapers recovered from Gran Dolina. In thiscase, they seemed to search for diaphyseal fragments of the longbones of large animals (one of them belongs to a Bison), with theappropriate morphology and edges to be retouched. This concep-tion of bone tools does not seem to change until the early UpperPalaeolithic (or the end of the Middle Palaeolithic, based on theevidence from Abri Peyrony and Pech-de-l'Az�e I in France [Soressiet al., 2013]), in which other techniques of production and usebecome part of the operational sequence of diverse specific activ-ities (d’Errico, 2003). The case of lissoirs from Abri Peyrony andPech-de-l'Az�e I is especially significant because Neanderthals sha-ped ribs of medium-sized ungulates, most likely red deer (Cervuselaphus) or reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), into the desired utilitarianforms, producing intentionally standardized bone tools by usingspecific techniques for working with bone, such as grinding andpolishing (Soressi et al., 2013). Earlier examples of mammoth ribsmodified by percussion and shaped by grinding were reported atSaltzgitter-Lebenstedt in Germany (Gaudzinski, 1999), and atGrosse Grotte in France (Weinstock, 1999). These two cases havebeen called into question by arguing natural processes, lack ofstandardization or unclear intended use (e.g., Soressi et al., 2013).These problems can be taken as illustrative examples of the diffi-culties in demonstrating early technological behaviours related tospecialized activities involving bone materials.

Regarding bone retouchers, the assemblages presented in thispaper seem to show a selection of shaft fragments by length. Bonesless than 2 cm in length are themost abundant in the faunal remainsof the three sites. However, used bone retouchers are between 3 and11 cm in length. The majority of the smaller blanks show post-depositional fractures, indicating that the metric range was prob-ably more limited toward the longer blanks. This kind of preferencehas also been observed in other European archaeological sites, suchas the French sites of Payre (Daujeard, 2008; Daujeard et al., 2014) orNoisetier (Mallye et al., 2012). The bone retouchers from both sitesseem to be among the longest and thickest fragments, allowing for aspecific role for the features of each specimen. This phenomenonseems to accord well with the fact that bone fragments needed to belong enough to be easily held so that the particular movementsrequired during their use could be made. On the contrary, otherFrench archaeological assemblages such as Artenac (Armand andDelagnes, 1998), Biache-Saint-Vaast, Kulna (Auguste, 2002) andJonzac (Beauval, 2004) do not show the same preferences. Bone



retouchers from these sites show variability in size suggesting a lackof standardization in the choice of available shaft fragments. Thecases of Sainte-Anne I and Baume des Peyrards deserve specialattention because some apparently complete examples are short inlength (<25 mm). Daujeard et al. (2014) suggest that some of thesmall specimens could have been broken during their use becausethe activity areas are located near the edges and are interrupted bygreen fractures. In spite of this, Daujeard et al. (2014) pointed out ageneral tendency to select small-sized bone retouchers in relation tothe way these elements were used.

At this point, we should consider whether the bone retoucherspresented here could also show a deliberate selection regardingtaxa or, on the other hand, reflect an opportunistic choice withinthe bone accumulations. This issue is not a new discussion and hasalready been mentioned by several authors, such as Daujeard et al.(2014), who proposed that the choice of bone blanks at the studiedFrench sites did not seem to depend on taxonomical criteria butrather on taxa richness within each assemblage. Examples illus-trating this situation are Artenac (Armand and Delagnes, 1998),Lazaret (Valensi, 1994) and Orgnac 3 (Moncel et al., 2012) in France,and Arma delle Manie (Cauche, 2007) and Fumane (J�ecquier et al.,2012) in Italy, among others. However, other cases exist in which aselection seems to have been made regardless of the most abun-dant species in the assemblage. For example, red deer bones fromBaume des Peyrards were used as retouchers more frequently thanthose that were most abundant in the assemblage (ibex bones),while horse bones were ignored (Daujeard et al., 2014). Mallye et al.(2012) observed a similar case at Noisetier Cave where red deerbones seem to be selected in an accumulation dominated by thechamois. In the case of Bolomor Cave, and specifically at level XII,another kind of selection can be recognized. At this level, horsesand red deer are the most widely represented animals. However,bone retouchers seem to be selected among the discarded shafts ofmedium-sized animals (red deer or similar). From 11 bone re-touchers, only two were made from large-sized animals, while theothers correspond tomedium-sized animals or red deer. A selectionregarding the thickness of bone blanks seems to have played a rolein this assemblage, with a preference toward rather thin bones. Asimilar tendency could also be seen in the other levels of this site,while the reverse tendency can be suggested for Qesem Cave. AtQesem, seven bone retouchers of the nine recovered were made ofmedium- (n ¼ 5) and large- (n ¼ 2) sized ungulates, although thesmall-sized animals (specifically Dama cf. mesopotamica) predom-inate the assemblage.

5.3. What purpose could bone recycling have had during the MiddlePleistocene?

The manufacture of bone hand axes at some Acheulean sites hasbeen explained by the scarcity of lithic raw materials and the needto maximize the performance of all suitable materials for themanufacture of artefacts (Radmilli and Boschian, 1996). Althoughthis explanation may be valid for some sites, it is insufficient forlater cases where the manufacture of smaller desired artefactswould have had fewer requirements about the appropriate size ofthe available raw material. In the case of Gran Dolina, the boneartefacts are associated with contexts where lithic raw materialsare abundant (García-Ant�on et al., 2002). Therefore, the selectionand collection of diaphyseal bone fragments discarded after frac-turing (for marrow) is not ‘justifiable’. In this sense, the generalcharacteristics of the faunal assemblage (Blasco et al., 2013b, 2013c)and the absence of regularity in the use of these objects mightcontribute to the interpretation of these bone artefacts as indicatorsof expediting activities in a context dominated by successive andreiterated occupations (Rosell et al., 2011).


Experimental studies seem to confirm the relationship of boneretouchers with the production of marginal and ordinary scaledretouches (Rosell et al., 2011; Daujeard et al., 2014). Their lack ofmass and weight prevents their use in roughing out stages or theproduction of medium or large flakes. Therefore, these objects werepossibly used in re-sharpening flakes worn down by overuse or inthe final stages of shaping specific artefacts (Rigaud, 2007). In theMiddle Palaeolithic sample analyzed by Daujeard et al. (2014), boneretouchers associated with a Quina or semi-Quina retouch do notappear in higher quantities (in Le Figuier, Payre, Barasses II andBaume-Vall�ee) than in other localities where this type of retouchhas not been registered, nor do they show any noticeable differ-ences on their damaged surfaces. However, this phenomenon doesnot seem to fit with the data provided by Vincent (1993) in relationto the QuinaMousterian of Southwestern France (La Quina, Combe-Grenal and Hauteroche) because these assemblages yielded a highproportion of bone retouchers to lithic artefacts. On the other hand,Vincent (1993) also notes the high presence of these items in theDenticulate Mousterian assemblages and their rarity in the TypicalMousterian such as Combe-Grenal or Grotte Vaufrey. From thisperspective, a significant diversity in the proportion of bone re-touchers to stone tools, together with a variability of marks that arenot always due to the intensity of use, can be found in a generalscenario (Daujeard et al., 2014). For this reason, Armand andDelagnes (1998), Rigaud (2007) and Daujeard et al. (2014) suggestthat bone retouchers could have played more than one role in theproduction and reduction sequences of lithic tools.

5.4. How much time passed between the disposal and recycling of abone?

One aspect not included in our definition that needs to be takeninto account is the time that elapsed between the deposition of theobjects (fractured bones) and their selection to be “recycled”. Bonesneed a certain amount of time to change from their fresh state to asemi-dry (or intermediate) state, and this time depends on varyingenvironmental conditions. In open air sites, this process can berelatively quick (less than a year), but in cave environments, the lossof all organic elements can take several years (Brain, 1981). In anycase, the time between the deposition of the bone and its change toa dry state always occurs within certain time parameters that areperceptible on a human scale.

According to several experimental studies, the most commonmarkings on bone retouchers are usually produced in a fresh or in-termediate state (Mozota, 2009; Verna and d'Errico, 2011; Rosellet al., 2011; Mallye et al., 2012; Daujeard et al., 2014). In contrast,bone blanks used in a dry state usually present chips, similar to per-cussion pits, with a loss of cortical tissue as a result of the bone's lackof natural elasticity. Nevertheless, theprolongeduseofblanks in freshor intermediate states can lead to overlapping incisions and mor-phologies similar to thoseproducedondrybones (Mallye et al., 2012).The bone retouchers studied here do not show a preference of state(fresh or intermediate). Although more analyses in this directionshould be carried out in the future, dry bones seem to be completelyabsent from activities related to retouching or re-sharpening tools atthe three sites. Bone retouchers from the three assemblages studiedmight indicate a phenomenon of immediate selection and recycling,which probably involved the same group searching among the dis-cardedobjects foundon-site.However, bonesused inan intermediatestate would imply the selection of bones rejected a relatively longtime earlier or even the selection of bones discarded in previoushumanoccupations. ForMallye et al. (2012, p.1139), “the use of partlydefatted bones as retouchers indicates the collection of objectsseveral months, or even years after they were abandoned, thusattesting to a recurrent occupation of the cave”.



6. Conclusions

Bone has played the role of potential raw material for differentactivities since the very early beginnings of human history.Although bone fragments resulting from nutritional purposes, thatis, fractures of marrow extraction, might have been used with orwithout modifications during Oldowan times, the perception ofthese materials as potential raw material for manufacturing orshaping tools did not seem to start until well into the Acheulean.During the Acheulean, animal bones were introduced into thesphere of tools either as shaped items (bone hand axes) and/or assoft hammers used for shaping stone tools (hand axes), such as deerantlers. The technological requirements and/or the need forobtaining other types of rawmaterials in subsequent periods (post-Acheulean cultural complexes) seem to have allowed the intro-duction of previously discarded bones into specific and expeditiousactivities (e.g., Gran Dolina TD10-1). It is important to note thenuances in the expansion of recycling practices among rejectedbone fragments resulting from the nutritional phase of the car-casses in post-Acheulean times.

Some authors, such as Vincent (1993), Scheinsohn and Ferreti(1995), Auguste (2002), Rosell et al. (2011) and Daujeard et al.(2014), inter alia, suggest that the natural elasticity of bones, theirmorphology, availability and abundance resulting from butcheryactivities, and even the potential hominin preference for this ma-terial, could explain why bone was chosen as a suitable material.Regardless of why, bone blanks seem to come from elements pre-viously discarded following marrow extraction, indicating a nutri-tional phase, a dismissal and a subsequent recycling according tocriteria based on length and thickness for making tools suitable forshaping lithic artefacts. This phenomenon can be applied to specificshapes of bone tools as well (e.g., Gran Dolina TD10-1). Neverthe-less, there does not always seem to be a clear criterion guiding theselection. For example, in the case of Artenac, the bone retouchersdo not seem to have followed metric patterns, indicating thediscrimination of some blanks. The variability of these objects maybe related to the immediacy of the activities devel-opeddsharpening and/or re-sharpening of lithic tools. Bone blankssusceptible to use as retouchers were abundant, and hominins hada large range of fragments from which to choose scattered on-site.This phenomenon, together with the diversity of anthropogeniccontexts where they were used (from short-to long-term humanoccupations), comprise a signature that points to the expeditiousnature of these items.

Both the bone tools and retouchers presented here suggest thatthey were selected from blanks among materials discarded afterthe nutritional phase and had a slight or prolonged use before beingdiscarded again da perfect fit with the definition of recycling. Inthis context, the study of recycled materials, both lithics and bones,should be understood as a significant change in the lifestyles ofhuman groups. In the specific case of bones, recycling seems to havebeen conducted to solving certain problems and reflects howimprovisation and selection should be considered within the ca-pabilities of human adaptation.

Acknowledgements

The workshop titled: “The Origins of Recycling: a PaleolithicPerspective” was kindly supported by the Israel Science Foundationand the Wenner-Gren Foundation. The field excavation work in theAtapuerca sites is supported by Junta de Castilla y Le�on and Ata-puerca Foundation. The Bolomor excavation is part of the programofarchaeological excavations conducted by the SIP (Prehistoric Inves-tigation Service) of the Prehistory Museum of Valencia under theauthority of the Provincial Council of Valencia, Spain. This research


was supported with funding from the Spanish Ministry of Scienceand Innovation, project nos. CGL2012-38434-C03-03, CGL2012-38358, CGL-BOS-2012-34717, and from Generalitat de Catalunya,project no. 2014 SGR 900. The Qesem Cave excavation project issupported by the Israel Science Foundation, CARE ArchaeologicalFoundation, Leakey Foundation, Wenner-Gren Foundation, andThyssen Foundation. R. Blasco is a Beatriu de Pin�os-A post-doctoralscholarship recipient from Generalitat de Catalunya and co-financed by the European Union through Marie Curie Actions, FP7.We thank C. Daujeard and one anonymous reviewer for very helpfulcomments that clarified our arguments and improved this manu-script. We acknowledge all of the members of the Atapuerca, Bolo-mor andQesem research teams involved in the recoveryand studyofthe archaeological and paleontological record.

References

Abrams, G., Bello, S.M., Modica, K.D., Pirson, S., Bonjean, D., 2014. When Neander-thals used cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) remains: bone retouchers from unit 5 ofScladina Cave (Belgium). Quaternary International 326-327, 274e287.

Ahern, J.C., Karavani_c, I., Paunovi_c, M., Jankovi_c, I., Smith, F.H., 2004. New dis-coveries and interpretations of hominid fossils and artifacts from Vindija Cave,Croatia. Journal of Human Evolution 46, 27e67.

Amick, D.S., 2014. Reflection on the origins of recycling: a Paleolithic perspective.Lithic Technology 39 (I), 64e69.

Anzidei, A.P., 2001. Tools from elephant bones at La Polledrara di Cecanibbio andRebibbia -Casal de' Pazzi. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R.(Eds.), The World of Elephants. Proceedings of the First International Congress.Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 415e418.

Armand, D., Delagnes, A., 1998. Les retouchoirs en os d'Artenac (couche 6c): per-spectives arch�eozoologiques, taphonomiques et exp�erimentales. In: Brugal, J.P.,Meignen, L., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), �Economie Pr�ehistorique: les comporte-ments de subsistance au Pal�eolithique, Rencontres Internationales d'Arch-�eologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, XVIIIe. �Editions APDCA, Sophia Antipolis,pp. 205e214.

Auguste, P., 2002. Fiche �eclats diaphysaires du Pal�eolithique moyen: Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais) et Kulna (Moravie, R�epublique tch�eque). In: Patou-Mathis, M. (Ed.), Retouchoirs, compresseurs, percuteurs. Os �a impressions et�eraillures, Fiches de la Commission de nomenclature sur l'industrie de l'ospr�ehistorique, Cahier X. Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Française, pp. 39e57.

Backwell, L.R., d'Errico, F., 2001. Evidence of termite foraging by Swartkrans earlyhominids. PNAS 98 (4), 1358e1363.

Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Lauritzen, S.E., Frumklin, A., 2003. Uranium series dates fromQesem Cave, Israel, and the end of the Lower Palaeolithic. Nature 423, 977e979.

Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Shimelmitz, R., Lev, Z., Stiner, M., Gopher, A., 2009. A bladefor all seasons? Making and using Amudian blades at Qesem Cave, Israel. Hu-man Evolution 24, 57e75.

Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2013. Cultural and biological transformations in the MiddlePleistocene Levant: a view from Qesem Cave, Israel. In: Akazawa, T. (Ed.), Dy-namics of Learning in Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Cultural Perspectives,vol. 1. Springer, pp. 115e137.

Beauval, C., 2004. La Faune des niveaux Moust�eriens de “Chez Pinaud” (Jonzac,Charente-maritime, France). In: Premi�ere analyse, vol. 8. Pr�ehistoire du Sud-Ouest, pp. 125e156.

Bello, S.M., Parfitt, S.A., De Groote, I., Kennaway, G., 2013. Investigating experimentalknapping damage on an antler hammer: a pilot-study using high-resolutionimaging and analytical techniques. Journal of Archaeological Science 40,4528e4537.

Berger, G.W., P�erez-Gonz�alez, A., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez deCastro, J.M., Ku, T.-L., 2008. Luminescence chronology of cave sediments at theAtapuerca paleoanthropological site, Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 55,300e311.

Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Martin�on-Torres, M., 2012. A newmodel for the evolutionof the human Pleistocene populations of Europe. Quaternary International 295(8), 102e112.

Biddittu, I., Celletti, P., 2001. Plio-pleistocene proboscidea and lower palaeolithicbone industry of southern Latium (Italy). In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M.,Palombo, M.R. (Eds.), The World of Elephants, Proceedings of the First Inter-national Congress. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma, pp. 91e96.

Binford, L.R., 1983. Reply to Freeman. Current Anthropology 24, 372e376.Blasco, R., 2008. Human consumption of tortoises at Level IV of Bolomor Cave

(Valencia, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2839e2848.Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Fern�andez Peris, J., C�aceres, I., Verg�es, J.M., 2008. A new element

of trampling: an experimental application on the Level XII faunal record ofBolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (6),1605e1618.

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


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(14)00559-X/sref1











































































































Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., 2010a. Thehunted hunter: the capture of a lion (Panthera leo fossilis) at the Gran Dolina site,Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2051e2060.

Blasco, R., Fern�andez Peris, J., Rosell, J., 2010b. 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., Fern�andez Peris, J., 2012. A uniquely broad spectrum diet during theMiddle Pleistocene at Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). Quaternary International252, 16e31.

Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Cuartero, F., Fern�andez-Peris, J., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2013a.Using bones to shape stones: MIS 9 bone retouchers at both edges of theMediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 8 (10), e76780.

Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Lozano, S., Past�o, I., Riba, D.,Vaquero, M., Fern�andez Peris, J., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M.,Carbonell, E., 2013b. Learning by heart: cultural patterns in the faunal pro-cessing sequence during the Middle Pleistocene. Plos One 8 (2), e55863.

Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Fern�andez Peris, J., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M.,Carbonell, E., 2013c. Environmental availability, behavioural diversity and diet:a zooarchaeological approach from the TD10-1 sublevel of Gran Dolina (Sierrade Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain) and Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). QuaternaryScience Reviews 70, 124e144.

Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2014. Subsistence economy and social life:a zooarchaeological view from the 300 kya central hearth at Qesem Cave, Israel.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35, 248e268.

Boschian, G., Sacc�a, D., 2014. In the elephant, everything is good: carcass use and re-use at Castel di Guido (Italy). Quaternary International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.030.

Brain, C.K., 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? an Introduction to African CaveTaphonomy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Bunn, H.T., Bartram, L.E., Kroll, E.M., 1988. Variability in bone assemblage formationfrom Hadza hunting, scavenging, and carcass processing. Journal of Anthropo-logical Archaeology 7, 412e457.

Burke, A., d'Errico, F., 2008. A middle palaeolithic bone tool from Crimea (Ukraine).Antiquity 82, 843e852.

Cauche, D., 2007. Les cultures moust�eriennes en Ligurie italienne: analyse dumat�eriel lithique de trois sites en grotte. L'Anthropologie 111, 254e289.

Cuartero, F., 2008. Tecnología lítica en la Cova del Bolomor IV: ¿una economía dereciclado? Saguntum 39, 27e44.

d'Errico, F., Backwell, L., 2009. Assessing the function of early hominin bone tools.Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 1764e1773.

Daujeard, C., 2008. Exploitation du milieu animal par les N�eanderthaliens dans leSud-Est de la France. In: BAR International Series 1867.

Daujeard, C., Moncel, M.H., Fiore, I., Tagliacozzo, A., Bindon, P., Raynal, J.P., 2014.Middle Paleolithic bone retouchers in Southeastern France: variability andfunctionality. Quaternary International 326e327, 492e518.

d'Errico, F., 2003. The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin ofbehavioral modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12, 188e202.

d'Errico, F., Backwell, L.R., 2003. Possible evidence of bone tool shaping bySwartkrans early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 1559e1576.

Dibble, H.L., 1988a. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction pat-terns. In: Binford, L.R., Rigaud, J.-P. (Eds.), L'Homme de Neandertal, La Tech-nique, vol. 4. Etudes et Recherches Arch�eologiques de l'Universit�e de Li�ege,Li�ege, pp. 49e58.

Dibble, H.L., 1988b. Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of utilization oflithic resources in the French Mousterian. In: Dibble, H., Montet-White, A.(Eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia. University Museum,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 181e194.

Dibble, H.L., 1995. Middle paleolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification,and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory 2 (4), 299e368.

Dobosi, V.T., 2001. Ex Proboscideis-Proboscidean remains as raw material at fourPalaeolithic sites, Hungary. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R.(Eds.), The World of Elephants. Proceedings of the First International Congress.Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 429e431.

Falgu�eres, C., Bahain, J.J., Yokoyama, Y., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M.,Carbonell, E., Bischoff, J., Dolo, J.M., 1999. Earliest humans in europe: the age ofTD6grandolina, atapuerca, Spain. Journal ofHumanEvolution37 (3/4), 343e352.

Fern�andez Peris, J., 2007. La Cova del Bolomor (Tavernes de la Valldigna, Valencia).In: Las industrias líticas del Pleistoceno medio en el �ambito del Mediterr�aneopeninsular. Serie de Trabajos Varios del SIP (Servicio de Investigaci�on Pre-hist�orica), Valencia.

Fern�andez Peris, J., Barciela, V., Blasco, R., Cuartero, F., Sa~nudo, P., 2008. El PaleolíticoMedio en el territorio valenciano y la variabilidad tecno-econ�omica de la Covadel Bolomor. Treballs d'Arqueologia 14, 141e169.

Fern�andez Peris, J., Barciela, V., Blasco, R., Cuartero, F., Fluck, H., Sa~nudo, P.,Verdasco, C., 2012. The earliest evidence of hearths in Southern Europe: thecase of Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). Quaternary International 247, 267e277.

Freeman, L.G., 1983. More on the mousterian: flaked bone from Cueva Morín(Santander, Spain). Current Anthropology 24, 366e372.

Fumanal, M.P., 1995. Los dep�ositos cuaternarios en cuevas y abrigos rocosos.Implicaciones sedimentol�ogicas. El Cuaternario del País Valenciano. Universitatde Valencia, Valencia, pp. 115e124.

García-Ant�on, M.D., Morant, N., Mallol, C., 2002. L'approvisionnement en mati�erespremi�eres lithiques au Pl�eistoc�ene inf�erieur et moyen dans la Sierra de Ata-puerca, Burgos (Espagne). L'Anthropologie 106, 41e55.


Gaudzinski, S., 1999. Middle Palaeolithic bone tools from the open-air siteSalzgitter-Lebenstedt (Germany). Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 125e141.

Gaudzinski, S., Turner, E., Anzidei, A.P., �Alvarez-Fern�andez, E., Arroyo-Cabrales, J.,Cinq-Mars, J., Dobosi, V.T., Hannus, A., Johnson, E., Münzel, S.C., Scheer, A.,Villa, P., 2005. The use of Proboscidean remains in every-day Palaeolithic life.Quaternary International 126e128, 179e194.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D.P., Damrosch, D.B., Damrosch, D.R., Pryor, J., Thunen, R.L., 1985.The third dimension in site structure: an experiment in trampling and verticaldispersal. American Antiquity 50 (4), 803e818.

Gopher, A., Barkai, R., Shimelmitz, R., Khalaily, H., Lemorini, C., Heshkovitz, I.,Stiner, M.C., 2005. Qesem cave: an amudian site in Central Israel. Journal of TheIsrael Prehistoric Society 35, 69e92.

Gopher, A., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Frumkin, A., Karkanas, P.,Shahack-Gross, R., 2010. The chronology of the late Lower Paleolithic in theLevant based on UeTh ages of speleothems from Qesem Cave, Israel. Quater-nary Geochronology 5, 644e656.

Hershkovitz, I., Smith, P., Sarig, R., Quam, R., Rodríguez, L., García, R., Arsuaga, J.L.,Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2011. Middle Pleistocene dental remains from QesemCave, Israel. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 144 (4), 575e592.

Haynes, G., Krasinski, K.E., 2010. Taphonomic field work in southern Africa and itsapplication in studies of the earliest peopling of North America. Journal ofTaphonomy 8 (2e3), 181e202.

Hiscock, P., Turf, A., Faivre, J.-P., Bourguignon, L., 2009. Quina procurement and toolproduction. In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and PaleolithicSocieties. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 232e246.

Holdaway, S., McPherron, S., Roth, R., 1996. Notched tool reuse and raw materialavailability in FrenchMiddle Paleolithic sites.AmericanAntiquity61 (2), 377e387.

Hutson, J., Villaluenga, A., García-Moreno, A., Turner, E., Alt, K., Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., 2013. A landscape perspective of hominin behaviour atSch€oningen 13II-4 “Spear Horizon”. In: Abstracts of the ESHE Meeting, Viena,p. 117. Poster Number 125.

J�equier, C.A., Romandini, M., Peresani, M., 2012. Les retouchoirs en mati�eres duresanimales: une comparaison entre Moust�erien final et Uluzzien. ComptesRendus Palevol 11, 283e292.

Jin, J.J.H., Shipman, P., 2010. Documenting natural wear on antlers: a first step inidentifying use-wear on purported antler tools. Quaternary International 211,91e102.

Karkanas, P., Shahack-Gross, R., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Frumkin, A.,Gopher, A., Stiner, M.C., 2007. Evidence for habitual use of fire at the end of theLower Paleolithic: site-formation processes at Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal ofHuman Evolution 53, 197e212.

Lamotte, A., Tuffreau, A., 2001. Les industries lithiques de la s�equence fluviatiles finede Cagny-l'Epinette (Somme). In: Tuffreau, A. (Ed.), L'Acheul�een dans la vall�eede la Somme et Pal�eolithique moyen dans le nord de la France: donn�eesr�ecentes. Universit�e de Lille, pp. 113e135. CERP 6.

Langlois, A., 2004. Au sujet du Cheval de La Micoque (Dordogne) et des com-portements humains de subsistance au Pl�eistoc�ene moyen dans le Nord-Est del'Aquitaine, vol. 1. Universit�e de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, p. 383.

L�opez-Ortega, E., Rodríguez, X.P., Vaquero, M., 2011. Lithic refitting and movementconnections: the NW area of level TD10-1 at the Gran Dolina site (Sierra deAtapuerca, Burgos, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 3112e3121.

Malerba, G., Giacobini, G., 1998. Les retouchoirs sur �eclats diaphysaires duPal�eolithique moyen et sup�erieur de trois sites de l'Italie nord orientale (Grottede San Bernardino, Abri de Fumane et Abri Tagliente). In: Atti XIII CongressoU.I.S.P.P. Forlí, 6(I), pp. 167e171.

Mallol, C., Carbonell, E., 2008. The collapse of Gran Dolina Cave, Sierra de Atapuerca,Spain: site formation processes of layer TD10-1. Geoarchaeology 23 (1), 13e41.

Mallye, J.-B., Thi�ebaut, C., Mourre, V., Costamagno, S., Claud, E., Weisbecker, P., 2012.The Mousterian bone retouchers of Noisetier Cave: experimentation andidentification of marks. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 1131e1142.

Mania, D., Mania, U., 2005. The natural and sociocultural environment of Homoerectus at Bilzingsleben, Germany. In: Gamble, C., Porr, M. (Eds.), The HomininIndividual in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and MiddlePalaeolithic Landscapes, Locales and Artifacts. Routledge, London, pp. 98e114.

Martínez Valle, R., 2001. Los grandes mamíferos pleistocenos. Una aproximaci�onpaleoambiental y bioestratigr�afca. In: Villaverde, V. (Ed.), De Neandertales aCroma~nones. El Inicio del Poblamiento Humano en las Tierras Valencianas.Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, pp. 45e57.

Maul, L.C., Smith, K.T., Barkai, R., Barash, A., Karkanas, P., Shahack-Gross, R.,Gopher, A., 2011. Microfaunal remains at Middle Pleistocene Qesem Cave, Israel:preliminary results on small vertebrates, environment and biostratigraphy.Journal of Human Evolution 60, 464e480.

Mercier, N., Valladas, H., Falgu�eres, C., Shao, Q., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., Bahain, J.J.,Vialettes, L., Joron, J.L., Reyss, J.L., 2013. New datings of Amudian layers at QesemCave (Israel): results of TL applied to burnt flints and ESR/U-series to teeth.Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 3011e3020.

Miller-Antonio, S., Schepartz, L.A., Bakken, D., 2000. Raw material selection andevidence for rhinoceros tooth tools at Dadong Cave, Southern China. Antiquity74, 372e379.

Moigne, A.-M., 1996. Utilisation des ossements de grands herbivores auPal�eolithique inf�erieur. In: Peretto, C. (Ed.), Abstracts 2, XIII�eme Congr�es UISPP,Forlì, Workshop 4. ABACO, p. 31.

Moncel, M.H., Moigne, A.M., Combier, J., 2012. Towards the middle palaeolithic inwestern europe: the case of orgnac 3 (southeastern France). Journal of HumanEvolution 63, 653e666.



























































































































































































































































































Mozota, M., 2009. El utillaje �oseo musteriense del nivel “D” de Axlor (Dima, Viz-caya): an�alisis de la cadena operativa. Trabajos de Prehistoria 66 (1), 27e46.

Mussini, C., 2011. Les restes humains moust�eriens des Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc,Charente, France): �etude morphom�etrique et r�eflexions sur un aspect com-portemental des N�eandertaliens. Th�ese de doctorat. Universit�e de Bordeaux 1,Bordeaux, p. 478.

Oll�e, A., Mosquera, M., Rodríguez, X.P., de Lombera-Hermida, A., García-Ant�on, M.D.,García-Medrano, P., Pe~na, L., Men�endez, L., Navazo, M., Terradillos, M.,Bargall�o, A., M�arquez, B., Sala, R., Carbonell, E., 2013. The Early and MiddlePleistocene technological record from Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain).Quaternary International 295, 138e167.

Patou-Mathis, M. (Ed.), 2002. Retouchoirs, Compresseurs, Percuteurs. Os �a Im-pressions et �Eraillures. Fiches de la Commission de Nomenclature sur l'Industriede l'Os Pr�ehistorique. �Editions de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Française, Cahier X,Paris.

Rabinovich, R., Ackermann, O., Aladjem, E., Barkai, R., Biton, R., Milevski, I.,Solodenko, N., Marder, O., 2012. Elephants at the Middle Pleistocene Acheulianopen-air site of Revadim Quarry, Israel. Quaternary International 276e277,183e197.

Radmilli, A.M., Boschian, G., 1996. Gli Scavi a Castel di Guido. Il Piu Antico Giaci-mento di Cacciatori del Paleolitico Inferiore nell'Agro Romano. Istituto Italianodi Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze.

Rigaud, A., 2007. Retouchoirs sur �eclats diaphysaires ou “affutoirs” de Labastide(Hautes-Pyr�en�ees). Arch�eologie des Pyr�en�ees Occidentales et des Landes 26,193e200.

Rivals, F., Blasco, R., 2008. Presence of Hemitragus aff. cedrensis (Mammalia, Bovi-dae) in the Iberian Peninsula: biochronological and biogeographical implica-tions of its discovery at Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). C. R. Palevol 7 (6),391e399.

Roberts, M., Parfitt, S., 1999. A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry.English Heritage, Boxgrove, West Sussex. Londres.

Rodríguez, J., Burjachs, F., Cuenca-Besc�os, G., García, N., Made, J. v. d., P�erezGonz�alez, A., Blain, H.-A., Exp�osito, I., L�opez-García, J.M., García Ant�on, M.,Allu�e, E., C�aceres, I., Huguet, R., Mosquera, M., Oll�e, A., Rosell, J., Par�es, J.M.,Rodríguez, X.P., Díez, C., Rofes, J., Sala, R., Saladi�e, P., Vallverdú, J.,Bennassar, M.L., Blasco, R., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., 2010. Onemillion years of cultural evolution in a stable environment at Atapuerca (Bur-gos, Spain). Quaternary Science Reviews 30 (11e12), 1396e1412.

Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., Saladi�e, P., Oll�e, A., C�aceres, I., Huguet, R., Lombera-Hermida, A., Mosquera, M., Morales, J.I., Pedergnana, A., Rodríguez, X.P.,Carbonell, E., 2013. Ancient bone retouchers at Gran Dolina site: a recurrenttechnical behaviour during the Middle Pleistocene. In: Abstracts of the ESHEMeeting, Viena, p. 187. Poster Number 122.

Romagnoli, F., Martini, F., Sarti, L., 2014. Neanderthal Use of Callista chione Shells asRaw Material for Retouched Tools in South-east Italy: analysis of Grotta delCavallo Layer L Assemblage with a New Methodology. Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816-014-9215-x.

Rosell, J., 2001. Patrons d'Aprofitament de les Biomasses Animals durant el Pleistoc�eInferior i Mig (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos) i Superior (Abric Romaní, Barce-lona). Hist�oria i Geografia. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, p. 329.

Rosell, J., Blasco, R., Campeny, G., Díez, C., Alonso Alcalde, R., Men�endez, L.,Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., 2011. Bone as a techno-logical raw material at the Gran Dolina site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain).Journal of Human Evolution 61, 125e131.

Sacc�a, D., 2012. Taphonomy of Palaeloxodon antiquus at Castel di Guido (Rome,Italy): proboscidean carcass exploitation in the Lower Palaeolithic. QuaternaryInternational 276e277, 26e41.

Sahnouni, M., Rosell, J., Made, J. v. d., Verg�es, J.M., Oll�e, A., Kandi, N., Harichane, Z.,Derradji, A., Medig, M., 2013. The first evidence of cut marks and usewear tracesfrom the Plio-Pleistocene locality of El-Kherba (Ain Hanech), Algeria: implica-tions for early hominin subsistence activities circa 1.8 Ma. Journal of HumanEvolution 64, 137e150.

Sanchís Serra, A., Fern�andez Peris, J., 2008. Procesado y consumo antr�opico deconejo en la Cova del Bolomor (Tavernes de la Valldigna, Valencia). Complutum19 (1), 25e46.

Sarri�on, I., Fern�andez Peris, J., 2006. Presencia de Ursus thibetanus mediterraneus(Forsyth Major, 1873) en la Cova del Bolomor (Tavernes de la Valldigna,Valencia). Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina (APL) 26, 25e38.


Shahack-Gross, R., Berna, F., Karkanas, P., Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2014.Evidence for the repeated use of a central hearth at Middle Pleistocene (300 kyago) Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 44, 12e21.

Scheinsohn, V., Ferreti, J.L., 1995. The mechanical properties of bone materials inrelation to the design and function of prehistoric tools from Tierra del Fuego,Argentina. Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 711e717.

Shimelmitz, R., Barkai, A., Gopher, A., 2011. Systematic blade production at lateLower Paleolithic (400e200 kyr) Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolu-tion 61, 458e479.

Smith, G.M., 2010. A Contextual Approach to the Study of Faunal Assemblages fromLower and Middle Palaeolithic Sites in the UK. University College London,London, p. 453.

Smith, G.M., 2013. Taphonomic resolution and hominin subsistence behaviour in theLower Palaeolithic: differing data scales and interpretive frameworks at Box-grove and Swanscombe (UK). Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 3754e3767.

Smith, K.T., Maul, L.C., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2013. To catch a chameleon, or actu-alism vs. natural history in the taphonomy of the microvertebrate fraction atQesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 3326e3339.

Soressi, M., McPherron, S.P., Lenoir, M., Dogandzic, T., Goldberg, P., Jacobs, Z.,Maigrot, Y., Martisius, N.L., Miller, C.E., Rendu, W., Richards, M., Skinner, M.M.,Steele, T.E., Talamo, S., Texier, J.-P., 2013. Neandertals made the first specializedbone tools in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (35),14186e14190.

Stanford, C.B., Bonnichsen, R., Morlan, R.E., 1981. The Ginsberg experiment: modernand prehistoric evidence of a bone-flaking technology. Science 212, 438e440.

Stiner, M.C., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2009. Cooperative hunting and meat sharing400e200 kya at Qesem Cave, Israel. Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences106, 13207e13212.

Stiner, M.C., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2011. Hearth-side socioeconomics, hunting andpaleoecology during the late Lower Paleolithic at Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal ofHuman Evolution 60, 213e233.

Stout, D., Apel, J., Commander, J., Roberts, M., 2014. Late Acheulean technology andcognition at Boxgrove, UK. Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 576e590.

Schwab, C., 2002. Fiche �eclat diaphysaires du Pal�eolithique moyen et sup�erieur: lagrotte d’Isturitz (Pyr�en�ees-Atlantiques). In: Patou-Mathis, M. (Ed.), Retouchoirs,compresseurs, percuteurs. Os �a impressions et �eraillures, Soci�et�e Pr�ehistoriqueFrançaise, Fiches de la Commission de nomenclature sur l’industrie de l'ospr�ehistorique, Cahier, vol. X, pp. 59e73.

Tixier, J., 1982. Techniques de d�ebitage: osons ne plus affirmer. In: Cahen, D. (Ed.),Tailler! pour quoi faire: Pr�ehistoire et technologie lithique II, Studia Praehis-torica Belgica. 2.

Valensi, P., 1994. Les grands mammiferes de la grotte du Lazaret, Nice e Etudepaleontologique et biostratigraphique des carnivores e Archeozoologie desgrande faunes (PhD thesis). National Museum of Natural History.

Verna, C., d’Errico, F., 2011. The earliest evidence for the use of human bone as atool. Journal of Human Evolution 60, 145e157.

Villa, P., Anzidei, A.P., Cerilli, E., 1999. Bones and bone modifications at La Polledrara,a Middle Pleistocene site in Italy. In: The Role of Early Humans in the Accu-mulation of European Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Bone Assemblages, vol. 42.Monographien des R€omisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz,pp. 197e206.

Villa, P., d'Errico, F., 2001. Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithicof Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 41, 69e112.

Villa, P., Mahieu, E., 1991. Breakage patterns of human long bones. Journal of HumanEvolution 21, 27e48.

Vincent, A., 1993. L'outillage osseux au Paleolithique moyen: une nouvelle approche(PhD thesis). University Paris X-Nanterre.

Weinstock, J., 1999. The Upper Pleistocene Mammalian Fauna from the GroßeGrotte Near Blaubeuren (Southwestern Germany). Staatliches Museum fürNaturkunde, Stuttgart.

Wenban-Smith, F.F., 1989. The use of canonical variates for determination of bifacemanufacturing technology at Boxgrove Lower Palaeolithic site and the behav-ioural implications of this technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 16,17e26.

Zutovski, K., Barkai, R., 2014. The use of elephant bones for making Acheulianhandaxes. In: Abstract Book of the VIth International Conference on Mammothsand Their Relatives. Scientific Annals, School of Geology, Aristotle University ofThessaloniki, Special vol. 102.































































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816-014-9215-x










































































































































Recycling Bones in the Middle Pleistocene: Some Reflections from Gran Dolina TD10-1 (Spain),...

Documents

Transcript of Recycling Bones in the Middle Pleistocene: Some Reflections from Gran Dolina TD10-1 (Spain),...